RideForum.NET

In 2 years, I've killed 2 digital cameras banging around on my bike in the dust and sometimes water. I want a camera built like my Garmin GPS--which after 18 months of hard trails, wrecks, etc, doesn't even have a scratch on the screen. That thing is amazing tough.

I see that Pentax and Olympus have models that are touted as "rugged", "waterproof" or "water-resistant", "dust proof", and even "shock proof". However, they still look like a rather delicate metal enclosure that would be dented and broken when dropped on a rocky trail at 10 MPH.

Dust killed my first camera. If you can get it to work, you can hear the dust grinding as the lens opens and shuts. The second camera does not seem to have dirt in it, but the electronics must have got shocked one time too many or too hard. It simply tells me to "turn the camera off and back on". You do that and you get the same message. Reminds of the old joke "how to keep a pollock busy".

Of course they don't make these cameras to come apart so you can clean and fix. They are $300 "throw-aways".

I think Casio was on the right track with their GV-10 models (no longer available). Unfortunately, like dualsport motorcycles, the market niche is too small to attract manufacturers.

Casio wrote:The case is made of long-strand fiberglass, which is enclosed with a high-elasticity elastomer for a very high level of shock resistance. Internal circuitry floats on a "floating mount" that uses shock absorbing gel sheets to protect circuits and components from external shock.

The camera was touted as dust, water, and shock proof and looked the part.
http://world.casio.com/info/asia_gv10.html

Never heard of this one:
http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/produ ... sp?mi=4544

Or this one...
http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/caplio/500gwide/

There is a company that makes "camera armor". Looks like they do a good job of shock protecting, but I don't think this would help much with dust or water.
http://www.camerarmor.com/details.html

Also, these "skins" may help:
http://www.delkin.com/products/snugit/index.html

troy wrote:Also, these "skins" may help:
http://www.delkin.com/products/snugit/index.html

Plus they come in pink. Perfect for guys that ride like me.

Ian

http://www.h20camera.com/home

I have the original Pentax w10, and second generation w20. Two so the wife and I can each have one and I can explain how to work it. Important with a baby in the house.

Both have been abused by me on lots of motorcycle trips.

The first w10 took on some water while snorkeling. Pentax replaced that one free. Good news is the SD cards are waterproof, so no photos were lost. The newer w30, which a friend has, has what seems like a much better closure system for the SD card and cable hookups.

I put the camera in a LowePro "Rezo 30" zippered pouch that I attach to my hydration pack shoulder strap.

Troy.

I have the W30 which is the latest version of Mikes cameras. Went to NS with me and its what I took pics and movies with in AR. I give it 2 thumbs up.

T

Hayden wrote:Troy.

I have the W30 which is the latest version of Mikes cameras. Went to NS with me and its what I took pics and movies with in AR. I give it 2 thumbs up.

T

Hey T we are still waiting on the pictures from NS????????

Sorry dude. Been helping the landlord dig up sewer and water lines in the back yard. It looks like a war zone back there with holes, trenches, and pipe everywhere. Will get back to the story soon.

T

Canon makes two cameras that are tough and used by professionals in all sorts of weather. Unfortunately they are also pro level cameras with pro level prices. The 1D MkIII, you see it on all the pros working football games, for example. The 1Ds MkIII, the tough studio / on location camera. (The earlier MkII version survives rides in my tankbag on my 525 EXC across everything.) I would say if you can get the MkII version of either camera used somewhere you would have a pro level camera that would last. (Note that if a pro owned it the camera could have serious wear on it.) The MkIII versions new are $4,499 for the 1D and $7,999 for the 1Ds.

Stu

I have owned 2 Panasonic DMC-LZ7. The first was lost so I purchased the same camera because it worked so well. I have taken the camera on all my motorcycle trips as well as hunting and vacations. It work fine and I like that it has a 6x zoom.

I have my camera in a padded camera case that I strap on my tank bag, it has worked so far. I think safiri's idea of strapping the camera to yourself is a better idea but I'm an old dog and am set in my ways.

