Garmin GPS - GPS and Digital Photography

Author

GPS and Digital Photography

Jack

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a GPS(Garmin
60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make geo-positioning easier.

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Jack wrote:
> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
> GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
> geo-positioning easier.

Thanks, Jack. Having a 60Cx and EOS 20D it may be of interest: I'll
look for a copy.

Phil

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Tad wrote:
> To bad they did not use Nikon for the Article. With them you can connect
> the GPS directly to the camera.
>
> "Jack" <jackhovi@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:C9r%f.101$m_5.12@fe09.lga...
>
>
> GPS(Garmin
>
>
> easier.
>
>

Could be the author owns a Canon :)

Happy Traveler

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

These days, when virtually every 2oz cellphone has a simple GPS receiver
built-in, how difficult can it be to add one to a 2lb DSLR?

"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wZs%f.2017$3W1.1004@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Jack wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Jack. Having a 60Cx and EOS 20D it may be of interest: I'll
> look for a copy.
>
> Phil

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Happy Traveler wrote:
> These days, when virtually every 2oz cellphone has a simple GPS receiver
> built-in, how difficult can it be to add one to a 2lb DSLR?
>

May be easy for the manufacturer, not for the user. None have them
today that I know of.

Canopus

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Tad on 13/04/2006 wrote:

>To bad they did not use Nikon for the Article. With them you can connect
>the GPS directly to the camera.

Drool! My next camera will have to have that feature and hopefully more
will have them as there seems to be an increasing call for it.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

Canopus

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Phil Wheeler on 13/04/2006 wrote:

>Happy Traveler wrote:
>
>May be easy for the manufacturer, not for the user. None have them today
>that I know of.

There are a few, but, they are very expensive and tend to be used for
specialised use.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

J. Clarke

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Phil Wheeler wrote:

> Happy Traveler wrote:
>
> May be easy for the manufacturer, not for the user. None have them
> today that I know of.

Kind of pointless anyway. Given the performance of purpose-made handheld GPS
receivers I would be _very_ surprised if anything satellite-based in a cell
phone actually worked. Most cell-phone locator services work by
triangulation on the cell antennas, not by referencing the satellite
system--the number of cell phones that actually have GPS satellite receiver
built in is quite small.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Canopus

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Jack on 13/04/2006 wrote:

>The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
>GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
>geo-positioning easier.

That is the precise reason I bought the Garmin GPS 60, to geotag my
photos. Any other use is a happy extra for me.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

Ted Edwards

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Jack wrote:
> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
> GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
> geo-positioning easier.

If you download and save your active track and your pictures to your
computer before doing anything to them, it is a trivial project to match
up the time stamps from the picture files and the GPS track log. In
fact it so easy it could even be done with one of those spread sheet
thingys.

Ted

Dave Martindale

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

"Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> writes:
>These days, when virtually every 2oz cellphone has a simple GPS receiver
>built-in, how difficult can it be to add one to a 2lb DSLR?

Apparently the cellphone GPS receivers are not full independent GPS
receivers - they depend on the cellular data connection to a cell site
(which includes a full GPS receiver) for some of the data needed to get
a rapid location fix.

So if your camera happened to *also* be a cellphone, this technology
would work there. But for the average camera that is not a cellphone,
you'd need a more general-purpose GPS chipset. Not terribly difficult
to do, just not comparable to cellphone with GPS.

Dave

Artoi

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

In article <e1mcf2$b6$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
<davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

> So if your camera happened to *also* be a cellphone, this technology
> would work there. But for the average camera that is not a cellphone,
> you'd need a more general-purpose GPS chipset. Not terribly difficult
> to do, just not comparable to cellphone with GPS.

No thanks. dSLR are already too baulky these days.

--

J. Clarke

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Dave Martindale wrote:

> "Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> writes:
>
> Apparently the cellphone GPS receivers are not full independent GPS
> receivers - they depend on the cellular data connection to a cell site
> (which includes a full GPS receiver) for some of the data needed to get
> a rapid location fix.

I read that article too and the author is very confused.

There is no such thing as "partial GPS". To use differential GPS you need a
full standard GPS plus an additional receiver. The benefit of doing this
is that you get a time correction from the relatively nearby DGPS
transmitter that allows _very_ accurate positioning--this is mainly used in
surveying. One does not get a _faster_ fix--the time required to acquire
the satellites remains the same, and once the satellites are acquired the
fix is updated at very short intervals, how short depending on the
particular receiver but short enough to easily track the position of a
moving car--fast moving planes may need fancier hardware.

The cellular location system uses technology that may be related to or
derived from that used in the satellite-based system but it is based on the
cell towers and not on satellites--it may also be able to use a
satellite-based system if there is one in the phone but that's not the
usual setup.

I do wish that they had found something to call it other than GPS, as using
the same term to identify two systems that perform a related function gets
confusing quickly.

> So if your camera happened to *also* be a cellphone, this technology
> would work there. But for the average camera that is not a cellphone,
> you'd need a more general-purpose GPS chipset. Not terribly difficult
> to do, just not comparable to cellphone with GPS.
>
> Dave

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Ted Edwards wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>
>
> If you download and save your active track and your pictures to your
> computer before doing anything to them, it is a trivial project to match
> up the time stamps from the picture files and the GPS track log. In
> fact it so easy it could even be done with one of those spread sheet
> thingys.
>

Last trip was 14 days and over 2000 images. Might stress my track memory ;)

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Artoi wrote:
> In article <e1mcf2$b6$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
> <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No thanks. dSLR are already too baulky these days.
>

If it is bauking, get it serviced.

Phil

Ted Edwards

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Last trip was 14 days and over 2000 images. Might stress my track
> memory ;)

Hiking? Some of the hand helds might have enough memory for daily track
downloads and as long as you didn't mess with the saved picture files
other than copying them, the time stamps would still be valid.

If a vehicle was involved, a laptop could also have been.

Ted

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Ted Edwards wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>
>
>
> Hiking? Some of the hand helds might have enough memory for daily track
> downloads and as long as you didn't mess with the saved picture files
> other than copying them, the time stamps would still be valid.
>
> If a vehicle was involved, a laptop could also have been.
>

I generally do not hike with a laptop.

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Artoi

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

In article <LgA%f.2062$3W1.1739@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Phil Wheeler
<w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ted Edwards wrote:
>
> Last trip was 14 days and over 2000 images. Might stress my track memory ;)

Just remembered another software that supposed to have Photo-GPS
related functionalities, JetPhoto (for Mac OS X).

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/17242

I haven't tried but people can read about it.

--

Dave

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
someone want to coordinate the two? Are they using the GPS to mark a
waypoint (coordinates) about where the image was taken? Just wondering what
other uses they have.

"Jack" <jackhovi@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:C9r%f.101$m_5.12@fe09.lga...
> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
> GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
> geo-positioning easier.

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Dave wrote:
> Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
> someone want to coordinate the two? Are they using the GPS to mark a
> waypoint (coordinates) about where the image was taken? Just wondering what
> other uses they have.
>
>

I think the main value would be in some technical arena like recording
geological or archeological finds (though DGPS may be needed for that).

For photography, if you wanted to repeat the same scene later .. but
accuracy would have to be very good.

