3

I need to buy a Nikon DSLR that does not have wifi, bluetooth, or gps. It seems all the new models have at least one of those features. The camera has to be bought new, from a "reputable" seller. I probably want to spend less than a $1000. Suggestions?

While these features can be turned off. My company takes IT security extremely serious and these features would require significant effort to get approved. In some cases would not be approved. It's just easier to buy a camera without them.

JMD
  • 233
  • 3
  • 9
  • I agree with Phillip. The D5500 is a good camera and you can just turn those things off. Do you have a 1k budget for body only, or do you need to buy lenses also? – Sam W Nov 15 '16 at 15:56
  • 1
    Why do you insist on Nikon? Do you already have a large investment in Nikon lenses? You seem to have a set of conflicting requirements: new, Nikon, no radios. If Nikon doesn't make a current model with no radios, what are you going to do? – Caleb Nov 15 '16 at 16:21
  • This sort of thing also happens for insurance claims or similar, where replacement is supposed to exclude upgrades. Note that GPS alone shouldn;t be an issue as it's a recieve-only technology. Whether that's available or not is another matter. – Chris H Nov 15 '16 at 16:46
  • @Caleb We already have an assortment of Nikon lens. If we can't find a Nikon body then I will either continue to use the crappy camera we have, or buy another brand. – JMD Nov 15 '16 at 20:26
  • 2
    (1) Shopping questions are off-topic here and (2) there are plenty of Nikon bodies which do not have those features, what research have you done? For example, about 10 seconds on a web search found a Nikon D7100, which happens to be bundled with an external wifi adapter, but you don't have to connect it, or even keep it -> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/927106-REG/nikon_d7100_dslr_camera_body.html – James Snell Nov 16 '16 at 16:58
  • Has your IT department considered that anyone wanting to get photographs out of your facility can simply remove the storage media, conceal it someplace where most searches aren't likely to find it and walk out the door? – Blrfl Nov 16 '16 at 17:32
  • 1
    @Blrfl it might be more than just IT department. Yes, anybody who wants to exfiltrate files will find a way. But perhaps the OP's company/environment is one where government security clearances are required. In that situation, no amount of "common sense" pleadings will budge the requirements. The point of those rules is to make "oops" situations (like accidental data leaks, and data attribution deniability) harder and less likely, as much as it is as to prevent more obvious malicious or "bad guy" actions. – scottbb Nov 16 '16 at 21:34

5 Answers5

6

The D3300 does not have Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or GPS, is still available from a number of official retailers, at least in the UK, and is well within your budget.

It's probably worth noting that, unless the market changes radically, then this will be the last camera you can buy without connectivity features. I haven't done a detailed survey, but I wouldn't imagine that changing brand will solve this issue for you.

Philip Kendall
  • 21,867
  • 6
  • 67
  • 101
2

I need to buy a Nikon DSLR that does not have wifi, bluetooth, or gps.

Judging from the specs, the Nikon D810 has neither GPS nor Wifi built-in -- it supports both, but they have to be added via accessories. Bluetooth isn't mentioned, so probably isn't supported.

At a cost of around $2500, this camera is significantly outside your $1000 budget, but it may still be more cost effective than switching to a different brand and replacing your lens collection.

Caleb
  • 31,682
  • 6
  • 65
  • 120
2

Got to wonder about why GPS is consider a "security problem". GPS is utterly passive, there is no data being sent by the camera anywhere.

Does it have to be new? D200 and D300 series cameras are great and available used at low cost. Reputable dealers should be able to dig up a few from their suppliers.

jwenting
  • 4,949
  • 1
  • 18
  • 22
  • 1
    security requirements often just "are what they are". Often certain individual requirements are maddeningly outdated, overly specific, or sometimes just wrong. But even more maddening is the difficulty or impossibility of getting some of those requirements changed or eliminated. I'm assuming OP is in that situation. – scottbb Nov 16 '16 at 14:34
  • 3
    A camera that lacks GPS cannot possibly include GPS-based location data in an image's metadata. Using a camera without GPS eliminates the need to ensure that location data is turned off or filtered out of images of things whose locations might be secret. Verifying that a used camera hasn't been modified by some previous owner is a lot harder than buying a new one. – Caleb Nov 16 '16 at 15:18
  • @scottbb I know, I've seen more than a few insane "security" requirements myself over my 20 years in IT. In fact I've seen more than a few that are in direct contradiction to what would actually be secure. – jwenting Nov 17 '16 at 06:56
  • @Caleb yes, but what's the security risk of such metadata (which can easily be stripped by an automated system mandated to be used on all images leaving the premises, a system that should already be in place if they're that paranoid). – jwenting Nov 17 '16 at 06:57
  • 1
    that data can't be stripped by an automated system if the files never reached that automated system to begin with. If the SD card were removed from the camera and taken off site, then if those images ever got leaked, at least the camera didn't tattle about where the images were taken, ostensibly providing at least some plausible deniability for the company. – scottbb Nov 17 '16 at 07:16
  • @Caleb a retrofit of a radio to such a camera would probably be easy to spot on an X ray - and very rare. And it would either not work at all or obviously work after resetting firmware. – rackandboneman Nov 22 '19 at 19:52
  • BTW, there is another risk of data exfiltration with a D200/D300, especially with the original battery grip attached: You could bash in the skulls of anyone opposing you about exfiltrating the data, without any damage to the camera :) – rackandboneman Nov 22 '19 at 19:54
1

For the DXXXX series you have to goto back to before 2016 (D3300 got them in 2016 but 2015 and 2014 model did not have radios). The no radio requirement comes from military contractors on our end. Only choice now is to goto DXXX and DXX models at twice the price. (add on modules for radios)

Donald Haas
  • 11
  • 2
-3

The d3400 has none of those features built in, and it's a decent camera for only about $700.

user191111
  • 127
  • 5