***
This piece appeared in the gdgt weekly newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter here: gdgt.com/newsletter/
***
I found out via one of my sources -- yes, I still have some! -- that Sony is quietly working on a digital camera with built-in 3G. I know what you're thinking: isn't that just a cameraphone? Well, from what I'm hearing this wouldn't be something you could use for making calls. Instead it'd be something like a regular Cyber-shot camera, just with a built-in wireless modem for uploading and sharing photos and videos with various services (probably YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr, if I had to guess). Some level of free data service would come with purchase, probably enough to upload a couple of dozen photos per month, with the option to sign up for a larger plan if you need it.
I'm not totally sure when, or even if, this specific product will see the light of day, but it does raise the question of whether connecting to the cloud would be enough to stem the decline in sales of point-and-shoot cameras. (None of the most popular cameras on Flickr are point-and-shoots, for example.) The cameras in smartphones have been getting steadily better over the years, and are finally at a point where they're good enough for most casual photography. Or at least they're good enough now that most people don't feel the need to carry a dedicated camera with them unless they're on vacation or it's some other special occasion. It's not that dedicated digital cameras are simply going to disappear or anything like that -- I like to think that even Steve Jobs wouldn't want his wedding shot on an iPhone -- but I do think digital cameras need to become connected devices if they're going to have much of a future outside of professionals and prosumers.
Smartphones have shown how much people love to share their photos and there are now tons of apps that make it dead easy to take a photo and share it online. Adding wireless capability to a point-and-shoot would mean adding that same convenience and ease of photo sharing that the lower-quality cameras in smartphones have had for years. Not everyone would care -- and I expect to hear that from a fair number of you -- but I'm sure connecting it to the cloud would make carrying a dedicated camera much more attractive for a lot of people. I'd know I'd love it if I could more easily share the higher quality pictures I'm taking on my Canon S95 on Flickr or Twitter or Instagram, and it's hard to imagine there aren't plenty of others like me. There aren't really any technical reasons why this couldn't happen, I bet it'd be relatively simple to use Android to build a wireless-enabled point-and-shoot that'd have the flexibility to work with all sorts of different apps and online services.
Sure, a growing number of digital cameras are coming with built-in WiFi, and you can add that functionality to plenty of others via an Eye-Fi card, but for wireless to be truly useful on a portable device it needs to be ubiquitous, and for that you need built-in 3G or 4G, not just WiFi (would your smartphone be all that useful if it could only do data over WiFi?). Given how inexpensive it's becoming to add a 3G modem to a gadget, sooner or later we'll probably reach a point where the price difference is small enough to make choosing between a connected camera and a non-connected camera a no-brainer for anyone in the market. The difference in price between the 3G Kindle and the WiFi-only Kindle is already just fifty bucks -- and that includes data service (although of course uploading photos is more bandwidth intensive than downloading ebooks). In two years that could easily be twenty bucks.
Would hooking a dedicated camera into online services turn sales of point-and-shoots around? I don't know if that in and of itself would be enough, but I think there's a growing expectation that our electronics -- whether it's our phone, ebook reader, game console, television, etc. -- be able to connect to the web. There's no reason why our cameras should be any different.
Anyway, would love to get your thoughts!
Discussion about
Is it time for a cloud camera?
I think this would be a great idea but my main concerns are going to be the cost of having that data plan for the camera. I'm already paying for a data plan for my phone and I don't want to pay another $10-$15 for another data plan that only allows me to upload pictures online. My other concern is the place the pictures will be uploaded to. As of right now, I use dropbox was my main cloud storage. I really don't like the idea of having my pictures in Sony's servers, my docs in dropbox, and my music in some other cloud storage service. Id like to consolidate all my files online in one service and only pay for one service thatll do all of those.
I already invented a Canon / Android device way back in 2010 :P www.behance.net/gallery/neet-a-a-digital-camera-fo...
Looks good! Only problems I can see with your idea are the size of the buttons (a bit too small for normal fingers) and the battery life.
