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

Legal problems

[hlh_nospam]

I would love to use a digital camera for my Concealed Handgun Class photos, but the State of Texas will *not* allow digital photos for legal reasons. That's because a digital photo can be undetectably altered too easily. The same thing might apply to your situation.

Re:Legal problems

[self assembled struc]

You'd think but I recently bought a car and needed to get the pre-insurance inspection photos done.

and it was done with a digital camera, so the insurance companies don't seem to be too mindful of this.

of course the owner of the car doesn't ever handle the photos so that might be the reason.

SCUBA housing

[bsdbigot]

It may not be the best thing in the world as far as ergonomics, but a number of companies make housings for generic fit or specific fit digital cameras. Furthermore, here's a guy that builds his own.

Just get a cheap one

[mnmn]

I use a $70 800x600 camera called EZ-camera by I think ezonics. It takes CF cards and is PRETTY robust. Its taken rain on it and many many falls.. I suppose is made of only surface mount devices.

Just get a cheap one and try it out in the field. Should at least last a few times to be worth its price. Good thing cheaper is also simpler to learn, assuming YOU will be the one to transfer the pics.

Try out the GSm@rt Mini 3

[UnknownSoldier]

This thing is so tiny you can put it in your shirt-pocket! Outside pictures are actually pretty good. I've shown the pics to a couple of friends (one who is a serious camera buff), and they were all amazed something that tiny could snap a picture that good. It's no Canon Power shot, but even at a 1/8 picture quality, it is still pretty good.

And at only $90 at ThinkGeek, so it won't break the bank.

I work for an insurance company

[Anonymous Coward]

*posting anon due to not wanting to break any no blab aggreements from my company*

I work for an insurance company and just got finished working on a project that maintains our digital image management and capturing for claim processing.

We use the Pentax Optio 33L cameras.

And *yes* digital cameras are good enough for insurance companies. I once had a claim adjusted (from another insurance company, not the one I work for) based on a set of digital pictures that I emailed to the field adjuster.

Anyone who says insurance companies won't deal with digital images is feeding you a load of bull. That's *NOT* to say that those images will be admissable in a court of law. I don't know the answer to that one.

*posting anon due to not wanting to break any no blab aggreements from my company*

Re:I work for an insurance company

[mbstone]

I sue insurance companies' insureds on behalf of plaintiffs, and I've seen some honest people with good claims who were victimized by insurance company dishonesty.

So I have a low general opinion of insurance companies, to put it mildly, and I wouldn't put it past 'em to mess with a digital image or two if the stakes were high enough.

You say you don't trust plaintiff's lawyers either, more power to you. I pray they never let in digital images where authenticity is contested and the photo is crucial in deciding the case. It is just too easy to doctor them.

Unfortunately, I fear many judges will routinely let in digital photos just like they often let in "computer evidence" in the form of printouts, etc. For information on how digital image evidence is treated in the courts, see Rules 901 and 1001 through 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.