Re: Looking for a Recommendation...

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:27:39 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> > [from another message in this thread] :
> >> . . . but for longer trips, I also carry spare sets of rechargeable
> >> NIMH AA cells, and a couple of sets of disposable lithium AAs.
> >
> > And if you used one of the modern, small, lightweight, efficient
> > cameras using 4 AAs, at worst you might need to tote the same number
> > of batteries, but you might be able to carry even fewer. With up to
> > a couple thousand shots, you might be able to get by with just the
> > batteries in the camera. No spares needed except for exceptionally
> > long trips. The smaller cameras using only 2AAs (or the equivalent)
> > also tend to focus more slowly, perform poorer in low light and are
> > a little harder to hold steadily.
> >
> > The really small cameras that you prefer have one saving grace.
> > They'll force you to increase your photo editing skills since you'll
> > be spending more time at the computer keyboard removing red-eye. :)
> >
>
> Well, I am not on life-support, and none of are sure we don't have one
> foot in the grave until the other one slips.... However, I am not able
> to walk for more than a block without causing a flare-up of my lumbar
> spinal stenosis. Probably I am more sensitive to the weight of a camera
> than most people. Of course 4 batteries are just twice the nuisance of
> 2 batteries, twice the space, and twice the weight. It matters to some
> of us.

It seems though, that you're giving far too much weight to the
extra weight. First, unless you're prepared to miss shots when your
batteries run down you're going to carry at least one extra pair
with you so that you don't have to return to your cache containing
your "spare sets of rechargeable NIMH AA cells, and a couple of sets
of disposable lithium AAs". And if you do, the extra weight of 2 AA
cells is about 1.75 oz, hardly enough I'd think, to aggravate your
back problem. If it was, you could probably reduce the excess
weight to a single oz. or less by carrying only a pair of lithium AA
spares. Or put another way, the weight of lithium AA cells in a
camera that uses 4 of them would be close to the weight of the two
NiMH AAs that you're already carrying, and they'd last far longer,
easily good for thousands of shots unless most are taken with flash.

I found several things about camera weight surprising though. It
turns out that you're right about excessive weight, but for another
reason. Checking a list of cameras showed that the weight of
cameras using 4 AAs tends to be much greater than the weight of
cameras that use only two, although they can still be fairly light.
This doesn't have to be the case, but I suppose manufacturers use
the extra available power as justification to add more glass and
heavier, faster motors. The second surprise came when I checked the
weight of the very small, subcompacts which I assumed would all use
lithium batteries. It turns out that they weren't the lightest,
weighing as much as or more than many of the cameras that use 2 AA
batteries. The lightest cameras that I found in the list all used
AA batteries. These were models from Samsung and Konica/Minolta,
ranging from 115 to 122 grams. The small Nikons and Fujis (A330,
A340) ranged from 140 to 145 grams, and Kodak had one at 147 grams
(CX7300), but the others were 175 grams (CX6230, CX7220, CX7330). I
don't know which model your current Kodak it, but beware, it might
be a back-breaker. :)

Update: I finally got to the Olympus [mju:] 410, (aka Stylus, I
think) that uses rechargeable Li-Ion and weighs only 115gm.


>> As for the red-eye, yes, the smaller the camera, the more likely red-eye
> is. Sometimes we just have to make choices.

True, and sometimes we just have to justify them after the fact.
<g>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Looking for a Recommendation...
    ... and a couple of sets of disposable lithium AAs. ... With up to a couple thousand shots, you might be able to get by with just the batteries in the camera. ... The smaller cameras using only 2AAs also tend to focus more slowly, perform poorer in low light and are a little harder to hold steadily. ... Probably I am more sensitive to the weight of a camera ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Megapixel Race
    ... weight of systems (OK, perhaps not to half the size, and one eighth the ... of some of the Canon and Olympus cameras. ... light DSLR, and only slightly heavier than the Powershot G7. ... 400g if lithium AA batteries were used instead of alkalines. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: OT: Diesel hybrids
    ... The amount of cargo tractor trailers can carry is often limited ... gross vehicle weight. ... Batteries=weight, but perhaps in future batteries the weight will come ... perhaps big truck hybrid technology will become economically feasible. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: The Megapixel Race
    ... does this prevent it from offering as compact a camera and lens as ... not to half the size, and one eighth the volume and weight!), but it ... of some of the Canon and Olympus cameras. ... light DSLR, and only slightly heavier than the Powershot G7. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Small, waterproof digital camera for the outdoors?
    ... the battery's weight, ... You stated that the weight of the extra batteries would exceed the weight of the ... the weight of the camera), and I quoted the part of your post I was replying to. ... could carry an Optio and a lot of spare batteries and still weigh less than the ...
    (rec.photo.digital)