Geo-tagging vs Wi-Fi
Dec 31, 2015 18:50:48 #
It seems to me that a GPS function in cameras would be far more desirable than Wi-Fi. I am not likely going to transfer pictures to my cell phone which has only slightly larger viewing area. I will most likely email pictures after being downloaded to my computer, then send to ones I am proud of. It would be nice to know specifically where I was when I took a picture. I just cannot remember that after a few thousand pictures.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Dec 31, 2015 19:07:14 #
Personally, geotagging is of no interest to me, especially with the inherent dangers of including the GPS coordinates of things near and dear to you in your pictures. On the other hand, I would view WiFi as a more convenient way to upload my photos to my computer without having to pull memory cards & dig out my card reader.
Dec 31, 2015 19:12:09 #
FloydP wrote:
It seems to me that a GPS function in cameras would be far more desirable than Wi-Fi. I am not likely going to transfer pictures to my cell phone which has only slightly larger viewing area. I will most likely email pictures after being downloaded to my computer, then send to ones I am proud of. It would be nice to know specifically where I was when I took a picture. I just cannot remember that after a few thousand pictures.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Wi-Fi is much more useful for work. It allows me to send photos back to the office without having to use a computer. Especially important if there is a tight deadline.
Also if I want to have gps coordinates included in a photo they make apps that put the gps coordinates on the phone and sync them with the camera so there is absolutely no need for the camera to have a gps function to identify where a picture is taken.
Dec 31, 2015 19:15:12 #
FloydP wrote:
It seems to me that a GPS function in cameras would be far more desirable than Wi-Fi. I am not likely going to transfer pictures to my cell phone which has only slightly larger viewing area. I will most likely email pictures after being downloaded to my computer, then send to ones I am proud of. It would be nice to know specifically where I was when I took a picture. I just cannot remember that after a few thousand pictures.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
I agree. In my opinion, GPS built into the camera would be far better than wi-fi. Shooting in raw means relying on wifi to transfer images would take forever - I would much rather have the GPS coordinates added and transfer the images quickly into my computer after a shoot.
For those that shoot tethered, relying on wifi might be the better choice, but thats not me, I understand it, but thats not me. :)
Having GPS added in camera would save me the trouble of adding GPS thru the mapping module in post processing, or needing to activate a tracker on my iPhone to cover the shoot.
Dec 31, 2015 19:21:23 #
Dngallagher wrote:
Glad I'm not the only one who'd rather have the GPS feature built-in to the camera, such as in my Sony A55, as I'm not so tech-savvy to do it the other way.I agree. In my opinion, GPS built into the camera would be far better than wi-fi. Shooting in raw means relying on wifi to transfer images would take forever - I would much rather have the GPS coordinates added and transfer the images quickly into my computer after a shoot ...
Having GPS added in camera would save me the trouble of adding GPS thru the mapping module in post processing, or needing to activate a tracker on my iPhone to cover the shoot.
Having GPS added in camera would save me the trouble of adding GPS thru the mapping module in post processing, or needing to activate a tracker on my iPhone to cover the shoot.
By the way, I don't remember the Topic title or date, though it was within the past two months that a Topic of the same theme was posted. I believe it may have been the one where Hogs were debating HOW Sony could crown the A77 mk II camera the successor of the A77, which had the GPS feature, while its successor does not.
Dec 31, 2015 19:23:58 #
lev29 wrote:
Glad I'm not the only one who'd rather have the GPS feature built-in to the camera, such as in my Sony A55, as I'm not so tech-savvy to do it the other way.
By the way, I don't remember the Topic title or date, though it was within the past two months that a Topic of the same theme was posted. I believe it may have been the one where Hogs were debating HOW Sony could crown the A77 mk II camera the successor of the A77, which had the GPS feature, while its successor does not.
By the way, I don't remember the Topic title or date, though it was within the past two months that a Topic of the same theme was posted. I believe it may have been the one where Hogs were debating HOW Sony could crown the A77 mk II camera the successor of the A77, which had the GPS feature, while its successor does not.