Interesting. If I recall correctly, didn't the T-Mobile (Danger) Sidekick store all of your photos -- and all your other data -- in the cloud back in 2004? You were able to go to your T-mo account on the web and view/download your stuff. This was all pre-social media for sure, but way ahead of its time. Only problem was when their servers went down occasionally, everything mysteriously disappeared from your device.
Like you mentioned, if it's something casual or spontaneous, I'd rather use my phone. I still don't think most phones are up to par with P&S in the image quality department, but it's all about the convenience. I actually think this would be more interesting if they implement this into DSLRs since the quality of the photo tends to be way better than any phone or P&S.
Knowing Sony, I have a feeling they'll have great hardware, but do a mediocre job on the software. I don't want to just be able to send pictures into the cloud, I want to be able to add titles, descriptions, tags, etc... My expectations are low in software department if Sony actually brings these to market.
Knowing Sony, I have a feeling they'll have great hardware, but do a mediocre job on the software. I don't want to just be able to send pictures into the cloud, I want to be able to add titles, descriptions, tags, etc... My expectations are low in software department if Sony actually brings these to market.
I work at a university where we rent out equipment to faculty and students, including both still and video cameras, and this is the number one feature people wish our cameras had. These individuals are not in the tech savvy crowd and want a way to quickly and easily share images and videos online that are of decent quality. A lot of them have serious trouble getting files from their device to their computer, not to mention figuring out how to upload them online. I think there would be a large market for these among the average consumer who may not be looking to spend an hour transferring files, doing conversions, and uploading them to their service of choice.
I'm going to put my fanboy hat on and point out that WP7 phones can be set to automatically upload to skydrive already. While it's handy I don't see it as a killer feature. It just moves the data transfer and organisation from the USB port to the web browser.
The biggest benefit I see is stopping people who have been caught doing something they shouldn't on camera from taking the device to stop the publication of pictures. While a good thing, not all that common a requirement.
The biggest benefit I see is stopping people who have been caught doing something they shouldn't on camera from taking the device to stop the publication of pictures. While a good thing, not all that common a requirement.
I briefly tried to do this with my iphone exclusively using the Flickr app to take & upload pics. I have to say it was not a great experience. Maybe if the new camera connected to a repository in the background, and had the ability keep shooting while it uploaded, without having to prompt you for file details, descriptions, etc.
But I think another real challenge would be the data cost on a non-wifi connection. With a decent camera, you could come up against a 2 or 4 GB data cap pretty quickly.
But I think another real challenge would be the data cost on a non-wifi connection. With a decent camera, you could come up against a 2 or 4 GB data cap pretty quickly.
This post has been removed.
Are Apple and Canon working on something similar/better? gizmodo.com/#!5780499/are-apple-and-canon-working-...
The biggest difference in how I use my P&S and DSLR vs. the camera in my phone is the number of shots I take. The phone camera gets used for singletons - status updates, doco (prices, names, etc.). I often take many shots of the same subject with the 'real' cameras - the blind pig theory of photographic success. The culling that happens on the desktop before I upload to Flickr is a key part of the process. So - personally - I would pay an adder of $0 for a cloudified P&S - the cloud really is phonecam territory for me.
As a proud new owner of a Xoom, I have been wanting to ditch my MacBook. The only problem is, how do I get my DSLR photos to the web?
I have a Canon Rebel T2i. I don't want to use a microSD card with an adapter since anything above a class 2 would be expensive (and I already have a 32 GB class 6 SD card in it). Does Android 3.0 even support external hdd/usb storage other than the built in microSD slot (that has yet to be activated via software)?
Yeah, I know you can use an eye-fi, but I don't think they have memory cards above 8 GB. And don't you need a network/router to do that? Would it even work on a cell phone using it as a hot spot?
So yes, I DEFINITELY think DSLRs should have some type of wireless connection or capability. At least the ability to tether to a phone or something, so I can store the massive photos on my Google account since I pay for more storage. Only problem is, upload times would be a bitch for RAW files!
