Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Shock-resistant digital camera recommendations?

Reply
Thread Tools

Shock-resistant digital camera recommendations?

 
 
Frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Hello,

I've been searching without success for recommendations on a digital
camera that can withstand being dropped from a reasonable distance.
Something that has a reputation for being able to withstand the
occasional bump or drop?

Someone dropped my Coolpix 880 about 5 inches (onto a table) and it cost
over $200 to get it repaired, so now I want to get a more rugged
camera that I can lend out instead. Looking for 2 or 3 megapixel, with
good image quality.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
- Frank
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Frank wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been searching without success for recommendations on a digital
> camera that can withstand being dropped from a reasonable distance.
> Something that has a reputation for being able to withstand the
> occasional bump or drop?
>
> Someone dropped my Coolpix 880 about 5 inches (onto a table) and it
> cost over $200 to get it repaired, so now I want to get a more rugged
> camera that I can lend out instead. Looking for 2 or 3 megapixel,
> with good image quality.
>


I dropped my 3MP Minolta Dimmidge Xt a foot and a half onto concrete,
and other than a flat corner on the case, no perceptible consequences.

I dropped my Nikon CP8700 a foot onto AstroTurfT on concrete, with no
visible or functional consequences. That I know of. So far.

--
Frank ess

PS: The reason for two dashes on a line above a sig is so that
thoughtful newsreaders will automatically cut off the signature and sig
lines, enabling easy, thoughtful, considerate bottom-posting.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:34:08 -0700
"Frank ess" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> --
> Frank ess
>
> PS: The reason for two dashes on a line above a sig is so that
>
> thoughtful newsreaders will automatically cut off the
> signature and sig lines, enabling easy, thoughtful,
> considerate bottom-posting.


<pedant>
Actually, the proper sig seperator, and the one that thoughtful
newsreaders will automatically cut off, is two dashes, then a
space. The space is important, and thoughtful newsreaders need
it to work.

If I actually manage to find the relevant RFC, I'll post it for
you.
</pedant>

- Chris D

--
Like this, see
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:10:08 +0930
Chris D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> If I actually manage to find the relevant RFC, I'll post it
> for you.
> </pedant>


Here's one that reffers to it... not what I was after though.

RFC 2646, section 4.3 - http://rfc.net/rfc2646.html#s4.3.

"There is a convention in Usenet news of using '-- ' as the
separator line between the body and the signature of a
message. When generating a Format=Flowed message containing a
Usenet-style separator before the signature, the separator
line is sent as-is. This is a special case; an (optionally
quoted) line consisting of DASH DASH SP is not considered
flowed."

-Chris D

--
Hey, who stole my .sig?!

Oh, waitup, here it is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
Chris D wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:10:08 +0930
> Chris D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> If I actually manage to find the relevant RFC, I'll post it
>> for you.
>> </pedant>

>
> Here's one that reffers to it... not what I was after though.
>
> RFC 2646, section 4.3 - http://rfc.net/rfc2646.html#s4.3.
>
> "There is a convention in Usenet news of using '-- ' as the
> separator line between the body and the signature of a
> message. When generating a Format=Flowed message containing a
> Usenet-style separator before the signature, the separator
> line is sent as-is. This is a special case; an (optionally
> quoted) line consisting of DASH DASH SP is not considered
> flowed."
>
> -Chris D


Thank you.

--
Frank ess

--
Frank ess ... If your 'reader cuts after the "Thank you." it is like
mine, and doesn't need the SP.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:35:57 -0700
"Frank ess" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Thank you.


You're welcome I Hafta say I'm impressed to see someone
actually doing the "Right thing" in newsgroups thesedays

-Chris D

--
work, n.:

The blessed respite from screaming kids and soap operas for
which you actually get paid.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
Chris D wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:35:57 -0700
> "Frank ess" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Thank you.

>
> You're welcome I Hafta say I'm impressed to see someone
> actually doing the "Right thing" in newsgroups thesedays
>
> -Chris D


Sad that it's only remarkable to someone for whom a large majority of
learning was after "these days" came along.


--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
> I dropped my 3MP Minolta Dimmidge Xt a foot and a half onto concrete,
> and other than a flat corner on the case, no perceptible consequences.
>
> I dropped my Nikon CP8700 a foot onto AstroTurfT on concrete, with no
> visible or functional consequences. That I know of. So far.


Thanks for the anecdotal evidence. Any one know of any cameras actually
being marketed as shock resistant? Or that have gained a reputation as
being tough (the way the old Pentax K1000 SLRs used to be known)?

 
Reply With Quote
 
DM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<5lWad.27050$(E-Mail Removed) >...
> I've been searching without success for recommendations on a digital
> camera that can withstand being dropped from a reasonable distance.
> Something that has a reputation for being able to withstand the
> occasional bump or drop?


I've come across a few that hold up and many that don't. With digicams
it seems to be extremely hit and miss (the P&S ones), and repair bills
can be as much as the cost of a new camera ($200++ etc). For rough use
I keep an old P&S film camera (rollei afm 35), it's built to take a
beating and keep on going. When I know for sure that it's going to be
rough I pack in the old Nikon FM2... this baby can go on even after
you and I are dead.
 
Reply With Quote
 
hfs2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
I dropped my 4330 about 3 feet onto asphalt(?). For about a day
the image in the eye piece was blurry. It healed overnight and
now works the same way it used to (not 100% but good enough).

Frank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<5lWad.27050$(E-Mail Removed) >...
> Hello,
>
> I've been searching without success for recommendations on a digital
> camera that can withstand being dropped from a reasonable distance.
> Something that has a reputation for being able to withstand the
> occasional bump or drop?
>
> Someone dropped my Coolpix 880 about 5 inches (onto a table) and it cost
> over $200 to get it repaired, so now I want to get a more rugged
> camera that I can lend out instead. Looking for 2 or 3 megapixel, with
> good image quality.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> - Frank

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital camera batteries, battery of digital camera and Camcorder shop online Royluo Digital Photography 0 07-28-2007 01:32 AM
Fastest 5 mp Digital Camera ? Fastest 4 mp Digital Camera? photoguysept102004@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 10-28-2004 11:33 AM
Digital Video camera - zoom pics VS Digital photo camera - zoom pics. Hellenic Mensa Digital Photography 1 08-30-2004 03:44 PM
Dubbing from VHS camera to Sony trv310 digital camera jim Computer Support 1 05-20-2004 03:13 PM
Night shots are better with digital camera- No film vs camera debate zxcvar Digital Photography 4 09-01-2003 06:38 PM



Advertisments