I vividly recall that (about 40 yr ago) I considered it an absolute hogwash that shooting with a camera was so much more enjoyable than hunting. I strongly proclaimed that this was a typical Brahminical Hindu nonsense which has been hysterically fixated due to the staunch vegetarianism being followed since ages. Mr MKD Gandhi with his tenet of non violence was also blamed (by me) as one of the reasons for this. I very strongly felt that when one spends so much time in the jungle tracking the animals and birds then one might as well gather one's reward by shooting one or two down. Specially, as we humans have clawed our way so high up in the food chain.
Four decades down the road the effort to make arrangements for hunting seem too much and hardly worth the trouble. Add to that the dwindling forest cover and illegality per se of hunting make it a poor choice as a recreational pastime.
In these environmentally conscious times one muses about the size of the substantial carbon footprint of modern day hunting. When one adds up the logistics involved and the material consumed. I would wager that carbon footprint of hunting with a film type camera may be comparable to gun hunting.
The same is certainly not true in today's digitised world. Digital photography is all the more gratifying for the results can be viewed almost instantaneously on the camera itself or on a computer after the upload, a matter of a mere few minutes at the most. The carbon footprint of digital photography is small if one does not take any printouts.
Nowadays, I do my shooting with a D40 Nikon and am very satisfied. Quality of its lenses are extremely good.
