GNSS finally in a camera

[ralf-11]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/53472...t-camera-gnss-gps-according-government-filing

 

[DeeJayK]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/53472...t-camera-gnss-gps-according-government-filing

What use case are you envisioning for which GPS is insufficient?

- K

 

[ralf-11]

explained in the article - did you read it?

 

[DeeJayK]

explained in the article - did you read it?

Yes, I read the article, but your assumption to the contrary is cute.

What I didn't see in the article was the answer to my question which is (slightly restated): what photography-related use case do you have (or you can envision) where the accuracy of GPS is insufficient? And/or what other advantage do you expect this to provide?

- K

 

[ralf-11]

I see you are in the PNW. Maybe you never leave a city, but there are many places even near a paved road in the PNW with poor or no GPS reception.

I found your response to be not cute.

 

[retiredfromlife]

From reports I have GPS information and cameras is not very accurate. But I think that is partly to do with how often the camera gets a location. From my understanding cameras do not get the information for every shot taken at the shot time.

I once tried to get that information from my G5 when canyoning for the waterfalls we were absailing. The waterfalls are not on the maps, so I would take a photo and try to use the location data to add the falls to our maps. It unfortunately was not accurate enough. That may have been due to me and the way I had the TG5 setup don't know.

What ever the system used I would like it to work out of the box, not have to download data to the camera like with the TG5 first and for it to be read for every photo taken even if it slowed down the shooting. I can imagine that may prove problematic for burst shots etc.

I also remember GPS information was often not available in a canyon slot, but I guess all systems would suffer in those situations ?

 

[DeeJayK]

From reports I have GPS information and cameras is not very accurate. But I think that is partly to do with how often the camera gets a location. From my understanding cameras do not get the information for every shot taken at the shot time.

I once tried to get that information from my G5 when canyoning for the waterfalls we were absailing. The waterfalls are not on the maps, so I would take a photo and try to use the location data to add the falls to our maps. It unfortunately was not accurate enough. That may have been due to me and the way I had the TG5 setup don't know.

What ever the system used I would like it to work out of the box, not have to download data to the camera like with the TG5 first and for it to be read for every photo taken even if it slowed down the shooting. I can imagine that may prove problematic for burst shots etc.

I also remember GPS information was often not available in a canyon slot, but I guess all systems would suffer in those situations ?

Thanks, RFL, this is a good example of a potential case where in-camera GPS isn't accurate enough. The question (which I don't know the answer to) is whether GNSS would be much (or any) better in this example.

I don't think most camera makers would recommend their GPS implementations for cartography.

Slot canyons are always going to be a challenge since the device needs line of sight to at least 3 satellites to be accurate.

- K

 

[Aristophanes]

From reports I have GPS information and cameras is not very accurate. But I think that is partly to do with how often the camera gets a location. From my understanding cameras do not get the information for every shot taken at the shot time.

I once tried to get that information from my G5 when canyoning for the waterfalls we were absailing. The waterfalls are not on the maps, so I would take a photo and try to use the location data to add the falls to our maps. It unfortunately was not accurate enough. That may have been due to me and the way I had the TG5 setup don't know.

What ever the system used I would like it to work out of the box, not have to download data to the camera like with the TG5 first and for it to be read for every photo taken even if it slowed down the shooting. I can imagine that may prove problematic for burst shots etc.

I also remember GPS information was often not available in a canyon slot, but I guess all systems would suffer in those situations ?

GPS is deliberately inaccurate. It's a United States defense asset.

I rely on GPS for making maps in remote places. We can only count on 9 metre accuracy. There are geographic, geometric, and celestial constraints to its precision.

 

[Avondale87]

That's nothing new really, it's just keeping up with latest terminology that in turn correctly describes (in this case) what sattelites are being used for positional fix.
When GLONASS came on board it offered more satellites, with even more coming on board with BeiDou, Galileo thrown into the mix.
The real accuracy only comes if these are differentially corrected (constantly updated) as you walk about and each measurement is corrected for anomalies from just one off signal collection at any given place. Latter results in errors of varying magnitudes.
Now, if you're lost on all this. The bottom line, it's just newest terminology to a collection of satellites orbiting earth, all spitting out locations the receiver (camera in this case) obtains signals from and the software does the rest.

Someone asked what benefit does this give to photos? I say same!
If you can get within 15 to 20 metres one would soon work out what the photo is about.
I'm not sure what application you'd really need super accurate location in photos for.
Forensic work? That'd be fraught with legal minefields
Field work? Only tell you where the camera was, not the subject.

Don't want to sound negative or throw cold water over it but it's an interesting storey (link) but old technology dressed up with the latest accessories (sattelites) which most modern receivers accept.

Edit. I will add that extra satellites offer more available signals in poor areas due to the topography blokking signals.

 

[Brodhall]

I see you are in the PNW. Maybe you never leave a city, but there are many places even near a paved road in the PNW with poor or no GPS reception.

I found your response to be not cute.

what is PNW? I would also be interested in a 'where would these be used' answer - always of interest to know how any technology on a camera would be used -- Sue

 

[retiredfromlife]

what is PNW? I would also be interested in a 'where would these be used' answer - always of interest to know how any technology on a camera would be used -- Sue

I think they mean Pacific North West Region, but from being from Australia I maybe completely wrong.

 

[RichardC]

I had no idea that holes in GPS coverage was a thing.

 

[stevedo]

I think they mean Pacific North West Region, but from being from Australia I maybe completely wrong.

I thought it meant Post Nuclear World

 

[DeeJayK]

what is PNW? I would also be interested in a 'where would these be used' answer - always of interest to know how any technology on a camera would be used -- Sue

As others have correctly inferred, I believe this remark refers to the Pacific Northwest region of the US (essentially the states of Washington and Oregon and some bits of their neighbors). This does indeed describe my location.

What this fact had to do with the topic under discussion is unclear to me, but I don't try to spend much time trying to parse the thought processes of those who would post such a trollish response. I assume it was meant as some sort of childish sick burn.

To answer your question, as with GPS this newer technology could be used anywhere on earth. It supposedly provides a bit higher fidelity, but I'm struggling to come up with a real life scenario where that would be necessary in a camera.

- K

 

[ralf-11]

I think they mean Pacific North West Region, but from being from Australia I maybe completely wrong.

Yes, a common abbreviation in the US.

BTW, scientists often need accurate location in photos.

Also, it is rare to even find a camera with built-in geolocation, so a Nikon model is a coup.

 

[ralf-11]

Yes, I read the article, but your assumption to the contrary is cute.

Here is the initial trollish response. I assume it was meant as some sort of childish sick burn.

I respond to posts in kind. If you want a rational and courteous, or at least civil, discussion I will respond in kind. If you are unable to avoid launching attacks on other people don't use the internet.

 

[DeeJayK]

Here is the initial trollish response. I assume it was meant as some sort of childish sick burn.

I respond to posts in kind. If you want a rational and courteous, or at least civil, discussion I will respond in kind. If you are unable to avoid launching attacks on other people don't use the internet.

Sure, this is where it all began.

Because the dismissive assumption that I didn't read the article you shared -- which didn't answer the question I was asking -- is a totally benign and oh so helpful reply.

Glad to have the ignore feature.

- K

 

[ralf-11]

always helps to ignore reality - that will take care of imagined slights as well