Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Cameras: suggestions on brand etc.?

Hey guys: Stick's photos and my seeing deer all over the place as I drive home the past few nights have re-awakened a desire to get a really good quality camera for outdoor photgraphy. I'd like to be able to zoom in a white tail from 50 yards to fill a photo. I actually took a basic photography course a dozen years ago but remember none of it because I had my dear sweet wife as a dark room partner and we were teenagers at the time.... SO - I know zip about photography except point and shoot. Can anybody recommend an easy to use camera with a telephoto attachment that is reasonably sturdy and suitable for outdoor results? Would I be better off going digital?

Mike,<P>I have and use both film and digital cameras. If a quality physical print is your desired result, you can rule out digital (especially if you have any plans to enlarge your print significantly). There are digitals out there that can produce outstanding quality prints. Some even come close to the quality of prints from traditional film, but the cameras that produce them are prohibitively expensive for most. <P>I have been working with cameras in some capacity for going on 25 years. I find it hard to beat a good quality 35 mm SLR (Single Lens Reflex). Brand is a matter of personal choice. You would be hard pressed to go wrong with any camera from Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, or Canon. This is a short list. There are certainly other brands out there that are of comparable quality. <P>I personally prefer Pentax, but that is probably because that was the brand my first camera body was. As a result, I accumulated accessories that work with the Pentax brand. I, of course, when buying subsequent camera bodies chose Pentax so that I could use all the accumulated paraphernalia with it as well. Something to keep in mind when you buy! <P>The trick is to go out and look at a few cameras and buy what feels good to you. I personally try to avoid a lot of the auto everything models. I do not own an auto focus lens, and in many cases do not use the auto exposure modes on my cameras. The ability to control the exposure and focus on your own allows you to produce some very nice photos. <P>Good photography involves a lot of experimentation. One instructor that I had told us to shoot ten times as many shots as you think you need and you will probably get one or two great shots. At the time the advice seemed ridiculous, but in retrospect I realize he was right. The times when I stopped and took several different shots from different angles and took the time to bracket my exposures always produced one or two good images.<P>You mentioned that you would like to be able to fill the frame with a deer at fifty yards. That is going to be harder than you think. Even a good SLR with a 300mm lens is probably not going to allow you to fill the frame with a deer at that distance. When you start going to lenses longer than 300 mm the price will start to go up sharply. However, that does not mean you are out of luck. With a good quality camera, lens, tripod, and film you should be able to produce some decent photos. If you get some good shots, you can have those cropped and enlarged for framing or your album. <P>Well, that�s probably enough rambling. What about the recommendation that you asked for? Here it goes:<P>1) Camera body: Pentax ZX-M or Nikon FM-10. Both good basic SLR cameras. You can�t go wrong with either.<P>2) Lenses: A 35-80 zoom and an 80-200 zoom. These are rough numbers. You may find a 28-70 and a 70-210, but you get the idea. The 35-80 will probably be on your camera most of the time. It will allow you to take nice landscape shots and snapshots. The 80-200 will be used when you want to stop and take some shots of wildlife. When buying a lens, be sure to look at the maximum aperture. Better lenses will have a larger maximum aperture. This is rated by the F-number. A lower F-number notes greater maximum aperture. For example, an F 2.8 lens has a greater maximum aperture than an F 4.0 lens. Greater maximum aperture means that you can use a faster shutter speed in low light. You may also want one lens with macro capabilities. A macro lens will allow you to take close up shots of plants, etc. <P>3) Film: Kodak or Fuji print film rated at ISO 100 and 400. Slower film (lower ISO number) will produce better quality prints, but it will require longer exposures or a larger aperture. <P>4) Tripod: Any good SOLID tripod. This is not the one for $20 at Wal-Mart. You want one that stays put in the wind and wont break the first day in the field. You will need the tripod when using the 80-200 at its maximum focal length. Wildlife has a funny way of presenting itself in low light conditions. That usually means that you are going to be using relatively slow shutter speeds. Slow shutter speeds at long focal lengths lead to blurred pictures. Even shutter speeds that are reasonable at shorter focal lengths (1/125, 1/60) will be too slow to handhold at 200+mm. A good rule of thumb is that the reciprocal of the focal length is the slowest shutter speed you can handhold. So, at 200 mm, the slowest shutter speed you could use effectively without a tripod is 1/250. <P>5) Accessories: Cable release (for taking shots at slow shutter speeds with your tripod), UV filters to fit you lenses, and polarizing filters to fit both lenses. The polarizing filters really make a difference for outdoor photography. They let you filter out glare from the sun, increase contrast, enhance the colors in yours photos, etc. The UV filters are cheap insurance. They fit on the front of your lenses and protect them. You are going to be using this camera outside � A LOT! You will probably carry it on the seat of your truck. Better that you scratch a $15 filter instead of a $200 lens! The filter can be replaced cheaply. The coating on your lens can�t! <P>6) Case: You will eventually have a substantial investment in this stuff. Get a good hard sided, foam-lined case that you can customize to fit your equipment.<P>Hope this helps. I am sure that someone on the board can add to these recommendations. If you have any questions about what I have posted, please feel free to contact me at standebickarcticmail.com.<P>Stush<p>[This message has been edited by Stush (edited April 21, 2001).]

