> > > I do believe that this isn't quite as exciting as all that. My > > experience with wireless networks > > is that connections can be less that reliable, especially > > when a device > > is on the move, kind of > > like Cell phone dead spots. > > I suppose if someone came up with a WiFi image tank that you could keep > on your person, that would help. But I agree, it would be awful if you > lost your connection and didn't know it, and the camera wasn't caching > the images. > > What I find most intriguing about this development is the possiblity of > having near-infinite storage in the field, without having to take a > break to empty or swap storage cards.
A 4Gb MicroDrive (good for around 300 raw images) is close enough to infinite storage for most of us. By the time we get WiFi in the sub- $2000 DSLR bodies I'd expect drive capacity to have increased faster than raw image size, so we'll see affordable (-ish) in-camera storage holding closer to 1000 images. I don't know too many people who will shoot more than that (on a single body) during one session. I see WiFi being used just as a more convenient way of transferring images from the camera to the laptop computer back at the press room. Today somebody takes the memory out of the camera and plugs it into a high-speed card reader. There are several opportunties for error there; any time you handle the card there's a chance you'll drop it, get dirt into the connections, bend a pin, etc., etc. With WiFi all you need to do is walk into the room and put the camera somewhere near the computer. The folks who are in the market for WiFi today don't change cards in the field if they can possibly help it - any time you're not ready to shoot is a potential lost opportunity. One benefit they might see in a WiFi image tank is as insurance; any time you've only got an image in one place (such as the in-camera card) you're gambling that that particular component won't fail. Copying to an external store as soon as possible reduces that vulnerability window.
