GPS & WIFI on Cameras

[robbins.photo]

I wonder why the manufacturers like Canon and Nikon don't put wifi and gps into the grips. Seems like it'd be a great selling point for the grip. I know if they re-released the D7k grip with wifi and gps i would buy it in a heartbeat.

That would be an excellent idea - you'd eliminate the problem of having to choose between plugging in the grips vertical shutter button or an aftermarket GPS system, since the wifi and GPS both require more battery usage you'd satisfy that requirement by having the grip with the 2 batteries. As it is I've held off on buying a grip, I've found I can usually get through an entire day of shooting with my D5100 on just the one battery and still have plenty to spare - but if they sold one with GPS and Wifi I'd be very interested myself.

 

[Derrel]

I went on-line this AM to find the cameras that have Wi-Fi as a built in. I found this article that lists a dozen models. Best Wi-Fi Cameras - Find the Best Cameras With Wi-Fi and Wireless Capabilities

The Nikon D5300, which was announced just a short time ago, also has built-in Wi-Fi. I think one of the main reasons manufacturers are not building Wi-Fi in is that it's 1) not an absolutely needed accessory and 2) they have accessory systems they want to SELL their customers and 3) techno geeks typically sneer at built-in anything; they want to be able to rig up their own system, based on their needs and 4)there are entire markets where Wi-FI is a "first world luxury" and Wi-Fi is simply not available or only available in limited areas and 5)building in another sub-system reduces the amount of profit for the manufacturer due to the increased component prices the manufacturer incurs, which has the very likely side effect of cutting useful features from the product during its design stage.

I went to the Nikon USA site today; It seems like they have 208 d-slr accessories. I went thru hundred of items, 18 per page, and noticed some prices, and it seems that Nikon has basically an $89 component and a $277 component, and also a $624 wireless camera commander; Let's take the $277 figure as the lost sales of an add-on accessory Wi-Fi setup as being similar to Canon's loss of potential accessory sales on each 6D; I suspect that given the weak d-slr market, the inclusion of built-in Wi-Fi on the 6D meant....no built-in flash. And probably the second memory card slot.

Again, d-slr sales are not that strong now. The emerging markets of the world are eager for luxury and status goods. The camera makers have wireless connectivity "options" for people who absolutely NEED to shoot images which are directly uploaded to say, their news bureau's FTP server in real-time; that capability has been around for severn or eight years I believe it is now, but for the vast majority of d-slr buyers, they've been unaware of it, or simply do not care.

I think we'll have a chance to see how well the public views built-in Wi-Fi on the new Nikon D5300, in terms of its sales against the discounted D5100 bodies, and the plethora of D5200 bodies available still in the channel. It seems that the vast majority of Nikon's d-slr sales are in low-end models where retail PRICE, and "the deal" users can obtain, are the driving factors, as opposed to specific features. At the high end, like sports and news shooters using high-end Canons and Nikon's, those people are using custom-built systems, each designed by their individual media and a whole slew of different IT departments.

 

[Juga]

That is a pretty good assessment Derrel.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks Joe. Here's an endgadget article which has a lengthy comments section, where techno-geeky-type people debate the price/value issue, and the benefits/cost-cutting compromises of the D5300 and its main competitors.

Nikon D5300 is the company's first DSLR with built-in WiFi, ships this month for $800 (hands-on)

It's interesting to read the opinions of a whole bunch of different people and how they each view this segment (the lower-end d-slr market), Wi-Fi SD cards, Nikon's hardware, the utility of Wi-Fi for various tasks, such as downloading entire SD cards versus uploading images to a smartphone to then upload to social media,etc..

 

[JClishe]

I shoot pretty much entirely in raw and post process everything.

Me too.

I don't own a tablet and even if I did I'd still most likely not want to try to process images on it,

Me neither. And I'm defining "process" as editing or developing.

so before anything gets uploaded or shared anywhere I'll be putting it on the PC at home first and running it through photoshop.

Me too.

As a result the only thing Wifi would really do for me is make it so I wouldn't have to plug the little usb cable into the side of the camera to transfer the images to the PC. Not exactly a feature worth dropping much money on, at least not for my workflow.

