Photography - Digiscope to SLR - what's it REALLY like?

[Tannin]

There are lots of threads discussing the transition from digiscoping to a DSLR so far as equipment goes (lots of wonderful gear out there) and so far as cost goes (lots! it staggers me to routinely think of my beautiful Swarovski scope as one of the cheaper bits of equipment I need), and even (a little bit) so far as the technique goes, but I want to talk about going digiscope to SLR as a bird watcher

How is it different? How is it better? Worse? These are my thoughts. I hope that others who are following a similar path will add their own experiences, both because I'd be interested in reading them, and as a guide to people thinking about making the jump.

First, I'd better describe where I'm coming from, set up the background, as it were. I began bird watching reasonably seriously about 6 years ago (though I'd always had an interest in it) and spent a lot of time over the first couple of years pondering ways to record the things I saw and heard and loved. Pictures? Or sound? I almost took a side turn into recording bird calls, and may yet follow that path one day. But I stumbled across the idea of digiscoping on the web somewhere (was it Laurence Poh's site? possibly) and a little bit of googling led me here to Bird Forum, where a number of people went to a lot of trouble to help me get started with gear and tips. (Thanks to alll of you, and especially to Andy, who was fantastic. The Bird Forum community gave me a wonderful start.) That was about 3 years ago, a little under.

I took to it like a duck to water, of course. What a wonderful way to pass the time! Since then I've travelled to every state in this vast country, seen four hundred and something different species (I'm not really into listing), learned a lot about flora and habitat - and barely started scratching the surface of the possible. (Am I rich to do all this? Hell no! I probably earn less than you do. But I don't have a family and my tiny, fallie-down old house is paid for, so I don't mind in the slightest if my passion for bird photography takes up 100% of my disposable income. (Well, OK, since we are being honest here, more like about 117% of it. And 209% of my free time.)

Unlike nearly every other birder I've met, I don't use binoculars. I don't even own binoculars, unless you count the cheap and nasty ones I have floating around from 6 years ago that I never get out. So I miss seeing a lot of birds that others see - but not as many as you'd think, as travelling with only a scope is wonderful discipline: a year or two of that and you get to be able to lay the scope on a distant bird and focus almost without thinking about it. The three rules of efficient scope use are practice, practice, and practice. If you don't carry bins, you have to practice with the scope all day every day if you want to see any birds, and it soon becomes second nature. (Try it for yourself! You will be surprised.)

Oh, one other thing before I pass on to the SLR and how different it is. I'm in that 30-odd percent of digiscopers who use the focus-through-the-scope method. It's slower than guessing at the focus on the tiny screen, so you miss shots you might otherwise have got, but when you do get your shot in, it's virtually guaranteed to be focussed right - not just luck of the draw. Also, I prefer to follow George's long-lens method: grasp the camera and hold it steady against yourself to damp out any vibration, as opposed to the alternative method using a lot of paitence and a remote release. (What happened to George's forum? That had some fantastic advice in it, and now I can't find it.)

Why go to an SLR?

Several things drove me in that direction. In no particular order:

* Time. It takes me around 15 seconds to go from scope over shoulder to completed shot on flash card: Spot bird and move to suitable standpoint. Erect tripod. Remove camera. Line up scope. Aquire bird. Zoom right in. Focus. Zoom right out. (This is faster and more reliable than focusing at 20X - the shallow depth of field at 60X makes it possible to focus precisely right away because even a little bit out is so obviously wrong. On the ATS-80HD anyway. Your scope may or may not be suitable for this method.) Replace camera. Zoom to frame it as desired. Squeeze shutter. Wait .... wait ... wait ... (14.94 seconds have elapsed by now) ... wait ... bird moves, shutter goes off 0.018 seconds later. Re-aquire bird, refocus if need be. Rinse, lather and repeat. You get there eventually.
* Shutter delay. OK, I mentioned this already, but the shutter delay of my Canon A95, never mind the Coolpix 4500s I had before that which were much worse again, is horribly frustrating. I think some of the latest digiscoping cameras do this better, but SLRs are on a different planet.
* Picture quality. It's possible to get A1 picture quality out of a good digiscoping rig, but very, very difficult. In the end, you are poking a camera which was never designed for it down an adaptor into a scope which was never designed to have cameras poked into it. You need perfect light, great technique, and an unusually cooperative bird. Even then, it's not the same quality that you see the SLR people turn out as routine. Sometimes you look at a picture you took six weeks and 6,000 kilometres ago and you stare and stare at it and no matter how long you look at it for, it just ain't right, and you guessed that at the time, but you weren't prepared to spend yet another day at the same place trying one more time when there was no certainty that you'd get a better shot anyway.
* Movement. This, along with "time" above, was the big one. I'll spell this out at more length.

