Thom Hogan on declining camera sales

[Misirlou]

Hence my original question: "Does it drain the battery?" (if permanently on). That was really a sincere question and so far I am not sure I heard a definitive answer, though I assume the answer is "yes." If phones are any indication, turing location services on does drain the battery faster, thus I keep it off until I need a map or driving directions.

I can only comment on the 6D. As far as I can tell, while the camera is on, it doesn't add any measurable drain on battery life. However, the 6D has a weird piece of control logic (that could probably be fixed in a simple firmware update). For some inexplicable reason, if you just leave the GPS running, the camera will attempt to maintain GPS tracking, even with the camera turned off! That will definitely run down the batteries. So I put the GPS on/off menu toggle on the quick menu, where I can get to it instantly. Hard for me to understand why they might have set it up that way.

But, I love my geotagging. Really useful for aerial photography. I also use the hell out of the Wifi - it turns an iPhone or iPad into an excellent remote control, complete with LV, focus point selection, etc., etc. With my rapidly deteriorating near vision, having an 8" LV screen is rather helpful.

[jjj]

Really!?

You mean like "less directly nasty that you can be" as here:

While you are disguising it as a general comment, it was your comment on BJL's question directed to me.

No it was very definitely a general comment about the internet, not aimed at you at all.
I usually ignore your sniping/outright offensive posts and if I was to pass comment on you, I'd do it quite specifically. But hey, if that's how you see yourself.... 

This is the first thread I've even unhidden your posts in a long time to try and politely answer and I only did that later on. Sadly as usual, you are your normal charming self. 

[Ray]

Taking a photo of yourself in a tourist spot does not necessarily equal vanity. It's usually simply a record that you were there.

I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? 

The fact that somewhere is busy is simply a side effect of it's popularity. In those situations I photograph the people or maybe the dodgy vendors as that's usually far more interesting than some building.

Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. 

[kirkt]

I would think that, for folks who deem GPS and geo-encoding as critical to their photographic process, carrying a GPS-enabled device to record a track and provide redundant data is standard practice in the field, even if their camera is equipped with GPS.

Kirk

[Rhossydd]

For some inexplicable reason, if you just leave the GPS running, the camera will attempt to maintain GPS tracking, even with the camera turned off!......
 Hard for me to understand why they might have set it up that way.

Getting a GPS fix from cold can take quite a few minutes. Leaving the GPS tracking all the time means that there's a much greater chance of having the right data available when you turn the camera on to take a shot.
I doubt anyone wanting to use GPS would want to have to wait excessively for the camera to get a fix before allowing a shot to be taken, or waiting until it had got a fix before writing the EXIF data and being able to take the next shot, or getting home and finding no GPS data at all.

Yes, enabling a GPS feature would hit battery life, but maybe not so badly it would cause problems.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Speaking about the less-is-more concept... Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, first quoted Jeremy Clarkson:

"First rule of being a bloke: more buttons equals better."

Then had this to say:

"Made me laugh. Ya wish it weren't so. I still think there's a market out there for at least a few models of "alternative" simple cameras..." (emphasis mine)

The linked video, although entirely about hi-fi and cars, has a lot of relevance for the camera bells-and-whistles debate too.

[AFairley]

Hence my original question: "Does it drain the battery?" (if permanently on). That was really a sincere question and so far I am not sure I heard a definitive answer, though I assume the answer is "yes." If phones are any indication, turing location services on does drain the battery faster, thus I keep it off until I need a map or driving directions.

Yes, definitely, a cheap inefficient unit decreases the battery life of a D800E by 50%, an efficient unit by 30% (personal experience). These are external units, of course, but  I would expect an internal unit to have the same battery draw.

[BJL]

I would think that, for folks who deem GPS and geo-encoding as critical to their photographic process, carrying a GPS-enabled device to record a track and provide redundant data is standard practice in the field, even if their camera is equipped with GPS.

