File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
dear /p/,

i know you get these kinds of threads all the time, but i have to ask. i can pick out a good camera myself, but i need a little more with my next purchase, so i'm coming to find those with more experience than myself.

i'm deploying to iraq soon and need a camera able to take high-quality pictures and be VERY durable; i want to be capture everything with lots of detail for myself and my family. my current camera is way too fragile to take there. so, in your experience, what cameras of yours have stood up to lots of drops, dirt, and other harsh conditions? i'll be there for 15 months and would like to have it last the entire time (if situations allow it to)

i was thinking of the canon digital rebel xt but i've never used it before..
>> Anonymous
The Rebel's construction isn't exceptionally robust.

Your best bet is probably the Pentax K10. It's much more expensive, but it's weatherproofed and so on. Your other weatherproof alternatives? Top-level professional cameras that cost more than $5000.
>> Anonymous
you're going to want to go considerably higher than an entry-level SLR if you want that kind of protection. in Canon, you're looking at the EOS 1D line. maybe the 5D, but I'm not sure. don't forget environment-proof lenses, too. get ready to spend lots of money. when you get there, only change lenses (if at all) only when absolutely necessary to cut down on dust/sand getting into the camera and lenses.

good luck out there, man.
>> Anonymous
>>57607
The 5D is essentially a 20D with a larger sensor.

No extra protection.

Something else: I didn't know they make special environment-proof lenses. I understand the Pentax has exceptional backwards compatibility, and I know it has a image stabilization feature that works with any lens. (Image stabilization is where the camera or the lens moves some part of its internal mechanism as you move the camera, to compensate for the little jitters in one's hand. For most shots, it replaces a tripod. Most models of camera have it built into the lens, and usually not the standard lens that comes with it. The Pentax, like a very few others, has it in the camera so it works with any lens.)
>> Anonymous
The Nikon D200 is weathersealed, as well. As with any of the mentioned cameras, your weakest link will be the lens, so look for weathersealed lenses to go with the camera you choose.
>> Anonymous
I'd personally recommend sealing the lens on with duct tape. Also, I'd consider taping over the shutter button to plug the rim around it, as well as ONLY switching out memory cards and batteries INSIDE a barrack (or whatever)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>57764
In fact, you might want to consider just sealing the entire camera in a solid cube of lucite. It'll keep most dust out and also give you some physical security in that it'll be harder to steal and more resistant to damage from drops and whatnot.
>> Anonymous
For digital, I'd highly recommend a D200. If you're not dead set on digital, a Nikon F4 is about as durable as they get. Either way, for durability, optical quality, and cheapness of replacement, I'd be inclined to use older manual focus Nikon lenses. Even a couple Series E primes would be good and dirt cheap if you do end up breaking one.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The Canon PowerShot SD900 (Canon Digital IXUS 900 in Europe) has a solid titanium casing. Mine withstood a two-story drop onto soil. Careful with the display tho.
>> Anonymous
The only line of weathersealed lenses for DSLRs is the Canon L line, and those are damn expensive. A weathersealed body won't help you without one, or else shit will just get into the camera anyways.

Olyumpus makes the 7200SW (I think that's the number), which is supposedly shock/dust/waterproof, and then there are Fuji's Big Job series. Not exactly high quality, though.

If you're willing to use film, an old Nikon Nikonos underwater camera fits the bill perfectly.
>> Anonymous
>>58004
Olympus's Top Pro line of lenses is weathersealed as well, but they're even more expensive than Canons and the only weatherproof camera you can put them on is the old, clunky, 5-megapixel E-1.

The Olympus 720SW/725SW pocket cameras are durable, but their image quality and battery life suck dick.

If I were the OP, I'd take some old film SLR and a zoom lens as versatile as I could find to avoid changing it at all. Of course, shooting film is far less convenient than digital, but film cameras are much more resistant to drops/dirt/dust, require less batteries and are less likely to be stolen.
Although take this with a grain of salt since I don't know shit about living conditions for soldiers in Iraq.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58024
Do the bases have photo labs?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Also, might want to consider a little point & shoot instead of an SLR. Pictures won't be quite as good, but there's a hell of a lot less to go wrong.

