Digital Cameras for Use in Tough Conditions?

b!arg asks: "I am a sysadmin for a construction company. Currently the company spends god knows how much money on disposable cameras. They use these cameras to document accidents and the such out in the field. Typically these disposable cameras have 27 pictures available to them but only a few are ever taken before they are developed because of time. We can't hold onto a camera to take different shots of different accidents until its full. I am looking into the feasibility of moving to all digital cameras. Does anyone have experience with using these in such a potentially damaging setting? Obviously no digicam will withstand getting run over by a dumptruck, but what have you found to be a durable digital camera for people out in the field. Ease of use is also fairly important. And since we understand that these will almost definitely break once in awhile, I can't buy $1000 cameras. Two MegaPixels is sufficient quality, preferably using CF and, if I can dream, waterproof since the Northwest U.S. tends to be a tad rainy (does that break my budget?). Or am I trying to be too 'techie' when this solution just won't work because of the conditions in which they'll be used?"

Comments

Right tool for the job

[GeorgeH]

Why are you using disposable cameras instead of film cameras? The cost of film would lower the total cost over time to be cheaper than disposables. I assume the reason is because the cost of replacing a disposable camera is lower than the cost of replacing a film camera. If that is the case, then digital cameras are a worse solution because they will break easier and cost more to replace. Unless you can make a strong case for the freedom that digital prints give you (and these days, most photo shops can turn analog pics into JPEGs for a few extra bucks) then stick with what already works for you.

Also, disposables are incredibly easy to use. Most digital cameras require you to set it to Take-A-Picture mode (instead of playback, setup or others) which trips up a lot of people. If you think taht digital cameras are easy to use go to the mall and pick 5 middle aged people. Hand them your camera, turned off and set to setup mode, then ask them to take your picture. How many are able to figure it out without your help?

What problem are you trying to solve?

[twoflower]

Currently the company spends god knows how much money on disposable cameras.

First, find out exactly how much they are spending on camera -- they're ten bucks a pop, do exactly what's needed, and they're cheap enough that it doesn't matter if you don't use all 27 exposures before developing the film, or if one is accidentally destroyed. On top of that, you don't have to worry about making sure you have fresh (or freshly recharged) batteries on hand, low light levels that digitals can't deal with well, and a million other considerations.

It sounds like you want to convert to digital cameras purely on geek factors. Don't. Consider the problem space before trying to come up with solutions.

Simple Choice

[coryboehne]

A Cannon Powershot S100 or S110 if you need video. I have owned both and they are truly exceptional camera's. I managed to drop my S100 from ~8 ft onto asphalt and there was no real damage (the corner ended up a bit dented, although there was no loss of funtionality). As this camera is inexpensive now, and of 2.1 MP quality, and uses the CF card I think it would suit you very well.

cheap camera

[shdragon]

Try this one. It's only $140 and can take upto 3.1 megapixel, takes SD/MMC cards, and has a USB hookup. I honestly think that you should give up on the durability idea. Price/Reliability/Durability, pick 2. At $140 even if they break 1 or 2, it's not a bad deal considering how expensive disposables/film processing/time lost/what-if-they-fuck-up-my-film is in the long run. Hell, I'd look into getting a discount if you buy like 5 or more. As for conditions, just buy a really sturdy/waterproof case. Hell, get a watertight tackle box and shove it in there.

Re:Simple Choice - Update

[coryboehne]

A quick thought, if you use the video feature it is much harder to alter than a digital photo, so in cases where you need "Proof Positive" evidence, I would suggest using the video feature on the 110 instead of simply taking a photo.

insurance claims

[zogger]

insurance claims are much better with a film camera over a digital. If you want to be frugal about it,not waste shots, get a high end polaroid. The film is expensive but you take the shots you need and no more, and you can see fairly instantly if the shot came out or not. Three shots is slightly under 3$, and is probably better quality than the 6$ throw away with developing of 23 more shots you don't need. I used to have to take pix of exhibits damaged in transit or from previous shows (exhibit & tradeshow industry) so we couldn't be charged for the damage, we always used polaroids for that.

Re:Fellow construction shutterbug...

[jlockard]

Why are you taking pictures of a site to use as evidence, prior to construction, and not having the affected people sign off on the pictures being valid prior to work being done?

As far as the "notion" of having the picture between all the other 31 on the negative strip... You must develop your own film, because any place that you'd take your pictures will cut them into strips of 4 frames. And it'd be pretty easy for you to go out with a *new* roll and get the picture you wanted (after the fact) to fit in that 4 frame range and swap it in for the original 4 frame strip.

In this way it would be just as easy to "forge" a picture on digital as on film. How about notarized polaroids?