Canon releases Digital Photo Professional Express for iOS

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,929
175
Vancouver, BC
#21
It took them until recently to even add basic WiFi functionality to their cameras, some super-basic bluetooth and NFC, typically implemented very poorly with totally inadequate protocol support.

4G/LTE cell capability not present in a single camera in late 2018. Why?! Module available for something like 5 bucks.
This has been discussed often before. The reason that there's no LTE in a camera is that while there are people who will pay a premium to have a better camera on their smartphone (often bundled with other premium features), relatively few would look forward to shelling out $50+ every month for a big data plan for their camera.

I agree that better connectivity with a smartphone would be great. However, it's not going to happen, because neither Bluetooth and WiFi are ideal. Even Bluetooth 5 is only 2Mbps, so a 50MB RAW file would take more than 3 minutes to transfer, under the best of circumstances. WiFi, on the other hand, has the bandwidth, but will suck the life right out of that camera battery, especially if you want your camera to be constantly connected to your phone so that every photo goes straight to the phone. Even so, try tethering WiFi to a laptop, and watch how painfully slow 20+ megapixel photos are to transfer.

For slick connectivity between an ILC and smartphone, we would need a protocol that supported low power idle (like Bluetooth) and high speed transfer (like 802.11ac), that has convenient pairing and reconnection. But if that is developed, it won't be driven by photographers with ILCs, because there are just too few of us.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
109
#22
cameras need to be able to communicate independently, directly - without need to go via a smartphone.

This could easily be achieved by offering an optional (!) comm module for a built-in (extra) SD slot. customers could then decide for themselves, whether they need/want it or not.

Even Apple manages to sell its iPads in different versions - WiFI only or WiFi+Cell/LTE (although in typical greedy Apple fashion it is not offered in a "module/expansion slot" way).

LTE data plans can be had in my country from € 9,90 per month already. And if price is too high, one could just not buy the comms module or not activate the LTE connection - so nobody would be worse off than currently.

There is no technical or other excuse for camera makers not to offer it.

Canon W-E1 WiFi SD-card adapter is available for about € 40 when bought separately. Why is there not also a W-E2 card with WiFi + LTE for eg € 80? And or optionally bundled in kit with camera?

Problem could be solved instantly, easily and inexpensively. cameras would just need 2x card slots, better 3 (1x comms, 2x memory).
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,147
140
118
#23
cameras need to be able to communicate independently, directly - without need to go via a smartphone.

This could easily be achieved by offering an optional (!) comm module for a built-in (extra) SD slot. customers could then decide for themselves, whether they need/want it or not.

Even Apple manages to sell its iPads in different versions - WiFI only or WiFi+Cell/LTE (although in typical greedy Apple fashion it is not offered in a "module/expansion slot" way).

LTE data plans can be had in my country from € 9,90 per month already. And if price is too high, one could just not buy the comms module or not activate the LTE connection - so nobody would be worse off than currently.

There is no technical or other excuse for camera makers not to offer it.

Canon W-E1 WiFi SD-card adapter is available for about € 40 when bought separately. Why is there not also a W-E2 card with WiFi + LTE for eg € 80? And or optionally bundled in kit with camera?

Problem could be solved instantly, easily and inexpensively. cameras would just need 2x card slots, better 3 (1x comms, 2x memory).
Problem? What problem? I thought you "had a home" with a computer and a 4k monitor and everything? What could you possibly do with LTE when you just insisted you need a 4k monitor and a desktop computer to do anything?

Trolls.....
 
Likes: CanonFanBoy

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,147
140
118
#24
I agree that better connectivity with a smartphone would be great. However, it's not going to happen, because neither Bluetooth and WiFi are ideal. Even Bluetooth 5 is only 2Mbps, so a 50MB RAW file would take more than 3 minutes to transfer, under the best of circumstances. WiFi, on the other hand, has the bandwidth, but will suck the life right out of that camera battery, especially if you want your camera to be constantly connected to your phone so that every photo goes straight to the phone. Even so, try tethering WiFi to a laptop, and watch how painfully slow 20+ megapixel photos are to transfer.

For slick connectivity between an ILC and smartphone, we would need a protocol that supported low power idle (like Bluetooth) and high speed transfer (like 802.11ac), that has convenient pairing and reconnection. But if that is developed, it won't be driven by photographers with ILCs, because there are just too few of us.
My experience doesn't align with your numbers, I get good battery life and very fast transfer speeds via the WFT's, about the only two good things you can say about them! I do tether wirelessly and 20MP files take two or three seconds to transfer, full sized jpegs are effectively instant.

Using the WFT's as AdHoc when you power the camera down and then re-power it the phone or tablet will reconnect automatically, this will save your camera battery.
 
Likes: mirage

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,318
311
Canada
#25
My experience doesn't align with your numbers, I get good battery life and very fast transfer speeds via the WFT's, about the only two good things you can say about them! I do tether wirelessly and 20MP files take two or three seconds to transfer, full sized jpegs are effectively instant.

