Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 31 Dec 2009.
I'll take an SLR over this any day.
Yeah, because pocket sized cameras compete with SLRs. -_-
I can see this working, but isn't there a simpler close range solution like blue-tooth that is smaller more compact, less power hungry than wifi? So you put it on your desk near PC and it pop's up as a removable storage device?
Then you'd need a computer, which is what samsung dont want. They're aiming for the camera to be able to do everything on its own without the need for a PC i think.
This reminds me of the old POTM here in BT. Good old days before Dennis bought BT
Wifi point-and-shoot cameras - because 14 Mpix unedited, rubbish photos are just the thing internet needs more of!
Really, just don't. In professional cameras wifi would be a nice addition as you could get the preview on the screen over a high speed connection, but on compact cameras it's just another gimmick to get the attention of silly customers.
Don't be a snob, for most people avoiding the dreaded step of downloading your photos to a PC would be a godsend, who cares about photo quality on facebook anyway.
AMOLED + Camera + Outdoors (and Sun) = Relationship set up for epic fail.
True, it is annoying when I have to wait for some gigantic photo to download, but I can certainly see this as a proof of concept. Smart phones have been doing this for a while, but there are still enough people who like the higher quality of a dedicated camera.
I know that Photobucket will automatically re-size images that exceed a given threshold, and I imagine other sites do so as well. Even with the additional compression, the resulting image still can be better than what you get with a camera phone. In time, I can imagine the camera's "upload to the web" feature utilizing the same technology: when you post an image to the web the camera uploads a JPG at some predetermined size, but it keeps the full-res file on the memory card for archiving later.
With the whole "cloud computing" thing, there's always the idea of a camera automatically uploading files to a dedicated server - no more worrying about filling up a memory card! Think about it: a correspondent in the middle of a protest, instantly transmitting images to a photo editor back at the paper. Take it a step further: A media outlet can set up a dedicated server, then tell people that they can send their photos to that address. Suddenly, every person in the rally is a photojournalist.
The technology has to start somewhere. I think it's a cool feature.
Also the availability of free WIFI hot spots remains a draw of luck.. Maybe I just don't live in a large enough city or people here are just too aware of making their personal WIFIs safe. Tech demo, sure, but still of limited use to the large public and not suited for professionals.
Lack of GPS for geotagging... And a lower noise CCD/CMOS... 14MP@ISO3200 = FUU!
man can you imagine some of the druken pics that will be uploaded with this thing? its bad enough when you have to get home and upload them with a hangover, the ability to just send them from the camera is genuinely scary
So what next? A 50 Megapixel camera with wifi, bluetooth and phone capabilities?
I think it's a nice idea, but in practice a bit of a gimmick. As other people have said, most people won't really be able to use it and a professional would probably have a laptop hooked up to a proper camera anyway.
I like the idea of boosting the sensitivity by lowering the resolution. I'd take better low light performance over more megapixels on my dslr any day.
Shh, that's probably what Samsung will do with a Pixon50.
Erm... WiFi onboard isnt anything new. I had a Nikon CoolPix P1 years ago that had built in WiFi. Granted it couldnt upload to the t'internet but it did connect wirelessly to the PC for tranferring images on the fly, etc.
They need to develop in some other direction, this just isnt hot sauce.
Separate names with a comma.