There are a few assumptions that go into the CheckPoint demonstration hack. Note that so far as I'm aware, this isn't a hack that is "in the wild" - this is a "white hat" hack where a ethical hacker tests the security of the device.
In ethical hacking, the findings are not immediately announced to the public. Instead, they inform the product vendor of the finding and provide them ample opportunity to produce a fix. Canon was notified and a fix is already available for the camera in question.
As someone who does work in the security field I can make a few general statements.
There are many vulnerabilities that are detected by ethical people and where a software fix is made available prior to any unethical people learning about the exploit. Most of the time, this is how things work. But ...
This comes with a consequence. Once a vendor makes a fix available, malicious hackers can compare the patched vs. unpatched software to see if they can work out what had to change. This provides them some clues as to where they might find the vulnerability. Once they find the vulnerability, then can build software to exploit it.
This means that the security fix itself ... clues in unethical hackers about the vulnerability and gets them busy trying to build an exploit. But this takes time. It might happen in just a few days.
THIS means that once a security patch is available, you really should make it a priority to download and install the security patch as soon as possible (preferably within just a few days). If you do this, your device will be patched from that particular vulnerability before any exploits show up in the wild.
Trouble happens when security patches have been available for months (or years) and people don't bother to install the necessary updates. If you do not want to install feature updates ... that's one thing. But you should make a special effort to keep up with security updates.
Malicious hackers are regularly trying to build exploits against computers (operating systems & applications). But home electronics devices, such as home routers, security cameras, etc. -- anything with an Internet connection -- are particular ripe targets because often these devices are often a bit too casual about the security aspects of their design. They make mistakes that software vendors used to make 20 years ago when they did things such as having well-known default passwords -- or storing or transmitting sensitive data in-the-clear.
I have a home security camera (a doorbell camera) that stored the WiFi network password in-the-clear such that a malicious hacker would be able to retrieve the password and use the information to get into the home network.
While many of us have several devices that can be internet-connected in our homes, I typically choose to network these devices via "wired" connection if that's an option. This isn't just safer from a security perspective, it's also more reliable because you aren't competing for bandwidth with neighboring wifi networks.
A traditional photographic camera is a bit of a special case because the camera does not need any network connection to perform its function. The WiFi or Bluetooth option is usually just there is an option to allow remote functionality and/or to transfer files. I transfer files by removing the memory card and inserting it in the computer (it's much faster) and only use the WiFi feature if I'm away from home and don't have my card reader with me.
But as a more generalized answer ... there are more and more Internet of Things devices that need a WiFi connection in order to work. If the vendors of these products are not experienced at how to secure their products (and many are not) then they leave consumers vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.
Keep your products up-to-date ... especially for security updates.