I have some pretty fair digiscoped pictures of pelicans and egrets, Musk Ducks and waders, robins, stone-curlews, kites and kestrels, kingfishers, treecreepers, most of the common parrots and cockatoos and a few of the rare ones. All the easy digiscoping birds, in other words.

For example, the ones that sit still, or hover, or move frequently but mostly move to reasonably predictable places. Robins are a good example: not only do they perch motionless for 10 to 20 seconds at a time, even if you miss the first chance, they will often pounce on something and return to the same perch again, or to some other obvious choice nearby. Kingfishers do the same thing. Fantails and flycatchers, on the other hand, perch in obvious places, but never for long enough to let you get the scope lined up and focused and wait out that interminable shutter delay. I once has a Restless Flycatcher spend a long time quite close to me in the Gawler Ranges while I tried to take its picture. And I did get a pair of shots, excellent ones, in the end - but it took me an hour and a half of constantly trying and missing by literally tenths of a second. It was as though the little creature was watching my finger on the shutter, then counting 6 tenths of a second before taking flight again. Horribly frustrating. (The fact that it was 42 degrees in the shade that day didn't help my temper.) It was worth it, of course, and the picture is probably in my gallery somewhere, but there had to be a better way.

Or honeyeaters. I digiscoped some pretty nice honeyeater shots but they too are an exercise in character strengthening a lot of the time, especially the very active ones that rarely keep still or emerge from the foliage for more than a few moments: Brown-Headed Honeyeater, spinebills, Crescent, Yellow-faced, Black-throated are examples. (Others are relatively easy: New Holland, wattlebirds, White-cheeked, Spiny-cheeked, Brown, Yellow-plumed are all digiscopable.) You have to be very lucky or very patient to get the hard ones.

As for thornbills and gerygones, forget it! In close to three years worth of digiscoping, I've got good shots of .... er .... OK, I've got fair shots of Weebill, and .... can't think of any others. Recognition-class shots of a half-dozen, but none that you would write home about.

The smaller parrots are another near-hopeless cause: things like Little, Purple-crowned and Musk Lorikeets are almost impossible with a scope. You need a big slice of luck for shy ones like Turquouse Parrots and Blue Bonnets. Even Mulga Parrots are a bit of a challenge.

Wrens! The ordinary blue wren (Superb Fairy-wren) comes close, tames readily, and is as common as any bird can be. But they hop around constantly and between the shutter delay and the constant need to refocus, they are really, really difficult. Grass wrens? Not a chance. (OK, I have a brown blur disappearing out of a picture. It's a Thick-billed Grasswren. Honest. You can trust me on that.)

[Tannin]

So, two or three months ago I hammered the poor little credit card into submission again and ordered an SLR and an image stabilised 400mm lens. (Canon 20D and Canon 100-400L.) The plan was to go from a three-part setup to a four part setup:

Long shots and static birds: Scope and A95
Close, fast-moving birds: 20D & 100-400
Landscapes: Nikon Coolpix 4500 (a retired digiscoping camera)
Bugs and wildflowers: the CP4500 again.

A lot of gear to carry around, but worth it, I thought. (I believe that it is essential to capture the whole of the experience: just birds, birds and more birds without their habitat and the plants that grow in it is pretty meaningless stuff. You might as well put them in a cage and be done with it.)

I quickly found that the 20D is an awesomely competent bit of machinery. You really do have to try one to appreciate just how good it is. Get hands-on with one. You will be amazed. (I am sure that broadly similar comments would apply to the other leading SLRs as well. If the Nikon D200 had been out then I might have gone that way, and the latest Konica-Minolta looks good too.) The SLRs are just in a completely different league.

There are two huge differences between scope and SLR.

1: Time. Instead of ~15 seconds (assuming best case - i.e., that you have somewhere flat and clear of vegetation to put the tripod down), you are shooting in 1 or 2 seconds flat - i.e., in the same amount of time it might take you to lay a pair of binoculars on a bird. Never mind focusing, if the bird is close enough and in good light and clear of the sort of foliage that would mess your shot up anyway, the camera will do the focusing for you, and do it a lot faster than you could ever do it yourself. If you are good with binoculars, you will be just as good with the camera, given a few days practice. (I'm hopeless with binoculars - I can centre a bird in the scope about three times faster than I can get it in binoculars, but that's just lack of practice. In fact, I imagine that I'd do OK now, as it's probably about the same as using the SLR, and I've had lots of practice with that of late.)

2: Distance. No matter how much you are prepared to spend on lenses, you won't get anywhere near as close to the bird with an SLR as you can digiscoping. Typical digiscoping magnification is, in 35mm equivalent terms, around 2 to 2.5 metres - that's 2500mm. (Some people digiscope at much greater zoom levels than this,well over 3 metres: you can usually tell who they are because their pictures are always blurred and dim and fuzzy. In my book, 2.5 metres is the absolute, cast iron maximum, and under 2 is a good deal better.