Anyone have any suggestions for me in order to get rid of my MacBook for mobile computing and just using the Xoom and my Evo?
I have a Canon Rebel T2i. I don't want to use a microSD card with an adapter since anything above a class 2 would be expensive (and I already have a 32 GB class 6 SD card in it). Does Android 3.0 even support external hdd/usb storage other than the built in microSD slot (that has yet to be activated via software)?
Yeah, I know you can use an eye-fi, but I don't think they have memory cards above 8 GB. And don't you need a network/router to do that? Would it even work on a cell phone using it as a hot spot?
So yes, I DEFINITELY think DSLRs should have some type of wireless connection or capability. At least the ability to tether to a phone or something, so I can store the massive photos on my Google account since I pay for more storage. Only problem is, upload times would be a bitch for RAW files!
Anyone have any suggestions for me in order to get rid of my MacBook for mobile computing and just using the Xoom and my Evo?
i own an eye-fi card and working in technology and being a nerd/geek/dork about gadgets and tech, i can honestly say that the eye-fi card is one of the BEST things i've ever bought! i use a nikon d3100 and i have the 4gb card... i can take about 5 or 6 hundred pics with the 4gb at the full 14mp size.. after a party or whatever, i come home flip on the camera, and the eye-fi card automagically starts sending the pics by wifi to a nas box in my basement office...
now, yes, you do need a pc, or a server, or a linux box built into an altoids tin.. whatever.. the eyefi helper service has to run on a server of some kind... and even the cheapest oldest xp machine will do.. i use a pc that's always on in my basement.. and i have the pics going to a nas box where i can look at /edit / upload them to services from any pc in the house.. and i can also look at them from an xbox or any dlna connected device..
but it's only 4 gigs you say.... its plenty! even for my brand new nikon dslr... because i dont take more than 500 pictures a day! and whenever im home and the camera is on, it's creating folders (configurable naming system!) and dropping the pics in them and THEN it cleans the card off by itself!... you can choose for it not to, but i've never lost a picture OR movie yet.. for $40, you really cant go wrong with this awesome gadget!
as for the topic, i can see using a camera that would upload to fb while out in the field if it had an interface that let me choose which pictures to upload and which albums they go in... otherwise, i can usually wait to get home and edit/upload them from a laptop... my G2 works perfectly for the spur of the moment picture sharing kodak moments...
by the way, im jealous of your xoom.. cant wait for the cheaper wifi-only version! played with it at costco last night.. really excited.. been waiting for a great android alternative to the ipad for months now..
now, yes, you do need a pc, or a server, or a linux box built into an altoids tin.. whatever.. the eyefi helper service has to run on a server of some kind... and even the cheapest oldest xp machine will do.. i use a pc that's always on in my basement.. and i have the pics going to a nas box where i can look at /edit / upload them to services from any pc in the house.. and i can also look at them from an xbox or any dlna connected device..
but it's only 4 gigs you say.... its plenty! even for my brand new nikon dslr... because i dont take more than 500 pictures a day! and whenever im home and the camera is on, it's creating folders (configurable naming system!) and dropping the pics in them and THEN it cleans the card off by itself!... you can choose for it not to, but i've never lost a picture OR movie yet.. for $40, you really cant go wrong with this awesome gadget!
as for the topic, i can see using a camera that would upload to fb while out in the field if it had an interface that let me choose which pictures to upload and which albums they go in... otherwise, i can usually wait to get home and edit/upload them from a laptop... my G2 works perfectly for the spur of the moment picture sharing kodak moments...
by the way, im jealous of your xoom.. cant wait for the cheaper wifi-only version! played with it at costco last night.. really excited.. been waiting for a great android alternative to the ipad for months now..
This post has been removed.
Hmm, so for everyday shots it sounds like a great idea. But everyday shots can easily be uploaded to a desktop, and if I lose a photo I took I won't be as upset compared to losing a photo I took while at the Grand Canyon, or in the Amazon, or something like that.