For some reason, lots of people are hung up on wi-fi, I'm not. ;)
I know many who think wi-fi is the greatest thing since sliced bread and love saying they have wifi!
Dec 31, 2015 19:51:18 #
Dec 31, 2015 20:13:16 #
2 different functions for 2 different types of photographers. GPS for landscape/travel, wi-fi for "studio" (portrait, product, fashion etc) type of shooters
Jan 1, 2016 06:42:26 #
I have two cameras with WiFi, one is an Olympus EM10 the other is a Canon SX 510, I don't use the WiFi on either of them as they are tricky to set up and can drop the signal very frequently, the best use of the wifi is to use my phone or tablet as remote control.
However I do like to have a GPS function which my Canon SX260 has, although it's only a small P&S it does take excellent photos with accurate Geotags.
The main draw back with both GPS and WiFi is they are a serious drain on the battery for this reason I very rarely use either.
To WiFi enable my cameras and geotag my photographs I now use EyeFi SD cards, they cost more than normal SD cards but I can transfer my photo "on the go" to my phone or tablet and at the same time the location is recorded.
I find them very reliable and they have negligible drain.
However I do like to have a GPS function which my Canon SX260 has, although it's only a small P&S it does take excellent photos with accurate Geotags.
The main draw back with both GPS and WiFi is they are a serious drain on the battery for this reason I very rarely use either.
To WiFi enable my cameras and geotag my photographs I now use EyeFi SD cards, they cost more than normal SD cards but I can transfer my photo "on the go" to my phone or tablet and at the same time the location is recorded.
I find them very reliable and they have negligible drain.
Jan 1, 2016 07:46:13 #
FloydP wrote:
It seems to me that a GPS function in cameras would be far more desirable than Wi-Fi. I am not likely going to transfer pictures to my cell phone which has only slightly larger viewing area. I will most likely email pictures after being downloaded to my computer, then send to ones I am proud of. It would be nice to know specifically where I was when I took a picture. I just cannot remember that after a few thousand pictures.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
Just curious if anyone else agrees with my thinking.
I have a 6D that has both, I use the Wi-Fi quite often when we are out with family and friends and we take some group shots it is a snap to transfer them to my phone and then to everyone in the group on the spot either by email or message. Also in the case of the 6D that does not have an articulating screen I often make up for that with my phone on Wi-Fi. I have never used the GPS.
Jan 1, 2016 08:36:13 #
peterg
Loc: Santa Rosa, CA
I use a geotagging app in my iPhone which records my GPS position while taking pictures. During post-processing, I sync the geotag file with the photos which inserts the Lat/Long into each photo's EXIF data . Lightroom and other apps can do the syncing. It works best if you sync the camera & iPhone time before taking pictures. Works with any camera with no camera battery drain.
Jan 1, 2016 08:57:34 #
FloydP wrote:
It seems to me that a GPS function in cameras would be far more desirable than Wi-Fi.
I'm with you. I have no desire to send 24MP images to my phone. Having GPS data on the image is more important to me. Fortunately, more cameras are getting GPS.
Jan 1, 2016 09:02:18 #
Dngallagher wrote:
I know many who think wi-fi is the greatest thing since sliced bread...
I remember a scene from a 1930's English mystery on TV. The chauffeur was in the kitchen, and the cook called him over to show him his new equipment. He put a loaf of bread into the slicer, hit the switch, and the loaf was quickly sliced. The chauffeur said, "That's the best thing since...Well, I don't know when."
Jan 1, 2016 09:34:07 #
peterg wrote:
I use a geotagging app in my iPhone which records my GPS position while taking pictures. During post-processing, I sync the geotag file with the photos which inserts the Lat/Long into each photo's EXIF data . Lightroom and other apps can do the syncing. It works best if you sync the camera & iPhone time before taking pictures. Works with any camera with no camera battery drain.
Peter just how do you do that
Thx
Joe
Jan 1, 2016 09:57:39 #
johneccles wrote:
I have two cameras with WiFi, one is an Olympus EM... (show quote)
But, the eyefi cards get the GPS from connecting to a wifi service don't they? If you are out away from any wifi service they don't provide GPS right?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.