# Select Canon cameras can now auto-backup to Google Photos



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 27, 2020)

> Google has added support to the image.canon app to allow automatic backup to Google Photos. If you’re not comfortable with backing up to Canon’s cloud solution, this is probably a great feature for you.
> *From Google:*
> With the latest version of the image.canon app (available on Android or iOS) and a compatible Canon camera, you can choose to automatically transfer original quality photos to Google Photos, eliminating the hassle of using your computer or phone to back them up.
> In addition to a compatible Canon camera and the image.canon app, you’ll also need a
> ...


----------



## marathonman (Aug 27, 2020)

Google is also *******.


----------



## addola (Aug 27, 2020)

I want direct backup to Amazon Photos. With Amazon Prime, you have unlimited full-size photo storage and it supports RAW formats.


----------



## marathonman (Aug 27, 2020)

addola said:


> I want direct backup to Amazon Photos. With Amazon Prime, you have unlimited full-size photo storage and it supports RAW formats.


It doesn't support CR3 does it?


----------



## Tom W (Aug 27, 2020)

I wouldn't trust google to hold my beer while I did something stupid. They have an agenda, and if you don't agree with their agenda, they essentially cancel you.


----------



## RMac (Aug 27, 2020)

addola said:


> I want direct backup to Amazon Photos. With Amazon Prime, you have unlimited full-size photo storage and it supports RAW formats.
> 
> 
> marathonman said:
> ...


No, Amazon treats .CR3 as video files from a data accounting standpoint and does not include them in the "unlimited" category. Super annoying. One workaround is to wrap the .CR3 in a .DNG, which, if you bundle the original .CR3 file into the DNG, makes for a _much_ larger file. Obviously this workaround wouldn't work if the files are coming straight from Canon.


If this ever got fixed, It would be a dream system for those using Prime + image.canon: Unlimited long-term automatic cloud backup of RAW files straight out of your camera over wifi. As it is, I doubt Amazon is chomping at the bit to extend their "unlimited" coverage. I've already got 3+TB of mostly .CR2 files on their cloud which means I'm using storage that would normally cost me well more than what they charge for Prime, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## marathonman (Aug 27, 2020)

RMac said:


> If this ever got fixed, It would be a dream system for those using Prime + image.canon:



I used it for CR2 and my Synology NAS for a long time. But with the switch to CR3 and Amazon not supporting them as "photos", I decided to switch to BackBlaze.


----------



## dwarven (Aug 27, 2020)

Tom W said:


> I wouldn't trust google to hold my beer while I did something stupid. They have an agenda, and if you don't agree with their agenda, they essentially cancel you.



I've used Google Drive since it first launched and I've never lost a single file.


----------



## JustUs7 (Aug 28, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I've used Google Drive since it first launched and I've never lost a single file.



I don’t think it’s about them losing your files. It’s not trusting what they do with them.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> I don’t think it’s about them losing your files. It’s not trusting what they do with them.



Ok, fine, you don't trust the safeguards Google as a provider of cloud services has in places. That's not unreasonable.

Why then would Canon's offering alone, or paired with another provider, be safer? Do you even know whose cloud Canon's data is stored on? Because I guarantee they're not running their own physical datacenter.

Could be AWS (Amazon) or Azure (Microsoft), could be Google, could be any number of other providers. 

Do you understand transport security/encryption from end-to-end, and which ones the three letter agencies of the US and other countries have either broken into or have a backdoor into those networks? Or how absolutely boned your home router probably is (if someone wanted to get your traffic), or your cellphone if you use that for any data transfer?

I'm not really sure what the concern is specifically with what Google could do with the photos you shoot, but I'd be interested in hearing what that is, and what cloud solution you prefer to Canon+Google.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 28, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Ok, fine, you don't trust the safeguards Google as a provider of cloud services has in places. That's not unreasonable.



No, he's not worried about safeguards. When he said he did't trust what they would do with them, he was alluding to the fact that Google makes its money by mining data from everything they can get their hands on. That includes any personal information you might be storing on the cloud that they're giving you for FREE even though it costs them money to do so.


----------



## JustUs7 (Aug 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No, he's not worried about safeguards. When he said he did't trust what they would do with them, he was alluding to the fact that Google makes its money by mining data from everything they can get their hands on. That includes any personal information you might be storing on the cloud that they're giving you for FREE even though it costs them money to do so.