I'm thinking more along the lines of an "epic traveler." Someone who might not be able to carry a computer around or get to one all the time, but might be around a wireless network that could implement the Xoom's wifi. Like when I went around Europe for 18 days/17 nights, I had one large hiking backpack filled with my clothes and stuff I needed. it weighed around 45-50 lbs. I didn't stay in one city for more than 2 nights and was constantly on the move so I can see and photograph as much as possible. At the end of the day I was too tired sometimes to get out the netbook and upload all of my pics and back them up since I usually had to plug in the power adapter since it has as horrible battery.
For example, when I went on my trip to Europe, even if I could fit all the pictures I wanted on a single 32 GB card (or even two of them for that matter), I run the risk of losing my files in case the SD card gets damaged or lost/stolen. I want a direct way to connect a DSLR memory card to a phone or tablet. I suppose I could use a netbook, but those weigh a little more than a tablet and have a power brick that's larger than the one a tablet uses.
I'm thinking more along the lines of an "epic traveler." Someone who might not be able to carry a computer around or get to one all the time, but might be around a wireless network that could implement the Xoom's wifi. Like when I went around Europe for 18 days/17 nights, I had one large hiking backpack filled with my clothes and stuff I needed. it weighed around 45-50 lbs. I didn't stay in one city for more than 2 nights and was constantly on the move so I can see and photograph as much as possible. At the end of the day I was too tired sometimes to get out the netbook and upload all of my pics and back them up since I usually had to plug in the power adapter since it has as horrible battery.
For example, when I went on my trip to Europe, even if I could fit all the pictures I wanted on a single 32 GB card (or even two of them for that matter), I run the risk of losing my files in case the SD card gets damaged or lost/stolen. I want a direct way to connect a DSLR memory card to a phone or tablet. I suppose I could use a netbook, but those weigh a little more than a tablet and have a power brick that's larger than the one a tablet uses.
The only cameras I use now are my DSLR and my iPhone 4. My point-and-shoot collects dust these days because the iPhone 4 is good enough for when I don't have my DSLR with me. The iPhone's camera comes attached to an always connected device that makes it easy to not just post photos, but caption, edit, tag them. Just adding connectivity to a point-and-shoot doesn't make it that much more useful right off the bat. A small step up, but still a small step.
For my DSLR, well, I would never upload straight from the camera. Photos are too large and I like to work with them on a computer first.
Then factor in the cost of ANOTHER monthly data bill if the data that comes with it is only enough for a small amount of photos. I just can't take more monthly bills.
A nice idea, but not a game-changer.
For my DSLR, well, I would never upload straight from the camera. Photos are too large and I like to work with them on a computer first.
Then factor in the cost of ANOTHER monthly data bill if the data that comes with it is only enough for a small amount of photos. I just can't take more monthly bills.
A nice idea, but not a game-changer.
This post has been removed.
In urban areas, in 'first world' countries, the pervasiveness of wi-fi, wi-max, LTE, and such, would make 3G in a camera redundant, soon anyway.
I can see a case for travelers although most places you'd travel to would probably have limited or non-existent 3G coverage. I live in Hong Kong where it's blanketed with wi-fi and 3G but, in places like Nepal or Bhutan, and so on, it would be pointless and even if they do have it, the roaming charges would be crippling even @ $5/Mb.
It this stage I'd say it's definitely a limited use case.
I'd say Eye-Fi or a variant of that kind of tech, or built into the camera, would be a much more suitable arrangement. For a wider base of users (hence more sales of the camera) wi-fi of sorts would do better. Even in countries with no 3G, there is often wi-fi at an airport or hotel. And for non-travelers, there's coffee shops, etc.
A lot of tech is U.S. or Asia-centric but the world is a big place and a lot of markets just don't support 3G networks at this stage. 3G in a camera, at this point, would limit the market for the camera too severely to make it viable, in my opinion.
So, time for a cloud camera? Yes, definitely. Time for a 3G cloud camera? No.