There are many other things, but these two are the biggies.

Now, let's see the difference. These shots were taken from too far away in poor light. (I was on one side of the Murrumbidgee River, the Great Egret on the other side.) I wouldn't normally post shots as poor as these (or even keep them), but they just happen to be ideal for illustrating the differences between scope and SLR. If I can get the order of them right, they go like this (all focal lengths converted into 35mm equivalent terms):

1: 38mm: the scene with my Coolpix at 1X zoom
2: 2153mm: scope at 20X, Coolpix at about 3X (the workable maximum)
3: 640mm: 20D and 100-400 at 400 (1.6 crop factor = 640mm equivalent)
4: 2047mm: 100% crop from digiscope
5: 640mm: 100% crop from SLR
6: ---: SLR shot zoomed up in computer to about the same size as the digiscoped shot. (Attached to my next post - it seems I can only attach 5 at a time.)

Notice the vast difference in zoom levels between #2 and #3. If you are used to filling the frame with a digiscoped bird, you will find the lack of zoom an SLR can offer pretty hard to get used to.

Now notice the differences between #4 and #5. These are 100% crops - i.e., a 640 x 480 slice taken out of the larger pictures, not re-sized at all. The SLR picture (#5) is clearly superior to the digiscoped one, even though we are using only about 4% of the available pixels, as opposed to about 8% of the pixels in the digiscoped shot.

On the other hand, if we take an SLR shot of the bird's head and zoom it up so that it seems to be the same size as the head in the digiscoped shot, we get shot #6, about which you can make your own judgement. (I think I might have been standing a little closer for that one, not so diagonal across the river, so don't read too much into it, just take it as a rough indication that a good quality SLR and a largish hand-held lens delivers very approximately the same ultimate resolution at long distance as a digiscope under similar conditions.)

(By the way, I mildly sharpened #1, #2, and #3 when I resized them to 640 x 480. With #2, the digiscoped shot, I played with the gamma a bit too, because the Coolpix gets exposure pretty wrong quite often - this is something that all cameras do but the SLRs do much less, on the whole. Also, I should mention, just in case no-one has noticed yet, that in every one of these shots the egret is blown out and over-exposed. Black birds and white birds always need some of the special care that I did not expend on these quick snaps - yes, even with an SLR, possibly more so as the higher resolution shows the flaws up more clearly.)

[Tannin]

Now that up-sized shot from the SLR. Compare with #4 above.

[Tannin]

It's well after midnight, but it would be nice to draw this very long post towards some kind of conclusion tonight, if I can stay awake long enough. So briefly now, what differences is the SLR making?

First, I am having an absolutely wonderful; time taking shots of all those difficult birds I mentioned in the first post. If you go SLR, you simply won't beleve how much easier it is to get shots of small, approachable, active birds. In just a few weeks I've got quality shots of Brown-headed Honeyeaters, Mistletoebirds, Brown Thornbills, Buff-rumped Thornbills, any number of Grey Fantails and blue wrens, Regent Honeyeater, Red-browed Finch, and some others too. Not to mention gerygones, woodswallows (you can digiscope woodswallows, but it takes a lot longer), parrots and lorikeets, a Shy Heathwren, all sorts of things. I bring home maybe 6 times more worthwhile shots at the end of a day's birding, on average. Best $lots I ever spent!

Second, your methods become very different, and you find yourself going to different places, looking for different birds there. Digiscoping, you go out looking for places where there will (a) be nice birds, and (b) where you think you might have a rough chance of predicting exactly where the birds will be for 15+ seconds. You are not completely fazed by being a little distance away from them. (But nevertheless, even digiscoping, you can never forget about Rule One: get as close to the bird as you can.) Typical favourite haunts for digiscoping are watering holes (especially in summer or after a long dry period), favourite feeding places, and loafing areas. One of the best things is to find a modest sized clearing and position yourself such that it's roughly the same distance to the foliage in several diffrent directions, then wait. Before too long, if you are lucky, an interesting bird will turn up, and you are already in good position to take its picture.

With the SLR, you have time to spare, but distance becomes your enemy. You find yourself becoming obsessive about finding places where the trees are smaller than usual (young plantations or regrowth areas near taller, established forest are good). You look for the sort of thick cover that you would instinctively avoid with a scope. You don't worry about light so much (you still need good quality light, but you can get away with shooting with a lot less of it than a digiscope needs.

