Dear Nikon, how about supporting customers?

Summary: Why on earth does Nikon not enable image uploads via the ftp protocol? Everything is there and the implementation is even more trivial than the current solution, would work with every file server and would “work” — in contrast to the Wireless Transmitter Utility.

Every company has its own DNA. The core believes, a culture the company operates on. At Nikon it is not about being the first but providing the best tool instead. I, for myself, work with Nikon cameras for 30 years now.

Obviously every photographer has his own workflow but how about the following thought: Every user takes pictures and will save them somewhere. A thought not so far fetched.

In today’s world of everything being true-wireless, uploading the data via Wifi is the obvious demand. Nikon has recognized that and the cameras provide features for that. That’s the good news. The bad is how in gods name this has been implemented. Shame on you.

Current Nikon solution

Uploading files via the phone works somewhat but a user carrying pounds of equipment will not upload all his files to facebook but requires the raw image files on the PC for post processing. The wireless transmitter utility uses a UPNP based protocol that works once and then never again. It has no debugging option as it is deeply buried within the services. Imagine that, the most common workflow does scarcely work. Internet is full of complaints and for years.

Further more, most people I know of do not even upload the files to the PC but a network drive station, a NAS box. Best would be to upload the files directly there.

Support ftp or scp or any other open standard

In ways of implementation there are many options to achieve the same with less problems, more open, works everywhere and without software to be installed on the server side. An obvious example would be ftp or its more secure scp variant. Implementation of such in the camera firmware is trivial and the matching server component exists for every possible operating system and hardware.

Does anybody have an idea why Nikon refuses to add such functionality?

The only explanation I have is Nikon tries to protect the sales of the WT-7 adapter, a Wifi adapter to enable an already Wifi enabled camera. How many people spend 1'200EUR on an external hardware add-on that’s only value is to support another network protocol, one that is easier(!!) to implement in firmware than the current one? It is ridiculous from my point of view.

Possible counter arguments

• Wifi is too slow, nobody is using that: Yes and no. Of course downloading 1000s of images at once will take a while. But for this number of images I am willing to plugin the camera. It is for cases where there is just one image, a handful of images, to be copied. And if Nikon would not see use cases, the camera would not have Wifi builtin and the WT-7 adapter would not exist. Actually, the download of a lossless raw file can be done in parallel while shooting. Imagine that from a security and convienence point of view!
• The WT-7 adapter supports more than ftp: True, it supports more protocols, it supports remote control of the camera via a PC software. But none of these features require a special hardware or more processing power in the camera. Even the implementation of this functionality is 95% in the camera and just 5% wrapper code. The remote control works via USB and the PTP protocol also and enabling that wireless means encapsulating the PTP frames in TCP/IP packets. The Snapbridge app is using the same protocol, just supports a fraction of the functionality. So this truly is another artifical limitation. Look at a wireshark capture to proof it.