Wi-Fi / *** on 5D MK IV - Patent

[dolina]

Might not have any space there or the distance may cause interference.

 

[AvTvM]

So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.

If you put anything within 1 wavelength of an antenna (roughly) you start to "pull" it, closer and things get worse. IF you "pre load" with a metal backplane to try and reduce the effect you make the antenna very directional and narrowband. One wavelength is about 12cm at 2.4GHz.

Now take a photo looking through the viewfinder.. oh dear the wifi just dropped out as your cheek pressed against the antenna, pulled it off frequency and trapped the signals between the metal body and the users ...

every little smartphone on this planet manages to establish and maintain connection(s) to (multiple) wireless networks on very different frequency bands: mobile net (GSM, UMTS, LTE), WIFI b/g/n/ac networks, bluetooth, NFC and to *** satellites. And mitacle over miracles, they keep doing so even when the user presses the phone tvery closely and tightly o his/her ear. very tightly and closely.cheap and small digicams also achieve the feat to wirelessly connect to WIFI networks - all with internal antennas, nothing stickibg out, no separate contraptions to be purchased by users at excessive cost.

Only the biggest, fattest and most expensive CaNikin mirrorslappers happen to lack this simple and basic ability - even in 2015. all of them do have a large LCD display around which any sort of antenna can be easily placed. No matter how much aluminium-magnesium the rest of the camera body contains.

 

[rfdesigner]

So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.

If you put anything within 1 wavelength of an antenna (roughly) you start to "pull" it, closer and things get worse. IF you "pre load" with a metal backplane to try and reduce the effect you make the antenna very directional and narrowband. One wavelength is about 12cm at 2.4GHz.

Now take a photo looking through the viewfinder.. oh dear the wifi just dropped out as your cheek pressed against the antenna, pulled it off frequency and trapped the signals between the metal body and the users ...

every little smartphone on this planet manages to establish and maintain connection(s) to (multiple) wireless networks on very different frequency bands: mobile net (GSM, UMTS, LTE), WIFI b/g/n/ac networks, bluetooth, NFC and to *** satellites. And mitacle over miracles, they keep doing so even when the user presses the phone tvery closely and tightly o his/her ear. very tightly and closely.cheap and small digicams also achieve the feat to wirelessly connect to WIFI networks - all with internal antennas, nothing stickibg out, no separate contraptions to be purchased by users at excessive cost.

Only the biggest, fattest and most expensive CaNikin mirrorslappers happen to lack this simple and basic ability - even in 2015. all of them do have a large LCD display around which any sort of antenna can be easily placed. No matter how much aluminium-magnesium the rest of the camera body contains.

I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.

1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF

2. Metal is reflective to RF.

3. Smartphones / cheap digitcams / consumer DSLRs are mostly plastic, and even when they contain large lumps of metal they are cut back in the region of the antenna... this is EXACTLY what is done on the 6D.

If you place the antenna on the "human" side of the camera then have lots of metal in close proximity on the other side of the antenna then the link will worsen, such that range is substantially limited... it's a poor choice.

On a phone with GSM850/900/1800/1900 3G UMTS *** etc etc the plastic case means the antenna can be placed at the furthest point from the front, either by the mic or speaker.. often at both; Many modern radio chips now allow for antenna diversity, meaning you have two antennas two receivers and a processor to decide which antenna and receiver is giving the least error laden datasteam for any given moment, this makes a huge difference to link reliability and quality.

Additionally not all radio systems are required to work consistantly and reliably during a call, I would not be at all shocked to see *** performance fall off somewhat during a call... however if the antenna is in the very top corner of the phone it might not be effected much as it would still be pointed skyward.

To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back

The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.

It takes lots of time effort and experience by knowledgable people to make it work well and reliably.

If you'd started by saying "come on Canon, Nikon did this X years ago, what are you doing?", I'd have a lot more time for your argument... but comming on with quarter baked ideas on how to do it isn't helpful.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back

The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.

It takes lots of time effort and experience by knowledgable people to make it work well and reliably.