Third (am I up to third?) you are forever crying for more and more and more reach. You need to get heaps closer to fill the frame, and no sooner have you bought a $3000 400mm lens than you start dreaming about a $13000 500mm lens. And a $17000 600mm lens to follow that, no doubt. Where will it end? In the poorhouse, no doubt. Be warned: if you thought digiscoping was expensive, your wallet ain't felt nothing yet.

Fourth, the downside. With an SLR, you take pictures. Digiscoping, you might miss a lot of photo opportunities, but you get to see a lot more of the birds. The view through even a top quality camera viewfinder simply doesn't compare with the view you get through a quality scope, or even with the view provided by 1st class binoculars. Nothing like as good. Think cheap e100 binoculars. I'm actually thinking of buying a pair of Swarovski 8 x 32s and hanging them around my neck. Yes, me, Mr No Binoculars.

With the scope, even if your priority is photography as it is for me, there are birds that you don't photograph for any of many reasons, but you take the time to have a good look at. Birds in bad light, with intervening foliage, ones that won't sit still for long enough, common ones that you have lots of pictures of already, ones that are too far away to make good shots ..... all of these can still be enjoyed and studied through your scope. With an SLR, you miss out on them.

With the scope, even if you don't take time out to just watch some birds (though you always do), you still get to absorb quite a lot while you are clowning around trying to get pictures. It's surprising how much you see of a bird in those few seconds while you are focussing, for example. You can go home and bring the bird to mind, just as you saw it. Not so with the SLR. Your views are no better than third-rate, and it's hard work hand-holding a heavy lens as opposed to simply looking through a scope. That Regent Honeyeater I was delighted to meet a few weeks ago - I spent hours with it but I barely even got to look at it. I feel as if I didn't see it at all, didn't get to know it. Would I swap my pictures for a chance to spend time with it with scope or bins? On balance, no. My pictures will continue giving me pleasure for the rest of my life, but even so, the loss of quality birding that accompanies changing over to an SLR instead of a scope is real, and I haven't altogether worked out how to deal with that.

Fifth, your perceptions change. Somewhere up above I mentioned my plan to use the SLR as one part of a four part strategy, and continue using lesser cameras for landscapes, macros, and digiscoping. That plan is no longer on the cards. I imagine I'll keep on using the A95 for digiscoping, but it's hard to say. I'd only had the 100-400 for three-quarters of a day when my A95 failed on me. It's been back with Canon being fixed under warranty (or more to the point, not being fixed under warranty) for months now. And my one remaining Coolpix (I gave the other one to a family member) is faulty too: it randomly overexposes things about two times out of three.

Nevertheless, when I look at the landscapes and macros the little cameras do and then compare them to the 20D, they usually look distinctly substandard. The 20D has spoiled me, and I'm no longer satisfied with ... well, certainly not with the 4500s, and only moderately satisfied with the A95. (The A95 is much better at landscape than the poor old Coolpix.)

The Coolpix 4500s were superb little macro cameras - better at macros than the A95. But although the results can be good, they take forever to lock up a focus, and if there is any breeze at all, they are hopeless.

The long and the short of it is that one SLR is not enough. More money. Plus you need lenses too. Sigh.

Sixth, flight shots. Having the ability to take flight shots is fantastic.

Seventh: Shutter response. When you squeeze the shutter, you get pictures now - not at some vague time in the future. Many a time in the past I would have comitted a capital crime to get the near-enough-to-instant shutter response an SLR delivers.

Overall, for me the move to SLR photography has been a very good thing indeed (notwithstanding some regrets as well). But you may well feel differently about it. It all depends on your priorities, I think. I hope my reflections on the things I've learned and way I feel since I made this fairly major change of direction help you decide whether it would be good for you or not. Either way though, thanks for listening.

[postcardcv]

Hi Tannin

I've been a birder all my life and have started taking photos of them over the last few years. Like you I started with digiscoping, at the time it was the only way I could go - the cost fo film ruled at using an slr (though I tried). I went through a few camera until I finally cracked an bought a CP4500, and I'm glad I did. Unlike previous cameras the image quality was excellent, shortly afterwards I got a new scope (Leica APO77) and finally started to get some pleasing shots.

This really did make me look at birds in a different way, I spent more time watching common species as they tended to be the once that stayed still long enough to take photos of. I did all of my digiscoping hand held and soon found the limitations of this, flight shots were are near impossibility and the slow speen of the Nikon cost me lots of shots.

As the price of dslr's came down, and I started to see them in use (a freind got a 300D so I got to play with the system), I realised that it would add another element to bird photography. So earlier this year I cracked and got an EOS300D, which got damaged and has been repaced with a 350D. I started off with a Sigma 170-500 zoom, but have since upgraded to a Sigma 500 f4.5 prime. Now flight shots are a possibility, they're still not easy and I'm having to learn how to get them right, but it's great fun trying.

