Eyefi Mobi Pro card vs. Nikon WU-1a Wireless Adapter
April 1, 2015 3:56 AM   Subscribe

Has anyone compared an Eyefi Mobi Pro SSD card to a Nikon WU-1a Wireless Adapter in terms of useage/ease of compatibility? I have a Chromebook I'm looking to automatically transfer high-res photos to, and am interested in the pros/cons of both products.
posted by Neale to Computers & Internet (3 answers total)
Best answer: I can only say something useful about the Eyefi products, as I have a few of their previous products in use.
First they are SD cards (not SSD); so they remain useful even if you upgrade your camera. Although most next-gen camera will have builtin wifi.

I doubt you'll be able to automatically have all pictures downloaded to a Chromebook. Eyefi have a Windows client which does the auto-downloading to a preconfigured drive/folder. But even if you have a windows server running 24/7 to download your pictures from the eyefi cloud to a local drive; you'd still have to give your chromebook access to this drive, which is hard or not yet existent.

You can manually download the full-res pics from the eyefi website. Within a week after taking the pictures or forever if you pay them for storage. this defeats the pupose of these wifi tools completely.

There is however the option to send a copy of the pictures to one(!) additional online service (picasa, facebook, flickr, ..) in addition to email. If you send them to picasa, they are available in G+ and G+ photos should also show up in GDrive nowadays which should be available on your chromebook.
Beware, you mention high-res and every picture >2048 lines will count towards your GDrive quota which is very limited to 15GB for regular users; maybe you got 100GB free together with the chromebook?
Flickr will give you 1TB free, but will not integrate (equally well) with the google services.

Ideally, you'd send one full-res copy of your pictures to Flickr for storage and a <2048-lines copy to Google+/FB for sharing and basic online image manipulations. But Eyefi aren't interested in allowing pictures to be sent to multiple online services; I assume they'd prefer it if customers use their own paying cloud storage. Pitty.
posted by Akeem at 6:14 AM on April 1, 2015

But even though the Eyefi cards certainly have their limitations, I think they're still miles ahead of the propietary alternatives for file transfers. The Nikon WU-1a appears to be limited to a direct connection with Android or iOS smart devices for file transfers and remote capture.
Such a direct connection for file transfer is also possible with the Eyefi cards and a smart-device, but will be of limited use for a chromebook. I consider the remote image capture functionality to be a gimmick; but if you consider this to be useful, that's a definite advantage over Eyefi.
posted by Akeem at 6:51 AM on April 1, 2015

Response by poster: Thanks Akeem. The range on the WU-1a seems to be very limited, so I'm not sure it's terribly useful if you need to wander with a camera while keeping the laptop back at a station.
posted by Neale at 5:10 PM on April 1, 2015

« Older Husband Quit Smoking. How Can I Help Through This?   |   What to do with ridiculously fast Internet? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.