[Nicolas06]

That is not how A-GPS works. You download the satellite emphemeris off the Internet instead of having to get it from the satellites themselves, resulting in a much better TTFF. Nothing to do with wifi. The accuracy is the same, about 10 meters rms.

Your phone can still locate your phone with the wifi when the GPS is disabled. Typically when you have both wifi and GPS the phone record the GPS data as long as the wifi, this allow phone without GPS or GPS disabled to get an approximate geolocalisation.

[Nicolas06]

Does not have to be the only thing, just SOMETHING.

If you are looking at two cameras (k-3II and D7200 I guess) and most of the specs look the same and you do not really know anything about cameras my guess is if the only differentiation is the brand name then you go Nikon because, hey they had a commercial on TV a while back.

But if there is a difference in specs then you at least have a choice and something to base a decision on. In this case the Pentax has built in GPS. If you think you would like that you go Pentax, if not and you notice there is no OBF, (and you care) then you go Nikon. Not everyone will want a GPS, not everyone will be happy there is no OBF. But there is a DIFFERENCE. Only time will tell if that difference results in good or bad sales. But I would rather Ricoh try and see what works rather than blindly make another "me too" camera.

The something is really astro tracer because all the other features could have kept the OVF... Well even with a bit more effort both could have been kept not just having a difference but rather an additionnal feature.

[Nicolas06]

It doesn't do automatic tagging and it doesn't allow you to take long exposures of a night sky without star trails.

Lightroom does autotagging, you just need to have an application on your phone for that or the GPS or the watch you use for your hikings and other outdoors activities.

For the star trails is true even through technically the GPS can come from the phone too, what is different is more orientation and GPS don't provide that anyway (the astrotracer do).

[thibs]

your cellphone needs to scan wifi for access points as the mac adress is used for location data. It is additional data.

But has nothing to do with GPS. Location does not mean GPS. It is another way to approximate location though.

[D1N0]

But has nothing to do with GPS. Location does not mean GPS. It is another way to approximate location though.

it's A-GPS.

[IchabodCrane]

But has nothing to do with GPS. Location does not mean GPS. It is another way to approximate location though.

Modern smartphones use GPS, WiFi, and mobile networks to help determine location. Any mapping functionality comes through WiFi and/or mobile networks if not pre-loaded.

[Stavri]

The super resolution samples demonstrating the pixel shift tech from the PF preview blew me away...anyone else seen these?

[Class A]

The super resolution samples demonstrating the pixel shift tech from the PF preview blew me away...anyone else seen these?

These comparisons do not look realistic to me.

The "normal" versions are too blurry and/or show blotches.

When comparing the pixel-shift results to a camera without a Bayer-AA-filter then the differences you can demonstrate are

1. absence of colour artefacts, and
2. better colour resolution.

Both are not easy to demonstrate in a spectacular style, so I wouldn't be surprised if the demo comparisons weren't a 100%, let's say, straightforward.

[kh1234567890]

The super resolution samples demonstrating the pixel shift tech from the PF preview blew me away...anyone else seen these?

That write-up shows a complete lack of understanding of what is involved :

'If the pixel shifting scheme were revised to only require a single exposure (possibly lasting slightly longer than the selected shutter speed), under the hood, all pixels on the sensor could be exposed to the missing color channels for a fraction of the total exposure time.'

This is an idiotic statement, it is not the exposure time that limits the speed but the readout time. The mirror and shutter do not move four times. And taking still life shots at a ridiculous ISO is also a bit pointless - why not just increase the exposure time since nothing is going to move anyhow ?

[filoxophy]

This is an idiotic statement

Don't hold back.

[D1N0]

obviously ricoh got it wrong again because they didn't ask us experts..........

[Gimbal]

So what is the read out speed? And what will the shortest complete PS exposure time be (a complete four exposure shot)?
Say that a single exposure need 1/500s exposure with a 35mm lens. Firing off 4 of these will take 4/500s + read out time + shifting time, What will the sum be? Maybe you can handhold it?

Edit:
If one single normal exposure takes 1/500s, how long do the individual exposures have to be when pixel shifting? Wouldn't it be enough if the total exposure adds up to 1/500s, that is every single exposure would be 1/2000? And four of these would be 1/500 of total exposure time + read out and shifting time. In that case a PS shot would be pretty quick actually.

[thibs]

it's A-GPS.

Nope.

Wifi comes on top of it. It can help. But it is no A-GPS.

---------- Post added 01-05-15 at 15:04 ----------

Modern smartphones use GPS, WiFi, and mobile networks to help determine location. Any mapping functionality comes through WiFi and/or mobile networks if not pre-loaded.

Yep and using wifi for helping location is NOT A-GPS.
It doesn't mean it does no help. It is no A-GPS.

As for maps, it has nothing to do with GPS either. GPS provides location (and times) and NOTHING else. Period.

[Rondec]

That write-up shows a complete lack of understanding of what is involved :

'If the pixel shifting scheme were revised to only require a single exposure (possibly lasting slightly longer than the selected shutter speed), under the hood, all pixels on the sensor could be exposed to the missing color channels for a fraction of the total exposure time.'

This is an idiotic statement, it is not the exposure time that limits the speed but the readout time. The mirror and shutter do not move four times. And taking still life shots at a ridiculous ISO is also a bit pointless - why not just increase the exposure time since nothing is going to move anyhow ?

Do we know for sure that the shutter doesn't move four times? I haven't been totally clear on this fact. Not a big deal.

I don't know about the write up and what the photos were based on, since they don't actually have a K3 II to test. I think the point is probably to find the most obvious situation in which you could see improvement with the pixel shift versus without it.

[D1N0]

Nope.

Wifi comes on top of it. It can help. But it is no A-GPS.

---------- Post added 01-05-15 at 15:04 ----------



Yep and using wifi for helping location is NOT A-GPS.
It doesn't mean it does no help. It is no A-GPS.

As for maps, it has nothing to do with GPS either. GPS provides location (and times) and NOTHING else. Period.

You may think you are right, but in my book A-gps is anything that helps positioning in combination with satellite GPS. PERIOD!