The dslr has allowed me to get many shots that I would not have got using a digiscoping set up, both through the movement of the bird and the speed with which the camera works. That said I still take out my digiscoping set up as it allows me to take shots of birds that are further away, for me my dslr compliments digiscoping, it has definitey not replaced it.

Personally I think that digiscoping is a very natural additon to birding, a small digital camera doesn't really add much weight when going out for a days birding and isn't too expensive to buy. It's a great way for birders to keep a record of birds they've seen and can make a quiet days birding more interesting. A dslr however is a different prospect, it's a lot more kit to carry out with you, t can easily become a different hobby.

Just weighed my kit - my current digiscoing camera weighs ~250g, where as the dslr and lenses I take out with me weighs in at ~8.5kg.

[Yelvertoft]

Thank you Tannin, it was an enjoyable read and very interesting. I appreciate the efforts you've put into this.

Regards,

Duncan.

[Nigel G]

Either way though, thanks for listening.

:clap: Thanks for writing :clap: - this is exactly the debate I have been having with my creditcard and with this very clear evaluation I am even more certain the plastic is going to lose - its just a question of when ;) .

[Robert L Jarvis]

Very well laid out piece, should serve as a salutary thread for all those who post threads who want advice how to start digiscoping or DSLR.

It also highlights the fundamental quandary that affects us all about which way to go. In addition it throws up the point , are you a birdwatcher who takes occasionally photgraphs or a photographer who occasionally bird watches.

[Keith Reeder]

Top notch stuff, Tannin - I fundamentally understand what was in your head and heart when you wrote this, because I've wrestled with the same demons!

;)

A briilliant read - it should be a "sticky"!

[hornet]

Thank you Tannin. I think you may just have saved me £2,000 or more. :t:

I (like all digiscoping birders) am constantly trying to achieve better results, cursing the limitations of the equipment, wishing I could capture flight shots etc etc.

DSLR always sounds like the obvious solution - the very best equipment, the quickest, the highest resolution and so on. But... as your brilliant discourse points out very clearly to me, I'm not a photographer. Many days I don't even take my digiscoping gear out of the car. I'm also a complete lightweight when it comes to gear, and like to be able to fit most things in my pocket. Suddenly DSLR doesn't sound so good.

So thank you for a brilliant and helpful thread, perfectly timed while I am wrestling with these issues. I will go back to my digiscoping kit with renewed enthusiasm, be the best I can with that, and enjoy my birding.

Might look at a Panasonic FZ20 as a compromise for those flight shots though. And maybe a teleconverter. Hmmmmm....

[alan_rymer]

Tannin

Thanks for the fantastic novel.
What you have written complements the thread Reader started regarding the competition, which I wanted to post into, but anything I posted would look like "sour grapes, and still does".

Alan

[SeanKP]

Wonderful post Tannin. Many thanks. I'm a weird beast in that I got into birding via photography and in the never ending quest for reach have started to think about digiscoping. This thread has given me an insight into the limitations of that discipline that I've never really had before.

Cheers.

Sean

[christineredgate]

Thanks,Tannin,very interesting reading.As has already been mentioned each peice of equipment has it's own uses.To set up a digiscoping outfit in order to take a pic of a Robin which has just alighted a few yards away from you would just be waste of time.By the time one had set up the scope etc,bird would have quicly flown off.A missed opportunity.Whereas with the 20d x100-400 quick and easy to perhaps manage a decent shot.But when I go to take shots of the Herons in the trees,digiscoping comes into it's own.I have compared the images taken of the same birds using a 400 lens and the digiscoped images win every time.It is matter of choice.I do have to carry my gear,I transport it around on my trike,so weight is not an issue.But if going out on a serious birding walk,and taking a scope,then a small cam for digiscoping is ideal.But if one only takes bins,then an slr with the best lens one can manage to carry is the obvious answer in that situation.

[OBXGuide]

Thanks Tannin for your thoughtful post. Since you've been a digiscoper first, and then had the opportunity to compare it to DSLR'ing, you've answered some nagging questions for me, as I've been seriously considering adding digiscoping to my DSLR photography. Mr. Jarvis has also helped when he asked the logical question- "are you a birdwatcher who takes occasionally photgraphs or a photographer who occasionally bird watches."

I am more the latter than the former, though you can delete the "occasionally" part of the question, as bird photography is a very major part of my photography. Getting a DSLR (Canon 10D) has proven to be the best choice for me. However, my dilemma now is that after talking to a fellow not long ago who is a serious birdwatcher with a Swarovski 80HD wanting to get into digiscoping, I found out it's possible to attach Canon DSLRs to the Swarovski ATS80 HD. Now the shutter lag issue is gone (a major sticking point with me after using non-SLR digitals for some time). However, all the other issues still apply (light requirements, set-up time, no in-flight shots with scope, etc.) So, after giving up on the idea of getting a big scope VS. Canon 500mm L IS and 1.4 extender, I find the thoughts of adding a scope for the really far off shots still lingers. I suppose I will opt for the big lens first, but maybe, just maybe, a big scope may follow later. It's just money, of which most of us have in too short a supply.

