Anybody used Wi-Pics Wireless Transfer

[erik_escada1]

I am a Wedding Photog who is interested in buying the Wireless Image

File Transfer system called Wi-Pics. I have not heard any reviews on

this new system if it is good or bad. It would really help me out as

I dont like missing important shots between CF Card changes. Any

comments on this would be appreciated.

[glenn_owens1]

I would worry about using a system like this without a back up. I think it would be better investment to just buy more memory than loosing the couple of seconds it takes to put in a new card.

[lovcom_photo]

I would only trust the wireless (for weddings) if the camera wrote the images to the remote server AND the CF cards inside my 1D Mark II. This way you get three places to store the images should something go wrong.

 

The problem with storing the images ONLY on the remote server is the chance for transmission issue to arise, and you might not necessarily be notified on the camera end.

 

Perhaps I'm being a bit to spooked by it, but I coming out of 27 years in IT and one thing I've learned is to create systems that are redundant.

 

Still, the wi-fi solution is a great idea, so long as you use it as a back up and not the primary storage for your just-shot images.

 

Do consider that I know next to nothing about Canon's implementation of this solution, so my comments are more generic in nature.

[lex_jenkins]

Loren Eidahl uses Nikon's wi-fi system when shooting concerts with a crew. The advantage to his crew is quick turnaround. He has a person manning the laptop who quickly edits all the incoming photos, which can be displayed on the large overhead monitor within minutes. The finished product is ready to deliver to the client before the end of the show, which means payment on the spot.

 

Without an assistant running the laptop onsite for this kind of quick turnaround I'm not sure whether there's any real advantage to wireless.