Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire School me on digital SLR's

Just a couple of points from someone who made his living with a camera for several years (newspaper photographer, wedding photos and free-lance wildlife photographer). I was really late to the digital camera scene as I had a LOT of top quality film equiptment. For years the digital cameras that were available were convinient, but definitely lacking in quality to film cameras. About 8-10 years ago Pro photographers quite saying "digital is "almost" as good as film" and dropped the "almost".....that's when I got in.

What I've found is that, for the non-professional photographer, a good quality point-and-shoot digital is all they will even want or need. They are lighter, smaller and take excellent photos with a little practice. For many (maybe most) a true SLR camera is not needed and may not even be prefered due to size and un-used features (if you are going to only shoot in "automatic" mode, why pay for the extra features).

However, for those who have experience with good film cameras or want to set up to more sophisticated photography.....the SLR is the only way to go. Lens selection and control over photos let you do things that no point-and-shoot can match.

As someone else mentioned, don't get carried away with the mega-pixel ratings. Any SLR with 8-10 mega-pixels will allow prints of 8x10" that are outstanding. Only a true pro (who may blow up photos to poster size or more) can really used the high-end cameras.....and will pay a high-end price to do so.

The real secret (and a better place to spend your money than more pixels) is in good lenses. The osprey photo above is a good example (by the way a very nice photo). While the 15 mega-pixel camera DID allow the center of the photo to be blown up without loss of quality.....the same thing could have been done with an 8 mega-pixel camera and a longer lens (maybe 500-600mm. Use the lens to get close.....not crop and expand....and you won't find the need for huge pixel count.

Brand is a personal thing, but I would choose either a Nikon or Cannon due to better accesories and lenses available. For years the Nikons ruled the roose for pros, but in recent years the Cannons have taken over primarily due to better lens.....particularly the Image Stabalization lens.

In a Cannon, the Rebel series is very good. Not a "pro" camera, but probably as good as a typical ameture can utilize. One benifit is that the Rebel series tends to be quite a bit lighter than a true "pro" camera. I personally like a heavier camera (probably because of years of useing heavy film cameras) but the average shooter likes less bulk.

One thing to consider is a good used camera instead of new. Digital cameras are good for several tens of thousands of shots and due to the rapid advancement of technology often appear on the used market with very little use in them. Seems a LOT of photographers have to always have the latest and greatest.....which means cameras that were "top=of-the-line" just a few years ago now sell for a big discount. cameras just one or two steps down from the "best" can be had for less than 1/2 what they sold for new. E-Bay is a very good sourse for these cameras as are larger photo stores that take trade-ins.

One thing to watch (particularly if you have a lot of experience using film cameras) is the sensor size used in most digital cameras. What you see in the veiw finder is NOT what you get in a photo. The image captured will be about 20% smaller than what is seen.....as if the image was cropped. This can throw you off if you are used to framing pictures in the veiw finder like a film camera. If you are new to SLR cameras it won't be such a big deal as you will learn from the start to properly frame an image in the digital veiw finder. The "advantage" to this is that, for all practical purposes, your lens will be effecively 20% longer. A 300mm lens will take digital pictures as if you were using a 360mm lens......which can save a LOT of money when going to longer lenses.

There ARE a few digital cameras that use full-size sensors, but they are for the most part true "pro" style cameras and cost more and give up the "advantage" of effective lens length. They are however, easier for old film shooters to adjust to......we like the "what you see is what you get" effect. One of the better, and most inexpensive, full sensor cameras is the Cannon 5D......but don't overlook the older (less pixels) "pro" style cameras out there on the used market. They will serve most shooters very well.

Welcome to the world of digital.....you will never go back! If all you want is a few me-and-joe pictures, family photos and staged kill shots a good point-and-shoot may be your best bet, but an SLR will open up a whole new world of photography. makes the off season so much more fun when you can continue to "hunt" year round.....with a camera!

That's alot of good information that is easy to understand...thanks.
At first glance, it would seem the point and shoot Super Zooms are the answer for alot of us amatuer/occasional picture takers. What do you say?

TexasRick, that was a great post!

ive got a Canon 40D and several point and shoots.....out hunting i like having both but the SLR rarely gets far from the truck, im already packing a rifle and small pack and dont want to pack the SLR so i pack a good point and shoot....if im going out specifically for pics and not hunting i haul the SLR...reason is the weight factor....ive got a point and shoot thats the size of a deck of cards and is always in teh pocket ready for action at a moments notice, if im hunting the SLR is usually in the pack and doesnt get used....

for me the answer is both and use each for its strengths.....nice pics use the SLR, quick snapshots the P&S is always handy.....not necessarily the ideal solution for everyone but i find its what works for me....

Rattler's logic is fine. We do the same, as I don't want to risk a highend unit while wading chest deep down a river steelheading or crawling across some alpine avalanch chute. A good pocket camera can still save the memories.

Very good post TexasRick.

Lots of outstanding info! Thanks all! I'm going to read back through these replies, do some more research, and contemplate it all over a few days of deer hunting this week

--Duck911

Next one I buy will probably be a D90 - for three reasons - one the Nikon system, two, the automatic CCD cleaning system, and the HD movie mode.

Canons are fine, but call me a loyal Nikonista

For just a few hundred $ more, check into the new D7000 rather than the D90 for better HD video and sensor and more focus points.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/

Our copy of Consumer Reports came yesterday, as luck would have it. Matt's recommendation of the Canon G11 came out right near the top of recommended models. And it's well within the stipulated budget.

I have a G10. It's a good camera for what it is but nowhere near the camera even an entry level SLR like a T1 is.

On the other hand I have access to great SLR lenses and they are what make the difference...............................DJ

For $500 you can get a Nikon D3000, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS or a Sony A390. Of the three I would go with the Canon or Sony. I have heard that the D3000 is not exactly Nikon's best effort and it is being replaced by the D3100. For around $700 you can get the Nikon D3100 or D5000, the Canon Digital Rebel T1i, the Pentax K-x or the Sony A33. Sony has bought out the Minolta line up of digital SLR's.