By the way, here's a link to the scoop on connecting camera to scope.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/swarovski-digiscoping.html#s3-2
(It's a long and very informative bit of info. This link is jumped down to the particular section on Swarovski adapters).

[IanF]

I've always thought of Digiscoping v DSLR as serving two different purposes. Having recently bought the same gear as Tanny (Canon 20D+100-400mm IS) my thoughts haven't changed.

For me digiscoping produces superior photos for more distant birds - usually static ones.

DSLR's are better for closer birds and active birds, both hopping around and in flight. Digiscoping can't compete in these circumstances though I find with some species you can predict whre they will land or which way they are about to turn their head which helps overcome shutter lag. You end up with four or five shots meanwhile with a DSLR you'd have had 20-30 and simply discarded the rubbish. Also to note these closer birds are often too close for the scope to focus or even if it does even at 20x you can't fit the bird in the frame!

A proviso though that there is quite an overlap of distance for closer birds. At 20-25 yds the DSLR can compete with digiscoping as the photos can be heavily cropped due to better sensors and higher MP's.

Overall I still get more of a kick out of digiscoping as obtaining a decent shot can be quite frustrating. Now I've got a DSLR I'd never go back to using a long zoom compact - the DSLR is far far superior. Compacts serve a purpose in terms of more reach at a lower price and so are more cost effective option but don't compete in terms of results achieved.

However I'll never give up digiscoping either as most birds seen in causal birding are at greater rather than closer distance. With digiscoping you can take photos without disturbance. By the time you get close enough to use the DSLR - most of them are off.

One more observation is quality of output. Digisoping is fine for photos for online use but seldom for larger reproductions for printing. DSLR's are fine for both uses.

Here's two photos from each technique with distances taken from -

[Reader]

Tannin

Thanks for the fantastic novel.
What you have written complements the thread Reader started regarding the competition, which I wanted to post into, but anything I posted would look like "sour grapes, and still does".

Alan

Thanks Tannin

Amazing read and as Alan pointed out I had posted a thread regarding the monthly competitions being very hard to compete in with Digiscoping equipment as SLR images are in the main far superior to digiscoped ones.

I would love to go down the SLR rioute but I'm afraid the cost is way out of my reach, and yet Andy (in my thread) reckons the camera's are similar priced. To be honest the whole set you would need to produce the results we see in these contests isn't cheap but if you can afford it, it has to be the way to go.

I carry quite a bit of gear with me wherever I go. There isn't a day when I go birding that my camera bag isn't with me but I think that if I added more it might start to detract a bit from my day.

Your excellent posts have (like Hornets reply) turned my head away from even considering the SLR route. I will stay with Digiscoping and hope to better my results as time goes by. Mind you if I win the Lottery next week I might change my mind. lol

[Neil]

Tannin,
Well put. I have taken the plunge and upgraded to an expensive Nikon D2x and Nikon 300/2.8 AFS lens with 1.4x tele. Everywhere I go with this combo the birds are twitchy at the sound of the motordrive and the movement of the lens. Ducks pick up the sound of a DSLR from 25 meters and won't come closer. I am getting better photos due to the speed of the setup but I'm also getting a sore shoulder from carrying it around. I agree with you though that to photograph most of the birds that you mention by digiscoping is tough. But I do miss the peace and quite and watching birds going about their business without hearing any noise from me . You should hear the noise in a wooden hide with 7 photographers with 500/600 lens firing away at waders. I would still like to take all my equipment with me and choose the most appropriate for the moment but the weight is getting the better of me. Now I want an all electronic,silent, DSLR with a superfast 800mm/f4 lens which doesn't weigh too much. Maybe we'll never be satisfied. Neil

[mcapper]

Tanin

Many thanks for this - an excellent effort and must have taken ages. I am getting the Canon 350D for Christmas and then, as soon as I can afford it, will add the 100-400 IS lens. Reading your article has just re-affirmed just why I hope to move into DSLR photography (whilst also intending to keep on digiscoping).

I think the lens may be some way off though - a reason to agree with the suggestion that this be made a 'sticky'!

Matthew

[Quacker]

Just to let you know, that I saw it very much an enhancement to the capture of image - as opposed to an either or.

My Canon 350D and 170-500mm arrived today. My first venture into DSLR (from an SLR background) I rarely digiscoped, impatient that I am, now awaiting time and good light!

