Ladies and Gentlemen,

Quite often, we get a question on this forum about digital cameras for hunting.

I posted this message on our Phography Forum, but thought of copying it here for those who do not venture away from this forum.

*******************************************************

I just bought the Canon S1 IS, and am extremely happy with it.

Here are two photos I took at maximum zoom - 10X - of one of our babies.

Also, the movie mode is fantastic. But, you do need a high capacity memory card for videos.

Each Gig of memory will hold about 8 minutes of video. Also, the camera cannot support longer video clips than 1 Gig for each clip.

This means that if you have a large memory card, and wish to use it for videos, you can take several clips, as long as none is longer than 1 Gig.

In practice, this does not matter really.

Enjoy the photos.

Nice! I almost feel the breath!

Regards,
Martin

Saeed,
Very nice. Bryan

May I be so bold as to inquire on the approximate cost of such a contraption?

I have seen it advertised from $399 to $499 in the US.

I forgot to mention earlier, this camera uses normal AA batteries - Alkaline or rechargeable.

Full review of this camera at Digital Camera Resources

I bought this same camera about 3 months ago for my annual work/trip to RSA. It takes unreal photo's with the image stabilizer and the software is probably the easiest of any digital camera I have ever used. It has just about every feature you could want in a Digital camera for a hunter, or nearly anyother use. The 3.2 megepixel is no handicap either. My cannon priner(i9900) prints photos up to 8X10 that are every bit as crystal clear as a photo lab using 100ASA regular film. I even made some 13X19 prints just to see how they would look. They too were absolutely perfect when the photos were taken on high resolution.

I'm not sure what is gained by the current race to higher resolution greater megepixel cameras. The 3.2 megapixel is just perfect to 8X10 what more do you need?

"I have seen it advertised from $399 to $499 in the US."

Just for reference how much does the 1 GIG of capacity cost and how is it on battery life.

Here are a couple from my 1S iS

12 foot rock python from 3 feet away. His stress was getting worse by the second and I was in striking range. One of my hunters has good video of him striking at me when I tried to pull him out of the bush for better photos. He was way to strong to pull out though!



This ostrich was taken with 10 power zoom at about 50 yards distance free hand and no flash.



These Kudu were taken at 140 plus yards away freehand no flash as dark was falling one evening.

Funny you mention how megapixels might not make that much of a difference.

We have a number of varying digital cameras here, and a few weeks ago, we had some argument on this very subject.

We set up a tripod, and took photos of our gazells using the following cameras.

Nikon D1X - 5.2 megapixel
Nikon Cookpix 8700 - 8 MB
Sony 828 - 8 MB
Canon D60 6.3 MB
Canon Ixus 500 - 5 MB
Canon S1 IS - 3.2 MB
Olympus 8080 - 8MB

Each camera was set up on its highest resolution, with any adjustments set by its owner for the best he can get.

After all the phots were taken, we printed them on a an Epson R800 photo printer.

Without any doubt, the best photos were from the Nikon D1x
Of course, for the price of this one and its lense, one can buy several of the above mentioned cameras.

Just goes to show megapixels are not the only criteria one should look for.

My main reason for buying the Canon S1 IS is the 10x zoom plus the very high quality video.

Saeed,

As you found, photo quality is much more than megapixels. Lenses are very important. Any camera like the Nikon D1x, etc that uses superior quality lenses will always take the best pictures.

We can all relate to good glass.

It's for exactly this reason I haven't bought a Digital camera yet. I'm wating for Minolta to do what Canon just did - come out with a digital camera that uses their series of SLR lenses. I've got 6 or 7 Minolta lenses that I would really like to use on a digital. until Minolta comes out with a slr lens camera, I guess I just gotta keep using the Maxxum 7000....

Toolmaker

What about the "hardiness" of this camera? A primary reason that I haven't gone digital is that I have been told that they don't handle abuse well. What I mean by abuse is packing it around all over hell and back in my pack (in it's case, of course). I don't mean throwing it around or major "oops". What about resistance to water, as in rain or snow?

