Comment: What happened to Wi-Fi in cameras?
With virtually every camera manufacturer launching a plethora of digital cameras over the last 7 days what happened to Wi-Fi in digital cameras?
You would have thought that with multiple announcements from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Ricoh, Sony, Kodak and Casio that at least one of them would have included Wi-Fi as standard in their new models.
It's not as if it's a new idea, a number of the manufacturers listed above have Wi-Fi enabled devices available, but up until now it's been a very small offering; Kodak with its EasyShare One, Canon its Ixus, Nikon its P series and Sony its Cyber-shot G model.
When are we going to get it across the range as standard?
At Nikon's press announcement of the D300 and D3 models, Nikon said that the lack of included Wi-Fi was because they wanted people to be able to add it as an option via the company's rather large bolt-on wireless dongle.
However with more and more events from trade shows to football games offering blanket Wi-Fi coverage for journalists why not include it? Especially in the high-end models.
You would have thought that with digital imaging getting better on mobile phones, and most mobile phones now coming with Bluetooth, allowing quick wireless transfer to a computer or printer, camera companies would be ever fearful of loosing the edge over the new wave of devices, especially with 5-megapixel cameraphones available.
The new Casios might have a YouTube record option, but you still can't upload it to YouTube wherever you are.
Getting your image from your phone to your Bluetooth laptop is a breeze; press a few buttons and away you go. With the digital camera it's all about finding a cable, making sure it's the right cable, or taking out the memory card and then hoping that you've got the right slot on your computer.
As an online journalist covering events as they happen, I want speed and lots of it. After all, I need to get the images taken, transferred, edited and up online for you to see as quick as I can, and if that means opting for poorer quality but greater wireless connectivity of cameraphones then it's an option that I am more likely to take if it gives the site a competitive edge.
It's something that more and more news agencies are doing. Take any of the recent terrorist acts in the UK and the citizen journalism that followed. If I had to record footage on my video camera and then transfer the footage down, resize it, send it via email to a news agency then chances are, I would have been a couple of hours late to the party.
While I would prefer to use my Canon 400D, at times it's just not a quick enough process to get it up online.
Heck, if I was racing against someone with a Sony Ericsson phone and a blogger.com account I would lose 10 times out of 10.
So why has the digital camera makers been so slow to embrace the technology. Is it expense? It is the lack of understanding, or am I just ahead of the curve on this one?
Answers on a postcard please, or preferably via the comment box below.