Kirk

You overlook the first rule of mobility: when it comes to the number of devices one must carry to get the job done, "less is more".
Between those who need a full-fledged GPS unit and those with no need for GPS, there is a middle-ground of many photographers who would like geo-tagging without the need to carry yet another device.


Aside: it is strange to read someone (not you, Kirk) arguing that the possible need to carry a spare battery is an argument against having and using in-camera GPS, and then offering a solution which involves carrying an additional battery operated GPS device!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Aside: it is strange to read someone (not you, Kirk) arguing that the possible need to carry a spare battery is an argument against having and using in-camera GPS, and then offering a solution which involves carrying an additional battery operated GPS device!

Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device is also so much more powerful, useful, offering additional functions, and potentially life-saving. Besides, there is also a middle ground of using one's phone as GPS. Having two multifunctional devices surely beats having just one plus extra battery.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that I want GPS in the camera. I have had a GPS logger for a long time, but it is just one more thing to care about. The in camera GPS is just a setup once and forget about thing.

The  nice thing with the GPS-logger is of course that it works with everything, even old stuff…

Best regards
Erik

[Iluvmycam]

I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? 

Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. 

I saw an oriental guy's blog that had him traveling all over and mimicking the person next to him getting his pix taken. A few was OK, but after half a dozen it was a turn off. That was his hobby I guess.

[BJL]

Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device ...

Agreed that some photographers have use for a full-fledged GPS unit, but you seem to stubbornly ignore the many photographers who often need GPS data just for geotagging, and want that in the most convenient form: written straight into the metadata when the photo is taken. If and when cameras can seamlessly do this with data beamed in from some other device that every photographer will always be carrying anyway, then in-camera GPS becomes redundant -- but we are not there yet.

[Ray]

With all this talk about GPS facilities I'm beginning to wonder if some of you guys are surveyors or accountants rather than photographers. 

[jjj]

I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? 

Not at all as you probably know.

Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. 

No you said you visit places that are too full of snap happy tourists just like yourself to get a photo without them in it. In those situation rather than photograph something that everyone else is shooting, take a more interesting picture. Anyway if you want to take a photos of some famous object without tourists in it take a load of shots with tourist milling around, mash together in PS and voila no more stinky tourists.

[jjj]

With all this talk about GPS facilities I'm beginning to wonder if some of you guys are surveyors or accountants rather than photographers. 

With all this talk online about naming and keywording photographs rather than simply using the file number out of camera, I'm beginning to wonder if those guys are authors or journalists rather than photographers.

[jjj]

Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device is also so much more powerful, useful, offering additional functions, and potentially life-saving. Having two multifunctional devices surely beats having just one plus extra battery.

Can you not see the irony of arguing that people should use a second device because it has more features, whilst simultaneously complaining about extra features in cameras and arguing that less is more? GPS in camera is more certainly less and also less work/weight/effort.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Can you not see the irony of arguing that people should use a second device because it has more features, whilst simultaneously complaining about extra features in cameras and arguing that less is more? GPS in camera is more certainly less and also less work/weight/effort.

No, I do not see the irony. Each device excels in what it does best: cameras take photos, GPS devices guide. It is not simply about more features, but about more relevant features (relevant for its main purpose). A separate GPS device is an order of magnitude more useful for its designed purpose.

Lets reverse the example: lets add a camera to a GPS device (not inconceivable, given the size of phone cameras, and funny no one has marketed one yet). Would you take that contraption to take pictures? No way, right? You camera is so much better for taking pictures, you'd say, no?

Maybe one day your washing machine could reuse all that hot water and make a soup as an extra feature? I'd stick to my slow cooker.

[scooby70]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. A picture of oneself on holiday is not necessarily vain, or even 2 or 3 or 4 pictures of oneself. However, the selfie stick is designed to facilitate only taking photos of oneself. Many tourists nowadays walk around with their iPhone continuously attached to such a stick. Most of the photos they take, and the impression I get is that sometimes it might be all of the photos they take, seem to be of themselves. Rarely do I see someone photographing just the place they've traveled to visit.

