Wireless Transmission Question.

<p>Hi Guys, I'm new to this forum,<br>

I shoot wedding images, and i have a custom package for underwater couples package..<br>

So, basically, i want to hand over the images to my clients once they get back to land..<br>

I already have a underwater housing for my 5d mk2.. so, it will be a huge waste of money to buy a new case if i buy a canon's wireless transmitter..<br>

so, wat would be a good way to do this ??<br>

Will i be able to use EYE-FI cards and send them directly to my computer in the land where my employee can put together a slideshow for my clients..</p>

<p>Will eye-fi cards send image directly to any computer ?? or do i need anything else to go with it ??<br>

Or can i use my normal memory cards and connect them to my ipad using camera connection kit and send it over 3g ??</p>

<p>which will be the most efficient way to do this.. please help me on this guys.!!</p>

<p>You certainly overestimate the technology capabilities.</p>

 

<p>Frank may have been both rude and cryptic, but he is essentially correct.</p>

<p>2.4GHz WiFi signals won't go any decent distance underwater. The reason WiFi is permitted by most nations to operate at 2.4GHz is that it's a frequency allocated to "industrial radiation", mostly microwave ovens. Water absorbs 2.4GHz the way that black paint absorbs sunlight.</p>

<p>Now, operating on dry land, the Eye-Fi WiFi cards are known for limited range, and are particularly ineffective when used for ad-hoc peer-to-peer networking, such as trying to send directly from a camera to a laptop. Eye-Fi users are pretty unanimous that you need a WiFi router between your computer and the Eye-Fi card in order to achieve anything resembling speed and reliability. Again, that's for land, there's nothing you can do that's going to make this work underwater.</p>

<p>I don't understand the part of your question about ipads and 3g. 3g is too slow to send gigs of images. You can send reduced size JPEGs so that they can see images, but are you trying to do that from the dive boat? There's typically not good, solid 3G service in the middle of lakes or oceans.</p>

<p>If you want to deliver value to your clients, instead of some sort of glitzy show that's an opportunity for a hundred things to go wrong, transfer the images the old-fashioned way, after you get back to shore.</p>

<p>See <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10055-10851">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10055-10851</a> for an article about Eye-Fi WiFi cards with an iPod. This is at least a good starting point for going wireless with a camera + iPad.</p>

<p>Joseph is absolutely right: WiFi is certainly a no-go in the conditions you specify. True, you could potentially upload the images onto an iPad and then send them either via 3G or WiFi, but then, you're outside the water anyway, so you might as well use standard WiFi. Again, ANY distance over a dozen or so meters, will prove a herculean task for any WiFi system, EVEN with a router in the middle - the open air will defeat your purpose from the get go.</p>

<p>The only solution I see is satelite internet on the boat. Then you can have the transfer rates you need but at a relatively large cost.</p>

<p>Radio transmission through the air. Although all forms of transmission over the air (AM, FM, TV, portable house phones, cellphones, etc.) are naturally wireless, there is a tendency for the term to refer only to Wi-Fi or to cellular data services. For example, a cellular provider may call its extra-cost data service wireless, although its voice service is obviously wireless as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sitiohost.cl/">Hosting</a></p>

<p>I have been trying to use Eye-Fi cards for almost a year with poor to fair results. I have given up on them and will wait a year to see if they can really improve them to make them worth while. Right now they are an expensive experiment in frustration. (note: that just my 2 cents and experience. Your mileage may vary.)</p>