I just don't seen any benefits.

I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

I was hoping for so much more from the successor to the D3, which was a huge step forward in it's own right.

Not that I can justify purchasing one right now anyhow...

It's another form of tethering. I'm wondering if you can use a multi-port switch and talk with multiple units at the same time. Having the camera locked down with all your lighting set can be quite useful when shooting product of any kind. If you're shooting a catalog then you can have the whole thing set up and just run pieces through the same set while someone just sits back and clicks a mouse. Plus as the article mentioned you will have the capability to shoot over WiFi as soon as the FCC passes the design of their dongle.

I always feel dirty saying the word 'dongle'

Dear lord, just what we need, another source for average joe consumer to take naked pictures of their fatty mcfattness and it being "leaked" on to the internet.

How? Someone will tether into their own network, and forget to secure their wireless.

Or am I doing it wrong?

Theaetetus: I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

Yep. While it may seem like a superfluous feature at first, the idea behind it isn't to immediately load these pictures onto facebook, but to use network connectivity to do things like remotely control and adjust the settings on camera(s) that might be mounted in an inconvenient location or to immediately send image data from the camera to a production studio or computer rather than store it on an SD card until the shoot is done. Stuff like this is probably not much use to the average user (who isn't going to be dropping $6k+ on a camera anyways), but for professionals I could see the advantages.

It's an expensive camera with pro features. To the average joe like me, something like that is completely pointless. Why would I want to drag a laptop around with me just so I can connect the camera to it everywhere I go. Thats just extra gear and extra hassle. But then I'm not a pro and to be honest I can't afford the camera anyway. It seems like a pretty awesome feature for those who could make good use of it.

I am jealous of the camera's ability to output uncompressed footage over HDMI though. Thats something that I could make use of.

Theaetetus: I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

I_Am_Weasel is correct, these capabilities have existed for many years. My FIL is a professional photographer and I know he's set up second or third cameras on balconies or scaffolds during catalog of wedding shoots. The tech used is currently modular (not integrated through WiFi) which means you can use old or new equipment. Once you go this route it all has to be WiFi and compatible.

FinFangFark: Dear lord, just what we need, another source for average joe consumer to take naked pictures of their fatty mcfattness and it being "leaked" on to the internet.

How? Someone will tether into their own network, and forget to secure their wireless.

Or am I doing it wrong?

I'm not so sure an "Average Joe" would spend nearly 7k on a camera...

Yeah, I can totally see this being useful. It suffers, though, from a weird money conundrum, though. I'm pretty sure that you can wirelessly link a bunch of cameras together with the v5 Cactus system, but you'd need a receiver for each one... But if you're linking pro level cameras together, somehow money clearly isn't an issue... *shrug*

I DO know, though, that the last wi-fi SD card I used in my D90 was so ridiculously slow with RAW files, I can totally see why you would want this type of speedy transmission. Tethering with a 50 ft cat5 would be an interesting way of doing things... I certainly wont be buying one anytime soon... Though, make me a battery shoe with an ethernet port... THAT would be nice!

I'll just leave this here

The sound of one hand clapping: It's an expensive camera with pro features. To the average joe like me, something like that is completely pointless. Why would I want to drag a laptop around with me just so I can connect the camera to it everywhere I go. Thats just extra gear and extra hassle. But then I'm not a pro and to be honest I can't afford the camera anyway. It seems like a pretty awesome feature for those who could make good use of it.

I am jealous of the camera's ability to output uncompressed footage over HDMI though. Thats something that I could make use of.

It is designed for studio usage, where you already would have cameras tethered into a computer so that the pictures go straight from the camera to an image management app like Lightroom. For model or product photography, it is a common workflow.

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'll just leave this here

[www.eye.fi image 132x214]

They don't make WiFi CF cards however

We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.

I did something similar in my bedroom using 15 DSLRs positioned around my bed and a few camcorders so my sextapes can have bullet time, but should, wow, this really will make bullet time accessible to many more people.

meh... cables are a pain, especially if you're moving around. They shouldn't even bother without WIFI being internal, high speed.

If you need 10 cameras to click at different angles because you can't manage to get the "right" angle with just one, you're doing it wrong and should go into another field.

Could be cool for a project dedicated to multiple angles, but for taking shots... nah, not really needed.

If planning to use them as movie cameras (video) and you want to do a setup where the cameras are set in places so you don't need camera men, that's something else, but might as well get high quality video cameras, which are probably cheaper anyways.

_{/30some years of photography}

ampoliros: Theaetetus: I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

I_Am_Weasel is correct, these capabilities have existed for many years.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

I never said the capabilities didn't exist. I said that professional photographers - like your FIL - may want to utilize such capabilities. Apparently he does. So, wtf are you blathering about when you say "I don't see any benefits"? Tell you what - go talk to him and ask if there are any benefits to using multiple linked cameras.