Pic related: My Canon PowerShot A95 (now superceded by the A630/A640), which took a licking and kept on ticking.

(Pro tip: when fumbling in the dark to take off a polarizing filter, make sure your wrist strap is properly secured. Mistakes were made, gravity was involved, and I had to superglue part of the top panel back on, but it's still fine functionally.)
>> Anonymous
>>58043
>there's a hell of a lot less to go wrong.

But the stuff that can go wrong will go wrong a hell of a lot easier. There's more moving parts in a DSLR, for sure, but they're built better, at least above the D40/Rebel/K100D level.

I'm all for digicams as a viable alternative to SLRs in most situations, and even a superior alternative in some, but he needs something that will stand up.

(As a side note, am I the only one who thinks a DSLR needs to be made that is as mechanical as possible for a TTL metering DSLR? I.E. no rear LCD, no autofocus, no autoexposure, aperture set on the lens, shutter speed set on a dial, ISO speed (while still obviously digital) controlled by some sort of slider or dial, just a small top LCD with the shots left, a lightmeter reading, and the ISO? It'd be much lighter and smaller, and probably more reliable, than a normal DSLR.)
>> Anonymous
>>58055
>no rear LCD

Wasn't thinking. Let me rephrase: a much smaller rear LCD.

I wouldn't want to give up chimping.
>> Anonymous
>>58056
who doesn't? everyone chimps lol
>> Anonymous
>>i'm deploying to iraq soon and need a camera able to take high-quality pictures and be VERY durable;

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07062001fujibigjob.asp

looks like it fits the bill exactly. not sure when its out ???????
>> Anonymous
>>58064
>The camera also features a 6 Megapixel CCD sensor and ISO sensitivity of up to 1600, so detailed, low noise images can be captured in low light levels

How?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58067
Yeah, I'm curious about that too. Does it have a massive, awesome CCD in it, or is that just marketing pillow-talk?
>> Anonymous
>>58075
It probably has the same CCD that their S3 pro has, Maybe even the S5 pro
>> Anonymous
sorry to bust your digital bubble but in your case I'd get a Leica film rangefinder since

1. it's silent, SLR/DSLR are not silent the slaming noise of a SLR isn't what a soldier wants.

2. While digital has its pros, film cameras and especially the Leica rangefinders like the M3, have an exellent track record in extreme environs. Film is much more reliable since they dont use batteries in the same extent as the digital ones does. You'll be in the middle of a desert, power might be impossible to get or restricted to strategic services.

and I'd shoot slidefilm or BW film since thats easier to scan and get accurate tones and colour.
>> Anonymous
>>58077
1. I don't think he'll be shooting when he's sneaking around. He'll be watching for insurgents trying to shoot him, in a different sense.

Normally, I hate mirror clank, hate, hate, hate it, but a DSLR is his only real option.

2. I don't think he'll be able to develop the photographs, first of all.

Second, he doesn't seem like he has much photographic experience but wants to learn. Digital is ideal for that; if you hand someone a Leica M, especially a film one before the M7, with no knowledge of the technical side of photography, they'll be lost. The M8, of course, is digital, and the M7 is an electronic camera except at two shutter speeds.

>You'll be in the middle of a desert, power might be impossible to get or restricted to strategic services.

I have a feeling he'll probably be in a barracks, not in some tent somewhere. I understand soldiers are allowed to hook up X-Boxes in their barracks and go on the computer and everything. OP will have no problem charging a digital camera.

Of course a completely mechanical film camera would be more reliable, but that won't suit the OP.

As far as the specific suggestion of a Leica rangefinder, two things:

1. The M3 is iconic for its breakthrough. Later Leica models were actually improvements, with the exception, I've heard, of the M5.

2. I'm guessing OP doesn't have a Leica-sized budget. Leicas are expensive- even the MD, an M2 variant made without any viewfinder, is going for $789 from KEH right now.

