Jump to content

Photos


Poidawg
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

Link to comment

small is ok, but i love my sony mavica. yes the one that you can use a smart stick or 3.5 floppy disk. :D i like the versatility of being able to put it in most computers and bring up the pic. had it for years and never paid the $30 for a memory stick. besides, being huge and bulky, it's the perfect geocover for finding that elusive red bellied sapsucker or wonderful architecture.

Link to comment

Pentax Optio A10.

 

I am sure it's a good camera, gets rave reviews, don't think I have ever gotten a good picture out of it. Just too many things to set and adjust and select that I don't understand.

 

The digital transfer from camera to PC is cool, as is the ability to take large numbers of pictures, but I took better pictures with 35mm point-and-shoot disposable cameras!

 

And, I like prints. I have 75+ years of family pictures in albums, know right where they are... I have 5+ years of digital pics on my hard drive, thousands of them, but don't ask me to find one!

Link to comment

I carry my old Canon Powershot S5 in my Maxpedition Fatboy cachebag. Works great and isn't too big. I also have my iPhone camera if I forget the S5. My son, Wingnut98, ususally totes around his little Kodak. Both are 5 megapixel and do the job. When I go someplace where I know I'll want better photos, I take my Nikon D70 with the various lenses. Say Cheese!!! :D

Link to comment

I use the Canon A650IS. It is a 12MP camera and as stated above, it will have the tendancy to produce more noise. But what was not stated which is true of most digital cameras, they all produce noise at the level they are rated to. So the 6MP which is less expensive, will produce a great picture at about 4MP. That being said, the camera I use makes great pictures at about 10MP, and will produce great pictures at 12MP when there is a full sun out, no shadows in the picture, and your subject is well lit by that sun.

 

Beyond that, the camera has many manual features which you can grow into later and an automatic setting which does a fantastic job with multiple face focusing (which essentially averages the many focal points into one setting that will work the best).

 

It also has a swing out 270 degree swivel display.

 

But the one feature I truly enjoy about this camera is the Image Stabilization. Shakey hands from an extended hike or exertion can make your picture worse than cell phone camera quality. The Image Stabilizer (IS) is a killer feature I would look for in any camera I buy now.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

I carry a Canon S3 IS. It's a super zoom to get close. I'd like to get a wide angle adapter for better landscapes, a medium gorilla pod, and slave flash. I might step up to the S5 as the new features seem worth it.

 

I still have my Canon A-1 from many years ago, but I might retire it for a XSi and new set of lenses. I got other toys to buy first though.

Link to comment

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

I've been into photography for many years and this is the first time I've heard that mega pixels has anything to do with noise. On a cheaper point and shoot, if you jack the ISO up you'll be more likely to get more noise but with todays higher end DSLRs there is very little noise. I'm shooting with a Nikon D80 which is a 10.2 MP camera, and I routinely shoot available light at ISO 1600 with little or no noise.

Link to comment

For casual photos, small is good as mentioned above. You might want to choose one that uses 2 AA batteries like my two Kodaks (latest is Z710.) Advantage is interchangeable batteries. I keep the hybrid NiMH types in mine, with two spares, and it is always ready.

Link to comment

I carry a Kodak MD863 with me in the sling pack. I never leave without it because I can't go caching without the pack. It takes great pictures for its size, has shake control, a host of the other usual features and has a rechargable internal battery. I just plug it up at the end of the day and put it back into the pack when I unplug it. I just take the SD card out and put it a USB stick converter ($12) and it will plug and play in any computer with Windows 2000 and higher

 

I also have the "big" camera - a Sony DSC-H7 that has all the bell and whistles and whiz bang features you know you need when you know you are going to be seeing the absolutely mosy beautiful view known to man...but...if that view slips up on you from behind the Kodak will get it for you...just takes a little more work and it cost a lot less money (Just in case it falls down and goes boom) :D

Edited by CrippledBlindSquirrel
Link to comment

I recently picked up a Canon SD1100 IS and so far I have been very happy. I like the brown color which beats the shiny silver of some models. I had an older Nikon that failed the gravity test. I guess that's why they put those little wrist straps on cameras.

Link to comment

Nikon Coolpix 1500. I like it because the lens swivels backwards so I can take great self portraits. Small and easy to carry. And I have lots of spare batteries for it. I liked it so much that when the first one got a finicky button I bought a replacement off eBay. So far I've taken around 12,000 pictures with the 2 of them I've owned.

Link to comment

A photographer once told me to stick with manufacturers that are actually camera manufacturers, not stereo or television manufacturers that happened to expand into the realm of cameras.

