A thousand beginner questions (1 Viewer)

Hi all. What an amazing site! I signed up a few days ago and am delighted at the amount of information here, and the very friendly discussion that takes place. I have taken so long to make a post because so many of my questions are already answered. Andy's tips in particular are a great starting point. I began with about a thousand questions and after a several hours of solid thread-reading I have only about 487 questions left. I hope that not too many of these are repeat ones from other threads!

I'm looking to organise a suitable bird photography rig and hoping for some good advice. I know very little about it, outside of plenty of practice at taking very large pictures of very small birds with my current 3X zoom lens. Where I live, it's not really practical to look at this gear and try it out for myself much, so I'm really depending on the great advice here!

Right now, none of my gear is really suitable: my camera is an 18 month old Sony Mavica, binoculars are cheapish and rather nasty things that I rarely even bother taking out of the car, and the tripod is a cheap toy one suitable only for doing macro work (which, to be fair, is what I bought it for). I might get away with hand-holding the Mavica for a little while if there is any particular reason to, such as a wonderful new camera model to wait a few months for, but essentially I have no "this-goes-with-that" restrictions. I can start afresh with the full rig: camera, scope, tripod, and appropriate accessories. If possible, I'd like ones that I can buy here in Australia without mail-ordering from the UK or the USA, but I'll go mail-order if I have to. It seems that we have most of the major brands available: Leica, Swarovski, Nikon, Manfrotto, etc.

I don't want to just waste money, but I'd much rather spend a bit more and get it right first up than "save" $500 buying something that is cheaper only to discover that it doesn't do what I want. Also, I expect to replace the camera from time to time, but keep the scope and the tripod for many years, so I prefer to spend less on the camera and more on the lifetime-use parts.

At the moment I am leaning towards a Swarovski 80 (HD? I'm not sure if I'd see the difference or not) and a Swarovski or Manfrotto head. Sounds like the Coolpix 4500 is pretty much the standout consensus choice for the camera.

Things that concern me:

1: This seems rather like overkill. