Best Caching Camera

[+lifesajrny]

Any input on the best and least expensive digital camera to bring along while hiking or looking for a cache? We've got a Canon PowerShot G5 we take with us, but it's to big and bulky.

Any thoughts.. ..

[+briansnat]

I have a Canon A 70. Its on the bigger side for a point and shoot, but I like that it has manual settings as well as aperature and shutter priority. Its the only camera in that price range that I found that offered that much creative control.

 

I also like the fact that it uses AA batteries. Some of those special camera batteries can get expensive.

[+ADKcachers]

You want inexpensive? How's twenty bucks?

 

Camera

[+tls11823]

I picked up an Oregon Scientific ThinCam at Media Play a couple of months ago for $20 - I wish I would've grabbed a couple more. This is not a one-time camera, you take pictures and load them to a computer, then use it over and over. The resolution isn't great - I think .3 megapix. No flash or preview. But it's literally credit card sized and can be stashed anywhere. I think the one I have is discontinuted, but I just checked their website and they have a 1.3 megapix for $60.

 

You won't use this as your main camera, but it's nice for me on business trips because it takes almost no space in my briefcase, and can easily slide into my pocket when I'm caching or hiking. And because it's so cheap, I don't worry about dropping it, falling on it, or having it stolen. Today on the way back from caching, my son and I saw the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile parked at a hotel, and it was nice to be able to grab the Thincam out of the caching bag and get some quick pics.

[eggman7360]

I dont have a camera at all. Maybe I will get one of the camera cell phones next time I need to replace.

[+Isonzo Karst]

What's best depends on what you want. I started with a 2 megapixel smallish camera that used 2 AA batteries - took quite good pics and wasn't large. But realized I wanted at least 10x optical zoom and now carry a Minolta Dimage with 12x optical zoom (used 4 regular AAs) Lenses are inevitably big - this camera was the smallest and most comfortable in hand with appreciable optical zoom at the time. My PDA takes a picture too! and I've used it a time or two when I didn't have the camera - now thats small & though a PDA with cameral built in isn't cheap, it does simplify the gear - or camera in cell phone.

[Mustcache]

I bought the Olympus FE-100 just to take with me on the trail. I keep it in my cache bag. It's fairly durable and has taken bumps and bruises well. I use it for several months on a set of good batteries.

Prices for digital cameras keep coming down. This one is under 150 bucks.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Mustcache

[+TeamAO]

We carry Sony Cyberhots. Sleek, small, and takes quick pics.

 

Inexpensive? It depends what kind of money you want to spend.

[+robert]

I got my wife a Pentax Optio 50 six months or so ago and she likes it. Uses AA which is nice. There's an Optio 60 now (same camera, just 6 MP vs 5 for ours). Cost is $199 and it's small but has a nice big viewfinder.

[+nfa]

I got a Sony U-60 off of ebay for $75, and it's perfect for geocaching...small, simple, waterproof...

 

 

nfa-jamie

[+the hermit crabs]

We tried one of the really small thin ones, but everything came out fuzzy -- I couldn't hold it steady enough, and it didn't zoom in enough. Then we looked for one that was smallish and not too expensive that had 10x zoom, and ended up settling on the Kodak EasyShare CX6230. I think it was around $130 a year and a half ago.

 

It does what we want it to do well enough, which is take closeups of TBs, and take landscape-type pictures of areas around caches. The pictures aren't spectacular. They're good enough for uploading to the gc website, but if I wanted to print them on photographic paper I'd get a much better camera.

 

It doesn't take indoor shots of people very well at all. (Indoor closeups of things with good lighting are fine, but a whole-rom shot always looks terrible. Maybe it's not the camera; it could be me.)

 

You can look at our gallery; all of the pictures except the first one were taken with this camera. (The first one was taken with a tiny credit-card sized one that had only 3x-zoom; it looks pretty bad.)

 

This one shows the close-up capability pretty well. (Considering that I was a little nervous when I took it.)

 

One of the best features is that it can run on two disposable AA lithium batteries for months.

[+Anonymous']

I carry a Kodak Easy Share CX7300. Ruined the memory card slot on it on a hike though.

