Hi res Still Camera vs Video Camera vs Drones...the drone it is...lol.

So I am looking to agonizing over adding another type of "camera" to my arsenal.  But spending so much money on fishing equipment, I just can't see myself buying more than one of the afore mentioned items.  Budget would be roughly a thousand dollars max.. wow that's a lot of money still.  Leave action cameras (gorpro) out as I will always need those. 

So which would you buy and why?  I know the answer is going to be "it depends".  So let me list my pros and cons of each.  Also feel free to suggest a specific model. I listed examples of models I am looking at.

Still Camera (DSLR or mirrorless):

Pros:
Still photos are still used a lot more often than video.
Can take decent high res videos,
Easiest of the three i think to make money off of to help offset costs.

Cons:
Not very waterproof...even the weatherproof ones at this price range.
Not sure I see the huge difference between a $1,000 DLSR versus say a 400 dollar olympus tough TG4. But will magazine editors?

Models being considered: Sony Alpha a6300, Nikon D7100, Canon EOS 70D


Video Camera:

Pros:
Its mainly what I do is make you tube videos.
Optical zoom allows for better distance shots of video and that's important when I am videoing my son or guests.
Can take decent photos. 

Cons:
Not very waterproof.
Not as good at low light as a good still camera

Models considering: Canon - VIXIA HF G20, Sony - Handycam AX33

Drone:

Pros:
Its a drone!
I can see it being useful to scout the water for water clarity breaks and such. Catch more fish!
Great B-roll shots...but as a con I doubt one would rarely shoot a fish being caught. 

Cons:
Super short battery life.
Is it really useful? or just a gimmick. 
Almost guaranteed to crash it sometime and I will mainly be using it over water. Roh-oh..
Definitely not waterproof. 

Models considering:  Gorpro Karma, DJI 3 pro.

For drones, consider the additional FAA licenses required. Also, drone asssisted fishing is not legal in Oregon (not sure about AK, not how that would be enforced as "assisted" if you were just looking the water).  Those two issues would be cons for the drone. 

High quality still or video camera is going to give you the best use case if it's waterproof or accessible frequently while on the water.  I use a point and shoot digital camera (not really high enough caliber for your magazine shoots).  My camera isn't waterproof, but I figure it gets relegated to "disposable" if I intend to use it unprotected in the ocean/rivers. 

Still Camera (DSLR or mirrorless):
Not sure I see the huge difference between a $1,000 DLSR versus say a 400 dollar olympus tough TG4. But will magazine editors?

Rudy, there is a HUGE difference between the images a DSLR captures compared to what you can get with any point-and-shoot camera like the TG4.  The difference is the sensor size and the tiny sensors in the TG4 will never compare to the larger sensors in a DLSR, even the 2/3 sensors in the cameras you mentioned.

I see it clearly on my computer, and a magazine editor will see twice the difference that I see.

For drones, consider the additional FAA licenses required. Also, drone asssisted fishing is not legal in Oregon (not sure about AK, not how that would be enforced as "assisted" if you were just looking the water).  Those two issues would be cons for the drone. 

High quality still or video camera is going to give you the best use case if it's waterproof or accessible frequently while on the water.  I use a point and shoot digital camera (not really high enough caliber for your magazine shoots).  My camera isn't waterproof, but I figure it gets relegated to "disposable" if I intend to use it unprotected in the ocean/rivers.

Good point. FAA license isn't a huge deal.  Now if I were to try and sell my shots, then I think you need another whole set of licenses.  So that is definitely a point. 

Knowing that even if I am going to try and take care of of a DSLR any electronics are going to have half of the shelf life of one being used on land, it is a question of perhaps "What is good enough?"  See Tinker's point below.  I'll ask him!  lol.

Still Camera (DSLR or mirrorless):
Not sure I see the huge difference between a $1,000 DLSR versus say a 400 dollar olympus tough TG4. But will magazine editors?

