Small, waterproof digital camera for the outdoors?

It's hard to beat a throwaway. They sell units that'll go
a few feet under water for $10? And you don't have
to worry about smashing/loosing your $100 digital.
They drop onto rock very well too.

AA Nimh are cheaper than an extra propritary L-ion pack, Even alkaline
aa can be used in a pinch. Sony makes an underwater casing for some of
its cameras, im sure it would help for abuse also, but many of their new
models are L-ion. I personaly like AA, they are cheap, available
anywhere, in a pinch Alkalines work, and you are not raped-gouged on the
outragous price you will pay to replace the propritary pack, if you can
even get them when you need them.

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:31:01 +0100, Default NG ID wrote:
> I know that you're trying to minimize weight, but consider adding
> a small, lightweight tripod. It may help quite a bit with your
> closeups. Also (if you aren't already aware), the A95 gets pretty
> good life from its batteries. Not as good as the A610, but still
> pretty good. If you use the optical viewfinder, you should be able
> to get about 500 shots from alkaline AAs. How many shots do you
> plan on taking during your longest trip - would it be in the
> hundreds or thousands of shots? Not knowing this I can't recommend
> NiMH batteries, even though they'd probably last for more than 1000
> shots when fully charged. An alternate possibility would be lithium
> AA cells. They're more expensive than alkalines, but they have
> several real advantages. They weigh much less and last far longer,
> probably being good for well over 2000 shots per set. These numbers
> would go down quite a bit if you use the LCD to compose pictures and
> also use the flash a lot.

All depends on the camera I suppose. The ratings for my Canon
PowerShot S1 IS are about 50 shots using LCD with alkalines
and over 400 with 1800 mAh NiMH. When I first tried mine, I
only had some fresh alkalines, and they did wipe out as fast as
the manual said. I can use 2500 mAh hours with the camera
on all the time taking well over 100 shots over the course of 5
hours. It does go into standby mode, but it's faster than turning
it on.

I would think that several sets of fully charged NiMH AAs might
work best, with the purchase of disposables as a last resort.
The lithium cells are a great idea, and should probably be in
a camera bag as a backup. They're only marginally higher
capacity than alkalines, but they have ridiculously low internal
resistance. Alkalines tend to suck in digicams because their
high internal resistance converts most of the capacity to heat
the battery rather than power the device. The lithium cells also
last for 15 years in storage and I don't think leak like alkalines
do. I've stored alkalines in my trunk and found them leaking.

What one might find at a small store may be overpriced. I've
seen some places in the woods will charge like $4 for a 4-pk
of Energizer alkalines.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:02:29 -0400, Charlie Choc wrote:

>> I believe that these use rechargeable Li-Ion batteries, so if you
>> can't use a charger on your trip, you'd have to buy a number of
>> extra rechargeable batteries. If you'll be taking thousands of
>> shots, the extra weight of so many batteries would probably make
>> their total weight exceed that of your A95.
>
> The battery for my Optio WP weighs less than 1 oz. FWIW

And as I said, many of them, added to the weight of a small camera
such as your Optio WP will weight more than the Canon A95. How many
shots does the Optio WP get per charge? For the purpose of this
argument, assume 300 (it could be more, it could be less). We don't
know how many pictures will be taken. If it's 2000, then you'd need
to take along 7 batteries. If it's 4000 shots, you'd need 13
batteries. How much would the Optio then weigh with 7 batteries?
How much with 13? The A95, btw, weighs only 235 grams, and it
should be able to take up to 4000 shots with only two sets of
lithium AA batteries. One in the camera, and another backup set, if
needed. And the Canon A95 probably takes better pictures than the
Optio WP, as long as it doesn't get too waterlogged. :)

On 6 Apr 2006 17:00:05 -0700, y_p_w wrote:

>> If you use the optical viewfinder, you should be able
>> to get about 500 shots from alkaline AAs.
>
> All depends on the camera I suppose. The ratings for my Canon
> PowerShot S1 IS are about 50 shots using LCD with alkalines
> and over 400 with 1800 mAh NiMH. When I first tried mine, I
> only had some fresh alkalines, and they did wipe out as fast as
> the manual said. I can use 2500 mAh hours with the camera
> on all the time taking well over 100 shots over the course of 5
> hours. It does go into standby mode, but it's faster than turning
> it on.

