Which camera???

[vanick]

Anyone have input as to a digital camera of choice for bike touring in the US?  I have a Canon PowerShotA95 that seems to weigh a lot & uses 4 AA batteries, I'd like something lighter that uses 2 AA's for my impending cross-country venture.  I don't need more than 3 megapixels if that, the images will be going to my website; if anything gets printed, it won't be more than 5x7 or maybe 8x10 or so.

I also don't want to spend a whole lot of money on another camera.  I'm looking at the Bushnell outdoor 3.2MP, anyone had any experience with that?  Other suggestions?

The clock is running down, I need to get this together withing the next couple of weeks.

Thanks, Nick Evans

www.nickevans.crazyguyonabike.com

[earlwooten]

Last Christmas, we bought our grandaughters Canon Powershot A-400's.  They cost $129 at 17th st Photo, and they are great cameras.  3MP, compact but not tiny, and their results are just as good as my Canon SD-400 or Sony M-1.

[RussellSeaton]

I'm sure this belongs in its own thread, but I'm going to post it here.  Why a digital camera on a lengthy bike tour instead of normal film?

On my few lengthy loaded tours starting in 1992, I've used a Ricoh 35 mm film camera.  It has a dual lens that flips between 35 and 70 mm.  35 is used for landscapes.  70 is used for more close up shots.

Batteries last a long time in a regular film camera.  Assuming its a fairly plain film camera.  Film is available everywhere.  Pictures are very, very detailed and rich with color.  I've yet to see digital pictures that are as good as simple 100 speed film pictures.  The camera is fairly cheap compared to digital cameras.  Cost of printing is not too prohibitive at about 20 cents per picture for double prints.  Plain film cameras are simple to use.  Point and shoot.

[DaveB]

There are several advantages to a digital camera over a conventional film camera for trip use.  

1. You can "proof" your shots immediately and redo the ones that didn't come out the way you wanted them to.  You can erase the mistakes and not waste film or storage capacity on unwanted photos.  Instant gratification can be important if you are unlikely to ever be in that location again.

2. You can "process" digital shots by burning them onto CD's at any office supply or X-Mart and mail them home.  You don't have to carry exposed film or mail bulky prints.  That allows you to erase the camera's storage card and start over fresh.

3. The number of shots you can take on a reasonable size storage card with a moderate megapixel camera way exceeds any roll of film.  Two cards, to provide a backup, are far smaller and lighter any even one roll of film and have a huge advantage in capacity.

4. Battery life for a digital camera is not as good as a film camera but if your camera uses AA batteries, their life is adequate and replacements are cheap and available nearly everywhere.  

I certainly agree that any good quality film camera with ISO 100 film is capable of resolution far exceeding all but the most expensive professional level digital camera.  So what?  Unless you plan on wall-size enlargements the benefit is moot.

[floatingstates]

Casio Exilim EX-S500 ... just released in the U.S.. Very small. Great
quality with stills and TV resolution video. The interface is really nice as
well. The LCD is also large enough to watch the videos. Caveat: only
takes a LiON battery so you need to charge it ... BUT you can buy
additional batteries ($20-$30) to reduce the need to charge them. If
you are carrying other devices that need charging (cell phone/GPS etc)
you can often figure out a universal method for charging. Ultimately
rechargeables are much friendlier to the planet than alkaline
disposables. The LiOn batteries will outlast alkalines of the same
volume so the camera can be small.
There are several ROBUST (water resistant) camera's out there but they
tend to be on the bulky side.