Phil

John McWilliams

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Dave wrote:
> Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
> someone want to coordinate the two? Are they using the GPS to mark a
> waypoint (coordinates) about where the image was taken? Just wondering what
> other uses they have.

Mapping. Documentation for, say, an archelogical dig. For somewhere up
the X river in Y country.

--
john mcwilliams

Canopus

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

Dave on 14/04/2006 wrote:

>Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
>someone want to coordinate the two? Are they using the GPS to mark a
>waypoint (coordinates) about where the image was taken? Just wondering
>what other uses they have.

Here is one reason.Not so much for oneself, but, for other people:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrfly/

Peruse the Topics and have a look at some of the photos in the Pool. You
need Google Earth installed if you want to click on the links on the
photos to fly to the location of them on Google Earth. For many locations
in the World Google Earth is a bit imprecise presently for getting the
right coordinates, so, a GPS unit does a more accurate and easier job.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:35:53 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Dave wrote:
>
>I think the main value would be in some technical arena like recording
>geological or archeological finds (though DGPS may be needed for that).
>
>For photography, if you wanted to repeat the same scene later .. but
>accuracy would have to be very good.

Regardless of the difficulties reported with mapping, which I
believe is an issue with the accuracy of the maps, my GPSRs have
always shown great repeatability. I've waypointed a parking space,
driven miles across weeks and still been able to go back to the same
space, give or take one adjacent space. For most uses, I think this
would be sufficient. e.g. for repeated visits to a particular bush for
growth tracking. Assuming the vegetation wasn't too dense.

Gooey TARBALLS

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

"Tad" <bnishida@nc.rrremove.com> wrote in message
news:zqC%f.213$cs4.90@southeast.rr.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page4.asp The NIKON D200 also
> supports GPS units which conform to version 2.01 of the NMEA0183 protocol,
> these can be connected to the remote terminal using the optional MC-35 GPS
> adapter cord. When connected GPS data is recorded in the header of the
> image taken.

> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/page4.asp Top: RS232C (serial)
> input for connection to external GPS unit (GPS location information is
> recorded in the image header)

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:29:40 GMT, "Tad" <bnishida@nc.rrremove.com>
wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e1mhlt011ev@new
s1.newsguy.com...
>the
>
> CDMA cellphones (Sprint and Verizon) do use actual satellite GPS data. But
>to keep the price of the phone low all the phone
>does collect the raw PGS data and transmit it to the cellular network. A
>computer in the network uses this data and tower data to calculate
>the location of the cell phone.

I have to ask again -- even if it's ":raw GPS data", what has
"tower data" to add?

>using
>

J. Clarke

2006-04-14, 2:48 am

Tad wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e1mhlt011ev@new
s1.newsguy.com...
> the
>
> CDMA cellphones (Sprint and Verizon) do use actual satellite GPS data.
> But
> to keep the price of the phone low all the phone
> does collect the raw PGS data and transmit it to the cellular network. A
> computer in the network uses this data and tower data to calculate
> the location of the cell phone.

Do you have a link for more information on that? Seems to me that the
expensive part is the multiple-channel receiver, not the processor.
[color=darkred]
> using

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tad

2006-04-14, 2:48 am

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:e1n1fk03sp@news
2.newsguy.com...
> Tad wrote:

>
> Do you have a link for more information on that? Seems to me that the
> expensive part is the multiple-channel receiver, not the processor.
>
All the information I have is from a former life on the team that developed
a cell phone with this technology so I don't have access to the material.

A brief explanation is here. See page 7 - A-GPS
http://developer.openwave.com/omdtd... chnologies.pdf

I found it by googleing "cellular location gps cdma"
you might alsi add E911

Dale DePriest

2006-04-14, 2:48 am

John McWilliams wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>
>
>
> Mapping. Documentation for, say, an archelogical dig. For somewhere up
> the X river in Y country.
>

Some people like to document their trips with a map. You could have a
map and then tap the location to view the picture. There is even
software to make this happen. It is also useful to associate a picture
with a location years later. There are more uses as well. For example
people who study animal herd movement can associate the image with the
location. Lots of good technical reasons and some just recreation reasons.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

Artoi

2006-04-14, 5:48 am

In article <J7C%f.2150$3W1.679@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Phil Wheeler
<w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think the main value would be in some technical arena like recording
> geological or archeological finds (though DGPS may be needed for that).
>
> For photography, if you wanted to repeat the same scene later .. but
> accuracy would have to be very good.

It would be handy for travels too. It would be nice to correlated your
photo location on GoogleEarth or similar after you get home.

--

Artoi

2006-04-14, 5:48 am

In article <8WC%f.221$cs4.184@southeast.rr.com>, Tad
<bnishida@nc.rrremove.com> wrote:

> CDMA cellphones (Sprint and Verizon) do use actual satellite GPS data. But
> to keep the price of the phone low all the phone
> does collect the raw PGS data and transmit it to the cellular network. A
> computer in the network uses this data and tower data to calculate
> the location of the cell phone.

So it's useless once you are out in non-coverage areas. Nothing beats a
real GPSR.

--

Paul Saunders

2006-04-14, 5:48 am

Dave wrote:
> Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
> someone want to coordinate the two?

In landscape photography the reasons are obvious, to mark good viewpoints.
In practice, most good viewpoints are pretty obvious and it's easy to find
them again, but not always. A few examples;

1. A good foreground or subject (e.g. an interesting rock) in an area where
it would be difficult to find it again (e.g. a bleak trackless moorland).

2. An interesting subject surrounded by loads of other similar subjects,
e.g. an interesting tree in the middle of a forest.

3. Telephoto shots. Most landscapes tend to use a fairly wide angle where
you can see the foreground in the photo, making it easy to identify the
viewpoint, but a telephoto lens can photograph distant subjects with no
foreground, so the viewpoint could be very difficult to ascertain. Yet at
the same time, due to perspective compression and the way distant objects
line up, the viewpoint may be critical, so this is a very good reason for
knowing the viewpoint if you want to repeat the shot.

4. Four seasons photos. One interesting exercise is to photograph the same
location at each of the four seasons of the year, to show how different it
looks in each season. But it can be quite difficult to do if you want to
get exactly the same composition each time, particularly if you're only
relying on memory. An accurate waypoint would be very handy for this, but
it would have to be extremely accurate. I'd recommend setting up a tripod
at an identifiable spot, then taking a photo of the tripod itself, with the
scene behind it, then carrying a photo of it to ensure you put it in exactly
the same spot next time.

Recording a GPS position for a photo is all very well, but one thing that
doesn't tell you is the direction the photo was taken. The GPS coordinates
will tell you where the camera was, but not the coordinates of the subject
itself, which may be some distance away from the camera (especially with a
telephoto lens). Knowing the direction that the camera was pointed may be
very useful, so why not include an electronic compass in the camera too, and
record the direction that the camera was facing?

I think that position information like this is probably of more use to
people other than the photographer, photo agencies for example. The
photographer will usually know where most photos were taken.

Paul

Ted

2006-04-14, 5:48 am

Jack wrote:
> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a GPS(Garmin
> 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make geo-positioning easier.

