Camera WiFi connectivity

[andy97]

Im looking for an entry level dslr that can connect to the internet. What are the options please?

Im a little confused (not difficult) as im not sure what is tge difference between wifi, nfc, snapbridge etc etc.

In an ideal world i want to take a picture and upload it to FB etc or email to a friend straight away. I dont want to have to go via a phone unless its a last resort. I want the option to blue tooth to a phone if i dont have wifi but that should just be the second choice.

Can anyone advise and recommend a suitable camera. Thanks

[StevieBee]

I may be wrong but I don't think that there are any cameras capable of connecting to the web directly, only via a smart phone or lap top. Certainly not entry level ones.

My D7200 has WiFi and I just grab pictures from the camera on my phone and upload from there. Very easy.

Unless you need the higher quality and lens flexibility, then may be worth upgrading your phone to one with the better cameras.

As I say, I may be wrong on the availability.

[BlueShackNeedle]

+1
DSLR & mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are well behind smart phones for internet connectivity.
Those 'with' WiFi or BT currently require phone or tablet apps (or tethering to a laptop via USB)
Nikon snapbridge will auto transfer as you snap I believe but can bea bit flakey with some phones IIRC. Google it for further info.
I use Fuji app for my XT2 & XE2s to WiFi txfr to smartphone then edit in Enlight as required & post wherever.

[ambuletz]

you won't get any camera that connects to the internet. you will be able to buy a camera that has wifi into it so you can send it to your laptop or phone and upload it to FB.

[silobass]

You can get cameras that will upload directly to Facebook if that's all you are after from it. Probably not DSLR's though. I think the Canon Powershot range can do this and you might be able to email from the camera too.

Other brands are probably available.

[andy97]

Thanks for the replies, that is very helpful although I am astonished that i can't directly upload via wifi and have to go via a phone or notebook. Pointless and makes me wonder about the wisdom of buying a new camera at this stage.

May as well just stick with my 5-6 year old Panasonic LUMIX and its usb connection to a laptop for the moment.

[LuS1fer]

andy97 said:

Thanks for the replies, that is very helpful although I am astonished that i can't directly upload via wifi and have to go via a phone or notebook. Pointless and makes me wonder about the wisdom of buying a new camera at this stage.

May as well just stick with my 5-6 year old Panasonic LUMIX and its usb connection to a laptop for the moment.

My TZ30 uses Pictbridge to load to a Google 7 pad and USb to load to my computer.
My Canon SX700HS has wi-fi and that can upload to the Google via the Canon app but I still have to connect it to my computer via USB.

I have often wondered why camera manufacturers can't keep up with phones when they can cost around £600 for a decent point and shoot.

[BlueShackNeedle]

If you are interested in background on this, watch this Tony Northrup YT video from Nov 2015 from about min 20 or min 22 specifically.
It's a bit out of date as Nikon 'Snapbridge' hadn't appeared on their DLSRs IIRC but things are fairly similar still.
https://youtu.be/K5bAse7baAA

Edited by BlueShackNeedle on Tuesday 8th August 21:49

[Tony1963]

I would DETEST an SLR that had a bloody keyboard on it. Horrible thing.

I sometimes fit a wifi SD card in my 5D and feed that to my iPhone. I can then edit, email, Instagram etc to my heart's content with half a chance of typing properly.

Just a quick note. Wifi sucks battery power, just like GPS on an SLR does. No thanks.

[BlueShackNeedle]

Tony1963 said:

Just a quick note. Wifi sucks battery power, just like GPS on an SLR does. No thanks.

You can turn it on & off when required

[Tony1963]

BlueShackNeedle said:

You can turn it on & off when required

Of course, but most people are surprised by how quickly the juice disappears.

[noell35]

Didn't those Samsung cameras that they don't make anymore used to do this?

[BlueShackNeedle]

noell35 said:

Didn't those Samsung cameras that they don't make anymore used to do this?

Yup Samsung NX series had Android OS but were so slow to start up.
It's mentioned in the Tony Nortrup YT video I linked to.

[StevieBee]

andy97 said:

Thanks for the replies, that is very helpful although I am astonished that i can't directly upload via wifi and have to go via a phone or notebook.

I don't think there's the market demand for it amongst buyers and users of DSLR cameras, most of whom would prefer to run shots via Lightroom for a quick tweak before sharing with the world.