If you'd started by saying "come on Canon, Nikon did this X years ago, what are you doing?", I'd have a lot more time for your argument... but comming on with quarter baked ideas on how to do it isn't helpful.

Good explanations, something I'm not so good at.

We often see comments from those who merely see the results of technology, and think it was easy, so anything is possible.

Not everyone here is a engineer, so while a good explanation is great, it will not be understood by everyone.

Those of us who are electrical engineers have had years of school and then more years of job experience, so we know that phrases like radio waves easily pass thru plastic are not always true, it depends on the material and the frequency. As you look deeper and deeper into it, you start to see the limitations.

Placing antennas on a polymer prism housing away from the metal body, and fingers is a reasonable solution. The interference generated by a flash is not signigicant when it comes to *** or Wi-Fi, since its a short pulse. But, for controlling another flash, it is likely a issue. That's likely why a Canon ST-E3-RT does not include a internal flash to send optical signals like the ST-E2 did. You are forced to get a flash away from it.

 

[grainier]

I've always felt that the entire "magnesium interference" argument is a load of bull to keep pushing $850 file transmitters.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've always felt that the entire "magnesium interference" argument is a load of bull to keep pushing $850 file transmitters.

Why? Its well known (Since 1836 or longer) that metals or conductive surfaces cause havoc with radio waves.

Look up Faraday Cage. You cannot get a radio signal into or out of one. You can create openings and signals beyond a certain frequency based on the size of the opening will pass. Even plastics enclosures can block radio waves if they are conductive.

 

[kaihp]

To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back

The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.

It takes lots of time effort and experience by knowledgable people to make it work well and reliably.

If you'd started by saying "come on Canon, Nikon did this X years ago, what are you doing?", I'd have a lot more time for your argument... but comming on with quarter baked ideas on how to do it isn't helpful.

Good explanations, something I'm not so good at.

We often see comments from those who merely see the results of technology, and think it was easy, so anything is possible.

Not everyone here is a engineer, so while a good explanation is great, it will not be understood by everyone.

Those of us who are electrical engineers have had years of school and then more years of job experience, so we know that phrases like radio waves easily pass thru plastic are not always true, it depends on the material and the frequency. As you look deeper and deeper into it, you start to see the limitations.

Placing antennas on a polymer prism housing away from the metal body, and fingers is a reasonable solution. The interference generated by a flash is not signigicant when it comes to *** or Wi-Fi, since its a short pulse. But, for controlling another flash, it is likely a issue. That's likely why a Canon ST-E3-RT does not include a internal flash to send optical signals like the ST-E2 did. You are forced to get a flash away from it.

Carbon (which is sometimes used to make plastic black) also interferes with RF radiation. Been there, changed that plastic.

While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.

I wear a hearing aid with bluethooth and FM, and its plastic, not metal. That's a huge difference. Its not a issue with plastic camera bodies, their are zillions of cameras with plastic bodies that have Wi-Fi.

Its the metal body that makes it difficult.

 

[tpatana]

One way would be to use the existing metal and make a cut-out to be the antenna.

Or almost any other antenna position too, even if it'll have 10-20dB attenuation due to the body metal, so what? I'm not expecting 100m wifi range from my camera anyway. ~10m is good enough. Make it .11ac with two antennas and it'll push 100+ Mbps in most scenarios.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Carbon (which is sometimes used to make plastic black) also interferes with RF radiation. Been there, changed that plastic.

I've actually had a shipment of black wiring intended for space use fail our test. (we test everything and every inch of wire insulation)

After investigating, it turned out that the extrusion operator had dumped a huge amount of carbon black into the hopper of his machine (More is better - Right?). There was so much carbon that the insulation was conductive. Properly manufactured plastics with the correct amount of carbon black are not a issue. Its just a example of a manufacturing operation where the workers can not possibly understand all the aspects of coloring plastic, they are given a formula to follow. On the other hand, they do know the effects of time, temperature, humidity, ... everything needed to run their machine, and most turn out great products.

