# Best camera for bears - beginner needs advice



## daniel1948 (May 12, 2016)

Hi. I've just booked a trip to Churchill, Manitoba, to see the polar bears, and I'd like advice on what camera to buy.

My present camera is a Cannon PowerShot elph 110 HS with 16.1 MP, image stabilization, and 5X optical zoom. Point-and-shoot. I know next to nothing about photography, and this little camera is easy to carry when I go hiking in the mountains and gives me pretty decent pictures. I'm not a terribly serious photographer. I have no aspirations to winning any photography contests. I just like to have some nice pictures of the places I've been.

I know some theory (a little) but have no practical ability beyond point the thing and press the button. I intend to try to learn how to get the most out of the camera, but just in case I turn out to be a complete dunce, I'd like it to have point-and-shoot capability. Image stabilization is a must. I will not be making any poster-size prints but I want the pictures to make full use of the retina display on my 12.9-inch iPad Pro (2732 X 2048 resolution at 264 ppi). 

I'd probably be happy enough with my present camera, but for the bears I'm going to want more zoom because while they occasionally come very close to the tundra buggy, there can be some great shots that are too far away for my little 5X camera to do much with. I was in Alaska to see the brown bears, and while I had a great experience with my 8-24X binoculars, there were times when the binoculars let me see the bears just fine but my pictures were worthless with the meager 5X zoom. (Though there were other times when the bears came quite close and I got some very nice pictures.)

For a budget, I will say $400 tops, for a camera that really fits my needs perfectly, but I'd prefer to stay under $300 otherwise.

Attempting some research, but really not knowing where to begin, I see on Amazon there's a Nikon Coolpix L330 with 20 MP and 26X zoom for $174, and there's a Cannon PowerShot SX410 IS for $179 with 20 MP and a 40X zoom. But I have no idea how to judge between them or any of the other many cameras out there.

Does it even matter? Are all modern cameras similar enough that only a professional or very serious and knowledgeable amateur could tell the difference? The only thing I am relatively sure of is that I don't want to have to deal with multiple lenses or anything heavy. I've seen folks with one-and-a-half or two-foot-long lenses on their fancy cameras, and they got spectacular pictures, but that's beyond my ambitions at this point.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

If you are specifically wanting photos of polar bears then you either need one of theses or stop by the gift shop and buy some post cards.  They are not critters to play with & $400 is not going to get you the kind of reach you need. 
Photographer Michio Hoshino Killed by Bear





For bears you want a minimum of 400mm (I wouldn't use it for Grizzly or Polar bears) and more like 600 to 800mm focal length.  You might look at something like this.  Nikon  COOLPIX P530 Digital Camera (Black) 26464 B&H Photo Video
This might be a better choice, but out of your price range. Nikon COOLPIX P900 Digital Camera 26499 B&H Photo Video

If you need range then these are what to look at.  Point and Shoot Cameras, Compact Digital Cameras - B&H


----------



## Designer (May 12, 2016)

Talk with the guiding company and ask them what they recommend.  As for a range of cost, too, if they will give that.  I have seen those big tour busses get fairly close, so a really long telephoto would be wasted expense.  A DSLR if you can swing it, and a nice zoom lens like a mid-length such as a 70-200mm and maybe rent a long lens for those times when the bears are simply too far away.  You can rent a lens for a week and turn it back in when (if?) you return to civilization.


----------



## Designer (May 12, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> For a budget, I will say $400 tops, for a camera that really fits my needs perfectly, but I'd prefer to stay under $300 otherwise.
> 
> Attempting some research, but really not knowing where to begin, I see on Amazon there's a Nikon Coolpix L330 with 20 MP and 26X zoom for $174, and there's a Cannon PowerShot SX410 IS for $179 with 20 MP and a 40X zoom. But I have no idea how to judge between them or any of the other many cameras out there.
> 
> Does it even matter? Are all modern cameras similar enough that only a professional or very serious and knowledgeable amateur could tell the difference? The only thing I am relatively sure of is that I don't want to have to deal with multiple lenses or anything heavy. I've seen folks with one-and-a-half or two-foot-long lenses on their fancy cameras, and they got spectacular pictures, but that's beyond my ambitions at this point.


If $400 is tops, then you might as well forget a DSLR, as an entry-level body and entry-level lens is about all you'll get for that budget.  

Here's the problem with the compact cameras with 40x zoom.  Yes, it's an optical zoom, but the lenses and sensors just aren't up to the same quality of image that you will get with a DSLR.  And zooming out to 40x an hand-holding your camera will likely result in blurry photos.  Even when the tour bus stops, you just can't hold the camera steady enough to get sharp photos of something that is several hundred yards away.  

Those folks with the really large lenses are shooting at the upper limit of reach and at the limits of shutter speed and ISO as well.  Even with a clamp-on tripod clamped to the bus window it's still at the practical limits of their expensive gear.  

Your best bet with your compact camera is to carry some bear bait to toss out the bus window.  When the bears stand up to reach into the bus, get your shot and move quickly to the other side of the bus.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 12, 2016)

Canon SX60HS refurbished from Canon for under $400 if you check daily, one may show up. Pretty nice camera for the money. 

