Binoclular/digital Camera

[+Robespierre]

I was just looking at a link, and clicked on binoculars. Mead 10x22 binoculars with digital camera. Now I've been needing binoculars for the friday night games and for caching. My eyes aren't so young. But I don't want to spend $400 or more. I'm afraid that $90 would just disappoint me. I've been wanting a digital camera for caching, but it's the same dilemma. Is the combination worth having? How much do you really have to spend?

[+Team DEMP]

I think you'd be disappointed. Get yourself a decent pair of binoculars that fit your need. Look for a digital camera at $150 or less on special from a reputable company.

 

The quality of the pics, if I'm looking at the ones you wanted, would be poor. It shows the camera to be .3 megapixel. That's point 3, not 3. If you wanted to look at them on your computer screen that is fine, but printing would end up being grainy and pixelated.

[+briansnat]

I can't imagine a combo doing both things well.You're probably better off getting them separate.

 

Check here for some good binocular prices. The compact Steiner 8x22 are a really good deal and the Pentax ones are quite inexpensive as well.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I've been tempted by those combination ones, as well. I've got a decent camera and decent binoculars, but the zoom range of the former isn't anything like the latter. Since I pretty much never print anything, it's all for screen, I'm not concerned with 640x480 as the upper limit, but it wouldn't do if the optics were so crap it was a wobbly 640x480.

 

At the price these things are going for at places like Brookstone, it's almost worth giving it a try on spec.

 

I'm not rich. Just profligate.

[+CompuCash]

I think you'd be disappointed. Get yourself a decent pair of binoculars that fit your need. Look for a digital camera at $150 or less on special from a reputable company.

 

The quality of the pics, if I'm looking at the ones you wanted, would be poor. It shows the camera to be .3 megapixel. That's point 3, not 3. If you wanted to look at them on your computer screen that is fine, but printing would end up being grainy and pixelated.

Very good advice - same as I would say.

 

There was a thread similar to this a while back Robes - you might want to try a search.

 

I was pulled up when I reported low resolution photos that they were high res. now. But now I wonder if that person may have missed the decimal that was pointed out here.

 

Auntie -

 

On a modern computer screen a 640x480 could be pretty small. And to disagree with the person who said it would be pixelated - yes, but ONLY if you try to make it bigger than it is. Printed at 'normal' size (which would be small) it should look just fine.

 

Auntie - if you set your monitor at 1024x768 you could put 4 of the 640x480 photos on your screen. If you use a high res. monitor then the same image gets proportionally smaller on your screen.

 

This is a photo I took at one of my cache sites - it was taken with a 3.5 M Pixel Sony camera and resized in one of my many graphics programs to 640x480 for putting on the gc site. You can use this photo for reference, download it (just drag it to your desk top) - print it - whatever you want.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/c991f490-...1b834a96d49.jpg

 

$400 could buy you a great set of binocs AND a really good camera. I don't think the convenience is worth it. Watch the ads at your local sporting goods store - local chain here (Big 5) has very nice small roof prism (10x30) [ that's 10x by 30mm]

on sale for around $15 all the time. Nice and compact (light and small), rugged and rubber coated, sturdy, some even have brand names and the ruby coated front lens - and cheap enough not to cry if you drop them. I have several pair - keep one in the car - one in camera bag - one in gc bag. The Sony 3.3 MP camera cost me less than $200 at Circuit City.

[+AuntieWeasel]

My center monitor is set to 1280x1024, but 640x480 is still plenty big for my uses -- more so if I'm not having to crop it way down because my digital camera won't zoom in close enough to that chipmunk over there. For web usage, I seldom run with anything greater than 400 pixels wide.

 

For screen-only users like me, camera makers are so off the mark by chasing megapixels as the ultimate measure of a camera's worth. If you aren't going to print, anything more than a few megapixels is only filling cards and providing cropping room. I want more features and fewer megapixels.

