Small, waterproof digital camera for the outdoors?

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:15:09 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> I realize that. But by not elaborating on why you simply stated
>the battery's weight (without even mentioning the camera's weight),

You stated that the weight of the extra batteries would exceed the weight of the
camera, I was simply providing you with a data point (figuring you already knew
the weight of the camera), and I quoted the part of your post I was replying to.
FWIW, the Optio WP weighs 135g with battery and card, 120g without
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05...x_optiowp.asp). Since the A95
weighs 335g with batteries
(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../canon_a95.asp) it looks like one
could carry an Optio and a lot of spare batteries and still weigh less than the
A95 with no spares. It would certainly be easier to buy spare AA batteries if
your hikes took you by convenience stores, though.

>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.

Again, I quoted the part of your post I was replying to. If picture quality
wasn't relevant then why mention it in your post? <g>

Also, the OP stated the A95 was too bulky - eliminating that camera from
consideration, and that they wanted AA batteries - which eliminates the Optio WP
from consideration, so none of this really makes any difference.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

ASAAR wrote:

> 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.

Exactly. However - just look at the curve in the datasheets. The
lithium cylindrical cells maintain over 1.3V until their voltage
drops precipitously. This point for NiMH or alkalines is more
like 1.1V.

One possible reason why some manufacturers don't recommend
lithium cells is that their voltage characteristics make it really
difficult to generate an adequate low-battery indicator.

> 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.

Oh - I used discharged batteries in my 3-cell radio. I'd sometimes
use akalines in my Sony portable TV. They were shot with
the open cell voltage around 1.3V. That was enough to drive my
various 1/2/3 cell radios for days.

Matt Ion wrote:

> 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".

He stated that he needs "shop-bought" batteries, implying that he will,
at times, be at a place where he can buy batteries. If it were purely an
extended backpacking trip where batteries are not available, then he'd
definitely want Li-Ion rechargeables, as they are lighter, more energy
dense, and don't suffer from self-discharge or decreased capacity in
cold weather.

A solar set-up that is sufficient to charge the battery in a reasonable
time is going to weigh a lot more than ten ounces. Figure two pounds,
which is a tremendous amount of additional weight when back-packing. A
few Li-Ion packs would be sufficient for a thousand or so shots, and
they don't cost much more than a set of four AA NiMH cells (and less
than AA Lithium cells).

There is one camera that might do what he wants with AA cells, the
Pentax - Optio Water-Resistant 3.2MP Digital Camera, which is
discontinued, but available at Best Buy ("http://tinyurl.com/nl7af").
The 4 megapixel version is apparently not available anywhere anymore.
This camera is not waterproof, but "water-resistant."

Another option, besides solar, is something like this
"http://www.viatekproducts.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=2F0000-1088043875"

It also weighs two pounds, but it at least doubles as a flashlight.

Of course there is always the option of using a film camera (gasp) like
many of us did in our backpacking days (Olympus XA was the backpacking
camera of choice).

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
> A solar set-up that is sufficient to charge the battery in a
> reasonable time is going to weigh a lot more than ten ounces. Figure
> two pounds, which is a tremendous amount of additional weight when
> back-packing. A few Li-Ion packs would be sufficient for a thousand or
> so shots, and they don't cost much more than a set of four AA NiMH
> cells (and less than AA Lithium cells).

This says it weighs 3.5 ounces and delivers 2W in sunlight, i.e. it
should charge four NiMH cells in about 1 day, not bad at all:

http://www.aurorasolar.com/aurora2/C...r_Charger.html

If you don't use the flash or LCD too much, the A95 should be able to
take several hundred shots on a charge, several days worth at least.

On 7 Apr 2006 10:24:32 -0700, y_p_w wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Exactly. However - just look at the curve in the datasheets. The
> lithium cylindrical cells maintain over 1.3V until their voltage
> drops precipitously. This point for NiMH or alkalines is more
> like 1.1V.

I've found the NiMH point to be closer to 1.0v, but never used
precise calibrated meters, so you may be right. But alkalines don't
drop precipitously at 1.1v. Their precipitous drop starts much
closer to 1.5v. <g> Really - give me some alkalines that measure
any voltage between 1.0 and 0.5 volts under a light load and they'll
continue operating for a *long* time. By "light load", I'm thinking
of something between 15ma and 30ma for AA cells, which is sufficient
to play a radio at a very listenable volume.


