Wifi approach

As a non-technical person I am puzzled as to the rationale for the way wifi works (specifically on P340). I don't understand the camera doesn't just sign on the network the mobile device is signed on to, instead of the current approach of making the mobile device sign off that network and establishing a direct connection to the phone. This approach is useful as a backup where there is no suitable wifi network, but most of the time I suspect there is.

Welcome to the forum,have no idea what your talking about though but some one will shortly

I use a WIFI adapter for my D7100. The camera is creating the WIFI network and not signing onto one. That is the way it works.

Let's imagine you have a bigger camera (DSLR) and you're out on a job using it. Say it's mounted to the backboard of an NBA game, along with 5 other cameras from other photographers who are all going the same job as you. If they were all signed into the same network, couldn't that be problematic in terms of controlling them? Now you have to sign into the WiFi with both your camera and your controller, have one find the other, and make sure no one else can get to yours, or steal your images. Possible? Sure. But the problems of control and image security are greatly simplified when the network is on the camera and the photographer has to sign onto it.

There are many other uses of WiFi beyond just getting your photos onto your computer.

Yes, there are different contexts. Sure there are cases where the current approach is better or indeed essential (no wifi network available). But in other cases it is more cumbersome. Initial connect is marginally awkward (you have to first turn tablet wifi off to disconnect from network). But after that it's a lot more cumbersome as you have to keep flipping the tablet from the camera to the network and back etc. Also because the camera isn't on the network you can't upload to a computer directly but have to go through the tablet. (See previous sentence).

Ideally there would be a choice... Sign in to network or be a hotspot. What prompted me to post was actually a thread here that referred to competition between smartphones and compact digital cameras. If cameras cannot match the phones in terms of connectivity they will lose this battle.

Sure, if you need to post that selfie or "what's on my plate" to Facebook, by all means use your phone...

PTP over network is pretty new and there isn't much (yet) in the way of third party offers to supplement the manufacturer's offering (which is critically lame for the time being).

Do check out DSLR-Dashboard (android app) and the beta versions he's developing for Windows, Linux and OSx (and, maybe soon, iOS)... :
http://dslrdashboard.info

I've used the android app (DSLR-Dashboard) and the beta android and Windows ports (qDSLR-Dashboard) and I really like where this is going. With desktop versions you could even connect to the camera through wifi and the intarwebs through hard wired connection and post HDR, focus stacked time lapse of your lunch to Fakebook or twitsr'us before you've even tasted it.

As a wifi engineer for my day job, I have some ideas on why they did it the way they did. I don't work for Nikon though, so these are just my personal theories.

Overall, my expectation is that Nikon went for simplicity. By having the camera be effectively the wireless Access Point, the only other device they have to worry about interoperability with is the smartphone/mobile device. If they were to connect to an infrastructure wireless system, they would need to also ensure interoperability with the infrastructure manufacturers. While the WiFi Alliance is an industry organization that certifies interoperability across wireless vendors, there can still be caveats that come up.

Additionally, most wireless networks are not simple "connect and use" types of networks. Most stadium environments (for sporting venues) are very similar to the experience you get when you connect to the wireless at Starbucks. Your computer/mobile will connect fine, but you can't do anything until after you launch a web browser and at a minimum accept a terms and conditions page, or worse you have to provide some information like an email address. To do this with the camera, they would need to also embed a web browser, and potentially a more user friendly way for entering text like an email address.

My Nikon D5300 by default provides an open (unencrypted) SSID, so the dedicated wireless network is not about securing the media itself, as much as for simplicity. There is an optional setting for enabling WPS security, however that is also trivial to bypass and focused on providing a simple user experience.

Now, in a stadium type of environment (like the NBA example referenced), the way they implemented the wireless functionality is actually the worst way they could have done it. Since wifi uses unlicensed spectrum, it's all shared. If we had 5 photographers plus the goal cam all on the same wireless network, we could give priority to the cameras over the fans in the stands who are using the same wireless network to share pictures to Facebook or videos to Youtube. However, with each camera on it's own wireless network, but using the same frequency ranges, wireless is more likely to be congested and unpredictable. My expectation is that professional photogs shooting a sporting environment like an NBA game, if they shoot tethered, are most likely doing so wired rather than wireless for this reason.

That all makes a lot of sense. I suspect simplicity for the manufacturer is a big factor.

The disconnect which I see is that we are talking Coolpix not DLSR so the NBA example may not be the most apt. As a consumer camera, the derided 'upload a selfie' or more seriously simple upload of files at home or friends or vacation location other location where the tablet is already on a network, are likely the more common uses.

Designing a consumer camera means having a ruthless focus on the consumers perspective. Apple gets this. Nikon... ???? I say this as someone who has owned a number of Coolpix (also an old D60) and loved them. I just got the P340 for low light work but also secondarily for wireless connectivity. I'm mildly embarrassed to say I didn't do any due diligence on the wifi, it was a minor consideration. I was surprised to discover just how it works. And then a bell went off reading another thread here (concerning Nikons reorg) about lackluster sales and the competition from smart phone cameras and as they say a light went on in my mind.

And so my question asking why do it this way? Other than 'easy for Nikon' the other reasons advanced here could make sense in certain situations but they are more likely to apply to more professional type situations.

What you might want to look into is a EyeFi card. It will log into your home WiFi and upload your photos for you. I assume that your CoolPix uses SD cards

WiFi SD Cards: Eyefi Memory Cards: Wireless Photo and Video Uploads from your Camera to your Computer & the Web | Eyefi

My apologies,I shall pay closer attention to the sub-forum I'm posting to when I just click through threads chronologically :blush:

And didn't mean to be rude or anything, I've had lot of fun with my "point and shoot" camera (which wasn't that point&shoot anyway) until I broke it. I guess I'm just not that connected that I ever wanted the possibility to upload right there and then

(Edit : and a +1 to Don's suggestion of eye-fi cards.)

No rudeness was inferred, sorry if I gave that impression. Selfies aren't my thing either fwiw. But from what I read they are likely a big thing in the consumer market. Seamless upload without disrupting tablet (or PC) other functions and connectivity is what I'm after.

will check out eye fi but looks like more denarii required. Also interesting They seem to have 2 diff products one targeted at PC and one at tablet. And the PC Card doesn't have 32GB. HD video and to lesser extent RAW files can start to eat up space.