If the OP decides to go film, a non-Leica rangefinder would make sense. But film makes almost no sense for the OP.
>> Anonymous
We and the OP might be being a little too cautious.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
>> Anonymous
okay I never thought hed be using his camera in action while on a mission. that would be more than stupid, it'd be retarded.

reasons why film rangefinders are superior to DSLR in an extreme environ as the Iraqi dessert are that they are simple machines, can take a beating and do not need a power source.

Film is better than Digital in this respect that film does not need batteries. the simpler the construction the least likely it is that the thing stops working.

Rangefinders are silent, and thats nice if you want those candid emotional moments on record. they are also smaller than a D/SLR thus easy to pack and to bring with you. They have many lenses, but I'd go with a 50mm prime or a 35mm prime.

And no the Leica is not expensive, the market is flooded with cheap used Leicas and lenses. I'd buy a used Leica any day over a Canon/Nikon/Pentax DSLR since they are built to last un like the DSLRs.

Advanced shooting in manual?
he's in a part of the world with sun 90% of the year. use the standard "Sunny 16" rule (f:16 and 1/125 or 1/250 in direct sunlight) outside.
If he isn't prepared to learn at least that much he should never even consider getting a D/SLR he'll be much better of with a point and shoot idiots mode party cam, like a coolpix od an olympus Mu (which in fact is the camera of choise for some war photogs)

So what if he cant develop then in Iraq, he can send the film home directly to mom and pops or his sweetheart to develop. Gives them a feeling of participation.
>> Anonymous
>>58086
sunn 16 = f/16, 1/iso
>> Anonymous
>>58086
I'm not disagreeing that a film camera is more reliable. What I'm saying is that DSLRs are reliable enough, and that it is much easier to learn photography on a digital camera: instant feedback, no worry about the cost of film, and so on.

As far as getting film developed at home, that's going to be a rather lengthy and expensive process.

I agree with everything you're saying about the usefulness of a quiet and small camera. That's why I use a high end digital point and shoot as my primary camera, over a DSLR. (I would try an M8, but I don't have nearly enough money.) But the OP has a very specific set of needs I'm not sure a film camera would fit best, or that a point-and-shoot would fit at all.

The war photographer who shoots with an Olympus I posted a link to an article about directly above your post. Like I said there, perhaps a point and shoot will be able to stand up to the conditions of Iraq. He won't have to worry about sensor dust, first of all.

In that case, I would suggest for the OP the Panasonic FZ-50, FZ-8, or LX2, or the new zoom lens fitted Ricoh. The Canon S3IS is another option, but it's the same price as the FZ-8, which is a much better camera. The FZ-50 and the FZ-8 are very similar; the FZ-50 is better, with more professional controls (but not less control) and a larger sensor, but it's more expensive and larger. The LX2 is a small, compact camera with several unique features, very different from the FZ-50 and FZ-8. The Ricoh is a professional-quality compact digital camera.
>> Anonymous
And as far as the idea that a Leica is not expensive, I repeat: a useless camera without a viewfinder is going for $789 from KEH right now. Leica's are great, but they are marked up so much because of the brand name.

An actual shooting kit, to get a Leica M3 with a 50mm prime, the cheapest Adorama is showing is $998. Add on a wide angle prime and upgrade to an M4 to get wide angle framelines, and you're up to $2097. Now add to that the cost to ship film to the United States and developed.

----

Anyway, OP, are you still there? Any feedback you could give us on your needs, price range, and so on?
>> Anonymous
if i were going to iraq and money wasnt an option id get a canon 1d with a nice l-lens. waterproof and dust resistant, it will also take a knock about. but then again you dont want to carry two guns around with you ;)
>> Anonymous
>>58086
>>58089

I think you two mean "Sunni 16" in this case vice "Sunny 16".
>> Anonymous
>>58252
Clever.
>> Anonymous
there are a few photojournalists in iraq who are writing about the experience and what worked/what didn't (among other things). following murphy's law, the key seems to be hardware redundancy; all of canon's marketing budget isn't going to protect your thousand dollar luxo lens when a jeep runs over it.
>> Anonymous
OP,

I'm with Marine Corps Special Operations and take a shit ton of photos. If you want one that lasts, my D200 has been to hell and back and still works great.