Submerged camera holds functional memory card two years after accident

After capsizing in the partially frozen waters at Kejimkujik National Park, the Collins family was far too busy being alive to worry over a silly sunken camera. As fate would have it, the ole Canon Powershot that was lost eventually turned up, as a park maintenance worker managed to spot the device sitting aimlessly upon a rock. Granted, the body was in fairly deplorable shape after braving the elements for two solid years, but the memory card tucked within seemed to be relatively unharmed. Upon testing it out, the employee found some 300 pictures taken on the day in which Mr. & Mrs. Collins nearly perished, and apparently, the card was still in tact enough to be read. Eventually, the couple managed to pick up the camera / card and bring home those slightly eerie memories, but no one ever found the loner who snapped up the couple's misplaced cellphone and ran up calls to Zimbabwe 'til the battery died.

[Via FarEastGizmos]

[Cheeze @ Nov 17th 2007 10:16AM]

I'm surprised the pictures didn't fade and have frayed edges.


***news flash*** in 50 years, those pictures on that memory card will still be 100% digital and 100% perfect as the day they were taken.

[computer.dude.28 @ Nov 17th 2007 10:25AM]

I think when it says "good-as-new condition", it means that there was no corruption on a memory card that had been underwater for two years.

[Luigi193 @ Nov 17th 2007 10:37AM]

That was a dumb comment........

[T-Bone @ Nov 17th 2007 12:51PM]

Can you guys say "sarcasm"? I thought it was pretty obvious.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Nov 18th 2007 1:00AM]

A better comment would have been:

Will it still function after it goes in a blendtec blender?

[Shane @ Nov 17th 2007 10:37AM]

This does not surprise me...I have had memory cards in my pocket go through the washer and dryer and still be 100% functional. As long as there is no power applied to the cards while wet they should be just fine (not that I would recommend dunking your memory cards in liquid). In addition, most memory card types are sealed well enough that water should not penetrate the outer casing (some CF or PCMCIA cards might be an exception to this). Even if water DOES get into the card drying it out should be enough to get the data from it.

The real question is...Did the camera itself still work after drying out? That would be MUCH more impressive...

[Shane @ Nov 17th 2007 10:46AM]

Before the smartass responses start, yes, I KNOW that the camera did NOT in fact survive in this case.

The only way this would have been possible is if there were no batteries in the camera when it was submerged AND if it has been quickly pulled from the water, taken apart, rinsed with clean water, thoroughly cleaned and allowed to dry. Electronics get submerged all the time and CAN in fact survive if appropriate action is taken quickly enough.

[Ricardo @ Nov 17th 2007 10:53AM]

Cameras can be bought again, pictures can't. Therefore sometimes the memory card is much more valuable than the camera, so you should be glad that only the camera was damaged.

And if you ever drop a digital camera in water just throw it out and buy a new one. Even if it's fast the damage is done already. Remember that there are many mechanical parts, not only electronic ones.

[getz76 @ Nov 17th 2007 11:40AM]

Actually, Shane, CF cards are considered the most durable of the formats, especially regarding their tolerance for temperatures and the ability to resist faltering during the rinse cycle.

[Shane @ Nov 17th 2007 11:45AM]

I would agree...However, certain CF cards are more rugged than others. Some have the casing secured with metal tabs and not really sealed very well. Others are completely sealed. SD cards, while physically smaller, tend to be completely sealed in my experience. In general I prefer CF but SD would be my second choice.

[Urza @ Nov 17th 2007 3:20PM]

Eh. My girlfriend dropped her RAZR phone in a storm drain once, while on and batteries full. It was in there about 2 hours, completely submerged. She pulled the battery, took it home, let it dry...it's still working fine, about 9 months later. Wasn't pulled out quickly, batteries were in it, was never taken apart and cleaned. Water did penetrate though, you could see it in the screen.

[Shane @ Nov 17th 2007 6:26PM]

@Urza:

My Treo 650 wasn't quite so lucky...It had been dropped in a gutter and by the time I got it back it was toast. I suspect if whoever found it had left it off and not tried to power it back up it might have been fine.

