Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
The Canon PowerShot S series cameras are small and robust, with a metal case and a lens that retracts flat into the body and is protected by a retracting cover. They produce excellent pictures. I have an S100, which I've just replaced with an S400 because I liked it so much. (The S400 is the newest 4 megapixel descendant of the S100.)
For your situation, I'd add on the appropriate waterproof case. I imagine a PowerShot in one of those would stand up to falling from a truck, being dropped in wet cement and hurriedly rinsed off with beer, and so on.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
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?
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
I sell lots of these kits to local mining and smelting companies. The combination is a bit pricey for just 2MP/3x optical zoom; converting from Canadian dollars, at retail prices, I sell these at about $260 per camera and $150 per watertight case. Keep in mind this is a retail store, though. I'm certain you could find a better price online if you don't mind the lack of local tech support.
:) )
Like all Canons, they use plain compactflash, and the A series uses AA batteries. If you're out in the field on a deadline, being able to go to the nearest corner store for an emergency power supply can save your ass. The A60s are newer, but I've found they're less durable. I've got an A70 myself, but it's not really suited for abuse.
This is all anecdotal, anyways. I've never done any proper stress testing, I'm just going by what my customers in a few heavy industries have told me. ( My boss would kill me if I spent a day dropping store stock and seeing what happens.
It may be overkill, but they sell an underwater photography case for it.
It takes great pics and has full manual override for everything. Physically, it seems to be pretty sturdy. Strong metal case, and the LCD has a plastic screen over it - you can't directly touch the LCD screen. It uses Compact Flash cards, and comes with 16MB. Crucial sells 256 for about $65 US and 128 for about $32 US. I can't get exact prices since their site's down for "scheduled maintenence."
Here's some reviews (some of a70 (same camera, but 3.2 megapixels)):
Steve's Digicams
Epinions
Digital Camera Resource Page
Digital Photography Review
CNet User Reviews
Google Search
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
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.
--
Twoflower
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.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I am also a sysadmin for a construction company. We had the same problem where we were blowing threw tons of $$$ on disposable cameras and developing. The Project Managers and I were finally able to convince our frugal and technophobic VP into letting us buy digital cameras.
We decided on the Fuji FinePix 2600. It's a nice little camera that is easy to use. I'm not sure how waterproof they are though. In my experience when you start talking about "ruggedized" or "waterproof" it means a huge price jump.
As far as the legal issue goes we take it on a case by case basis. Meaning that some of our contracts specifically state that digital photography is not to be used. I have to say that lately we have not had many contracts that forbid the use of digital cameras.
I worked as an construction inspector for the city here. Every spring we would go out and take pictures of every thing that would be affected by the oncoming construction, including two pictures of each driveway, every tree close to the construction, fencelines, property lines, etc. This was done to prevent homeowners placing the blame for pre-existing problems on the city.
One example of this was a fellow who claimed that a large oak on his property was damaged by heat from a shovel's exhaust. A few bucks in camera film saved the city a few thousand in lawyer fees right there.
I mention this because in our case a digital camera was not acceptable. The time that the picture was taken was vital, and having the picture between 31 other negatives on a strip goes a long way towards that goal. I know little about digital cameras, but I imagine the date would be trivial to alter.
As far as durability is concerned, the only expensive object I saw on site was an electronic transit ($25,000+), and have seen a couple of those run over by trucks. If you want durabilty, maybe check out the military specs guys?
Here's one, I'm sure Google will help you find many more...http://www.itronix.com/Products.asp
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.
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.
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.
"...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
...a Polaroid camera. They even have a model called the "JOBPRO" that's "designed for the construction professional".
A digital would just sit around in the glovebox and it's battery would always be dead when you needed it.
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.
And we just bought a bunch of $189 Sony cameras and told the guys if they break it, they buy it.
Works good so far.
The photos are for putting on the CHL card, similar to a driver's license. The state doesn't allow me to use a digital camera, even though that's what they use for the driver's license.
Bureaucracies aren't required to make any sense.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
insurance claims are much better with a film camera over a digital. If you want to be frugal about it,not waste shots, get a high end polaroid. The film is expensive but you take the shots you need and no more, and you can see fairly instantly if the shot came out or not. Three shots is slightly under 3$, 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.
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.
is International Electronic Machines - www.iem.net The Ultimate Rugged All-Digital Camera From their page: IEM's Rugged Camera is designed to acquire motion video in demanding applications where ordinary cameras just will not perform. Designed to operate underwater or above ground, IEM's Rugged Camera is the most versatile imaging solution on the market. Utilizing state of the art image processing algorithms, the camera is capable of providing high resolution images in all weather conditions where ordinary cameras cannot.