Re: Digital camera with GPS capability

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:56:26 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>>> That's a matter of opinion. Having spent quite a few days working out 
>>> the grid references for upwards of 15,000 aerial photos, I could
really 
>>> use a GPS system that worked well. Trouble is, none that I've seen can

>>> accurately locate the subject area as opposed to the camera's position

>>> which may be half a mile away.
>>> http://www.pixaerial.com
>> Half a mile!  You REALLY need a better GPS.  Mine is usually accurate
to 
>> a few feet!
>> If I go on a trip, and return home, it won't go to 00 until I actually 
>> put the car under the car****t.  Leaving it in the driveway (20 feet) 
>> won't do.
> 
>  <whoosh!>
>   If you're in your car****t and take a picture of an object half a
> mile away (with a GPS enabled camera), does the "00" refer to the
> position of the camera or the position of the object?  Now if you're
> using a camera that records the direction that the camera was
> pointing, and that can also record the subject's distance in the
> EXIF data, I suppose that the subject/object location can be
> determined with a trig. calculator.  Not with a great deal of
> accuracy, but to a better resolution than half a mile.
> 

I suppose the problem would be significant should one have a long 
telephoto lens, and being taking pictures from a mountaintop.  I recall 
taking some nice shots of the mountains on Hawaii from the top of 
another mountain on Maui....  Quite a distance, but that adds another 
dimension to the needed numbers, altitude.  sigh.