How many of you have experienced the problem of a digital camera
working in close proximity to a GPS creating false points in the track
remote from your actual location? (2 cameras and 3 GPS's, though not at
the same time)

Ted

Roger Gelder

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Last October I could really have done with a GPS-to-camera reading.
I did an aerial photography shoot in a small aircraft, wings below, so the
pilot had to 'tip' the aircraft for the vertical shot required. After the
first 4 'tips'
I had NO idea where I was - total dis-orientation. The first run was over
the
Thames, looking for ring-ditches, barrows, etc - small fields and good
outlines
of where I was, so not difficult to trace later using a decent map. HOWEVER
the second run was over the Downs - large fields with often only one field
boundary edge showing in the image - VERY difficult to recogise afterwards.
I now have a Bluetooth GPS with track-logging software to record location
at 1 second intervals (provided I can get it all to work together). 3,600
records
for an hour's flight would have been usable and within the memory
requirements
of a PDA with a 1GB microdrive.
What I could NOT do, was to handle two cameras & an old Magellan Platinum,
take images and waypoints where I was. It took me all my time to hang-on to
my stomach, let alone the cameras!
So, if Nikon can do a Bluetooth adapter with their camera, that would be
very nice for this problem.I am not going to hold my breath in the meantime,
just my stomach, half of which, I suspect, is still up there.
Cheers,
RoJ, still wondering where I was !! :)

"Jack" <jackhovi@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:C9r%f.101$m_5.12@fe09.lga...
> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
> GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
> geo-positioning easier.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Tad wrote:
> To bad they did not use Nikon for the Article. With them you can connect
> the GPS directly to the camera.
>
> "Jack" <jackhovi@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:C9r%f.101$m_5.12@fe09.lga...
> GPS(Garmin
> easier.
>
>
If cell phones can have GPS built in, why not cameras. Would need to
have a digital compass included to make it perfect. A feature I would
pay a bit more for....

Ron Hunter

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Ron Hunter

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Tad wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e1mhlt011ev@new
s1.newsguy.com...
> the
>
> CDMA cellphones (Sprint and Verizon) do use actual satellite GPS data. But
> to keep the price of the phone low all the phone
> does collect the raw PGS data and transmit it to the cellular network. A
> computer in the network uses this data and tower data to calculate
> the location of the cell phone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> using
>
>
If that is true, such a system would be useless in a rural environment
where there is seldom more than one tower with a useful signal within
range. If the feature is to serve its stated purpose, such a system
would not be satisfactory. Does anyone have verifiable information from
a manufacturer as to what is really in these phones? Both my phones
claim to be 'GPS enabled'. If this is not the case, then someone is
engaging in false, and misleading advertising.

J. Clarke

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Tad wrote:

>
> <kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:992u325gao6mnsb
fr6mfmvcuri4tfa5d7i@
4ax.com...
> But
>
> It makes up for the crappy GPS antena in a cell phone.

How? The crappy antenna keeps you from getting a signal, it doesn't make
the signal you get inaccurate. If you don't have a signal then you don't
have a position. And, again, given my own observations about the
performace of purpose-made hand held GPS I seriously doubt that anything in
a cell phone is ever going to have a signal more than momentarily.

I've seen two people assert that CDMA cell phones use the GPS satellite
signal but neither had a link to a credible site describing what is
actually done. Does anyone have such a link?
[color=darkred]
> gets

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Tad wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e1n1fk03sp@news
2.newsguy.com...
>
> All the information I have is from a former life on the team that
> developed
> a cell phone with this technology so I don't have access to the material.
>
> A brief explanation is here. See page 7 - A-GPS
>
http://developer.openwave.com/omdtd... chnologies.pdf
>
>
> I found it by googleing "cellular location gps cdma"
> you might alsi add E911

I see that every cellular technology listed has "AGPS" as an option, but I
still don't understand how "network assist" allows "weaker signals to be
used". I can see where having a good position approximation and using an
external computer might allow for a faster fix once the signals are
acquired.

Since you worked on a team that developed such a product, perhaps you have
some insight as to how well it works in the real world.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Arthur Hass

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

It seems to me that this is all pretty trivial for anyone that is really
serious about location and camera position. A GPSR separate from the
camera will be far superior to having a chip in the camera.

The clock in the camera has to be accurate, but can be reset at any time
based on the GPSR time. If the GPS is set to record once every second,
you have a track log containing just about everything you could possibly
need. Granted, the course (direction) may not be entirely accurate if
the GPSR isn't moving, but even that can be remedied if you simply walk
toward the direction the lens is pointing prior to (or after) taking the
shot. In some situations, a little note taking might be required, but
this is common for anyone that is half way serious about photography.

Furthermore, anyone that is deadly serious about all of this is probably
only going to need the statistics for a few shots - certainly not every
photo. Pros never use 99 percent of their photos. It's very easy to
look up the correct time, and thus the required data, in a track log.
And, as someone else said, you can always simply take a photo of the
GPSR at the required time.

BTW, this is one of the longest threads I've seen in a while ;-)

Arthur Hass

Paul Saunders wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> In landscape photography the reasons are obvious, to mark good viewpoints.
> In practice, most good viewpoints are pretty obvious and it's easy to find
> them again, but not always. A few examples;
>
> 1. A good foreground or subject (e.g. an interesting rock) in an area where
> it would be difficult to find it again (e.g. a bleak trackless moorland).
>
> 2. An interesting subject surrounded by loads of other similar subjects,
> e.g. an interesting tree in the middle of a forest.
>
> 3. Telephoto shots. Most landscapes tend to use a fairly wide angle where
> you can see the foreground in the photo, making it easy to identify the
> viewpoint, but a telephoto lens can photograph distant subjects with no
> foreground, so the viewpoint could be very difficult to ascertain. Yet at
> the same time, due to perspective compression and the way distant objects
> line up, the viewpoint may be critical, so this is a very good reason for
> knowing the viewpoint if you want to repeat the shot.
>
> 4. Four seasons photos. One interesting exercise is to photograph the same
> location at each of the four seasons of the year, to show how different it
> looks in each season. But it can be quite difficult to do if you want to
> get exactly the same composition each time, particularly if you're only
> relying on memory. An accurate waypoint would be very handy for this, but
> it would have to be extremely accurate. I'd recommend setting up a tripod
> at an identifiable spot, then taking a photo of the tripod itself, with the
> scene behind it, then carrying a photo of it to ensure you put it in exactly
> the same spot next time.
>
> Recording a GPS position for a photo is all very well, but one thing that
> doesn't tell you is the direction the photo was taken. The GPS coordinates
> will tell you where the camera was, but not the coordinates of the subject
> itself, which may be some distance away from the camera (especially with a
> telephoto lens). Knowing the direction that the camera was pointed may be
> very useful, so why not include an electronic compass in the camera too, and
> record the direction that the camera was facing?
>
> I think that position information like this is probably of more use to
> people other than the photographer, photo agencies for example. The
> photographer will usually know where most photos were taken.
>
> Paul
>
>

Paul Saunders

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Ted wrote:

> How many of you have experienced the problem of a digital camera
> working in close proximity to a GPS creating false points in the track
> remote from your actual location?

I have, and I know what causes it too - when I lift the camera up to my eyes
my arms block the GPS signal! When I'm using a tripod, crouching over the
camera can also block the signals, although I usually take my rucksack off
when using a tripod, and since my GPS is attached to my rucksack strap, it
can end up in a bad position for collecting signals.