I remain one of the very view people without a Facebook page as well for that reason. I post in a couple boards like this anonymously and have a LinkedIn page (but I’m not active in it). That’s the extent of any social media. My only gmail account is a .edu due to teaching part time.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No, he's not worried about safeguards. When he said he did't trust what they would do with them, he was alluding to the fact that Google makes its money by mining data from everything they can get their hands on. That includes any personal information you might be storing on the cloud that they're giving you for FREE even though it costs them money to do so.



Ok but that's shared by an even bigger swath of providers than just cloud services, that's the entire free (and much of the paid) internet. Anything you view on the web has a cost, and if you are not paying that cost, the provider is using your data to some extent to pay for it.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> I remain one of the very view people without a Facebook page as well for that reason. I post in a couple boards like this anonymously and have a LinkedIn page (but I’m not active in it). That’s the extent of any social media. My only gmail account is a .edu due to teaching part time.



I hate to tell you, but even if you block ads, the fact that you are a registered and logged-on user of this site means you have a browser cookie and are being tracked to some extent or another, and more so if you're using this site with your smart phone. Even if you use Tor, that's likely compromised at the state level (primarily funded by the US Government), even if you use a private VPN, someone owns those servers and someone definitely owns the connections between the two. Your best hope for privacy on the internet is that no one cares about you personally, and your communications are not swept up in connection with someone they do care about - but there is no possibility of absolute privacy on the public internet.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2020)

This seems like a nice option, but with 64GB being the absolute minimum size available in CFExpress cards and most cards being at least 125GB, I wonder how useful it is to have 100GB of automatic back up. Certainly not a long term storage solution.


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2020)

Why would anyone, other than Android phone camera users want to do that?


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I hate to tell you, but even if you block ads, the fact that you are a registered and logged-on user of this site means you have a browser cookie and are being tracked to some extent or another, and more so if you're using this site with your smart phone. Even if you use Tor, that's likely compromised at the state level (primarily funded by the US Government), even if you use a private VPN, someone owns those servers and someone definitely owns the connections between the two. Your best hope for privacy on the internet is that no one cares about you personally, and your communications are not swept up in connection with someone they do care about - but there is no possibility of absolute privacy on the public internet.


Apple does a much better job of stopping trackers than Androud does. As witness: Facebook just said that’s Apple’s iOS 14 will cost them half of their tracking Ad business. Nothing said about Android 10 or the new 11. Why? Because Google is in the Ad tracking business, why Apple isn’t.

sorry for the rant, but there is a big difference between the two.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> Why would anyone, other than Android phone camera users want to do that?


The OP has "(available on Android or iOS)" so iPhones as well and also iPads and tablets.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> Why would anyone, other than Android phone camera users want to do that?



Because Google Photos is fantastic. Auto tags most everything, and allows you to easily find images from years ago just based on what is in it. "Oh....there was a great shot of my daughter near a fountain." Search your daughter's name and 'fountain' and the photo instantly comes up. I don't back up my major photos to it, but all my mobile images and anything from my real cameras I've transferred to my phone, or downloaded are all in there. I'll sometimes upload good images I've taken to it also if I want super easy access to them.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> Apple does a much better job of stopping trackers than Androud does. As witness: Facebook just said that’s Apple’s iOS 14 will cost them half of their tracking Ad business. Nothing said about Android 10 or the new 11. Why? Because Google is in the Ad tracking business, why Apple isn’t.
> 
> sorry for the rant, but there is a big difference between the two.



Apple has been in the PRISM program for nearly a decade - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data


----------



## Kit. (Aug 28, 2020)

marathonman said:


> I used it for CR2 and my Synology NAS for a long time. But with the switch to CR3 and Amazon not supporting them as "photos", I decided to switch to BackBlaze.


By the way, Amazon Drive is canceling support for Synology NAS synchronization in November. Looks like I'll be moving to BackBlaze too (and canceling my Amazon extra storage subscription for video). Amazon's own synchronization tools are poorly suited for image database backup.


----------



## LDS (Aug 28, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Could be AWS



It's on AWS.



dwarven said:


> I've used Google Drive since it first launched and I've never lost a single file.



Till now. Look at the ToS about what you are entitled with when they lose your files.



melgross said:


> Because Google is in the Ad tracking business, why Apple isn’t.



No. Apple hates anybody making money on iOS without paying them. Look at the fight with Epic. Apple does sell ads directly.



