7D Mark ii with WiFi/GPS or Without?

[RMC33]

What about creating 2 different grips for the 7D Mii, one with the GPS and WiFi and one without?

Weather sealing. And I think those mod's would eat up at least 1 battery slot.

Because the components are so cheap (GPS is <$3 each in bulk, WiFi is <$10), I would imagine they'd be built into the body, and only enabled if you have the grip. That would give a good place to put the antenna too, since the battery tray is plastic. The biggest issue in putting the antennas in the tray (I'd imagine right in the door, you only need 3.125cm for a 1/4 wave 2.4Ghz antenna), would be the additional RF connector on the tray & grip that can sustain repeated coupling without breaking or incurring excessive loss.

Good points. I honestly think the external GPS is by far a better option in terms of quality of build, reliability and day to day use. I feel the grip could be hit or miss, Break the grip or damage it and poof there goes your wifi/GPS antenna and power source.

 

[Don Haines]

And if you can't use wifi or gps because of the metal body..... how do you think it manages to talk to a wireless flash???

Wifi and RT would have reduced range if they can't get the antenna outside the metal. A GPS receiver however, deals with signals several orders of magnitude weaker, and would never work acceptably inside a metal body.

as posted elsewhere....


The body is made of magnesium.

Air has a permeability of 1.000 000 37
Magnesium has a permiability of 1.000 12
Steel and iron are around 100
Mu-Metal, used for electromagnet shielding, is around 20,000 to 50,000

Think of permeability as the materials ability to react to (attenuate) radio signals.

In other words, the magnesium body is for all practical purposes, transparent to electromagnetic waves (radio)..... and even if it wasn't, there are dozens of holes through the metal shell.

 

[jrista]

And if you can't use wifi or gps because of the metal body..... how do you think it manages to talk to a wireless flash???

Wifi and RT would have reduced range if they can't get the antenna outside the metal. A GPS receiver however, deals with signals several orders of magnitude weaker, and would never work acceptably inside a metal body.

as posted elsewhere....


The body is made of magnesium.

Air has a permeability of 1.000 000 37
Magnesium has a permiability of 1.000 12
Steel and iron are around 100
Mu-Metal, used for electromagnet shielding, is around 20,000 to 50,000

Think of permeability as the materials ability to react to (attenuate) radio signals.

In other words, the magnesium body is for all practical purposes, transparent to electromagnetic waves (radio).. and even if it wasn't, there are dozens of holes through the metal shell.

Aye, that was the point I was trying to make before. Magnesium is not a particularly useful material for shielding. I can't imagine there being any serious problems.. and heck, if there is, poke another hole in the body and cap the hole with plastic and seal it. From the outside you won't know the difference, except for not needing to hang a giant GPS or WiFi device off one of the ports.

 

[Barrfly]

What I'd really like to see is Canon putting the guys at Magic Lantern on the payroll so all the amazing features can be integrated directly into the firmware. Canon makes some kick ass equipment but holds back on the full potential that we can use.

I'm sure if even some of these were officially included Wifi and GPS would be taking a back seat.

Check out what your camera can do here : http://wiki.magiclantern.fm/userguide

 

[Don Haines]

What I'd really like to see is Canon putting the guys at Magic Lantern on the payroll so all the amazing features can be integrated directly into the firmware.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!

 

[jrista]

What I'd really like to see is Canon putting the guys at Magic Lantern on the payroll so all the amazing features can be integrated directly into the firmware.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!

I've never used ML...but that is quite an endorsement. What do they add that Canon doesn't already have?

 

[Don Haines]

What I'd really like to see is Canon putting the guys at Magic Lantern on the payroll so all the amazing features can be integrated directly into the firmware.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!

I've never used ML...but that is quite an endorsement. What do they add that Canon doesn't already have?

There is an intervalometer for time lapse, HDR bracketing, and some very neat exposure modes.... you can do focus trapping, where when something comes into focus, it takes a picture... you can have it take a picture when a programmable amount of the screen changes, good for taking pictures of lightning. There is a lot of video functionality, including sound level controls and programmable bit rates. You can trigger the shutter with sound..... and this is only the subset of the functions I've used.... I have wondered why they are not standard in the Canon offerings....

