First impressions of the WT-2A with D2X

Jonathan_Levin · #8 04-01-2005, 12:42 PM

I successfully installed the Nikon Contion software on my Mac G5, got the camera and WT-2a "paired" and even had a connection and was able to shoot wirelessly for a time sitting three feet away from the Computer/ Airport BS.

My only hope was to shoot with D2x, have images transfer to computer HD and appear in Nikon View. Sort of my same set-up as with the D1x when tethered via FW.

I was told that the range of the WT-2A transmitter is something like 30 meters using the standard antena supplied with the Trans.

However, if I walked 30-40 feet away from my computer/AP, after a few consecutive shots, I would get a camera/computer communication error on the computer, thus seizing any further transfer.

When this happens, the lights on the tranmitter still say: Power- solid green Link- blinking orange, and Busy- solid green.
I REALLY want this set-up to work. I am not trying to ftp or anything like that, just want to shoot wireless to my Mac G5.

Any help would be appreciated.

BTW- Nikon tech support has really bee3n trying to sort this out for me as well. Thank you Nikon!

Jonathan

NickGarcia · #9 04-01-2005, 01:20 PM

Geoffry you are right. When I connect to the laptop via airport the camera connects with ad-hoc and when I connect to my main wireless network it connects as infrastructure. Still the sending time is about 4 secs. Still fast enogh to show my client. Im going to do some tests to check times and workflow.

EricWolf · #10 04-01-2005, 10:47 PM

can u guys explain the difference between these "modes" -ie what exactly "ad hoc" mode is? i'm presuming that you are saying that the D2x needs a router to transfer at faster speeds, and that it cant send files directly to a laptop "as" fast?

ThomasSapiano · #11 04-02-2005, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now the bad news. If you want to take this setup off-site and maintain decent transfer speeds, you'd better be prepared to take that access point with you - and find power for it! In ad-hoc mode (direct camera-to-computer), the wireless connection reverts to 802.11b, and transferring that same 10meg file takes a little over 30 seconds. Not sure why you can't do ad-hoc 802.11g (Tom?) but there on page 27 of the manual it does say 802.11b only for this type of setup. Kind of disappointing, as I was hoping to go directly from camera to laptop using "g" mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

The WFT-E1 has the same limitation. The problem is that the 802.11g specs never updated the ad-hoc portions of the standard - as such, wireless radios do not have to provide 11g signaling rates while in ad-hoc mode and many of them don't. Since these transmitters are using pre-built radios they are limited to the capabilities of those units (for reference, both the WT-2 and WFT-E1 use the same micro-PCI radio module). I've played around with a few 11g cards I have on hand and they seem to have the same limitation so this is a relatively common issue (ie even if these transmitters could do 11g in ad-hoc, it wouldn't be a guarantee that your Laptop's card could).

[ QUOTE ]
can u guys explain the difference between these "modes" -ie what exactly "ad hoc" mode is? i'm presuming that you are saying that the D2x needs a router to transfer at faster speeds, and that it cant send files directly to a laptop "as" fast?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 802.11 standards have two basic opperating modes - infrastructure and ad-hoc. In the former, the network is based around access points that actively manage the network and direct all of the devices connected to them. In the later, devices cooperate with one another allowing two (or more) devices to communicate (such as a laptop and camera) directly with one another. This allows you to opperate out in the field with no additional equipment.

When you use the 'Create a network...' item in the Airport menu you are creating an ad-hoc network. The Powerbook isn't acting as an access point, but as a peer on an ad-hoc network. Unfortunately, these transmitters seem to not function at 802.11g speeds when used in ad-hoc mode. In order to get the 54mbps signalling rates you need to add an access point (such as the Airport Express). The downside is that most APs are designed to be plugged in, and A/C power isn't always available while you are in the field.

[ QUOTE ]
I just received my WT-2a today and can't get it to complete a connection in FTP mode. It stops at the point where it asks for a "server name" and prompts for a "server address." I entered every IP address in the network, including the router, and all computer names--but it returned the error "Unable to locate server." I never got beyond that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The FTP server name should be the IP Address of the computer that the transmitter should send the images to. Naturally, you need to make sure that that computer is running FTP server software - the Nikon software installs the PTP/IP drivers, but does not add an FTP server [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Geoff_Moon · #12 04-02-2005, 02:19 AM

Thanks Tom, I was hoping you would jump in with an explanation about the limitations of .g ad-hoc mode.

It's really surprising they didn't mimic the .b standard. I had always assumed the signalling was the same - just a PHY layer modulation change to get the higher bandwidth. Guess that's not the case. Too bad really, as transferring NEFs from camera to computer can use all the bandwidth it can get.

Thanks again for the info.

Geoff

NickGarcia · #13 04-02-2005, 05:12 PM

I just did my first photoshoot with the D2x and the WT-2A. And Im very happy with the performance.
This is the way I set it up: Sending images to my main G5 via Wi-Fi using a Linksys wireless G Router. I shot Raw+Jpeg Fine, send only Jpegs and delete them after send them. Shot 3 1G cards after each card I whent to my computer with the client, (who was very impressed with the tech.) to chek on the pictures. Once my client was happy with what we got. I burn a CD with the Jpegs give it to my client and toll him to call me with the picture he want to use so I can retoched and get it ready for press. After he left I Bun a DVD with the Raw files. The hole process was a lot faster than using my old D1x thetered to my powerbook.

Im a happy guy today.

ThomasSapiano · #14 04-02-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's really surprising they didn't mimic the .b standard. I had always assumed the signalling was the same - just a PHY layer modulation change to get the higher bandwidth. Guess that's not the case. Too bad really, as transferring NEFs from camera to computer can use all the bandwidth it can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that certain portions of the control protocol need to use the older PHY layer so that it is backwardly compatible. If you just replaced the PHY and an 802.11b device tried to come online, then it wouldn't have any idea what is happening (as it wouldn't know how to interpret the signal it is recieving). By coding certain parts of the preamble in the basic 802.11 PHY devices can recognise the signal, detect that it isn't for them and wait for the next window (ignoring the data coded in a manner it can't understand). Since the access point is managing the connected devices, it can keep track of their capabilities and ensure that the appropriate signalling is used to communicate with them.

Since ad-hoc opperates in a different manner, there would have to be additional code to deal with the extra scenarios (eg every device would have to manually keep track of what PHY every other device is using). I would note that IIRC the 11g standard does not have anything that forbids OFDM PHYs in ad-hoc mode - it simply doesn't say that they have to support it. I doubt that this is anything more than a SMOF (Simple Matter of Firmware), however it may very likely be the firmware in the radio rather than the main transmitter [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks again for the info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad that I could help - although I wish I could provide better news [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]