The 5DsR mk2

[Talys]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

Here's the thing: how many people would be willing to pay for cellular data plan to upload photos directly from a camera?

Sending photos from a smartphone makes sense because you're paying for a data plan anyways, so the best we can do with a camera is to leverage the smartphone and send a photo that way. The problem is that this will always be much clunkier than directly sending it from a smartphone, because there are no technologies for maintaining constant connection between phone and camera and not sucking up battery, and there are no good (seamless) technologies for a paired connection on demand between smartphone and camera.

 

[Random Orbits]

The weird bit for me is that the device I wish more seamlessly could share photos to the world -- my 5D3 -- is also the device I am most like capture photos that I want to post-process on my own.

I always shoot RAW + JPG as I am not buffer constrained in what/how I shoot. I archive JPG straight out of camera, but the keepers I want to share show off here, on social media, etc. are overwhelmingly my better shots that I want to clean up in ACR.

And using PS on the ipad or the lighter version of it on the Phone is not at all my cup of tea, I wish I had lightning quick connectivity for... the non-keepers? That's weird, right? This is probably why I've never bought a DSLR with wifi.

- A

WiFi on the 5D IV has come in handy at times. I've moved files from the camera to the phone and then emailed them out or put them on FB. Not very often, but it's nice to have. One notable time this happened was when I was traveling for work in AL. I had the weekend free, so I went to Little River Canyon National Preserve. I had stopped by an overlook, and across the canyon was one of the tallest falls in AL (Grace's High Falls). The ranger didn't think it was running (seasonal), but it was. It was just me and a group of bikers. The bikers remarked how beautiful it was, but they couldn't take pictures of it with their cellphones because it was across the canyon. I had the 70-300L. One of the bikers remarked how she wished she had a camera like that, and that's when I offered to email the picture of the falls to her.

 

[unfocused]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

Admittedly I'm not the most tech savvy person, so I may have missed it. Could you point me to the menu item on the 5DIV that allows me to upload an image directly to Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram with the same ease that it can be done on an iPhone?

I thought I was pretty clear that I was comparing the seamless smart phone user experience to the clunky DSLR experience and never suggested it was impossible with a wifi connected camera. Although I would point out that DSLRs have been very late to the party – My 1DxII has a crippled touch screen and no wifi. And, I don't consider having to connect to a second device as really being an acceptable solution.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

Admittedly I'm not the most tech savvy person, so I may have missed it. Could you point me to the menu item on the 5DIV that allows me to upload an image directly to Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram with the same ease that it can be done on an iPhone?

I thought I was pretty clear that I was comparing the seamless smart phone user experience to the clunky DSLR experience and never suggested it was impossible with a wifi connected camera. Although I would point out that DSLRs have been very late to the party – My 1DxII has a crippled touch screen and no wifi. And, I don't consider having to connect to a second device as really being an acceptable solution.

We are in complete agreement.

The only part of your opinion I considered incorrect was the exact quote of yours I clipped, that it can't be done in seconds, it can, though I 100% agree with you it is clunky at best and for those that are interested in social media posting pro and semi pro cameras are simply not designed with that functionality adequately in mind.

I suppose the bottom line is camera makers think of the pro/semi pro bodies as completely different tools, tractors only have one seat and no luggage space, but they tow better than any SUV. The 1 and 5 series cameras can be hooked up to servers and computers, wired or wirelessly, and have tagged images put out on cable services in seconds, just look at the Olympics as proof of that.

But, as has been pointed out, if you want the functionality without a second device to upload it from then are you thinking you are going to want a data capable SIM card and associated contract? I don't, I'll take the WiFi or Ethernet connection and send it to a more appropriate device.

I did do a series of studio shoots for college sports stars and they were very social media minded. I shot tethered into LR where I had a custom preset that processed the images and then they could be copied to 'Publish Services' to any number of social media sites from within LR. In total about 4 or 5 clicks of the mouse had the selected images imported, processed, cropped, tagged, and uploaded to social media in seconds.

If I wanted the workflow you are looking for today I'd connect a 5D MkIV via the built in WiFi to a SIM enabled iPad via an adhoc network to LR, then I'd do basic selects and edits and use the share functionality to post to wherever you want, that isn't time consuming or involved and you can do exactly the same thing on your phone if you are more interested in posting than image quality.

 

[dak723]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

Here's the thing: how many people would be willing to pay for cellular data plan to upload photos directly from a camera?

Sending photos from a smartphone makes sense because you're paying for a data plan anyways, so the best we can do with a camera is to leverage the smartphone and send a photo that way. The problem is that this will always be much clunkier than directly sending it from a smartphone, because there are no technologies for maintaining constant connection between phone and camera and not sucking up battery, and there are no good (seamless) technologies for a paired connection on demand between smartphone and camera.