 

[Barrfly]

What I'd really like to see is Canon putting the guys at Magic Lantern on the payroll so all the amazing features can be integrated directly into the firmware.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!

I've never used ML...but that is quite an endorsement. What do they add that Canon doesn't already have?

Magic Lantern menu
Audio
Analog Gain (dB)
L-DigitalGain and R-DigitalGain (dB)
Input source
Wind Filter
Mic Power
AGC
Headphone Monitoring
Output volume (dB)
Audio Meters
Expo
WhiteBalance
ISO
Shutter
Aperture
PictureStyle
REC PicStyle
Exp.Override
LV Display
Overlay
Global Draw
Zebras
Focus Peak
Magic Zoom
Cropmarks
Ghost image
Defishing
Spotmeter
False color
Histogram and Waveform
Vectorscope
Movie
Bit Rate
Time Indicator
Movie Logging
Movie Restart
REC/STBY notify
Movie REC key
Force LiveView
Shutter Lock
FPS override
HDR video
Image Effects
Movie Record (50D)
Shutter Button (50D)
Exposure Lock (50D)
Shoot
HDR Bracketing
Intervalometer
Bulb/Focus Ramping
Bulb Timer
LCDsensor Remote
Audio RemoteShot
Motion Detect
Silent Pictures
Mirror Lockup
Flash tweaks
Focus
Trap Focus
Focus Patterns
Follow Focus
Focus StepSize
Focus StepDelay
Focus End Point
Rack Delay
Rack Focus
Stack focus
Focus Dist
Hyperfocal
DOF Near
DOF Far
Display
LV contrast
LV saturation
LV display gain
Color Scheme
Clear Overlays
Focus box (LV)
Force HDMI-VGA
Screen layout settings...
Level Indicator (60D)
Kill Canon GUI
Prefs
Image review settings...
Arrow/SET shortcuts...
Misc key settings...
Auto BurstPicQuality
Powersave in LiveView...
Config file...
LV Display Presets
Crop Factor Display
Display hidden menus
Debug
Screenshot (10 s)
Menu screenshots
Don't click me!
Stability tests
Show tasks...
Save CPU usage log
Free Memory
Shutter Count
CMOS temperature
Battery remaining

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

 

[bvukich]

And if you can't use wifi or gps because of the metal body..... how do you think it manages to talk to a wireless flash???

Wifi and RT would have reduced range if they can't get the antenna outside the metal. A GPS receiver however, deals with signals several orders of magnitude weaker, and would never work acceptably inside a metal body.

as posted elsewhere....


The body is made of magnesium.

Air has a permeability of 1.000 000 37
Magnesium has a permiability of 1.000 12
Steel and iron are around 100
Mu-Metal, used for electromagnet shielding, is around 20,000 to 50,000

Think of permeability as the materials ability to react to (attenuate) radio signals.

Well that "elsewhere" is wrong.

Copper has a permeability of 0.999994, and it is used for RF shielding; magnetic permeability is not the only important property (in fact in this case it's not important at all). It is only applicable to static or low frequency fields. The magnesium body effectively becomes a Faraday cage at RF frequencies.

In other words, the magnesium body is for all practical purposes, transparent to electromagnetic waves (radio)..... and even if it wasn't, there are dozens of holes through the metal shell.

Sorry, but that is also wholly incorrect. The holes would need to be larger than the wavelength to let the signal through without excessive attenuation. There are no holes in the body larger than 12.49cm.

 

[bvukich]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Ah, I didn't know that, but it makes sense. On the other hand, you are still depending on being within range of a 3G network. At least a couple of years ago the A-GPS was not very accurate whereas the regular GPS was within a couple of meters. It's a lot better now but still varies alot.

 

[bvukich]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Ah, I didn't know that, but it makes sense. On the other hand, you are still depending on being within range of a 3G network. At least a couple of years ago the A-GPS was not very accurate whereas the regular GPS was within a couple of meters. It's a lot better now but still varies alot.

