when are canon likely to produce a gps enabled camera?

[mike_dodd]

Seems Canon have missed a trick badly by failing to put gps capability

in the 5D since this camera is used often by landscape people who all

need GPS capability. Since the gps chips are small and cheap and now

being put in devices such as mobile phones why on earth can't they be

stuck in expensive cameras?

Has anyone come up with a way of including gps functionality in

digital eos camera - other than taking along a second body from

another manufacturer and taking a second shot at the same time and

somehow copying over the data.

[ci_p]

What you suggest really isn't necessary. All you need is a portable GPS unit with a track log and a camera with a syncronised clock. Later you can write the extra EXIF data by determining from the track log where the camera was at the time of exposure.

 

I suspect the mobile phone location is not done with GPS, rather by triangulation from base stations.

[jim_larson1]

I read the original post about 4 times. . . .and still fail to see why anyone would want a GPS enabled camera. Sure, it would be nice. A sock warmer would also be nice.

 

Especially if it drove the price.

[KenPapai]

"All your base are belong to us!"

<p>

GPS integration with digital cameras is nothing new (witness the California Coastlines project where every inch of California's coastline from Oregon to Mexico is avaiable online). It would be a rare landscape photog who NEEDS GPS, a few of the more hardcore geeks might WANT it, but who really NEEDS it? Sure, it's pretty cool, but is it worth the extra $400 to add it to your EOS? Is there a market for it?

[paul -]

<i>"this camera is often used by landscape people who all need GPS capability."</i><P>Why?

[bobatkins]

There's a geek market for everything. Put a GPS locator or an MP3 player or a cell phone or a flashlight or bluetooth wireless in a camera and someone will want it and 10 times as many people will wish they had it and complain that they don't.

[fourfa]

the latest generation of cell phones do have a rudimentary GPS built in. Nothing precise, just enough to work with triangulation to eliminate multiple possible solutions.

 

At the moment the camera GPS ability is a gadget that's a lifesaver for extremely rare professional situations, and for those people there's Nikon (D2X, D2Hs, D200). The clock sync trick is a little fussier but serviceable unless you need results in the field. Some friends of mine just got into this for their PhD research at MIT-Media Lab and the Nikon GPS was exactly what they needed.

 

For the rest of us it's currently a gimmick, though with a little imagination I can see a neat display method with photos linked to a clickable location map. Wouldn't need true GPS accuracy for that, just round numbers.

 

Also bear in mind that the current solutions to this problem are not "small and cheap" - they use existing GPS devices with live output, and an extraordinarily expensive cable that must be left attached always. Shooting with the GPS tethered isn't going to be worth it just for the gimmick factor. Maybe down the road there can be a built-in low-accuracy module in the camera, like the phones, but I wouldn't hold your breath as it's not high in the consumer consciousness.

[lee_carruthers]

I've done land inventory shooting for the a First Nation (Indian Band) here in the Yukon with Canon digital camera gear. GPS functionality would have been very useful for interface with GIS systems data. Ideally, I would like a system that records position, elevation and azimuth for every shot. This I can do manually, using my handheld GPS with electronic compass, but it is pretty cumbersome. So, you see, GPS can be valuable beyond the "geek" factor.

 

If another contract came along, I'd have to look hard at Nikon for GPS functionality. Definitely a pain since I already own tens of thousands of $$ in Canon gear. How about it Canon? Get with the program.

[jim_gross]

It is not geek, to add the GPS to the EXIF data. There may be only a very few people that will use it but it would be one lies thing you need to carry on your hike if you need it.

 

One of the things I do in the summer is work on the Cumbers and Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama, NM. I am responsible for all the signs on the 64 miles of RR. I take photos of everything and it would help to have a GPS location. The photos are being keep as a historic log of the area.

 

I think all of you have found the scenic photo that you would like to reproduces today. Think how nice it will be 50 years from now when you read out the GPS and go to the location.

 

Just my input.

 

Jim

[PuppyDigs]

Maybe 1% of 1% of 5D owners would want GPS. I don't even care about the date or

exposure info being recorded. Heck I don't even wear a watch. I'd rather have iTunes

compatibilty than GPS. But what I really want is ECF.

[stephen hazelton]

Just take your GPS unit, hold it out in the photo, shoot at small aperture, and there you go. The fact that nobody does this is pretty good evidence that they don't need to.

[fourfa]

haha! excellent point

[antony_bichon]

I don't understand why some of you don't see the need for this.

And even less the bashing of the original post. Bad people :)

 

I have a friend who went on a trip and took a lot of pictures to document. He used GPS data to place on a map (Google) where the picture were taken and somehow shows the whole trip on one map.

It is useful, not necessary but useful. He did use a handheld GPS. The resolution for comsumer models being close to a meter, it worked quite well.

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Canon missed the trick but bewteen that and a wireless data transmitter (talking about pics download here), I'd take the GPS without hesitation.

