Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Hardware

Digital Cameras for Use in Tough Conditions? 87

Posted by Cliff from the durable-digital-devices dept.
b!arg asks: "I am a sysadmin for a construction company. Currently the company spends god knows how much money on disposable cameras. They use these cameras to document accidents and the such out in the field. Typically these disposable cameras have 27 pictures available to them but only a few are ever taken before they are developed because of time. We can't hold onto a camera to take different shots of different accidents until its full. I am looking into the feasibility of moving to all digital cameras. Does anyone have experience with using these in such a potentially damaging setting? Obviously no digicam will withstand getting run over by a dumptruck, but what have you found to be a durable digital camera for people out in the field. Ease of use is also fairly important. And since we understand that these will almost definitely break once in awhile, I can't buy $1000 cameras. Two MegaPixels is sufficient quality, preferably using CF and, if I can dream, waterproof since the Northwest U.S. tends to be a tad rainy (does that break my budget?). Or am I trying to be too 'techie' when this solution just won't work because of the conditions in which they'll be used?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Cameras for Use in Tough Conditions? More

Digital Cameras for Use in Tough Conditions?

Comments Filter:
  • Aside from maybe getting wet, what other abuse are you concerned with?
    • These are construction workers we are talking about. They don't care about a 3 pound plastic camera. They will end up tossing in down on a desk, just the way they would thier disposables. They will end up putting them in their tool bag to move it to the next site with them. Construction hands aren't as nimble as a geeks. Dropping it from sholder height would be common. Not to mention, leaving it on the ground for some one to step on.

      The original poster might need to think about the use of these thing
      • Sorry, gotta disagree here.

        I work for a construction company (heavy highway and bridges) and we've got a couple of Mavica cameras scattered between the main office and the field offices. We use them for pre-construction site visits, progress photos and accident investigations. They've held up well here, though obviously they have to be taken care of.

        Granted, it's generally the project managers, engineers or foremen who use the cameras and are responsible for them. Any laborer can't come into the office to

    • Simple Choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by coryboehne ( 244614 )
      A Cannon Powershot S100 or S110 if you need video. I have owned both and they are truly exceptional camera's. I managed to drop my S100 from ~8 ft onto asphalt and there was no real damage (the corner ended up a bit dented, although there was no loss of funtionality). As this camera is inexpensive now, and of 2.1 MP quality, and uses the CF card I think it would suit you very well.
      • A quick thought, if you use the video feature it is much harder to alter than a digital photo, so in cases where you need "Proof Positive" evidence, I would suggest using the video feature on the 110 instead of simply taking a photo.
      • I can vouch for the s110, I got one about a year ago.

        I walked around with it in my pocket, no problems except the viewfinder got alot of lint in it. oh well, got the lcd display anyway.

        During october, my parents took a trip for a month. They lasted just fine with a 128 cf card and the carger. no laptop needed. This trip included anyhthing from main cities to the desert.

        the camera is still fine to this day.

        If I had one gripe would be that the battery doesn't last long enough. Under intense use, it l

  • Legal problems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hlh_nospam ( 178327 ) <instructor AT celtic-fiddler DOT com> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:27PM (#5791951) Homepage Journal
    I would love to use a digital camera for my Concealed Handgun Class photos, but the State of Texas will *not* allow digital photos for legal reasons. That's because a digital photo can be undetectably altered too easily. The same thing might apply to your situation.
    • Yeah, like a conventional photographic print of an image originally captured on a negative can't be undetectably altered.

      Negative -> Scanner -> Photoshop -> Ofoto
    • You'd think but I recently bought a car and needed to get the pre-insurance inspection photos done.

      and it was done with a digital camera, so the insurance companies don't seem to be too mindful of this.

      of course the owner of the car doesn't ever handle the photos so that might be the reason.
    • Funny that the State of Texas uses digital images for driver's licenses.
      • This is not a problem for the DMV, since as Dave Barry has noted, your photo is immediately discarded and replaced with a photo of Charles Mansion.
    • I don't quite understand. You teach a class for people who are getting concealed handgun permits? Or is this something else?

      Why can't you use whatever photos you want to teach a class? How do you use these photos?
      • The photos are for putting on the CHL card, similar to a driver's license. The state doesn't allow me to use a digital camera, even though that's what they use for the driver's license.

