WFT-E1 ( Wifi ) any experience

[Otta]

Hi all ,
Is anyone useing the wifi system .
Could you share your experiences ,set ups and uses .
Unless you can suggest any alternatives .

Many thanks

Roy

[tdaugharty]

I have an interest in getting one of these as well. I'd like to know if anyone has tried it on a 30D?

[Big WIll]

is it possible on the 30d? Thought it was only 1d series!

[Otta]

Anyone

[sjprg]

I passed on the WFT-E1. This should not cost over $100.00. Canons price is completely out of the realm of reality.

[tdaugharty]

is it possible on the 30d? Thought it was only 1d series!

It's an option for the 30D as well. At least the manual says so ;)

[amonline]

I agree completely with Paul... the price for this is unreal and hardly fair for the technology and hardware. I would be surprized that they sell many setups to more than the complete high end pros.

[krusnof]

Tried it on 1Ds-MKII and it is very expensive. However, when doing a lot of studio shots it is perfect. The transfer time is pretty fast and the pictures shows up in Adobe Bridge right away. The only problem were in the beginning to connect it to our router, but with some help from Canon it works now.
Very cool and useful, but expensive.

[Otta]

Krusnof

Thanks for your info

Roy

[Advocate]

I'd be quite interested in one of these if they weren't so expensive. It'd be great to let my clients see their photos as I'm taking them :)

[krusnof]

No problem, if you need guidance to set it up on a MAC, just pm me. I can remember most of the setup process ;-)

[tag141]

...It'd be great to let my clients see their photos as I'm taking them :)

How far are you from a computer? A usb/firewire link could be just as fast if it's in the studio plus no set up problems. If it's in the field, what about a laptop? You could probably get that setup much cheaper than the WFT-E1 (not as cool though!!)

[Advocate]

Yeah I use a Macbook Pro but it really wouldn't be practical to have my 30D connected via USB while I'm shooting.

I may get one of these WFTE1 thingumabobs next year, IF Canon don't tempt me too much with new bodies before then :s

[Jon]

I passed on the WFT-E1. This should not cost over $100.00. Canons price is completely out of the realm of reality.Not really. It's not like the WiFi card you get for your computer. It is the computer, including ftp server to transfer pics to the PC, a limited web server to allow you to configure it, USB host to read data from the camera, and an Ethernet/TCP/IP control stack. A WiFi card's a little radio that's able to talk to the Ethernet TCP/IP stack your computer's running. In fact Canon's is priced lower than the third-party one that's out there.

[Otta]

Hi all

Has anyone got this set up for a pc

Roy

[amonline]

Not really. It's not like the WiFi card you get for your computer. It is the computer, including ftp server to transfer pics to the PC, a limited web server to allow you to configure it, USB host to read data from the camera, and an Ethernet/TCP/IP control stack. A WiFi card's a little radio that's able to talk to the Ethernet TCP/IP stack your computer's running. In fact Canon's is priced lower than the third-party one that's out there.
LOL... if it's so much like a WiFi for the computer, then why is it tens times more in price? You're making it sound like it's more than it is. It's simply a transmitter - just like a WiFi card. Most people can use this with a cheap $50 wireless adapter at the computer. Um, by the way, it's not an ftp server... it does send to one though. :rolleyes:

[foxbat]

Not really. It's not like the WiFi card you get for your computer. It is the computer, including ftp server to transfer pics to the PC, a limited web server to allow you to configure it, USB host to read data from the camera, and an Ethernet/TCP/IP control stack. A WiFi card's a little radio that's able to talk to the Ethernet TCP/IP stack your computer's running. In fact Canon's is priced lower than the third-party one that's out there.So a fairer comparison would be to a wireless ADSL router that does all that and 10 times more for less than $100.

[amonline]

So a fairer comparison would be to a wireless ADSL router that does all that and 10 times more for less than $100.
That's an even better comparison. :lol:

[Lightstream]

That's an even better comparison. :lol:

*puts on the does-WLAN-as-a-career hat*

Sorry folks. Original 802.11 wireless LANs (WLANs) were outrageously priced, ran at 2Mbps, and were largely confined to vertical markets. 802.11b, first technology to make consumer inroads, launched at over $500 per NODE as a very specialized technology. Often we ran the numbers and figured "No, it would be impossible to convince clients to run with it at this price point". I was there when it began, and it was difficult in those days. We couldn't even take encryption for granted - it didn't work half the time.

It was the runaway success of WLAN in the marketplace that forced prices down. ADSL routers sell like coke cans at the supermarket and that has resulted in prices plunging because of mass market adoption. This is not a bad thing - I myself use a cheap $100 Linksys at home and it's good stuff. Actually, I think it was less than $100. Can't recall now. But the market is placing hundreds of thousands of units, not just a few units. The WFT-E1 is a specialized tool and while I agree it is way too much (I wouldn't buy it), it's probably also because they don't sell too much of it, and what its target market will bear. (free market, remember?)

Conversely, if Canon sold these like 350Ds, it would probably be priced a lot lower. Its high price and niche adoption keeps prices high, which forestalls adoption and maintains the price where it is.