I can see a case for travelers although most places you'd travel to would probably have limited or non-existent 3G coverage. I live in Hong Kong where it's blanketed with wi-fi and 3G but, in places like Nepal or Bhutan, and so on, it would be pointless and even if they do have it, the roaming charges would be crippling even @ $5/Mb.
It this stage I'd say it's definitely a limited use case.
I'd say Eye-Fi or a variant of that kind of tech, or built into the camera, would be a much more suitable arrangement. For a wider base of users (hence more sales of the camera) wi-fi of sorts would do better. Even in countries with no 3G, there is often wi-fi at an airport or hotel. And for non-travelers, there's coffee shops, etc.
A lot of tech is U.S. or Asia-centric but the world is a big place and a lot of markets just don't support 3G networks at this stage. 3G in a camera, at this point, would limit the market for the camera too severely to make it viable, in my opinion.
So, time for a cloud camera? Yes, definitely. Time for a 3G cloud camera? No.
One of the main benefits would be that a relatively cheap camera could offload the image processing to powerful datacentres in the cloud rather than rely on limited hardware in the camera.
I believe Microsoft are experimenting in this with Windows Azure and their WP7 phones
I believe Microsoft are experimenting in this with Windows Azure and their WP7 phones
It doesn't matter what it is, if it's Sony, don't buy it. As concerned citizens and gadgeteers, we should all keep an eye on the news and boycott Sony. They are doing a lot of evil stuff and we should show them what happens when you spit on your customers.
blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02/sonys-war-on-mak...
blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02/sonys-war-on-mak...
This post has been removed.
I worked in marketing for Canon in Europe for years. Every season, as the new models came out, we were pressured to push the same incremental technology upgrades in the face of declining sales and increasing popularity of mobile devices. And every season I used to scream for internet connectivity.
If users only want to carry one device, then put a damn phone in the camera, but make it connect!
Even if you have to plug your mobile phone into the USB port of the camera and share it's connection, it still makes sense. Imagine the pro or advanced amateur carrying his DSLR on a job or a trip, being able share data and to communicate with his clients, his agent, his office, his producer, or his family while shooting.
The point is, my point-and-shoot is still way better at imaging than my phone; you don't get good photos through a device the size of a contact lens. But I always have my phone on me; my camera, not so much. And when I'm finished shooting, I balk at transferring the shots to my computer in order to share them.
If users only want to carry one device, then put a damn phone in the camera, but make it connect!
Even if you have to plug your mobile phone into the USB port of the camera and share it's connection, it still makes sense. Imagine the pro or advanced amateur carrying his DSLR on a job or a trip, being able share data and to communicate with his clients, his agent, his office, his producer, or his family while shooting.
The point is, my point-and-shoot is still way better at imaging than my phone; you don't get good photos through a device the size of a contact lens. But I always have my phone on me; my camera, not so much. And when I'm finished shooting, I balk at transferring the shots to my computer in order to share them.
Personally I would love wifi and bluetooth capability on (more?) cameras. I am familiar with the Eye-Fi card, not that I own one, but I like the fact that it's an option for not much more $$. However, new hardware, a monthly fee, and more software on a camera does not sound like a good idea to me.
I love how you can buy a decent 10MP point and shoot for less than $100. Companies like Sony want to charge more for their products so taking something expensive, a 3G connection, and attaching it to hardware they already make to market an intangible situation could motivate people to buy expensive cameras with this ability. Great business idea. I often applaud Sony for trying to stuff the best specs into their products and letting the customer deal with the "customer experience." Often their software sucks and thus the "experience" is lacking, but that's a different argument.
From the customer standpoint I don't like more contracts, more $$ for the similar experience plus the initial "new product" cost, and I am always torn on market segmentation. More doesn't always equal better. Looking at all the Android devices on the market you would say that Android is successful, yet few devices get the newest software, leaving customers scratching their head, while every time Apple has a software update, all iPhones are able to be updated. Of course, many disagree with me, and there are certainly some things like bigger screens, keyboards, NFC, etc. that I wish I had on my iPhone sometimes.