        Bureaucracies aren't required to make any sense.
        • WTF are you on about? He doesn't want to make weapons licenses, just take some snaps of his building sites.

          Why does what you are rambling about have any significance?
          • Since you didn't bother to read the original post, you might take some time to go back and do that. Go ahead, I'll wait... ...Now, then. If you are using a digital camera to DOCUMENT ACCIDENTS, there might be a legal problem similar to what I face in doing ID photos for concealed handgun permits.

            I'm sure that if you think about it long enough, you'll eventually "get it".

    • Right, so concealed handguns are OK, but digital photos are problematic?

      Perhaps ordering Anthrax is OK, but you can't do it by FAX? :-)

    • My dad works for DTRA (Defence threat reduction agency) and they go inspect site in Russia and other sovet block contries. He cannot use a digital camera becouse the treaty writen back in 80's or so said that you can only use 35 mm film.

  • Google (Score:1, Informative)

    by DogBarf ( 147635 )
    Did you try searching [dpreview.com] Google [imaging-resource.com]?

  • Canon PowerShot (Score:5, Informative)

    by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:39PM (#5792068) Homepage Journal
    The Canon PowerShot S series cameras are small and robust, with a metal case and a lens that retracts flat into the body and is protected by a retracting cover. They produce excellent pictures. I have an S100, which I've just replaced with an S400 because I liked it so much. (The S400 is the newest 4 megapixel descendant of the S100.)

    For your situation, I'd add on the appropriate waterproof case [canon.co.jp]. I imagine a PowerShot in one of those would stand up to falling from a truck, being dropped in wet cement and hurriedly rinsed off with beer, and so on.

    • Re:Canon PowerShot (Score:2, Informative)

      by CokoBWare ( 584686 )
      I am also a PowerShow owner... I have a PowerShot S230, and it is probably less expensive than the S400, and it takes 3.2 Megapixel photos. It also supports CF, and it has a great movie mode with mono audio. The video is useable, and the photo quality is excellent for a snapshot camera. The puppy does all the hard work for you when you're outdoors, and the battery lasts a good while too... rechargable Lithium-Ion. USB 1.1, and 9 point auto-focus system. I would recommend these cameras to anyone! We al
    • I'm assuming the S series is what's otherwise known as "digital elph". If these have anything in common with the traditional Canon Elph, I'd advise caution. I once dropped my Elph from about 1/2 foot on a sandy beach. No impact damage, but a bit of sand got on the lens retracting mechanism which started making horrible grinding noises and died on me 3 days later. Cost me 150 bucks to have the thing fixed. It wasn't even that much sand. I've treated the thing extremely carefully since then. This Elph is 5 ye
      • Sand, dirt, and other assorted grit are always nasty for tiny gears like that. Granted, moving parts *are* an additional point of failure, but with the waterproof case that was suggested, I doubt you'd have to deal with that.
    • >appropriate waterproof case [canon.co.jp]

      Damn dude those are pretty sweet. Not sure how well they would hold up to being dropped on the 'crete, but short of shattering from a long drop on something really really hard they look about impervious to damage and abuse.

    • Re:Canon PowerShot (Score:2, Informative)

      by Sevn ( 12012 )
      Having owned an s110 and every camera in between to
      s400, I'd say I'm a pretty huge fan of the tiny S
      series powershot cameras. They are a lot heavier
      than you think they are going to be before you pick
      one up for the first time. It's feels like a hunk
      of metal in your hand. It feels like you could use
      it to load your fist and hit someone. Still, that's
      not something you want to try. You love this camera.
      I think I dropped my s110 about a hundred times,
      once from a moving car. It's scratched all the hell
      but it still
    • I have a S200 and LOVE IT! it's small and I keep it in my bookbag all the time. I live in Tampa and sometimes leave my book bag in the car. (heat) so far it works like a dream.

  • SCUBA housing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bsdbigot ( 186157 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:42PM (#5792113) Journal
    It may not be the best thing in the world as far as ergonomics, but a number [aquatix.com] of companies [fuertecases.com] make housings for generic fit or specific fit digital cameras. Furthermore, here's a guy that builds his own [atlimp.com].