Stush: That is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for. I know that it took a lot of time to crank all that out, and I appreciate it. I think you are right it is just going to take shooting lots of film to find out what works. I had a magazine ask to use a few prints I took with my 35mm Canon (auto everything). That has me thinking that I should really upgrade my gear if I want to get more in print. It'll be fun to learn. If it wasn't any fun I couldn't call it a hobby right? Thanks again and I'll definitely give you a holler when I gather new gear and have a billion more questions! Mike.

Mike, good advice from Stush. I've published a few photos and have a bunch more selling in several galleries, here in CO. I really like the Canon stuff. An EOS A2 or Elan II are great camera bodies that you can either run auto or manual. If you can afford it, their "L" series lenses are impossible to beat. Their newer ones have an optical image stabilization feature that absolutely NO OTHER manufacturer can come close to. I just helped a friend of mine get set up with some good gear for a trip to Africa. Canon A2, 100-400L zoom, 1.4x extender, Sigma 28-300 compact zoom, flash, Bogen tripod and grip ball head, Canon GL1 Video camera. (insert Tim Taylor grunt here). He is SOOOOO set! I just love spending other peoples money!

Mike,<P>Muley Stalker raised a good point. There are many wide range zooms available on the market. Something in the range of a 28-300 zoom would cover all of your bases. It MIGHT be a little larger and heavier than a 28-80, but then again some of the newer 28-200 lenses that I see are significantly smaller than my older 28-80! It may be to your benefit to buy one lens. You could probably afford to spend a little more and buy a good quality lens with a good maximum aperture (you will also hear this called a "fast" lens). If it were me, I would look for a lens that would open up to F4 or greater. I personally prefer lenses that open up to F2.8 or more, but you will soon find that you pay a premium for more aperture. It is well worth it though because game never seems to present itself at 20 yards in a sunlit field! <P>------------------<BR>Stush

.<p>[This message has been edited by 10point (edited April 28, 2001).]

Stush, great advice all, just going to add my $.02 worth.<BR>I've been a photography guy forever, and if the best in quality is the goal, then you pick up Leica's with their own glass in several fixed focus lenses. But, most of us would have to mortgage the house to do so.<BR>Cameras and lenses are so good right now it really is amazing. Pick any of the major brands, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta with autofocus, through the lens exposure control, and the small flash built into the camera. Seems like the pros still like Nikon and Canon the best. I like the Pentax's because so many accessories are available for them because they've been so heavily copied in lens mounts and flash controls.<BR>Do yourself a favor and just get the Tamron 28-200 or 28-300 and don't look back. It is an awesome lens. You will NOT carry both lenses all the time if you go the 28-80 and 80-200 route. Save the extra effort for the spotting scope in your pack. <BR>When you are in the field simple is best. You don't want to be changing lenses and giving the opportunity for water, dust and who knows what to get into the body.<BR>If you so decide you want more reach on either end of the lenses, add a 17 or 20mm lens and a compact 500, 600 or 800mm mirror.<BR>Rarely will you take the time to use your tripod for photography, but if you're packing a spotting scope you'll have one available. You can use your self-timer instead of a cable release if you set it up on a tripod. Have set the camera on a rock or pack and used the self-timer many times to get myself in a picture.<BR>Finally, on the premise that any camera is better than no camera, don't be afraid of the new breed of pocket cameras. Get the widest range of zooms possible, but last year we knew were headed into elk but would have a ton of work ahead of us and tried to lighten our loads. I left my SLR behind and of course we got two beautiful elk! We did have a pocket camera, but kicked myself for leaving the "big" camera behind. The fixed lens pocket camera worked, but the SLR would have been better!

.<p>[This message has been edited by 10point (edited April 28, 2001).]