How is making a camera more like a cellphone a good thing? For the people who are closet photographers on a budget it's a great idea. Similar to Sony's Experia Play for people who don't want to buy a PSP but would love to game on the go more (and like myself, hate touchscreen gaming). Apple making a tablet more like a cellphone (crossing fingers) is next and when iPads get powerful /durable enough, they will replace cellphones and everyday, light use, (cheap) laptops with the right peripherals (keyboard, earpiece, etc) for some people.
IMO Sony is just experimenting with crossing mobile platforms. They looked at cellphones and said 1-What do ppl like to do with their smartphones? Play games, take pictures, GPS, play music, etc. 2-What if we incorporated some aspects of cellphones into our cameras? We're Sony, let's give it a try.
Again, I don't see it being successful, but I like the direction. Sony loves to try new things, sometimes they hit home runs like Playstation and sometimes they don't. Would I buy one? No, Eye-Fi is cheaper, period. I don't like things having a 3G connection(except for phone), but Sony also realizes that people don't want a 22MP camera, so this is a new way to sell their cameras as better than last year's model and worth the extra $$.
I love how you can buy a decent 10MP point and shoot for less than $100. Companies like Sony want to charge more for their products so taking something expensive, a 3G connection, and attaching it to hardware they already make to market an intangible situation could motivate people to buy expensive cameras with this ability. Great business idea. I often applaud Sony for trying to stuff the best specs into their products and letting the customer deal with the "customer experience." Often their software sucks and thus the "experience" is lacking, but that's a different argument.
From the customer standpoint I don't like more contracts, more $$ for the similar experience plus the initial "new product" cost, and I am always torn on market segmentation. More doesn't always equal better. Looking at all the Android devices on the market you would say that Android is successful, yet few devices get the newest software, leaving customers scratching their head, while every time Apple has a software update, all iPhones are able to be updated. Of course, many disagree with me, and there are certainly some things like bigger screens, keyboards, NFC, etc. that I wish I had on my iPhone sometimes.
How is making a camera more like a cellphone a good thing? For the people who are closet photographers on a budget it's a great idea. Similar to Sony's Experia Play for people who don't want to buy a PSP but would love to game on the go more (and like myself, hate touchscreen gaming). Apple making a tablet more like a cellphone (crossing fingers) is next and when iPads get powerful /durable enough, they will replace cellphones and everyday, light use, (cheap) laptops with the right peripherals (keyboard, earpiece, etc) for some people.
IMO Sony is just experimenting with crossing mobile platforms. They looked at cellphones and said 1-What do ppl like to do with their smartphones? Play games, take pictures, GPS, play music, etc. 2-What if we incorporated some aspects of cellphones into our cameras? We're Sony, let's give it a try.
Again, I don't see it being successful, but I like the direction. Sony loves to try new things, sometimes they hit home runs like Playstation and sometimes they don't. Would I buy one? No, Eye-Fi is cheaper, period. I don't like things having a 3G connection(except for phone), but Sony also realizes that people don't want a 22MP camera, so this is a new way to sell their cameras as better than last year's model and worth the extra $$.
Such an cloud-enabled camera would have to have a large enough touchscreen to allow tagging and titling of photos - relying on dials to imput that data is going to a recipe for frustration! I'm imagining some kind of hybrid of a slimline point-and-shoot or micro-four-thirds front, dial controls recessed into the edges, and a giant touchscreen covering the back. Not sure how aesthetically pleasing this will look, or how you would fit battery / memory card / SIM into it...
Why not make it a phone, too? Samsung did this years ago with phones that South Korea only. They basically took some decent point & shots, and added a phone to the back. You could even mount filters, wide angle and tele converters, ... Why not take a T series CyberShot, and make the other side an Android phone. Sony uses touchscreens on some cameras anyway, and it's not like the T series cameras are huge. Some of the electronics could be shared (especially the battery and display, memory card slot (ok, maybe 2 would be a better idea, one for photo, one for data). And if I look at my HTC Magic most of the device is consumed by the battery. So while this wouldn't be the slimmest Android phone, it shouldn't be too bad. I think such a phone/camera would be quite interesting, although obviously Sony is evil and should not be supported.
