Analogue or digital

[Tern nut]

I'd like to be able take better bird/wildlife photos, but am no expert, coming from the point & shoot school of photography. I currently have a Canon SLR EOS300 & zoom lens EF 75-300mm. My questions are:

Should I stick to SLR & get a decent telephoto lens?

Should I go for a digi camera (compact or DSLR) with decent scope (looking at Leica APO Televid 77mm)?

Apart from the obvious film/images on memory card, what are advantages of digital?

I'd like to be able to get decent shots of moving subjects & close ups of birds that are a distance.

Thanks in advance for any help,

TN

[delia todd]

Hi Tern Nut I see this is your first post so may I welcome you on behalf of all the staff and moderators at Bird Forum.

I digiscope with Leica APO77 and a Nikon Coolpix 4500. Moving objects are not very easy, but possible, at least with digital photography there are no developing costs.

There'll be others along shortly with more advice for you, I'm sure

D

[robinm]

Hi TN, welcome to BirdForum :t:

Like Delia I digiscope with Leica APO77 and a Nikon Coolpix 4500. I think digiscoping with DSLR is more tricky. Certainly I find I am glad that I can throw away a lot of my shots as you can with digital.

I think the old arguments about digital quality no longer apply.

[Tannin]

There is absolutely no point in considering starting bird photography with film in this day and age. 10 years ago, sure, but time has marched on and there is no longer any sensible reason not to go with a digital camera. Cost alone should be a sufficient motivation, never mind image quality, flexibility, instant access to your results, and probably other reasons that don't seem worthwhile listing given that the ones just mentioned already make an overwhelming case.

As you already own an SLR and a decent lens, I don't think you'd be happy going backwards in image quality, reach, and responsiveness by getting a point & shoot digicam. Get a 350D or a 30D.

[Tannin]

PS: digiscoping is much, much harder than using a DSLR with a decent lens. And the image quality isn't the same.

[postcardcv]

Hi and welcome to BF

I'd agree with others that you really should go for digital rather than sticking with film... As well as all the other advantages that Tannin has mentioned I'd add the fact atht you can alter ISO from shot to shot rather than being stuck with what film you're using.

Digiscoping can be a great way to get bird photos and the Leica APO77 is a great scope to use. It is possible to get good shots at reasonable distances, but it is not the most straight forward system and does take a lot of practice. A DSLR is easier to use (though you do need to get closer to the birds), and in my experience is a more enjoyable route to take.

[Keith Reeder]

Another vote tor the DSLR route.

I've never used film, nor would I want to given the expense, the delay in getting your pics back, and the lack of control you have over what happens during development and printing.

I did some digiscoping though, and that was the bug that bit me: but it really is tough to do consistently well, and - except in the hands of the very best - it is a rather limiting approach to bird photography.

DSLR all the way for me, TN.

[Tern nut]

Hi Delia, Robinm, Tannin, Postcard cv & Keith
Thanks for all your notes of welcome, I'm glad I've found BF, it seems to have a great community feel even though it's global.

Also thanks for all your advice. So I'm sold on digital & will probably go down the compact+scope route as this will give better magnification, though I take on board comments about it being harder to use than DSLR.

I noticed a product called eagle eye optic zoom that gives up to x5 magnification, has anyone had any experince with this?

Cheers,
TN