Jump to content

Field Gear choice


Ridge Runner

Recommended Posts

Ok, Question for you all. If you could have only 1 camera with 1 lens to take quality photos of your hunts in the field with your 4 legged companions, your 2 legged companions, guns, birds, and covers, what would that combination be?

 

For simplicity sake, please limit the choices to:

 

     Sensor size rather than Manufacturer or Specific model. ie. 1”, 4/3”, crop sensor, full sensor.... 

     Camera Class - ie compact, mirrorless, dslr, ...

     Lens - Prime lens only, no zooms, so what single focal length.

 

Thank you.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look forward to reading responses.  I like your prime lens only constraint.  

 

What i'd really love to find is a rugged, water resistang camera about the size of a pack of smokes that can be very quickly yanked from the pocket and snap a perfect pic of points and such.  very few buttons,  big buttons and near instant startup time.  not sure what focal length is best but maybe 75 or so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scratch full size cameras because you won't carry it. They heavy and bulky. No article of upland clothing will allow ease with a full size body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reasonably new model smart Phone. Android or iPhone. I’m completely serious. They take astonishing photos. A good deal of the photos you see in print magazines are now from phone cameras. I feel bad for professional photographers the same way I felt sick for myself as a professional graphic designer, when “desktop publishing” and personal computers turned everyone into a “graphic designer”.

 

(For clarity: I do believe that the level of expertise and quality of images and quality of design from professional photographers and professional commercial artists eclipses what the average person can accomplish.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brad Eden said:

Any reasonably new model smart Phone. Android or iPhone. I’m completely serious. They take astonishing photos. A good deal of the photos you see in print magazines are now from phone cameras. I feel bad for professional photographers the same way I felt sick for myself as a professional graphic designer, when “desktop publishing” and personal computers turned everyone into a “graphic designer”.

 

(For clarity: I do believe that the level of expertise and quality of images and quality of design from professional photographers and professional commercial artists eclipses what the average person can accomplish.)

 

My cousin takes mind blowing pics with her phone and free photo processing/editing software that she mostly just uses for filters.  Yet none of my pictures are even in the same ball park as hers even though I have a better phone.   I don't understand it because I have some craftsmanship, but every photo I take is an embarrassment.  

 

So I'm convinced, a good photo is at least 80% photographer, 20% equipment.   I think maybe a good photographer can just see the picture before pressing the button the same way Michelangelo could see the carving in the stone before ever touching it with a chisel.   Its like a magical ability to se the full potential of what can be done with the tools and material at hand.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MAArcher said:

 

My cousin takes mind blowing pics with her phone and free photo processing/editing software that she mostly just uses for filters.  Yet none of my pictures are even in the same ball park as hers even though I have a better phone.   I don't understand it because I have some craftsmanship, but every photo I take is an embarrassment.  

 

So I'm convinced, a good photo is at least 80% photographer, 20% equipment.   I think maybe a good photographer can just see the picture before pressing the button the same way Michelangelo could see the carving in the stone before ever touching it with a chisel.   Its like a magical ability to se the full potential of what can be done with the tools and material at hand.

 


Read this Tips Topic. Some tyros can take some good photos. That’s evident here on UJ. To create truly outstanding photos with whatever is in your hands does take some artistic talent and taste and training. I agree with your 80/20% ratio for professional graphic design as well. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ridge Runner said:

Ok, Question for you all. If you could have only 1 camera with 1 lens to take quality photos of your hunts in the field with your 4 legged companions, your 2 legged companions, guns, birds, and covers, what would that combination be?

 

For simplicity sake, please limit the choices to:

 

     Sensor size rather than Manufacturer or Specific model. ie. 1”, 4/3”, crop sensor, full sensor.... 

     Camera Class - ie compact, mirrorless, dslr, ...

     Lens - Prime lens only, no zooms, so what single focal length.

 

Thank you.  

 

 

 

My answer speaks only to field use of a camera - i.e. carrying a camera to take pics when actively hunting.  When out doing photography per se, the rules change completely because you can carry much more stuff, change lenses, etc - you aren't trying to climb though brush in bad weather, manage athletic dogs, shoot a gun, etc.  When I'm trying to photograph rocky mountain bighorn sheep, for example, I use an ILC system with a long telephoto lens - a very heavy, clumsy, costly and delicate rig.  I'd never even think about trying to carry that rig while hunting.

