I'm inclined to believe that currently it is not possible, coz both CamRanger & CameraMator relay information that is exactly the same as what the camera's Live View can do, plus some via WiFi, now that does require some serious computing power and battery power. Generally in camera technology, size does seem to matter e.g. big DSLR = better capabilities and features, small sized cameras = reduced capabilities and features. So putting so much of computing power in an SD sized device may not be viable, at least for now.If you get rid of the battery and the "large" computer you can basically size the thing just like an eye-fi (which uses a lot of space for the memory and the electrical contact), maybe a bit larger. But it is entirely possible that I am completely wrong, I am just asking...These may be silly questions - but why are these things so huge, and so expensive?1. it is not "huge" ... its a little bigger than a credit card, of course it is a lot thicker than a credit card.
Eye-fi uses a wifi device that fits on an SD card and does not require its own batteries... Granted, these here need to perform somewhat more work - but piping commands from the wifi through to the USB port does not require an entire computer!
I stumbled over these because I was thinking about how to wirelessly control my DSLR, and before I found these two I was thinking that it should be possible to construct a device like that which is so small it might almost fit into the USB port itself (OK, not quite... but certainly not as large as this!). Where is my mistake?
And given these two - why not directly tethering the camera through a smartphone and use that as the wireless server? An old phone (apple or android) comes for way less than 300$ AND lets you play doodle jump!
How much demand is there, anyway? From the amount of money that the makers of CameraMator could collect it seems there is quite some... What would you use it for?
PS - I did not find that... But can the 6D be controlled wirelessly?
2. Eye-Fi memory cards just cannot do anything close to what a CamRanger or a CamerMator can do
3. The thickness of the device is due to the rechargeable battery inside.
Regarding you question about "What would you use it for?" do a google or youtube search and you will know why
True, the image (and probably image compression) requires power. But for the rest I am not so sure - these are just a few numbers. There is, of course, a big difference with the eye-fi in that here everything is time-critical while the eye-fi only transfers files.
Pity... it would be nice to have the wifi option but from a device the size of a USB plug. I still believe that without real-time image transfer this should be (almost) in range. This would, of course, result in a somewhat different device since it would only allow for the control of a few parameters without actually checking the image. So it would be closer to an extended remote shutter release.