Using the WFT's as AdHoc when you power the camera down and then re-power it the phone or tablet will reconnect automatically, this will save your camera battery.
My experience is also about 2 seconds to transfer images to the iPad...

To be fair, this is in a fairly quiet area..... go somewhere like in front of an apartment building, where you have a hundred or so WiFi nodes blasting away, and it will take longer....
 
Likes: mirage
Jul 31, 2018
297
109
#26
Problem? What problem? I thought you "had a home" with a computer and a 4k monitor and everything? What could you possibly do with LTE when you just insisted you need a 4k monitor and a desktop computer to do anything?

Trolls.....
personally, I currently don't miss it, since i only shoot RAW and PP exclusively at home on my desktop PC + 4k 30" monitor.

But I am of the firm opinion, that in 2018 any digital camera should be able to connect via cell/LTE directly, rather than requiring yet another device as "relay station". At least as an "option" that can easily be added.

As long as it is not even offered as an option, or only by way of several hundred bucks, monstrously big "WFT bricks" - and yet without cell/LTE connectivity - I am not tempted.

Each and every smartphone can run Cell/LTE + WiFI + Bluetooth + NFC + GPS and whathavenot, inparrallel, in a small form factor and on a single battery charge for an entire day. I do not accept that cameras are not equally capable and not equipped with *contemporary tech* in all aspects, instead of 2005 technology.

A "W-E2" SD card with both WiFi and cell/LTE would be the bare minimum today.
Plus another SD card with RT flash commander.
Plus decent firmware/software to use it in a "2018"-adequate way. Intuitively, reliably, stable and zero fuss.
Nothing outlandish or outrageous about those demands. And I bet, I am not the only one ... :)
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,929
175
Vancouver, BC
#27
My experience doesn't align with your numbers, I get good battery life and very fast transfer speeds via the WFT's, about the only two good things you can say about them! I do tether wirelessly and 20MP files take two or three seconds to transfer, full sized jpegs are effectively instant.

Using the WFT's as AdHoc when you power the camera down and then re-power it the phone or tablet will reconnect automatically, this will save your camera battery.
I'd like to see a 6DII (only because it's the latest DSLR wireless antenna) on wifi tether, transfer CR2's in 2-3 seconds. It is a feature I use extensively, on any number of notebooks, and I have never gotten a RAW file in 2-3 seconds. It's maybe 2-3 seconds by USB cable :( I would be in bliss if I could make my 6D2 transfer CR2's in a couple of seconds wirelessly; I'd throw out the USB cable.

I say that the WiFi sucks battery juice because when shooting a whole day tethered, I often have to put in a third battery on WiFi, while USB never goes beyond the second LPE6.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,147
140
118
#28
I'd like to see a 6DII (only because it's the latest DSLR wireless antenna) on wifi tether, transfer CR2's in 2-3 seconds. It is a feature I use extensively, on any number of notebooks, and I have never gotten a RAW file in 2-3 seconds. It's maybe 2-3 seconds by USB cable :( I would be in bliss if I could make my 6D2 transfer CR2's in a couple of seconds wirelessly; I'd throw out the USB cable.

I say that the WiFi sucks battery juice because when shooting a whole day tethered, I often have to put in a third battery on WiFi, while USB never goes beyond the second LPE6.
I use 1DX MkII's and the WFT-E8 so bigger battery and external, but older, antenna. However it does have IEEE 802.11ac (7 Gbps/875 MBps) vs the 6D MkII's 802.11b/g/n (Max 300 Mbps/37.5 MBps), so potentially 23 times the data rate. In practice the 1DX MkII and WFT-E8 is reliably sending a 20mp RAW file to my iPad in 2-3 seconds.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,318
311
Canada
#29
personally, I currently don't miss it, since i only shoot RAW and PP exclusively at home on my desktop PC + 4k 30" monitor.

But I am of the firm opinion, that in 2018 any digital camera should be able to connect via cell/LTE directly, rather than requiring yet another device as "relay station". At least as an "option" that can easily be added.

As long as it is not even offered as an option, or only by way of several hundred bucks, monstrously big "WFT bricks" - and yet without cell/LTE connectivity - I am not tempted.

Each and every smartphone can run Cell/LTE + WiFI + Bluetooth + NFC + GPS and whathavenot, inparrallel, in a small form factor and on a single battery charge for an entire day. I do not accept that cameras are not equally capable and not equipped with *contemporary tech* in all aspects, instead of 2005 technology.

A "W-E2" SD card with both WiFi and cell/LTE would be the bare minimum today.
Plus another SD card with RT flash commander.
Plus decent firmware/software to use it in a "2018"-adequate way. Intuitively, reliably, stable and zero fuss.
Nothing outlandish or outrageous about those demands. And I bet, I am not the only one ... :)
There are about a bazillion cell phone users out there.... snapping away.... and a great many of those images are uploaded "to the cloud", which makes them more secure than the images on a DSLR, even one with two card slots.... Yes, some of us take hundreds of pictures at a time (or thousands!) and uploading them would be crazy, but that is not normal.... The normal user takes a shot here, a shot there, and probably does not take a thousand shots (mostly JPG) in a year. For these people, uploading to the cloud makes sense.