A-GPS is sort of an extension of GPS, and is just as accurate (given the same receiver, etc), just faster to start. I know exactly what you're thinking of though, early cell phones that had GPS... Their inaccuracy was mainly a function of cheap GPS modules with a limited number of channels. You technically only need 4 channels to be able to see 4 satellites and get a full 3D lock, but what good is it on a mobile device to have to sit in exactly the same spot for 12 minutes to get the most accurate position? The more channels you have, the more satellites you can search for concurrently, and in general, the quicker you will achieve an acceptably accurate lock, and the better it can maintain the lock as you move and satellites come in and out of "view".

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Ah, I didn't know that, but it makes sense. On the other hand, you are still depending on being within range of a 3G network. At least a couple of years ago the A-GPS was not very accurate whereas the regular GPS was within a couple of meters. It's a lot better now but still varies alot.

A-GPS is sort of an extension of GPS, and is just as accurate (given the same receiver, etc), just faster to start. I know exactly what you're thinking of though, early cell phones that had GPS... Their inaccuracy was mainly a function of cheap GPS modules with a limited number of channels. You technically only need 4 channels to be able to see 4 satellites and get a full 3D lock, but what good is it on a mobile device to have to sit in exactly the same spot for 12 minutes to get the most accurate position? The more channels you have, the more satellites you can search for concurrently, and in general, the quicker you will achieve an acceptably accurate lock, and the better it can maintain the lock as you move and satellites come in and out of "view".

OK, that makes sense, for some reason I thought also that it was because of the network base stations. But I understand better now. Thanks. And going back to subject, I still think it's a good idea to integrate the GPS. I think it will future proof the product in a better way.

 

[azezal]

I hope we get a 7d without a GPS and WiFi option at a slightly lower cost,I'd buy it

Such a camera already exists ... its called the EOS 7D ... its a great camera ... and its on sale these days ... so no need to wait for 7D II

I already have that one, besides high iso noise performance I really don't have a single complaint against my beloved 7d

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Cold start may take longer but I'd rather have it in camera than another device that I have to pull out and go through the hassle of tagging them in PP. At some point someone needs to take the initiative of including them in Semi Pro DLSR's and that's where further progress can be made with faster locking on to the coordinates can be achieved. A good example is Canon 600 EX-RT speedlite ... yes there are some AF issues, but unless the RT was not integrated by one of the big names, there would not have been much progress in this area.
I subscribe to the idea of useful new technologies being integrated into products that can benefit people ... at the moment I see WiFi and GPS as very useful features for a lot of people, especially if the user has the option to turn them off.

 

[bvukich]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Cold start may take longer but I'd rather have it in camera than another device that I have to pull out and go through the hassle of tagging them in PP. At some point someone needs to take the initiative of including them in Semi Pro DLSR's and that's where further progress can be made with faster locking on to the coordinates can be achieved. A good example is Canon 600 EX-RT speedlite ... yes there are some AF issues, but unless the RT was not integrated by one of the big names, there would not have been much progress in this area.
I subscribe to the idea of useful new technologies being integrated into products that can benefit people ... at the moment I see WiFi and GPS as very useful features for a lot of people, especially if the user has the option to turn them off.

I agree completely, the more features the better. I would just prefer that features that may impact reliability be deployed with extreme caution to "single digit" bodies. I don't think WiFi of GPS would impact reliability in any appreciable manner (excepting the occasional "battery died because I forgot to turn GPS/WiFi off"), things like swivel screens still worry me though.

Perhaps my fear is unfounded; I never had any problems with my 60D, nor did I ever hear of anyone else having problems. But I also literally never used it, and haven't missed it one bit on the 5D3.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Cold start may take longer but I'd rather have it in camera than another device that I have to pull out and go through the hassle of tagging them in PP. At some point someone needs to take the initiative of including them in Semi Pro DLSR's and that's where further progress can be made with faster locking on to the coordinates can be achieved. A good example is Canon 600 EX-RT speedlite ... yes there are some AF issues, but unless the RT was not integrated by one of the big names, there would not have been much progress in this area.
I subscribe to the idea of useful new technologies being integrated into products that can benefit people ... at the moment I see WiFi and GPS as very useful features for a lot of people, especially if the user has the option to turn them off.

