| Versions |
  |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
wco81
USA
222 Posts |
 Posted - 14 juin 2012 : 15:39:30
|
I started out with a logger, the Gisteq Phototrackr, and started to sync logs and GPX files with pictures from various cameras.
Over the last year or two, I moved to an Easytagger setup, which connects directly to Nikon DSLRs data terminal, for direct tagging of the RAW file in camera.
This is definitely a big time saver over having to sync logs, remembering to set the clock on the camera, etc.
However, the weaknesses of the Easytagger are becoming more apparently, specifically satellite acquisition from a cold start, which could go into hours sometimes.
The other thing I noticed is that the ability to acquire in some adverse conditions is poor. Specifically, I tried to use it on recent intercontinental flights and found that it didn't retain acquisition long after takeoff. By contrast, I recall using the Gisteq throughout a 10-plus hour flight one time.
Do different chipsets perform better for acquisition from cold start or in adverse (inside a plane) conditions? Or could the design of the device such as the configuration of the antenna, come into play?
Now there are some Bluetooth setups available, which would consist of a dongle paired to a Bluetooth receiver. I've heard though that in some cases, the dongle would lose pairing with the receiver and so forth, so curious to see if anyone is using such a setup.
Or if anyone else is using Nikon DSLRs with various GPS devices.
This blogger gives a little review of one Bluetooth solution along with a little overview of devices available for Nikons
http://terrywhite.com/techblog/unleashed-gps-bluetooth-geotagging-solution-for-nikon-dslrs/ |
|
|
Ads
|
|
|
gpspassion
93389 Posts |
Posted - 15 juin 2012 : 10:21:08
|
Did quite a bit of testing over there years in planes and you can't get a cold fix from inside a plane, the signal level is just too low, you can maintain it though provided you are close enough to a window. The Easytagger is not designed for tracking so it probably does some reacquisition each time it's used.
I need tagging when I'm travelling and I like to travel light so I use a sony HX5 with an integrated GPS that works pretty well, especially when I remember to update the AGPS file. |
Discounts and Assistance/Réductions et Assistance (Club GpsPasSion) / Où commencer? |
 |
|
|
wco81
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 15 juin 2012 : 15:14:38
|
What do you mean it's not designed for tracking? It does have a logging mode which saves tracks to a micro SD card.
I had it on at LAX before boarding and through takeoff it was tagging the first few pics with the coordinates back at the terminal. Then I power cycled and it reacquired and updated the coordinates for awhile.
Then it lost the signal for the rest of the flight. So I got pics tagged from CA to Utah. This was window seat, business class, Boeing 777.
I haven't imported pics for the return flight yet but it was on a A380, upper deck, window seat on business class. Windows were smaller.
Wonder if the bigger windows and the non-metal hull of the Boeing 787 will be better for GPS reception. |
|
|
|
wco81
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 06 juil. 2012 : 19:53:51
|
Do differences in chipsets make a difference in acquisition time or ability to lock in in adverse conditions (like a plane)?
The Easytagger has a SiRF Star III, with 20 channels, -159dBm tracking sensitivity.
The Solmeta N2, which gets some good reviews, uses the same chipset.
Despite the same chipset, could there be differences in performance due to design, like better antenna configuration?
OTOH, The Gisteq Phototrackr CD111 is listed as having an MTK chipset, with 66 channels satellite tracking and -165dBm tracking sensitivity. Like I said, I got a full log of an over 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight once, on this device.
So now I'm wondering if it's worth checking out the Solmeta N3, which has a MTK3329 chipset, claimed to have "66 parallel searching and 22 tracking channels" but still the -159dBm tracking sensitivity.
Also, not that it matters a great deal but the Easytagger uses a barometric approach to tracking and recording altitude but I've found in practice this is poor, as it often returns altitude below sea level in coastal towns and would return wildly different values from day to day for the same location, depending on the weather.
The alternate method, using GPS, can't be any worse. |
|
|
|
wco81
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 04 sept. 2012 : 23:48:34
|
So I ended up buying an AOKATEC AK-4NII and a Holux M-1000C to take on an overseas trip.
This combo is less than the Easytagger or the Solmeta products.
This combo did a far better job of acquiring and holding a signal than the Easytagger. I tried leaving on the Easytagger for awhile but it never acquired a lock.
Meanwhile the Holux was consistently locked on and gave a more reasonable altitude reading than the Easytagger ever did, whether on ground or in the plane.
I did spot check the altitude readings on the maps display of the IFE screen a few times and the Holux reading was higher by a few hundred meters. But there were times when the IFE displayed some inconsistent values, as it cycled between feet and meters.
I haven't checked all the photos yet, so I'll have to see how they look. Also took some pics of the IFE map, so it should be interesting to compare the GPS coordinates written to the photo file versus what the IFE was showing.
One thing though was that Holux would sometimes stop updating, usually the altitude value, but once or twice, the coordinates. The workaround was to power cycle it and it would start updating all the values again as the plane moved. This also happened a few times on the ground as well.
So chipsets make a big difference (or it could be that the antenna configurations of the devices varied).
But it looks like there's a very workable solution for getting a stream of navigational data on airliners.
One thing lost in going from the Easytagger to the Holux is the directional heading data. But really, the only popular software which rendered the heading of pictures graphically was Google Earth, which is not something to which you'd load your entire photo library.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| This page was generated in 0,72 seconds. |
 |
|
- 
- 
Direct tagging for Nikon DSLRs