There's nothing to suppose, really. I spoke only for the A95, and
that's the camera that the OP already has, not an S1 IS, and it gets
much better battery life from alkalines than the S1 IS. Are you
sure that the 400 figure is for NiMH using the LCD? If so, that's
not bad, since the A95 is only rated for 500.


> I would think that several sets of fully charged NiMH AAs might
> work best, with the purchase of disposables as a last resort.
> The lithium cells are a great idea, and should probably be in
> a camera bag as a backup. They're only marginally higher
> capacity than alkalines, but they have ridiculously low internal
> resistance.

Here you're mistaken. Lithium cells usually last at least twice
as long as alkalines, usually longer, depending on the device. The
ones that have really low internal resistance should be the CR-V3
battery packs. Standard AA lithium batteries have a higher internal
resistance, but I believe that they're the ones that work best if
extremely cold temperatures, down to 40 deg. below zero. I don't
think that the A95 is designed to accept CR-V3s.

ASAAR wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2006 17:00:05 -0700, y_p_w wrote:
>
> >> If you use the optical viewfinder, you should be able
> >> to get about 500 shots from alkaline AAs.
> >
> > All depends on the camera I suppose. The ratings for my Canon
> > PowerShot S1 IS are about 50 shots using LCD with alkalines
> > and over 400 with 1800 mAh NiMH. When I first tried mine, I
> > only had some fresh alkalines, and they did wipe out as fast as
> > the manual said. I can use 2500 mAh hours with the camera
> > on all the time taking well over 100 shots over the course of 5
> > hours. It does go into standby mode, but it's faster than turning
> > it on.
>
> There's nothing to suppose, really. I spoke only for the A95, and
> that's the camera that the OP already has, not an S1 IS, and it gets
> much better battery life from alkalines than the S1 IS. Are you
> sure that the 400 figure is for NiMH using the LCD? If so, that's
> not bad, since the A95 is only rated for 500.

4 AAs. Different camera, but some digicams really drain the
juice out of batteries. It's those types that really separate
alkalines from the rechargeables.

> > I would think that several sets of fully charged NiMH AAs might
> > work best, with the purchase of disposables as a last resort.
> > The lithium cells are a great idea, and should probably be in
> > a camera bag as a backup. They're only marginally higher
> > capacity than alkalines, but they have ridiculously low internal
> > resistance.
>
> Here you're mistaken. Lithium cells usually last at least twice
> as long as alkalines, usually longer, depending on the device. The
> ones that have really low internal resistance should be the CR-V3
> battery packs. Standard AA lithium batteries have a higher internal
> resistance, but I believe that they're the ones that work best if
> extremely cold temperatures, down to 40 deg. below zero. I don't
> think that the A95 is designed to accept CR-V3s.

I looked it up before posting. They don't seem to have a curve
for the internal resistance, but I'm guessing that the e2 alkaline
probably has a slower internal resistance increase. Still - it's
only a marginal improvement in their standard digital camera
service test. Interesting how the flash simulation results are so
different.

<http://data.energizer.com/QuickSearch_Action.aspx?group=1&name=Energizer%20A lkaline>
<http://data.energizer.com/QuickSearch_Action.aspx?group=8&name=Cylindrical/Photo%20Lithium>
<http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/E91.pdf>
<http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/l91.pdf>
<http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/X91.pdf>

Energizer E91 (regular alkaline) AA: 2850 mAh,
150-300 milliohm internal resistance.

Energizer L91 (e2 lithium) AA: 3000 mAh,
internal resistance not published.

Energizer X91 (e2 alkaline) AA: 2900 mAh:
150-300 milliohm internal resistance.

I remember reading about the first AA lithiums. They would
produce a quick 2V+ spike when connected before settling
down. There were worries that this might damage equipment.
I think they've found ways to supress the spike.

SMS wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> I was going to suggest the solar charger as well... Canadian Tire up
>> here in the Great White North carries several different ones,
>> including a flexible one designed to hang on your backpack to charge
>> things while you're hiking.
>
>
> It's still a lot to carry.

If an extra 10oz. or so it a "lot" you should be taking a cab instead of
hiking.