Another choice 139.00
Canon PowerShot SX520 HS Refurbished | Canon Online Store

Another choice 239.00
Nikon COOLPIX P530 | Read Reviews, Tech Specs, Price & More

Or this
Nikon COOLPIX L840




Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## daniel1948 (May 12, 2016)

Some information about how the polar bear tour works: First off, we are never on the ground outside of the town of Churchill (which is patrolled by locals to keep themselves safe while out of doors in town.) We will transfer from buggy to lodge well above the reach of the bears. It would indeed be suicidal to venture out on foot onto the tundra during bear-watching season. Unlike grizzly bears and brown bears, which very rarely attack people, polar bears will eat you if given half a chance, and they are starving at that time of year, since they've had nothing to eat while the sea has been free of ice. Which is why we are not allowed to set foot on the ground.

The bears come right up to the buggy and the lodge. You don't need one of those humongous lenses like Gryphon linked to to get good pictures. I actually got some decent shots with my little 5X point-and-shoot. The enormous lenses produce spectacular pictures at great distances. But even a 15 X zoom should be a big improvement over my 5X zoom.

My problem is that I don't know enough about cameras to judge between the ones available. But perhaps I'm asking in the wrong place, given the hum-drum nature of my goals, and the very amateurish kind of camera I'm looking for.


----------



## jaomul (May 12, 2016)

Fuji do an S1 bridge camera that was marketed as being some way weather resistant, has a 50x zoom, inbuilt stabilization, WiFi and a rotating screen, good enough reviews, might be worth a look


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> Some information about how the polar bear tour works: First off, we are never on the ground outside of the town of Churchill (which is patrolled by locals to keep themselves safe while out of doors in town.) We will transfer from buggy to lodge well above the reach of the bears. It would indeed be suicidal to venture out on foot onto the tundra during bear-watching season. Unlike grizzly bears and brown bears, which very rarely attack people, polar bears will eat you if given half a chance, and they are starving at that time of year, since they've had nothing to eat while the sea has been free of ice. Which is why we are not allowed to set foot on the ground.
> 
> The bears come right up to the buggy and the lodge. You don't need one of those humongous lenses like Gryphon linked to to get good pictures. I actually got some decent shots with my little 5X point-and-shoot. The enormous lenses produce spectacular pictures at great distances. But even a 15 X zoom should be a big improvement over my 5X zoom.
> 
> My problem is that I don't know enough about cameras to judge between the ones available. But perhaps I'm asking in the wrong place, given the hum-drum nature of my goals, and the very amateurish kind of camera I'm looking for.


The problem with the concept of 5X or 15X is it is meaningless with out understanding the focal lengths involved.  A 1mm to 50mm is a 50X zoom and a 1mm to 100mm lens it a 100X zoom.  That is why I detest the X's concept, it is virtually meaningless unless you understand focal length.  To know what you need you need to know how far away they will likely be from you.  

Don't underestimate Grizzly, Black or Brown bears, especially this time of year.


----------



## manaheim (May 12, 2016)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02373/polar-bear_2373506k.jpg


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

manaheim said:


> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02373/polar-bear_2373506k.jpg


Which is why you never ever use a 70-200mm for bear.  

FYI.  In a vehicle or not one of these is your friend.  I'm never without one when in the back country in a vehicle or on foot.


----------



## chuasam (May 12, 2016)

Depends on how brave you are.


----------



## manaheim (May 12, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02373/polar-bear_2373506k.jpg
> ...



I'd be amazed if that would even phase a polar bear.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

manaheim said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


Three chambers loaded with Hornady LEVERevolution Ammunition 44 Remington Magnum 225 Grain Flex Tip and three chambers loaded with either Cor-Bon Hunter Ammunition 44 Remington Magnum 320 Grain Hard Cast Lead Flat Nose Box or 44 Mag 240 Grain FMJ.  You can stop damn near anything with that combo.


----------



## Solarflare (May 13, 2016)

Designer said:


> Your best bet with your compact camera is to carry some bear bait to toss out the bus window.  When the bears stand up to reach into the bus, get your shot and move quickly to the other side of the bus.


 You cant be friggin serious.


----------



## KC1 (May 13, 2016)

Just have a backup plan.


Cameras are useless for bears, they lack the dexterity to press the right buttons and without an opposable thumb they'll just bat it around and break it.


----------



## Designer (May 13, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Your best bet with your compact camera is to carry some bear bait to toss out the bus window.  When the bears stand up to reach into the bus, get your shot and move quickly to the other side of the bus.
> ...


(joking of course)

And... yes... I apparently had to write it.  Just in case, you know?


----------



## daniel1948 (May 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The problem with the concept of 5X or 15X is it is meaningless with out understanding the focal lengths involved.  A 1mm to 50mm is a 50X zoom and a 1mm to 100mm lens it a 100X zoom.  That is why I detest the X's concept, it is virtually meaningless unless you understand focal length.  To know what you need you need to know how far away they will likely be from you.



Thank you. This is the kind of information I need! In the back of my mind I know about focal length, but I never connected it with cameras. (As I said, I'm not a photographer, just a guy who likes to snap some pictures of the places I go and the things I see.)

So I did some reading on line about focal length. The SX 410 I mentioned in my first post has a range from 24 mm to 960 mm. And it gets very good reviews on Amazon (probably from casual, not serious photographers, given its low price). My little camera goes from 24 mm to 120 mm, so the 410 will go considerably farther.

As for all the comments about guns, those people seem to still think that I'll be walking around among the bears with a chunk of seal blubber tied around my neck. One does not do that unless one is tired of life. In Churchill there are sirens to warn if a bear has come into town, and the bear is trapped and put in the bear jail until the ice forms and it is transported out onto the ice, and outside of town we are never outside of the vehicle or the lodge, both of which are inaccessible to the bears. The windows and viewing platforms are so high up the bears cannot reach them. We are much safer there than I will be driving from my house to the airport.