Theaetetus: ampoliros: Theaetetus: I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

I_Am_Weasel is correct, these capabilities have existed for many years.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

I never said the capabilities didn't exist. I said that professional photographers - like your FIL - may want to utilize such capabilities. Apparently he does. So, wtf are you blathering about when you say "I don't see any benefits"? Tell you what - go talk to him and ask if there are any benefits to using multiple linked cameras.

Yes, there are benefits to multiple linked cameras but not to this system. This system uses internal wifi instead of the current modular wireless systems that can be linked to lights, cameras or any other equipment he uses. Cameras and equipment at this level are ridiculously expensive. Dropping $10K or more on a single piece of gear isn't uncommon. Currently, you can use modular transmitters that work with anything. If you go with this system, you need to replace everything or at a minimum at least buy a lot of expensive adapters for the things you want to use with it (if they exist). That's why there's no benefit here.

I_Am_Weasel: Theaetetus:
I never said the capabilities didn't exist. I said that professional photographers - like your FIL - may want to utilize such capabilities. Apparently he does. So, wtf are you blathering about when you say "I don't see any benefits"? Tell you what - go talk to him and ask if there are any benefits to using multiple linked cameras.

I also never said there was no benefit to multi linked cameras.

... forgot which alt you're signed in as? I was talking to this guy, as you'd notice from his name in the quote:
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

ampoliros: If you go with this system, you need to replace everything

It's a shame there are no new photographers who haven't yet purchased a bunch of equipment they'd need to replace, then. Since all photographers currently have all of the necessary gear, I now completely understand why you believe that new gear has no benefit.

Theaetetus: ampoliros: If you go with this system, you need to replace everything

It's a shame there are no new photographers who haven't yet purchased a bunch of equipment they'd need to replace, then. Since all photographers currently have all of the necessary gear, I now completely understand why you believe that new gear has no benefit.

Also, if you move to a WiFi based standard, that is going to really bring down the cost of wirelessly linking gear over time, since the cost of adding WiFi to consumer electronics products is spiraling down to almost nothing. The trick is just getting all the companies involved to agree on a standard set of protocols instead of making everything proprietary.

Theaetetus: ampoliros: If you go with this system, you need to replace everything

It's a shame there are no new photographers who haven't yet purchased a bunch of equipment they'd need to replace, then. Since all photographers currently have all of the necessary gear, I now completely understand why you believe that new gear has no benefit.

The photography industry is shrinking (pretty substantially). The rise of mid-price digital cameras has convinced even large corporations that they can do catalogs and staff shots themselves. Thus, there is a surplus of used professional equipment out there at very low prices. Any new photographer is going to buy this equipment up instead of dropping tens of thousands more than that on a new setup (studio space isn't cheap either).

This sort of thing is aimed at photography studios that have a long list of regular clients because they're the only ones who might be able to afford it. But as I've said, those studios don't need it and the cost of replacing what they have would be huge.

The best Nikon can hope for is that the camera sells well and people might use the feature later. This feature won't sell a camera by itself, connectivity is nice but if it isn't a great camera, it won't sell a single unit.

/I'm no alt.
//FIL uses Hasselblad
///I held one of his cameras once, it scared the hell out of me.

FinFangFark: Dear....

Been checking out my pictures? Cheeky Monkey!

Theaetetus, once more, your clients request you go back to serving them poorly.

Is this better than my Kodak disc camera?

Hot

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'll just leave this here

[www.eye.fi image 132x214]

Worst product I've ever wasted $90 on.

res_nihil: Theaetetus: I_Am_Weasel: That seems all rather unnecessary.

Not everything needs to be networked.
ampoliros: I just don't seen any benefits.

From TFA: We were keen to put the D4's big, bad networking capabilities to the test -- one of which links an array of up to ten of the cameras together for simultaneous, remote shooting over WiFi.
Professional photographers may sometimes like to take multiple shots from different angles simultaneously.

Yep. While it may seem like a superfluous feature at first, the idea behind it isn't to immediately load these pictures onto facebook, but to use network connectivity to do things like remotely control and adjust the settings on camera(s) that might be mounted in an inconvenient location or to immediately send image data from the camera to a production studio or computer rather than store it on an SD card until the shoot is done. Stuff like this is probably not much use to the average user (who isn't going to be dropping $6k+ on a camera anyways), but for professionals I could see the advantages.

I can do all that with my $550 Canon T1i or my $1300 7D via their USB ports. But, I am on the waiting list for Canon's new 1DX, which has an Ethernet port.