I agree completely, the more features the better. I would just prefer that features that may impact reliability be deployed with extreme caution to "single digit" bodies. I don't think WiFi of GPS would impact reliability in any appreciable manner (excepting the occasional "battery died because I forgot to turn GPS/WiFi off"), things like swivel screens still worry me though.

Perhaps my fear is unfounded; I never had any problems with my 60D, nor did I ever hear of anyone else having problems. But I also literally never used it, and haven't missed it one bit on the 5D3.

I think that is a very good comment, all features doesn't have to be present throughout the line up. The ways the cameras will be used will differ between the user groups.

Having said that, I don't miss the swivel on my 5D3 either, but I do miss my 60D sometimes. My wife forced me to sell it as it doesn't makes sense for me to have two SLR bodies.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I think the GPS is a useless addon, provided you have a smartphone + an inexpensive appli like GPS4cam. It offers IMO the same benefits of an integrated GPS. I'd rather like Canon focus on photographic specs rather than these useless peripheral specs, that cost a lot for a very weak added value. The smartphones HAVE a GPS, we have a smartphone always with us, bar.
About the WIFI, this could be differerent, but there is too a dedicated grip... So ? I really do prefer high iso performances for less MP, weather sealing, and a lower price... I'm maybe old fashioned ?

Disagree
I do not belive that an in camera GPS is going to add a lot of cost to the camera. I'd rather have it in camera than pulling out the smart phone, capture the GPS coordinates, identify the image to add the coordinates in post process sounds like too much of a hassle. I subscribe to the idea of have everything but give the users the option to turn them on/off.

+1
please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the camera will have a 'true' GPS, meaning a GPS that will function on its own, whereas a smart phone only has the aGPS meaning assisted GPS where it will need a Wifi connection or 3G connection to be able to obtain its position. + the extra hassle of having to connect it to the phone and all that annoying stuff that won't work properly anyway, no I'm not a fan of having to rely on my phone and in this case some home cooked app too much.

The problem with GPS without A-GPS is how long a cold start takes. The transfer rate from a satellite is extremely slow, and even though it's only a couple kB it can take quite a while, and only then can it attempt to acquire a lock. A-GPS has the benefits of being able to download that data from a faster source, and having a rough estimate of current location so it can determine where it is way faster.

Cold start may take longer but I'd rather have it in camera than another device that I have to pull out and go through the hassle of tagging them in PP. At some point someone needs to take the initiative of including them in Semi Pro DLSR's and that's where further progress can be made with faster locking on to the coordinates can be achieved. A good example is Canon 600 EX-RT speedlite ... yes there are some AF issues, but unless the RT was not integrated by one of the big names, there would not have been much progress in this area.
I subscribe to the idea of useful new technologies being integrated into products that can benefit people ... at the moment I see WiFi and GPS as very useful features for a lot of people, especially if the user has the option to turn them off.

I agree completely, the more features the better. I would just prefer that features that may impact reliability be deployed with extreme caution to "single digit" bodies. I don't think WiFi of GPS would impact reliability in any appreciable manner (excepting the occasional "battery died because I forgot to turn GPS/WiFi off"), things like swivel screens still worry me though.

Perhaps my fear is unfounded; I never had any problems with my 60D, nor did I ever hear of anyone else having problems. But I also literally never used it, and haven't missed it one bit on the 5D3.

I used the swivel screen a lot on my 60D, but I sold it last week to one of my colleauges as I was hardly using it ever since I bought the 5D MK III (last August) and TBH, I did not miss the swivel screen ... maybe I am just in awe of my "first full frame" DSLR. But I do see swivel screen's usefulness for people like me who are nearing 50 (or above) and having difficult time getting up quickly after crouching/lying down on the floor for a nice shot of a flower or some macro shot etc ;D ... so let's settle this disagreement into what we can agree on: Swivel screen for old farts like me and no swivel screen for strapping young lads like yourself ;D ... I have taken the liberty of assuming you are a young lad, but no disrespect intended ... I meant it as a compliment.