When will Nikon (and Canon, Fuji, etc.) enter the 21st century?

[PapaTango]

<p>@Edward. Nope, don't do SQUARE--gots me a PayPal TRIANGLE! One day I might actually use the thing on the phone--but it works better on my MikroSquish Surface. Bigger screen you know...</p>

<p>@Hector. You need to catch up! That function is already in place through the wetware interface that resides between the camera and the keyboard... :-)</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I nearly got sucked into this one, my brain started racing through all the options I'd REALLY like to see in my D800 and GPS definitely isn't one of them. For ages I've felt digital cameras simply grew out of 35mms which makes you wonder how things would be if instead of 35mm format, modular Medium Format or even Large Format Field cameras had started the evolutionary process.</p>

<p>Maybe we'd have built-in tilt shift, both front and back, maybe instead changing cameras we could upgrade our sensors by clipping in a new or different sensor module and so on, and on, and on. The funny thing in all of this is I suddenly realised that I can do pretty much anything I dream of, not by buying more gear or clipping bits on to the D800 but looking a little more deeply into my Lightroom, Photoshop and Nik Collection. In terms of sending images around I'm quite content with Dropbox etc.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Everything you are asking for I don't want. From some of the posts, I am not alone. </p>

[WAngell]

<p>I feel like I posted in an old folks home. And I'm probably one of the few here actually old enough to be in one. :-)</p>

<p>Personally I like things that make life easier. My first camera was my dad's Argus followed by OM's, and F's. I loved those camera's. But I also like aperture priority. And better metering. Auto focus? Absolutely. Changing ISO with a switch instead of a roll? Not even changing ISO because the camera does it for me? Setting a minimum shutter speed so I don't stupidly shoot under my hand hold ability? Auto bracketing? Focus tracking? I'd love user memories if it had them (but that's an old age thing because I can't remember stuff as well as I use too).</p>

<p>When we upgrade cameras (for those of us who've upgraded since our first Nikon) it's primarily about features. Except for faster shutter speeds there was no change in the image ability of Nikon F's. A shot at 1/250 @ f4 didn't look any different on a F5 than an F2 than an F. We upgraded purely for the features. Features are good. They make life easier.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"They make life easier." May be for you but not me! I want my camera to capture a part of what I see with out five hundred things I don't want or need to complicate things. I am sure there is a camera out there that will do what you are looking for. In the mean time, go out and take some photos.</p>

[pete_resetz]

<p> As I said previously, is that the camera companies are like the car companies. One come out with a new body style and every one else follows suit. And when it comes to options, options sell. The average consumer would feel cheated if their favorite brand of camera didn't have the same options as a competing brand.</p>

<p> My biggest beef is the video option built into DSLR's. One person said if you don't want to take video, don't use it. But that video function increased the cost of the camera. Worst of all is that DSLR.s are not ergonomically designed for video. Look at a dedicated video camera and it's designed to be held in a manner so as to be as stable as possible. With a DSLR you lose that stability. Sure some can argue that image stabilization would counter that but it is more costly, and something else that will only break down do to its complexity. The Nikon D3X is the last dedicated still capture DSLR. I morn it's production end. </p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>As someone who's tried to get a smartphone to act as a GPS locator via a Bluetooth modem, there appears to be a fundamental flaw that makes it a non-trivial task. Most GPS-to-Bluetooth apps don't allocate a fixed modem channel to stream the data over. Every time the app is started it will pick a new, almost random, channel, thus putting the onus of finding and establishing contact with that channel on the receiving modem (i.e. the camera). This requires quite a bit of firmware space within the modem and/or the ability to distinguish GPS data from any other Bluetooth stream - non trivial. Unless there's considerable operator intervention to establish the connection channel manually. This would be beyond most user's skillset or tolerance of what is acceptably easy to use.</p>

<p>OTOH a WiFi connection has packet identifiers and network addresses embedded in the data stream and establishing data exchange is therefore fairly trivial. In short; a Bluetooth connection has to be forced by the operator, whereas a WiFi connection once "remembered" can be established automatically. Or made to a fixed IP address set up in software.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Unless I missed it somewhere above, didn't Nikon just enter the 21st century with WiFi on the D500?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Why not just use your cellphone and cut out the middle.?</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Why not just use your cellphone and cut out the middle.?" That's what I was thinking!</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel like I posted in an old folks home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't. You ran into parents telling a petulant child that he has enough toys.</p>

