-1
\$\begingroup\$

The cheap 2000D has both wifi and gps in it, however a top of the line professional 1DX Mark II doesn't. In the age where even my toaster has wifi capability that communicates with my phone to make toast for me when I wake up, why do some high end professional cameras not have this feature?

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ A gentle suggestion: you ask some reasonable questions but you'd get a much better response if you asked them in a less confrontational manner. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Feb 28, 2019 at 9:22
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ This toaster with wifi, GPS, and 50mp camera sounds interesting. Where can I buy one? \$\endgroup\$
    – xiota
    Feb 28, 2019 at 9:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ars Technica: The June oven made me want a camera in every cooking device \$\endgroup\$
    – xiota
    Feb 28, 2019 at 12:33
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm reopening this after some cleanup as this is decidedly not an opinion based question. There are clear reasons for the differences in design decisions between professional and consumer hardware that are consistent across the industry and even extend over in to video cameras as well. We might not be able to answer why the exact particular feature wasn't included, but that's not the core of this question. There may be another question already covering this, but opinion based is certainly not the proper close reason. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson
    Mar 2, 2019 at 15:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ consider why a Formula-1 race car has no CD player, USB charger, or power windows. \$\endgroup\$
    – Aganju
    Mar 3, 2019 at 0:19

3 Answers 3

5
\$\begingroup\$

The simple answer is a difference in needs and reliability. Consumer cameras pack in a lot of features for the price, but they are jack of all trades devices that are not designed as ruggedly or dependably as professional gear and lack the same depth of functionality.

On the professional side, modularity is the name of the game. Professional cameras have a great deal more core functionality but don't have as much outside the core to keep the product as cheap and light weight and dependable as possible, they do not include much functionality outside the core and instead offer modular addons to provide more rigorous functionality to those professionals that need it.

Professional cameras don't generally include wifi, they don't generally include wireless flash sync, they don't generally include a built in flash, but they support add on modules that can provide all of this functionality.

As a professional photographer that mostly does events, wi-fi is not useful to me and I have no need to have the hardware built in and possibly making my camera heavier or less reliable due to the added complexity. I have a high end on-camera flash that can control my wireless off camera flashes as well because that's the functionality I need for what I'm doing.

If I was in a studio instead, I'd forgo the on camera flash for just a pure remote flash trigger that works with whatever studio strobes I was using and I'd add a wireless sync module to automatically transfer photos in to my studio management software as I shot.

Neither of these scenarios can be covered as well by the limited consumer functionality built in to something like the 2000D. The cost of the dependable hardware in these modules would have added another $1000 or more to the cost of my camera plus more weight and bulk that I don't need. Having them as modular units lets me tailor my camera to the situation I'm shooting and not have to deal with stuff I don't need. This becomes even more prevalent in the medium/large format and video worlds where the cameras you buy don't even work out of the box without putting multiple interchangeable pieces together to rig a camera the way you want it to be.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Many of these features age poorly. For example: in the last 10 years we have had 3.5 major Wi-Fi standards introduced. A camera with great inbuilt Wi-Fi in 2014 might be barely acceptable today. The camera body itself might be just fine. \$\endgroup\$
    – davolfman
    Apr 15 at 22:11
4
\$\begingroup\$

According to these specs, the 1DX Mark II has a built-in GPS.

This said, the 1DX targets professionals who may not have the same requirements as other photographers. For instance the 1Dx has no built-in flash.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Making note of this Canon model you link: Announced Feb 2, 2016, Built-in GPS with e-compass. Now in 2024 it feels like camera bodies let the phone provide the geotagging with sync apps and stuff. I'd like to learn more about that evolution in design. This is a good data point in this post. \$\endgroup\$
    – jxramos
    Apr 14 at 7:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Really high-end cameras us this. Geotagging with data from a tracker app is a workaround. \$\endgroup\$
    – xenoid
    Apr 14 at 7:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Very interesting unit, it fits very much with the theme of modularity mentioned in AJ Henderson's answer above. Looking up that unit on Amazon this Canon GP-E2 (and even the GP-E1) GPS Receivers are both listed as Date First Available as March 2012. \$\endgroup\$
    – jxramos
    Apr 14 at 8:00
2
\$\begingroup\$

Most pros don't take photos to instantly share on Instagram. They post-process their images. They retain copyright to their images and charge for an image bigger than a thumbnail or a screen-sized un-watermarked image.

People taking pictures with their fridges & toasters usually are taking fun snapshots they just want to show and share. Different users have different needs. Controls vs. scene modes.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.