[Na Horuk]

Uh.. I personally wouldn't want my camera to have all those features, even if I could turn them off. I would avoid buying one.

[dmytty]

Our cameras are already full of enough useless crap. Better they should spend R&D resources on better IQ, faster and more accurate auto focus, etc. Things that really matter.

What really matters is the amount of money that Pentax has available for R&D.

If you haven't noticed, DSLR market share is a fraction of the camera market, shrinking every year, and Pentax's share of that ever shrinking market is ever shrinking as well.

Here's a shocker for the DSLR market: Instagram (a photography editing and sharing app) was purchased for 50% more than all of Pentax (ie Ricoh paid $860 million for Pentax and Facebook offered $1-$1.27 billion). Now, it wasn't the unique filters that made Instagram valuable, but rather the 5 billion photos that were shared.

So, it seems that this 'useless crap' is what more and more people want. Better that we start easily sharing DSLR images lest the future social media be dominated by smartphone pics.

Also, if you can't imagine how genuinely useful these functions might be, then go pick up that manual focus lens and slap it on the film body while you grumble about 'useless junk'. Or better yet, start looking for those glass negatives.

[dmytty]

Uh.. I personally wouldn't want my camera to have all those features, even if I could turn them off. I would avoid buying one.

Why not? Seriously, I'm interested in hearing all reasons.

[vonBaloney]

If you haven't noticed, DSLR market share is a fraction of the camera market, shrinking every year, and Pentax's share of that ever shrinking market is ever shrinking as well.

Both untrue. DSLR market share is increasing, not shrinking. That's not because DSLRs are so popular, it is because compacts are going away because everyone uses their phone. And what is your evidence that Pentax's market is shrinking? It seems to be headed in the right direction in the Ricoh era, although that hasn't really even started yet so we'll see in the next year or two...

[dmytty]

I'm sure eventually we'll have GPS implanted in our own heads.

That's why I wear the tinfoil.

Because every feature you add is a trade-off -- some other feature won't be added.

This is true on first consideration. However, if Pentax adds a feature that lets them win market share, then that lets them have more resources to add even more photography functions. Also, wireless is more than geotagging - as you seem to know.

Just let it communicate with your smartphone and you'll have all the apps in the world in no time (or you can make your own)

I actually like your philosophy (ie an open source camera firmware or API). So how much more would you pay for Bluetooth? $50?

[Na Horuk]

Why not? Seriously, I'm interested in hearing all reasons.

Adding more modules and complexity to a camera increases the possibility of something malfunctioning or breaking.
These things would all suck battery power.
I don't like having wireless on me.
I don't think my devices should be connecting to places and sending data without my knowledge of exactly what is being sent exactly where.
The "turn off" function does not guarantee privacy (users can forget to turn it off or it can be turned on by a third party or it can be turned on silently, there were valid concerns about this in mobile devices)
I don't want to pay for something I won't use anyway.
And I would rather see Pentax spend resources in other places.

This can be useful to a handful of people (who can get the external module with many other features), but can be damaging to anybody (from journalists, celebrities, influential people, or even just regular people). Its just not worth it.

[vonBaloney]

However, if Pentax adds a feature that lets them win market share, then that lets them have more resources to add even more photography functions.

If they allow themselves to fall behind photography-wise to add geotagging, they aren't going to win anything. I'm sure we'll get it eventually -- maybe now is the time if it is so easy. But really, it needs to be easy. You are also forgetting the support side of the equation -- the more crap in there, the more complaints and support they need (even if it all works perfectly) to deal with the people that don't understand it or whatever. There is a concept called "software debt" and every new thing puts you in debt because it is one more thing you have to maintain forever.

I actually like your philosophy (ie an open source camera firmware or API). So how much more would you pay for Bluetooth? $50?

Nothing. But when they all have it, that will be fine with me. But I'm in no rush -- my life doesn't suck in any way for lack of bluetooth in my camera...

[dmytty]

Both untrue. DSLR market share is increasing, not shrinking. That's not because DSLRs are so popular, it is because compacts are going away because everyone uses their phone.

Nope, mirrorless is beating DSLR, and as you say, smartphones are eating the dedicated camera category as an appetizer.

And what is your evidence that Pentax's market is shrinking? It seems to be headed in the right direction in the Ricoh era, although that hasn't really even started yet so we'll see in the next year or two...

Pentax currently only has 3% of the market share. Ouch. As to the near future, the Pentax K30 is #58 on the DSLR/mirrorless sales list...in Japan! That's mighty bad news.