JordanCS13 said:


> Because Google Photos is fantastic. Auto tags most everything,



And how does it? By analyzing each image and extracting information to feed consumer profiles whose use is then sold to advertiser.


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The OP has "(available on Android or iOS)" so iPhones as well and also iPads and tablets.


I wonder how many iPhone and iPad users would rather use a Google product there rather than Apple’s own.


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Apple has been in the PRISM program for nearly a decade - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data


Google didn't deny it, while Apple did.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> I wonder how many iPhone and iPad users would rather use a Google product there rather than Apple’s own.


I pay Apple for backing up my iPhone to iCloud. Google is the most useful site for me out there and I use it many times daily so I put up with their tracking me.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> Google didn't deny it, while Apple did.



Apple denied KNOWLEDGE, they did not deny INVOLVEMENT, essentially a GLOMAR...but they're in the Snowden-leaked documents as involved.


----------



## addola (Aug 30, 2020)

marathonman said:


> It doesn't support CR3 does it?



I am not sure. I do have a 6D (cr2) and M50 (cr3) but I always import them as DNG in Lightroom. Amazon Photos give you unlimited photo storage, and I use DNG because it saves LR edits in file without the need for an XMP sidecar file. 

I found out that Lightroom edits are saved to the catalogue (not directly to the file), and I need to do “Update DNG metadata and preview” to save the edits to the DNG files. I then unpause the “sync” on Amazon Photos to have the files uploaded with the edits. If I kept sync always on, it will upload the files


----------



## zim (Aug 30, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I hate to tell you, but even if you block ads, the fact that you are a registered and logged-on user of this site means you have a browser cookie and are being tracked to some extent or another, and more so if you're using this site with your smart phone. Even if you use Tor, that's likely compromised at the state level (primarily funded by the US Government), even if you use a private VPN, someone owns those servers and someone definitely owns the connections between the two. Your best hope for privacy on the internet is that no one cares about you personally, and your communications are not swept up in connection with someone they do care about - but there is no possibility of absolute privacy on the public internet.


100% correct but that doesn't stop me from NOT having a f***book account! No doubt I'll still have a ghost account though, no one caring is my first line of defense


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2020)

No. Apple hates anybody making money on iOS without paying them. Look at the fight with Epic. Apple does sell ads directly.
[/QUOTE]

Apple spends billions on the App Store. Two thirds of the apps are free. Apple gets nothing there except the $99 a year developer account. You can have as many free apps out there as you want for that amount. Apple give apps away for f4ree in promotions and pays the developers but takes no cut. They do all the accounting work, they do advertising. And it’s their platform.

Google charges the same 30%. Off loading apps is something only a tiny number of people do. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony also charge 30%.

what was your point there?


----------



## Joules (Aug 31, 2020)

melgross said:


> Apple spends billions on the App Store. Two thirds of the apps are free.


Not to defend or accuse Apple of anything. But isn't the issue people are discussing less about taking a cut for the price of an app (Something Apple is directly involved in due to distributing it) but also taking the cut for purchases and subscriptions made through the app?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

Joules said:


> Not to defend or accuse Apple of anything. But isn't the issue people are discussing less about taking a cut for the price of an app (Something Apple is directly involved in due to distributing it) but also taking the cut for purchases and subscriptions made through the app?



Yes, but for subscriptions the cut decreases over time. While I think the 30% cut is a bit much, considering the size of the app store, it is on par with Google, Microsoft and Sony.
I suspect that the app store will still be profitable for able with a 10% cut, but I don't know what incentive Apple has to lower it. I wouldn't be suprised if the current conflict with Epic makes them dig in their heels even more.


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 31, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> Because Google Photos is fantastic. Auto tags most everything, and allows you to easily find images from years ago just based on what is in it. "Oh....there was a great shot of my daughter near a fountain." Search your daughter's name and 'fountain' and the photo instantly comes up. I don't back up my major photos to it, but all my mobile images and anything from my real cameras I've transferred to my phone, or downloaded are all in there. I'll sometimes upload good images I've taken to it also if I want super easy access to them.




yes and now google will be trying to sell you kids stuff and fountains. ;-)


----------



## leviathan18 (Sep 1, 2020)

Amazon doesn't support yet .CR3, but I bet they will eventually for the time being I convert to DNG and call it a day. I have a unraid server with 40 TB + amazon cloud + 1tb in lightroom cloud for WIP and a gnarbox for good measure while taking photos


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2020)

leviathan18 said:


> Amazon doesn't support yet .CR3, but I bet they will eventually for the time being I convert to DNG and call it a day. I have a unraid server with 40 TB + amazon cloud + 1tb in lightroom cloud for WIP and a gnarbox for good measure while taking photos


We need people of your mindset in charge of pandemic planning etc, and that is not a joke.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Does the DNG converter still strip most of the 'maker notes' section of the EXIF info? Not a big deal if all you ever use for processing is Adobe products, since they ignore most 'maker notes' info anyway, but if you change your mind in the future, that's info that would not be recoverable.