Rudy, there is a HUGE difference between the images a DSLR captures compared to what you can get with any point-and-shoot camera like the TG4.  The difference is the sensor size and the tiny sensors in the TG4 will never compare to the larger sensors in a DLSR, even the 2/3 sensors in the cameras you mentioned.

I see it clearly on my computer, and a magazine editor will see twice the difference that I see.

I just don't personally see it but I have no clue what to look for.  I have always been a function of form guy and I ALWYS get into arguments when someone tells me "There is no way possible that the $30 bottle of wine is as good as THIS $100 bottle of wine?"  I beg to differ on that point for my personal taste but it is more subjective with wine than say a good sharp clear image. 

Another argument I have always had for the point and shoot cameras is I do believe in the adage of "the best camera is the one you have with you...or accessible."  I wonder if I got a $1,000 DLSR or even high end one, if I would ever use it on the salt water? Even if I took it out, would it always be in a dry bag?  Would I miss that Killer Whale breaching directly on top of me and then my kids miss out on a "life insurance" sort of pay out?  I am pretty sure the editor of any magazine would use a pic off my smartphone of something like that. haha.

As I was mentioning to BB2fish above, so what do you think is "good enough?" The one "con" I should have listed in the still camera is I do have an older model Canon EOS Rebel T2i.  Is that good enough?

Exactly the type of information an discussion points I was looking for.  Thanks to both of ya!

Rudy, the difference *you* see between a DSLR and a compact is going to depend on the screen size and quality where you're viewing it.  An average home computer's monitor is not going to show huge differences in most cases.  On the other hand, those magazine editors are going to be looking over your photos on a large, top of the line monitor and at full size, looking for defects.  The view at 100% on a good display really can show up the differences in the sensor and the glass...

So, DSLR is definitely better quality.  I would add to your list of possibles, though.  Take a look at Pentax - they have a variety of bodies and excellent glass available and can give you a great image for your budget.  Yes, Pentax is still in business (under Ricoh brand now), they have plenty of bodies and lenses with excellent weather-sealing, and they're affordable. 

sample shot from underneath Niagara Falls: 
http://orig06.deviantart.net/c441/f/2015/313/a/7/k50_1373_by_roxndox-d9g44nt.jpg
sample shot (inaugural Tillamuck Bay May Day):
http://pre10.deviantart.net/f4b0/th/pre/f/2015/123/9/4/yakfishermen_02_by_roxndox-d8s3fuq.jpg

Jim

Rudy, the difference *you* see between a DSLR and a compact is going to depend on the screen size and quality where you're viewing it.  An average home computer's monitor is not going to show huge differences in most cases.  On the other hand, those magazine editors are going to be looking over your photos on a large, top of the line monitor and at full size, looking for defects.  The view at 100% on a good display really can show up the differences in the sensor and the glass...

So, DSLR is definitely better quality.  I would add to your list of possibles, though.  Take a look at Pentax - they have a variety of bodies and excellent glass available and can give you a great image for your budget.  Yes, Pentax is still in business (under Ricoh brand now), they have plenty of bodies and lenses with excellent weather-sealing, and they're affordable. 

sample shot from underneath Niagara Falls: 
http://orig06.deviantart.net/c441/f/2015/313/a/7/k50_1373_by_roxndox-d9g44nt.jpg
sample shot (inaugural Tillamuck Bay May Day):
http://pre10.deviantart.net/f4b0/th/pre/f/2015/123/9/4/yakfishermen_02_by_roxndox-d8s3fuq.jpg

Jim

Thanks Jim!  I did notice the pentax and a few videos where a guy is hosing it off.  I will definitely take a look.

I should also clarify that I understand that it's me that can't see the difference.  I have been told over and over again that editor's of magazine's and such require a better camera than a point and shoot or the gopro's for say a full page picture or a cover picture. So I believe it to be true, but I just don't know where the threshold of "standard acceptability" might be. I also realize that the "better" a camera is, it also allows for more flexibility in cropping and such.  Also the lens is as important as the camera itself. 