 

:)

Antony

[bobatkins]

Did it make his pictures any better?

[icephoto]

<i>Did it make his pictures any better?</i><br><br>

Make his pictures better? What does quality of picture have to do with photography and photographic equipment? ;)<br><br>

Without putting much thought to it, I can think of certain applications where having GPS would be extraordinarily useful (Lee and Ken's examples are good, forensic investigations when the "where" is important in a crime scene/accident situation). I would love to have it if only so when I was on a long road trip I could tell exactly where I was shooting so that someday I might be able to try it again once I acquired some more skill. But indeed, for most of us this would be a neat toy but not worth raising the cost factor by more than a few dollars.

[manjo]

....and one more thing that will break...

[phule]

Just because you don't see value in a feature doesn't mean it is inherently without value. GPS is a tool, and a powerful one at that. Whether or not its integration with photography is warranted is up to the market to decide.

 

GPS does have practical value for specific applications (science, reporting/surveys, etc). For hobbiests and amateurs, it would be up to them to determine if such a built-in feature would be useful. As with many advances in th consumer market, a technology is first proven on the practical end and then spread to the unwashed masses. I think there will be more integration of GPS technologies into cameras and cell phones which will push down the integration costs.

 

<< Maybe 1% of 1% of 5D owners would want GPS. >>

 

99% of Puppy Faces' quoted statistics are completely fabricated.

 

See, I can make stuff up too!

 

<< The fact that nobody does this >>

 

That you have not seen someone do this is not actual proof of anything.

 

And yes Bob, GPS could improve (or be another tool for improving) your photos if you were looking for an exact location in an area where landmarks are changing or non-existant.

 

No one is forced to use a tool they don't want to use. Puppy Face doesn't care about time/date stamping in file data, so he ignores it. It doesn't cause him any harm to have the information available, despite its inclusion. While current GPS technologies may be bulky and unwieldy as far as camera-integration goes, I fail to see why so many in this thread find it so abhorent. Digital camera technology is not a mature market, why not let it grow? Why does it offend so many people to suggest change in a market that is the poster child for change?

 

Regardless, GPS-related fields are already included in the EXIF 2.1 standard. Other people obviously see the value of this information.

[mike sisk]

GPS location info is just another piece of metadata -- it can be useful, or not, depending

on what you need and/or want to do.

<p>

You can do some interesting things like linking a gallery to google maps with annotated

image locations.

<p>

I've been starting to play with this some -- although I haven't had time to do much beyond

gathering some info.

<p>

First, you need a GPS. Garmin has been a leader in this for years and most of their units

are very well made, waterproof, and inexpensive. For photo work I like the Garmin foretrex

201 because it's small and has a built-in li-ion battery. I added a hot shoe and mount it

right on the camera. The cost of the GPS and mounting hardware is just a little more than

the Nikon GPS cable.

<p>

Time accuracy is necessary for both the camera and the GPS. The GPS sets its own time

from the satellites -- you just need to make sure it is set to the same timezone as the

camera. For the camera, I just sync it up to my time-synced computer occasionally.

<p>

Next step is getting the track log out of the GPS and using some software to collate and

write GPS data to the image files. There's a bunch of software that does this (search google

-- it's often called geo-coding) but one

is an open-source perl script is called gpsPhoto.pl (

<a href="http://www.carto.net/projects/photoTools/gpsPhoto/">

http://www.carto.net/projects/photoTools/gpsPhoto/</a> ).

<p>

[bobatkins]

How did people live without GPS? I mean not knowing where you were to within a 30ft circle somewhere on the face of the earth must have caused massive insecurity in people. It must have been almost as bad as living without autofocus or (so I've been told) actually taking pictures without autoexposure.

 

Canon had better get with it. I'm NOT buying another camera unless it tells me EXACTLY where I am, what time it is and which direction to go in to get me to the nearest Starbucks or McDonalds. And it better have Eye Control Focus and Automatic Smile Detection or they can keep the damn thing. And it had better send all my images to my home PC via a wireless link or I'm just not buying it. If it's not full frame too, well they can just forget it. Oh, and I'm not paying over $1000 for it either.

[SCL]

Maybe they could put a microwave in it so I could have a warm sandwich while I'm out doing nature shots:). Give me a break....is it a full moon?

[phule]

Bob, even though it's a wish-list discussion, look on the bright side: It's not another 30D thread...

[iandangerfield]

They have been around for years!<div></div>

[bennyboy]

It's not good enough, I want mine to make toast.

[yanglee]

"Think how nice it will be 50 years from now when you read out the GPS and go to the location."

 

50 years from now you wouldn't need a GPS. The bionic camera will snap perfectly composed/exposed photographs at the best lighting straight from your past memory AND fly you to that destination within seconds.

 

How can Ansel Adam possibly live without a GPS?

[William Kahn]

Beam me up, Scotty.......please!