The only scenario where an instant upload from a DSLR is required would (I guess) be photojournalism and here the function is fulfilled via a smart phone connection which just sends the images to a photo desk somewhere.

Where the demand does exist, it is fulfilled by camera equipped smart phones.

[andy97]

StevieBee said:

I don't think there's the market demand for it amongst buyers and users of DSLR cameras, most of whom would prefer to run shots via Lightroom for a quick tweak before sharing with the world.

The only scenario where an instant upload from a DSLR is required would (I guess) be photojournalism and here the function is fulfilled via a smart phone connection which just sends the images to a photo desk somewhere.

Where the demand does exist, it is fulfilled by camera equipped smart phones.

Ok, although I would assume that because manufacturers do provide connectivity via a phone they must be acknowledging that a fair few people do want to up load photos, so why make it difficult by having an additional interface.

[Simpo Two]

andy97 said:

Ok, although I would assume that because manufacturers do provide connectivity via a phone they must be acknowledging that a fair few people do want to up load photos, so why make it difficult by having an additional interface.

I think because the photos most people want to upload are snaps and selfies for Facebook etc; they have smartphones which are perfect for this purpose but not a DSLR. You buy a DSLR for photography not selfies; it would be like buying a racing car with a bike rack on it.

[andy97]

I have no desire to take selfies with a DSLR (or anything else) but I also have no desire to tweak photos on a computer either. I want to take images of the things I am interested in because I am interested in the subject, not in the photographic process or art.

As a result I want to get "close" to the subject and photograph what I see through the view finder. I don't like looking at the potential image on a screen, I find that unnatural! A DSLR seems to be the right tool for that?

I don't pretend to be a photographer, I want to take photographs of the hobby subjects that are my passion, and sometimes share them where relevant, with other interested people.

Is that so strange?

[StevieBee]

andy97 said:

I have no desire to take selfies with a DSLR (or anything else) but I also have no desire to tweak photos on a computer either. I want to take images of the things I am interested in because I am interested in the subject, not in the photographic process or art.

As a result I want to get "close" to the subject and photograph what I see through the view finder. I don't like looking at the potential image on a screen, I find that unnatural! A DSLR seems to be the right tool for that?

I don't pretend to be a photographer, I want to take photographs of the hobby subjects that are my passion, and sometimes share them where relevant, with other interested people.

Is that so strange?

Not strange as such but your aims are out of kilter with the general shape of the market.

If you go back to pre-digital photography, people had a choice of 'snapshot' cameras like the old Instamatics and if they wanted something a little better, they had a choice of compacts, all served by the one-hour processing shops (remember BonusPrint?) These afforded little in the way of creativity but took perfectly adequate pictures. This market is today served by smartphones although there are digital compacts out there.

Enthusiasts were served by SLR cameras which afforded greater creativity both in camera and during the processing; a market that is today served by DSLRs and Lightroom/Photoshop.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that for me, half the fun and enjoyment of photography is seeing what else I can do to the shots in Lightroom which is no different to mucking around in a darkroom for a few hours.

I know exactly what you mean about phone cameras being unnatural. I guess they need to compromise in being many things. I certainly find camera phones to be awkward to use. That said, I have to say the quality of them are very good.

There are clip on lenses and grips available for camera phones that make them more 'camera-like' so perhaps have a look at some of these.

[WinstonWolf]

Interesting, I have a customer with rubbish broadband but good 4G. They need to upload the unprocessed images for publishing as-is. I would have thought you could get cameras with built in 4G by now.

What do people who need to upload photos currently do when there's no wi-fi?

[TheRainMaker]

I upload pictures from my a7/ a7s all the time, it's really simple, click on the picture (or multiples) you want to send ping them over to the phone (it's one button action on the Sony) and post on Facebook/ Twitter etc etc.

Not sure it could be any easier tbh, having the picture sent to your phone means you can add comments in the apps which would be a pain in the ass doing on a camera.

More and more people are using this method for live event reporting with twitter etc.

All the benefits of a real camera with the convenience of being able to share and distribute information instantly.

All Cameras will have this function in the next few years.

Here's a joke......

How do you spot a D810 user at a conference?

He/ she is the one in the corner with a laptop and card reader out transferring files to twitter