Even so, if I stop for any length of time, which I will when using a tripod,
there'll be a cluster of waypoints at that spot with a movement of zero, so
it's easy to identify later. If I feel it's particularly important, I'll
mark a waypoint, ensuring that I get good reception as I do so.

Paul

Paul Saunders

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Roger Gelder wrote:

> Last October I could really have done with a GPS-to-camera reading.
> I did an aerial photography shoot in a small aircraft,

> What I could NOT do, was to handle two cameras & an old Magellan
> Platinum, take images and waypoints where I was. It took me all my
> time to hang-on to my stomach, let alone the cameras!

Weren't you recording a track with your Magellan at the time?

Paul

Canopus

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Ron Hunter on 14/04/2006 wrote:

>If cell phones can have GPS built in, why not cameras. Would need to have
>a digital compass included to make it perfect. A feature I would pay a
>bit more for....

A few cameras do, but, you are going to have to pay a bit more than a bit
more. At present they are a highly specialised market and extremely
expensive. Here's one example
http://www.survey-lab.com/ike_in_th...le_Mapping.html

I've heard of other ones as well, but, at present the cheapest, most
convenient way for most users is a separate camera and GPS.
--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

Jack

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Phil Wheeler wrote:

> Could be the author owns a Canon :)

A 20D, AND an EMap, AND a subscription to Digital Photograper!

Phil Wheeler

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Dale DePriest wrote:
>
>
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>
> Some people like to document their trips with a map. You could have a
> map and then tap the location to view the picture. There is even
> software to make this happen. It is also useful to associate a picture
> with a location years later. There are more uses as well. For example
> people who study animal herd movement can associate the image with the
> location. Lots of good technical reasons and some just recreation reasons.
>

I end up doing, and presenting, travelogues in Powerpoint. That gives
me a permanent record, not of every shot, but several hundred. With the
maps and guide books I keep on file, the record is always good. Though
I've used GPS before I started using digital cameras, I've never
integrated the two .. and the prospect leaves me luke warm.

Phil

Dan Anderson

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Ted wrote:
> How many of you have experienced the problem of a digital camera
> working in close proximity to a GPS creating false points in the track
> remote from your actual location? (2 cameras and 3 GPS's, though not at
> the same time)
>
I have not any errors in the tracklog that I would attribute
to the camera. I'm using two GPSR's to record trails, one
carried in my hand the other attached to an external
antenna on top of my hat. The GPSR in my hand is
sometimes used to shield the camera's lens from the sun.

Gooey TARBALLS

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Having returned from several House Hunting trips disappointed at what I saw
on site despite the most appealing images on the Realtor's site, I would
like to see photos correlated to the property plat and my mapping software
so I might better judge from home whether the subject might be worth a 1600
mile round trip to walk the property.

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1nh7e$a42$1@ne
ws.freedom2surf.net...
> Dave wrote:
>
> In landscape photography the reasons are obvious, to mark good viewpoints.
> In practice, most good viewpoints are pretty obvious and it's easy to find
> them again, but not always. A few examples;
>
> 1. A good foreground or subject (e.g. an interesting rock) in an area
> where it would be difficult to find it again (e.g. a bleak trackless
> moorland).
>
> 2. An interesting subject surrounded by loads of other similar subjects,
> e.g. an interesting tree in the middle of a forest.
>
> 3. Telephoto shots. Most landscapes tend to use a fairly wide angle
> where you can see the foreground in the photo, making it easy to identify
> the viewpoint, but a telephoto lens can photograph distant subjects with
> no foreground, so the viewpoint could be very difficult to ascertain. Yet
> at the same time, due to perspective compression and the way distant
> objects line up, the viewpoint may be critical, so this is a very good
> reason for knowing the viewpoint if you want to repeat the shot.
>
> 4. Four seasons photos. One interesting exercise is to photograph the
> same location at each of the four seasons of the year, to show how
> different it looks in each season. But it can be quite difficult to do if
> you want to get exactly the same composition each time, particularly if
> you're only relying on memory. An accurate waypoint would be very handy
> for this, but it would have to be extremely accurate. I'd recommend
> setting up a tripod at an identifiable spot, then taking a photo of the
> tripod itself, with the scene behind it, then carrying a photo of it to
> ensure you put it in exactly the same spot next time.
>
> Recording a GPS position for a photo is all very well, but one thing that
> doesn't tell you is the direction the photo was taken. The GPS
> coordinates will tell you where the camera was, but not the coordinates of
> the subject itself, which may be some distance away from the camera
> (especially with a telephoto lens). Knowing the direction that the camera
> was pointed may be very useful, so why not include an electronic compass
> in the camera too, and record the direction that the camera was facing?
>
> I think that position information like this is probably of more use to
> people other than the photographer, photo agencies for example. The
> photographer will usually know where most photos were taken.
>
> Paul
>

J. Clarke

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Dan Anderson wrote:

> Ted wrote:
> I have not any errors in the tracklog that I would attribute
> to the camera. I'm using two GPSR's to record trails, one
> carried in my hand the other attached to an external
> antenna on top of my hat.

That sounds like something I might want to try--do you have any suggestions
on antennas suitable for hat-mounting?

> The GPSR in my hand is
> sometimes used to shield the camera's lens from the sun.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

In sci.geo.satellite-nav Gooey TARBALLS <tarballs@verizon.net> wrote:
> Having returned from several House Hunting trips disappointed at what I saw
> on site despite the most appealing images on the Realtor's site, I would
> like to see photos correlated to the property plat and my mapping software
> so I might better judge from home whether the subject might be worth a 1600
> mile round trip to walk the property.

Geolinked RE listings? I think that would be great!
Addresses are misleading in ares where there are no houses yet.
I usually map all of the addresses I'm interested in, and then go hunting,
but if there are no houses, the locations in my map might be off by a long
ways. My current house address is returned several lots down the street by
MS S&T. Google is only off by one house.

http://landauction.com does a nice job of geo-referenced and plats.
http://www.landauction.com/auctions/auction104/ for instance.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Dave Martindale

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

kashe@sonic.net writes:

> I have to ask again -- even if it's ":raw GPS data", what has
>"tower data" to add?

The tower GPS receiver provides up to date ephemeris data for every
satellite in view. A standalone GPS receiver normally spends about 45
seconds collecting this data (after finding the satellite signals)
before it can navigate. But a cellphone-based GPS system doesn't suffer
this delay - whether the raw data is passed from phone to switch, or
whether the ephemeris is passed from cell site to phone.

Dave

Dave Martindale

2006-04-14, 5:50 pm

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>If that is true, such a system would be useless in a rural environment
>where there is seldom more than one tower with a useful signal within
>range. If the feature is to serve its stated purpose, such a system
>would not be satisfactory.

Why not? As long as there is at least one tower to provide a data link,
plus a GPS antenna and at least the front end of a GPS receiver in the
phone, you can calculate where the phone is located. It doesn't require
multiple towers, and the distance from phone to tower doesn't matter.