BTW, the bears often come right up to the buggy or lodge and sit, looking up at the windows for a considerably time, making for good photo opportunities. I have a hypothesis about this: They think the windows are like holes in the ice. They hunt by waiting by an air hole for a seal to come up for air. I think they sit under the windows waiting for one of us to come out, like a seal coming up for air. Fortunately, we have enough air inside the buggy and don't need to go out where the bear is in order to breathe.

Bears are super-cool, beautiful animals. Bear attacks are so rare that when they happen they're national news for a week, and they usually involve people who went into deep wilderness alone, or were engaged in extreme activities or just not paying attention. And even then your chances of being attacked by a bear are vanishingly small. Meanwhile, if the news reported all traffic fatalities there'd be no room to cover anything else. You're safer on a well-run bear-viewing trip to Churchill than you are at home in bed. The drive to the airport: that's the dangerous part.


----------



## gsgary (May 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> If you are specifically wanting photos of polar bears then you either need one of theses or stop by the gift shop and buy some post cards.  They are not critters to play with & $400 is not going to get you the kind of reach you need.
> Photographer Michio Hoshino Killed by Bear
> 
> 
> ...


Rubbish a fisheye lens would be perfect

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (May 13, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the concept of 5X or 15X is it is meaningless with out understanding the focal lengths involved.  A 1mm to 50mm is a 50X zoom and a 1mm to 100mm lens it a 100X zoom.  That is why I detest the X's concept, it is virtually meaningless unless you understand focal length.  To know what you need you need to know how far away they will likely be from you.
> ...


While in general you are correct.  Keep in mind though that the sows gave birth to cubs back in November/December.  They are coming out with their cubs now to feed after a long winter.  Hungry sows are dangerous.  Hungry sows with cubs are very dangerous.  Bears are large and strong and have been known to rip open car doors.  For me prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 13, 2016)

I won't be in a car. I'll be in a specially-designed tundra buggy that's intended for driving out on the tundra among the polar bears, and operated by an outfit that's been doing this for years. The operators are professionals who know what they are doing.

From my first trip there, this is one of the tundra buggies, seen from the other. And a bear:







This is the tundra lodge, where we stayed:






Transferring from the lodge to the buggy we never set foot on the ground.

A couple of bear pictures, taken with my little camera:












This is a shot where more magnification would have been nice. The guys with the long lenses got amazing pictures of this mom and cubs:






And the guys with the long lenses got some really gorgeous pictures of a mom and cubs that were too far away for me to even try to capture. One of them gave me some of those, but I don't think I have permission to post them. One really cute one with the cubs hiding behind the mom, and another of them nursing.

Below: And just for kicks, a brown bear, same little camera, Alaska, June 2015. For this one a dozen or so of us with two guides were sitting on little folding stools in the meadow, as the bear ambled right up to us, until the guide stood up and shoed it away because he felt it was too close for comfort. The bears in Katmai, Alaska, have so much food that they are not a threat, as long as you're in a group, and the guide knows what he's doing. This guide has been doing this for 25 years and none of his guests has ever been eaten, though we visited one of the the actual camp sites of Timothy Treadwell, the guy who spent 13 summers among the bears of Katmai until one ate him. I'm really bad at judging distances, but I'm going to say this bear was about 20 feet from us when I snapped this picture, just before the guide shoed it away:






Edit: The polar bear pictures might have been taken with the camera before my present one. I don't remember for sure. That was another Cannon PowerShot, but without image stabilization. I don't remember exactly when I got the present one.


----------



## gsgary (May 14, 2016)

This really winds me up these beautiful animals should be left alone to live their lives in peace 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## KC1 (May 14, 2016)

gsgary said:


> This really winds me up these beautiful animals should be left alone to live their lives in peace
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


We all should.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 14, 2016)

If you really want the animals to thrive, stop the destruction of their environment, not ecologically-responsible low-impact tourism. In Katmai, where we sat in the meadows and waited for the bears to come up and have a look at us so that we could have a look at them, commercial fishing boats are taking the salmon the bears need for survival, before the fish can reach the streams. In Churchill, where we drove out onto the tundra and then parked so the bears could come up to the tundra buggy, or folks with telephoto lenses could photograph them from a distance, as well as other polar bear habitats, global warming is shortening the length of time there is ice on the ocean, which the bears need for survival.

The impact of eco-tourism on the animals is minimal, and helps to educate people about the ecological disaster that human economic activity is wreaking upon this green planet. If you are concerned about the animals, you should be speaking out against uncontrolled fishing and the use of fossil fuels, not eco-tourism. And FWIW, I've never participated in any activity that approached wild animals. Only activities that allow the animals to approach us, if they wanted to, or to stay away from us if they wanted to do that. Lots of animals find us as fascinating as we find them.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2016)

gsgary said:


> This really winds me up these beautiful animals should be left alone to live their lives in peace
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk



And yet at the same time eco-tourism is a means to which wild animals can generate revenue which in turn puts a monetary value on them and the land they live in. It's one of the cornerstones of some conservation movements in trying to get local people to accept wildlife rather than focus on removal and using the land for other "productive" enterprises. 

Although I would agree that when you've got 40 jeeps all around 1 lion its getting a bit silly. But in general a lot of animals get used to vehicles - heck cheetah are well renowned to using jeeps on safari as lookout-posts an thus will jump right up ontop of them for a vantage point.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 14, 2016)

Resources need to be managed. Some places in Africa do a poor job of balancing the numbers of people and vehicles allowed in the game parks. In Churchill we only rarely saw another tundra buggy. The few that are operating are very spread out.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2016)

Aye there must be a balance; I suspect that the tundra and nature of the beasts in question made it more expensive to setup and thus you get less competition. Whilst in Africa you just need a half capable jeep and a logo on the side and you're away (ok I'm sure its a bit more than that but still reduced costs thus more startup companies). 