 

Might be something there... :angry:

 

I use an Olympus Stylus 830. Small enough for convenience, but still packs great imaging capability, an "all weather" rating, and a fairly large screen for such a small camera. Now, if only my Geocaching skills were as high-quality as my camera...

Link to comment

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

Ditto. I have the Nikon Coolpix S51 8.1 MP, I bought it specifically for caching. It is ultra slim and it takes great pictures for geocaching. It fits in my Geocaching case or my pocket. If I were going to a really scenic area, then I'd bring my Canon Digital SLR for pictures first priority, geocaching second priority.

 

Coolpix Samples

PatiencePleaseKayaker.jpg

 

BigRedChairc.jpg

 

CleverTreeHide.jpg

 

SusansinSSU.jpg

Link to comment

I used to carry an Olympus C4000 and really liked the pictures that it took, but i decided that something smaller that would fit in my shirt pocket would be nice. Tried the Canon A510 and it has worked great since i bought it some 3 or 4 years ago. It's only 3.2 megapixels but it produces some of the best pictures (8x10s look goooooood) that i have seen from small point and shoot type cameras. That model has been discontinued of course but i can imagine that any of the sucessors in the Canon line would be good...

Link to comment

I picked up a Kodak V570 a couple months ago. It's a great little camera. 5mp, slim, with a large display. It also has dual lenses; one regular and one wide angle. It also has in camera stitching for panoramic photos as well. The only rub is that they're not made anymore, and they're recently become very popular. I've seen them used on Ebay for more than they cost new.

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht..._requestid=5666

 

I haven't taken it Geocaching, but I've done plenty of Waymarking with it....the full set of photos from this camera, that I have on Flickr can be found here.

 

2481972566_c803acd6be.jpg

 

2626624990_83cf4b53e6_m.jpg

 

2612663148_0b405fc510_m.jpg

 

2468930451_55c7066d51_m.jpg

Link to comment

I picked up a Kodak V570 a couple months ago. It's a great little camera. 5mp, slim, with a large display. It also has dual lenses; one regular and one wide angle. It also has in camera stitching for panoramic photos as well. The only rub is that they're not made anymore, and they're recently become very popular. I've seen them used on Ebay for more than they cost new.

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht..._requestid=5666

 

I haven't taken it Geocaching, but I've done plenty of Waymarking with it....the full set of photos from this camera, that I have on Flickr can be found here.

 

2481972566_c803acd6be.jpg

 

2626624990_83cf4b53e6_m.jpg

 

2612663148_0b405fc510_m.jpg

 

I haven't tried the panaramic stitching function on my MD863 yet...Seeing your picture makes me think that I might try it out this afternoon. I use it exclusively for caching and there's not a big call for panaramic views of ammo cans in the woods! :angry:

2468930451_55c7066d51_m.jpg

Link to comment

I use my Canon PowerShot A620 when I cache, mainly because it is one I don't care much about. The camera takes great photos, but Canon has such awful customer service I won't be purchasing another Canon camera. While my Canon was in the shop I purchased a Fuji Finepix S700 to use. It was a $300 SLR camera and I love it - best camera I have ever had. Like StarBrand mentioned, it is a bit bulky, but the quality of pictures is worth it.

Link to comment

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

I've been into photography for many years and this is the first time I've heard that mega pixels has anything to do with noise. On a cheaper point and shoot, if you jack the ISO up you'll be more likely to get more noise but with todays higher end DSLRs there is very little noise. I'm shooting with a Nikon D80 which is a 10.2 MP camera, and I routinely shoot available light at ISO 1600 with little or no noise.

 

That's because you're correct -- megapixels have nothing to do with noise. Noise in digital pictures comes from lighting conditions -- if your camera has to go up to higher ISO settings to capture the picture, it will introduce noise. Longer shutter openings will also cause noise (and blur).

Link to comment

DWBur,

 

The reason noise is mentioned in conjunction with more pixels is that, if the entire sensor is the same size, more pixels means each pixel in the sensor is smaller. This makes the individual pixels more susceptible to both noise and camera motion. The image as a whole may have no more noise -- for example if you reduce a 3mpx image and a 12mpx image both to 600x800, the 600x800 won't have any more noise -- but if you are counting on each pixel (for example for severe cropping), then each pixel has more noise.

 

And frankly, for 99% of the images posted on gc.com, a little extra noise won't be noticeable. Nor will any advantages of additional pixels -- given that gc.com restricts images to 125KB or 600x600, a 1mpx camera is fine for images to be posted to logs. For that matter, for 4x6" prints, 1mpx is enough in most cases, 3mpx almost always enough. Go for more pixels if you want to make larger prints or want to be able to crop small parts of images to blow up.