On the other hand, in a really rural area with no cellular reception at
all, the phone isn't likely to be able to get a position, even though a
standalone GPS receiver would be able to. A "GPS enabled" cellphone isn't
really two devices in one case, it's just a phone that can tell the
network where it is *during a call*. If no cellular service, no need to
be able to determine its position.

Dave

Dave Martindale

2006-04-14, 11:48 pm

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>The camera has a display, battery, CPU, and DSP. It would need an
>antenna, and a GPS chip. Might add a few bucks to the camera price, but
>if it could tell me where, and in what direction, my shot was taken, and
>keep my clock set properly (clocks in cameras don't seem very accurate),
>I would pay a bit more.

An ordinary GPS receiver can't tell you direction the camera is aiming,
but it can do the rest. Direction-sensing GPS receivers either have
multiple antennas (and expensive precision internals), or they use an
ordinary (and typically not very accurate) electronic magnetic compass.

So it could easily tell your aim direction within 5 or 10 degrees, after
calibration, in most parts of the world.

Dave

Dave Martindale

2006-04-14, 11:48 pm

Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> writes:

>Last trip was 14 days and over 2000 images. Might stress my track memory ;)

We just need a GPS receiver that accepts plug-in CF or SD cards for
track memory. Those old 128 MB cards that are too small to be useful in
the camera any more would hold plenty of track data.

Dave

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-14, 11:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:47:17 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>An ordinary GPS receiver can't tell you direction the camera is aiming,
>but it can do the rest. Direction-sensing GPS receivers either have
>multiple antennas (and expensive precision internals), or they use an
>ordinary (and typically not very accurate) electronic magnetic compass.
>
>So it could easily tell your aim direction within 5 or 10 degrees, after
>calibration, in most parts of the world.
>
> Dave

If it can get me back to the same spot and just point me to
one of eight directions, I'm already in serious trouble if I can't
work out the finer deail. I suspect not many people need to know the
difference between a shot taken to the southeast and one taken
pointing at 138 degrees true.

It may be nice to know if the vista from the summit of Mt.
Lassen is the view to the N, E, S or W, especially if you're planning
to visit some other nearby peaks and take back-shots, but that should
be close enough for most of the population most of the time.

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-14, 11:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:44:35 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>Why not? As long as there is at least one tower to provide a data link,
>plus a GPS antenna and at least the front end of a GPS receiver in the
>phone, you can calculate where the phone is located. It doesn't require
>multiple towers, and the distance from phone to tower doesn't matter.
>
>On the other hand, in a really rural area with no cellular reception at
>all, the phone isn't likely to be able to get a position, even though a
>standalone GPS receiver would be able to. A "GPS enabled" cellphone isn't
>really two devices in one case, it's just a phone that can tell the
>network where it is *during a call*. If no cellular service, no need to
>be able to determine its position.
>

Perhaps more to the point, unless the GPS data is visible to
the user in a no-coverage area (just for personal interest) , the
precise position is useless if it can't be communicated anyway.

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-14, 11:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:33:03 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>kashe@sonic.net writes:
>
>
>The tower GPS receiver provides up to date ephemeris data for every
>satellite in view. A standalone GPS receiver normally spends about 45
>seconds collecting this data (after finding the satellite signals)
>before it can navigate. But a cellphone-based GPS system doesn't suffer
>this delay - whether the raw data is passed from phone to switch, or
>whether the ephemeris is passed from cell site to phone.

OK, thanks for that. I wasn't aware that the speed of fix
would be affected that way.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 am

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
> An ordinary GPS receiver can't tell you direction the camera is aiming,
> but it can do the rest. Direction-sensing GPS receivers either have
> multiple antennas (and expensive precision internals), or they use an
> ordinary (and typically not very accurate) electronic magnetic compass.
>
> So it could easily tell your aim direction within 5 or 10 degrees, after
> calibration, in most parts of the world.
>
> Dave
My old Magellan GPS can determine direction IF I am moving, and does.
There are many models with compass capability that can do this function
stationary. It would do little good to have the position without
knowing the direction, so I would think that an electronic compass would
be essential.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 am

Arthur Hass wrote:[color=darkred
]
> It seems to me that this is all pretty trivial for anyone that is really
> serious about location and camera position. A GPSR separate from the
> camera will be far superior to having a chip in the camera.
>
> The clock in the camera has to be accurate, but can be reset at any time
> based on the GPSR time. If the GPS is set to record once every second,
> you have a track log containing just about everything you could possibly
> need. Granted, the course (direction) may not be entirely accurate if
> the GPSR isn't moving, but even that can be remedied if you simply walk
> toward the direction the lens is pointing prior to (or after) taking the
> shot. In some situations, a little note taking might be required, but
> this is common for anyone that is half way serious about photography.
>
> Furthermore, anyone that is deadly serious about all of this is probably
> only going to need the statistics for a few shots - certainly not every
> photo. Pros never use 99 percent of their photos. It's very easy to
> look up the correct time, and thus the required data, in a track log.
> And, as someone else said, you can always simply take a photo of the
> GPSR at the required time.
>
> BTW, this is one of the longest threads I've seen in a while ;-)
>
> Arthur Hass
>
> Paul Saunders wrote:
No one said this can't be done now, just that a GPS built into the
camera, and recording the pertinent information into the EXIF database
would make the process vastly more efficient, and convenient. Sure, I
can note the picture number, and check the position my GPSR provides,
and write it, and the direction from a compass for each exposure, but I
won't. It just makes the whole process a job, rather than a pleasure.
Therein lies the difference between the professional, and the rest of
us. Care to guess where the larger market lies??

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 am

Dan Anderson wrote:
> Ted wrote:
> I have not any errors in the tracklog that I would attribute
> to the camera. I'm using two GPSR's to record trails, one
> carried in my hand the other attached to an external
> antenna on top of my hat. The GPSR in my hand is
> sometimes used to shield the camera's lens from the sun.

You must get some interesting looks with that little decoration on your
hat. Grin.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 am

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com wrote:
> In sci.geo.satellite-nav Gooey TARBALLS <tarballs@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Geolinked RE listings? I think that would be great!
> Addresses are misleading in ares where there are no houses yet.
> I usually map all of the addresses I'm interested in, and then go hunting,
> but if there are no houses, the locations in my map might be off by a long
> ways. My current house address is returned several lots down the street by
> MS S&T. Google is only off by one house.
>
> http://landauction.com does a nice job of geo-referenced and plats.
> http://www.landauction.com/auctions/auction104/ for instance.
>
Use the satellite pictures to nail the exact location. I have found
that all the mapping services often get the address references mixed up
somewhat, and the satellite views often make the errors apparent. Every
little bit helps.

J. Clarke

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Dave Martindale wrote:
> My old Magellan GPS can determine direction IF I am moving, and does.
> There are many models with compass capability that can do this function
> stationary. It would do little good to have the position without
> knowing the direction, so I would think that an electronic compass would
> be essential.

Keep the compass turned on and you battery life goes to Hell though. While
GPS in camera looks good conceptually I don't think that the technology to
make it work satisfactorily is there yet.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Don Wiss

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:20:32 GMT, "Dave" <catx@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Just curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
>someone want to coordinate the two? Are they using the GPS to mark a
>waypoint (coordinates) about where the image was taken? Just wondering what
>other uses they have.