There's also way more pressure on Africa in particular - years of "Big 5 in Africa" marketing has made it a hotspot.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 14, 2016)

Another issue in Africa is the poverty: The driver/guides depend on tips, and the closer they get the client to the animals, especially the big animals, the more generous will be the tips. So there is great incentive to drive off-trail and to pester or crowd the animals. There are laws against this sort of behavior, but little money for enforcement.

By Contrast, Canada is a first-world country that's better able to enforce good practices, both through monitoring and through real concern for the animals on the part of the operators and the clients. It is indeed expensive to operate polar-bear-viewing tours. The tundra buggies (see the picture above) are enormous and expensive vehicles, and they only get used for a few weeks out of the year. This also makes it expensive to go on the tours. They can afford to pay their drivers and guides enough that they can hire people who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the bears, and this concern shows throughout the tour.


----------



## katsrevenge (May 14, 2016)

What about a long lens camera? I have a P600 that takes great photos. Not as good as a DSLR.. but far less expensive than a good long lens!

Got mine used on Ebay.
Edit. I took this with it. Should be OK for white bears, LOL!




latesummer2015 by Kat M., on Flickr


----------



## daniel1948 (May 16, 2016)

I looked up the P600. The review said it's amazingly clear and sharp at the extreme end of its telephoto lens, but the trade-off is barrel distortion at the wide-angle end. The specs said it goes to 1440 mm (35-mm equivalent). Cannon's biggest telephoto lens is "only" 500 mm. Which makes me wonder if 1440 (equivalent) is really all that useful. Of course, I don't know what changes when we're talking about the digital camera "equivalent" of a 35-mm camera lens length.


----------



## Designer (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> I have a P600 that takes great photos.


No offense intended, but that is not a very good photograph.  I couldn't say how your camera would do on bears, but this shot of the moon is very soft over much of the frame and very noisy.


----------



## waday (May 16, 2016)

I definitely think we should arm bears with cameras. They'd probably need a GoPro with a helmet, but I could see them with DSLR as long as it had a waterproof housing.

They already use cell phones.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

waday said:


> I definitely think we should arm bears with cameras. They'd probably need a GoPro with a helmet, but I could see them with DSLR as long as it had a waterproof housing.
> 
> They already use cell phones.



Ok, so I guess I'm going to have to be the one that points out that time we gave them surface to air missiles.  As I recall that didn't work out all that well.


----------



## waday (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely think we should arm bears with cameras. They'd probably need a GoPro with a helmet, but I could see them with DSLR as long as it had a waterproof housing.
> ...


I think the problem was "surface to air"... I'd be ok with air-to-surface, but then we'd have to give them jets. I can't imagine that'd turn out well.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

waday said:


> I think the problem was "surface to air"... I'd be ok with air-to-surface, but then we'd have to give them jets. I can't imagine that'd turn out well.



I can see the headlines now.. ."Payback at Yellowstone"  Lol


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

Designer said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > I have a P600 that takes great photos.
> ...


You mean a photo taken with a 200 dollar camera at full zoom...at an object that is not even in our shared atmosphere... can't complete with something taken with several thousand dollars worth of pro level gear? 

Well... no shrimp there, Sherlock.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> Well... no shrimp there, Sherlock.



No shrimp?  Well that pretty much kills surf and turf night.  Geez.


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> I looked up the P600. The review said it's amazingly clear and sharp at the extreme end of its telephoto lens, but the trade-off is barrel distortion at the wide-angle end. The specs said it goes to 1440 mm (35-mm equivalent). Cannon's biggest telephoto lens is "only" 500 mm. Which makes me wonder if 1440 (equivalent) is really all that useful. Of course, I don't know what changes when we're talking about the digital camera "equivalent" of a 35-mm camera lens length.



I honestly don't know either. I read that too. What I did before I bought mine was to go on Flickr and search photos taken with various cameras and see what they looked like. For me, it was a good choice. Now, I did upgrade later to a DSLR.. but sometimes the point and shoot just makes more sense.


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > Well... no shrimp there, Sherlock.
> ...



Only turf. Unless 'surf' can mean salmon... then it's on. LOL.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> Only turf. Unless 'surf' can mean salmon... then it's on. LOL.



Have to check with the judges on that one I guess.  Lobster would work I suppose.  But still, no shrimp.. major bummer.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> daniel1948 said:
> 
> 
> > I looked up the P600. The review said it's amazingly clear and sharp at the extreme end of its telephoto lens, but the trade-off is barrel distortion at the wide-angle end. The specs said it goes to 1440 mm (35-mm equivalent). Cannon's biggest telephoto lens is "only" 500 mm. Which makes me wonder if 1440 (equivalent) is really all that useful. Of course, I don't know what changes when we're talking about the digital camera "equivalent" of a 35-mm camera lens length.
> ...



Part of my mind says that at my level of ability and discernment, there's not going to be a lot of difference between any two major name-brand cameras at similar prices, other than choices such as focal length and whether or not one wants wi-fi, GPS, waterproofing, etc. I don't feel the need for any of that fancy stuff other than a good zoom, a decent lens for the price, and image stabilization, which my little camera has, and which seems to make a big difference.