<p>Have you ever worked on research and development? Or thought for a moment about how it works? Your employer gives you a place to work, a non-disclosure agreement to sign, and limited resources, partly defined by a budget. There are many other things, but the limitation on your resources is critical. If you spend the time of your engineers on frills, you have less for what you need to do. Another limitation is electronic "real estate." Despite the amazing improvement in miniaturization of circuits, space is always limited. I've heard colleagues (in another company) describe fights over circuit board space. If you add features, you have to give up the size of internal buffers, or something else. My work has nothing to do with cameras, but cameras are particularly limited in space for components.</p>

<p>I do agree with your complaint about buggy software and firmware. Should camera manufacturers put more resources into that, or should they add features that some guy who is obviously in the minority wants?</p>

[mark_l6]

<p>Rodeo Joe, I'm only 56, but I did not understand a word! I think I'll go take some photos.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>People are texting and sending back photos while hiking wilderness trails. I don't know what they go out there for, but it isn't what I go out there for.</p>

<p>I did do something back in April that was unprecedented for me: I tried to make a call from a trail in a Federally Designated Wilderness area just to verify that I could get help in case of a medical emergency. I had recently had my seventy-first birthday, and it suddenly occurred to me that I just might be mortal after all. After that, I turned the phone completely off. I'll be darned if I want to hear a stupid phone ringing in the woods. I also don't really want to have to be rescued, but I'll swallow my pride and make the call if I have a heart attack or blow out a knee.</p>

<p>I still carry an actual magnetic compass. Two of them. I don't Google trail maps while I'm out there, though. I also don't carry a Garmin. That's where I draw the line. Arbitrary? Probably, and, if I actually were to have a heart attack out there, I might have to rethink some things.</p>

<p>In the meantime, keep your hands off my Nikons and my little <a href="

a6000</a> day tripper. If your phone rings while you're passing me on the trail, consider yourself an endangered species. I'm a pacifist, but I have my limits.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Right on Lannie, I'm with you! If someone wants to see any of my photos from the trail (or anywhere else) they have to wait for me to return to my PC to process them and decide which photos I want to send to family or friends. I also don't take photos of my food in restaurants to show my friends what I am eating. I assume they are busy providing nutrients to their own bodies. And I don't do "selfies", or post my daily life on FB so every thief within 50 miles will know when I'm not at home and have an open invitation to come take all of my possessions. I also change my own oil and can rebuild a four-barrel carburetor (you young'uns will have to look it up). What happened to my world?!!! :)</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Barry -- that world, the good life is still here, and those of us who care to can still enjoy it. In addition to mindset, it does depend to some extent on where you live and where and how you chose to travel.</p>

<p> </p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I tried asking a question like this more or less a year ago and got severely bashed by people fifty years my senior. This is a most conservative forum and interesting debates played out maybe 10-15 years ago. Go enjoy the apps in your phone.. No wonder the sales of cameras go down... Largely because of market saturation but also for a lack of interesting ideas.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>My biggest beef is the video option built into DSLR's. One person said if you don't want to take video, don't use it. But that video function increased the cost of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The reverse is true. Putting video into still cameras reduces the cost.</p>

[PapaTango]

<p>There is only one reason I would care to see WiFi on my D7100--to reduce the mechanical wear of inserting and extracting cards or tether cables. Sure, there is the convenience of simply linking up but frankly I cycle through different pairs of cards every time I do this.<br /> <br />Nikon has purportedly moved "into the 21st Century" with the D7200. They advertise "built-in snapbridge Wi-Fi connectivity with NFC for simple linking of your mobile device." Want it faster? As I said in an earlier post--they are happy to sell you an expensive pair of gizmos to make that happen.<br>

<br /> As far as I am concerned, this is a fail on Nikon's part. I have ZERO interest in transferring my images to an iOS or Android device "for immediate sharing online." I want those pictures on my DD workstation--not just an intermediate device that I have to offload YET AGAIN later! I guess that we are back to the crippled software discussion--as to why oh why I cannot download directly with WiFi to my home wireless network...<br /> <br />Some people love technotoys--I have my own! Rodeo Joe put a smile on my face, as I know what he was doing and why. Like people who spend a half hour texting to have what would be a five minute phone conversation--I would simply pick up the microphone and announce my location to the repeater. Ham radio stuff you know...<br>