Why? To make it much, much easier to add captions to the pictures. After a
trip with hundreds of pictures I've spent hours trying to figure out just
which beach or bay the picture was taken of. I know my route and have the
time stamps, but having the coordinates would make it a snap.

For an example, on this album: http://donwiss.com/pictures/STX-2006/ I
still haven't figured out where many of the pictures were taken.

Having just bought a D200, which has a GPS port, I'm investigating this. I
know the lightweight Garmin Gecko-201 and Gecko-301 can be attached with a
$100 cable. Someplace I saw (I can't find it now) an outfit that sells a
mounting bracket for a Gecko that fits in the flash shoe. The alternative
to me is to lengthen the cable so that the GPS could stay in the camera bag
after I pull out the camera to take a picture.

And because of the long start up times on the GPS, it would have to stay on
for most of the day.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Canopus

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Don Wiss on 15/04/2006 wrote:

>Why? To make it much, much easier to add captions to the pictures. After a
>trip with hundreds of pictures I've spent hours trying to figure out just
>which beach or bay the picture was taken of. I know my route and have the
>time stamps, but having the coordinates would make it a snap.

If you think that's difficult imagine what it was like for me trying to
figure out where I had taken pictures while travelling across the Sahara
last year. And no, it's not all sand so it doesn't make a difference,
there are fascinating rock features that don't show up on Google Earth.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

Paul Saunders

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter wrote:

> No one said this can't be done now, just that a GPS built into the
> camera, and recording the pertinent information into the EXIF database
> would make the process vastly more efficient, and convenient.

I'm sorry, but how is it more efficient and convenient to have to stand
around for a few minutes waiting for your camera to get a lock before you
can take a photo?

> Sure, I
> can note the picture number, and check the position my GPSR provides,
> and write it, and the direction from a compass for each exposure, but
> I won't. It just makes the whole process a job, rather than a
> pleasure. Therein lies the difference between the professional, and
> the rest of us. Care to guess where the larger market lies??

The larger market consists of snappers who typically turn their camera on,
take a quick snap, then turn it off again, which would not allow enough time
to get a lock. I doubt your average snapper would have the patience to
wait, nor would the people he points his camera at either. In fact, your
average snapper may not even be aware that he needs to wait for a lock
(unless there's a big flashing thingy on the camera warning him, or
preventing him from taking the photo until it does), so if he checks his
photos afterwards he's going to think, where's the GPS position? This thing
doesn't work properly!

I've mentioned this problem couple of times already, but no-one's yet
suggested a solution for it. Leaving the camera switched on permanently is
not practical because of battery drain. Unless the camera GPS could get a
lock in a few seconds, I don't see how it could be as efficient, convenient
and pleasurable as you assume it will. You'd get pretty bored of waiting
after a few shots.

If you're the kind of photographer who insists on taking your time to set up
your tripod for every shot, then the camera will have enough time to get a
lock, but that's not the larger market. Even then, you'd have to switch the
camera on in advance. My DSLR defaults to switching itself off after 1
minute to save battery power, that's not even enough time to get a lock! I
drain batteries fast enough as it is, I certainly don't want to have to
carry any more.

Paul

Paul Saunders

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Don Wiss wrote:

> Having just bought a D200, which has a GPS port,

> And because of the long start up times on the GPS, it would have to
> stay on for most of the day.

I think that this is the best solution to the GPS lock problem. Either have
a permanent connection between the GPS and camera or simply plug it in when
you specifically want to record a position for a photo.

I doubt that many snappers really need such a facility.

Paul

J. Clarke

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Paul Saunders wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but how is it more efficient and convenient to have to stand
> around for a few minutes waiting for your camera to get a lock before you
> can take a photo?
>
>
> The larger market consists of snappers who typically turn their camera on,
> take a quick snap, then turn it off again, which would not allow enough
> time
> to get a lock. I doubt your average snapper would have the patience to
> wait, nor would the people he points his camera at either. In fact, your
> average snapper may not even be aware that he needs to wait for a lock
> (unless there's a big flashing thingy on the camera warning him, or
> preventing him from taking the photo until it does), so if he checks his
> photos afterwards he's going to think, where's the GPS position? This
> thing doesn't work properly!
>
> I've mentioned this problem couple of times already, but no-one's yet
> suggested a solution for it. Leaving the camera switched on permanently
> is
> not practical because of battery drain. Unless the camera GPS could get a
> lock in a few seconds, I don't see how it could be as efficient,
> convenient
> and pleasurable as you assume it will. You'd get pretty bored of waiting
> after a few shots.
>
> If you're the kind of photographer who insists on taking your time to set
> up your tripod for every shot, then the camera will have enough time to
> get a
> lock, but that's not the larger market.

Further, you have to set it somewhere where it had a good sky view,
otherwise it sits there and when you're ready to shoot tells you "weak
signal". I have found that the opinion of a GPS concerning what constitutes
a "good sky view" is often different from mine.

> Even then, you'd have to switch
> the
> camera on in advance. My DSLR defaults to switching itself off after 1
> minute to save battery power, that's not even enough time to get a lock!
> I drain batteries fast enough as it is, I certainly don't want to have to
> carry any more.

>
> Paul

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Don Wiss

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> My DSLR defaults to switching itself off after 1
>minute to save battery power, that's not even enough time to get a lock! I
>drain batteries fast enough as it is, I certainly don't want to have to
>carry any more.

My D200 doesn't turn itself off, and leaving it on doesn't seem to be any
drain on the camera.

External GPSs, like the Garmin Geckos, have battery lives of about nine
hours. So that could be left on all day.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Jack

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com wrote:
> In sci.geo.satellite-nav Gooey TARBALLS <tarballs@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Geolinked RE listings? I think that would be great!
> Addresses are misleading in ares where there are no houses yet.
> I usually map all of the addresses I'm interested in, and then go hunting,
> but if there are no houses, the locations in my map might be off by a long
> ways. My current house address is returned several lots down the street by
> MS S&T. Google is only off by one house.
>
> http://landauction.com does a nice job of geo-referenced and plats.
> http://www.landauction.com/auctions/auction104/ for instance.
>

For some areas in the US try http://www.zillow.com/

Dan Anderson

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Dan Anderson wrote:
>
>
> You must get some interesting looks with that little decoration on your
> hat. Grin.

I've been planning on putting some pictures on my web
site showing various schemes (including a "miniature
dish antenna" ;-) ) but need to do a little more work.

For a baseball cap and a ski hat, I've sewn a small
pocket inside to hold the antenna. In many situations
no one would even know I was using a GPS receiver (or a
second one besides the one in my hand) because a
little piece of wire against the back of my neck might
be the only clue.

I used to have a cowboy style hat with a high crown
and oval type top (as opposed to parallel ridges)
that the antenna sat nicely in - couldn't be seen
from the front. But it could be noticed from the
back.

The antenna sticks up a bit on my current trail
hat, but I think many people passing by don't
notice (ie. someone going uphill when I'm going
down won't be able to see the antenna), never had
what I would call an "interesting look", and only
occasionally get asked, "What is on top of
your hat?"