I think lobster is over-rated. Just about anything will taste good with as much butter on it as people put on lobster. OTOH, they're pretty cool to see when you're diving. I'll take grouper over lobster any day. A grouper bit me on the ear once. So a day or two later I ordered grouper at a restaurant as a revenge meal, and it was really good. Make the ocean safe for divers: Eat more grouper.


----------



## gsgary (May 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > This really winds me up these beautiful animals should be left alone to live their lives in peace
> ...


I'll stick to watching David Attenborough from the comfort of my seat with a pint of real ale, I'll also get a better view 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > Only turf. Unless 'surf' can mean salmon... then it's on. LOL.
> ...


I never saw the appeal of shrimp. Too chewy, LOL. 

But lobster.. I do like that, now.


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > daniel1948 said:
> ...



Oh yeah, my level either! LOL!! I went with a Nikon mostly because I've always had good luck with them. I just knew I wanted a big zoom lens.

I don't butter lobster much. I actually like the taste of lobster. 
As for grouper.. I'll eat anything fish shaped. Raw, cooked... whatever. Fish are delicious.


----------



## chuasam (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > katsrevenge said:
> ...


What? How are you getting chewy shrimp?
If I was a beginner trying to get near photos I would use a LUMIX FZ300 or FZ1000 If the budget allows.


----------



## table1349 (May 16, 2016)

chuasam said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


Apparently you have never had overcooked shrimp.  Like calamari if you overcook it, it becomes chewy.  Definitely not Good Eats!


----------



## chuasam (May 16, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > katsrevenge said:
> ...


What kinda monster are you? Some of the best shrimp I've had involves putting live shrimp in a pot with a heated rock about 500F , pouring chicken stock and white wine, closing the cover. When the thrashing stops, open and eat. 
Also, live and raw BC spot prawns are delicious with a dab of wasabi and a drop or two of shoyu.


----------



## Designer (May 16, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> I never saw the appeal of shrimp. Too chewy, LOL.


Your shrimp may have been overcooked.


----------



## table1349 (May 16, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Personally I do not like to eat my shrimp after it has been cooked in shrimp **** juice.  If you cook them live you have not deveined  them it results in caca-poohpooh in the water spreading said caca-poohpooh throughout the food.  MMMMmmmmm That sounds good.  Personally I prefer things like 
Shrimp Pad Thai, Roasted Basil Butter Parmesan Shrimp, Prosciutto-Wrapped Shrimp as an appetizer, Shrimp Pasta With Broccoli Pesto, Coconut-Lime Fried Shrimp With Fiery Mango-Peach Jalapeño Sauce, Shrimp Tacos and my favorite Scogilo.


----------



## katsrevenge (May 16, 2016)

I did not know shrimp was a huge thing, LOL. I've had them more than once. The big ones just squish wrong between the teeth for me.  More for ya'll.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 17, 2016)

The backup camera in your vehicle.


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

katsrevenge said:


> I did not know shrimp was a huge thing, LOL. I've had them more than once. The big ones just squish wrong between the teeth for me.  More for ya'll.


You eat the meat in the shell, not the shell with the meat.  That is unless they are deep fried.


----------



## Designer (May 17, 2016)

Designer eschews shrimp, lobster, clams, and oysters.  And anything else that feeds on the bottom.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

Clams and mussels are like chewing on pencil erasers. Conch is worse. And conch ceviche is the second-most disgusting thing I've ever eaten. I nearly barfed, and quit eating after the first bite. But Cajun catfish is really good, so not all bottom-feeders are eschew-worthy. And I once ate half an octopus sandwich at the foghorn at the end of the earth (Finisterre, Spain; the name means end of the earth, or land's end, because the Romans mistakenly believed it was the western-most point of land in Europe. There is a foghorn there, and a tapas bar.) The sandwich was really good, not tough or chewy at all, though the suckers were kind of creepy. I didn't finish the sandwich because it was *huge*. I gave the other half away. So that was another bottom-dweller that if prepared right is delicious. Spain has really good seafood.


----------



## Designer (May 17, 2016)

One favorite fish in the Midwest is "bullhead" which is a small catfish.  They are pretty good first thing in the spring, then after the lakes warm up, and they eat more nasty stuff, they begin to take on a nasty flavor.  Many Midwesterners are not aware of any difference, and eat the fish all season long.


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

Designer said:


> Designer eschews shrimp, lobster, clams, and oysters.  And anything else that feeds on the bottom.


I assume you only eat meat then. You don't want to know what's in that fertilizer used to grow fruits and vegetables.  Got to go now,  there is a strawberry patch that needs my "imput."


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Designer eschews shrimp, lobster, clams, and oysters.  And anything else that feeds on the bottom.
> ...


Okay,  I'm back now.   Next time you have strawberry shortcake for desert just think of me and the small part I played in making it sooooooo delicious.


----------



## Designer (May 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Designer eschews shrimp, lobster, clams, and oysters.  And anything else that feeds on the bottom.
> ...


Ah, yes, the ingredients in compost!  Wonderful!  

So you're saying that the debris found on the bottom of the ocean has been composted?

Manure that has been properly composted is supposedly safe for human consumption.

Which reminds me; Designer doesn't go out of his way to eat mushrooms, either.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

Designer said:


> Manure that has been properly composted is supposedly safe for human consumption.



I think I'll wait until the plants have turned it into veggies, rather than consuming compost directly, thank you very much.

I worked on a farm. We did not compost the manure before spreading it out on the field. We didn't spread it on growing crops, so it did sit in the ground for a while before anything was planted there, but still... Everything you eat, be it meat or fish or veggies, was poop once upon a time. It's the cycle of life. We came from poop and to poop we shall return. 