My first withstood every pack trip in the cascades (dozens) and my two months a year in a fanny pack in Africa. It showed a lot of wear and tear but worked flawlessly.

UNTIL.......... My 2year old son decided that the sliding lens cover on my Canon S4 powershot was not a good idea and he removed it with his litle 2YO determination. He managed some how, some way, to break that cover loose. That was the only reason for the new one I wrote of in this post.

With the exception of his carnage, nothing from nature, packing and/or hunting trips ever did anything to keep it from working. The up side to digital cameras is how small they are and how easily protected they are. I have an "otter box" for my new one which is a small waterproof case used by Kyakers and rafters. It's been flawless so far........

FWIW, we have an Olympus "Stylus 400" 4 megapixal camera which we bought because it is small, rounded, has a sliding lens cover, and is advertised as "weatherproof". Apparently that means it will take a good splashing or rain, but can not be completely dunked. It does have gaskets around the openings for the battery, memory card, etc. We are quite happy with the image quality but have not tried any enlargements beyond 5X6. There are a LOT of good digital cameras out there, the biggest problem is deciding exactly what features you need.

Last year, I had a Canon Ixus S400 pocket camera that I carried in my pockets in Tanzania.

On one occasion, I went up to my armpits into liquid mud!

The camera stopped working for about an hourt, then was fine again.

I don't think they are more fragile than their film cousins. In fact, if anyting, I would imagine the digital would be tougher. As they have less moving parts.

Gentlemen,

I have a Kodak DX4930 digital camera that I have used for over 2 years now, most of that time, in Africa, and it has been fantastic. The only downside is that it only has a 2x optical zoom.

It is a very simple camera to use and it takes great pictures. I normally just set it on 1.0 megapixel, even though it goes up to 4. The 1 MP photos print up just fine, even up to 8.5x11 or A4 size, when good paper is used.

I'd buy another Kodak digital camera any day. Oh yeah, using Lithium AA batteries, I can get several hundred pictures as long as I don't use the screen and just use the viewfinder.

Great pics, Saeed. You've captured alot of detail.

How is the shutterlag on the Canon S1 IS? I have the Nikon 5700 and it's hard for me to use.

It is a lot less noticeable on all the later models than on the 5700.

Thanks, Saeed. I'll have to go try one. I usually use the Canon 10D but it and the lenses are so heavy. It will be nice to have a small, good camera.

Cindy

Hi Saeed!

Great pictures!

I am on the verge of buying the very camera you mention above because of its image stabilization, but I have an important question to which I cannot find the answer on Canon's webpage.

According to Canon's website, the camera will focus to 10cm/3.9 inches. However, what I really need to know is the dimensions of the field of view in exteme close-ups.

If your cheetah co-operated, could you fill the frame with an area the size of nostrils-to-eyes? One eye?

In addition to the image stabilization, I am particularly interested in the macro capabilities. However, coming from the 35mm SLR world, Canon telling me the camera will focus to 10cm with a 3.8mm lens isn't so helpful to me.

cheers,

jpb

I took this close up photo of this magazine cover about 10cm from it.

Very nice... Picture

Cheers,

Andr�

Thanks Saeed!

The camera has really captured the 3-dimensional effect very nicely (you could poke an eye out!)

jpb

Saeed how did the Canon 1S Is photos with it's low megepixel count compare to all those with the much greater megepixels? Just curious how easily you could tell the difference between the 3.2 and 5 Megapixel cameras in the test you did.

Jim,

We found it hard to tell the differences on the screen, but, after printing, the lower resolution seem to be less sharp.

All prints were done as A4 on an Epson R800 photo printer.

The funny thing is, we printed some photos we took with an old Fuzi 3.2 MB camera - 4 years old. That showed much less sharpness than the newer cameras.

I'd rather spend more money on great glass than megapixels.
Great pictures start with great glass. No matter what you have to record the image on, sensors or film, the end results begin with glass. Just like a scope, better glass better image. Just my opine.