Options
How long until a pro DSLR...
Will have internet capability? Instantly emailing photos to clients, FB, twitter, etc. With the social media boom, I think within 5 years. Thoughts?
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -Ansel Adams
www.dallasweddingphotos.com
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -Ansel Adams
www.dallasweddingphotos.com
0
Comments
I'd say we'll see the FB, Twitter stuff on low-end consumer stuf, but not on a Pro DSLR.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Integrated wireless with Internet connectivity will probably be offered first to more "consumer" based platforms, and we're already seeing some of that in the latest camera/phone hybrids (Samsung Galaxy S3, for instance).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In 5 to 10 years I expect them to be able to send photo's directly to cloud storage as they are taken. Possibly, send them to multiple secure sites to store photo's, no SD or CF cards required. The photographer would then be able to post-process the images on his wireless tablet where-ever he is, when ever it is convenient. Heck, you could even have a service in some 3rd world country that would do the post processing for you in real time. The photo album is ready before the Bride and Groom have changed into their going away clothes.
The thing is, until someone actually makes it happen, it probably won't bit if the implementation is right, then it will take off like wildfire.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Solve that and there's hope
That's a very easy problem to solve--a dedicated processor for transferring--but there just isn't enough need now for such capability; and when there is, it can be done with a small external device.
Bandwidth is indeed the problem, and as sensors just keep getting bigger and bigger, it may continue to be a problem in the US. (Now, many other countries have the bandwidth to send large RAW files fast enough for this to work, and the Japanese shooters I work with use it regularly.
As with most invention, sometimes it takes someone to do it before others realize the value.
I can easily see up loading photographs of sporting events as they happen vs. halftime or at the end of an event.
As far as how, an external device will have the same problem it does today-move the data to the device and from the device to the end point. Today, that's still a slow process. So the camera needs to change.
Not sure I understand this. Cell network upgrades as well as wireless network speeds are comparable. There are certainly places that don't have the same level of service but that's often the case in more remote areas.
You're welcome for the inspiration, Matt.
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -Ansel Adams
www.bellissimofoto.com
I can see it being very handy for sporting and entertainment event's. Editors for magazines and high profile websites are clamoring for images ASAP.
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -Ansel Adams
www.bellissimofoto.com
Our current wireless infrastructure in this country is really not that good. Sure, the technology is there to move this amount of data, but not always present when you need it. One of the requirements for widespread adoption of technologies is that the infrastructure to support their use needs to be in place.
When I shoot a major sports event, I usually have many gigabytes of data to move. My cameras send this to my editing computer directly and with sufficient speed. But I have little use for sending all of these to some remote site. Once I cull, caption, edit and convert to jpegs, I then FTP them to the media outlets. The speed needed to send this much smaller set is there, and the editor at the photo desk usually only wants the final images. Thus, having a camera that could automatically send everything off site is not very useful.
There are the occasional shooters who do have an editor working remotely, so they sometimes do this. But in my experience, they at least cull their images before sending. And I know in some cases the bandwidth is not adequate. But again, it is not the camera that limits them, at least as far as I can tell.
Ah, sorry...I thought you were talking about a camera that automatically uploads every shot to a remote site. Must have missed something...
lol.
Selective images....
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -Ansel Adams
www.dallasweddingphotos.com
I first saw this in Korea at the Track world championships. (Heard of it, as I wasn't there). DSLRs connected to Cat5. Images shipped via wire either upstairs to the booth, or to remote editing desks. Images processed in REAL TIME via the edit desk, and on the web less than 5 minutes after the shutter was pressed. It happened at the World Cup in South Africa. It happened in London. This process is going to continue to get faster and better. However, there are a few caveats...
I believe they are sending JPGs and not RAW. The images still need to be culled and cleaned up before publishing. There needs to be a high speed network in place at the point of shooting. This might seem simple, but I can assure you it is not. Many of the news agencies are currently arriving days in advance in a lot of cases to pull wire, and get the network set up and ready to go before the cameras are ever in place.
Reuters seems to be at the forefront on this and it would be quite worthwhile to follow their progress.
Start here: http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2011/09/04/the-iaaf-2011-world-championhips-in-daegu-south-korea/
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
At the consumer level, there are inexpensive technologies like EyeFi, which do exactly this. Just put the SD card in the camera's slot, and all your shots are WiFi-ed off to a remote location. It may be possible to have these go to FB too, though I have not looked into this...
