The GPS in the 5DIV uses battery substantially faster than using the phone for GPS, especially when you just use BT (and not WiFi). The EOS R with BT and phone GPS is a great solution that I actually prefer, and they are slowly improving re-connect (e.g. when you fully turn the camera off for a while then back on, you need to launch the app the re-establish BT/GPS recording). It used to be after a couple minutes, now it seems to be much longer. It would be great if they could make it always just reconnect.
The Canon EOS R5 has passed Bluetooth certification
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Thanks! That's makes sense. One further question I have is this: In mode 2 during the first 30 (or so) seconds the GPS hasn't got a signal so photos are taken without GPS stored, but as soon as a signal is acquired will the camera automatically store that GPS location in all the photos taken in the prior 30 (or so) seconds since start-up?
I've been without my full frame camera for 56 years. In that situation, it's really no problem to wait.
No, if the GPS unit has not acquired the signal, no GPS data will be recorded to images taken while that state persists. Location data are not recorded retrospectively once the signal is acquired: those images have no location data.
An alternative, of course, is to use a separate GPS tracker (the GP-E2 can be used this way, for example, as can the Canon Camera Connect phone app) to log/record a track and then use software, such as Canon's Map Utility, to match up the timestamps, in the photographs and the GPS track, to enable location data to be inserted retrospectively. Here, the more accurately the camera's clock is set, the more reliably the match can be made. Unfortunately, Map Utility has not been updated to understand CR3 RAW files (and neither has the third party free software, Geosetter).
haha
I was wondering about that. Thought it was a function I had somehow overlooked for all these years. Not that I would turn it on anyway. It has NFC if I remember correctly. I think I tried using it a few times, but I don't remember being able to get it to connect to my phone, so I never used it again.
Is there a way to use the phone for GPS with the 5D4? I'd be curious to test and compare for myself. What Mode are you using on the 5D4 to compare to the EOS R with BT and phone GPS?
To me, it seems like location service drains my phone battery. That's much more problematic for me than having to switch out a camera battery a little bit sooner. Out in nature, I'd also rather not fumble around with an additional power pack, as if I didn't have enough gear to fumble with already.
Was thinking about an X-T4, but knowing the EOS R has good IQ, I think I will just assume that the EOS R5 will be better again, and good enough to replace my GFX50s. Sell that and the X-T3 and be out of Fuji land except for the X100- that is, if its video is as sharp as the X-T3's is. This thing is going to be killer.
Lucky man to have other bodies to use. I'm not that lucky so I'll just have to wait and see lol.I've been without my full frame camera for 56 years. In that situation, it's really no problem to wait.
A *GPS LOST* warning rather than one of the many symbols around the edge of the image being lit or not lit would be far more useful.
It may be slightly more likely on Android where the OS is better suited to background tasks, but yes, forget it on iPhone
You're right, its Wifi and NFC, sorry... but I don't mind, it's all about near field communication. In fact Wifi is much better since it works (nearly) always. BT connectivity depends so much on the BT version - if you have e.g. a BT 4.0 gadget, it can't already communicate with a BT 4.1 device, I recently discovered.
I've worked with BT (and wifi, GPS and others), and I wish it was that simple. BT4.0 usually should be able to talk with BT4.1, it's more important which version of the communication profiles and stacks they use. The 4.0 vs 4.1 is just the high level version and doesn't really tell anything. I think most devices communicate over GATT profile so if they have same GATT version it usually helps. But not always, BT cert/spec is quite strange so 2 devices can have same BT and GATT version, and still they don't work which each other. More important is if they did proper interop testing, like in this case they test the connection against Top100 phones in the market. And even sometimes same phone might have 2 different BT chipset manufacturers so depending on when it came from the factory, it might be different even when to customer they look the same.
It's a shame to hear that BT can be unreliable at all - you'd think certification for a communication via a wireless protocol in 2020 would mean 100% bulletproof communication. To hear it can be so hit or miss tells me the original electrical & software protocol had poor design and certainly very poor manufacturing quality assurance oversight.
Bit guessing but one reason why the BT solutions can vary so much is that the spec gives lot of flexibility for each design. Downside is that the flexibility makes it sometimes incompatible with other devices. The good is that when you have direct pair like Apple phone and the Apple watch, they can make it perfect as they control both sides. But when you don't control both sides you can try to make it as good as you can but still you need lot of testing to make sure it works with all the devices. Cell phones is such wild west with lot of companies so it's tough to make sure it works with everything.
Certification of a (Bluetooth) radio module is not at all about verification of functionality and interoperability, but about verification that the radio does not cause more radio interference than permitted.
That's spot on. To put it simply, BT isn't really stable industrial standard, that's why you can't rely on it. My first trial with BT was back in 2004 with my first Samsung mobile phone, and it didn't want communicate with any Notebook within my reach (most had BT back then). I really don't understand why manufacturers simply forget about BT and go for Wifi? Wifi is stable, relatively safe encryption is standard (as long as quantum computers aren't mainstream
)...
Because WiFi devices can use 10 times or more electric power than BT devicesThat's spot on. To put it simply, BT isn't really stable industrial standard, that's why you can't rely on it. My first trial with BT was back in 2004 with my first Samsung mobile phone, and it didn't want communicate with any Notebook within my reach (most had BT back then). I really don't understand why manufacturers simply forget about BT and go for Wifi? Wifi is stable, relatively safe encryption is standard (as long as quantum computers aren't mainstream
That's why I only activate Wifi of my 5D4 when I need it. But when I need it, I know Wifi just works. Why should I need my camera to always communicate with any other device? I'll never use it as an MP3 player with headphones
BTW Canon's smartphone/tablet app is quite nicely designed, easy to use IMO. Typical Canon.
ah, there are better applications for BT from a photographer perspective than an audio link of courseThat's why I only activate Wifi of my 5D4 when I need it. But when I need it, I know Wifi just works. Why should I need my camera to always communicate with any other device? I'll never use it as an MP3 player with headphones
use case: connect to internet via accessing your phone over BT connection, acquire GPS position from your phone via BT link.
one application I was thinking of: one can remotely trigger a camera (or cameras) connected to internet from miles away, or operate camera, etc.
BT radio consumes as low as 2W only. makes sense?
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
<-- start Taboola -->