And this is the "bigger picture" that I feel like you missed. I agree with absolutely everything you said, but it's what you didn't say that's where the value of WiFi comes from. It's the rating / reviewing / rejecting / flagging / labeling.

The other day I was working with a model for a few hours and shot a few hundred images. When we finished, as I was packing my gear she reviewed all the images from the shoot on my iPad (Photosmith app). I told her, green label for your favorites, red label the ones you don't like at all. On the drive home I stopped for lunch. I took the iPad in with me and culled the entire shoot while I was sitting there and was able to start editing as soon as I got home.

Not too long ago I met up with several fellow photographers and we car pooled to a location shoot about an hour drive away. During the drive home (I was a passenger) I rated all of my images from the shoot and was able to start editing my selects as soon as I got home.

Frequently I'll get home from a shoot late and don't feel like sitting at my computer, I just want to watch TV for a bit before going to bed. But I have the option of grabbing the iPad and getting a head start on culling while I'm watching TV. Those are just a few examples but you get the idea.

My time is important to me and WiFi on a camera saves me literally hours of time. This is real world, tangible, measurable, time I'm able to get back thanks to WiFi on my camera. All of that downtime spent traveling, flying, in airports, hotels, restaurants, etc is time that I can now spend rating and reviewing images so when I finally do return to my editing workstation I can focus on editing. My entire processing and image turnaround time is measurably faster now.

Obviously everyone's mileage will vary but WiFi on a camera is SO much more than sharing and file transfers (I don't use it for either).

 

[robbins.photo]

And this is the "bigger picture" that I feel like you missed. I agree with absolutely everything you said, but it's what you didn't say that's where the value of WiFi comes from. It's the rating / reviewing / rejecting / flagging / labeling.

The other day I was working with a model for a few hours and shot a few hundred images. When we finished, as I was packing my gear she reviewed all the images from the shoot on my iPad (Photosmith app). I told her, green label for your favorites, red label the ones you don't like at all. On the drive home I stopped for lunch. I took the iPad in with me and culled the entire shoot while I was sitting there and was able to start editing as soon as I got home.

Not too long ago I met up with several fellow photographers and we car pooled to a location shoot about an hour drive away. During the drive home (I was a passenger) I rated all of my images from the shoot and was able to start editing my selects as soon as I got home.

Frequently I'll get home from a shoot late and don't feel like sitting at my computer, I just want to watch TV for a bit before going to bed. But I have the option of grabbing the iPad and getting a head start on culling while I'm watching TV. Those are just a few examples but you get the idea.

My time is important to me and WiFi on a camera saves me literally hours of time. This is real world, tangible, measurable, time I'm able to get back thanks to WiFi on my camera. All of that downtime spent traveling, flying, in airports, hotels, restaurants, etc is time that I can now spend rating and reviewing images so when I finally do return to my editing workstation I can focus on editing. My entire processing and image turnaround time is measurably faster now.

Which might work well - you know, if I had an Ipad. Or wanted one. I don't. So I plug the camera into the PC and download the whole kit and kaboodle to it. Once I'm done I'm watching TV on the one 40" monitor and working on the pictures on the other. Thanks to the large screen size I can view a whole page full of images at once - I drag the keepers into one folder and leave the chaff behind. Then I can start post processing the keepers. I'll generally wait a day or two and make another run through the chaff folder, see if maybe there is anything there with enough potential to keep that I missed on the first run through.

I don't carpool so I wouldn't be able to do much on my way home from the zoo, or any of the other locations that I drive too to shoot. Sort of goes way above and beyond "texting and driving"..lol. So while this might work great for you, it is of almost no use to me - because my circumstance is much different. This just isn't a case of "one bigger picture fits all" I'm afraid.

 

[Smokeyr67]

I don't understand why people can complain about GPS or WiFi being a feature available on an SLR.

Theres many features on the most basic SLR that 99% of people dont use, if you don't like WiFi disable it, same with GPS.

I hate the fact the my still camera want;s to pretend to be a video camera, so I don't use it, many do and good on them!

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't understand why people can complain about GPS or WiFi being a feature available on an SLR.