  • Right tool for the job (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:45PM (#5792140) Homepage Journal
    Why are you using disposable cameras instead of film cameras? The cost of film would lower the total cost over time to be cheaper than disposables. I assume the reason is because the cost of replacing a disposable camera is lower than the cost of replacing a film camera. If that is the case, then digital cameras are a worse solution because they will break easier and cost more to replace. Unless you can make a strong case for the freedom that digital prints give you (and these days, most photo shops can turn analog pics into JPEGs for a few extra bucks) then stick with what already works for you.

    Also, disposables are incredibly easy to use. Most digital cameras require you to set it to Take-A-Picture mode (instead of playback, setup or others) which trips up a lot of people. If you think taht digital cameras are easy to use go to the mall and pick 5 middle aged people. Hand them your camera, turned off and set to setup mode, then ask them to take your picture. How many are able to figure it out without your help?
    • Wow, the irrelevance of the information given in the previous post astounds me. Did you even read the orginal post?
    • Your bang on right here. Use the right tools. The disposible cameras are just about the right tool, the more correct one is just sitting under your nose.

      Lets say for argument sake that you have 30 contractors who can be on various sites in your area. And then lets say there will be 2 incidents a year that need to be documented. And at the same time we'll guess that 5 cameras get damaged through out the year.

      Disposible cameras are around $15 in my neck of the woods, so (30+2+5) * 15 = $555 each year. In

  • Canon PowerShot A40 [powershot.com] and the Waterproof Case WP-DC 200S [powershot.com].

    It's a cheap combo that takes decent pics. And the additional case makes it pretty darn durable. It uses regular AA's so you can always find juice for it in the field.

    I think your biggest problem will be whether or not digital pictures are legitimate in court when you're talking accident claims. They can be altered far too easily.

  • Canon Powershot A40s with watertight cases. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Glytch ( 4881 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:47PM (#5792169)
    I sell lots of these kits to local mining and smelting companies. The combination is a bit pricey for just 2MP/3x optical zoom; converting from Canadian dollars, at retail prices, I sell these at about $260 per camera and $150 per watertight case. Keep in mind this is a retail store, though. I'm certain you could find a better price online if you don't mind the lack of local tech support.

    Like all Canons, they use plain compactflash, and the A series uses AA batteries. If you're out in the field on a deadline, being able to go to the nearest corner store for an emergency power supply can save your ass. The A60s are newer, but I've found they're less durable. I've got an A70 myself, but it's not really suited for abuse.

    This is all anecdotal, anyways. I've never done any proper stress testing, I'm just going by what my customers in a few heavy industries have told me. ( My boss would kill me if I spent a day dropping store stock and seeing what happens. :) )

  • Canon a60 (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpsst34 ( 582349 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:48PM (#5792175) Journal
    I just got a Canon Powershot A60 [powershot.com] - 2 megapixel camera. It's a great little digicam and it was only $250 US.

    It may be overkill, but they sell an underwater photography case [powershot.com] for it.

    It takes great pics and has full manual override for everything. Physically, it seems to be pretty sturdy. Strong metal case, and the LCD has a plastic screen over it - you can't directly touch the LCD screen. It uses Compact Flash cards, and comes with 16MB. Crucial [crucial.com] sells 256 for about $65 US and 128 for about $32 US. I can't get exact prices since their site's down for "scheduled maintenence."

    Here's some reviews (some of a70 (same camera, but 3.2 megapixels)):

    Steve's Digicams [steves-digicams.com]

    Epinions [epinions.com]

    Digital Camera Resource Page [dcresource.com]

    Digital Photography Review [dpreview.com]

    CNet User Reviews [cnet.com]

    Google Search [google.com]

  • What problem are you trying to solve? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by twoflower ( 24166 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:51PM (#5792225)
    Currently the company spends god knows how much money on disposable cameras.
    First, find out exactly how much they are spending on camera -- they're ten bucks a pop, do exactly what's needed, and they're cheap enough that it doesn't matter if you don't use all 27 exposures before developing the film, or if one is accidentally destroyed. On top of that, you don't have to worry about making sure you have fresh (or freshly recharged) batteries on hand, low light levels that digitals can't deal with well, and a million other considerations.