Some bottom-feeding animals taste good, others don't. I think it's their biology and maybe their choice of diet, rather than where they make their home.


----------



## chuasam (May 17, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> Clams and mussels are like chewing on pencil erasers. Conch is worse. And conch ceviche is the second-most disgusting thing I've ever eaten. I nearly barfed, and quit eating after the first bite. But Cajun catfish is really good, so not all bottom-feeders are eschew-worthy. And I once ate half an octopus sandwich at the foghorn at the end of the earth (Finisterre, Spain; the name means end of the earth, or land's end, because the Romans mistakenly believed it was the western-most point of land in Europe. There is a foghorn there, and a tapas bar.) The sandwich was really good, not tough or chewy at all, though the suckers were kind of creepy. I didn't finish the sandwich because it was *huge*. I gave the other half away. So that was another bottom-dweller that if prepared right is delicious. Spain has really good seafood.


You people don't know food 
The chewy texture is the point.
Unfresh blood cockles (ark shell) is far more disgusting and smells like death.
Sea squirt is rather gnarly and I would add it to disgusting things. Too much iodine.
Bears taste ok but depends on what they eat. Bears that feed on berries are decent, bears that feed on garbage are rubbish.
Really fresh crab is delicious. Raw crab preserved in soy sauce or chilli paste is great on steamed rice.
Sri Lankan mud crab is awesome with black pepper or a chilli based paste.
Blue Crab is awesome boiled with Old Bay
Sea Urchin is so fricking amazing.
Alaskan King Crab isn't a crab but incredibly delicious.

Best camera for bears is a DJI Inspire 1 v.2


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Best camera for bears is a DJI Inspire 1 v.2



I'd probably crash the damn thing!


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

Designer said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...


Actually the debris at the bottom of the ocean has been processed organically by the critters that eat it to supply the needed proteins, carbs, nutrients etc. to sustain life.  As for mushrooms, fungi is absolutely delicious and in some cases quite expensive. 

Me thinks that Designer should stay in Iowa and not travel too far from home.  You my friend would starve to death in most parts of the world.  

"What is Reincarnation?"
A cowpoke asked his friend.
His pal replied, "It happens when
Yer life has reached its end.
They comb yer hair, and warsh yer neck,
And clean yer fingernails,
And lay you in a padded box
Away from life's travails."

"The box and you goes in a hole,
That's been dug into the ground.
Reincarnation starts in when
Yore planted 'neath a mound.
Them clods melt down, just like yer box,
And you who is inside.
And then yore just beginnin' on
Yer transformation ride."

"In a while, the grass'll grow
Upon yer rendered mound.
Till some day on yer moldered grave
A lonely flower is found.
And say a hoss should wander by
And graze upon this flower
That once wuz you, but now's become
Yer vegetative bower."

"The posy that the hoss done ate
Up, with his other feed,
Makes bone, and fat, and muscle
Essential to the steed,
But some is left that he can't use
And so it passes through,
And finally lays upon the ground
This thing, that once wuz you."

"Then say, by chance, I wanders by
And sees this upon the ground,
And I ponders, and I wonders at,
This object that I found.
I thinks of reincarnation,
Of life and death, and such,
And come away concludin': 'Slim,
You ain't changed, all that much.'"

Wallace McRae


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Best camera for bears is a DJI Inspire 1 v.2



Actually on a serious note they are terrible for wildlife photography. 

1) They make a LOT of noise and thus are very invasive to wildlife. Causing disturbance and potentially forcing wildlife off their normal behaviour patterns. 

2) Continued use and tracking of species with a hover-camera like this can mean that whilst you're spending a few hours getting photos the animal is spending afew hours being scared and not getting food nor shelter that they require to survive.

3) Interestingly the USA has already banned these in their national parks - I wouldn't be surprsied if the UK follows suit as well. 

In general a lot of th air based photos you see are done with balloons - quiet and higher up and less intrusive. 
There's also a matter of scale; 1 wildlife team is small; but the public is a huge potential impact so even whilst one hover camera might not do any harm - but many of them by different people does.


----------



## chuasam (May 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Perhaps we can finally get the iconic photo of a bear crapping in the woods  *LOL*
Mushrooms are delicious; as are many fungi.
I absolutely adore black summer truffles. I saw a bunch at Borough Market in London last year. It absolutely tore me apart that I could not buy them and bring them home with me to Canada.
Used to have morels growing my parent's firepit. I was hesitant to eat them as they had been burning rubbish in the pit.
King Oyster Mushroom if thinly sliced and sprinkled with seaweed flakes and soy sauce approximate bacon when grilled.


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

chuasam said:


> daniel1948 said:
> 
> 
> > Clams and mussels are like chewing on pencil erasers. Conch is worse. And conch ceviche is the second-most disgusting thing I've ever eaten. I nearly barfed, and quit eating after the first bite. But Cajun catfish is really good, so not all bottom-feeders are eschew-worthy. And I once ate half an octopus sandwich at the foghorn at the end of the earth (Finisterre, Spain; the name means end of the earth, or land's end, because the Romans mistakenly believed it was the western-most point of land in Europe. There is a foghorn there, and a tapas bar.) The sandwich was really good, not tough or chewy at all, though the suckers were kind of creepy. I didn't finish the sandwich because it was *huge*. I gave the other half away. So that was another bottom-dweller that if prepared right is delicious. Spain has really good seafood.
> ...