Loved the Router's article. Thanks for posting that. And it brings to light the biggest problem with wireless and that's congestion. You would never get N speeds with so many end nodes (assuming it was the camera transmitting and not a laptop). And N (at its best) is nowhere near as fast as a wired connection.
I think it's fair to admit that for a wireless camera to be truly useful, there are a bunch of things that need to be solved. But I do think it's possible and practical.
Thus, the usual scenario is to wirelessly send to one's editing notebook on site, and send only the final take to a remote site. I think this will continue to be the norm for most shooters at most events, even if the technology to send large quantities to a remote site in real time becomes available. The exception may be the photojournalist who is shooting an evolving and important event, and these guys already are wired for direct transmission.
On a low end consumer camera, of course it might be useful and fun to have photos sent directly to FB, but this is basically a reality already for those who are interested.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
It's already here. The Canon 6D ships with WiFi and direct upload to Facebook.
www.ackersphotography.com
He said pro DSLR.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I'm sorry. I have a really hard time accepting that we live in a world where a $2,000 camera body cannot be loosely referred to as "pro" in a photography forum.
www.ackersphotography.com
It's not just the 6D but several others as well.
I think the features I'd want to see aren't there yet-but this is a start.
I believe the 6D is considered a "pro-sumer"...
"pro" or "professional" would be referring to something in the 1D range.
Therefore, it'd still be incorrect to loosely refer to a 6D as "pro"
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
My D600 is not pro. Nor my D800. Doesn't mean they aren't good cameras. Pro bodies are north of $5500 right now with the 1Dx at $6800 and the Nikon D4 at $6k. At 1/3 the price, a $2k camera is not in the same league and isn't expected to be.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Yes, I believe that photojournalists could use the system for sending their images to editors but, IMO a photographer sending images straight out of the camera with no post processing to clients is a quick road to failure.
Again I'll say that most pro shooters wouldn't want to have unedited shots sent off somewhere. This is more of an amateur thing, so that those travel shots or friends making funny faces can be uploaded to FB directly. Pro shooters often have a raw take of thousands of shots for an event. Unless they have an editor working remotely for them, it would be crazy to just send *all* off those off. Pro shooters sometimes tag shots in camera so that they don't have to download all of the shots, but the LCD is only a crude indicator of shot quality. I don't think most would want even just a set of tagged shots to be sent off without at least a quick review.
In fact, one of the capabilities that distinguishes a true professional from a good amateur is the ability to pull out a small set of great shots from a really large set. In my observation, there are many good amateurs who dilute the power of their galleries by putting up hundreds of shots--perhaps all pretty good, but with a lot of repetition. The gallery just loses its punch. I may take 2000+ shots at a sports event, but submit only 50 or so. Within this set of 50 there may be a handful that are really special--either photographically or because they capture an important moment--but most of the rest are more or less equal in quality to many other shots that got left out. They are included to round out the set and give it variety, not because they are necessarily better than omitted shots. Amateurs find it hard to eliminate good shots, and so include all of them in sets. About the only time I put up a gallery with hundreds of shots is when I am shooting a high school or youth club event, and only because I want to give parents and players a good selection of shots of the kids. Even then, I feel uncomfortable putting up galleries this large.
I don't think this blurs the line at all. Just because a camera is used for professional purposes, doesn't make it a professional camera. I will be using my Nikon 1 mirrorless camera this year to shoot golf. Doesn't mean it's a Pro camera even though I will use it for professional purposes.
And again, you'd be exactly right.
Sure do.
Yep. I'm usually at 500-800 shots per game. Sometimes as much as 2k though depending. If I didn't tag in camera, I'd be hopelessly lost. Try sorting through 800-2000 random shots between 2-5 cameras with NO guide at all. I tag in camera at every break I get. I then have a good look at them on my laptop and judge focus and other issues and cull further.
It's hard to cull your own work sometimes.
Very true. My largest galleries tend to be for sports events with a lot of participants. I try to get 3-5 shots per player. With something like a soccer team with 11-15 players on the field, plus coaches, pagentry, etc. I can get these up to about 100-120 shots. Of those, probably 10-15 would be something I'd want on my walls. But to a parent, those other shots are very important. To a sports info director, that shot of a kid who may only play in 1 or 2 games a year is gold. Just had that situation happen on Sunday at an ACC Basketball game.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com