So my EOS  T2i is 18 megapixels...better than I thought.  I know it was a higher end consumer camera.   When I bought it.  I guess I am looking to upgrade a bit because I don't think the images are a whole lot better than some of the point and shoots or even my smartphone for that matter in many cases.  Maybe I just need a better lens. 

I wonder what people would think to be minimum level for still camera's if you are trying to score a few half page magazine level photos.  My T2i seems to be suffering some affects already from always hanging out by the ocean.  Maybe I can get away with just running that into the ground before I upgrade.  I think it was a 900 camera when it first came out, and now its half that or less. 

Thanks for the input! 

DRONES: FAA regulations on the book - if you use any still images or video footage for monetary gain or compensation taken from a drone you must be a licensed pilot under the Part 107 regulations. That includes anyone, read even a private citizen "operating" as a non-business, that posts a Youtube video and monetizes it under the Youtube compensation program. There are and will be tens of thousands breaking that law and FAA is setting up a division of their agency just for enforcing the Part 107 rule about using a drone for monetary gain especially on the Internet where its so visible. If they can't track you down for a fine they will probably have the authority to tell Youtube to remove the videos.

The license is not a giveaway. It requires knowledge of atmospheric and weather conditions, a complete knowledge of the many categories of restricted air space, flying around or even in those restricted areas with FAA approval, an understanding of pilot maps, and many other things. Similar to what a hot air balloon pilot must go through. The cost for taking the test at an approved flight school is $150. You must score a 70% or better.  There are a couple of businesses in Anchorage that provide that testing service which is a computer-based test connected to FAA servers. I believe you can take it twice if you fail the first time.

DRONE OPERATION: Unless you decide to fly a "toy" level of drone and camera system (not worthy of your intentions) you will not be able to pull off flying from a kayak and not likely even from a mothership boat. A GPS capable drone allows you to fly at parameters that will keep you from Deep Sixing your bird. But these high tech flying machines require a specific set of procedures for calibrating all the sensors and gyros on the aircraft. Sensors for level horizon calibration require a dead solid level platform to calibrate on. Even the slightest tilt of the platform will cause the camera gimbals to have tilted horizons which no professional footage would allow.

The next procedure requires calibrating the compass. One initiates the compass calibration by holding the bird at arm's length and rotating your body 360° then turning the drone perpendicular to ground and rotating 360° again for many brands of drones. Envision trying this in a kayak.  On a mothership even wiring and the metal of the boat will affect your compass calibration that can cause erratic flight behavior and even flyaways....gone for good. Many drone makers say remove your wrist watch and empty your pockets of keys and change to prevent compass problems. Probably the most common reason birds crash or are lost.

So your option with a $1000 drone camera platform will require an operator working from the beach. Ranges of the most recent drones are from a mile to six miles out as long as you have line of sight for FAA regulations but more importantly for continuity of your control signal as well as video signal to your controller. With the range of your fishing adventures from shore, probably 90+% of all your fishing will be within range of your beach drone operator. When a bird loses its control signal for whatever reason it goes into an automatic Return Home mode. You don't want that aircraft to return to a floating kayak  that is now a mile away from origin and land on the water. Thus the beach-based operations. And with only an 18-20 minute flight time on a battery (no matter what advertising claims), you won't be shadowing an angler waiting around for a hookup. It will require radio communication with your operator to let him/her know when its time to send the bird out to start capturing some footage.

The latest technology in drone cameras are offering 1" CMOS sensors with real glass lenses and shooting 4K UHD. In still photo mode they are punching out 20 megapixel resolution (or better) which can save in RAW (lossless) format which publishers LOVE. BTW, any digital still camera you decide on should be able to save in RAW format. Its the standard for publishers and advertisers to work with.

Just remember when you look at all those awesome magazine photos....you don't see any of them with horizontal rain, dark gray skies, or icicles hanging off the angler's nose. If its nasty weather leave the SLR on the beach. It's not likely you will come up with a money shot on a day like that.  Some days you just gotta fish!

Geez, I gotta get some work done. Where did the day go??   You going to WG this weekend?