[+Prime Suspect]

Sony Cybershot 505. There's no software substitute for a killer lens. Not exactly a shirt-pocket camera, but it fits fine in my backpack. Takes short mpeg movies too, and you can automatically attach audio notes to each picture, which is handy when doing multiple caches.

 

[nobby.nobbs]

use olympus om350 point and shoot digital job.

 

but been very tempted with the canon d350......

[+Jester2112]

Real big fan of the Kodak EasyShare DX6340. Cheap and takes pics like this:

 

.

 

I know the purest photographer types will shoot it full of holes, but for the money, and since I just like pictures, I cant' see spending more than $120 for a camera: Kodak EasyShare DX6340 unless you're planning on starting your own photo studio. I wish I could pass along how GREAT these photos of mine look before they get downsized to fit on the site and/or how great they look when printed out in 8X10 glossy format. Much better than you see here.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Jester2112

[+MLP-76C]

Nikon Coolpix 990 / 3.3MP

Real old-school by today's standards but is capable of spot metering and seting full manual exposure.

[+entropysedge]

I have a Fuji FinePix A210 point and shoot that I carry everywhere; fits very nicely in my tankbag on my motorcycle. Takes 2 AA batteries, 128meg card fits about 168 pics shooting at 3.2 megapixels.

Use a Fuji S20 or a Pentax 35mm for the more serious stuff.

[+Bear Paughs]

I use a Canon PowerShot A300, which at time of purchase was the best bang for the buck. 3.2mp, 5.1 Digital Zoom, 5 point advanced focus, movie mode, etc. It was recommended to me by a friend of mine who is a photographer for Rolling Stone, who said it would be the perfect first-digital camera. And it has been. The only thing it lacks is optical zoom (which will be a requirement for my next camera purchase, but that won't likely be for a long time as long as this one holds up.)

 

Like Jester, I wish the resizing did the photos from this camera justice. They look amazing printed or loaded onto the computer direct from the camera -- so detailed and crisp, and the color is great. We framed some prints for Christmas gifts, and they looked like they were professionally taken. Our local paper just used one of my pictures in one of their stories and I've received lots of compliments. Overall I've been very pleased with this camera.

 

Here's my favorite of the recent photos I've taken.

 

[tossedsalad]

I have a Sony MVC-FD75 which has very limited resolution, but a great 10X optical zoom lens. I originally bought it for close up work which it is great at. It also is pretty good for the trail although it is not water proof. Very nice for taking pics of TBs, flowers and other smaller items. It can even take a portrait too

 

Kinda large for hiking though, it uses a floppy for storage. Later I might try to find one that has a nice optical zoom and fits in my shirt pocket, but I have other toys to buy first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope I didn't get carried away...

Edited September 19, 2005 by tossedsalad

[+Nushiekitty]

I use a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20K. It is big but takes fabulous pictures!

[DoGgY]

I have a Canon 20D that I take with me everywhere, not exactly small, but it does a great job. All of these shots are with the 17-85mm IS lens.

 

(Taken in New Brunswick overlooking Quebec)

 

(Taken in Baxter State Park, Maine)

 

(Another from Baxter State Park)

 

(South Shore of Prince Edward Island, Canada)

[+Colorado Cacher]

You want inexpensive? How's twenty bucks?

 

Camera

Somewhere, PCWorld(?). on the net you could put an usb port or cord into these and reuse them. I fail to remember though.

[+Prime Suspect]

You want inexpensive? How's twenty bucks?

 

Camera

Somewhere, PCWorld(?). on the net you could put an usb port or cord into these and reuse them. I fail to remember though.

It's a little more involved than that. Check this out.

Edited September 20, 2005 by Prime Suspect

[+Bear Paughs]

DoGgY -- those pictures are wonderful, but you must already know that! Wow! What's your photography background? I've been wanting to take some classes. Your pictures remind me why I want to so much.

[+Evil Chicken]

We always use this site before making a new camera purchase so that we can compare photos and features side by side. (We've had several including Fugi, Canon, Olumpus & HP models)

 

Our current camera is a Sony Cybershot P73 4.1 MP and we got it relatively cheaply at BJ's Wholesale Club.

Edited September 20, 2005 by Evil Chicken

[+TresOkies]

Pentax has the Optio WP, where WP stands for WaterProof. I'm considering getting it for caching, light hiking, trips to the lake/beach/waterpark, etc. Price is around $275US. I have the Pentax digital SLR and I love it, but it's not ideal for schlepping up a mountain.