> One possible reason why some manufacturers don't recommend
> lithium cells is that their voltage characteristics make it really
> difficult to generate an adequate low-battery indicator.

That may be true (I don't have much experience testing lithium
cells, either primary or secondary). But the same is said for NiMH
and from personal experience I've found it to *not* be true. Yes,
both NiMH and NiCad batteries have a relatively flat voltage
discharge curve, but it appears to be quite linear. Where I've seen
this is with a Sangean ATS-909 portable radio (aka Radio Shack
DX-398) The Sangean version is still available but the DX-398 has
been discontinued by RS for at least 2 years. It has a 14 segment
battery meter that is perfectly calibrated for NiCad/NiMH batteries.
When fully charged and just out of the charger, they cause about 13
segments to display. As the radio is used (at least at the volume I
use), it takes close to a couple of hours for each successive
segment to extinguish. The last segment doesn't remain lit as long,
maybe 15 minutes. When all segments disappear, the radio will power
off within a minute or two. The radio uses 4 AA cells, btw. None
of this was mentioned in the manual, but from testing a mix of
several versions from Sangean and RS, they all operate similarly.
I'd love for my camera to have a similar battery indicator, as it
would be extremely accurate, and wouldn't rely on the "smart"
technology that's used in some Li-Ion batteries that can sometimes
get confused and show inaccurate "time remaining" values.


> Oh - I used discharged batteries in my 3-cell radio. I'd sometimes
> use akalines in my Sony portable TV. They were shot with
> the open cell voltage around 1.3V. That was enough to drive my
> various 1/2/3 cell radios for days.

I had a small portable TV that got very little use for the same
reason. It went through its 4 AA cells far too quickly. At the
time, rechargeable batteries weren't practical as NiMH batteries
weren't yet available, and NiCads provided only 450 mAh, soon to
soar to the heights of 600 or 650 mAh. I'll have to dig it out of
its hiding place, as current 2500 mAh cells should be quite useable,
if it still works. Thanks for the reminder. :)

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:02:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

>> 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".
>
> He stated that he needs "shop-bought" batteries, implying that he will,
> at times, be at a place where he can buy batteries. If it were purely an
> extended backpacking trip where batteries are not available, then he'd
> definitely want Li-Ion rechargeables, as they are lighter, more energy
> dense, and don't suffer from self-discharge or decreased capacity in
> cold weather.

Then why (as I already pointed out), was your first response "You
can't buy AA cells _or_ Li-Ion proprietary batteries out in the
back-country."? Oh yes, once again a bogus argument gave you the
opportunity to recommend stocking up on multiple Li-Ion batteries,
even though you had no way of knowing if the length of the trip
would require one or several dozen batteries.


> A solar set-up that is sufficient to charge the battery in a reasonable
> time is going to weigh a lot more than ten ounces. Figure two pounds,
> which is a tremendous amount of additional weight when back-packing.

Agreed. But your first response, "You might want to bring along a
little solar charger as well" again provided bogus information,
solely to once more allow you to recommend the poor choice of Li-Ion
rechargeable batteries. I'm glad that you now realize that a
"little" solar charger would be insufficient. Perhaps one of my
previous replies clued you in? <g>


> A few Li-Ion packs would be sufficient for a thousand or so shots, and
> they don't cost much more than a set of four AA NiMH cells (and less
> than AA Lithium cells).

Now you're hallucinating. Four good AA NiMH are widely available
in stores for between $8 and $10. Half that from some mail order
outlets. The "few Li-Ion pack" necessary to get a thousand shots
will usually require 3 or 4 packs, and there's no way you can get
decent quality, reliable Li-Ion packs for anything near that price.
Most shops that sell them have a starting price of about $15 each,
and they might be considerably more expensive, depending on the
battery. It's a little less expensive from some internet/mail order
outlets, but there's the risk of getting low quality batteries.


> Another option, besides solar, is something like this
> "http://www.viatekproducts.com/ProductDetail.jsp . . .
>
> It also weighs two pounds, but it at least doubles as a flashlight.

You've evidently forgotten that the OP is interested in getting
another camera because it might save several ounces of weight. But
you've never been one to put other's desires ahead of your own. :)


> Of course there is always the option of using a film camera (gasp) like
> many of us did in our backpacking days (Olympus XA was the backpacking
> camera of choice).

