Joseph,
Very good! At the very least, I've given you an opportunity to clarify your reasoning about what often are simply "Gee Whiz" features.
Stephen
--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Joseph Chamberlain <drjchamberlain@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stephen,
All very good points. GPS is useful, not important, to me when I happen to use my camera for outdoor shooting. For my day to day dental photography it is, as you say, of no real benefit. The GPS is not essential or a feature I can't do
without, but it is nice to have all your photos pinned on a map according to the location where they have been shot. In addition some software (I am not sure if Lightroom is one but I believe it is) are able to apply keywords to photos based on their location. It is my understanding some will (assuming they have a proper controlled vocabulary dictionary installed) apply keywords in a hierarchical manner based on geography. For instance, if the photo was taken in Las Vegas the software will apply the following keywords to the photo: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America, North America and America.
Wi-Fi on the other hand is a really important feature to me and to the way I use my camera everyday. I take photos of patients all day and part of my examination process is to take photos and
immediately present them to patients. The Wi-Fi feature saves me an enormous amount of time. In case I had to remove the memory card or connect the camera to a computer every time I need to transfer photos of patient to my system it would be impossible for me to work with any level of efficiency.
Canon offers external Wi-Fi and external GPS units for many of their higher end cameras but in this case, aside from the additional cost the other main concern is the attachment of a smaller component to the outside of the camera body and the propensity for breakage. It is certainly more convenient when these features are 'inside'.
I had
honestly never thought about the possibility you describe and I am happy you shared it here. It is certainly a good point to consider. As a general rule I don't usually post images to the Internet if they are professional images as I am bound by HIPPA laws to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of my patients' data. In regards to my personal images I always make it a point to do one or more of a few things: 'scrub' the images in Photoshop to remove metadata, Digimarc them before posting, watermark them and use a few other techniques.
Thanks for your good points. I will definitely consider them when making my choice.
Best regards,
Joseph.
Joseph,
Why are Wi-Fi and GPS important or useful to you? The way you described your customary work, you don't need to instantly need to upload your images to a server or "the cloud." Nor does it seem you need location information stored in the image data. This information, depending on client (like the military or a military contractor) or subject matter, could be construed as a security risk. Suppose you take a photo of a child in a park mor on a school playground, with the GPS turned on, and posted that photo on Flickr or some similar site; an unsrupulous person could get into the image data and find where that photo was taken and perhaps find that specific child, will ill-intent.
I know we have gotten so used to the conveniences of WiFi and GPS that we don't think of any disadvantages associated with them, but there may very well be some.
From: Joseph Chamberlain <drjchamberlain@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Question for the group.
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 3:32 PM
Hello, everyone.
I have a question and thought I would ask for your opinions.
I've been shopping for a new camera. I am leaning towards a Canon camera because I already have a substantial investment in Canon accessories (lenses, flash units and others). One other requirement is that the camera should have a full frame sensor. The two cameras I seem to have liked the most are the 6D and 5D MK III. They both appear to have advantages and disadvantages. The following are the qualities I like about each:
6D
1. Price
2. Weight (very light)
3. Size (reasonably compact and easy to handle / carry)
4. Built-in Wi-Fi
5. Built-in GPS
6. Continuous auto-focus
5D MK III
1. Body construction (alloy and seals)
2. Stronger built, construction
3. Improved metering system
4. Speed
I am not an action or sports photographer so speed is of (very) limited value to me. Most of my photography is of stationary or near stationary subjects or medical/dental macro/close-up photography. I often have the camera set-up with a macro flash, macro lens, and a battery attachment fixed to the tripod screw and connected to the flash to provide faster recycling times. All these accessories add quite a bit of weight to the camera so it is easy to see why weight is important to me. My previous camera, a 1Ds MK II, was very heavy with all these accessories to the point that it made shooting often unpleasant and cumbersome.
My initial reaction is to go with the 6D for the price, the weight and the built-in features (Wi-Fi and GPS). I can't think of one thing the 5D MK III would do for me that couldn't be duplicated by the 6D. However, I would like to hear pros and cons from those who have experience with one or both of these cameras.
Any input or suggestions will be very appreciated.
Thank you in advance,
Joseph.
|
|