<br /> @Lannie. I understand completely--as arthritis makes me wonder at times if I can make the return trip under my own power! Yet to encounter people out there who are subsumed by the activity on their little screens--ignoring all of the little and big things along their path--totally puzzles me. A debate now is just because technology CAN do something, is it always a good thing for us to actually DO what it offers?<br /> <br />Instant gratification and what code and algorithms can do may extend capability. But as has been pointed out succinctly, no amount of electronic magic replaces the 95% vision that must go into remarkable photos. If I stand in the same worn spot that thousands of others have stood and taken the same photo--tech will not help. Going 10 feet to the left and changing the elevation by 3 feet will...</p>

[reuven_k]

<p>Wow! All the bashing at the suggestion of adding new features to Nikon cameras. As long at the features can be turned on/off and don't negatively affect the shooters that don't use them, then absolutely, additional functionality options are great.<br>

There are many features of my Nikon camera that I almost never use, such as video. But, as it doesn't affect my shooting, and it's available in the off chance that I'd like to use it, great to have it.<br>

I can see myself using additional connectivity options (besides pulling out my memory card for insertion into my PC) on rare occasion.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I found myself thinking, dangerous I know but, remembering my earlier post that included mention of medium format modular systems and thinking about liveview, the worst/most inadequate feature on my D800.</p>

<p>It is only a small jump and probably quite doable to replace the back screen with a clip-in clip out smartphone replicating the old analogue Polaroid backs, getting you the net result of a much better liveview, all the usefulness of a phone and even some camera control features from it. </p>

<p>It does seem logical that given there are already camera control apps for smart phones, this would just take it one step further.</p>

<p>On a similar matter, I've often wondered why we can't make our cameras more secure by having to use a PIN or the like.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I've often wondered why we can't make our cameras more secure by having to use a PIN or the like</p>

</blockquote>

<p>because this is a solution to a problem which doesnt exist. why would a camera need to be more secure? it would be a terrible idea for news reporters, photojournalists and the like, basically anyone who needs a fast start-to-shoot time would be frustrated by introducing an additional step which would serve little actual purpose. also, if you really really need this feature, just shoot with an iPhone with a lock code. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Eric, you can usually turn things on or turn them off</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>I just want a camera capable of making High Resolution still photos that I can make 24x36 in top clarity, I got a phone, I don't need what ever K Video. I just want to make photographs that don't move.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I wasn't trying to bamboozle anyone with my previous post. That's the way it is. Bluetooth is a flawed and quirky connection method using a serial data stream with variable handshaking, bit-rate and parity. While WiFi is a rigid standard that uses the fairly bomb-proof TCP/IP protocol. Sure, Nikon's implementation is a bit backwards in that the camera controls the connection, but it does mean that you're not faced with trying to connect two dumb "slave" devices together as with USB/USBOTG.</p>

<p>My own experience is that the Nikon WMU app works pretty transparently - at least on an Android phone and with a D7200 camera. The camera accepts the phone connection and away you go! I have no complaints about the way it works. And I've built a little Bluetooth modem that connects the camera to a separate Bluetooth GPS receiver. That's a bit more cumbersome than having a GPS dongle fitted directly to the camera, but I had the GPS Rx and components just lying around and wanted to do Nikon out of the ridiculous price of their GP-1A.</p>

<p>What I couldn't do was make my smartphone replace the GPS Rx. So I just carry the little Bluetooth GPS thingy if I <em>really</em> need to geotag my pictures. It happens rarely, but there have been a few occasions where my memory has let me down about where a picture was taken. Plus there are great functions in Google earth/maps that let you view the location simply by linking the picture to the program. (I really hate the use of the word "app" or application. "Application" is a mass or count-noun, not a proper noun. Computers are programmed using programs or scripts. We don't need an alternative twisted grammar word for that!)</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Rodeo Joe, have you tried or looked into the di-GPS Eco ProFessional M? It connects directly to the 10-pin connector so there is no cable to get in the way. Best of all it is 40% cheaper than the GP-1A. It also has a pass-through 10-pin connection. I believe the company also makes models for direct connection to the Nikon prosumer bodies without the 10-pin connector.</p>