«

On 17 Jun 2005 09:58:38 -0700, "Whacky Blacky" <>
wrote:

>Point is, I'm rough on cameras (they get wet, they get mudbrody, they
>get dusty, dew condenses on them, they get backpacked, they get warmed
>in the trunk, they get dropped, ... in short ... I use my cameras.
>
>Having said that, I have not found a single camera that can withstand
>the abuse. The two Nikons were especially dissapointing as I paid mondo
>dollars because I "thought" professional models held up better than
>consumer models. I've been found wrong.

Ever though of buying one of those scuba housings for your NIKONs?
That should take care of the abuse. Or else build your own armor
camera housing.

On 17 Jun 2005 09:58:38 -0700, "Whacky Blacky" <>
wrote:

>What is the most rugged consumer digital camera with cf and ni-mh
>batteries?

Look at ruggedized digital cameras:

http://digitalcameras.engadget.com/e...6274416226938/

Or these people can make you one...

http://www.retrievertech.com/index.htm

************************************************** ****

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"Craig Flory" <> wrote in message
news:9RFse.5373$ ink.net...
> If you had not said "digital" I would have suggested a Speed Graphic with
> 4"x5" film holders and flash bulbs. You are using electronic gear now and
> not film cameras that had no batteries or circuitry. Every one of my
> fellow
> profesionals handle their digital cameras as if made of fragile glass. By
> the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean ??? In my 57 years on this
> earth
> I've never heard that word before.
>
> Craig Flory
>
>
Yes. A Google search of, "mudbrody" turned up nothing...

Craig Flory wrote:
>
> If you had not said "digital" I would have suggested a Speed Graphic with
> 4"x5" film holders and flash bulbs.

Roll back and electronic flash. Maybe a baby SG. More efficient in terms of
speed and weight. They also make nice defensive weapons. The bad part is
that they aren't particularly neckstrappable, although I guess it could be
done. Whoever thought that a wrist strap (like current digicams, not like the
SG strap) for a camera was a good idea should be horsewhipped.

> You are using electronic gear now and
> not film cameras that had no batteries or circuitry. Every one of my fellow
> profesionals handle their digital cameras as if made of fragile glass.

It's clear that he CAN'T baby his camera. Some of us are like that. We start
out with the best of intentions and end up losing our balance and smashing
something expensive or painful.

> By
> the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean ??? In my 57 years on this earth
> I've never heard that word before.

Maybe a variant of "grody" involving mud?

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
--Gene Spafford (1992)

Hi there!
I have been using Olympus for some time. My current Olympus is c-7oo
ultra Zoom.(10X)(n-m hy batteries) I love Olympus. Best thing I could
advise is you don't pay full price for a new camera but get a rebuilt.
The Olympus rebuilts are done by the factory and mine is one
(rebuilt)and holding up well (for about 2 years now). But I do keep it
strapped to me when in use and try to take care of it, but I won't lose
as much monetarily should I goof up and drop it in the ocean or some
such.
For some shots taken with my camera, go to
http://www.pollytravels.com/Pollytravels.html The most recent taken
with this newest camera are the Willie Nillie pages (Pics of my yorkie
and his sister Sophie)
Hope that helps
Vixen

Whacky Blacky wrote:
> What is the most rugged consumer digital camera with cf and ni-mh
> batteries?
>
> I've broken the battery door on my Nikon, the slider door on my
> Olympus, the over the lens shutter of the Canon, even the pop-up flash
> of my 35mm EOS and electrical switches on my Minolta 7000 SLR. (I've
> got a box filled with broken cameras and camera bodies and lenses, all
> purchased new - is there any value to this on the open market?).
>
> Point is, I'm rough on cameras (they get wet, they get mudbrody, they
> get dusty, dew condenses on them, they get backpacked, they get warmed
> in the trunk, they get dropped, ... in short ... I use my cameras.
>
> Having said that, I have not found a single camera that can withstand
> the abuse. The two Nikons were especially dissapointing as I paid mondo
> dollars because I "thought" professional models held up better than
> consumer models. I've been found wrong.
>
> When I go to the dpreview or other web sites, I don't see anywhere
> where they test the "ruggedness" of the camera. Of course, they say
> they "feel" sturdy (that's what they said about my Minolta 7000 which
> weights a ton and broke down within the first year).
>
> I even tried an underwater camera. Guess what broke it? The pumice
> cliffs in Santorini Greece. Sheesh. Can't a camera hold up to normal
> wear and tear?
>
> I'd be happy with a camera that lasts more than a year (that's about my
> average). Yes, of course, most people I know are downright dainty with
> their cameras so they can't even understand what I'm asking for. I
> understand that. For example, I've never hit my kids in their lives but
> when I try to explain to another parent not to bash their kid around,
> they look at me like my use model is outmoded or something.
>
> Same with cameras. So, I do know that very very very very few of you
> are rough on your camera equipment ... but ... if there is ANYONE out
> there like I am (who uses a camera and doesn't baby the thing) ... I'd
> pay a premium for a camera built like a humvee ... hopefully one with
> AA batteries like my ancient Minolta and AE1 of days of lore ... and
> hopefully with type I compact flash media which is decidedly more
> sturdy than anything else out there in the digital marketplace.
>
> Does a sturdy digital camera actually exist that I won't break in a
> year?