 

Far and away the most important thing for a caching camera is the ability to handle widely varied lighting conditions, including high contrast, intense sunlight, and backlighting. Problems with these affect a huge portion of the photos posted. I've often simply refrained from posting anything at all because I was not able to overcome these problems, and I'm pretty good (for an amateur) at knowing on site what I'm getting.

 

I use a Minolta DiMage Z1, a little over four years old. I'm interested in a couple of newer cameras but haven't been able to break this one yet (though my sister gave up on hers after it broke twice). I'd really like a Sigma SD10, with a Foveon sensor ...

 

So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

 

Edward

Link to comment

Canon Powershot A570. I like that the Powershot A series is the only one in its price range that allows for aperture priority, shutter priority and manual settings. Using AA batteries and the awesome picture quality only seals the deal.

 

I still have a quiver of Minolta SRT bodies (let's see if your digital camera, no matter how good, lasts 35 years) and lenses that I use for serious photography, but the Canon does a good enough job that I rarely find a need to bring the heavy camera artillery.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

For the last few years, I've been using a Canon 20d. It is truly an awesome camera.

 

Recently, I've been upgrading my lenses to higher quality Canon IS lenses. They have made a noticible difference in the quality of my pics.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I use a Canon SLR. I just keep my 50mm lens on it while caching so the camera stays light and will fit in my bag. If for some reason, I don't feel like bringing it and a photo opportunity presents itself, I just use the camera on my Palm.

 

I do try to post pictures on most of my logs, even though most aren't excellent examples of photography. It just seems that other cachers and the owners usually like having pictures there.

Link to comment

Small while geocaching. My sony fits on my belt or my pack or my pocket. While geocaching I typically crank it down to 3 megapixels because I don't need high resolution for the web and the photos upload faster. Works great.

Fwiw, I keep mine cranked up. Mainly because I want the high quality photos for my collection. They make great screen savers on a high res monitor and I will be having the opportunity to start framing some of them soon. You can always shrink 'em down, but expanding them back out is pure ugly.

Link to comment

Small while geocaching. My sony fits on my belt or my pack or my pocket. While geocaching I typically crank it down to 3 megapixels because I don't need high resolution for the web and the photos upload faster. Works great.

Fwiw, I keep mine cranked up. Mainly because I want the high quality photos for my collection. They make great screen savers on a high res monitor and I will be having the opportunity to start framing some of them soon. You can always shrink 'em down, but expanding them back out is pure ugly.

Yup, and don't forget that you may sometimes want to crop alot of an image as well, which comes out better when taken with a finer resolution. That being said, a 3 megapixel image can endure some cropping and still look pretty good when printed to 8x10.

Link to comment

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

I've been into photography for many years and this is the first time I've heard that mega pixels has anything to do with noise. On a cheaper point and shoot, if you jack the ISO up you'll be more likely to get more noise but with todays higher end DSLRs there is very little noise. I'm shooting with a Nikon D80 which is a 10.2 MP camera, and I routinely shoot available light at ISO 1600 with little or no noise.

 

I dont think we can really compare a D80 to a P&S as they dont have the same firmware/sensor size. I shoot with a D80 as well and I agree that it is a great camera. I plan on buying a D700 very soon since it has a true 35mm sensor (equals even less noise)

 

The sensor of a P&S is much smaller than a DSLR. Packing more and more pixels into a tiny area reduces the amount of light each gets, therefore causing noise. I did a bit of googling and found this link below that explains a bit.

 

Clarkvision Link Part 1

Part II

Link to comment

Canon Powershot SX100IS: I had first purchased another camera and halfway back home changed my mind and went back to exchange for this one that uses 2 AA batteries. Batteries not nearly as expensive as dedicated ones, and I can take spares along. So I never have to worry whether the batteries in the camera are charged or not. Also small (ish) means it goes along in the caching bag - if the camera is too big it tends to be left at home at times - and those are invariably the times you want to take a photo. You do get smaller cameras, but this one has a nice grip and it does not feel as if you are holding a matchbox between your fingers.

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

Link to comment

The smallest, slim camera you can find. I personally us a Nikon S51.

 

A lot of people believe the more megapixels you have, the better. However, it can actually lead to noisier images. I would aim for a compact around 6 megapixels.

 

To me, the most important thing is the ability to carry it comfortably in my pocket. When not geocaching, I use a Nikon digital SLR.