But just a camera with added data plan and 3G? No. Not interested at all. Mostly because I'm not very interested in P&S, and especially with my DSLR I only shoot RAW. And why wouldn't one, if you have to pay for a data plan anyway, just get a phone with a better camera anyway? The N8 is somewhat compelling, especially when Nokia brings such hardware to WP7. And 12 MP is enough to zoom by cropping when you post on Facebook, so a zoom lens isn't that important anyway for such purposes. At least with such a phone you could surf the web too.
But just a camera with added data plan and 3G? No. Not interested at all. Mostly because I'm not very interested in P&S, and especially with my DSLR I only shoot RAW. And why wouldn't one, if you have to pay for a data plan anyway, just get a phone with a better camera anyway? The N8 is somewhat compelling, especially when Nokia brings such hardware to WP7. And 12 MP is enough to zoom by cropping when you post on Facebook, so a zoom lens isn't that important anyway for such purposes. At least with such a phone you could surf the web too.
I really, really don't see this taking off - and for several reasons. (And I'm generally an early adopter). I'll state the obvious first: As feature phones get closer to smartphones and if the camera quality in those phones continues to increase (N97 and iPhone 4 quality) the point and shoot camera has to be this thing you just kinda already have with you on another device. I think the better option might just be tethering your camera to the phone via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to upload your images. Especially if they're looking to charge for the data. If you have this phone, chances are you already are paying for data in 3 or 4 places (Tablet plan, smartphone data, home internet, etc.)
A big problem I see with something like this taking off is the interface. Camera interfaces are notoriously clumsy. And that's ok (kinda) because that's not their main function. But imagine tagging a picture via even the best large screen camera? The beauty of things like Instagram and Camera+ is that the phone already has a built in UI you're probably already familiar with for post image tagging, commenting, etc. Even if it's automated (i.e. set it up and then just hit the upload button after an image) it's still probably not as good as a smartphone where you can crop, adjust the image, annotate, etc. before you upload.
I love photography and I own an N90. And I've owned several Canon SD models -- most recently an SD1400 that I use to just kinda keep in my bag. But over time I just find using the mobile phone so much more opportunistic and "good enough" for the situation.
The biggest issue I have is if this will be sold with some sort of monthly contract or fee. If that's the case, forget it. The beauty of the Kindle is that books are so small that they could strike a deal with Sprint and build the cost of the data into the device. Unless it's $4.95 a month, I can't see it.
A big problem I see with something like this taking off is the interface. Camera interfaces are notoriously clumsy. And that's ok (kinda) because that's not their main function. But imagine tagging a picture via even the best large screen camera? The beauty of things like Instagram and Camera+ is that the phone already has a built in UI you're probably already familiar with for post image tagging, commenting, etc. Even if it's automated (i.e. set it up and then just hit the upload button after an image) it's still probably not as good as a smartphone where you can crop, adjust the image, annotate, etc. before you upload.
I love photography and I own an N90. And I've owned several Canon SD models -- most recently an SD1400 that I use to just kinda keep in my bag. But over time I just find using the mobile phone so much more opportunistic and "good enough" for the situation.
The biggest issue I have is if this will be sold with some sort of monthly contract or fee. If that's the case, forget it. The beauty of the Kindle is that books are so small that they could strike a deal with Sprint and build the cost of the data into the device. Unless it's $4.95 a month, I can't see it.
I have my Eye-Fi connected to my Android phone's wifi hotspot, and it uploads to SmugMug. Then I have the SmugMug app on my phone to look at what's uploaded so far. It is the best thing ever, you should get one :)
follow this discussion
share:
23 users following this discussion, including:
This discussion has been viewed 4541 times.
Last activity .