Ok, so where is there something but typical food in your list? 
viande de cheval is wonderful, reminiscent of a beef/venison combination. 
Bosintang and quite tasty.
Fried Grasshoppers, Giant water bugs, Crickets, Silk worms, & Bamboo worms are all nicely crunchy and many have a flavor that reminds me of popcorn. 
Pizzle soup is a tasty dish with a unique delectable flavor.
You mentioned Bear.  Bear is best smoked.  A smoked black bear ham is some of the best eating you can find.
Blodplättar it in my opinion better than blood pudding.  
Zazamushi and Hachinoko makes a wonderful sweet desert. 

And yes, over they years I have eaten all of the above and a host of other things most in this part of the world would never get close too.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

On mushrooms: I like the store-bought ones. But I had a friend, about four decades ago, who gathered and ate Amanita muscaria. I declined his offer to give me some. There are some mushrooms that go beyond a purely culinary experience. According to my understanding, based entirely on hearsay, if you eat Amanita muscaria you will get very sick, then barf your guts out, and then have a psychedelic experience.

On grasshoppers: When I was a kid we had a can of fried grasshoppers in the pantry. I don't know how it got there. We finally decided to try them. They tasted to me exactly like very burnt toast. I mean, burnt black all the way through, not just a little burnt.

On crickets: Supposedly, crickets are the most efficient way to produce animal protein. Being open-minded, I bought a cricket "energy" bar. It tasted absolutely dreadful. But it had so little cricket in it by weight, that I suspect the dreadful flavor had nothing to do with the crickets. In spite of their supposed efficiency, cricket powder is about the most expensive protein you can buy.

Somebody once offered a big prize to anyone who could invent a practical, mass-produceable, machine to harvest locusts from infested grain fields without excessive damage to the grain. Such a machine would save grain fields from locusts, and the locusts could be sold as food. I don't think anyone was ever able to claim the prize.

Balloons are fun. I once went up in a hot-air balloon. But for wildlife viewing I'd rather be on the ground. (Or in the case of polar bears, in a tundra buggy.) (Or in the case of whales, in a kayak.) For me, the photographs are an afterthought, which is why I want a cheap, simple camera. It's the experience of being face-to-face with nature that's really special.

Hiking at the Durrand Glacier chalet, near Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada, the mountain goats often come right up close to have a look at us.


----------



## chuasam (May 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ok, so where is there something but typical food in your list?
> viande de cheval is wonderful, reminiscent of a beef/venison combination.
> Bosintang and quite tasty.
> Fried Grasshoppers, Giant water bugs, Crickets, Silk worms, & Bamboo worms are all nicely crunchy and many have a flavor that reminds me of popcorn.
> ...


Now that's much much better!
The comment was more directed at Designer.
I admit that I have a liking for horse.
The Italian restaurant I used to have it at has since closed when the owner retired 
I'm looking for a place where I can get horse mane sashimi

I've not had the chance to eat dog.
I've heard of blodplättar but not tried it. How does it compare to Blood Tofu?
I didn't get black bear ham  I had a hunk of it from a hunter friend. I think it was prepared as a jerky.
Not had a chance to try zazamushi and hachinonko but I really love fried cod milt or steamed as shirako. Haven't been able to find it in a while.
You do get to travel lots 

Also on my list of foods I want to try:
Cuy, Gooseneck Barnacles, bee larvae, Hákarl, Mantis Shrimp.


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



Some was travel for fun, some was travel on Uncle Sam's "Suggestion."  They can suggest pretty strong sometimes.  
Plus my sister in law is Japanese and quite an accomplished Japanese cook.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

So getting back to my original question, I took Designer's advice back in post #3, to contact the trip outfitter. He recommended the Canon PowerShot SX60HS. I also asked him about the PowerShot SX410IS, which I had been looking at. The 60 is $450 on Amazon and the 410 is $179. The 60 is double the weight, at 1.5 pounds, compared to 3/4 lb for the 410, which makes a difference if I decide to also use the camera for hiking. He explained that while the 60 had fewer pixels (16 mp, compared to 20 mp in the 410) that the processor quality is more important than the number of pixels. The 410 has the Digic 4+ processor, while the 60 has the Digic 6 processor. The 60 has a 65X optical zoom with a maximum focal length of 1365 mm and a minimum of 21 mm. I found a review which called the 60 poor in every category but when I clicked on their link to the cameras they like, they wanted me to spend $3,000. Heck, someone who spends $18,000 on a camera probably thinks the $3,000 camera is poor in all categories. 

So now I have lots of information, and even less idea what I want to buy, but fortunately I have plenty of time to think about it.


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

Well since like most Newbies you didn't list you location I am just going to assume you are from Canada just for fun.  As such I would suggest you go here:  The Camera Store   Take a look at what they offer,  PLAY with with what interests you and make a decision.  It is a simple fact that if you don't like the camera you buy you will not be inclined to use it where as if you do like it you will be inclined to use it often.


If by chance you are not near Calgary or in Canada then the advise is still the same only you pick the store you go to.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 17, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> So getting back to my original question, I took Designer's advice back in post #3, to contact the trip outfitter. He recommended the Canon PowerShot SX60HS. I also asked him about the PowerShot SX410IS, which I had been looking at. The 60 is $450 on Amazon and the 410 is $179. The 60 is double the weight, at 1.5 pounds, compared to 3/4 lb for the 410, which makes a difference if I decide to also use the camera for hiking. He explained that while the 60 had fewer pixels (16 mp, compared to 20 mp in the 410) that the processor quality is more important than the number of pixels. The 410 has the Digic 4+ processor, while the 60 has the Digic 6 processor. The 60 has a 65X optical zoom with a maximum focal length of 1365 mm and a minimum of 21 mm. I found a review which called the 60 poor in every category but when I clicked on their link to the cameras they like, they wanted me to spend $3,000. Heck, someone who spends $18,000 on a camera probably thinks the $3,000 camera is poor in all categories.
> 
> So now I have lots of information, and even less idea what I want to buy, but fortunately I have plenty of time to think about it.


