What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
31 Comments
- bvaughn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This isn't new. The Concord EyeQ has been out since 2003 and has bluetooth.
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/336/C1812/ - deb6404, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Remember that Bluetooth just adopted WiMedia's UWB standard a few days ago. This means that in the space of a few months Bluetooth will be working at 480 Mbps . It's also a lot lower power than WiFi, so it won't eat up too much. The CCD imager and LCD screen on the camera use much more power than Bluetooth does...
- clos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3LAME
- deb6404, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Like I said above, Bluetooth just adopted WiMedia's UWB standard a few days ago. This means that in the space of a few months Bluetooth will be working at 480 Mbps+.
People care for Bluetooth because there is, essentially, no setup. It's like plug-n-play for cables except...."get two transmitters within x feet of each other"-n-play. - deb6404, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3See my other comment on WiMedia's UWB...
- TheDarkTipper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Lets hope its better than the WiFi cameras.
- dlichteman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well this would be one less cable to loose.....but you will need a bluetooth dongle or something....still would be really cool to be able to just place the camera near the computer and automatically sync it. However, the speeds at which it transfers is not going to be great and I bet it will EAT up the battery.
- davidmonaghan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In reply to the many people claiming Bluetooth is too slow to work for large files/images;
A fast connection isn't required to transfer large files, it will take longer but it still works. Some people don't require blazing speeds, especially when transferring large quantities of data takes a long time on even USB 2 if you are used to clicking and being done in 10 seconds and don't understand the technology. Why has no one mentioned slow syncing? Just place the camera by your Bluetooth laptop, and let the sync begin while you read up on digg or whatever. I never wait for my images to transfer, I just go eat lunch or browse the web for a while until it finishes, as with any other task which takes more than a few seconds.
Oh yeah, and BTW Bluetooth isn't exactly what I would call slow as others have already mentioned numerous times... - Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmm... well you guys are going to have to excuse my ignorance then.
I had no idea about these things, thanks for showing me that though - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Im waiting for wireless USB thank you very much.
- Livewire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2why the middle man? why is there an FCC to slow innovation!?!?
- Shm03, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Nice you could interface with your mobile...
http://antique-kodak-cameras.com/ - vdubski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Come on Kevin, bluetooth in a camera is old news and you know it. I know I remember seeing one being reviewed back in the TechTV days. I thought it was on TSS, but it might have been on Fresh Gear.
- Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4that would go great with my mac =)
- subhuman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There are alot of camera's with bluetooth or bluetooth docking stations. This isn't news at all.
see : http://www.google.com/search?q=bluetooth+canon - dorkboi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Federal Communication Commission is charged with regulating "ALL" non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It's their job!
- dlichteman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I must have missed that story about new BT.....and yeah those screens are real battery hogs.....
- crappylinks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why the hell did they need FCC approval to do this?
- Universal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0...
- neuros, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Funny thing, Sony (and others?) have been doing BT in camcorders and cameras for years (I got to play with a Sony BT-enabled camcorder while I was in Japan three years ago)... and I'm sure they're somehow available here.
- Universal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Now...if there was wireless Firewire 800...
- Universal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Isn't there ALREADY Bluetooth camera phones. But Bluetooth enabled cameras (and camcorders) would be great, only when UWB Bluetooth comes out. See http://bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Press/SIG/Bluetooth_SIG_and_UWB_to_work_together.htm
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yea, sure its been around, but the average consumer doesnt know about it. Kodak will be the first really popular camera company to have it readily available. Adopting the concept will bring it into the mainstream and hopefully encourage everyone to do it. This is a big step in the right direction for the digicam market, and worth a digg.
- Belesiu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sony's FX77 has been out for several years now with BT built-in, so I'm not sure why this news. Extended BT rates can reach 1Mbit/sec in practice, so 3MP pictures (which is good enough for 4x6 prints) which are about 1Mbyte in size would transfer in about 10 secs (1Mbyte / 100Kbytes/sec). This is fine for a couple of photos but trying to unload 200 images at once is just not practical.
- Zgradis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Whats next bluetooth toilet's, "OK OK honey just wait to go to the bathroom until my bluetooth connection is closed then its all yours"... Don't get me wrong I love how everything is going wireless, but is it really needed on cameras? I just don't see the reasoning behind it; please some one explain it to me.
- oceanplexian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There are already a few bluetooth cameras out. Unless this is using bluetooth 2.0 EDR, or something like that, the idea of a bluetooth camera isn't so great when it takes an hour to transfer your data. The bluetooth cameras, mp3 players, ect. all run into this problem.
- neuros, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2sorry, double post. see below.
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1why is digg keep changing its font
- the_witch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2How is this a good idea......Bluetooth transfers are notoriously long, and so if this camera is anything more than about 3 megapixels it will take an age to transfer the shots. Far better to either incoperate wi-fi as some of the high end Nikon's and Canon's are doing. Or else use USB or Firewire.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I always thought a bluetooth camera was the most ingenious idea in the world until I realized the bandwidth issue would ruin it. I suppose we have to stick with wifi :(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Bluetooth is/has been dead for a while now. Why again does anyone care for it?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is