Which one? Range finder vs game camera....

Personally, I would go for the range finder. A game camera would be great if you had a plot of land that you had regular hunting access to. Both are very useful. Unfortunately I have no land and rarely shoot past 100 yards so neither are on my "most wanted" list.

If you're not having trouble judging distances for your bowhunting, I'd go with the game camera. I bought one at WalMart, an el cheapo, and it works just fine. Granted, all manner of bells and whistles are available at extra cost.

Me being a rifle guy, a range finder seems like a Good Thing for stuff out beyond 300 yards. I dunno...

Since it appears as if you prefer close shots & have recognized your personal "comfort zone" (you sound like a "hunter"), it doesn't seem as if a range finder would be of much use. Game cameras can be useful, as stated above, but I reckon I'd be inclined to forgo either of the above and get a small digital camera to carry with you instead . . . preserve the memories. That being said, if you have a digital camera, go game camera ("Dad could use it on his farm.") if nothing else for the "surprise" pictures you may encounter (and it sounds like your Father has raised a most thoughtful & considerate young lady . . . ). God Bless . . .

Do you have a pair of high quality binoculars already?

If not, that should come before either of the other two.

3-4 hundred bucks buys some darn good glass anymore!

rcmodel

You are entirely welcome & a binocular upgrade may be just the ticket! Enjoy your Wyoming hunt!

+1 for Koja's advice. Good glass is worth its' weight in gold, especially in places like Wyoming.

I'd get a rangefinder, or yes, on that budget, you can get the Bushnell combination binocular and rangefinder. That's gonna have more immediate and needed use than a game camera, espec. for bowhunting.

Koja's on the money. But if given the choice of a trail cam vs: range finder only, go with the range finder.

My 2 cents.

Hey There:
I have had both.
I do not like range finders. They take away time and more often then not are either not right or, too hard to get and hold on target good enough to get it right. The fact that you do not shoot past that 200 yard mark is kind of a no brainer. you sound as if that shot is one you are ok with. Knowing that, you are better off at your own ranging guess. And taking carefull aim. The cameras have come a long ways. The quality of the photos are much better now then ever before. Digital is the only way to go. In that $$$ range you should be able to get just what you want. Those pictures will tell you what is out there good bad or ugly.

Wait a minute.

Hey :
I didn't think optics were an option. Yes.... By all means go optics. You will
never be sorry.

With a rangefinder, how you use it makes a difference. I like to walkabout and then sit. So, I use it to figure out a bush at 200, a big rock at 300 and then some tree at 400. Some critter shows up, you know pretty much how far off it is, and you hold accordingly. I've used a Bushnell 800, and it tests out as being quite accurate and easy to use. My "500-yard" steel plate is 489 yards; my 100-yard backstop is 100 yards, and the tin roof of a friend's garage is 836 yards.

You don't have to range the animal itself; a nearby reflective surface is just as good.

FWIW, I can download pictures from my el-cheapo trail camera to my computer. The patch cord was included, so I guess it's a common feature. I guess, also, that more $$$ means higher quality pictures, better resolution. I'm a novice, there.

You will find that $100 cameras are just as capable of good pictures as $300 cameras in today's market. More money now is just more bells and whistles you may never use and, often, a name you are paying for.

I'm all for trying to get good old dad to purchase you a quality set of binos. You will use them more and get more enjoyment out of them than either of your other choices.

Don't know how hard core you are; but 300-400 bucks would set you up with a nice set of Scentlocks and a set of uninsulated Goretex Cover ups. You will appreciate the Goretex!!! Being able to spend more time in the field comfortably, will get you more venison than any piece of electronics or glass IMO.

combo binocular/range finder

Click to expand...

I would tread carefully there.

The combo models are neither fish, nor fowl.

Bushnell has discontinued theirs. Leupold has discontinued two models, and the remaining one costs $700 bucks.

And they give nowhere near the image quality of $700 buck binoculars, or a $700 range-finder.

The other thing is, a good pair of quality binoculars can be expected to last a lifetime if you take care of them, and continue to give good service.

A battery operated digital range-finder is consumer electronics, with a limited lifespan.

rcmodel

While it is true that you do not get the image quality of a good binocular with a combo, the convenience of carrying one item instead of two can trump the optical quality consideration.

Now, if you DO get two separate ones:

-The range-finder does NOT need to be expensive, in my opinion. Just try them out in the stores to make sure they are user friendly and work - you can zap different items throughout the store. There is VERY little difference in the supposed 400 vs 800 vs. 1500 yard ones. They all work basically with the same effectiveness at the same ranges. They're good for about 200 yards for most items, but for a large reflective item like a big rock then maybe 400-600 yards. I wouldn't spend more than $150 or $175 on a range finder - just get the Bushnell Yardage Pro 400 or similar and be done with it - they work great.

On binocs, it DOES pay to pay more - you will cherish and appreciate as rcmodel points out, a high quality optic for many decades to come, or to pass along to kids.

But that doesn't necessarily make the combos bad ideas. You may not need high-quality optics as much as you need the benefit of "gadget consolidation" on certain hunt scenarios (long walk, where both are useful, and weight savings needed).

Range finders are not really needed for the hunting *I* do with RIFLES. But they are definitely helpful for archery. I get in my stand or blind. Then I pre-range all sorts of different spots where an animal could walk through, so I know whether any given open spot around me is closer to 10, 20, 30, or 40 yards. Sometimes what looks like 30 can be 10 or 15, and vice versa, to the naked eye. Gotta know which pin to use. Very useful. Out west, in dryer climes where you can see a long ways, range finders are also useful - once you shoot at something past 200 or 250, you have to know your drop, so you have to know the approx. range.

I almost got the Bushnell combo deal once, but it was the large size that turned me off. I still plan to get the Leupold combo unit, once they combine the ARC technology of their other rangefinders into the combo unit. As mentioned, rangefinders are MOST useful for archery. And since most archery hunting is done from a tree stand, at a steep angle, the ARC features are the most useful for archery tree stand hunters, espec. since the angle is steeper due to the shorter range.

And lookit, Leupold is not going to put out any item that has crap optical quality, so my guess would be that this is a gem of a little item to own, if you can swing it:

http://www.binoculars.com/rangefind...eupoldsportsopticsrxbivdigitalrangefinder.cfm

Anyone have a link to a review of this product?

Edit: Hey, whaddya know - the Loopys DO now have the True Ballistic Range (ARC) thing incorporated into their combo unit! Wow, that is precisely what I've been waiting for for a couple years. So the RXB-IV is now immediately going on the "to be acquired" list, bigtime! Thanks for bringing it up! I just wish it was 6 or 7 power, instead of 9 - that's a little on the high side - but it doesn't make a great deal of difference.

All a game camera *might* do is let you see a night pic of that HUGE buck which you will never see in the daytime. It's kinda like going to a strip club and not being allowed to touch (or so I hear) - nothing but frustration.