I've been into photography for many years and this is the first time I've heard that mega pixels has anything to do with noise. On a cheaper point and shoot, if you jack the ISO up you'll be more likely to get more noise but with todays higher end DSLRs there is very little noise. I'm shooting with a Nikon D80 which is a 10.2 MP camera, and I routinely shoot available light at ISO 1600 with little or no noise.

 

I dont think we can really compare a D80 to a P&S as they dont have the same firmware/sensor size. I shoot with a D80 as well and I agree that it is a great camera. I plan on buying a D700 very soon since it has a true 35mm sensor (equals even less noise)

 

The sensor of a P&S is much smaller than a DSLR. Packing more and more pixels into a tiny area reduces the amount of light each gets, therefore causing noise. I did a bit of googling and found this link below that explains a bit.

 

Clarkvision Link Part 1

Part II

This could be a never ending argument. I agree with you on the pixel size comment all firmware being equal, but in the newer cameras each different company's firmware is very important also. I believe the pixel size argument held more true 6 or 7 years ago but not as much today. I also have several P&S cameras from three MP on up, and my newest 8MP canon is just as noise free as my older 3MP Fuli. I still say the biggest noise factor is shooting in low light and higher ISO settings

 

I have also Googled the net and have found articles agreeing with both sides of the argument.

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

I'm not sure that I completely agree.

 

With my 20d, I have the choice between the proprietary battery and the AA 'battery grip'. With the propritary battery, I can take hundreds of pictures. I probably get three or four times as many pics from the proprietary battery than I can out of AAs.

 

I keep a spare battery charged in my bag, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I would need it. Basically, if I check to make sure that I have a full charge first thing in the morning, I know that I can shoot all day.

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

I'm not sure that I completely agree.

 

With my 20d, I have the choice between the proprietary battery and the AA 'battery grip'. With the propritary battery, I can take hundreds of pictures. I probably get three or four times as many pics from the proprietary battery than I can out of AAs.

 

I keep a spare battery charged in my bag, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I would need it. Basically, if I check to make sure that I have a full charge first thing in the morning, I know that I can shoot all day.

I guess it really depends on the battery. On standard alkalines, I'll get around 400 pictures. On Lithiums, I'll get around 650-700. These are 10-12MP pictures and I'm usually fiddling around with the settings to get just the right picture.

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

I'm not sure that I completely agree.

 

With my 20d, I have the choice between the proprietary battery and the AA 'battery grip'. With the propritary battery, I can take hundreds of pictures. I probably get three or four times as many pics from the proprietary battery than I can out of AAs.

 

I keep a spare battery charged in my bag, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I would need it. Basically, if I check to make sure that I have a full charge first thing in the morning, I know that I can shoot all day.

I guess it really depends on the battery. On standard alkalines, I'll get around 400 pictures. On Lithiums, I'll get around 650-700. These are 10-12MP pictures and I'm usually fiddling around with the settings to get just the right picture.

Either way, I get more pics from teh Canon battery than I do from the grip o' AAs.

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

I'm not sure that I completely agree.

 

With my 20d, I have the choice between the proprietary battery and the AA 'battery grip'. With the propritary battery, I can take hundreds of pictures. I probably get three or four times as many pics from the proprietary battery than I can out of AAs.

 

I keep a spare battery charged in my bag, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I would need it. Basically, if I check to make sure that I have a full charge first thing in the morning, I know that I can shoot all day.

I guess it really depends on the battery. On standard alkalines, I'll get around 400 pictures. On Lithiums, I'll get around 650-700. These are 10-12MP pictures and I'm usually fiddling around with the settings to get just the right picture.

Either way, I get more pics from teh Canon battery than I do from the grip o' AAs.

 

The nice thing about the AA's is that when I'm out on a trail, I don't have to worry about having to figure out where I'm going to charge my proprietary battery...

 

... I also use the Canon PowerShot A650IS and it was purchased almost solely because of the battery type (yah, there were OTHER factors... but being able to replace the batteries as easily as these can be replaced was a big'n.) I have had a number of other cameras with proprietary batteries and this is the best fit (the ability to use AA's) for me.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

I use a Sony DSC-F707. A dinosaur by todays standards but it is a camera that I got used to quickly and love. It's a five megapixel which gives me great clear shots. (Last word edited, why do they put the o and the i so close together on a keyboard?)

 

I agree with an earlier post about keeping it cranked to it's highest res. I love to keep the collection going. And doing a webpage you want the best shots you can get.

14028c34-46ca-4c43-bba4-e85194ca717a.jpg

 

71d19da0-7b48-446d-8763-de285a7c3b84.jpg

 

These aren't my best shots, just one of my best subjects!