William Graham wrote:
> > By the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean
> > I've never heard that word before.
> >
> Yes. A Google search of, "mudbrody" turned up nothing...

Not any more!

"Whacky Blacky" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> What is the most rugged consumer digital camera with cf and ni-mh
> batteries?
>
> I've broken the battery door on my Nikon, the slider door on my
> Olympus, the over the lens shutter of the Canon, even the pop-up flash
> of my 35mm EOS and electrical switches on my Minolta 7000 SLR. (I've
> got a box filled with broken cameras and camera bodies and lenses, all
> purchased new - is there any value to this on the open market?).
>
> Point is, I'm rough on cameras (they get wet, they get mudbrody, they
> get dusty, dew condenses on them, they get backpacked, they get warmed
> in the trunk, they get dropped, ... in short ... I use my cameras.
>
> Having said that, I have not found a single camera that can withstand
> the abuse. The two Nikons were especially dissapointing as I paid mondo
> dollars because I "thought" professional models held up better than
> consumer models. I've been found wrong.
>
> When I go to the dpreview or other web sites, I don't see anywhere
> where they test the "ruggedness" of the camera. Of course, they say
> they "feel" sturdy (that's what they said about my Minolta 7000 which
> weights a ton and broke down within the first year).
>
> I even tried an underwater camera. Guess what broke it? The pumice
> cliffs in Santorini Greece. Sheesh. Can't a camera hold up to normal
> wear and tear?
>
> I'd be happy with a camera that lasts more than a year (that's about my
> average). Yes, of course, most people I know are downright dainty with
> their cameras so they can't even understand what I'm asking for. I
> understand that. For example, I've never hit my kids in their lives but
> when I try to explain to another parent not to bash their kid around,
> they look at me like my use model is outmoded or something.
>
> Same with cameras. So, I do know that very very very very few of you
> are rough on your camera equipment ... but ... if there is ANYONE out
> there like I am (who uses a camera and doesn't baby the thing) ... I'd
> pay a premium for a camera built like a humvee ... hopefully one with
> AA batteries like my ancient Minolta and AE1 of days of lore ... and
> hopefully with type I compact flash media which is decidedly more
> sturdy than anything else out there in the digital marketplace.
>
> Does a sturdy digital camera actually exist that I won't break in a
> year?
>

You have a choice. Either take some moderate care of your equipment, or be
prepared to keep buying new cameras.

If the latter, could I suggest that you keep replacing with the same model,
so that when you break them, at least you will have a ready made supply of
replacement parts.

Press photographers are notoriously careless of their equipment, but even if
you were one of them, I rather suspect your Picture Editor would already
have done more than a little bit of shouting and swearing at you.

Roy G

"The Real Bev" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Craig Flory wrote:
>>
>> If you had not said "digital" I would have suggested a Speed Graphic with
>> 4"x5" film holders and flash bulbs.
>
> Roll back and electronic flash. Maybe a baby SG. More efficient in terms of
> speed and weight. They also make nice defensive weapons. The bad part is
> that they aren't particularly neckstrappable, although I guess it could be
> done. Whoever thought that a wrist strap (like current digicams, not like the
> SG strap) for a camera was a good idea should be horsewhipped.
>
>> You are using electronic gear now and
>> not film cameras that had no batteries or circuitry. Every one of my fellow
>> profesionals handle their digital cameras as if made of fragile glass.

> It's clear that he CAN'T baby his camera. Some of us are
> like that. We start out with the best of intentions and end up
> losing our balance and smashing something expensive or painful.

You shouldnt take photos when blotto, silly.

>> By the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean ???
>> In my 57 years on this earth I've never heard that word before.

> Maybe a variant of "grody" involving mud?

William Graham wrote:
> "Craig Flory" <> wrote in message
> news:9RFse.5373$ ink.net...
>
>>If you had not said "digital" I would have suggested a Speed Graphic with
>>4"x5" film holders and flash bulbs. You are using electronic gear now and
>>not film cameras that had no batteries or circuitry. Every one of my
>>fellow
>>profesionals handle their digital cameras as if made of fragile glass. By
>>the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean ??? In my 57 years on this
>>earth
>>I've never heard that word before.
>>
>>Craig Flory
>>
>>
>
> Yes. A Google search of, "mudbrody" turned up nothing...
>
>

It would seem that Wacky Blacky is the sort of fellow who should get a
sketch pad and take some drawing lessons. In my fifty sum plus years of
photography I have only run into two other persons like this. When you
consider the places National Geo Photographers have taken Nikon F2,3,4's
over the years without getting them "mudbrody", and producing great
photos. Like the great photographer once said it isn't the equipment it
is the person behind the equipment that produces a great photo. Forty
years ago a friend in a large camera club in a major mid west city would
shoot rings around 98% of the others and all he used was an old
Rolliecord, while others were using the best of what was currently
available. This is simply a case of someone very much untalented in this
regard.

Ed

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> > By the way ... what the heck is mudbrody mean
>> > I've never heard that word before.
>> >
>> Yes. A Google search of, "mudbrody" turned up nothing...
>
> Not any more!
>
Yeah....It still does:

Did you mean: midbody




No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - mudbrody - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.