Glad to hear all the feedback. Stu, you are a pro yourself, so I appreciate your advice, but I'm definitely not going to spend more than $400 on a camera to carry on my motorcycle over the hill and through the woods and through the creek, etc.! I'd rather break a $200 camera every year than buy one $3,000 camera that lasts 5 years.

Also, despite what they say, size is important--it needs to be small so that it is easy to carry and easy to whip out for shots of Eddie's big BMW laying in the mud.

My first digital camera, and the first one I finally destroyed on the bike, was a Kodak DX4330. This was a basic 3.1 Mp camera.


The camera was VERY simple to use and almost every shot was sharp with excellent color and light balance--I don't know all the technical photo terms, and don't really care to learn them honestly. Don't have time, and it's not something I'm trying to get into.

Which brings up a point---I've taken thousands of photos with that old 3.1 Mp Kodak. I am very happy with the results. I found that 3.1 Mp was enough that I could still print an 8x10 with decent quality. 4x6 prints looked fantastic. The full-quality jpg files were around 1Mb at the high end.

So why does the average guy just wanting to capture simple life moments need 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 (and up) Mp?! I understand that gives you more pixels which allows you to digitally zoom in or crop (same thing really). With 10 Mp, you can print a big poster if you want--cool, but really, how many of your photos have you printed poster size? The thing I don't like is instead of having 1Mb files, these cameras today are spitting out files over 5Mb for one picture! Of course the professional cameras create files much larger than that---and that makes sense for a professional.

The average person today is simply taking photos to upload to an online photo album. The trend in sharing photos is online. The trend in cameras is more Mp and larger file sizes. These 2 trends are opposed to each other.

Anyway, through personal and work, I've purchased a few other cameras that are higher Mp and have very high ratings--such as a 5 Mp Canon PowerShot. With this camera, 2 out of 3 indoor shots was too blurry and/or dark to use. When I tried to get help with the blurry photos, people simply replied, you need to hold the camera steady. Duh. And truth is, if I'd set the camera on a hard surface or use a tripod, it did take clearer photos. Point is, though, I did not have to do that with my Kodak. I'm not exaggerating--almost every photo with that camera was a good quality shot.

I tried a Fujitsu camera that had some good reviews--for one day--photos were so terrible I returned it next day.

Last year, I purchased a Sony with a Carl Zeiss lens. Decent photos, but on average, not as good as the Kodak--despite kicking out files that were twice as large as the old Kodak. (And I killed it on this last Ozarks ride.)

Look, I know there is a lot more to photo quality than Megapixels--although that number is what the consumers seem focused on. One thing for sure--more Mp does equate to larger file sizes. If what you want is big files, then look for big Mp. If you want consistently hiqh quality photos, there is a lot more to consider. The lens is probably the most important aspect, but big names do not necessarily guarantee success.

I'm going to buy a new camera for my wife, and because of my extreme success with the Kodak (other than getting dirt in the lens motor), I'm leaning towards another Kodak.

I think I like the Kodak Z1275

One attractive feature (I think) is that it can take video in HD resolution with sound. Supposedly a 2Gb SD card will give you about 30 minutes of video in this mode. Reviews say the vid quality is not bad. I think my wife would use this to capture little video moments of our daughter, Rachel, who turned 5 months today.

troy wrote:I found that 3.1 Mp was enough that I could still print an 8x10 with decent quality. 4x6 prints looked fantastic. The full-quality jpg files were around 1Mb at the high end.

So why does the average guy just wanting to capture simple life moments need 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 (and up) Mp?! I understand that gives you more pixels which allows you to digitally zoom in or crop (same thing really).

The ability to zoom / crop for a 4x6, and keep photo quality is a definite plus. Thus the "need" for more MP. That said, I haven't been limited by the 6 MP of my w10.

The Pentax w series do not have lenses that protrude / move from the camera body. This limits optical zoom (3x), but keeps dust out of the mechanism. I know you had some issues with dust in one of your cameras. A waterproof / dustproof camera will keep that issue at bay.

safiri wrote:The ability to zoom / crop for a 4x6, and keep photo quality is a definite plus. Thus the "need" for more MP. That said, I haven't been limited by the 6 MP of my w10.

