Kodak has filed with the FCC for a Bluetooth camera module in its cameras. I’m confused as everybody else as to why they wouldn’t just file for a camera with the radio already built in. I guess they don’t have one ready.

To me, Bluetooth makes more sense than Wi-Fi in digital cameras. The range is shorter (think paparazzi situations), and easier to configure.

Bluetooth is a ’shortwire’ replacement for the mass of cables we use to connect ‘personal’ devices so they can share information. When talking about ‘personal’ devices we are referring to portable PCs, mobile telephones & headsets, PDAs, digital cameras, MP3 players and so on. As Bluetooth develops, we will see more enabled devices, particularly around the home.

WiFi is the ‘longwire’ (network cable from desk to hub/server) wireless replacement technology. It is designed to allow users to log onto an office/business network without the need to physically attach via a network card (for portables, a LAN adapter may be built into either the PC, or a docking station. Alternatively, a PC Card may be used.) As long as the user has network access rights, they should be able to log on to the network from anywhere within the network area (building or site). It simplifies the network infrastructure as physical cabling is only needed to connect the wireless access point to a hub or server. By removing physical cabling, costs can be saved, and there is less physical structure to fail / troublesnap. It also increases the flexibility of the workforce in being able to go anywhere within the network but remain connected.

What I really want is a Nikon D200 with Bluethooth and GPS built-in.