The harsh conditions are the conditions of riding an on/off road
bicycle ... that's not particularly harsh, there's nothing any more
fragile about a DSLR that wouldn't also affect a film SLR in those
conditions. Both would survive just fine if packed properly for the
endeavor.
If I carry a simple mechanical film camera, I need to carry film to
use in it. 36 shots takes up 1.5 cubic inches of storage. If I carry
a Pentax *ist DS, I can fit 97 RAW image files on a storage card
device the size of a postage stamp, and a single set of AA lithium
batteries will run 1300 exposures. Carry four 1G storage cards, a
spare set of batteries, and save images in RAW format when
appropriate: you need nothing else, and have room for 2000 photographs.
That's much more compact than carrying film and it isn't subject to
the kind of damage that film would be if you're mountain biking in
hot climates.
Godfrey
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Oh, c'mon Rob ... speaking as a lone voice crying in the wilderness
of the
digital landscape (my apologies to Edward Abbey), I'd not consider
taking a
DSLR (certainly not as the only choice) into some of the places and
on some
of the journeys I've been. But then the question was about harsh
conditions, not remote and harsh conditions.
All the paraphernalia that people seem to carry with them when
shooting
digital (cards, batteries, downloading devices, sensor cleaning
stuff, even
computers) would really be a hindrance when travelling "close to the
ground."
In my mind a simple, strong mechanical camera that can be operated
without
batteries if necessary and a few lenses that lack "features" is the
way to
go.
BTW, I read a lens review some time ago in which five or six lenses
were
compared, and one was given poor marks for not having a full range of
features. For the longest time I couldn't figure out what features
a lens
needs, or could have, beyond the ability to focus.
Shel