 

8-29-20 - Badlands Bighorn Sheep - 3

 

The question is a non-sequitur for me, because I'd never choose a prime lens as my only lens in the field; and cell phones compact cameras, etc., almost never have prime lenses and almost always some form of zoom.  Beyond that, bigger is better when it comes to sensor size, but bigger sensors make for bigger, heavier cameras, which tend to be left home.  DSLR's are pretty much obsolete these days - mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras ("ILC's") do everything a DSLR can do with less weight and mechanical complexity.  BUT, how many people will carry spare lenses with them in the field when using an ILC?  I'd guess virtually no one.  So, even mirrorless ILC's are probably more weight and bulk than needed simply because you won't be using the ILC feature in the field.  Effective focal length depends on sensor size, so simply saying 50mm is the perfect focal length for a field camera is totally meaningless without first knowing the size of the sensor.  Given a full-frame sensor and being stuck with only a fixed focal length (even though there's no reason whatsoever for that), I'd probably go with something around 70mm.

 

Your criteria don't take into account at all two VERY important things in a field camera - namely focus speed and burst rate.

 

I have two approaches to the issue. 

 

One is for when I want to make super-high quality imagery and am willing to accept a lot of limitations.  Then, I carry my Sony RX1r II.  This is unique piece of equipment because it is a compact camera that can be carried in a (decent sized) pocket with a 42MP full-frame sensor.  You get those features (small size and full frame) together only because it has a fixed Zeiss lens - 35mm - basically a mild wide angle - not ideal for most hunting type pics - so it is a specialty tool - not a general purpose camera.  Also, it was very expensive.  Its forte is crystalline landscapes.  But, in the right circumstance (close subject), the images can't be matched by anything other than another full-frame camera, all of which are VERY big, heavy and costly.

 

11-22-16 - Chase working sogrum and timothy - B&W

 

Almost all of the time. I carry a Sony RX100 (currently the RX100VII).  This camera is about the size of a pack of playing cards.  It has a 1" sensor, a 24-200mm (equivalent) zoom range; lightening fast focus and a 24 frame-per-second burst rate for action shots.  It has many capabilities - almost as many as my ILC or the RX1r II.  It is really an amazing piece of technology in a tiny package.  The primary downside of this camera is that, since it is so tiny, it is hard to make adjustments quickly in the field, but it has three memory registers that allow near instant section of pre-set shooting parameters.

 

It's great for typical hunting photography:

 

9-6-20 - Point - 1

 

 

9-23-20 - Point!!

 

Real fast action shots with the high burst rate:

 

1-16-20 -  Rick's Hunt - Maddie point - 2a

 

 

1-8-20 - Bliss at work - 1d

 

It even serves as a decent landscape camera in a pinch to shoot stuff you come across in the field:

 

9-3-20 - Old prairie ranch house - B&W

 

The image quality of the tiny RX100 isn't quite as good as the RX1r Ii with the full-frame sensor, but I defy anyone to tell the difference on the reduced resolution images I post here.  It takes a very large and fine print to show the IQ differences.

 

Yeah, cell phones can take some decent pics these days, especially the newer ones.  I often use mine for snapshot-type stuff.

 

8-4-20 - Sailing - 8

 

Even sometimes for landscape stuff if I don't have anything better:

 

12-12-20 - View from the mountain trail

 

But, in the eyes of a discerning photographer, cell phone images can't hold a candle to those created with good, modern cameras.

 

Finally, I agree that, as with shooting, once you have functional equipment, the Indian is much more important than the arrow.  A lousy photographer with  $10k Leica is going to make lousy images; and a great photographer with a cell phone is going to make great images.

 

B&W Dog - 2

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the quality photos that members take and post on the forum. That said, when I'm hunting, I'm hunting and photos are more of a "grab a memory" variety that my point and shoot Pentax W90 has done a pretty good job of over the years.

My smart phone is a close second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...