[nobby.nobbs]

anyone using a canon 350d? been tempted but lots of cash

[+Huntcliff]

I use a tiny Casio Exilim EXZ55 5MP. Fits in my pocket and takes good photos. Has a huge display screen

[+Stunod]

Pentax Optio 4MP...perfect for caching, since it fits in an Altoids tin!!

 

[+The Leprechauns]

Frickin' frackin' MICRO cameras are gonna be the RUIN of this sport! I am so sick of hunting around for a nice camera, only to discover that it's a freakin' ALTOIDS tin!!!!!!

 

Whatever happened to cameras that could fit in a nice AMMO BOX?????????????

 

[Pipanella]

 

I've got one of those Altoids cameras, too. I love it!

[+Stunod]

 

I've got one of those Altoids cameras, too. I love it!

But you're too frou frou to put it in an Altoids tin

[Pipanella]

   

 

I've got one of those Altoids cameras, too.  I love it!

But you're too frou frou to put it in an Altoids tin

Yep!

 

And I knew I'd get a comment from you.

[+tirediron]

Like DoGy, I use a DSLR (Nikon D70) and generally tote 30-40# of photography gear with me anytime I'm out 'caching - "least bulky" doesn't really enter into my equation... Cameras are like cars; there is no 'best' one. Start by setting your max $$ amount that you will spend, then decide on the three features that are most important to you (eg resolution, zoom, storage media type, etc) and see what's available from the different makers. Once you narrow it down to a half-dozen or so models, start checking out consumer ratings as well as trying them in the store to see which one(s) you like better in your hand....

[+geoPirat]

The smallest camero with optical zoom is my choice, the Casio exilim card camera http://www.exilim.casio.com/index.cfm?fuse...2C-F6A411DB509A . Fits in your shirt pocket :-)

 

Took more than 1000 cache - photos with these slim cameras . . .

[Mvillian]

Kodak DX7590 as of tomorrow!! Before then it was a vivitar 3826!

Edited September 22, 2005 by Mvillian

[+Ambrosia]

Frickin' frackin' MICRO cameras are gonna be the RUIN of this sport! I am so sick of hunting around for a nice camera, only to discover that it's a freakin' ALTOIDS tin!!!!!!

 

Whatever happened to cameras that could fit in a nice AMMO BOX?????????????

 

Oh, my!

 

[+TresOkies]

Once you narrow it down to a half-dozen or so models, start checking out consumer ratings as well as trying them in the store to see which one(s) you like better in your hand....

Going by feel is a good point as the ergonomics of the different models varies a lot. One good measure of the way it feels is to see how fast you can switch ISO or white balance on the fly. Try to switch between AF and MF while looking through the viewfinder. These are common things that you switch out often in the middle of a shoot. Price-wise, the major manufacturers all hit about the same price points for entry-level dSLRs and they all have their strengths, just like GPSes and pickups.

 

Something to realize is that you could easily find yourself spending more on lenses than you did on the camera body. I'm up to five lenses and I'm a long way from having all I need. My wife is of a different opinion, of course.

[+ThePropers]

We use the Canon Powershot SD400. We just picked this up after someone dropped our other one.

 

It's nice and compact....2" by 3.5" by .8", 5.1 megapixels...etc. Has a lot of nice features including good manual controls. Camera, case, extra battery and 1GB card (which will hold about 300 pictures on highest settings) ran us about $600, but that was a couple months ago and I just saw the 7.1 megapixel version of this camera at Best Buy for the same price we paid for the 5.1.

 

My only regret is there is no "image stabalization" or whatever they call it, so sometimes pictures come out slightly blurry, but 99% of the time they are fine.

 

Here are some examples of pics (resized to 1024x768)...keep in mind I'm not a photographer....just a point-and-shoot kindof guy so they probably aren't the best.

 

The case is on my right shoulder.

Image 1

 

Image 2

 

Image 3

 

Image 4

 

Image 5

 

Image 6

 

Image 7

 

Image 8

 

Image 9

 

Image 10

 

Image 11

Edited September 22, 2005 by ThePropers

[+deimos444]

It ain't cheap but I use a 5 megapix Olympus D560 for my everyday capture machine.