The RAZR, on the other hand, seems a bit more rugged. My sister dropped hers in a hottub and the phone itself still works but though the earpiece doesn't.

[coffeepot64 @ Nov 17th 2007 8:26PM]

@Shane
"The RAZR, on the other hand, seems a bit more rugged. My sister dropped hers in a hottub and the phone itself still works but though the earpiece doesn't."
I bought a RAZR V3 about two months ago and the speaker quit working within a week. I got a replacement that has similar difficulties. i.e. it works when it wants to. I have noticed however, there seems to be some connection between the volume of the buttons and the ear speaker. If I turn off the annoying beeping sound when I push the buttons I have to use the speakerphone option to hear the people I talk to. Interestingly enough, this has been the reason I have replaced all my motorola phones previously. I know now not to buy them anymore. I think its a manufacturers defect.

[BowserUSC @ Nov 18th 2007 5:34PM]

@coffeepot64

Um, I've had the Razr V3, the V3x, the V9 and a bunch of other moto phones and I have never had the problem you're talking about. I always turn the button sounds off and my ear piece speaker is the same as with the button sounds on. I think you're turning the sound for the entire phone off, instead of just changing the option in the sound settings.

[Shane @ Nov 17th 2007 11:06AM]

In general I agree. If I were in that situation I would care a lot more about the pics than the camera itself but it would depend on the camera.

I actually own three cameras...A low end point-n-shoot, a higher quality point-n-shoot and my DSLR. I would be much more likely to simply replace a point-and-shoot digicam than I would a nice DSLR...But then again, I probably wouldn't expose my DSLR to situations where it could potentially be in harms way.

The Canon Powershot from this story is probably no huge loss. He seemed more concerned about his glasses...

In any case, my family's safety comes before the equipment...Equipment is easy to replace, pictures may be harder to replace but a life can't be replaced...

[muddyh2o @ Nov 17th 2007 11:29AM]

while a life cannot be replaced, i hear that News Corp is working on the technology for Rupert Murdoch, the closest thing we have to a real Montgomery Burns.

[Arthur Bandentree @ Nov 17th 2007 3:16PM]

Actually you can get a new family pretty easily, lot's of fish in the sea and kids up for adoption, etc. Sometimes camera models are end-of-lifed and you have to hunt for second hand.

[Z @ Nov 17th 2007 11:19AM]

This is good news to me, when I take my cameras to holiday knowing both my cameras are almost/totally water proof - a Cannon PowerShot a40 and a Sanyo CA65.

[tiuk @ Nov 17th 2007 11:27AM]

Anyone who has ever seen the effects of water on a roll of film can appreciate the resilience of memory cards.

[Josh @ Nov 17th 2007 12:57PM]

Another good reason for using CF cards over SD and whatever sony has these days. CF is capable of taking a beating, the things are solid (solid state too)

[Grant G @ Nov 18th 2007 2:23AM]

i don't think SD would have suffered much worse than the CF did.
The only reason i think the memory card could have really suffered was if it fell out of the camera and didn't have that big plastic barrier around it and the pins to keep the contacts unrusty.
While CF casing is a beast, usually a good SD card is melted to one solid piece and even though the contacts on SD are more prone to rusting, i think it would have worked just the same.

All in all, i don't think this story is too miraculaous, since the card was safely inside the camera, and it sat on the shore and dried out for who knows how long before it was found and used again.

[Bobs @ Nov 17th 2007 9:57PM]

You just made me think about something, as long as there isnt any pressure, would the surface tension of water keep the water out of the little holes on a CF card? would the little air .. oh, wait, if its still in the camera, what does it matter then? worst that could happen would be corrosion, but that could be fixed i think. with those SD cards, i think water would leak into the little slot whare the lock slider thingy is.