    It sounds like you want to convert to digital cameras purely on geek factors. Don't. Consider the problem space before trying to come up with solutions.
    • 10 plus probably 7 for one hour film. Still not bad but it is an important cost. I personally would just wait for a camera/phone gets a bit better.
    • Absolutely right. In addition, if you really use a large number of disposables, you can probably cut a deal with a supplier to get a camera with the number of exposures that you need. Maybe 15, like State Farm [newstribune.com] You're probably looking at a couple of bucks per camera. Total cost of camera + developing film is probably under $10. You can buy 20-40 of these for every digital that you buy. Makes it hard to justify a digital on price alone.
    • Plus with disposable cameras the film is *preloaded* so you will never miss a shot because the film was not loaded correctly.

      On the pro side for digital . . .
      Do you use these images in printed documents? If so how much time do you spend waiting for development, and scanning prints?
    • Agreed. It sounds like he's figured out the solution to a problem that he doesn't have.

  • Just get a cheap one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @02:52PM (#5792232) Homepage
    I use a $70 800x600 camera called EZ-camera by I think ezonics. It takes CF cards and is PRETTY robust. Its taken rain on it and many many falls.. I suppose is made of only surface mount devices.

    Just get a cheap one and try it out in the field. Should at least last a few times to be worth its price. Good thing cheaper is also simpler to learn, assuming YOU will be the one to transfer the pics.
    • I was thinking along the same lines. Some of the cheaper Argus models would seem to be fine. Given the resolution, a ziploc bag might be sufficent and a dessicant pack may fufill the needs.

  • Do you actualy NEED 2 Mpix+ or is that is that just a 'nice to have'? like wise do you need a flash, or will you mostly be taking pictures out doors?

    If neither apply, you might be better served by buying a load of cheap digital cameras, and while trying not to break them, not worrying over much if you break a few. After all, that $1000 budget will buy an awfull lot low cost $50 cameras like this one. [dabs.com]

    Of course you can still keep arround a few disposable cameras, in case you need to take picutes at night

    • On a contruction site, there's a lot of conditions that won't be experianced by your average hiker or camper. Dirty/dusty/wet conditions, lots of small impacts (riding around in lunchbox, tool box etc), as well as less tendancy to treat it as anything but another tool.
      • The lower-end cameras with a cheap fixed lens and without an LCD should probably be able to take rougher handling than the more expensive models, and given the cost of buying disposables, developing and printing, don't need to last *all* that long before they can start saving money (especially if you can buy them in bulk quantities!). Or howabout a mobile phone with a built-in camera...

  • Me too (Score:4, Informative)

    by blues5150 ( 161900 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:16PM (#5792500) Homepage

    I am also a sysadmin for a construction company. We had the same problem where we were blowing threw tons of $$$ on disposable cameras and developing. The Project Managers and I were finally able to convince our frugal and technophobic VP into letting us buy digital cameras.

    We decided on the Fuji FinePix 2600. It's a nice little camera that is easy to use. I'm not sure how waterproof they are though. In my experience when you start talking about "ruggedized" or "waterproof" it means a huge price jump.


    As far as the legal issue goes we take it on a case by case basis. Meaning that some of our contracts specifically state that digital photography is not to be used. I have to say that lately we have not had many contracts that forbid the use of digital cameras.

  • Fellow construction shutterbug... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:17PM (#5792508)
    I worked as an construction inspector for the city here. Every spring we would go out and take pictures of every thing that would be affected by the oncoming construction, including two pictures of each driveway, every tree close to the construction, fencelines, property lines, etc. This was done to prevent homeowners placing the blame for pre-existing problems on the city.

    One example of this was a fellow who claimed that a large oak on his property was damaged by heat from a shovel's exhaust. A few bucks in camera film saved the city a few thousand in lawyer fees right there.

    I mention this because in our case a digital camera was not acceptable. The time that the picture was taken was vital, and having the picture between 31 other negatives on a strip goes a long way towards that goal. I know little about digital cameras, but I imagine the date would be trivial to alter.

    As far as durability is concerned, the only expensive object I saw on site was an electronic transit ($25,000+), and have seen a couple of those run over by trucks. If you want durabilty, maybe check out the military specs guys?

    Here's one, I'm sure Google will help you find many more...http://www.itronix.com/Products.asp

    • Why are you taking pictures of a site to use as evidence, prior to construction, and not having the affected people sign off on the pictures being valid prior to work being done?