I own one and it takes some good pics. It has the ability to do Manual. I just use Program Auto mostly, super easy with good results. It loves light. Low light, not so good but the built in flash works fantastic believe it or not. It has some serious reach too. Keep it under the digital zoom and it is usually pretty sharp. On a tripod the extra digital zoom works fine. Keep an eye out at Canon's furnished section of their website, one will turn up. I have to say, I have been pleasantly pleased with it for using it as a travel camera. I still have my Nikon D3300 DSLR which I use mainly. I did a lot of research on super zooms for someone else and this was to be their camera but she backed out after I ordered it for her. In the price range, this was the best one, it even read better than the P900. The new Nikon DL 24-500 zoom has a 1" sensor and that thing looks fantastic but it's a $1000.00. Some of the pics from it look super nice. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well since like most Newbies you didn't list you location I am just going to assume you are from Canada just for fun.  As such I would suggest you go here:  The Camera Store   Take a look at what they offer,  PLAY with with what interests you and make a decision.  It is a simple fact that if you don't like the camera you buy you will not be inclined to use it where as if you do like it you will be inclined to use it often.
> 
> 
> If by chance you are not near Calgary or in Canada then the advise is still the same only you pick the store you go to.



Oops. No, I didn't give my location. I'm in Spokane.



jcdeboever said:


> I own one and it takes some good pics. <...snip...>



You never say which camera you're talking about. ???


----------



## table1349 (May 17, 2016)

Surely Spokane or the nearby area has a brick and mortar photography store.  If not take a drive to Seattle.  We can all give you ideas, but the best thing is to have it in you hands and try it out.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 17, 2016)

daniel1948 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well since like most Newbies you didn't list you location I am just going to assume you are from Canada just for fun.  As such I would suggest you go here:  The Camera Store   Take a look at what they offer,  PLAY with with what interests you and make a decision.  It is a simple fact that if you don't like the camera you buy you will not be inclined to use it where as if you do like it you will be inclined to use it often.
> ...



My bad, the Canon SX60HS


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

In looking over the specs for the cameras, the guy from the outfitter mentioned the size of the sensor as being an issue, which makes sense. Both the camera he recommended and the one I'd been looking at, as well as my little camera, once I was able to find the specs, which was not easy for two of the three, give the size of the sensor as 1/2.3 inch. That seems such an odd way to state it. Why don't they just say 10/23 inch? Or 11 mm? I'll bet most people cannot even wrap their minds around what 1/2.3 means.

I'm going to let this decision go for a while. The more I learn, the less I like either of them. The cheap one has a worse processor than even my little camera, though it has the zoom I wanted. And the expensive one is heavier than I wanted. In a few weeks, when I get back from my next trip, I'll visit a camera store as Gryphon suggested.

Maybe I'll forget the camera and just watch the bears with my pretty decent binoculars when they're too far away for my unaided eye.


----------



## daniel1948 (May 17, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> My bad, the Canon SX60HS



Thanks! I'll consider it again when I get back from my upcoming trip. (This will be a hiking trip, so I won't want a 1.5-pound camera. I'll just use my 4.7-ounce elph 110.)


----------



## chuasam (May 17, 2016)

Spend more and get the FZ1000
it's a really good travel zoom.


----------



## surio (May 18, 2016)

The backup camera in your vehicle


----------



## jcdeboever (May 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Spend more and get the FZ1000
> it's a really good travel zoom.


For sure but out of his price range. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## daniel1948 (May 18, 2016)

Here's the thing: My main vacation activities are hiking and warm-water kayaking. None of these cameras would be useful for water sports because they are not waterproof. And I have a bad back, which means I cannot carry a heavy pack. An additional pound and a half for a camera is too much. I hike well-prepared, with all the clothing, gear, food, and water I'm going to need for the day, and I already cut it close. There's no way I'm carrying one of these cameras hiking. And I really don't need a long zoom for hiking. Nor do I stop much for pictures. I pull out my little elph 110, turn it on, snap a picture, turn it off, and slip it back in my pocket, all without stopping. 

What this all means is that a camera for polar bears would be a one-use thing. If I ever returned to Africa, I'd use it there. It would have been really nice to have in Katmai, Alaska, but I probably won't be going back there again in the next few years. I have no other trips planned in the next couple of years, and I don't anticipate any for the next year or two after that, where I could take a heavy camera. I had hoped to get a nice long-zoom camera for $300. I could justify that within the overall (high) cost of the trip to Churchill. That's why I liked the 410: For $180 I could consider it just one more needed expense for the trip. But when I realized the processor in it is not even as good as my elph 110, it no longer seemed adequate.

So I've decided that what I really need to do is rent a camera, if that's a thing. If I could rent a $1,000 camera for one week for $200 that would be well worth it to me. I'm going to visit the camera stores after my upcoming trip and see if that's a thing.


----------



## table1349 (May 18, 2016)

All Photo/Video Gear | Lumoid.com
LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Leica, and more
LensGiant - Nikon and Canon dSLR Camera and Lens Rentals


----------



## daniel1948 (May 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> All Photo/Video Gear | Lumoid.com
> LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Leica, and more
> LensGiant - Nikon and Canon dSLR Camera and Lens Rentals



Thanks for those links!


----------