Myself - there ain't nothing the humble 5 meter USB cable and EOS Remote Cap (free with every camera - even the little XTs) can't do ;)

[amonline]

Um... yeeeeaaa... :lol: <---- that meant I was joking. ;)

[tdaugharty]

I wish WI-FI and bluetooth were embeded features of the medium / low-end consumer camera's. I.e. Blutooth to a CE phone for emailing a small image and WI-FI with SMB/FTP support. How hard can it be? If a CE smartphone can include a crappy 1.3x camera, phone service, word, excel, etc... then why can't a dSLR include some of the basics?

It's called demand. Do we ask for such capabilities? Yes! it's who will actually use it which is probably why this pricy Canon WI-FI adapter only turns such small sales numbers. Most are content with yanking the card or USB connection so those few of us that will actually use it will not warrent pricing for the average Joe.

[amonline]

...Most are content with yanking the card or USB connection so those few of us that will actually use it will not warrent pricing for the average Joe.
Yup, I choose that over spending a grand. :lol:

[transcend]

LOL... if it's so much like a WiFi for the computer, then why is it tens times more in price? You're making it sound like it's more than it is. It's simply a transmitter - just like a WiFi card. Most people can use this with a cheap $50 wireless adapter at the computer. Um, by the way, it's not an ftp server... it does send to one though. :rolleyes:

No, it isn't. It IS the computer.

[NordieBoy]

Myself - there ain't nothing the humble 5 meter USB cable and EOS Remote Cap (free with every camera - even the little XTs) can't do ;)

Run on Linux?

:D

[amonline]

No, it isn't. It IS the computer.
Just because it sends an image to your WLAN, this doesn't make it a computer. It carrys a simple computer-configured app that allows you to send indy shots or a complete shoot - that's all. The camera ultimately controls the unit. (why it's only available for a distinct few cameras)

If anything, it's a router. Just because it tether's via a hybrid 'USB' cord, that doesn't make it a computer. It carries the same features as a ROUTER. Top of the line routers can be picked up for $100-200 now days.

Does it STORE IMAGES? No.
Does it CONTAIN THE SOFTWARE? No. It is hosted and configured by another COMPUTER.
Can you even configure it WITHOUT A COMPUTER OR THE CAMERA? No.
Do you buy another computer to backup your files to an external HDD? No. You use wireless, ethernet, usb or firewire transmission.

Someone else said it was a FTP server... pppfffttt... it carries a protocol to TRANSFER your files TO A FTP SERVER, not act as one. Again, it does not STORE images.

It IS a wireless transmitter comparable to a ROUTER. I think you need to read a little more about it. ;)

The bottom line is it's WAY overpriced. I could understand $250-350, but a grand is ridiculous.

[coreypolis]

http://www.wi-pics.com/default.aspx

another option

[coreypolis]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/09/nikon-scores-fcc-approval-for-d200-dslr-wifi-transmitter/

the d200 will have a wifi grip soon

[transcend]

Just because it sends an image to your WLAN, this doesn't make it a computer. It carrys a simple computer-configured app that allows you to send indy shots or a complete shoot - that's all. The camera ultimately controls the unit. (why it's only available for a distinct few cameras)

If anything, it's a router. Just because it tether's via a hybrid 'USB' cord, that doesn't make it a computer. It carries the same features as a ROUTER. Top of the line routers can be picked up for $100-200 now days.

Does it STORE IMAGES? No.
Does it CONTAIN THE SOFTWARE? No. It is hosted and configured by another COMPUTER.
Can you even configure it WITHOUT A COMPUTER OR THE CAMERA? No.
Do you buy another computer to backup your files to an external HDD? No. You use wireless, ethernet, usb or firewire transmission.

Someone else said it was a FTP server... pppfffttt... it carries a protocol to TRANSFER your files TO A FTP SERVER, not act as one. Again, it does not STORE images.

It IS a wireless transmitter comparable to a ROUTER. I think you need to read a little more about it. ;)

The bottom line is it's WAY overpriced. I could understand $250-350, but a grand is ridiculous.

It has a processor, it does a level of processing (just like a router - fyi). Therefore, it is more complicated than a simple radio transmitter. End of story. The last few Cisco routers I had to configure cost well over $2000 a piece...and those were the cheap ones. They also have a comparable amount of processing power as many home computers have. And yes, it contains software. There is plenty of firmware in that piece of hardware on a cmos. Just because you cannot play with it, does not mean it isn't there. My servers don't have a head (display) on them either, does that mean they aren't computers? I have 2 terabyte network drives here, guess what? They too have processors in them and a full blown operating system (just like routers, fyi).

I don't need to read up on it. I used to work in the field and hold a CCNP.

As for being overpriced...is there another piece of hardare that does this same job on these same cameras for less money? Didn't think so. A product is worth what the market can bear, not what a budget consumer wishes or "believes" it should cost.

[amonline]

You're right... maybe you should read this instead:

com·put·er (kom-pū-tor)
n.

A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.

By that rational, my 1987 Sharp calculator here is a computer! It must be worth at least a grand! :lol:

[transcend]

You're right... maybe you should read this instead:

com·put·er (kom-p?-tor)
n.

