I'd love to get some input on a few upgrades I've been considering for my camera. I have an Olympus E-PL1 that I'm really liking, but there are a few things I'd be interested in purchasing for it. I will list them from most to least wanted:

1) GPS - I currently have an Eye-Fi card, but as much as I LOVE the technology it just isn't suited for anything but a point and shoot. I want to start shooting in JPEG+RAW, and the file sizes will simply be to big to reasonably pass through WiFi, even 802.11n. But currently my Eye-Fi gives me location data (using WiFi). It's not perfect, but it works shockingly well. What would be the best way to get location data into my photos with my camera?

2) A better flash - the flash on the E-PL1 is just not good. It's bright enough, but the quality is just awful. I recently read on Lifehacker about the easiest/cheapest way to improve flash quality: hold a plastic spoon in front of it. Surprisingly, it works really well! It also looks completely ridiculous. I'd like to get something small and not too expensive.

3) A better all-around lens - Mostly, I'd like something that did a better job at low light. The only reason I have this last is that I'm pretty satisfied with the results I'm getting now, and I know this will be the most expensive component to upgrade.


I'm not looking to become a pro photographer, or even a hobbyist. I want a setup that will take reliably good photos, with the information I'd like (GPS). I appreciate any input you guys have.

The GPS problem can be solved with a GPS datalogger and software. Basically you make sure that your camera's clock is set to the same time as displayed on the datalogger (check your timezone) and then make sure you are logging coordinates whenever you're shooting. The software on you computer will then add the coordinates to the photos by comparing the photo's times to the logged track data from the GPS.

If your camera has GPS facilities baked into its firmware then you might be able to buy a GPS attachment from Oly.

I do however suggest you shoot straight raw and forget about JPEG+RAW. This has nothing to do with GPS of course. I suggest this because I tried the same thing myself and realized that the JPEG images were just a big waste of time and space. If you're using a decent photo manager already, it's easy enough to output JPEG images whenever you need them at whatever resolutions you want.

Another route for GPS is to take a photo on your phone as well as the camera. I've done this in the past, and then copy/pasted the info once everything was in iPhoto.

I'm still waiting for Canon to build a GPS into their DSLRs. I'd really like all my photos geotagged, but I don't want to mess about with add on dongles or separate location logging that I need to merge with the photos later.

I'm surprised that GPS hasn't ended up added to all DSLRs yet.

Luckily it gives me a good excuse not to rush out and replace my ageing Canon 10D

I agree, GPS reception and tagging really should be a basic feature of any $700+ camera today.

Amen. Anything above a point and shoot should have it. Aren't the chips pretty cheap these days?

I've looked at the dongles, but they seem like such a kludge. I really wish they could make the camera store that info in the EXIF data at the time the photo is taken. Oh well, one day. I'll look at getting one of those dongles. Has anyone here used one that they liked?

Is there any reason you can't use the EyeFi as an SD Card without using it to upload via WiFi? (Other than the capacities are relatively low?)

Don't EyeFi cards know how to do WiFi-based geolocation? That's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.

Meanwhile, Nikon will happily sell you a GPS unit for your DSLR, but the price, $265, is completely insane.

That's true of pretty much any on-camera flash. If you want really small and inexpensive, I'd suggest a small piece of translucent scotch tape. That doesn't mitigate the fact that on-camera flash positioning sucks, however.

They do have that type of geolocation (as I mentioned in my initial post), however, to Bitt's suggestion, unfortunately the process that Eye-Fi uses to transfer the photos to the computer also pairs up the geolocation data. If you transfer directly from the card, that information is lost

Pentax just announced a GPS unit for there DSLRs. It looks big and bulky- probably because they power it with bulky AA batteries (why?). But it makes me wonder if we are trivializing the problem with integrating a GPS in a APS-C or larger camera. All GPS units do require an antenna and there is precious little room in all the cameras I can think of for an antenna- especially on top of the camera where buttons and prisms tend to be.

The antenna does not need to be big, there is plenty of room around the flash housing or tucked into the corner of the main body.

If they can get a GPS antenna into a phone, they ought to be able to get one into a camera body. What affect would metal camera bodies have, though?

A phone has a tiny tiny camera in it and it's been designed from the ground up to be an antenna. A lot of DSLRs have magnesium bodies that might block signal. On a DSLR the space around the pop-up flash is the prism for the viewfinder. Can't put anything there. My best is if you open up any DSLR or P&S you are going to be hard pressed to find any empty space. So camera makers have to decide if they want to make a bigger body for an internal GPS or integrate GPS externally as a lucrative add-on feature. You can guess what they choose..