      As far as the "notion" of having the picture between all the other 31 on the negative strip... You must develop your own film, because any place that you'd take your pictures will cut them into strips of 4 frames. And it'd be pretty easy for you to go out with a *new* roll and get the picture you wanted (after the fact) to fit

  • If you wrap your fingers around to form a small hole through them, you can capture an image of a solar eclipse on the ground or in a box. It works suprisingly well.
  • This thing is so tiny you can put it in your shirt-pocket! Outside pictures are actually pretty good. I've shown the pics to a couple of friends (one who is a serious camera buff), and they were all amazed something that tiny could snap a picture that good. It's no Canon Power shot, but even at a 1/8 picture quality, it is still pretty good.

    And at only $90 at ThinkGeek, so it won't break the bank.

  • cheap camera (Score:2, Insightful)

    by shdragon ( 1797 )
    Try this one [thinkgeek.com]. It's only $140 and can take upto 3.1 megapixel, takes SD/MMC cards, and has a USB hookup. I honestly think that you should give up on the durability idea. Price/Reliability/Durability, pick 2. At $140 even if they break 1 or 2, it's not a bad deal considering how expensive disposables/film processing/time lost/what-if-they-fuck-up-my-film is in the long run. Hell, I'd look into getting a discount if you buy like 5 or more. As for conditions, just buy a really sturdy/waterproof case. Hell, get

  • What you want is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by speleo ( 61031 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:39PM (#5792777) Homepage
    ...a Polaroid camera. They even have a model called the "JOBPRO" that's "designed for the construction professional".

    A digital would just sit around in the glovebox and it's battery would always be dead when you needed it.

    • Yes indeed, a Polaroid is perfect for the task. The base models are very inexpensive, simple to use, and can handle more abuse than a delicate electronic device. They instantly develop a single shot at a time, so there's never any waste. The film cartridges are cheap and readily available.
    • I don't know how durable it is, but I have a Canon G2. As far as battery life goes I had it last three months, with sporadic pictures taken every few weeks.

  • And we just bought a bunch of $189 Sony cameras and told the guys if they break it, they buy it.

    Works good so far.

  • insurance claims (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    insurance claims are much better with a film camera over a digital. If you want to be frugal about it,not waste shots, get a high end polaroid. The film is expensive but you take the shots you need and no more, and you can see fairly instantly if the shot came out or not. Three shots is slightly under 3$, and is probably better quality than the 6$ throw away with developing of 23 more shots you don't need. I used to have to take pix of exhibits damaged in transit or from previous shows (exhibit & trades
  • A few people have suggested the Canon Powershot series - while they're semi-durable, they really aren't ruggedized, and underwater enclosures are expensive and clunky.

    I used to be a sysadmin at an engineering company where our engineers would often need to take pictures out on job sites, and we found the perfect camera for the job: the Kodak DC5000 [kodak.com]. The interface is simple, they're 2MP, and they're tough as nails. They're weatherproof and could probably survive a dunk into water as all the doors and butt
    • I also have this camera and I have to say it has survived many of falls,drops, and spills. The only downside is that they are very bulky compared to the more modern 2megapixel cams.
    • I also work at an engineering company and we recently switched to the DC5000 (3 from ebay). They're very rugged and pretty easy to use as well. I take care of the cameras as far as extracting pictures and changing batteries is concerned and I haven't been shocked yet.
      So, if you don't mind the bigger size, I highly recommend these cameras. Although, I did buy my dad a powershot A40 for Christmas, it's very nice but not as tough as the DC5000

  • I work for an insurance company (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    *posting anon due to not wanting to break any no blab aggreements from my company*

    I work for an insurance company and just got finished working on a project that maintains our digital image management and capturing for claim processing.

    We use the Pentax Optio 33L cameras.

    And *yes* digital cameras are good enough for insurance companies. I once had a claim adjusted (from another insurance company, not the one I work for) based on a set of digital pictures that I emailed to the field adjuster.

    Anyone who s

    • Re:I work for an insurance company (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:32PM (#5795121)
      I sue insurance companies' insureds on behalf of plaintiffs, and I've seen some honest people with good claims who were victimized by insurance company dishonesty.

      So I have a low general opinion of insurance companies, to put it mildly, and I wouldn't put it past 'em to mess with a digital image or two if the stakes were high enough.

      You say you don't trust plaintiff's lawyers either, more power to you. I pray they never let in digital images where authenticity is contested and the photo is crucial in deciding the case. It is just too easy to doctor them [sree.net].