A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.

By that rational, my 1987 Sharp calculator here is a computer! It must be worth at least a grand! :lol:

Witty comeback. Congratulations on not having a sweet clue what you are talking about.

I suppose if it doesn't run windows XP and a pretty GUI it isn't a computer in your world.

Good day, sir.

[amonline]

Witty comeback.
Well, there are a lot of "or's" in that definition... maybe if we pick it apart you will be right. :lol:

[Otta]

Hi Guys ,

Just to bring this thread back on track .

Does anyone use this for a 1dmk2 and pc .

Thankyou

Roy

[SacMac]

Can't you use this to operate a second body to fire at the same time as the picture is taken with the first body?

To me, this would make a far better use than transmitting photos back to a pc. Although this would come into its own if a second person was at the pc ready to work on the photo and send it to the media outlet.

[tdaugharty]

http://www.wi-pics.com/default.aspx

another option

Very Cool ... BUT oh my is this pricy compared to the Canon version.

[Jon]

Can't you use this to operate a second body to fire at the same time as the picture is taken with the first body?

To me, this would make a far better use than transmitting photos back to a pc. Although this would come into its own if a second person was at the pc ready to work on the photo and send it to the media outlet.
Totally different functionality. You can do what you're asking about with a set of Pocket Wizards, I believe, for considerably less. It doesn't need WiFi since you're not really transferring data - just a simple signal to trip a relay. There are lots of reasons to want to send the image back to a PC, such as remote shooting (wildlife or surveillance, say), to provide instant feedback to clients, provide (with a bit of computer scripting) a "live" web feed (application on web server automatically picking up latest file in directory and serving it to browsers), or, as you note, to allow your assistant or PS wizard to edit without running cards back and forth.

[fi20100]

This is actually a quite interesting topic.

First, it is funny to see how the definition of what a computer is has changed drastically lately. Where talking about a computer, not a PC (personal computer). A device with some sort of computing power, something that can be given instructions and act upon those instructions. The fact that the device itself is being controlled by the camera still does not mean it’s not a computer. It does not have a FTP Server on it, but it does have a FTP client to be able to use the FTP protocol.

Do we want this functionality directly integrated in a DSLR camera right now? I’m not sure. I’m sure it’s coming, but somehow I really think this is a function where an accessory is appropriate. WiFi standards are also changing pretty fast. Also, packing a DSLR camera with so many functions, will make it harder to use. What a nightmare menu system. (If it can do WiFi, why can’t it be an alarm clock?... how about making coffee in the morning?). And last, think about the battery drain.

I would say: a camera is a camera first.

[Adrian]

Just for Info You can even hook up the WFT-E1 to a Jobo GigaVu Pro Evo! I've located a .pdf file to do that.

[wgamley001]

Maybe let's discuss some ideas for alternative ways of wirelessly transmitting images from the camera to a laptop. I know I have a need for something like this, but have a very difficult time with dropping a grand on a wireless accessory. I only paid a little more than that for the camera itself!

So, does anyone have any ideas? Even if they're not a reality right now, but possibly in the future? What would be needed to hook up a camera to, let's say, a PDA or other portable device, then review the images on that, and then wirelessly transfer from there to a laptop? Is Microsoft's new Zune looking promising at all? Anyone know about a wireless iPod coming out in the next few months? How about an iPaq - any chance of finding a WinCE version of Canon's remote capture utility?

[coreypolis]

Maybe let's discuss some ideas for alternative ways of wirelessly transmitting images from the camera to a laptop. I know I have a need for something like this, but have a very difficult time with dropping a grand on a wireless accessory. I only paid a little more than that for the camera itself!

So, does anyone have any ideas? Even if they're not a reality right now, but possibly in the future? What would be needed to hook up a camera to, let's say, a PDA or other portable device, then review the images on that, and then wirelessly transfer from there to a laptop? Is Microsoft's new Zune looking promising at all? Anyone know about a wireless iPod coming out in the next few months? How about an iPaq - any chance of finding a WinCE version of Canon's remote capture utility?
too small of storage capabilities, and with the ipods/zune, you'll kill the battery in a hurry.

A PSD like a Epson or jobo could work, but the price on those would go through the roof, and they are already approaching laptop pricing

[wgamley001]

too small of storage capabilities, and with the ipods/zune, you'll kill the battery in a hurry.

A PSD like a Epson or jobo could work, but the price on those would go through the roof, and they are already approaching laptop pricing

Thanks for the response. I think that the iPaqs can take a CF card for additional storage, so a 1Gb or 2Gb card in that would certainly meet my needs. Especially if it's just for temporary storage before the images get transferred to the laptop. Maybe I need to wait another 6-12 months before Canon decide to make something like this more affordable?

[basroil]

too small of storage capabilities, and with the ipods/zune, you'll kill the battery in a hurry.

A PSD like a Epson or jobo could work, but the price on those would go through the roof, and they are already approaching laptop pricing

my p-2000 is about 300, which is quite a bit less tha a 40gb laptop of a comparable size (12" or smaller, larger laptops kind of go agaist the reason for a p-series)