Sturdiest damn digital camera with compact flash and ni-mh batteries!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whacky Blacky, Jun 17, 2005.

  1. 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?
     
    Whacky Blacky, Jun 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whacky Blacky

    Celcius Guest

    A camera is like a woman: if you take care of it, it goes a long way ;-)))
    Marcel


    "Whacky Blacky" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
    >
     
    Celcius, Jun 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Whacky Blacky

    Rick Guest

    "Whacky Blacky" <> wrote in message news:...
    > 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.


    That's not use.

    Buy disposable.
     
    Rick, Jun 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Whacky Blacky wrote:
    > What is the most rugged consumer digital camera with cf and ni-mh
    > batteries?


    Buy a set of AA batteries and several cheap cameras that use them.
    Forget rugged, think replaceable.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Whacky Blacky

    Mike Henley Guest

    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?


    What events usually break the cameras? Do they break in your hands
    while using them, or in other instances? If the latter, then perhaps
    what you need is simply some generous padding like that offered by the
    lowepro bags, and if need be, have a bag-in-bag, like the russian
    nesting dolls. This reminds me of the eggs anecdote from The Fog of
    War.

    I personally don't think much about my devices, and that's because from
    the very first day I purchase a suitable padding and encase them in it.
    My camera has its lowepro bag, my PDA has it Krussel case and LCD
    protectors, and so on. And all look as unblemished as a new item
    despite my usage. There are even casing products that protect the
    device while it is being used and don't require their removal.

    Another thing to consider is a neck strap; that'll drastically reduce
    the chances of cameras being accidentally dropped.

    If they break in your fingers, which I must say sounds odd, then
    perhaps the safest and ultimately easiest solution is to learn to
    handle them more gently. It's not impossible, it's probably just a
    habit.
     
    Mike Henley, Jun 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Whacky Blacky

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Whacky Blacky" <> writes:
    > What is the most rugged consumer digital camera with cf and ni-mh
    > batteries?


    If you want a consumer digicam, these days I think you have to give up
    on CF. They are all going to SD now.

    > 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.


    The professional Nikon models are the D1/D1h/D1x, and the D2/D2H/D2Hs/D2X.
    If your Nikon wasn't one of those, it wasn't a professional model.

    > 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?


    You know, most other people don't have these problems, so I'd say the
    amount of wear and tear you're inflicting on cameras is not normal.
    Why don't you just take better care of them?

    > Does a sturdy digital camera actually exist that I won't break in a
    > year?


    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0111/01112801konicadg2.asp
    might use CF.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1079033196.html
    uses SD.

    You could also try putting a normal camera into an underwater housing.

    The Sony DSC-U60 is also nice, but uses those stupid memory sticks.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jun 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Whacky Blacky

    Skip M Guest

    "Whacky Blacky" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    That goes beyond use, add "ab" as a prefix, and you've about got it.
    >
    > 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.


    "Pro" compacts aren't really, they just give better results than "consumer"
    level compacts, which are different from DSLRs.
    >
    > 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?


    If cliffs had anything to do with your cameras' demise, then you need to
    rethink how you're carrying them, using them and protecting them.
    >
    > 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.


    Most of the DSLR bodies are as rugged as the AE-1, even the lowly Rebel, but
    the electronics inside are much more sensitive. BTW, the AE-1 didn't use
    AAs for body power, but I've forgotten what the little critter behind the
    door was...
    >
    > Does a sturdy digital camera actually exist that I won't break in a
    > year?
    >

    The Canon 1D mkII and Nikon D2x should be rugged enough for your usage, but
    watch for impacts on lenses and, again, the electronics are the main
    Achilles heel on impacts with those high level bodies. And you will
    definitely pay a premium, $4000 for the body, from $400 to $1500 for lenses.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Jun 17, 2005
    #7
  8. 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?
    >


    Not digital, but you'll have a hard time destroying a Nikon F/F2/FM/FE2,
    ect... But if you MUST be digital, well tough luck!
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jun 17, 2005
    #8
  9. Whacky Blacky

    Bob Ward Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:22:46 +0200, Chris Loffredo <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Not digital, but you'll have a hard time destroying a Nikon F/F2/FM/FE2,
    >ect... But if you MUST be digital, well tough luck!


    Even more sturdy: Argus C3 - think of a brick with a lens.
     
    Bob Ward, Jun 17, 2005
    #9
  10. Whacky Blacky

    Craig Flory Guest

    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
     
    Craig Flory, Jun 17, 2005
    #10
  11. Whacky Blacky

    PaPaPeng Guest

    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.
     
    PaPaPeng, Jun 17, 2005
    #11
  12. 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/entry/1376274416226938/

    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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jun 17, 2005
    #12
  13. "Craig Flory" <> wrote in message
    news:9RFse.5373$...
    > 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...
     
    William Graham, Jun 17, 2005
    #13
  14. Whacky Blacky

    The Real Bev Guest

    Re: Sturdiest damn digital camera with compact flash and ni-mhbatteries!

    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)
     
    The Real Bev, Jun 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Whacky Blacky

    Guest

    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?
     
    , Jun 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Whacky Blacky

    Guest

    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! :)
     
    , Jun 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Whacky Blacky

    Roy Guest

    "Whacky Blacky" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Roy, Jun 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Whacky Blacky

    Rod Speed Guest

    Re: Sturdiest damn digital camera with compact flash and ni-mh batteries!

    "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?
     
    Rod Speed, Jun 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Whacky Blacky

    BigEd Guest

    William Graham wrote:
    > "Craig Flory" <> wrote in message
    > news:9RFse.5373$...
    >
    >>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
     
    BigEd, Jun 18, 2005
    #19
  20. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    William Graham, Jun 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rick S.
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,287
    Ron Hunter
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Lee Chen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    540
    Lee Chen
    Dec 1, 2004
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    777
    Terese
    Jun 16, 2005
  4. R. Zammataro
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    627
  5. Royluo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    723
    Royluo
    Jul 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page