I understand this. I also understand that most people simply refuse to get close to their subject. So they end up with photos where the subject is a tiny blob in the middle of a huge photo. People--take a few steps closer, OK? I guess if you got a gazillion megapixels and love cropping, you don't care so much.

safiri wrote:The Pentax w series do not have lenses that protrude / move from the camera body. This limits optical zoom (3x), but keeps dust out of the mechanism.

Excellent point. I'm noticing that some of these compact cameras have lenses that do not use a motor to extend the lens out of the camera--that was the death of my Kodak--dirt in the lens assembly to where the motors could no longer extend or collapse the lens. You pay a penalty with the smaller lens (I'm told), but your photos (of which I've seen many) are good quality.

Troy,
Your concerns are very valid. However, there are some things you need to understand to make an informed decision as a consumer regarding digital cameras. Consumer demand for big picture cheap cameras have left us with a lot of very fragile cameras that have severe limitations.
1) SLR cameras have instant on and instant focus so you get that cute kid shot. Digicams have about 1/2 second delay before you can get the picture so you miss some cute kid shots.
2) SLRs have larger chips with each sensor being larger. The new MkIII 6.4 micron pitch size sensor is capable of giving a clear and pretty noise free picture at up to ISO of 3200. Digicams work with a pitch of 2.9 microns so they introduce a lot of noise at ISO of 400 which renders even some 4x6 prints fuzzy and grainy which means that those indoor shots may not be very good.
3) The newest SLRs are processing light at 14 bits VS the digicam's 8 bits. This gives the bit depth to allow about 38,000 variations in color per pixel VS the digicam's 256 per pixel.
4) Megapixels don't count when it comes to quality. (Good lenses are still more important and the plastic lenses in some of the digicams are laughable.) The new 1D MkIII sports shooters camera is only 10.1 mp, but with the 14 bit processing (and up to 10 frames per second shooting speed) you get phenomenal prints and you get the very low level light shots every time with almost no noise. The 1Ds MkIII that I have on order is a 21.1 mp camera that shares the technology of the 1D MkIII. However, for double page spreads that must be absolutely crystal clear, precise & exact color reproduction and sharp, sharp, sharp nothing else will do. You can get a phenomenal 16x24 print from this. (You can examine it for detail at a 3" distance!) Most of us do not need this. We need good 4x6 or 4x5 prints with an occasional 5x7 or 8x10.

Still, we need a camera that focuses and takes the picture in less that 1/2 second. Slow shutter speed is just not acceptable. We need a camera that delivers proper color. 8 bits will do but the engineering must be solid (as was your old Kodak). We need a camera with a good lens. We also need a camera that shoots in low light at 400 or 800 ISO with low noise. Finally, we need a robust camera. The only choice that meets all of these criteria and is still fairly inexpensive is an SLR like the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. However, it is not as durable as the more expensive Canon SLRs and it is larger than digicams. It might fit in your jacket pocket. It won't like dust.

Consumers Reports in the latest issue (Nov.) recommended, among small digicams, the Samsung L77. They said, "The Samsung, $250, offers 7-megapixel resolution, an electronic image stabilizeer, and a nonprotruding 7x optical zoom -- rare in a camera less than an inch thick." Picture quality & shutter lag was very good. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX30 was highly rated and they have been better than average for repair (the best rating of all the camera companies), at $350, with very good picture quality and shutter lag time. This camera was highly regarded on photo web sites. (The pros wanted RAW shooting mode but we can do just fine with JPEGs) My personal choice of these digicams would be the Canon PowerShot A710 (CR picked the A630 but I think its shutter lag is unacceptable). The 710 is $270 and was rated at very good and excellent in all categories. It will still fit in a large pocket (your riding jacket) and unlike some of the cameras (Sony) it does not take proprietary (read: expensive) memory chips.