On still cameras again, there's also a HUGE difference in how an image looks on a computer screen (projected light) compared to how it looks in print (reflected light).

Many DSLR cameras are also used for professional video recordings - the Nikon 7100 you mentioned, for example will produce stunning video, as do most of the Canon DSLR cameras.  You can often see them being used as video cameras in the background of a documentary.

Of course, pros can destroy a $5,000 camera to get THE shot or a video and hardly blink an eye.

I'm not urging you to  get a still camera, Rudy, just pointing out that the TG4 sensor may not produce images a magazine editor would buy.  Newspaper editors would have a different standard.  Your best source for information on image quality might be a magazine editor...

I believe the FAA makes a distinction between Rudy making a great drone video and then selling it, and Rudy being put under contract to produce a drone video.   

I believe the FAA makes a distinction between Rudy making a great drone video and then selling it, and Rudy being put under contract to produce a drone video.

WRONG!   There are no distinctions. Just the law. By law, if you accept even 5¢ compensation for anything you film or shoot from a drone (even if you are not a business and just an amateur) you must have a Part 107 pilot license to legally shoot for hire or compensation, including your monetized amateur videos posted on Youtube. That includes accepting compensation for real estate filming and photos, filming weddings or special events, shooting video or stills to be used by a business on their website, in a commercial, publication, or other promotion, etc. And includes any projects or documentaries you create using materials shot from a drone and then sold for monetary compensation.

Commercial use seems to be fairly unambiguously defined as an occupation, for hire, or for compensation, and does not include incidental gain from hobby/recreational flights.

I'm not the FAA rule makers, but what Rudy has described is probably not purely commercial, nor purely recreational, and he would be probably be operating within Section 107.

How a law reads is seldom how it's enforced.  I see an exemption, but it may not be there in reality.

Rudy can ask the FAA's UAS Integration Office directly at uashelp@faa.gov or by calling 844-FLY-MY-UA.

Rudy, have you contacted any magazine editors and asked the very same questions to them as to what you can expect them to accept giving that your shooting platform isn't the same as a film crew aboard a ship on the ocean? 

A few phone calls/emails to your respective recipients might give you quicker and clearer advice than from a forum full of non magazine editors.  I am not saying anyone here is giving you wrong advise, more so I am saying just ask the actual persons that may actually critique your work and pay or not pay for it.

You may get some leeway on quality given that you have a much harder platform to work from, and don't have a standing film crew at the ready for an epic shot.

Rudy, have you contacted any magazine editors and asked the very same questions to them as to what you can expect them to accept giving that your shooting platform isn't the same as a film crew aboard a ship on the ocean? 

A few phone calls/emails to your respective recipients might give you quicker and clearer advice than from a forum full of non magazine editors.  I am not saying anyone here is giving you wrong advise, more so I am saying just ask the actual persons that may actually critique your work and pay or not pay for it.

You may get some leeway on quality given that you have a much harder platform to work from, and don't have a standing film crew at the ready for an epic shot.

True true.  I guess my only issue is I don't know too many editors and I recall a conversation very similar to this one in the past here so I got lazy and there are a lot of folks here who have contributed to magazines and such.   I will contact Ric Burnley at Kayak Angler Magazine plus a few here in Alaska.  That is great advice.  I do agree with you that in other situations where more folks are avidly pursuing, the bar is higher.  Even in harder environments such as Underwater photography.  There is just more competition for good shots....for professional work. 

I think I caused folks to get off track a little bit when I was getting good input then just blurted out another question.   I have heard pretty much what Tinker was saying about editors saying that for cover and unto half page shots, that the camera does make he difference.  I just personally can't see it due to my lack of experience with high res images. 

Two on the commercial nature of drones.  I sort of hope KK is right simply because if I do go out there and get one AND decide to make some money at it, I don't mind a fairly large obstacle placed in my way so it keeps the "wanna be amateurs" from competing (<= read "the Rudy type", lol.).