Steve

PS I now have all possibiities and scenarios covered from Macro to (a theoretical maximum 11,625mm) digiscope with 75x Nikon @ 4x CP4500 - I know, I know, onlt a fool would try that lol.

[sparrowbirder]

Does anybody still do both? I havent digiscoped for nearly 12 months,or since i purchased my DSLR, just too much gear to lug around, too slow,etc etc,my coolpix is just gathering dust in the cupboard, can anybody truly say, hand on heart, they actually enjoyed Digicsoping, with all the frustrations that entailed,especially in UK with all the horrible weather,its amazing the difference with a DSLR, and the feeling of liberation it gives you, normally just take my 350d and a pair of bins when I go birding these days, and my back is a lot better for it!!

[Neil]

Your Coolpix may actually increase in value as less and less digicams have internal lenses and screw threads. I have just invested a bit more in changing my digiscoping kit so that I can use the scope and Nikon 300/2.8 interchangeably. I bought a new ballhead ( and Benro - made in China ) ,a Manfrotto Micro/balance bar to enable me to shift the center of balance of the scope/camera combo and a small Slik tripod. I can now get the scope and the tripod in a normal backpack and if I don't feel like carrying the 300/2.8 , can easily carry the D2x and 80-400/zoom. As I do most of my photography sitting down I don't need to extend the tripod so small is good enough. The Slik has spikes too which I like. I would normally set up with the D2x plus 300/2.8 on the tripod and when a digiscoping opportunity occurs quickly switch it over.The best of both worlds from 6 inches to 300 yards.Neil.

[IanF]

Does anybody still do both? I havent digiscoped for nearly 12 months,or since i purchased my DSLR, just too much gear to lug around, too slow,etc etc,my coolpix is just gathering dust in the cupboard, can anybody truly say, hand on heart, they actually enjoyed Digicsoping, with all the frustrations that entailed,especially in UK with all the horrible weather,its amazing the difference with a DSLR, and the feeling of liberation it gives you, normally just take my 350d and a pair of bins when I go birding these days, and my back is a lot better for it!!
Yep! I enjoy digiscoping as much for challenge as anything and it still has it's place. For closer 'digiscopable' birds though a DSLR is that much easier to use.

For close birds a DSLR is far superior to the results to the digital compact I was using - which is what I see it as primarily a replacement rather than the digiscoping.

I'm still doing both - though obviously less digiscoping. Using a 400mm lens and occasionally a 1.4x converter on the DSLR means there's a large overlap between the two techniques but for stationary more distant birds (50+ yds) digiscoping still gives superior results.

Mind you though my back is a lot better nowadays ;)

[postcardcv]

Does anybody still do both? ... can anybody truly say, hand on heart, they actually enjoyed Digicsoping...

Yes I still do both and yes I enjoy digiscoping. I got a dslr in the middle of last year and now take the majority of my photos with it, however I still (normally) take my digiscoping kit out with me too. I'm a birder first and a photographer second so always have my scope when out, so taking a digiscoping camera isn't much additional weight.

When digiscoping was all I did I loved it - it gave me the opportunity to take photos of birds, something I couldn't afford to do with flim. I enjoyed the challenge and got great satisfaction when I managed a good shot. I still find a good digiscoped shot more satisfying than one with the dslr as there is so much more effort involved.

[sparrowbirder]

I'm a birder first and a photographer second so always have my scope when out, so taking a digiscoping camera isn't much additional weight.
This is a problem as well, I find im turning into a bit of a "fair weather birder", more and more unless the weather is decent for photography I dont bother,must be my age,when i was younger id go down to my local patch whatever the weather,and i always pulled my mates leg about being an FBW,really must try and get back into the "birding" bit and have the photography as a sideline, its just so addictive though!!!

[gmax]

... I'm a birder first and a photographer second ...

Hello everybody,
first I want to thank Tannin for starting this useful and most needed thread, then thanking you all for your excellent contributions, especially re. the world of digiscoping I marginally know of.
I've read through and through, and I think I've grasped what's in the heart and mind of those who "migrated" from one system to the other, but these readings made me also think about my "identity" and I found that I didn't fit in any of these perspectives (thank you Pete for you "casual" words).
My passion for nature in general and birds specifically may be traced back to my childhood (I'm in my early forties - I said EARLY - lol); I've always strolled passionately around with my bins, but in the last few years it has grown stronger and stronger until - after using a compact long-zoom digital camera - I recently bought a DSLR. And here's the surprise: whenever I'm with other birders I notice that I'm not so deeply interested in
biological details: e.g. "oh, look, a leucistic 2winter male Calidris minuta, 3 days earlier this year etc etc - "Oh no, can't you see it's a Calidris temminckii, female 3winter? It shows an eye line rather than an eye ring", last year I saw one that ... etc etc
technical details: e.g. "You know, my camera shows a weak anti-aliasing filter but the MTF is greater than 0.5 at the Nyquist frequency etc etc - "Oh, but you should notice that my camera shows a high degree of sharpening, and moire patterns are present etc etc..."
Please notice: I'm not making fun of anybody's passions, I'm just saying that what I feel I am is

