Camera or new Spotting Scope?

[Catscratch]

Carryover from the Still Holding thread...

I love taking pics and have opportunity to take some good shots. Currently using my phone attached to a really cheap spotting scope. Here are some examples of pics I'm taking. They could be much clearer! Most of the pics I take are 175yds or shorter. Would my money be better spent on upgrading the spotting scope or a good camera? What camera would you recommend?

Bigbendmarine and DJN already gave some good advice, just curious if anyone else wanted to chime in. Figured it would clean up that thread, and maybe get something more specific started.

 

[Belchertown Bowman]

Nice pics

Camera

 

[Suburbhunter]

If your into pics go with a good camera and a telescopic lens. Looks like you may be more into taking good pics as opposed to long range glassing? I can't help with a camera.

 

[bzb_1]

I bought a Nikon D5100 around 7 years ago. It was a big purchase for me but I do not regret it at all. I was going to Africa with my wife for our honeymoon. IMO buy a good one and it should last you.

 

[Catscratch]

Not interested at all in long range glassing, just want better pics. I like taking pics with my phone because it's easy to work with them afterwards. I would give that "ease" up to get better pics though.

Thanks for your guys's comments and advice!

 

[Tap]

I'd go with a decent camcorder.
Still pics are okay, but I can make still pics from screenshots of video footage.
I have 2 tripods set up in my home to watch plots. One is a decent spotting scope and the other is my camcorder. Guess which one I use the most? I'm choosing the camcorder 90% of the time.
Plus, I can do things with a camcorder that you can't do with a spotting scope, but not really vice versa.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[bigbendmarine]

Most of the megazoom cameras will capture fairly good video. Footage in the link was captured with Canon SX60 and with not a ton of light.

Footage filmed in bright light can be extremely detailed -- picture I shared in the other thread of an egret eating a fish was actually a screen grab from video I shot with the Nikon P1000 at 200 yards (though again I'd recommend smaller megazoom than the P1000 due to excessive camera size / weight).

 

[Catscratch]

Cool! Most of the pics I have are screenshots from video I took (once again... phone through spotting scope).

bigbendmarine - Is the P1000 harder to deal with than a spotting scope? The reason I ask is because I'm used to using the scope and it might/maybe close to what I'm used to.

 

[bigbendmarine]

Catscratch, let me answer that last question two ways... first directly comparing it to spotting scopes, I'd say that you may well be less bothered than others would be as the P1000 when fully extended really does kind of resemble a spotting scope length / mass wise.

Now the answer from a slightly different perspective. Is it worth the extra length, cost, weight, mass in comparison to the other superzooms like the P900, SX70, Lumix options, etc, and I'd say not likely unless you're going into private investigation work, just LOVE taking moon crater shots all the time, and EVEN THEN the other superzooms work adequately too.

Will share a few videos I think may prove helpful. First, this one REALLY speaks to exactly why I'd likely recommend AGAINST the P1000, and specifically, I'd say go to the 54 second mark in the video to the 1:49 mark. First, note just how big the P1000 is. More importantly, to one of my previous points about buying extra distance that ISN'T really worth it you can see that the further out you reach the heat signature will make footage less impressive, haze becomes more apparent, and the SLIGHTEST of movements make for Blair-Witch camera jumpiness... you'd almost have to bolt it to a rock to make it have zero movement when fully zoomed out. I can have mine filming from my tripod and when fully extended even walking in the room makes it appear jumpy at such long lengths.

In fairness to the camera, OTHER than the bulk and weight I've enjoyed shooting it and like it's "bird" mode as the spot metering seems decent in the mode -- usually results in decent shots. This video is probably the most favorable speaking to the positives of the camera on Youtube.

I can't encourage you enough to get to a local box store to put hands on options if you can so you have a real world feel for just how different the sizes are among the cameras. If it weren't for the mass / bulkiness I'd probably like my Nikon P1000 better than my Canons... BUT... even as a 6'3" man weighing in at about 210 whereas I don't even feel / notice the Canon SX60 strapped around my neck, when I put the P1000 strap around my neck the camera want's to hang at an angle downward, most definitely constantly feel it, makes driving in my mule a challenge to keep it from knocking against the mule frame, etc.

 

[bigbendmarine]

And in helping to compare why I say I actually think the 1200mm range of the SX50 camera is really all you need for most zoom / wildlife shots, let me share pics I took about 6 or 7 years ago with the SX50, again at 1200mm (versus the 3000mm of the P1000).

First, here's a moon shot taken witht the SX...



And here's sequences of photos taken during travels, with each starting at max zoom out moving towards max zoom in. First a few captures from the Big Island...



Look closely near the middle of the picture above and there's a black sand beach visible just to the left of the closest breaking waves. Here's a guy walking on that beach looking at his phone! Granted the photo is grainy as I even used max digital zoom to reach out as far as possible, but still shows JUST how far even the 1200mms can reach out...



Here's pictures from a Disney cruise... first pic will be from max zoom out but the others are taking zooming in and panning around different portions of the pics you'd never notice if not for the zoom...








And again, these were taken with an SX50 that was the technology out about 7 years ago, with 1200mm range that's half that of the P1000, from a camera that is MUCH smaller, and lighter, and with newer models in that same 1200mm range now almost all having at least 1080 video capabilities and many having 4k video even at the highest optical zoom ranges. And all this with fixed lens cameras that don't require carrying multiple lenses, swapping out lenses, or manually doing much adjustment at all / truly point-and-shoot for the most part, and that for around 3 to 4 Benjamins. For those my age (50s) old enough to remember photography back in the 70s, CRAZY just how far photography has come in just a few decades.