There seems to be a general ethos among the majority of people taking photos nowadays, that any place worth visiting is not worth photographing unless the scene includes themselves, sometimes obscuring the most interesting part of the scene.

I agree completely. If you're not really interested in photography, jpegs are definitely the way to go. Only those with an artistic streak would bother processing RAW files. Sitting in front of a computer, adjusting the contrast of an image, raising black levels, recovering detail in the sky and so on, is akin to sitting in front of a canvas and painting a picture. Not for everyone.

Of course, there are also good practical reasons for using jpegs. They're easier to transmit over the internet, ideal for the journalistic photographer, and great for those whose main interest is sharing images of themselves. It would be a complete waste of time taking a RAW selfie.  

More tosh I'm afraid

Firstly, there's nothing inherently wrong or vain in wanting to be in a holiday photograph or even all holiday photographs and secondly shooting JPEG's is no more indicative of a lack of interest in photography than shooting raw is indicative of any talent.

Maybe a picture of the Pyramids is worthless unless I'M in it! And actually it's a poor picture unless I've taken it as a JPEG

Elitist clap trap. No offence intended though

[Ray]

No you said you visit places that are too full of snap happy tourists just like yourself to get a photo without them in it. In those situation rather than photograph something that everyone else is shooting, take a more interesting picture. Anyway if you want to take a photos of some famous object without tourists in it take a load of shots with tourist milling around, mash together in PS and voila no more stinky tourists.

You've misunderstood the situation again. The snap-happy tourists are not like myself. I stand back from the object I'm photographing. I don't place myself right in front of it, partially obscuring it. When a bus-load of tourists do that, one after the other, it's pretty frustrating, so I just walk away.

I'm aware of the process of stacking multiple shots in Photoshop, each shot slightly different from the other because someone has moved. But that process is too tedious for me. I'm not a gear-head, ya know! 

[jjj]

No, I do not see the irony.

Very obviously.

Each device excels in what it does best: cameras take photos, GPS devices guide. It is not simply about more features, but about more relevant features (relevant for its main purpose). A separate GPS device is an order of magnitude more useful for its designed purpose.

Still completely missing the point I see.
People want to add GPS data to their photos. A separate GPS device does not do that for you, however a camera can do it very easily, therefore an order of magnitude [which is a complete misuse of the term] better than separate devices. i.e. much easier and time saving. You also seem to be confusing sat navs with GPS devices which have a variety of uses/functionalities/abilities. I have a gps device for my bike. It doesn't guide me anywhere, it does however record where I've been and gives me live feedback of various things and it is very useful indeed.

Lets reverse the example: lets add a camera to a GPS device (not inconceivable, given the size of phone cameras, and funny no one has marketed one yet). Would you take that contraption to take pictures? No way, right? You camera is so much better for taking pictures, you'd say, no?

Maybe one day your washing machine could reuse all that hot water and make a soup as an extra feature? I'd stick to my slow cooker.

Your stance is more reductio ad absurdum that anything else. People don't want to add photos to their Sat Nav/GPS device, they want to add gps to their photos. Not to mention phones which have GPS functionality and have replaced sat navs for most people and can take photos, so that sat nav device with camera you mock is in fact most people's favourite camera. I wouldn't waste money on a separate Sat Nav device as my phone is a far better tool for my and most people's needs than a fancy sat nav device.
As it happens Garmin who are a big cheese in the world of GPS devices has added a sports cameras to which links into their GPS devices.

The point you are missing is this is a very useful feature that people actively want in their cameras. Nobody wants or has even suggested a device, bar yourself with the irrelevant washing machine comment, something that no-one wants or would even be of any use. You don't get it, we understand that but others do understand the use and would find gps in camera useful. Why even bother complaining about features other want and you do not?