Feel like I�m walking up to a bunch of bench resters and saying �Hey, look at the neat 10-22 I just got�, but what the heck.<P>For my upcoming trip I bought a little Pentax IQZoom 120 35mm, i.e. it zooms from 38mm out to 120mm. Thought about the choice quite a bit, also had the great good fortune to meet up with a photo geek behind the counter instead of a salesman. I say �photo geek� with the greatest thanks. He gave me lots of good, objective advice and so here�s why I went that way.<P>I had a 35mm Pentax SLR 25 years ago with 28mm through 300 mm telephoto lenses. If all you want to do is go and take pictures it was great. Had to carry as much kit as a backpack elk hunter. (Okay, not quite, but it seemed like it at times.)<P>For hunting, the idea has already been expressed. A camera is better than no camera. The little Pentax will ride in a pouch on my belt and take up no more room than an Uncle Mike�s 10 round folding ammo carrier, so belly crawl stalks won�t be a problem. I saw the salesman�s personal pictures taken with a Pentax IQZoom and they were excellent quality. Sure, he knew what he was doing, but you only need to learn a few simple functions on the LCD to get the picture you want. I already know some basics of picture composition from having the SLR and also from tips learned here on the board.<P>I originally wanted to get a bigger zoom, but he reminded me of a photonic fact. You know how the bigger power scope or binocular you get, the smaller the exit pupil and the �darker� the image will be with a certain objective lens size? Well, that same basic principle holds with cameras. Zoom out to 200mm (I�m guessing 6X magnification) and that�s a small lens to look through on a little pocket camera.<P>Anyway, if the idea is to maximize the picture taking potential, then certainly nothing beats a good SLR. And so if the idea is nature photography by itself then maybe this post is way off target. But the Pentax automatic was a good compromise for picture quality and especially portability. As I was trying to say in a post a while back, sometimes the biggest and best is not the best fit for a certain need. This little automatic fits my needs as a hunter better.<BR>

Well time for ole "no" to be dumb again. I dont know anything about cameras, just shooting pictures when not catching fish or shooting game. Carried a Kodak Retna a1 a thousand miles several years ago hunting in the mountains, several hundred slides from that. Then to a 35mm SLR Cannon Autofocus Sureshot Supreme 38mm 1:2.8, use it for hunting and occasionally taking pictures fishing. Small enough to carry and takes good pictures for a hunter. -- Then to a 35mm SLR Pentax Zoom 105 Super f38mm to f105mm, I am the Bass Club photographer and they use our pictures in the paper which doesn't mean anything for quality. Between the Cannon and Pentax we have several years of photos in our albums that are pretty good for just someone taking pictures.<BR>I have a Minolta XG9 with a 45mm lense, adjustable everything along with a Soligor c/d zoom plus macro 80-200mm 1:4.5 with a Tiffen 55mm to 62mm step-up and a Hoya 62mm skylight(1B). Enough adjustments on that telephoto to fly a spacecraft. The camera has an auto film winder on it. Just after I purchased that camera I discovered the ease of AUTO cameras and it has set in the closet until now with many accessories like a Minolta auto 25 hot shoe flash and several filters. The camera case is shot but everything in it is like new. For sale or trade to you camera jockeys. Make offer to me75410yahoo.com -- no<BR>The Minolta XG9 has the books with it, still in the plastic.<p>[This message has been edited by need one (edited April 23, 2001).]

Mike,<P>You should figure out exactly how much time and effort you are going to put into your photography, will it be a second hobby, or are you doing it just to take good pictures of trips and hunts.<P>I guess its because my father has been into photography as his primary hobby, as when it was time for me to get a camera, or rather the one I had died, I got a Nikon SLR, with two lens, a 35-80 and 80-200, spent right at $1000 for the rig. We've had it several years, and I have barely used any of the features the camera offers. I'm simply not going to sit down and fiddle with the thing, its hard enough for me to figure out how to frame a picture. If I was more into photography, the features would pay off, but often times I don't take the camera due to the bulk, as well as its value. I've only put the 80-200 lens on the frame twice, too much of a pain to carry it. <P>If I were to do it again, I'd get the highest end point and shoot there is, I believe Leica's top end one is only $400, and would be really better matched to my needs and use.<P>Top end stuff is nice, and definately takes nice photos, but figure out what best matches your needs.