It fits in my pocket, takes truly excellent photos and will take a 2gig chip.

Since I sell a certain amount of my photos as Jonny Saturn Productions I also use a Sony Handicam and an 8 megapix Olympus EV300 SLR.

I think spending the extra bucks to get a real camera is well worth the effort especially if you intend to blow them up a bit.

[tossedsalad]

ThePropers,

 

Not that I am going to buy soon, but I have seen a number of 5 MP cameras about that same size for under $400. I tried a couple in Walmart the other day and could not get the macro to focus. The salesman couldn't get them to work either. But the spec claimed they would focus to about 3" which should provide a nice macro capability.

 

I get some good pics with my Sony FD75. I love the lens, but it is only 640 x 480 and I can't blow up anything without it getting fuzzy. But boy can I get in close!!! I really like macro photography.

 

Do you know what the difference is between say the HP PhotoSmart 935 at $300 or the Vivitar 5 MP ViviCam 5385 at $170 and the one you bought? Are the pictures from your camera better or is it easier to use?

 

BTW, I really like your shots, especially the caterpillar.

[blod]

Nikon D2X or RICOH CAPLIO GX8

[+Miragee]

I have always liked wide-angle pictures, so I chose the Olympus 5060 because it has the widest wide-angle lens. It is not the most compact camera, but it is 5 megapixels, has lots of options for closeup photography, manual settings, and exposure adjustments.

 

I also got an inexpensive Fuji FinePix A340 as a backup, pocket-sized camera.

[+kym000028]

I'm a professional photographer and while I feel the best digital for the money if you can afford it is the Nikon D70. It's a bit on the expensive side, but well worth it. It's just like a 35mm SLR and it uses the same lenses and atachments as a film camera.

If you are just looking for a point and shoot, I still recomend something in the Nikon Family. Fuji also makes a great little digital.

Keep in mind, in order to get and 8x10 print made, the camera you choose must be at least 3mega pixles. Best to get 5. Also, most compace digitals have a delay, which means when you push the button, it could take up to 2 seconds before the camera actually takes the picture. This really sucks with any subjects that move. Kids, animals, sports. Just about anything except a bowl of fruit. Test the time delay in the store before you buy any digital camera.

Happy picture taking and good luck.

[Frankyguy]

I think it's getting a bit off topic here. The poster wanted advice on getting an inexpensive camera for Geocaching, not a top of the line Digital for professional photography. Any of the name brand cheaper model digitals will do a good job for Geocaching. (Canon,Olympus,Pentax,Nikon,Sony,Fuji,Minolta.) My only suggestion is getting one that takes AA batteries so you can use rechargables.

[+ThePropers]

ThePropers,

 

Not that I am going to buy soon, but I have seen a number of 5 MP cameras about that same size for under $400. I tried a couple in Walmart the other day and could not get the macro to focus. The salesman couldn't get them to work either. But the spec claimed they would focus to about 3" which should provide a nice macro capability.

 

I get some good pics with my Sony FD75. I love the lens, but it is only 640 x 480 and I can't blow up anything without it getting fuzzy. But boy can I get in close!!! I really like macro photography.

 

Do you know what the difference is between say the HP PhotoSmart 935 at $300 or the Vivitar 5 MP ViviCam 5385 at $170 and the one you bought? Are the pictures from your camera better or is it easier to use?

 

BTW, I really like your shots, especially the caterpillar.

Sorry, don't know the differences, as I didn't look at those other cameras.

 

I'm pretty happy with mine. The camera was about $399 and came with a battery and a lowly 16MB card. The 1 GB card was about 80 bucks and holds around 300 photos on the highest quality setting. The extra battery was about $40, and the case was around $12. So it all came out to roughly $550-$600 or so. The battery is a lithium, so it lasts a lot longer than our rechargeble AA's ever did (not to mention having to replace those every so often because they lose their ability to hold a charge). We bought an extra one, which fits in the case nicely.

 

I think my favorite thing about it is the startup speed. From the time I turn it on to when it's ready to take a picture is about 1 second. It's very fast compared to my old one.

 

Not sure what the original poster had in mind by "best" and "least expensive" so I threw this one out there as a consideration.