Ok, let me rephrase.  The real target audience are my family and people like here on the forum.  Getting professional shots is secondary but as long as I am spending the money, I wouldn't mind if it would pay off several times per year. 

So.... what piece of equipment would you hand me to say "here use this.  It will make your posts which include both photo and videos better and more interesting."

Two, on the commercial nature of drones.  I sort of hope KK is right simply because if I do go out there and get one AND decide to make some money at it, I don't mind a fairly large obstacle placed in my way so it keeps the "wanna be amateurs" from competing (<= read "the Rudy type", lol.).

That is the proper perspective for assessing this budding industry of drone services and its remunerative potential. At some point in the future this sector will be as common as cell phone usage and a part of nearly every facet of our existence. Just like robotics. As the industry matures and regulations get tighter for businesses wanting to engage in drone-for-hire or using one to provide the materials you yourself will market directly, most if not all companies that would employ the services of a drone operator will seek out only professional, licensed, and certified pilots. At some point in the future a business may find their own company subject to fines or penalties for employing the services of a non-certified operation.  So keeping up with the changing times and stepping over each of those minor hurdles of "qualifying" is much easier now than deciding to jump into it in the future when the wall of qualifying requirements may be overwhelming.

I expect to have my certification before heading to Kodiak this summer. The weeks I'll be on the island should offer plenty of weather windows for capturing some money shot drone footage and I'd hate to miss the boat on that windfall because my footage could not be marketed. Home movies are fine but if you have something that would go viral it could pay for a lot of new equipment to stay current with improving technology. So I'll be your guinea pig unless you find the free time to tack on some studying at the same time in a parallel effort.

Ok, let me rephrase.  The real target audience are my family and people like here on the forum.  Getting professional shots is secondary but as long as I am spending the money, I wouldn't mind if it would pay off several times per year. 

#1 Rule: Don't compromise on who your true targeted audience will be as you put together your project. Your family and friends...and 99% of those on this board and YT will be courteous and shout Great Video or excellent piece! Of course you know better in your own mind as you have a world of media out there to compare your own efforts to. And with the intent to market your work your QC must always remain at the top with your best efforts to help you continue to grow and improve. I'm never satisfied with my own work no matter how many hours I dedicate to pulling off a project. Where we ALL go wrong in our formative years of growth is we try to bite off way more than we can chew. I find myself guilty of that over and over again.

For practice in the future do a one minute video that tells the entire story. Write a piece comprised of 3 paragraphs to cover everything from intro to body to closing summary. You will find this to be an extremely challenging but fun goal. You will learn how to communicate visually or in writing like the pros.

I'll give you a clue you have repeated to me many times. B Roll, B Roll, B Roll, C Roll, D Roll. I run 3 Gopros simultaneously above and below the water (and a 4th on standby) with a handheld camcorder strapped to my hand when I'm out with Shane. WHY? You will be surprised at this next tidbit. Every professional broadcast, whether a sitcom, drama, soap opera, feature length movie, historical documentary, or nature show cuts to B Roll every 4 to 6 seconds. If a scene remains longer than that there had better be some extremely engaging action or interest to command any additional scene time. Don't trust me. Take you stop watch and start timing every cut. That is the secret of a good professional production. Yet the viewer is never really aware of this psychological ploy to keep them engaged and interested in the presentation. Its the way the human mind works. A person's viewing attention span is 8 seconds before you start to lose them.

All hardcopy publications have a set of Guidelines they can provide you that details what they are looking for in submissions. Sometimes its even abbreviated in the "legal and statistical column" in the early pages of the magazine.  This covers photos and the format, resolution, size, subject matter, etc. as well as written content and in some cases they might be interested in video. If you have been published in the past in a relatively major magazine or other publication you are in the "club." Getting through the front door is one shake of a lamb's tail easier to be accepted since someone earlier has scrutinized your work, photography or journalism skills, and given you a stamp of their approval. Of course the more articles and/or photos you have accepted by editors and publishers the lower the bar gets for you to get noticed and accepted by larger companies.