And if the OP wants to take a 2,000 shots (or more) on his/her
long trip, that would require carrying 56 or 100 rolls of film (36
exp. vs 20 exp.). Ignoring the additional processing expense upon
return, how many pounds/kilograms do you think that would add to the
rucksack? How you manage to sustain this level of idiocy is simply
amazing. You never fail to disappoint! <g>

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:40:12 -0400, Charlie Choc 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.

>> 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.
>
> Again, I quoted the part of your post I was replying to. If picture quality
> wasn't relevant then why mention it in your post? <g>

??? But the part that you replied to (about picture quality)
added nothing (since you said that you have no idea about relative
picture quality). It seems to simply have been used as a segue to
comment on battery weight, and the quote of my message that you
included mentioned nothing about weight of any kind. No big deal
though. Consider my reply as explanation, not argument. :)

As for why I mentioned picture quality, it was that if the OP gets
another camera, the picture quality may or may not be as good as the
A95's, so that's a point to consider. As I said, the Optio WP's
image quality probably isn't quite as good as the A95's, but it may
be more than adequate, so this may not be a real issue. But it's
best to consider it before the trip, as afterwards little or nothing
can be done to compensate for disappointing shots. Personally, I
feel that the Option WP would probably be a good choice unless the
OP needs to take 600 or more shots on the trip. This is based on an
assumption that each battery would be good for 300 shots, as if 3 or
more batteries are needed the cost would start to climb pretty
quickly. If 3,000 shots are expected, that would be 10 battery
packs, and Li-Ion batteries have a problem that other types don't
have. They deteriorate with time much faster than other types, so
they're generally not expected to last more than 3 years or so, even
if they're used very lightly. That would be very wasteful of the
batteries, and would result in a *very* high average cost per shot.


> Also, the OP stated the A95 was too bulky - eliminating that camera from
> consideration, and that they wanted AA batteries - which eliminates the
> Optio WP from consideration, so none of this really makes any difference.

Not really. In my reply to the OP I mentioned that a
reconsideration of the A95 might be in order, so we're both assuming
that the OP might be flexible enough to change the requirements by a
small amount in order to get and use a workable solution, unless and
until someone else provides a better one. :)

I love my Panasonic Lumix FX5. I know you don't want to carry a charger
around, but the Lumix's is so small that you won't even know it's
there. The Leica lens on that digital camera is what convinced me.

Eddy
--
http://priscimon.com/blog/2006/04/07...nk-cartridges/

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:13:40 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> ??? But the part that you replied to (about picture quality)
>added nothing (since you said that you have no idea about relative
>picture quality). It seems to simply have been used as a segue to
>comment on battery weight, and the quote of my message that you
>included mentioned nothing about weight of any kind.

Um, that's not what I meant at all. You said the Optio's picture quality
probably wasn't as good as the A95 without providing any basis for the
statement. I just said I don't have an A95 so I can't say one way or another. I
have, however, been satisfied with the Optio's pictures. My comment about weight
was in reference to the first post of mine in this thread you responded to. I
didn't think I had to quote the entire thread to make that point.
>
> As I said, the Optio WP's
>image quality probably isn't quite as good as the A95's, but it may
>be more than adequate, so this may not be a real issue.

Just out of curiosity, I assume you're suggesting the A95's optics 'probably'
are better?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:28:58 -0400, Charlie Choc wrote:

>> As I said, the Optio WP's
>> image quality probably isn't quite as good as the A95's, but it may
>> be more than adequate, so this may not be a real issue.
>
> Just out of curiosity, I assume you're suggesting the A95's optics
> 'probably' are better?

Not the optics, but the final image. Recalling one of the few
useful comments SMS made:

> There is one camera that might do what he wants with AA cells, the
> Pentax - Optio Water-Resistant 3.2MP Digital Camera, which is
> discontinued, but available at Best Buy ("http://tinyurl.com/nl7af").
> The 4 megapixel version is apparently not available anywhere anymore.
> This camera is not waterproof, but "water-resistant."

it would seem that Optio WPs are hard to get, and the 3.2mp
version probably wouldn't provide images as good as the 5mp A95. If
the Optio's optics are much better, that would offset somewhat the
lower resolution. But I'm a bit puzzled now, since as you've
already seen I assumed that the Optio WP uses Li-Ion batteries. I
know that some previous Optios (such as the Optio S50) use AA
batteries. Questions - Do the Optio WPs use Li-Ion or AA batteries,
and are there any higher resolution versions that have 4mp or more?
Olympus makes higher resolution cameras that are water resistant,
but I believe that none of them use AA batteries.