[+KYHilltopper]

Some time ago my bride surprised me with a combo binoc/digital camera. I of course acted pleased, but after using it, am not so anymore. The camera is the same ilk as the $20 units available at Wallyworld and the binocs (mine is a Bushnell) are jusk OK. The camera is a fixed focus, low resolution, so if all you're looking for is email fodder it is OK, but nothing beyond that. I have been looking for seperates for a while, since my "good" binocs are a pair of 30 year old Tasco 10X50 which are huge and my digital camera is a Sony Mavica, also huge.

 

KyHilltopper ++ Clint

[+CompuCash]

My center monitor is set to 1280x1024, but 640x480 is still plenty big for my uses -- more so if I'm not having to crop it way down because my digital camera won't zoom in close enough to that chipmunk over there. For web usage, I seldom run with anything greater than 400 pixels wide.

 

For screen-only users like me, camera makers are so off the mark by chasing megapixels as the ultimate measure of a camera's worth. If you aren't going to print, anything more than a few megapixels is only filling cards and providing cropping room. I want more features and fewer megapixels.

Your CENTER monitor?

 

Why Auntie - you tech hound you!

 

What you say is quite right! And in general I do have to agree with the makes chasing the pixel count - hmmm.... numbers again - where have we heard that before...

 

The big BUT here though, is that the largest population of camera owners WANTS printed photos - note the proliferation of kiosks, counters, and stores that take your chip and feed you prints.

 

I had to laugh at a comercial on tv the other day - a Camera Store chain telling us that you get CAMERA STORE quality photos from your digial camera -

 

hoowey - load of doodoo -- they all use the same darn machine !!!

 

But I suppose they are not lying since it is being made in a CAMERA STORE.

Edited September 14, 2004 by CompuCash

[+Team DEMP]

I have 2 digital cameras. One is a larger Sony DSCS85 which has tons of features. It's also more like a traditional 35mm camera.

 

The other I got specifically for geocaching is the DSCU30. It's tiny, uses the same memory stick my other camera uses and fits in my pocket. Nothing to take out of the backpack, out of it's case and then power on and click. I just pull the DSCU30 out of my pocket, open the shutter which powers on the unit and I press a button. I close the shutter and put it back in my pocket. Takes 15 secs at most from start to finish and I have a picture.

 

Here's a generic link to it on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=photo

 

It's a year or 2 old now so I'm not sure how available it is. It doesn't have zoom and it's "just" 2 megapixels so you don't want to create a poster with it, but the convenience outweighs the limitations.

 

Something to consider if you're looking to have something you can easily care with you.

[+TotemLake]

There was a thread similar to this a while back Robes - you might want to try a search.

 

I was pulled up when I reported low resolution photos that they were high res. now. But now I wonder if that person may have missed the decimal that was pointed out here.

I was that person. You obviously didn't go read the ads yourself or you wouldn't be posting this doubt.

 

For instance, at the Cabelas website:

 

Simmons has some nice ones here.

These are at 1.3 and 2.0MP.

 

Bushnell has 2.1MP here.

[+TotemLake]

For screen-only users like me, camera makers are so off the mark by chasing megapixels as the ultimate measure of a camera's worth. If you aren't going to print, anything more than a few megapixels is only filling cards and providing cropping room. I want more features and fewer megapixels.

It looks like you've done some research, but I'd like to point out the measure of pixels has a lot to do with the level of detail caught. The smaller the pixel range, the less sharp the picture is. It's the difference between analog TV and Digital TV and even HDTV. It is noticeable and it isn't always about printing the picture.

 

A couple of things to remember too, the higher megapixel cameras can be shot using lower resolutions. You're not stuck with the high res if you don't want to use it. And, for the money, you do get more features than with low res cameras.

Edited September 14, 2004 by TotemLake

[+tirediron]

I'm a firm believe in having one item do one thing and do it well. I carry a good qulaity pair of Nikon compact binoculars in my bag as well as my 'caching camera, a 2.1 mega-pixel Sony Cybershot which is more than adequate for 'caching pics, and, if I'm going somewhere really neat, where I might want to take photographs, vice snapshots, my Nikon D70 5.1 megapixel digital SLR.

