Brendan MacRae wrote: > --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That's the old-fashioned way, much less efficient >> that an automated transfer, and you lose shooting >> time doing it. >> >> -Adam >> > > Gee, I'm not so sure. How fast is WiFi transfer? > Faster than a cable? I transfer very low res images > from my cell phone to my Mac via Bluetooth and it > takes longer than you'd think.
Bluetooth is a low-bandwidth technology designed for small text files and low-quality Audio, Wifi (ie 802.11b/g/n) is much faster. I don't know the transfer rate on these cards, but I do know the Live-View capable pro bodies from Nikon and Canon can maintain lag-free Live View over WiFi. > Also, transferring from > a card or directly from the camera into my machine > requires no menu navigation or anything. I plug in the > camera and turn it on and point the images to a folder > in Aperture. Is this the same with WiFi? Is the > process more complicated? It is with my cell... Yes, it can be uncomplicated, or complicated if you so choose. > > I see the advantage for wireless only where distance > and convenience getting to a computer is an issue, as > in William's example, not the speed of the transfer > itself which I believe is negligable compared to wired > transfer (if I'm wrong someone correct me). > > > -Brendan > Actually, given the low speed of Flash cards (which top out at transfer rates similar to 802.11g's real-world transfer rates) there's no reason why WiFi can't be just as fast as a card reader (which don't come close to maxing out their available bandwidth). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