> Considering that you can get hundreds of
> pictures from a single battery pack, especially outdoors where you're
> not using the flash, it'd have to be a very long trip away from a home
> or car to justify carrying all that stuff,

Did you read the original post? The OP is going out into the middle of
nowhere on an extended hiking trip. It IS a "very long trip away from
home or car".



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0614-2, 04/06/2006
Tested on: 4/6/2006 8:17:23 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On 6 Apr 2006 18:14:26 -0700, y_p_w wrote:

> Energizer E91 (regular alkaline) AA: 2850 mAh,
> 150-300 milliohm internal resistance.
>
> Energizer L91 (e2 lithium) AA: 3000 mAh,
> internal resistance not published.
>
> Energizer X91 (e2 alkaline) AA: 2900 mAh:
> 150-300 milliohm internal resistance.
>
> I remember reading about the first AA lithiums. They would
> produce a quick 2V+ spike when connected before settling
> down. There were worries that this might damage equipment.
> I think they've found ways to supress the spike.

I've seen the Energizer data sheets, but despite the similar mAh
ratings, in practice the lithiums last far longer than alkalines.
With a higher internal resistance, alkalines should be at a
disadvantage with high current devices compared with lithium
batteries, and differences in battery life should be minimized with
low current devices. In several old Palm PDAs that use AAA
batteries and have a fairly low current drain, a pair of alkalines
normally last between 40 and 45 hours. Lithium AAAs on the other
hand last more than 100 hours. When the alkalines would need to be
replaced, the voltages per cell would be about 1.05 v., and there
would still be a considerable amount of untapped energy left in the
batteries. With NiMH batteries, with their flatter voltage curve at
that voltage point they would be nearly exhausted, so with NiMH and
alkaline batteries of comparable capacity, the NiMH would last much
longer.

I don't recall the voltage characteristics of lithium cells, but
if as with NiMH they also have a flatter curve and deliver most of
their energy at higher voltages, that would explain why they last
much longer than alkalines. But this would only be true for digital
devices that have relatively high turn-off voltages. For low
current analog devices they might all have similar battery lives.
An example would be old analog transistor radios. Most of the ones
I've tested perform well (at moderate to low volume) until the
per/cell voltages start approaching 0.3 to 0.4 volts, which is far
lower than almost all digital radios will tolerate. The same should
be true for digital cameras. When the batteries need to be
replaced, NiMH (and presumably lithium) would have little energy
remaining. But the alkaline batteries that no longer have
sufficient voltage to operate the cameras will, if placed in an
analog radio, continue to be useful for many hours. Depending on
the radio, this could be as much as another hundred hours or more.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:25:53 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> And the Canon A95 probably takes better pictures than the
>Optio WP, as long as it doesn't get too waterlogged. :)

I don't have an A95 so I have no idea about relative picture quality, and I have
no agenda regarding small camera choice, I was simply stating how much the Optio
WP battery weighed.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:01:31 -0400, Charlie Choc wrote:

>> And as I said, many of them, added to the weight of a small camera
>> such as your Optio WP will weight more than the Canon A95. How many
>> shots does the Optio WP get per charge? For the purpose of this
>> argument, assume 300 (it could be more, it could be less). We don't
>> know how many pictures will be taken. If it's 2000, then you'd need
>> to take along 7 batteries. If it's 4000 shots, you'd need 13
>> batteries. How much would the Optio then weigh with 7 batteries?
>> How much with 13? The A95, btw, weighs only 235 grams, and it
>> should be able to take up to 4000 shots with only two sets of
>> lithium AA batteries. One in the camera, and another backup set, if
>> needed. And the Canon A95 probably takes better pictures than the
>> Optio WP, as long as it doesn't get too waterlogged. :)
>
> I don't have an A95 so I have no idea about relative picture quality, and I have
> no agenda regarding small camera choice, I was simply stating how much the
> Optio WP battery weighed.

I realize that. But by not elaborating on why you simply stated
the battery's weight (without even mentioning the camera's weight),
and then (as in your most recent reply) only include a non-relevant
quote having nothing to do with weight, you pretty much confirmed my
reason for elaborating on your first reply. It had nothing to do
with whether you do or don't have an agenda. I'll assume that you
don't, but you know what they say about those that assume . . . :)