[eddie1960]

Because some people like to remember *where* they took their pictures? Not just when or how?

To each their own.

I just need to look at the picture to tell you where i took it, I'm not suffering from Alzheimer's yet I'm only 50
i can't tell you to the square foot like i could with gps but that is irrelevant

[Rorschach]

I just need to look at the picture to tell you where i took it, I'm not suffering from Alzheimer's yet I'm only 50
i can't tell you to the square foot like i could with gps but that is irrelevant

Irrelevant to you but not to everybody. I do field research and for me it is extremely important to be able to pinpoint each photo I take at sampling locations. This type of images are very repetitive and after a few hundred there's no way you can tell where each was from, Alzheimer's or not.

[Fontan]

Well, for something like field research the usefulness needs no explanation.

[eurostar]

I always wonder why no one challenge the usefulness of having a calendar and clock inside the camera, but when it comes to GPS many stand up to say it's useless. Knowing when a photo has been done is so much more important than to know where?

[falconeye]

I always wonder why no one challenge the usefulness of having a calendar and clock inside the camera, but when it comes to GPS many stand up to say it's useless. Knowing when a photo has been done is so much more important than to know where?

I didn't question the usefulness of where but I still said the unit is a gadget only.

Unlike the camera clock, the GPS unit would be a clumsy add-on not working flawlessly.

If needing a flawless GPS unit, get a good external GPS logger not requiring attachment to the camera.

However, I would be in favour of an in-camera compass as this comes at virtually no cost and like a clock, would work well.

[cats_five]

I'm puzzled as to what use a compass without a GPS would be.

The people needing to know exactly where the photo was taken could include a hand-held GPS in the image (put it next to the subject) but to really get the full picture you need an electronic compass and pressure transducer - GPS altitude is not reliable. There are some models from Garmin that include all this, they seem to start from around £100 in the UK. Not a tidy solution and the Lat/Long might need adding into the EXIF by hand but it will be complete.

I'd say if you truely want a camera to give full geographical information you need all three items - GPS, electronic compass and pressure transducer and of course that will all cost something. You could also add a waypoint each time you take a photo or group of photos, but of course it's possible to forget to...

[falconeye]

I'm puzzled as to what use a compass without a GPS would be.

The people needing to know exactly where the photo was taken could include a hand-held GPS in the image (put it next to the subject) but to really get the full picture you need an electronic compass and pressure transducer - GPS altitude is not reliable.

Your comment lets me believe you're not practicing geotagging yourself.

A GPS logger in a pocket (of your photobag) solves all your geotagging needs except direction. Altitude can be resolved in reverse geotagging with higher precision (if the recorded altitude was close enough to the surface and not in a mountain wall). Only direction requires direct support from the camera, either on the hot shoe or in-camera.

With direction, focal length and focus distance (ideally all written to exif by the camera) you can identify the photographed objects in reverse geocoding when reading in the track file (reverse geocoding requires an internet connection -- so there's no need for the camera to write GPS coordinates anyway). Of course, this requires a good geocode object database but Google builds up just this. Better known landmarks and buildings are resolved by Google already today. Please google for "reverse geocoding" for further reading.


P.S.
To repeat my point and explain why in-camera support for GPS is not a good idea: GPS doesn't work reliably if switched on and off for a photo (would not attain a good fix fast enough). And if kept on it would drain too much power from the camera. A battery the size of the K-5 battery roughly powers a GPS logger for about a day. So, even if you doubled the battery it wouldn't work good enough. Good loggers work because they have own batteries (e.g., my logger weighs 55g vs 76g for the K-5 battery), can save energy smarter than current in-camera devices do and use more expensive chipsets than would be economically viable for a standard in-camera device.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 02-11-2011 at 04:45 AM.

[cats_five]

OK, if you put the GPS device in the camera I bag I see why you want one in the camera - the bag isn't pointing in the same direction. But I would have thought that ideally it would all be in the camera (cost permitting) and automatically written to the EXIF.

The drawback to in-camera GPS might be the start-up time, one in your bag you leave on the whole time. Mind you quite a few of us walk round with our cameras on all the time. Guess I'd want to be able to download a GPS trace from the camera, independantly of the photos I might or might not have taken otherwise I'd still need a separate GPS to get a trace if I wanted to know how far / how long / how much climbing and so on.

Having scanned lots of 35mm film & slides I now really appreciate that a digital camera puts the date & time in the EXIF, even if there can be GMT/BST issues!

[falconeye]

one in your bag you leave on the whole time

Yes, as I explained in my PS above, it's magic really:

I throw the logger into my bag (actually, put it into my bag's filter pocket so it never crosses my way ) and totally forget about it.

Maybe days later, when I decide it's time to load the images from my 32GB card into my computer, I rediscover the logger and hook it up to the computer as well.

So, I end up with two USB drives: the card with the images and the logger's track file.

I could actually have written a batch action to now geotag and reverse geotag the images even prior to reading them to the computer. But I really like to see the track visually and all the photo positions alongside. So, I open image folder and track file in a program like GeoSetter or PhotoLinker and push the button there.

Of course, I would prefer the camera doing it all. Technically, it just wouldn't work as advertized though. That's my point.


P.S.
My logger even manages to continue to log in my car's (almost) all steel trunk. Shouldn't be possible from within a Faraday cage Must use the holes to the back seats which can be tilted to transport long goods ...

[eurostar]

I didn't question the usefulness of where but I still said the unit is a gadget only.

Falk, I was referring to the ones that says: "I know where I took the pictures". I wonder why they never says "I know when I took the pictures" and blames why there is a clock and calendar inside the camera.

I don't do geotagging but I understand and agree with your posts.

[thibs]

My GPS logs OK from train or car as well.
But my view is slightly different. A gps logger is (IMO) expensive for what it does.
If one has the money (bif IF I know), buying a real GPd receiver is a whole lot more flexible.

My Garmin GpsMap60cx takes simple AA alkalines (or NiMH), works for 18+hours non stop, is fully configurable even on the road, can be used for trekking, cycling, car etc as well, shows you the map and can take you back home if you're lost. And AA batteries are to be found about everywhere. Takes MicroSD cards as well.

IMO it is a better deal in the end. But you need to pay for it at first of course

[cats_five]

<snip>can take you back home if you're lost.<snip>

How did you ever get lost in the first place with such a good device? And what happened to your ball of string / wool?