Choice between scope or camera

[inka]

I have the money to purchase a Nikon 3.2 x 82 fieldscope or a D70S digital SLR with the 300 mm telephoto package, but I don't have the money for both at this time. I would like to get into bird photagraphy but am not sure which route to take. I have a Nikon Coolpix 995 that I could use with the scope or I could buy the D70S and perhaps purchase a better telephoto lens at a later date. I would appreciate any feedback from someone that has had to make the same decision. I am now temporarily working near New Orleans Louisiana. Thanks Inka.

[Josef]

I would appreciate any feedback from someone that has had to make the same decision.

Inka,

I've been at this "hobby" now for a couple years and have seen a tremendous improvement in the cameras. If I was starting now, it would be a much harder choice than what I had to make. I ended up with an 82mm Kowa, Oly c60, custom adapter (days of labor with fussy little steel parts) and a manfrotto very smooth moving head. A typical bird session has 3 steps for each picture: I aim with a sight on the scope, focus the scope with one hand viewing the monitor and then with hands off the equipment use a cord release. Each step takes time and for each pic I must average 2 lost or so it seems.

The beauty of the new cameras is the auto focus removes a large portion of time envolved in the process. After a recent session I concluded the camera would probably get twice the shots off in the same time.

On the other hand I only have about $1100 invested and I love every bird session, I seem to like the tactile feel of it. Also with my meager investment I sometimes get results better than the best with IS and the works. I also enjoy being at distance from the subject and still capturing feather detail.

One other thing - take advantage of BF. Study the pics and equipment for several nights. You'll spend much more time with what you end up with and you might as well see what other people have done with the same equipment.

Joe

[IanF]

I think it's best to decide first what your main use will be.

I've always thought of digiscoping as a contrived technique to take photos of the birds you watch through the scope. It's not the simplest of techniques and most often a record shot is the result rather than something of high photographic quality. A camera, scope and tripod aren't the most of convenient of things to carry around if photography is your main intention.

If your main use will be to use the scope for bird watching and occasionally try for a few photos then digiscoping is a worthwhile technique. I'm not so sure it's a good way to go if taking photos is your main interest.

I think few people would contest that for decent bird photos then the DSLR is the route to go. A 300 mm lens (preferably a prime lens) is useable for bird photos though a 400mm would be better or 300mm with a converter attached. Either way using a DSLR is a lot simpler and easier than digiscoping.

[Tannin]

A 300mm lens is too short and will frustrate the life out of you.

Digiscoping will frustrate the life out of you.

Choose your poison ......

[Hottentot]

Hello inka

Speaking as a bird watcher who wanted to get into taking photos of birds I have chosen the digiscoping route. However it only works for birds that are relatively distant (20+ feet) and slow moving (completely motionless is even better). Picture quality is fair i.e. adequate for a 6x4 print. Mind you the whole process is fiddly and incredibly frustrating at times.

The DSLR route is a completely different experiance. The cameras are very easy to use but you need to get so close to the birds ! (under 20 feet if you can). If you do then the photos will be superb in quality. If you can't then you will have to crop the photo and to be honest it won't be as good as a digiscoped photo.

Still when alls said and done my favorite kit to take out birdwatching is a good pair of bins and my DSLR with a Tamron 200-500 lens. Even if I don't get close enough for a good picture I have seen the birds through the bins and I have not gone through the tedious process off setting up the digiscoping kit only to see the sodding bird fly off 0.5 of a second before I'm ready to take a shot.

Hopefully this has given you some insights into your dilemma, and if you investigate this great forum you will find many more..

[jourdaj]

I'll throw my two-cents (quid, etc...) in. For me, I'd get a nice scope and enjoy the wonderful looks at the birds that you won't get through a camera lens. That said, you'll need to ask yourself where you do the majority of your birding. I do mine in the marsh and along lakeshores, so the scope is a requirement and used all the time. If you spend most of your time walking through woods, then the camera may be the better option. The Coolpix 995 is a nice camera, and the digiscoping will fill the niche missed by not having the long camera lens. As others have said, both will frustrate and confound you. Good luck w/ either decision.

Jerry

[inka]

I'll throw my two-cents (quid, etc...) in. For me, I'd get a nice scope and enjoy the wonderful looks at the birds that you won't get through a camera lens. That said, you'll need to ask yourself where you do the majority of your birding. I do mine in the marsh and along lakeshores, so the scope is a requirement and used all the time. If you spend most of your time walking through woods, then the camera may be the better option. The Coolpix 995 is a nice camera, and the digiscoping will fill the niche missed by not having the long camera lens. As others have said, both will frustrate and confound you. Good luck w/ either decision.

Jerry

Well said, it seems most of us come from a birdwatching background and getting an occaisonal photo is great. Being in Louisiana at the moment, there is a lot marsh and shoreline on the Gulf of Mexico. Thanks.

[inka]

Thanks to all who replied. All make good points, digiscoping can be tedious nevertheless rewarding. Todays cameras are easier to use, but to purchase any prime lens above a 200 mm telephoto is expensive. It seems from what I read is that a camera is much more personal experience for someone who wants to share the pictures with others at higher level of quality in the image. Digiscoping is for birdwatchers who want record some of the special times out in the field with others. I think I'll be buying the scope first and use the coolpix 995 I already have with it. Then start saving for a camera at later time. Meanwhile digiscoping will fill that niche. When I told someone about my dilema she was more excited about me buying the scope first, and using it for digiscoping occasionaly. As soon as I get some pictures with my setup I'll try to post them, as well as my experiences with the Nikon 82 scope in the field. The is the best site I've yet to see on the internet about birdwatching and the great equipment that is becoming available to us for it's enjoyment. Thanks Inka.

[Tannin]

I think I'll be buying the scope first and use the coolpix 995 I already have with it.

I think that's a good decision, Inka. Apart from anything else, the price of a good scope won't change much over the coming years, and the price of good camera lenses won't change much either, but the price of a good digital SLR will drop and drop and drop.