Here's the thing: My main vacation activities are hiking and warm-water kayaking. None of these cameras would be useful for water sports because they are not waterproof. And I have a bad back, which means I cannot carry a heavy pack. An additional pound and a half for a camera is too much. I hike well-prepared, with all the clothing, gear, food, and water I'm going to need for the day, and I already cut it close. There's no way I'm carrying one of these cameras hiking. And I really don't need a long zoom for hiking. Nor do I stop much for pictures. I pull out my little elph 110, turn it on, snap a picture, turn it off, and slip it back in my pocket, all without stopping.
What this all means is that a camera for polar bears would be a one-use thing. If I ever returned to Africa, I'd use it there. It would have been really nice to have in Katmai, Alaska, but I probably won't be going back there again in the next few years. I have no other trips planned in the next couple of years, and I don't anticipate any for the next year or two after that, where I could take a heavy camera. I had hoped to get a nice long-zoom camera for $300. I could justify that within the overall (high) cost of the trip to Churchill. That's why I liked the 410: For $180 I could consider it just one more needed expense for the trip. But when I realized the processor in it is not even as good as my elph 110, it no longer seemed adequate.
So I've decided that what I really need to do is rent a camera, if that's a thing. If I could rent a $1,000 camera for one week for $200 that would be well worth it to me. I'm going to visit the camera stores after my upcoming trip and see if that's a thing.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39271-04ff6ce1fbcda2b0d41ad7ee08cff91a.jpg?1619738950)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34055-9c9c587b8094b98e1010fe73cead6994.jpg?1619736255)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34056-de7cd932b4cd702c2f77e0f5c9ec1aa2.jpg?1619736256)
