Are the new pocket cameras such as the Panasonic TZ10 recommended by Saeed (or its new replacement the TZ20 scheduled to come out in March) adequate as the only camera to take on a safari? Or, should they be in a pocket and a full sized Digital SLR with multiple lenses be in someones pack? What is the consensus?

While a pocket camera is nice to have, better quality pictures can be taken with a DSLR with one nice all-purpose zoom to keep it in relatively compact package.

I think the Nikon D7000 + 18-200mm zoom is a very good option. It includes a video capability as well. Pretty complete for a single package. Depending on the area and the type of hunting you will do, having it in the truck won't weigh you down during the stalks.

The Nikon D90 body is also a good deal at the present time.

I have been thinking of the combination of the
D7000 and that zoom. I have heard rumors of the
D400 (replacement for the D300s) coming out within the next few months and several friends suggested waiting a bit to see if that happens. The D400 however, even if available, may be more camera than I need....

I'd only recommend a DSLR if you really know a bit about it before you get into it.
They are great things but they have a lot of drawbacks, like the 18-200mm Nikon lens only has a max aperture of F3.5 so it's not much use in really low light, for that you want the 35mm F1.8 or the 50mm F1.4.
Long fast and sharp lenses are SERIOUSLY expensive also big and heavy.
Sure you can shoot at high ISO value but that increases the noise effect.

They all have trouble with auto focus in low contrast situations.
Just down to the fact that they have a small extra sensor to do AF.

If you only want to carry one camera I'd say look at the "Bridge" cameras, like the Panasonic Lumix FZ 28 or 35, or the Sony or Cannon Powershots.

I packed a Canon Powershot along with the Canon 20D DSLR and lenses for my trip. I never did use the pocket camera. Every shot was with the DSLR. The only mistake I made was not taking shots in the RAW format vs. JPEG.

I know that RAW format allows more computer manipulation of the image than does JPEG, but are there other advantages?

Not the pocket Powershot the SX 20 or 30.

The camera uses RAW then converts to JPEG.
In good daylight you won't do better but when the conditions are not ideal the in camera conversion is often not so good.
Also if you haven't got the White Balance setting just right and you only have the JPEG your stuck with it.
It's like throwing your negatives away before even seeing them.

this is a good simple RAW processor ...
http://picasa.google.com/

this is a more complex but powerful one ...
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

both are free

Most cameras now will save both RAW and JPEG, with cheap large cards available there is no point not saving the RAW files.
Like modern anti-pollution street lights are horrible light. Out shooting at night in the city you need to set WB differently for most every shot, as you have different light every time you move a few feet. So faces will have a nasty green or orange cast, even when the rest of the shot looks OK.

I suspect that's why we are seeing so much "Artistic" B&W street photography these days, people get on Amazon, buy a fancy DSLR then never even open the book or learn the most basic stuff.

You also usually end up with a larger megapixel photo so can print it bigger if you want.

quote:

Originally posted by Edod:
I know that RAW format allows more computer manipulation of the image than does JPEG, but are there other advantages?

I'm no expert but, in general, I think you have it right. The photos straight from the sensor simply have more information in them.

Here are a few links that spell it out way better than I can:

Understanding Raw Files

The RAW Truth

RAW File Format

Thank you very much for the information. The links provided me with the first real understanding of the RAW vs JPEG modes. I will make sure that whatever I end up buying in terms of a camera will have a very large card and the ability to save in RAW as well as JPEG.

quote:

Originally posted by Edod:
Thank you very much for the information. The links provided me with the first real understanding of the RAW vs JPEG modes. I will make sure that whatever I end up buying in terms of a camera will have a very large card and the ability to save in RAW as well as JPEG.

I just bought a Canon 7D to play around with when it isn't snowing here (about 6 months a year) and it will save RAW and JPG at the same time. Unless you are going to heavily Photoshop and print your pictures there is no need to use RAW. the advantage is that in JPG every time you modify and save you lose a (VERY) tiny bit of the original information. RAW stays original. RAW files on the 7D are 5x as large as the largest, fine JPG option, about 25MB per file. AND you have to have some very specific software and drivers to even open the Raw file Photoshop has most, but your camera will have drivers that are specific. You won't be emailing or posting RAW images. Lastly, most cameras burst mode are limited when using RAW format for capture ie 3fps vs 8fps. my $0.02

JPEG is for shapshots, if you get serious you'll be using the RAW files.

There isn't much point paying all that for a top camera then not getting the most out of it.

The only advantage to JPEGs converted from RAW in camera is it's quicker, it's never better, and a lot of the time it's not as good as it could be with a bit more work.

good easy FREE RAW editor ...
http://picasa.google.com/

better but not so easy to use FREE RAW editor ...
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

I might get a bit of flack for this from some of my friends here.

I have personally given up on taking photos in RAW format.

I know, RAW is supposed to give you an edge on the quality, and I do not doubt that for one minute.

But, I also found that modern cameras take extremely good JPGs photos. And as I tend to take an awful lot of pictures, the time it will take to work on them is enormous.

And I cannot afford that.

So I have settled on letting the camer do the conversion for me, and so far I have been very happy with the results.

In daylight you won't do any better, than out of the cam jpeg, but when it's not such good conditions or artificial light. It's worth looking at the raw as well.
I also have found JPEGs corrupted in storage but the raw were fine.

You need an assistant to do the boring stuff.

Thank you all for the information. I will have to play a bit with the RAW data and see if for what I want, it is worth the effort. JPEG will probably do for most of my needs.

There are good arguments for shooting only RAW, or for shooting only jpeg. But I think the argument that shooting in RAW requires too much time in computer processing is not necessarily the case.

Several image treatment softwares (I like DxO) allow you to treat everything as a batch, with some real advantages. Most of the lenses made for digital cameras today have varying amounts of distortion, sometimes horrendous distortion. If you shoot in RAW, batch process the whole lot to eliminate distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, with just a push of one button you can have all the images corrected and saved as TIFF, or JPEG, or even DNG and at any size you want. It really doesn't take much time. You can always fiddle with them later.