 

[Maiaibing]

I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.

1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF

2. Metal is reflective to RF.

3. Smartphones / cheap digitcams / consumer DSLRs are mostly plastic, and even when they contain large lumps of metal they are cut back in the region of the antenna... this is EXACTLY what is done on the 6D.

If you place the antenna on the "human" side of the camera then have lots of metal in close proximity on the other side of the antenna then the link will worsen, such that range is substantially limited... it's a poor choice.

Wow. I could have sworn my iphone was metal on the back and glass on the front with an antenna on the side. Wonder how Apple makes it work?

 

[douglaurent]

I am at least sure that the 5D4 will have ***. The 5D4 will be behind the Sony A7R2 in so many ways (even if they add all the features a DSLR can have that the mirrorless A7R2 does have now), that Canon will make sure they at least include some of the the few features the A7R2 doesn't have as sales argument (like ***).

Aside from that, i think Canon should stop making cameras for now and then return in 2017 with a mirrorless full frame AND medium format camera system, plus lenses that cover medium format. Otherwise only a few sports shooters and all uninformed or loyal people will continue to buy Canon if they keep up this pace of little innovation. Unfortunately I fear that the 5D5 in 2020 will be a weaker camera than the A7R2 is today.

 

[meywd]

I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.

1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF

2. Metal is reflective to RF.

3. Smartphones / cheap digitcams / consumer DSLRs are mostly plastic, and even when they contain large lumps of metal they are cut back in the region of the antenna... this is EXACTLY what is done on the 6D.

If you place the antenna on the "human" side of the camera then have lots of metal in close proximity on the other side of the antenna then the link will worsen, such that range is substantially limited... it's a poor choice.

Wow. I could have sworn my iphone was metal on the back and glass on the front with an antenna on the side. Wonder how Apple makes it work?

The iPhone antenna is on all sides, did you not hear of the grip issue? if you cover the antenna it will make the signal too weak, and the issue is not only with the iPhone, if you cover any phone with your hands the signal gets too weak, but phones with external antennas didn't have the issue of course.

 

[tpatana]

If you design around it, you can make the metal work for you. I don't work for Apple so not sure on this, but e.g. on this one it looks they have broken the top and bottom metal cover, and I'm guessing those are exactly for antenna reasons:

http://www.techinsights.com/blog-teardown/blog.aspx?blogmonth=12&blogyear=2014&blogid=2147484418#sthash.GocqYfhr.dpbs

 

[AvTvM]

While it takes a bit of engineerin/design, it is definitely not rocket science to enable a camera - including fat old mirrorslappers partially (!) made of metal - to communicate wirelessly in any way, frequency and protocol like any smartphone can. It is 2015. not 1869.

CaNikon just want to force their 850 wtf wifi bricks on their customers. Thats the only "technical issue" here.

I dont care at all where they stick the antennas. It just needs to work. After all these mute years !

 

[kaihp]

While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.

I wear a hearing aid with bluethooth and FM, and its plastic, not metal. That's a huge difference. Its not a issue with plastic camera bodies, their are zillions of cameras with plastic bodies that have Wi-Fi.

Its the metal body that makes it difficult.

Now this is not really the right forums to argue about hearing aids and RF, but most "bluetooth hearing aids" don't have bluetooth built in, but requires an intermediate device to get to bluetooth. Only ReSound, Beltone, and Starkey have it built-in (any other brand on that page just buys the aid from Starkey or the technology from us). If it's not one of those mentioned on the MFi page, the Bluetooth radio sits in the intermediate device.

By the way, even plastics influence RF performance, since they don't have a unity relative dielectricity constant.
Believe me, we've been all over those problems for the last 5+ years.

 

[Etienne]

So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.

If you put anything within 1 wavelength of an antenna (roughly) you start to "pull" it, closer and things get worse. IF you "pre load" with a metal backplane to try and reduce the effect you make the antenna very directional and narrowband. One wavelength is about 12cm at 2.4GHz.

