jcmarfilph: More perverts coming soon....
Harmful? While I may or may not *like* that someone takes a picture of me, I fail to see how this would be *harmful* to me. My failure to see harm is not rhetorical. I would love to hear the reasoning behind this.
I absolutely love it. While it wouldn't replace a 'real' camera, it definitely has the potential to make my field work a lot easier in that it would help me to document the presence of animals where I would otherwise be too slow to take a picture.
jcburke: Anybody who needs GPS data for all pictures should just cut back on the drug prescriptions so they can recall where the heck they were when they pressed the shutter. I mean, really, go buy a point-and-shoot camera with GPS instead; the rest of us know where we were and what we shot. I may make an exception for National Geographic photogs (who wouldn't be buying this camera anyway for other reasons), but otherwise GPS is a crutch for amateurs and has nothing to do with core imagery and creative photography. If it is your discerning feature between two cameras, then you are not a photographer, you're a map freak.
That is a very short-sighted remark. It's not just about "remembering" (in that case, why bother with photography at all?), it's also about saving time and effort. For my field work, I need the as-exact-as-possible co-ordinates of every picture I take. The amount of time and effort and risk for mistakes saved with a built-in GPS would not be trivial.