Is there a digital camera that fits this description?

<snip>

how cheap is cheap ?

I'd recommend the olympus mju +/-£200 depending on which model

the case is metal and weather-proof and the lens is not exposed - essentials
for a 'stick it in your pocket and forget about it' camera

the battery is an L-ion battery which can only be charged on a cradle but
(a) lasts for quite a long time - didn't need recharging when we were in
austria for 3 weeks this summer (b) - you could always get a spare battery

(my experience of cameras using 'ordinary' batteries, rehcargeable or not,
is they go through them very quickly)

hth

Mike

How About -
http://www.boots.com/shop/product_details.jsp?productid=1048468&classificationid=1025567&wblinktype=PL&wblinkdetail=position3

Canon A300 - takes AA batteries & compactflash memory ( 256 Meg cartridges
are less than £20 . . . )
Dunno if the camera is good or bad, but at under 80 quid its gotta be worth
a try . . .

All the best !

Steve Wilcox

In article <[email hidden]>, Peewiglet
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Any ideas?

Canon A75 (3.2MP) £170

or

Canon A85 (4MP) £230

Both take AAs but you will always get poor life out of alkalines. You
should get ~400 pix out of a set of NiMh rechargeables and I would
expect that three sets (4 per set) would have done you for the PW as
long as you don't spend hours reviewing your snaps in the tent each
evening...

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

Steve Wilcox said:

Canon A300 - takes AA batteries & compactflash memory ( 256 Meg cartridges
are less than £20 . . . )
Dunno if the camera is good or bad, but at under 80 quid its gotta be worth
a try . . .

It doesn't have macro or zoom, it isn't going to do the OP much good.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Can't see any mention in the original post about zoom being required . . . .
..

Steve Wilcox

Peewiglet <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera, and I'm
wondering whether there's one available that fits the following spec'
and isn't terribly expensive.

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

- Not terribly expensive.

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Yesterday I bought an Olympus mju 410 from Makro for £130+VAT. It does all
you want except the battery is Li-ion rechargable. I don't know how long it
will last on one charge, but Mike's figure of 3-weeks sounds good. Like
you, I originally wanted standard batteries, but Olympus seem to be going
over to Li completely (I wanted Olympus because I already have xD-picture
memory cards from my other (bigger) camera). You can turn the screen off
and use the viewfinder to reduce battery consumption.

I did consider the mju-mini which is really tiny, but rejected it because
it does not have a viewfinder (just a screen) and only 2x zoom.

John

Peewiglet <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera, and I'm
wondering whether there's one available that fits the following spec'
and isn't terribly expensive.

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

- Not terribly expensive.

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Yesterday I bought an Olympus mju 410 from Makro for £130+VAT. It does all
you want except the battery is Li-ion rechargable. I don't know how long it
will last on one charge, but Mike's figure of 3-weeks sounds good. Like
you, I originally wanted standard batteries, but Olympus seem to be going
over to Li completely (I wanted Olympus because I already have xD-picture
memory cards from my other (bigger) camera). You can turn the screen off
and use the viewfinder to reduce battery consumption.

I did consider the mju-mini which is really tiny, but rejected it because
it does not have a viewfinder (just a screen) and only 2x zoom.

John

Peewiglet said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera, and I'm
wondering whether there's one available that fits the following spec'
and isn't terribly expensive.

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

- Not terribly expensive.

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Any ideas?

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001VJ4VO/qid=1100177959/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-7912862-9299042
excellent camera - small and light - been using mine for about a year,
no regrets about buying it.

Tony

Peewiglet said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera, and I'm
wondering whether there's one available that fits the following spec'
and isn't terribly expensive.

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

- Not terribly expensive.

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Any ideas?

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001VJ4VO/qid=1100177959/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-7912862-9299042
excellent camera - small and light - been using mine for about a year,
no regrets about buying it.

Tony

"Peewiglet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera, and I'm
wondering whether there's one available that fits the following spec'
and isn't terribly expensive.

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

- Not terribly expensive.

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Any ideas?

Now then. Since you seem to like weeny Ti thingies, I think you should look
for a second hand Canon Ixus. I got the Ixus v2 last year as an end of line
(over 100 quid off retail and brand new). OK it might be old fashioned now
(only 2Mpixel CCD), but it takes great photos anyway and is sooo cute.

Roy.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

mike said:

<snip>

how cheap is cheap ?

I'd recommend the olympus mju +/-£200 depending on which model

the case is metal and weather-proof and the lens is not exposed -
essentials for a 'stick it in your pocket and forget about it' camera

Seconded. I've got last year's 3Mp model. In macro mode it will fill the
frame with an object about 3 x 2 cm. Although it has a lot of 'modes' It
can just be left in point-n-shoot setting 99% of the time.
--
Dave

* The air of uk.rec.walking was filled with the delicate perfume
* of violets, as Peewiglet <[email hidden]> descended on a shaft
* of golden sunlight, and announced:

Quoted message said:

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

I use a Nikon Coolpix 995. It's not current, so you'll need to look for
secondhand. It's brilliant for close-up work and will go down to 2 cm. The
swivelling lens means that you can get down low easily. I use mine a lot for
photographing our native orchids. A lot of folk on this forum will poo-poo
at its 3.4 meg resolution and zoom lens, but if you don't want to go bigger
than A4 (and few do) then it's fine. The earlier 990 is also good and there
are those on the Nikon forum at http://www.dpreview.co that swear by the
even older 900.