Now take a photo looking through the viewfinder.. oh dear the wifi just dropped out as your cheek pressed against the antenna, pulled it off frequency and trapped the signals between the metal body and the users ...

every little smartphone on this planet manages to establish and maintain connection(s) to (multiple) wireless networks on very different frequency bands: mobile net (GSM, UMTS, LTE), WIFI b/g/n/ac networks, bluetooth, NFC and to *** satellites. And mitacle over miracles, they keep doing so even when the user presses the phone tvery closely and tightly o his/her ear. very tightly and closely.cheap and small digicams also achieve the feat to wirelessly connect to WIFI networks - all with internal antennas, nothing stickibg out, no separate contraptions to be purchased by users at excessive cost.

Only the biggest, fattest and most expensive CaNikin mirrorslappers happen to lack this simple and basic ability - even in 2015. all of them do have a large LCD display around which any sort of antenna can be easily placed. No matter how much aluminium-magnesium the rest of the camera body contains.

I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.

1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF

2. Metal is reflective to RF.

3. Smartphones / cheap digitcams / consumer DSLRs are mostly plastic, and even when they contain large lumps of metal they are cut back in the region of the antenna... this is EXACTLY what is done on the 6D.

If you place the antenna on the "human" side of the camera then have lots of metal in close proximity on the other side of the antenna then the link will worsen, such that range is substantially limited... it's a poor choice.

On a phone with GSM850/900/1800/1900 3G UMTS *** etc etc the plastic case means the antenna can be placed at the furthest point from the front, either by the mic or speaker.. often at both; Many modern radio chips now allow for antenna diversity, meaning you have two antennas two receivers and a processor to decide which antenna and receiver is giving the least error laden datasteam for any given moment, this makes a huge difference to link reliability and quality.

Additionally not all radio systems are required to work consistantly and reliably during a call, I would not be at all shocked to see *** performance fall off somewhat during a call... however if the antenna is in the very top corner of the phone it might not be effected much as it would still be pointed skyward.

To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back

The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.

It takes lots of time effort and experience by knowledgable people to make it work well and reliably.

If you'd started by saying "come on Canon, Nikon did this X years ago, what are you doing?", I'd have a lot more time for your argument... but comming on with quarter baked ideas on how to do it isn't helpful.

And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly.
Something doesn't add up.

 

[unfocused]

So utterly ridiculous...

If you put anything within 1 wavelength of an antenna (roughly) you start to "pull" it, closer and things get worse...

every little smartphone on this planet manages to establish and maintain connection(s) to (multiple) wireless networks on very different frequency bands...

I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again...

And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly.
Something doesn't add up.

I find it very hard to believe that a company that can develop DPAF, 250 MP sensors, a 1 million ISO sensor and many, many other innovations cannot find a way around this problem.

I've spoken out enough on another thread about how the lack of simple connectivity and mobile apps by all the camera manufacturers is doing a disservice to their customers. If that is truly their excuse for not making their cameras more mobile friendly they need a new engineering team.

 

[tpatana]

I find it very hard to believe that a company that can develop DPAF, 250 MP sensors, a 1 million ISO sensor and many, many other innovations cannot find a way around this problem.

The truth was already mentioned above. The add-on modules have some 300-1000% profit margin, so they want to keep selling them.

Unfortunately I'm not so confident that they have done good analysis how many body-sales they miss because someone buys another brand for those features.

Wifi chipsets cost next to nothing, so any device since 2010 or so should have one. Regardless of the device. PC, camera, TV, cell phone, DVD-player, car, toothbrush, motorcycle, tennis racket, vibrator, house thermostat, nail polish application drying device, tripod, etc...

 

[jeffa4444]

One of the main attractions to the 6D is wi-fi and ***. If I had to forgo one it would be *** the wi-fi I use for remote shooting with an iPhone and to review shots on either the iPhone or iPad it's now a must have feature for me.
In the instant world of Facebook, Flickr, Snapchat etc. wi-if is the norm Canon must know this and has to move with the times regardless of what camera it is.