----------



## leviathan18 (Sep 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> We need people of your mindset in charge of pandemic planning etc, and that is not a joke.



Well I believe in redundancy I was even thinking of deploying a sinology in my office to mirror my unraid photo folder only (two local different locations and one in the cloud)


----------



## melgross (Sep 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> Not to defend or accuse Apple of anything. But isn't the issue people are discussing less about taking a cut for the price of an app (Something Apple is directly involved in due to distributing it) but also taking the cut for purchases and subscriptions made through the app?


Two thirds of the apps in the. App store are free, and Apple gets nothing from them, but still has to spend the money to support them. A large number have subs, or sell upgrades or other bits. If Apple has an app that gets downloaded 20 million times, and gets nothing for that, why shouldn’t they get a cut of the sub? It’s 30% the first year, and 15% after that. That’s not so bad.

estimates are that Apple just makes about five cents profit on each dollar sold. That includes the average of everything. That’s not exactly profiteering. Epic, for example, is estimated to make over a 60% profit on Fortnite. Every other online store from Apple to Sony charges 30%, not just the first year, but forever. Is that better?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

melgross said:


> Two thirds of the apps in the. App store are free, and Apple gets nothing from them, but still has to spend the money to support them. A large number have subs, or sell upgrades or other bits. If Apple has an app that gets downloaded 20 million times, and gets nothing for that, why shouldn’t they get a cut of the sub? It’s 30% the first year, and 15% after that. That’s not so bad.
> 
> estimates are that Apple just makes about five cents profit on each dollar sold. That includes the average of everything. That’s not exactly profiteering. Epic, for example, is estimated to make over a 60% profit on Fortnite. Every other online store from Apple to Sony charges 30%, not just the first year, but forever. Is that better?



I remember reading, many decades ago, that people were surveyed...what would they consider a fair profit for a company? And five percent was the typical answer. Another question was what they thought companies typically made, and the typical answer was in the 20-30 percent range.

It turns out most companies, including many who have been accused of gouging and profiteering, make well UNDER 5 percent; they'd love to have such a good year as to make what the average consumer thinks is a fair profit.


----------



## Joules (Sep 1, 2020)

melgross said:


> Two thirds of the apps in the. App store are free, and Apple gets nothing from them, but still has to spend the money to support them. A large number have subs, or sell upgrades or other bits. If Apple has an app that gets downloaded 20 million times, and gets nothing for that, why shouldn’t they get a cut of the sub? It’s 30% the first year, and 15% after that. That’s not so bad.
> 
> estimates are that Apple just makes about five cents profit on each dollar sold. That includes the average of everything. That’s not exactly profiteering. Epic, for example, is estimated to make over a 60% profit on Fortnite. Every other online store from Apple to Sony charges 30%, not just the first year, but forever. Is that better?


As I said, not making any statement about Apple here. I just wanted to point out that you can offer a free App and still be affected by Apples regulations. I had taken your point about the number of free Apps as implying that only the costs of an App itself is relevant to the discussion. Sorry. 

As we're talking about a corporate lawsuit here, I won't bother giving an opinion on Apples business practices. We'll be informed whether this is a legit legal issue or not eventually.


----------



## melgross (Sep 2, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Apple denied KNOWLEDGE, they did not deny INVOLVEMENT, essentially a GLOMAR...but they're in the Snowden-leaked documents as involved.


Denying knowledge implied denying involvement. Think about what you just said. They involved themselves in a program they didn't know anything about.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 2, 2020)

melgross said:


> Denying knowledge implied denying involvement. Think about what you just said. They involved themselves in a program they didn't know anything about.



National security and classified information topics don't work that way.


----------



## melgross (Sep 2, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> National security and classified information topics don't work that way.


Really? Are you an expert on that?


----------