Link to comment
So the features I'd say to look at are

 

1) Image stabilization (haven't used it myself, but want it, sounds very good for casual photography)

 

2) Good review on Imaging Resource, in the sense that it's good for how you use a camera

 

3) Large (fist-sized) camera if you want really good photos, pocket size if you are willing to tolerate some dereased quality and increased motion sensitivity for the very real benefit of having the camera more accessible

A couple of people have mentioned AA batteries, and I agree, I'd add that to my list. Many cameras now use proprietary batteries (like most cell phones), which is a PITA in my book. If a camera uses AAs, you can usually use AA rechargeables if you want rechargeable. (They put out a little less voltage than alkalines, so some devices choke on them, but most cameras are OK.) Ability to use generic batteries is a must for me.

 

Edward

I'm not sure that I completely agree.

 

With my 20d, I have the choice between the proprietary battery and the AA 'battery grip'. With the propritary battery, I can take hundreds of pictures. I probably get three or four times as many pics from the proprietary battery than I can out of AAs.

 

I keep a spare battery charged in my bag, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I would need it. Basically, if I check to make sure that I have a full charge first thing in the morning, I know that I can shoot all day.

I guess it really depends on the battery. On standard alkalines, I'll get around 400 pictures. On Lithiums, I'll get around 650-700. These are 10-12MP pictures and I'm usually fiddling around with the settings to get just the right picture.
Either way, I get more pics from the Canon battery than I do from the grip o' AAs.
The nice thing about the AA's is that when I'm out on a trail, I don't have to worry about having to figure out where I'm going to charge my proprietary battery...

 

... I also use the Canon PowerShot A650IS and it was purchased almost solely because of the battery type (yah, there were OTHER factors... but being able to replace the batteries as easily as these can be replaced was a big'n.) I have had a number of other cameras with proprietary batteries and this is the best fit (the ability to use AA's) for me.

 

michelle

The 20d's battery grip holds 6 AAs. Therefore, I can either carry 6 extra AAs or one Canon battery. Alternatively, I could use two of Canon's batteries in the same grip and absolutely know that I am not going to run out of juice, but since the battery grip makes the camera even bulkier, I'd just as soon keep the spare battery in my bag. For me it boils down to convenience. With the Canon rechargeable battery, I'm almost certainly not going to run out of power. I know that I will be able to take hundreds of pics without trouble. I also don't have to use the bulky grip and don't have to carry around half a dozen spare AAs.

 

I own three of the batteries for the camera so when I am on a trip I always have one on teh charger, one fully juiced in the camera, and one spare ready to go.

Link to comment

I have an old Konica Minolta Z3 that was great for many years and loved the super-macro mode to have a focal range down around 1/2" and 10X optical zoom (digital zoom blows). After it went 6-feet down in a river (dried out and managed to keep working), went down some rocks, got dropped (more then once) onto a concrete driveway and pretty much smashed up, after a little Superglue, JB Weld, and some cut pieces of inner tube holding the battery compartment shut, it still takes pictures good enough to get published a few places and win some state park photo contests.

 

Decided to step up and invested in a Sony A-100 DSLR with a Tamron AF 18-250 lens and I really like the camera (wanted a Minolta 7D but this was the replacement) but all the features that let you take great pictures make it a little bit cumbersome to take pictures on the fly when hiking/biking/kayaking. It's too bulky to haul on long hikes and too sensitive to water to yak with but I like the shots when I occasionally figure out what I'm doing. I have yet to exhaust a battery charge (and have a spare just in case) even when taking 2Gb of pictures and every one used the built in flash. Still torn on swapping it out for a more portable, more durable camera, but after years with my Minolta Maxxum 9000 and before that my Minolta STR-201 I feel comfortable with it in my hands.

 

Anyone use a camera with decent zoom and macro features that's durable and compact?

Link to comment

I actually find my BlackBerry 8310 camera more than sufficient for taking web page quality pictures, but if I want a higher quality one, I us a Canon SD900.

 

Anyone ever give this camera a try? I looks like it was MADE for caching! Even water RESISTANT!

 

Argus Bean 5.0 Megapixel Digital Camera

 

A65-1046-a.JPG

Link to comment
Anyone ever give this camera a try? I looks like it was MADE for caching! Even water RESISTANT!Argus Bean 5.0 Megapixel Digital Camera
Might not be bad for a quick snap camera but with no optical zoom you get shots just like most phone cameras with maybe a little better quality (my LG VX8700 has a 2Mp built in). The clip body is neat and has a built in flash, but unless it has a lens cover I'd be very wary. And here in Florida, clipped to a pack, it better be able to handle getting baked in the sun all day, too.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...