If you are unpublished to date then dropping down to beginning with niche publications that are very specialized in their theme, subject matter and narrow diversity are easier to break in to provided you have the background for creating content meeting their standards for the subject matter. This is kind of an apprenticeship approach, starting with smaller steps to establish recognition, reputation, and a portfolio.  Every spring I would get unsolicited resumés from undergraduates and graduate journalism majors seeking an opportunity for summer work on my website. It made no difference, male or female, or their life style and background experience, they were all confident they could come in cold turkey and write about interesting stuff for the website even if they had never even fished. Those are the ones who will make a name for themselves one day. Full of confidence.

You have already begun the first phase of your learning curve by creating your website content and blog entries. That's your enthusiasm and devotion to drive you forward. That gives you some hands on practice. BUT just as posting injurious photos, information, or comments on social media pages can destroy peoples' lives, in the same slant whatever you have online as a budding journalist and author is fair game for your potential "employers" to read and analyze too. Most of the time our earliest works had a lower bar set to meet our own level of satisfaction just to "get it out there." Those things can haunt you. So as an initial project its always good to go back and practice polishing up that material so it shows a good side.

I'm sure I have burned your ear off. lol  I suspect your interest in all this may have an ulterior motive to pave the way for encouraging a certain someone to perhaps contemplate a related career, full time or side line.    Start'em young!  And you are a team! B Roll opportunities.

So.... what piece of equipment would you hand me to say "here use this.  It will make your posts which include both photo and videos better and more interesting."

I could/can only speak for myself on this. Realize the potential of today's $1000 flying camera platforms. Shooting 4K UHD, 8X slow motion in 720p, 20mp stills in Raw, and stabilization that is off the chart. You can hand hold a drone and film with the camera in this quality without every lifting off the ground in flight. Of course the drawbacks are operating from a boat in a limited space. But back on land its a great tool. And a number of manufacturers have come out with a handheld gyro gimbal system you can move the drone camera to the gimbal and have a self-contained still/camcorder shooting on a 1" chip. And with 4K UHD, even though the drones don't have optical zoom, you can digitally zoom 4K in post to the equivalent of 1080p quality for a 4X shot when needed. I am really looking forward to using whatever 4K drone I settle on for these non-flight shooting opportunities.

This was 18 still frames shot from a hovering Autel X-Star drone and stitched together for an incredible 360° perspective of the world. Awesome technology. Not only from the drone's stability but also the software technology to produce this.
https://kuula.co/post/7lhvY

I don't have a drone, but I want one, because I like toys.  However, I don't know how often I would ACTUALLY use it.  Plus I live right by an airport so that puts casual use out the window.  Drones are super cool, though.

I personally have a Canon 70D and I love it.  It was an upgrade from my older Nikon, but this one does video and accepts external microphones, etc.  If you've never used a DSLR, you'll be amazed.  The auto focus on the video is actually really good considering it isn't a dedicated video camera.  There's also a reason they sell backpacks for cameras and gear.

I've used pretty good point and shoot models in other situations (Iraq, etc) where cost, size, and durability were more important since it wasn't what I was carrying in my hands.

I've used "waterproof" cameras and even in casual pool settings have always regretted it due to durability.  Find me one that actually lasts and I'd love to have one.

GoPro's are, as you said, out of this discussion.

What it comes down to, in my mind, is what you will use and what you want to do with it.  I've made the decision to leave the DSLR at home before and regretted it, other times I've taken it and had to leave it in the car, or taken it and wished I hadn't hauled it around.  If I had a drone I imagine it would be that way sooner or later as anything with a decent camera and flight time takes up space and weight as well.  I end up using my cellphone camera most because I always have it.

Rudy, if your current camera has the ability to take pictures in RAW format that you or the magazine editor would convert to TIFF images, you're good to go with that camera. Publications always want the highest possible image resolution. Saved RAW images are very large and conversions to TIFF are even larger. So you would need to consider the number of images to shoot against the capacity of the  memory card you have. If you take a lot of images, you would obviously need to download your files to clear up space on the memory card.

Howard