 

[Catscratch]

I can't even begin to say how much these pics help! Thank you.
I can't watch the video's at the moment but will asap.

Let me ask you this (as you seem to be into camera's and probably have more than you need); do you have a camera that you don't particularly want anymore... a camera that fits my needs... a camera that you would sell at a greatly reduced price? Lol, I'm joking of course (sort of).

 

[Gravel Road]

bigbendmarine,
Great pics! Is the SX50 camera fairly quiet? Can you turn it on in a tree stand and not spook game? How about the shutter sound?

 

[Mortenson]

Those pics are remarkable. I feel like I'm using a retro flash bar, or trying to decide if I should pay extra for the next day processing and double prints, compared to where you're at.

 

[Catscratch]

bigbendmarine, I watched those video's... you're not doing a great job of talking me out of the P1000! I'll take your advice though and find one in a box store that I can hold in hand before I make any major purchases.

I'm new to all this tech (probably right with Mortenson's comment above). What are important things to consider in a camera? I heard "sensor" a lot. Pretend I don't know the basics and need to be able to not mess up a purchase. Don't want buyers remorse type of thing.

 

[bigbendmarine]

bigbendmarine,
Great pics! Is the SX50 camera fairly quiet? Can you turn it on in a tree stand and not spook game? How about the shutter sound?

Few things... not sure how easy it'd even be to get a SX50 anymore as it's been updated first with the SX60 and now SX70 models, though they're all fairly similar (slightly higher zooms on subsequent updated models).

As for filming from the tree stand - I do so regularly. Below's a video I did this year on opening day. What I will say is it makes a bit of whirling/clicking noises when I'm turning on / zooming in and out but not crazy loud and usually easily drowned out from the game by ambient noises such as squirrels, cars from roads few hundred yards away, planes, etc. I do try and actually take advantage of such ambient noises when I can for cutting the camera on, off, etc, but to date can't recall every spooking game with noise. Do think camera glare, black of camera case (haven't bothered camo'ing yet) may have gotten attention from few wary does / spikes but never enough to make them leave plot.

Jump forward to about the 2 minute mark for actual plot footage taken with the camera. Most of the footage was probably filmed from distances of 30 to 100 yards, though footage of deer closest to the stand later in the video was good bit closer.

When light is decent, I often use the camera as my bino option though I carry a good bino too. I've found being able to zoom in and film helps me more on buck identification. With lower light, I reach for the binos.

 

[bigbendmarine]

I'm new to all this tech (probably right with Mortenson's comment above). What are important things to consider in a camera? I heard "sensor" a lot. Pretend I don't know the basics and need to be able to not mess up a purchase. Don't want buyers remorse type of thing.

Sensor size is DEFINITELY the compromise of many of the megazooms, Catscratch, but is also why the cost is reasonable for the fixed lens megazooms. It is why I stressed in the prior thread (and maybe this one) that low light is NOT the strength of the megazooms. With good light, images can be good with small sensors -- this is why bright cell phone pics can be good and why some of the brighter images / videos I've shared contain fair detail. But with low light you're going to get quite a bit more graininess / softer images. Even though I like making good camera captures, I'm not trying to sell them so don't care if a pic of one of my nicer bucks taken close to dark is a bit more grainy. Until it's almost too dark to see even with the eye, I can STILL ID bucks and get fair video - emphasis is on "fair"... it's just not going to be tack sharp. Take a look at the video I shared above and you can see with the pics / video I captured closest to dark that you lose fine detail such as fine hair pattern, sharp lookiing grass, etc. If I were aiming to take professional tack sharp images close to dark with the goal of selling them to publications I'd need to pony up at least a few thousand bucks for a true DSLR with a big sensor and a mega-zoom attachable lens... but that's just not my personal goal at this time.

 

[Gravel Road]

Few things... not sure how easy it'd even be to get a SX50 anymore as it's been updated first witht the SX60 and now SX70 models, though they're all fairly similar (slightly higher zooms on subsequent updated models.

As for filming from the tree stand - I do so regularly. Below's a video I did this year on opening day. What I will say is it makes a bit of whirling/clicking noises when I'm turning on / zooming in and out but not crazy loud and usually easily drowned out from the game by ambient noises such as squirrels, cars from roads few hundred yards away, planes, etc. I do try and actually take advantage of such ambient noises when I can for cutting the camera on, off, etc, but to date can't recall every spooking game with noise. Do think camera glare, black of camera case (haven't bothered camo'ing yet) may have gotten attention from few wary does / spikes but never enough to make them leave plot.

Jump forward to about the 2 minute mark for actual plot footage taken with the camera. Most of the footage was probably filmed from distances of 30 to 100 yards from me, though footage of deer closest to the stand later in the video was good bit closer. When light is decent, I often use the camera as my bino option though I carry a good bino too. I've found being able to zoom in and film helps me more on buck identification. With lower light, I reach for the binos.

Thanks for taking the time to write and share. Very valuable to get first hand knowledge and advice. Of course, now I NEED one

 

[bigbendmarine]

And some quick examples of stronger light versus lower light detail will probably be VERY useful, especially if viewed on a larger desktop screen (on cell they'll all look fairly similar detail wise).

Here's detail with shots taken with decent light...





Now a few with slightly less light...





Versus some pics closer to dawn and dusk... if viewed on a desktop screen they'll look appreciably "softer" / less detailed and tack sharp.

 

[bigbendmarine]

In that last one you can start to see quite a bit of "graininess" -- partly due to quite a bit of zoom being employed, but also partly due to smaller sensor struggling to capture detail close to dark. Fine for my purposes of ID'ing bucks, but most mags wouldn't buy such a photo for publication.

 

[bigbendmarine]

Video does good job explaining sensors...