Regards: Jim Ford

I have the Canon A40.

Takes rechargable batteries the 2300mah ones normally last a weeks
backpacking (couples of hundred pictures).

Had Macro for close-up and a 3x zoom plus 2.5 digital zoom although digital
zoom is rubbish

ICD have the A75 for £144

All the pictures here
http://www.pbase.com/georgegriffin/backpacking_photographs were taken with
the A40.

Geo

Jim Ford said:

I use a Nikon Coolpix 995. It's not current, so you'll need to look for
secondhand. It's brilliant for close-up work and will go down to 2 cm. The
..

I've got one too, and would agree with what you say. However, I do
find it a bit bulky for walking : I haven't found a satisfactory way
to keep it to hand so it spends too much time in the rucksac.
Something smaller might be more helpful. Nikon do seem to have
a reputation for good macro focussing so a smaller, simpler, newer
version might be a good choice.

-adrian

Peewiglet typed:

Quoted message said:

At some stage next year I'd like to replace my digital camera,

<snip>

Go for a Sony Sureshot. Easy to carry and use.
--
Andy Crawford
www.chiadfhear.co.uk

Remove "my boots" to e-mail me

In article <[email hidden]>, Peewiglet
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

Any ideas?

I have an Olympus Z404 and A Canon 300D but two weeks ago I bought a
Samsung Digimax 301. It has 3.2 Mega pixels !!! and a 3X digital zoom.
It runs on two AA batteries but they don't last ve3ry long if you keep
viewing the results of your labours on the LCD screen :-)

I bought it in ASDA for 89 quid. It has an internal memory, but I bought
a 16 Mb card for picture taking.

E-mail me so that I can e-mail you a couple of pics taken with it.

it doesn't match up to my other cameras but it is OK.

Regards,
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Crawford
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Go for a Sony Sureshot. Easy to carry and use.

I didn't know Sony did a Sureshot - I thought that was a Canon name.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:12:03 +0000, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>
wrote:

I'm certainly not going to advise you on cameras. This is a walking
newsgroup! However, I have a Nikon Coolpix 3100 and I'll match it
against your requirements below:

Quoted message said:

- Small and light (I keep my camera dangling from my belt in a small,
padded case, for instant access).

Good. Last time I took it walking, I clipped it round my hips just
under my rucksack. I bought a case (for a fiver from Staples) which
has an adjustable "shoulder strap" but I find it's really handy for
clipping round me.

Quoted message said:

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

Hm? Judge for yourself at http://hometown.aol.com/goofif It has a
"close-up" setting but I find it can't get as close as I want. I
can't remember what distance the user guide says it will take photos
at .... but I think they exaggerate!

Quoted message said:

- Will also allow me to take good distance pic's i.e. the sort of pic
I'd want to take from the top of a hill with great views.

Again, have a look at my website. It's got a 3 times optical zoom. I
suppose it takes landscape photos which *remind* you of the view ....
but they're not the best!

Quoted message said:

- I need to be able to swap batteries in. (My current digital camera
doesn't take batteries and can only be re-charged from a cradle, so
it's useless for a b/packing trip likely to last more than a couple of
days). Ideally these wouldn't have to be re-chargable, as I'd like to
be able to take it on backpacking trips lasting a couple of weeks and
would like to be able to buy batteries as/when needed, to save
carrying lots of spares.

The cp3100 takes two AA's. Mine came with two 2000mAh NiMh. I
managed to get some more NiMh at a decent price, so that's what I use
all the time. I've never had to change my batteries unexpectedly ie
they have never run out at a bad time, but this may be because I
always charge them before I go out and I always carry spares. I
believe that non-rechargeables don't last as long as rechargeables.

Quoted message said:

- Not terribly expensive.

I don't know but I managed to get 80 quid knocked off just by quoting
an online price to Jessops. It still cost me £200, but that was a
year ago. They're probably free with Fruity Loops nowadays.

Quoted message said:

- Easy to operate. If necessary, I can get my head round a manual,
but I find it's a pain to have to give what sound like complicated
instructions if I just want to hand it to someone else to take my
piccy.

On my website, the flower pics are taken with the close-up mode. All
the others are point and click (or maybe I did use the landscape
setting?? I can check from the meta information written to the file).
Anyway, it can do shedloads of stuff........ or leave it on the point
and click setting..... and get some pretty good shots most of the
time. (Like a sheep eating a banana.)

[I've just found that I've exceeded my file space limit with A*L.
Grr! I'll really have to look at the site Fran uses. It's miles
better than what I've got. :-( I've taken out one photo and it
should fit now. Buggerit .... it's staying like it is!]

Judith

Quoted message said:

Any ideas?

In article <[email hidden]>, Judith
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Will allow me to take clear, close-up pic's of small things like
insects, small flowers etc. This is important.

Hm? Judge for yourself at http://hometown.aol.com/goofif It has a
"close-up" setting but I find it can't get as close as I want. I
can't remember what distance the user guide says it will take photos
at .... but I think they exaggerate!

You have every reason to be pleased Judith - very nice pics.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk