h a l f b a k e r y
Alas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Not that I would want to intentionally
place my camera in harm's way, but maybe
sometimes I'd like to go someplace
slightly hazardous, where bumps could
occur and maybe there's some debris
flying around, like Iraq or my little
brother's birthday party. Better safe than
start off with a cage around the camera
(ex. RED cage, link). From there you can
put on the secondary cage--the "shock
cage." This cage suspends the camera in
its center using bungees or straps. You
need the inner primary cage so that the
tension is equal on all sides of the camera.
Additional protection could be added to
the secondary cage as necessary, like a
debris cover or various protection front
[Eugene, Oct 10 2006]
||Mercatroid! That thing must weigh 50lbs. With the secondary cage you're going to be hefting around quite alot of camera. Good for war zones I think but not so much for back-yard use.
||I wouldn't mind a shock-proof cage for photographers though! :)
||I don't see the need for the inner cage though. An elastic web would probably be sufficent. Then a light plastic outer cage a cm or so away, and you could probably throw that camera like a rugby ball.
||Or you could just make the camera so solid that it'll just dent any surface it falls onto while sustaining no damage at all - e.g. the Nikon F3.
||This reminds me of a CCTV camera that I placed under a car shredder, to monitor for blockages of shredded scrap.
The 8 inch cubed box was made from 1 inch steel plate, and the viewing port was 1 inch thick perspex with 1/4 inch sacrificial polycarbonate on the outside.
It used to regularly suffer direct hits from pieces of broken crankshaft, and explosions from not-so-empty fuel tanks.
But it was firmly anchored to the concrete, so it's not quite what you have in mind...
||hippo, - or one that is so cheap that it really doesn't matter what happens to it, eg, a disposable camera, or worse, a Lubitel. Actually, I've got a lot of respect for disposable cameras - they always give better results than one thinks they're going to.
||50 pounds? Not if it's aluminum (still
can get pretty heavy) or carbon fiber
(gets expensive). The inner cage is
probably a good thing. I'm talking about
a video camera, not a still camera, and
the one I have in mind weighs about 8
||Video? 8lbs? Should have mentioned that in the original idea.
||A standard underwater housing should do. Waterproof to several atmospheres also means dust proof, rain proof, bump proof etc. Probably wont stop an armor piercing round but neither do tanks. A stiff snug housing is better than one with springs for any shocks up to the resistance of the camera itself and if it cant take what the springs are able to deal with you might think of using another body. Why cameras arent rain proof as a standard Ill never know. A polarizer filter is a standard precaution for lenses. Cheep to replace if scratched or broken.
||I'm just paranoid I guess.
||My D50 is rainproof. Probably. I took it out
twice in the pissing torrential rain last
week, got it thoroughly soaked each time,
and it's still working. Although, one
of the rubber grip bits is falling off now.