      Unfortunately, I fear many judges will routinely let in digital photos just like they often let in "computer evidence" in the form of printouts, etc. For information on how digital image evidence is treated in the courts, see Rules 901 [cornell.edu] and 1001 through 1004 [cornell.edu] of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  • Skip the digital, just get Polaroids. The instant development saves you from wasting film, and they're not horribly expensive so if they break occasionally it shouldn't be a huge problem.
  • i had a kodak dc215 which had a metal housing... bet you havent seen that on a digital camera in a while? its only 1 mp but it has survived many a falls. it would be safe to say it falls of my comp desk once a day and still work fine
  • The Olympus 300 [olympusamerica.com] claims to be weather resistant, if the scuba rig is too much for you.

    I haven't used one, but my old 170 has been great.
    • I've had two Olympus digital cameras. One failed after it fell from a table to a carpeted floor. The other failed after only about 100 pictures for no reason at all.

      Canon or Nikon are supposed to be more durable, based on what I've read. I'll be getting a Digital Elph soon.

      -ccm

  • I have a DSC-P51 that has been through hell and back over the past year. It is 2.0 MPixels, and cost about $250 new. It about the size of a cell phone, and easily fits in my pocket. Buy a group of used ones at this point, and you should do pretty well.

    You might also look into getting the waterproof cases for a couple units if you want to really punish them.

  • A company that makes rugged digital cameras (Score:3, Informative)

    by andy666 ( 666062 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @09:04PM (#5795671)
    is International Electronic Machines - www.iem.net The Ultimate Rugged All-Digital Camera From their page: IEM's Rugged Camera is designed to acquire motion video in demanding applications where ordinary cameras just will not perform. Designed to operate underwater or above ground, IEM's Rugged Camera is the most versatile imaging solution on the market. Utilizing state of the art image processing algorithms, the camera is capable of providing high resolution images in all weather conditions where ordinary cameras cannot.
  • All you need is a Fisher-Price Pixelcam. Cheap, durable, etc. Only problem is that it isn't technically digital (it records on regular audio cassettes...)
  • The Canon S-series has nice, compact diving cases, which provide excellent general protection.

    If you want something smaller, Olympus has a new series that is water resistant (forget the name, but they are everywhere).

  • I can't believe no-one has mentioned these yet. I doubt you need something that's going to handle being in a pocket next to the hammer loop in your carpenters pants. I assume your disposables sit in the glove box of the foreman's truck until needed? If so, the Nikon should work just dandy for you. The lens rotates into the camera body when not in use, all motorized parts are sealed, and all openings (cf card door, USB port) have gaskets. The one downside may be the rechargeable LIon battery, but you're not
  • 2 words: Kodak EasyShare. The DX models are $150, and from my personal use, pretty durable. A couple of those should run under $1000 easy.
  • The Stylus is tiny and has is made of metal. It is also protected against water (though you can't go scuba diving with it). The Stylus 300 is quite cheap and takes good quality pictures. It is a tiny camera which fits anywhere.

    Check out Steves Digicams [steves-digicams.com] or any other digital camera site for info.

  • Are there any digital cameras out there that are made to relatively cold temperatures? Pretty much every camera I see has 0 Celsius as its minimum operating temperature. I like taking pictures out in the snow, and it'd be nice to not void the warranty when taking it outside. Having said that, I had an old HP digital camera that I used in temperatures as cold as -30 and it worked fine for three years. It still works, but it's kinda flakey now. The one I used most is a Canon Powershot G2, and it has simi
  • Why isn't anybody suggesting the Casio Exilim EX-S2: It's fast, sealed (as far as I can tell), got no moving parts, and generally well reviewed.

    I dropped mine in a puddle and immediately picked it up and brushed it off without problems.

    It requires a cradle (very irritating, but so easy to use that even my boyfriend can do it) or you can pull the memory card out and use a reader.

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/casio/exilim_ s 2- review/index.html

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/exs2 .h tml

    J
  • I have a 2.1 mega pixel Canon ELPH that I take to the field with me(I'm a US Marine) That little sucker can take anything, the metal casing it has is quite durable, I've dropped it several times. Its gotten a bit wet a few times also.

    Its very simple to use. A plain point and shot. But you can throw it into manual and control the F-stops and exposure time as well for some night shots.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close