For the power user, Dump them over WiFi to an external device.... be it a laptop, external hard drive, or over the network to home.... Or, keep on going as you do now.

And by the way.... If you could manage to put that circuitry onto something as small as an SD card, (like the one for the 7D2 :) ), and just like Arduino has done for the last ten years, there is easily space to put it in ANY DSLR or Mirrorless camera....
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
109
#30
And by the way.... If you could manage to put that circuitry onto something as small as an SD card, (like the one for the 7D2 :) ), and just like Arduino has done for the last ten years, there is easily space to put it in ANY DSLR or Mirrorless camera....
yes, Cell + WiFi will fit onto an SD card, easily. And I'd prefer it on SD cards. And I'd like all cameras to come with 2 SD slots plus 2 Micro SD slots, all of them UHS III, it is late 2018 after all, not 2008. Those 4 slots would fit easily into any ILC camera.

That way we could use the cards easily in different camera bodies and when we get a new camera, we would not have to buy all the comms stuff over and over. Modular solutions would be the most customer-friendly design. That's why companies like Apple and the proprietary-everything imaging gear makers eschew it so much.
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,318
311
Canada
#31
yes, Cell + WiFi will fit onto an SD card, easily. And I'd prefer it on SD cards. And I'd like all cameras to come with 2 SD slots plus 2 Micro SD slots, all of them UHS III, it is late 2018 after all, not 2008. Those 4 slots would fit easily into any ILC camera.

That way we could use the cards easily in different camera bodies and when we get a new camera, we would not have to buy all the comms stuff over and over. Modular solutions would be the most customer-friendly design. That's why companies like Apple and the proprietary-everything imaging gear makers eschew it so much.
I was being sarcastic (at Canon, not you)…..

I have been using those modules in projects for at least ten years.... they are old tech now.....
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,147
140
118
#32
For those that actually want what the app could have been take a look at Cascable, I can confirm it works well in both direct connection and via a LAN with the WFT.
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,929
175
Vancouver, BC
#33
I use 1DX MkII's and the WFT-E8 so bigger battery and external, but older, antenna. However it does have IEEE 802.11ac (7 Gbps/875 MBps) vs the 6D MkII's 802.11b/g/n (Max 300 Mbps/37.5 MBps), so potentially 23 times the data rate. In practice the 1DX MkII and WFT-E8 is reliably sending a 20mp RAW file to my iPad in 2-3 seconds.
Ah it is the 802.11ac. I wish we didn't have to go to a 1D to get that!!
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,318
311
Canada
#34
Ah it is the 802.11ac. I wish we didn't have to go to a 1D to get that!!
It takes me about 3 seconds to transfer a RAW image on the 6D2.... I live in a rural setting, have aluminum siding and a steel roof so there is very little signal interference in the house, which means we are looking at an absolute best case scenario.... (I have to go to one particular window to get 1 bar of cell phone signal)

If I try this at a friends house, it takes at least 5 seconds......
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
109
#35
it is just a bad joke if 2018 cameras do NOT come with 802.11ac .. or NOT with USB 3.1 *Gen 2*
 
Last edited:
#36
Just a friendly tip: if your iOS device has True Tone Display, make sure you turn that feature off before you start correcting color and could end up looking absolutely stupid on a color accurate monitor. According to Apple...this feature helps people working with demanding color accuracy and it shows how detached they have become to the professional world.
 
#37
it is just a bad joke if 2018 cameras do NOT come with 802.11ac .. or NOT with USB 3.1 *Gen 2*
I'm still dumbfounded that my 1DX Mark II doesn't have built-in WiFi...but has GPS - a feature rarely used by most shooters, while WiFi could be used by everyone...and provide GPS information at the same time. Instead, I am expected to buy a $600 WiFi transmitter. Granted, it's a really good transmitter, but why couldn't the WiFi be built in and the camera require a GPS adapter if you really want to go that route, Canon?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,147
140
118
#38
I didn't really hanker for GPS but now I have it I find it an invaluable additional search term in the EXIF. I use GPS on every shot, I use WiFi maybe 10% of the time.

I got my WFT for $400 and am happy at that price given the improvements it has over the older models, I would certainly choose built in GPS over built in WIFi but agree by now with should be included.

I'm still dumbfounded that my 1DX Mark II doesn't have built-in WiFi...but has GPS - a feature rarely used by most shooters, while WiFi could be used by everyone...and provide GPS information at the same time. Instead, I am expected to buy a $600 WiFi transmitter. Granted, it's a really good transmitter, but why couldn't the WiFi be built in and the camera require a GPS adapter if you really want to go that route, Canon?