I think the lump on the shoulder is more noticeable.
And at least I don't have a hose clipped to my pack
strap, running back to my pack (and with insulation
around it in winter). *Grin*

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

In sci.geo.satellite-nav Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> Use the satellite pictures to nail the exact location. I have found
> that all the mapping services often get the address references mixed up
> somewhat, and the satellite views often make the errors apparent. Every
> little bit helps.

In the area that I am concerned about, the satellite photos predate most of
the construction. My house is in the TerrasServer/USGS photos, but not the
topo maps. Google satellite is just a blur in this area.

The County offers GIS mapping, using the same USGS topo maps, with parcel
lines overlaid, so I can do a stare-and-compare, and make my own waypoints
in ExpertGPS for the property corners.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

In sci.geo.satellite-nav Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> Having just bought a D200, which has a GPS port, I'm investigating this. I
> know the lightweight Garmin Gecko-201 and Gecko-301 can be attached with a
> $100 cable. Someplace I saw (I can't find it now) an outfit that sells a

What kind of cable is worth $100? That's more than the Gecko.
If you are looking for NMEA input to the camera, I think a "GPS mouse"
would be the way to go. Maybe even buy the "Microsoft Streets and Trips
with GPS locator", which I think is a NMEA device, since that's what S&T
wants without the included gadget.

http://www.microsoft.com/streets

> And because of the long start up times on the GPS, it would have to stay on
> for most of the day.

I'm not sure about the low-budget Gecko, but the newer Garmin GPS units
have very quick start up. My 60cs is about 6 seconds for a warm start,
after the first one of the day, which is less than a minute in almost any
case.

http://www.tvnav.com/60csx.htm
http://www.gpsinformation.net

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Paul Saunders wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but how is it more efficient and convenient to have to stand
> around for a few minutes waiting for your camera to get a lock before you
> can take a photo?
>
>
> The larger market consists of snappers who typically turn their camera on,
> take a quick snap, then turn it off again, which would not allow enough time
> to get a lock. I doubt your average snapper would have the patience to
> wait, nor would the people he points his camera at either. In fact, your
> average snapper may not even be aware that he needs to wait for a lock
> (unless there's a big flashing thingy on the camera warning him, or
> preventing him from taking the photo until it does), so if he checks his
> photos afterwards he's going to think, where's the GPS position? This thing
> doesn't work properly!
>
> I've mentioned this problem couple of times already, but no-one's yet
> suggested a solution for it. Leaving the camera switched on permanently is
> not practical because of battery drain. Unless the camera GPS could get a
> lock in a few seconds, I don't see how it could be as efficient, convenient
> and pleasurable as you assume it will. You'd get pretty bored of waiting
> after a few shots.
>
> If you're the kind of photographer who insists on taking your time to set up
> your tripod for every shot, then the camera will have enough time to get a
> lock, but that's not the larger market. Even then, you'd have to switch the
> camera on in advance. My DSLR defaults to switching itself off after 1
> minute to save battery power, that's not even enough time to get a lock! I
> drain batteries fast enough as it is, I certainly don't want to have to
> carry any more.
>
> Paul
>
>
I rarely take a shot until my camera has been on for a minute or two. I
see no real problem with this delay, and I am sure any camera with
integrated GPS would have it switchable. Most of the newer GPSRs have
quite fast times for getting a fix, usually under 90 seconds. When
taking scenery pictures, I normally take several of the same location,
so the 'on time' would be adequate. Nothing is perfect, but given a
choice between carrying two devices, and reconciling the locations later
(and not knowing the direction the camera was pointed), and waiting a
minute for the first picture, I know which I would chose.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Don Wiss wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> My D200 doesn't turn itself off, and leaving it on doesn't seem to be any
> drain on the camera.
>
> External GPSs, like the Garmin Geckos, have battery lives of about nine
> hours. So that could be left on all day.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Using disposable lithium batteries, my old Magellan 315 gets about 12-16
hours. Many of the newer units do 17 hours or more on NIMH batteries.
I don't see this as a concern.

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Paul Saunders wrote:
> Don Wiss wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that this is the best solution to the GPS lock problem. Either have
> a permanent connection between the GPS and camera or simply plug it in when
> you specifically want to record a position for a photo.
>
> I doubt that many snappers really need such a facility.
>
> Paul
>
>
I don't think anyone meant it should be on every camera, just that for
some of us, it would be a desirable feature.
I would rather have it that a 'movie mode', or interchangeable lenses.
Funny, isn't it that SLR means 'Single Lens Reflex', but that what
really defines an SLR is the ability to change lenses. Yeah, I know
about the mirror, and viewing through the lens, but even P&S digitals
have through the lens viewing...

Ron Hunter

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com wrote:
> In sci.geo.satellite-nav Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
> What kind of cable is worth $100? That's more than the Gecko.
> If you are looking for NMEA input to the camera, I think a "GPS mouse"
> would be the way to go. Maybe even buy the "Microsoft Streets and Trips
> with GPS locator", which I think is a NMEA device, since that's what S&T
> wants without the included gadget.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/streets
>
>
> I'm not sure about the low-budget Gecko, but the newer Garmin GPS units
> have very quick start up. My 60cs is about 6 seconds for a warm start,
> after the first one of the day, which is less than a minute in almost any
> case.
>
> http://www.tvnav.com/60csx.htm
> http://www.gpsinformation.net
>
Sure beats my old one's 5 minutes for a cold startup.

Don Wiss

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, dold@XReXXGPSXa.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In sci.geo.satellite-nav Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
>What kind of cable is worth $100? That's more than the Gecko.
>If you are looking for NMEA input to the camera, I think a "GPS mouse"
>would be the way to go. Maybe even buy the "Microsoft Streets and Trips
>with GPS locator", which I think is a NMEA device, since that's what S&T
>wants without the included gadget.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/streets

I don't know anything about NMEA.

Nikon overcharges for its cables. They can get away with this as they have
a monopoly on the proprietary connections to the camera. The advantage of
the cable is the coordinates will be in the picture's Exif file. So after
one is back home there is nothing extra to do.

In my case I'm just looking to make it easier to add captions after I get
back home. And I do plan to make the picture's Exif information available
in my picture albums. I can do it now, but the software I have now can
extract the Exif, but it doesn't format the information. I've asked Irfan
to add to his batch facility the ability to extract all Exifs, and produce
text files that are the same as what you can see for a picture being
viewed. I'll be looking for this when version 3.99 comes out.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

J. Clarke

2006-04-15, 5:48 pm

Paul Saunders wrote:

> Don Wiss wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that this is the best solution to the GPS lock problem. Either
> have a permanent connection between the GPS and camera or simply plug it
> in when you specifically want to record a position for a photo.
>
> I doubt that many snappers really need such a facility.

Now, what _might_ be useful in the camera would be Bluetooth, that lets it
connect to a Bluetooth-enabled GPS (such things are available) and find its
position when it's turned on without the photographer having to deal with
cables.

Could do other tricks with Bluetooth--not sure what specifically off the top
of my head but that's one.

> Paul

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Artoi

2006-04-15, 11:48 pm

In article < vn2242p5dmolsr4svjp1
9phd6bkjp2pfrl@4ax.com>, Don Wiss
<donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

> External GPSs, like the Garmin Geckos, have battery lives of about nine
> hours. So that could be left on all day.

eTrex Vista Cx does 20+ hours in real life.