[NobleArc, The Lazy Canadian @ Nov 17th 2007 2:05PM]

My mother took our family camera out on a hike a while ago, and ended up submerging it in water when her water bottle split in her backpack. She didn't even notice 'ti she had gotten home. Sadly, the first thing her and my dad did was try to turn it on, thus pretty much ruining what *little* chance we had with it. Furthermore, the second thing my dad did was take it completely apart, and was unable to put it back together properly.

Anyway, we have a new camera now, and it takes XD cards instead of the SD ones our old camera did. That SD card still works though, and as soon as I get one, I'mm'a use it with my Wii.

[Paul @ Nov 17th 2007 2:47PM]

You know they aren't lying about the camera being over 2 years old when they mention the CF card.

[Jeff @ Nov 17th 2007 9:28PM]

Yeah, because no cameras use CF cards anymore... *cough*

CF is and always will be standard in SLR's, which are the fastest growing digital camera market segment. It's not as common in compact cameras (and never was), but that's a shame, because it is a superior format. In addition to the format's toughness, the main advantage is that the controller is on the card. With SD, the controller is in the camera. That's why CF cards are a little larger, but what it means is that a year down the line, you can buy a larger, faster CF card and get all those benefits in the same camera. With SD, your camera is the limiting factor, and all you can do is buy a new camera if you want more speed and capacity than it'll support.

Anyway, I'm a little shocked at how some people here seem to think that the main problem with a piece of electronics being submerged in water for two years is that it gets wet. No, the main problem is *corrosion*. What are they teaching you guys in school these days? After two years, I would expect a plastic and metal memory card to be close to gone in most types of water. Whatever body of water this was in has got to be pretty low in corrosive elements, especially judging by the photos.

[pwnies @ Nov 17th 2007 5:14PM]

I'm actually not surprised about this. I live in Hawaii and on occasion I'll find digital cameras underwater when I'm free diving (lots of clumsy tourists sadly). The cameras are generally rusted through from the corrosion from the salt water, but the memory cards are almost always fine after you wipe off the contacts. I've had one that I found about 60 feet down and had been under for a year (judging by the date on the pictures), and the memory card was fine.

[Nimajus Bagdonavicius @ Nov 17th 2007 5:42PM]

Big deal... I've been thrown in an Ocean (saltwater) with an xD card in my pocket. After a short swim I took out the plastic card holder in which I saw the card and the gold contacts floating separately in remaining water. Next day I used Elmer's glue to stick it the contacts to the card itself. It worked and the pictures were saved, although after a second try (had to reverse the contacts to get it working).

[Mark Richardson @ Nov 17th 2007 8:26PM]

"Upon testing it out, the employee found some 300 pictures taken on the day in which Mr. & Mrs. Collins nearly perished, and apparently, the card was still in tact enough to be read."
Well, that was redundant. Well, that was redundant.

[strider_mt2k @ Nov 17th 2007 9:59PM]

-and the images stay crisp even in milk!

[Bobs @ Nov 17th 2007 10:00PM]

EXACTLY what i was thinking before i rolled down to your post, while corrosion might be fixable, ive never seen the inside of a CF card to be sure. as far as SD over CF, id say that it does write faster now that i think about it. Ive used SD cards mainly, but on occasion i get to toy with one of the big people DSLRs, and those use XD or CF, and write a much larger file faster than the SD cards do on my crappy 3MP camera

[jahfar @ Nov 17th 2007 10:43PM]

fantastic

[Robert Barbieri @ Nov 17th 2007 11:35PM]

My dad dropped his RAZR into his coke class and left it there for 4 hours. Still works to this day.

[Jhanathan @ Nov 19th 2007 12:06AM]

I swam with my Gameboy Advance Sp in my pocket with Pokemon in it, and I let it dry for a couple days and turned it on, and everything was perfectly fine, except the stickers on the bottom of the Sp.

[Kevin @ Nov 22nd 2007 12:08PM]

My wife put our camera through the washer after I came home from a trip, it was tucked in some cargo pants. I took the camera apart and let it dry out for a week and supperisingly it worked.