Source: Canon leading at 33%, Pentax at 3%
Source: Pentax K30 at #58 on sales list

[vonBaloney]

I would consider high-end mirrorless with interchangeable lenses and DSLRs to be part of the same market really and to have all the same basic features (other than the mirror and optical viewfinder), but anyway numbers show that for Q1 2012, production and shipments of DSLRs beat mirrorless by a 5 to 1 ratio globally. Mirrorless (MILC) has not really caught on yet. And the P&S compact market has been shrinking, as stated, being replaced by iphones.

And as far as Pentax, you've shown they've got a small market share (we know that already), but not a *shrinking* market share...

[dmytty]

I don't like having wireless on me.

Are you referring to a potential health risk? If so, I won't disagree with you and would call that the best reason I've heard so far for not adding it. I have worked in the cellular industry during my time in Finland - and Nokia did a lot of work to minimize RF radiation risks (not that consumers cared or rewarded them for it).

Personally, I'm reassured that FCC testing sufficiently mitigates the wireless radiation risk to the point where other factors have far more effect. For example, I live in the Rocky Mountains, and those beautiful mountains have more background particle-based radioactivity than other places - as does the granite slab my laptop rests on.

I don't think my devices should be connecting to places and sending data without my knowledge of exactly what is being sent exactly where. The "turn off" function does not guarantee privacy (users can forget to turn it off or it can be turned on by a third party or it can be turned on silently, there were valid concerns about this in mobile devices)

Just to jerk your chain, can I suggest that Obama might have already had one of his Czars force manufacturers to secretly add this to all imaging devices? Maybe my K30 is beaming stuff to the UN already!

Jesting aside, I agree with your privacy concerns in totality. I don't have facebook or any social media presence. However, I would want to share things with my real offline friends via modern communication methods. If Pentax open-sourced their firmware, I would like that as well.

For foreign countries with oppressive governments (and even private investigators in the USA), I know that harvesting EXIF data and doing face recognition is now routine. I don't like it one bit, but that's not a sufficiently compelling reason to restrict development for benevolent usage. Of course, it is an absolutely convincing reason to ask for open source firmware.

This can be useful to a handful of people (who can get the external module with many other features), but can be damaging to anybody (from journalists, celebrities, influential people, or even just regular people). Its just not worth it.

No kidding....I hope my Pentax never attaches my 'front of mirror' pictures to my forum posts!

[Mattco26]

Pentax Optio WG-2 / WG-2 GPS - Compact Digital Cameras - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
There's your GPS enabled Pentax camera.
I don't want any of this crap in my DSLR since I just use it for TAKING PICTURES.
I could see maybe adding GPS to the K30 since it's weather sealed and probably more likely to be taken deep outdoors,
That said, I'm not interested in wifi or bluetooth in anything other than a consumer level device. If you need to send photos to facebook or your friends right away, just use your cell phone, that's what it's for.

[dmytty]

Pentax Optio WG-2 / WG-2 GPS - Compact Digital Cameras - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
There's your GPS enabled Pentax camera.

Actually I bought the Olympus Tough version...it has an f/2 lens. My 4 year old son loves it.

However, that's a good point. It's so cheap that a camera costing 1/3 the price of the K30 has it.

I don't want any of this crap in my DSLR since I just use it for TAKING PICTURES.

Do you keep the pictures in your camera? Do you like fiddling with SD cards? As the answer is likely 'no', then the only question is what price tag do you attach to getting your pictures onto your other devices with minimum fuss. The less fussing you do, the more PICTURES YOU CAN TAKE!

I could see maybe adding GPS to the K30 since it's weather sealed and probably more likely to be taken deep outdoors,

My thoughts exactly.

That said, I'm not interested in wifi or bluetooth in anything other than a consumer level device. If you need to send photos to facebook or your friends right away, just use your cell phone, that's what it's for.

Well...I don't think this connectivity is a 'consumer' thing. Pro bodies have ethernet. They will use LTE in the near future (Pentax could be a market leader!)

My cell phone can't take an SD card so that's out of the question...which means I have to take out the laptop...and where's the spontaneity and convenience in that?

Also, if my camera was automagically backing up my photos to the cloud (or my home server) when I hit the hotel or LTE cell tower, that would be nice.

[reeftool]

The DSLR market is growing. It's probably the only camera market that is. The camera phone is killing off P&S market. Most phones have some sort of GPS built in these days. It's handy if you need a map. It also makes it possible for you to be tracked 24/7. Let's get to the real issue here. Add GPS to cameras and it will be possible to know where every camera is at all times.