--

Don Wiss

2006-04-15, 11:48 pm

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 06:46:59 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>Having just bought a D200, which has a GPS port, I'm investigating this. I
>know the lightweight Garmin Gecko-201 and Gecko-301 can be attached with a
>$100 cable. Someplace I saw (I can't find it now) an outfit that sells a
>mounting bracket for a Gecko that fits in the flash shoe.

I found it:
http://www.redhensystems.com/produc...2x-gps.asp?sm=1

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Roger Gelder

2006-04-16, 5:48 pm

Nope, because (a) I did not want a GPS 'flying' around in the cockpit, and
(b) I didn't think I would be so dis-orientetated, so didn't take it with
me.
Now, with a Bluetooth, small enough to hang round my neck without bother,
and a PDA sitting safely out of the way, I MAY be ready next time.
Roj.

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1o1e1$k2u$1@ne
ws.freedom2surf.net...
> Roger Gelder wrote:
>
>
>
> Weren't you recording a track with your Magellan at the time?
>
> Paul
>

Paul Saunders

2006-04-16, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter wrote:

[color=darkred]
> I rarely take a shot until my camera has been on for a minute or two.
> I see no real problem with this delay,

Maybe not for you, but the majority of people tend to take photos quickly in
my experience. I do it both ways, for many of my serious shots I'll spend a
bit of time getting everything set up just right first, but in other
instances I'll whip out the camera and take a quick snap. For opportunity
shots involving action, I'm lucky if the camera powers up in time to grab
the shot, I don't have the luxury of setting it up perfectly.

> and I am sure any camera with
> integrated GPS would have it switchable. Most of the newer GPSRs have
> quite fast times for getting a fix, usually under 90 seconds.

Way too way too long for a typical snap, and the first fix usually isn't
that accurate.

> When
> taking scenery pictures, I normally take several of the same location,
> so the 'on time' would be adequate.

Agreed, in many instances it would work fine, but in others it would not. I
don't think it would be very useful to the "larger market" given the way
snappers operate.

> Nothing is perfect, but given a
> choice between carrying two devices, and reconciling the locations
> later (and not knowing the direction the camera was pointed), and
> waiting a minute for the first picture, I know which I would chose.

Given the choice, I'd prefer to link an external GPS to the camera (or use
Bluetooth as J.Clarke suggested), but personally I find it no hassle to mark
a waypoint if required. I can identify most of my shots' locations quite
easily and rarely ever need to check the track, so not having a GPS position
in the EXIF data isn't really an issue for me. In the past I'd have to
compare the photo with the map to figure it out if I'd forgotten, but again,
this is rarely a problem for me. It's not a feature that I feel I need, but
of course it would be cool if I had it and it worked efficiently.

Paul

Paul Saunders

2006-04-16, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter wrote:

> I don't think anyone meant it should be on every camera, just that for
> some of us, it would be a desirable feature.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't want to have to pay a lot extra for it.

> I would rather have it that a 'movie mode', or interchangeable lenses.

Well we certainly differ there. Although I'm no big fan of video,
occasionally I encounter action scenes that suit video better. I wouldn't
use it often, but it would be handy to have a video mode for those rare
occasions.

As for interchangeable lenses, how can you do without them? Of course, it
depends on your requirements, mine are very wide ranging. Changing them can
be a pain in the arse, but I couldn't do without them.

> Funny, isn't it that SLR means 'Single Lens Reflex', but that what
> really defines an SLR is the ability to change lenses.

A lot of people think that, but it isn't. I own a couple of rangefinders
that have interchangeable lenses, and there are some SLRs available with
fixed lenses.

> Yeah, I know
> about the mirror, and viewing through the lens, but even P&S digitals
> have through the lens viewing...

They do now, thanks to digital technology, but they are essentially
rangefinders in design. I don't think they anticipated digital when they
defined SLRs!

The essence of the SLR definition is that you see through the lens that's
taking the picture. That doesn't mean you can't change the lens to a
different one, but you can only have a single lens on the camera at one
time! In contrast to SLRs there are TLRs, (twin lens reflex), which use two
separate lenses, one for composing the image, the other for taking the
picture (a somewhat more elaborate design than a rangefinder). See here;
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/tlr.html

Paul

Michael Meissner

2006-04-16, 11:48 pm

Jack <jackhovi@yahoo.com.nospam> writes:

> The June issue of Digital Photographer has a good article on using a
> GPS(Garmin 60csx), Canon DSLR, and inexpensive software to make
> geo-positioning easier.

Only the high end Nikons have that feature. IIRC, the D70, D70s, D50 don't
have the feature. Also, there is freeware that does the same thing:
http://oziphototool.alistairdickie.com/

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

Ron Hunter

2006-04-17, 5:48 pm

Paul Saunders wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>
> Maybe not for you, but the majority of people tend to take photos quickly in
> my experience. I do it both ways, for many of my serious shots I'll spend a
> bit of time getting everything set up just right first, but in other
> instances I'll whip out the camera and take a quick snap. For opportunity
> shots involving action, I'm lucky if the camera powers up in time to grab
> the shot, I don't have the luxury of setting it up perfectly.
>
>
> Way too way too long for a typical snap, and the first fix usually isn't
> that accurate.
>
>
> Agreed, in many instances it would work fine, but in others it would not. I
> don't think it would be very useful to the "larger market" given the way
> snappers operate.
>
>
> Given the choice, I'd prefer to link an external GPS to the camera (or use
> Bluetooth as J.Clarke suggested), but personally I find it no hassle to mark
> a waypoint if required. I can identify most of my shots' locations quite
> easily and rarely ever need to check the track, so not having a GPS position
> in the EXIF data isn't really an issue for me. In the past I'd have to
> compare the photo with the map to figure it out if I'd forgotten, but again,
> this is rarely a problem for me. It's not a feature that I feel I need, but
> of course it would be cool if I had it and it worked efficiently.
>
> Paul
>
>
There are always alternatives. I even used GoogleEarth to locate the
pictures my wife took on a recent cruise. But it would have been
painless had the camera had a GPS and compass built in. Surely not for
the masses, but those of us who like to take a lot of pictures when we
travel would enjoy such a feature very much.

Canopus

2006-04-17, 5:48 pm

Ron Hunter on 17/04/2006 wrote:

>There are always alternatives. I even used GoogleEarth to locate the
>pictures my wife took on a recent cruise. But it would have been painless
>had the camera had a GPS and compass built in. Surely not for the masses,
>but those of us who like to take a lot of pictures when we travel would
>enjoy such a feature very much.

Google Earth is not too inaccurate for areas that have good aerial
photography, but, is hopeless when it comes to parts of the world that are
just covered by low res satellite images such as most parts of Turkey and
even away from built up areas where I live in the UK.

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

Canopus

2006-04-17, 5:48 pm

Michael Meissner on 16/04/2006 wrote:

>Only the high end Nikons have that feature. IIRC, the D70, D70s, D50 don't
>have the feature. Also, there is freeware that does the same thing:
>http://oziphototool.alistairdickie.com/

Oziphototool may be freeware, but, OziExplorer which it works with is
shareware and although there is a demo version you would need to purchase
the full version to make it practical at $85 + VAT

--
Rob

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/

LinkBot