To take a camera or not....?

Yeah but I guess my point is that you know what you're getting with an iPhone because squillions of people have them, and enough of those people test and report on it for tramping-type scenarios. With in-camera GPSs it's a bit more up in the air, at least unless you can find someone who'll vouch for it.

Just in case anyone thinks the the Lumia 1020 camera phone is somehow limited: http://pocketnow.com/2013/08/12/how-to-take-incredible-photos-with-the-lumia-1020#!prettyPhoto http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nokia_lumia_1020_review/ Remember it's a 41 MPx sensor and has a reasonably fast lens that is actually useful in low light. The right most body button is the shutter so it works ok with wet hands. @izogi Fair points about the gps in smartphones. When I use mine in the DRIVE+ application it does seem to be accurate enough unless I'm driving around complex little turns and twists deep in the Melbourne CBD. But I don't see any evidence that it's any slower to acquire a position than my Garmin GPSMAP64. And battery life is a real bugger if you leave them on too. Maybe the Etrex is better in that respect.

Hi @PhillipW. In my earlier comment I was really thinking about GPSs in cameras. Maybe part of it could be applied to SmartPhones too, depending on what info's out there for individual deviecs. What I found in my own search (for a camera) at that time was that very few people in the market really knew or cared much about an integrated GPS as more than a gimick. Therefore the cameras with built-in GPS were really hard to assess (without buying) for the quality of the GPS hardware and software which they included. So I just bought one and it turned out to be not so great. Phone manufacturers probably take GPS seriously these days, as so many customers rely on their smartphones to get around. Quality of the GPS is something that'd get noticed much more easily by the market. Maybe the market's more sensitive to GPS quality in cameras now. I haven't checked. I fell back to using my eTrex because I already use it for what I want. But if you're already tracking with a phone that does a good job then the positions stamped onto photos are probably fine, and the track data could probably also be used to stamp positions onto photos from any other camera. So much stuff is merging these days.

So ... what I really want is a camera that connects to my bluetooth GPS and gets its fix from there... but suspect that's too small a market to ever be served. Why add a quality $150 GPS chip to every device when you can all share one ...

Izogi, I can relate my experience with a Nikon AW100 (a few years ago). Acquisition speed : If a current satellite positioning almanac file was installed, it usually acquired a position fix within 15 seconds (often faster). The file is easily downloaded and installed to the GPS but is only current for the next 7 days. If no current file, acquisition would take from 1 to 2 minutes but occasionally 5+ min. Battery life : without GPS on, about 5 days. With GPS on, I managed it thus : position file not current : by turning GPS off when arriving at camp - back on next morning (on approx 8hrs) - reduced battery life by a day (ie 20%) position file current : by turning the camera on for a photo and then off again - battery life 5 days (ie no change) Left on 24/7, the GPS had a more significant impact - as much as a 50% reduction Accuracy : tested against my Garmin Colorado 300 - the positions were identical (+/- 5m) The problem was that in one year, the GPS failed 3 times for no apparent reason (firmware, I think, as it happened each time while loading a new position file). Returned and replaced with new each time, on the 3rd failure, I tossed it in for a full refund. I now know of 7 other users of the AW100 and none have had a problem with the camera (and none use the GPS!) Madpom, consider the power drain of bluetooth - separate devices, I reckon; safer.

The point of using the bluetooth gps is that the camera, phone, etc do not need to run their own GPS continuously (or at all). They only need to be turned on when in use. Because the BT GPS is running continuously they can connect to it and acquire the position in under a second. The BT gps runs for abt 4 days on a single Nokia phone battery (1-2 days if recording track log). Secondly the BT GPS uses a $150+ set of GPS circuitry that works under wet canopy, in gullies - anywhere that 3+ satellites are visible. It outperforms anything I'd expect to find in a camera or phone. It even well outperforms the standard Garmin GPS most outifts I've worked for use (62csx) in accuracy (<1m out when retracking lines compared to ~10m in flat, wet bush - consistently over 4 months) and acquisition. It does not suffer from 'wander' (scribbles on the map when standing still) in the way the samsung galaxy and iphone4 do. So why do I have to pay for and suffer all these separate, inferior GPS chipsets when I've got a brilliant little one sitting there ready for every device to use?

@madpom, which GPS device do you use? I know my Garmin eTrex supports ANT, which is a low-power wireless protocol. I've never tested it but a cyclist friend has multiple devices linked together using it. Supposedly the recent Bluetooth Low Energy protocol is a fairly close match for its power usage. I'd quite happily link devices together when I next get around to buying stuff as long as it's practical, rather than duplicate functionality. I was disappointed when first looking at PLBs that it wasn't possible to use the GPS for other stuff, but I guess they have a very strict design for safety reasons.

The first thing I did was turn off GPS and wifi on my Sony RX100 II, both battery hoggers. Never had a problem working out where I took the photos... Like @Bernieq, I only turn on GPS (iPhone) to check location on the topo sometimes. It stays off otherwise. I don't track my progress.

@izogi - qstarz q1000xt. Also had the q818xt, but traded up to the 1000 for the track logging function. If you buy one, go for a qstarz model with -165 dBm sensitivity or better, as they also have some cheapies. Been using these for about 10 years now, work and play. No screen or anything, just a power button and a 'waypoint' button. Size of a small matchbox. Use with a phone if you want maps, etc. Communicates via bluetooth.

I even have gps switched off on my phone. I get 4 days between charges with normal day to day use. Turn gps on and Im lucky to get a day. If I need gps I can wait the 10 minutes or so for it to find a satellite. Im not a fan of gps info attached to photos. It can be useful in file sharing and cataloguing photos but on the 4wd forum I administer I was checking out a problem caused by the EXIF data in a photo and quickly worked out where there is a great source of spare parts for my truck