 

Don't forget to look at used digital cameras too. Pawn shops and photo equipment stores usually have lots, and you can save big $$, or get more for the same $$.

~TI

[+Runaround]

As an avid birdwatcher I can attest to the benefits of quality binoculars. I often go on birding hikes with newbies using the $30 pair they bought at Wally World. They often complain that they have a hard time seeing the birds. Then they try my pair. They are amazed at the brightness and the clarity.

 

Don't buy a pair of binoculars without trying them first. There are many available in each price range but the quality of the optics can vary immensely.

 

For $400 you can get a pretty good pair of binoculars and a fairly good camera. Try the Nikon Travelites. I've got an old pair that I use when I travel on business and can manage to sneak in an evening of birding. They aren't as good as my Swift's but they fit into a carry-on bag nicely and they are virtually bulletproof.

[+Robespierre]

Why Auntie - you tech hound you!

She's high on my list of cachers I'd most like to meet.

[+Chillibusher]

We had a pair of these for sale where I worked this summer at an outdoors store. They weren't great for either use. They were OK binoculars and not that great at taking nice clear pictures. Get them seperate would be my suggestion.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Why Auntie - you tech hound you!

She's high on my list of cachers I'd most like to meet.

You'd get over it real quick. They don't call me 'weasel' for my sunny good nature.

 

And the problem is (to return to the theme), I have an adequate digital camera and an excellent pair of binoculars, but the zoom on the former isn't anything like the magnification you get with the latter. Unless you buy one of those gzillion-dollar "prosumer" digital SLR's with the removable lenses, you're only getting pretty minor optical zoom. My camera is 3X, my binoculars are 10X.

 

This is what made the combination appealing. I've spent a lot of time this year stalking chipmunks (what else?) and you just can't get close enough to the little buggers at 3X.

 

I'm not surprised to hear people say the combination isn't very good, though. For the money they were asking, it was almost certain

[+Team DEMP]

I get amazing 300x maybe zoom (optical then digital) on my camcorder. It also has a way to take a still image, but the quality is much lower then a dedicated digital camera. But the zoom is incredible. At 300x though, you really need it on a unipod or tripod to hold it steady.

 

I imagine digicams will continue to improve in features and quality and reduce in size and cost like most other electronics that have a lot of competition.

[+IV_Warrior]

I have one of those binocular/digital camera combos. Given to me as a gift, and well...mostly just sitting here. Why, well I didn't really want them, but isn't that usually the way with gifts? Anyway, after reading one of the threads here, I finally opened the box...almost a year later....the camera lens is seperate from the binoc, so, at least with mine, you're NOT getting the magnification of the binocular for the camera, anyway. If you're seriously considering getting something like this, do a LOT of research. The one that was given to me is essentially a $20 Wal-mart digital camera built into similar quality binoculars..... still don't see me using the thing, but at least now I can say I took it out of the box There may be a better one out there, but in my opinion, the one I have really isn't worth the box it came in. I'll stick with my current digital camera, and eventually get around to getting a decent pair of binoculars.

[+DrMomentum]

 

And the problem is (to return to the theme), I have an adequate digital camera and an excellent pair of binoculars, but the zoom on the former isn't anything like the magnification you get with the latter.  My camera is 3X, my binoculars are 10X.

 

 

My FIL has one of those Cannon Digital Rebels, which is way beyond my price range.

 

However, my BIL has one of these:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?ty...86920993&cmp=++

 

It's got a 10X optical, and he gets good results with it. You can get it cheaper than $400 if you look around, but it's still pricey for my budget. However, for the features, it's a good buy.

 

If someone were to throw some money my way, I'd buy it. Currently I use a much cheaper 3.2 megapixel camera, and 3.2 seems like plenty of pixels. Much better than my printer can print. For screen use it exceeds what I need.

 

But I'd really like to have more control over aperature, shutter speed, and zoom if I can get it sometime int he near future. The Canon above seems a decent compromise.

 

-JP

Edited September 15, 2004 by DrMomentum