Who was complaining? I merely mentioned that it wasn't a feature I really had a ton of use for - but hey if other folks find it useful, great. More power too them.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Sorry robbins.photo, not you specifically, I've just read the linked thread and my heads still spinning from coffee and car feature comparisons

 

[robbins.photo]

Sorry robbins.photo, not you specifically, I've just read the linked thread and my heads still spinning from coffee and car feature comparisons

Ugh.. car shopping. You are completely forgiven. In fact I'm pretty sure that in most states you can get nearly any homicide declared justifiable merely by mentioning that you were forced to go car shopping that day.. rotfl

 

[gsgary]

It's just something else to go wrong

 

[Kolia]

It won't make you a better photographer. But it is very useful to have.

The way photography is going, dSLR's will need it more and more in order to compete with smartphones and tablets. People take pictures to share on social media. Anything that makes that easier will have a market advantage.

As mentioned, it can also be an integral part of a professional's work flow. It's up to you to decide what your time is worth.

When the first digital cameras came out, professional photographs thought that was a useless gimmicky thing that they didn't need. Film was there to stay and would never be surpassed... Right...

 

[sgbotsford]

I like the idea:

WiFi

Most people are looking at this as a way of getting pics OFF the camera. I see it as an opportunity to OPERATE the camera.

In principle it means that I don't have a tether to the camera. If the API for the camera is available, then applications can control the camera from a moderate distance. E.g. I can have an app that says, "Focus on the front most element; Lift the mirror up, wait 2 seconds; expose; advance the focus 1 mm; expose; repeat 12 more times." I can have an app that says, "Take a picture whenever the overall light level changes by .3 ev." I can stuff the camera on a corner of the yard, and take pictures from my iphone of trick or treaters at the door.

I can also do things like: Send the jpeg version to my tablet; save the Raw version on the local disk. NOW I can take a folder of images to the client at the end of the shoot.

GPS. This is a lesser concern to me. But for those pros out there: Consider the market for a camera that you could do a bio-survey with:
The camera would record GPS co-ordinates plus the direction the camera was pointing, plus the angle of inclination. Now you are in the positon to walk a patch of wild land, taking a series of 20 pix every 100 yards, every stream crossing, every ridge.

GPS means that you don't have to associate a track to update your co-ordinate info after the shoot. If you are doing trips either as a tourist or as an expedition leader, GPS is a BIG win.

Lust, lust.......

 

[robbins.photo]

Just how useful are these 2 features to you?

For me, I shoot, and transfer via SD card to my computer for processing - thus eliminating the need for wifi - I'm not going to upload direct to FB / Flickr / 500mp etc without checking it on the big screen.

Next up, this leads me to GPS - when I import from SD card, I create a folder in whatever app I use (Lightroom / Aperture / iPhoto etc) and separate the images by where / when. THIS eliminating the need for GPS.

So for me, I don't need my camera to have thee features.

Do YOU??

Well I wouldn't specifically buy a camera for these features. I could make use of both I suppose, but neither is really a big selling point for me personally. I transfer my pictures to the PC with the usb cable, primarly because I absolutely refuse to put a card reader in my machine. I've got too many drives in there already, I hate the fact that when you add a card reader it assigns each and every different memory slot it's own drive letter. It can be fixed of course but I just don't feel like messing with it so I just use the USB cable. So if I had wifi, sure, I'd probably use it. But like you I don't upload direct, I shoot mostly in RAW and post process most everything so they aren't ready for upload till I run them through my PC anyway.

GPS is another one of those, sure it would be cool to have but not worth buying a camera body specifically for that feature items for me personally. I do a bit of walking around for some of my shots and plan to do even more once the weather permits so it would be great to tag the images with a GPS location, but it's not something that is so critical to me that it's worth going out of my way to get.

So a camera like the D5300 for me just isn't worth it, not when compared to the D7100 which is my next planned upgrade. If I had the features sure I'd probably use them, but neither is really a selling point for me as neither is really necessary for my workflow.

 

[mmaria]

I didn't read the the thread, have no time, but just to add something about WiFi.

I bought a camera, forgot to buy a remote. WiFi will allow me to take the photo with my android as a remote. That's the only thing I payed attention to.

GPS and WiFi aren't that important to me.