Good to see that at least one person understands why there is no DIRECT connection to the internet and that you will always need to send the pics to your phone first.

 

[Mikehit]

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.

So let's ignore the fact that anyone who buys a full camera kit does so because it does things a smarthpone can, or that if you are happy with snapspeed there are plenty of free editing programs for computers, and let's ignore the monthly rental costs of a phone.

You have a decent point regards the capability of the technology but everything else is pretty specious.

I'm not sure what set you off and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm too thick. Did you mean to write: "...does things a smartphone CAN'T..."?

I wasn't making a cost comparison, I'm simply pointing out that all camera manufactures have massively failed to keep up with technology and photographers suffer as a result. (Not to mention that it hasn't helped their business either, as evidenced by the death of Point and Shoot and the decline in all camera sales)

Yo are right, I did mean 'can't'.

I am not really sure it is a 'massive failure' to keep up with technology and whether photographers really 'suffer'. Cameras are getting the option now to edit in camera (including Canon, shock...horror!) but let's face it, the reason cameras have those options is to crop (cameras have telephoto and zoom lenses to do it in the camera) and the reason that smartphones are overtaking cameras is not because a camera cannot upload to the internet but because it is smaller and the quality is good enough for them.
They will not leave their phone at home just because their camera can send images direct to the internet, they are leaving the camera at home because they will have the phone with them anyway and the image quality is good enough so why bother even buying a camera let alone take one with you.

Can they fit the wireless technology into a camera to give internet capability like a phone? I am not convinced, considering the challenges they have had even fitting bluetooth/wifi aerials that do not impact image quality - and those only needs to communicate over a few feet to a wifi point, not many miles to the nearest satellite. This is less an issue with phones because the image is of lower quality in the first place.

 

[unfocused]

I am not really sure it is a 'massive failure' to keep up with technology and whether photographers really 'suffer'...

...Can they fit the wireless technology into a camera to give internet capability like a phone? I am not convinced...

To your first point, I would just use one small example. Newspapers across the country, both large and small, have been cutting photography staffs and sending reporters out with iPhones and iPads. Mostly that is the result of the general collapse of the newspaper industry, but I'm sure it didn't help that a staff photographer with his or her purpose-built camera was unable to get the picture to the editor with the same speed as a reporter using an iPhone.

My point here is that all the camera manufacturers failed to comprehend the impact that connectivity would have on the industry. They failed professional photographers by not making connectivity a higher priority. Yes, the photographers at events like the Olympics or NFL games have massive support networks, LAN connections, etc. etc., to get the picture to the editors as soon as possible. But, for the vast majority of professional sports photographers who are one-man bands covering small colleges, minor league teams, etc., the industry hasn't put a priority on solving their challenges.

Imagine the frustration of the small market newspaper photographer who goes out to cover a breaking news event and by the time he or she is back in the office, the paper has received a dozen iPhone photos of exactly the same event. That's not good for job security. Especially in an industry where being first has traditionally had a much higher priority than being best.

Could some of those lost jobs have been saved if Canon and Nikon has placed greater priority on solving connectivity issues? We will never know. But, I'm willing to bet that at least a few unemployed staff photographers wish they had tried.

As to your point about the technical difficulties. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not when you look at the size of the typical smart phone.

 

[Mikehit]

Could some of those lost jobs have been saved if Canon and Nikon has placed greater priority on solving connectivity issues? We will never know. But, I'm willing to bet that at least a few unemployed staff photographers wish they had tried.

I very much doubt connectivity would have made a difference. People sending smartphone pictures is free. A photographer - and the paper would have had to pay the network charges for the photographer.

As to your point about the technical difficulties. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not when you look at the size of the typical smart phone.

You mentioned it right there. Size. A phone is smaller than camera and does a good enough job for most people.

"Hmm... I have a phone that has photo capabilities, or I can take my new-fangled camera that has internet capability but no phone"
Which do you think wins out?

But my main point was the technology - I often take the reductionist approach which would be "if the technology is available right now, why haven't they...". I think 'because they can't be bothered is too simplistic.
Someone has gone to the trouble of developing the Eyefi card but even that is only a link to a phone. Why have they not designed one to connect to the internet like a phone card?

If internet capability is as important to pros as you say, do you think camera manufacturers wouldn't be trampling over themselves to build it in? Maybe they have asked pros and there are things more important. Maybe the pros don't even think it is on their radar as an important functionality so don't ask for it. Maybe if the manufacturers put their minds to it, they could overcome all the technological hurdles and do it but they have more important things to do.
Put all that together and there is a very strong argument that although people like the opportunity to post to Instagram within 10 seconds of taking the photo, in cameras vs phone battle is matters squat.