a HUNTER! |})|

What I want is using both of these skills to get the "perfect" shot (read: everlasting memory) every time I'm out in the wilderness (or in my garden) and to do this I need to be more skilled than I am now. I share with you all I believe the intimate satisfaction of observing animals in their context, of appreciating their behaviour, of having also the excuse to stay peacefully away from my business/job/family duties (poor wife/girlfriend! shhh ...) etc ... but all these feelings are not there per se .. they're finalized to a certain extent!
Sorry for this long apology, but I wanted to underline that passion is not always just an ideal pure heaven - it's not enough, otherwise why staying hours out there in the shower and the rain? Long tiring walks with tons of mosquitos dragging around tons of equipment for which you've spent all of your budget? Just for an ideal?
Per aspera ad astra,
Max

[Josef]

Wow what a great thread, thank you Tanin and all the other wonderful insights. Like others it made me think of what I want to do. It even made me think back to when I was about 6 (1949) and ran into the house insisting I just saw a zebra bird. At age 14 my ornithologist neighbor took me along and I saw my first Bittern, by 25 I was into BW photo (mosly landscapes) with a Mamiya RB67 and full darkroom. Before 40 I had a 35mm SLR attached to a cheap scope and even though I lived on the Mississipi flyway I didn't get a keeper.

Now my home office wall is covered with 8x10 trophies (notice the hunter talk GMAX) and I love the outdoors more than ever.

My birding interest is greater than ever but won't take a bird book along - why when I can relive what I saw in my office and confirm the identity. I'll have to admit I started reading this thread out of curiosity and it pretty much confirmed what I thought DSLR was about. I now shoot with an Oly C-60 on a meager Kowa 821 (WHAT NO FLORIDE!) with a custom adapter and then the fun starts in my darkroom. I've developed techniques to increase the DOF if I'm off slightly in focus. Reducing the aberation takes some time but if I had the best DSLR around I'd still probably mess with the results. Some purists might say its cheating but its not any differnt than what Ansel Adams did. Back in the 70's I'd spend an evening developing 2 negatives in an evening learning his technique, now I rarely spend over 2 hours to make corrections on the digital negative.

The only time I get frustrated is when the Redstart lands so close there is no way to try - now I just resign to enjoying them. Who knows someday my grandchildren's kids will run into the house with a pic so the zebra bird can be identified.

[Peter Ericsson]

Hi Tannin,

I enjoyed your class tremendously and can naturally relate to all you said. I am in the beginning stages of using a DSLR and it is bringing another dimension to my relationship with birds and birding. I don't really think the one should exclude the other. However it is difficult to concentrate on too many things at a time. One have to priority and aline those priorities with circumstances. One day I may be after shots the other a new Owl. Asking myself questions like: What do I want to accomplish today? Where is this leading to? Is this another ego trip or am I still putting priority on enjoying the birds.
There is no question though that within its range the DSLR is supreme and delivers wonderfully. At the same time it has lots of restrictions and it is finding those limits and trying to do the best within that frame that brings satisfaction.....

For now I am putting the scope on the shelt till those wondeful waders come back....and even then I will bring the DSLR since I can approach the waders a lot better from the car.

[Orion68]

Thanks to all, especially Tannin for the excellent read and insight into both sides.

I am a photogrpaher of the wild and a hunter. I am not a bird-specific photographer, nor do I really know much about birds. If I see something I like I photgraph it, whether it be bear, deer, elk, fox, wolf, or any other animal or bird. I like what I like and try to get the best photo to look back on and remember what it was I was looking at and the experience of being in the wild and observing. I have a Nikon D70S with a 28-80mm and 70-300mm, if not only because it was the least expensive package I could find at the time in my price range. I am not partial to any particular brand and am not very versed in the nuts and bolts of technical photography, but I know when I get a good shot and I know right away (or at least in the 2 seconds it takes to look at the LCD screen). To my point. I have struggled with the reach issue and have a Kowa 821 that I use for High Power Rifle Competitions and thought I might put the scope and camera together. This was the reason for my coming to Bird Forum. I have been very pleased with the information I have received and the very informative posts. This string of threads has helped me make the decision to go for the bigger lens and maybe a 1.4 TC in that my scope probably does not have the necessary quality glass for good long-range photography and the upgrade of scope is probably about the same, monetarily, as the upgrade in lens. Thanks to all for the great info.