No, we don't need built in GPS. The add on modules are already there for those who want it. Let them have theirs if they want it. I don't. I put the photos I want to share online to the sites I choose. MY camera. MY pictures.

I don't need my camera doing auto anything every I pass a tower and the day that happens, I will retire from photography. You people who advocate all this stuff you think is cool don't know the freedom you are giving up in doing so. The best thing that can happen to this world will be if a solar storm fries every satellite out there.

[Mattco26]

Actually I bought the Olympus Tough version...it has an f/2 lens. My 4 year old son loves it.

Do you keep the pictures in your camera? Do you like fiddling with SD cards? As the answer is likely 'no', then the only question is what price tag do you attach to getting your pictures onto your other devices with minimum fuss. The less fussing you do, the more PICTURES YOU CAN TAKE!

I don't want to pay anything for that since I don't mind fiddling with my SD card. It only takes a minute when I get home to open the door on the camera, pull the card out and slide it into my laptop. At some point you're just being lazy. I don't have to fuss with my wifi or bluetooth when I'm out shooting, that's what lets me take more pictures.

My cell phone can't take an SD card so that's out of the question...which means I have to take out the laptop...and where's the spontaneity and convenience in that?

I meant when you need to snap a photo and send it to your friends right away, you take and send the photo with your cell phone.

Also, if my camera was automagically backing up my photos to the cloud (or my home server) when I hit the hotel or LTE cell tower, that would be nice.

I don't need my camera to do that. There is a reason I can shoot my K10D for hours and hours and hours without changing the battery. The reason is that my K10D is a camera. That's it. It's not a cell phone, it's not a wifi hotspot and it's certainly not a GPS.

[Anvh]

Not really. All it does is give the location information and the main processor does everything else (ie moving the sensor for nightime star photos). However, the point that GPS receivers have advanced is true, but my point is that physical size wasn't even an issue in 2006.

It does, the Pentax GPS also record the direction not just the location also it can be used for star-tracing so it is more advance then a standard GPS.

Probably because you don't get out much? Seriously, if you don't take many pictures in many different places than this is not your thing. On the other hand, I've taken ~10,000 pictures with the K30 in about 500 different locations across 8 states. It would be useful to me. We will put you down as willing to pay $0?

I do but i don't see the point on recording the location where i've been, i've the photos right and the memories what more do i need?

Wifi will hardly struggle with a 16 MB file...a few seconds to send that file. Beyond the convenience, there is a very good reason: durability. Hooking up cables or opening memory card doors involves a mechanical connection rated for so many insertions/openings. This is even more of an issue in a weather sealed body. More so, I've forgotten the SD card in my computer a few times - and missed taking photos of a moose in the lake that's in front of Maroon Bells.

sure not one file but how about a 6 in 1 second and what will that do to the processing of the machine?
What about 24?
WIFI can be handy in the studio but further then that there is no real point in having it on a DSLr, i can see it having it uses on compacts and entry level DSLR so you can send you JPEG photos to your friends, television or phone but more Advance shooters are past that point i hope.

Flash...remote triggering...remote viewfinder viewing...etc Take a look at Bluetooth 4.0.

Sure sounds nice but nothing of that is out so no use of having it at this point.
Besides remote viewfinder... you can stream HD video over BT???

Well, pro bodies have ethernet connections so they can send pics to their editors. My wife sends pictures to her friends. I'm not a social media person myself, but on our summer road trip (1 month) I would have definitely sent a few photos to National Geographic or friends (maybe better received by the latter). Again, it's only a convenience, and like all things, that convenience has a value and a cost. I suggest the cost is minimal and the value high. Ergo...good business for Pentax.

Yeah ethernet but i thought we are talking about LTE here so the mobile network, besides since i shoot RAW i need to edit my photo so what use is it to me i asked?

As you point out, you like to take photos. Me too. All the cable connecting, photo organizing in folders, etc don't really add anything to the photography experience.

Yes they do, taking a photo is only 1 step in the process it's as much a science as an art.
Also non of your solution take away the need for cables also you still need to organize your photos or do you just send them to your friends to show off and then delete them???



besides all this does not help me make a better photo not at all actually since it makes it all more complex.
Have i turned the GPS on, the WIFI, the atomic clock, the heat ray, ect.
I just want to turn on my camera and take a photo without worrying or connecting all the crap.