I tote a Minolta Maxxum 7Xi body and use a 28-200mm lens,99.999% of the time. I bought 4 other lenses before that one and it replaced all of them,for general duty. <P>I purchased that particular body for several reasons. Foremost,were it's superb onboard flash,30second to 1/8000 second shutter speed and 4 frames per second "rapid fire" capabilities. All of those features are housed within the body and powered by the onboard battery. <P>There are superior bodies now available,but these features suit my needs. The 28-200 or 28-300mm lenses(as previously mentioned by other posters) is THE way to go. I would definately go the 28-300mm route and never look back. A camera is no better than it's lens and such a wide zoom is invaluable,in my estimation.<P>The high-end superpowered lenses,are beyond my means,though I'd love a GOOD one. I am not an astute photography student,but the above mentioned combo of good quality body and large high quality zoom,are pretty difficult to beat. <P>Lott mentions the Leica point and shoot and I was very high on it,due to favorable reports. A friend purchased one for a Kodiak Bear Hunt and he was greatly disappointed. Perhaps he got the one lemon,that Leica produced? The picture quality suffered,despite the light conditions being fantastic. He's returning it(hopefully).<P>A "full-size" SLR is a pain in the azz,but the results can't be duplicated by any other means. I'll gladly tote that amount of weight,for such predictable and unsurpassed results. Your mileage may vary.........

Mike, for a full featured SLR 35 for what you need without mortgaging the house, look at the used racks. Used cameras are a dime a dozen, since so many guys into photography are almost as bad as gun nuts in that they always have to have the latest and greatest. One thing different though, they usually sell their existing hardware to finance the new stuff- usually when there is nothing at all wrong with it.<BR>I have an old Pentax MX manual camera. I like it because it is totally manual, the only thing on it that uses the battery is the light meter, so if you have a dead battery you can still take pictures as long as you can use a flash or figure out the exposure (a buddies' meter reading perhaps, or whatever you guesstimate). I used to use it for weddings, portraits, etc... until I gave that up for unmentionable reasons (okay, okay, I stunk at it!) The biggest reason I liked the Pentax MX and ME is because of their compact size which made them perfect to pack in my back pack when hunting, fishing, rafting, etc... The lenses are compact also so I could carry a few accessories and not overload my pack with just photo gear.<BR>Just make sure if you get a used camera that you take it to a good camera shop and have it checked out for timing, shutter speed accuracy, and whatever needs to be looked at on that particular model. <BR>Camera shopping can be almost as much fun as gun shopping- wellllllll, maybe I exaggerated that a little bit, but it can be great when you get some great pictures back- and if you don't spend so much, you don't worry so much about leaving it in the car where it should be when you need it!- Sheister

Wow. And I thought all you guys were techno-knuckle draggers like me. You not only know your guns, but gear too. You have me sold on the 28-200 or 28-300 SLR. My Canon seems to be working for point and shoot so I will probably try to stay with that brand unless I find a real bargain. I can't see mortgaging the house or even worse selling guns to fund another hobby at this point so I'll check into used (I love Ebay) and have fun learning. Thanks again folks.

Mike,<P>Sheister makes two very good points. The used stuff in the camera world is usually in great shape, and the prices can't be beat. The second is in regard to the manual camera. I have a Pentax K1000 that I have in the car on every trip. The only thing that requires battery power is the light meter. If it dies, I can apply some simple rules and still take pictures. The best way to guess the right exposure without a light meter is the "Sunny F16" rule. In full sun, your exposure should be F16 and the reciprocal of your film speed or the equivalent. So, on a sunny day with 100 ISO film, you could set your shutter at 1/125th and the aperture at F16 (could also use 1/60th at F22 or 1/250 at F11, etc.)and get a relatively good exposure. Bracket your exposures and you will get at least one good shot. If you are in full sun on the snow, use the "Sunny F22" rule. Same logic as above. If you have a wiz bang autofocus camera, the only thing you can do without a battery is use it as a paperweight! I have been there. Very frustrating.<P>Some of the other guys posted in regard to the point and shoots. I don't think that is what you had in mind, but they do have good point. If the camera is too bulky, you probably won't want to cart it around. I keep thinking about picking up a new lens for that very reason. My 60-300 is an older Tamaron that is fairly bulky. The lenses that are on the market now are less than half the size of it. It may be to your advantage to pick up a used camera body and a new, more compact lens. The point and shoots do have their place. I rarely, if ever, carry my SLR when hunting. I instead pack a little point and shoot Pentax or even one of the "higher end" (if there is such a thing) disposable cameras. Less bulk while I am hunting, and if I slip and smash my pack against a tree I am not cringing thinking about what I just did to my SLR. When I am just out for a walk, or taking a drive, I take the SLR - you can't beat the picture quality. <P>Good luck!<P>PS - Just checked out Ebay. Try <A HREF="http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=k1000" TARGET=_blank>http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=k1000</A> if you are looking for a K1000. There are some good bodies on Ebay for less than $100. Hard to go wrong at that price. Add a new lens and a few accessories and you'll be ready to go!<P>------------------<BR>Stush<p>[This message has been edited by Stush (edited April 24, 2001).]