If you want a pocket-able camera get the Samsung. (The Pentax M30 mentioned above was rated as "competent though slower than most".)

Stu

Stu wrote:Troy,
Your concerns are very valid. However, there are some things you need to understand to make an informed decision as a consumer regarding digital cameras....

Agree.

Stu wrote:1) SLR cameras have instant on and instant focus so you get that cute kid shot. Digicams have about 1/2 second delay before you can get the picture so you miss some cute kid shots.

It's all a compromise. 1/2 second delay for a 10th of the price is a compromise I'm willing to make.

Stu wrote:2) SLRs have larger chips with each sensor being larger. The new MkIII 6.4 micron pitch size sensor is capable of giving a clear and pretty noise free picture at up to ISO of 3200. Digicams work with a pitch of 2.9 microns so they introduce a lot of noise at ISO of 400 which renders even some 4x6 prints fuzzy and grainy which means that those indoor shots may not be very good.

"Quality" is a relative term, but as I stated, I've been more than satisfied with the quality of my digital photos including 4x6 prints from my old 3.1 Mp Kodak. So this argument does not hold any weight with me. Relatively and technically speaking, it is a true statement, but from my standards of quality, this is a non-issue.

Stu wrote:3) ...Most of us do not need this. We need good 4x6 or 4x5 prints with an occasional 5x7 or 8x10.

Exactly.

Thanks for the specific camera info and recommendations. Btw, I too was against Sony for the proprietary memory, but the DuoStick memory is cheap now--about as cheap as SD, so the price argument is no good anymore. Still--why does SONY have to go against the grain all the time?!

The advice my cutting-edge, latest-toys, techno-geek brother gave me about 6 years ago, was buy a digital camera from a camera maker--not an electronics maker. He said the magic is in the lens, not the electronics. That was why I bought that Kodak so many years ago instead of a Sony or Casio, etc. Of course today a lot of the computer companies are making cameras, but using good lenses from camera lens makers.

My Kodak was killed by dust in the lens assembly--despite the fact it was in a zippered pouch when not taking shots. My SONY died from the physical beating I gave it. For off-road riding, having the camera in a dust-proof pouch attached to your person--not the bike--is most likely the key to longevity. (As others have suggested.)

Troy,

Thanks for the compliments. I have been reading reviews on the Samsung L77. None of them are very good. I think I will pull that recommendation given user dissatisfaction. Like your brother, I'll stay with the camera makers.

That said I would add that the chip / processing chip of the Canon win out over the electronics manufacturer's cameras. Complaints leveled at electronics company cameras have a lot to do with image quality and speed issues. Canon has addressed these issues better than the others. Further the lenses from the camera manufacturer's seem to be better than those of electronics companies. The latter may be purchasing lenses with different specs than those of the camera companies in order to hold their costs down.

Dust? Put your new Canon in a zip lock bag and stick it in your riding jacket pocket and ride!

Stu

Stu wrote:Dust? Put your new Canon in a zip lock bag and stick it in your riding jacket pocket and ride!

Again, I have to find the balance--that compromise. I could keep the camera perfectly safe by keeping it in a bank vault, but then I'd never take any photos. To a lesser degree, having to remove the camera from a ziplock back and replace it in the bag would decrease the chances that I'll whip out the camera for a quick shot. IT HAS TO BE CONVENIENT or it is useless to me. (I'm lazy.)

This is why the ultimate camera for my riding would be built like my Garmin 60CS. This would allow the camera to be quick-mounted right on the bars where I could snap it off, snap a shot, and snap it back in the mount. Not going to happen, I know.

Troy,

A lot of things are not going to happen: an RFS with 2.5 quarts of oil in it, an inexpensive camera with a magnesium body, O ring seals, dustproof access doors (all like the pro bodies).

I just put my camera in a big zip lock bag, fold the flap over and stick it in my pocket. It doesn't seem to allow dirt in. If it is raining I seal the top. It comes out of my pocket fast and the bag stays in my pocket. It is faster than unzipping a camera bag and a heck of a lot better at sealing out dust (dust penetrates zippers).

Stu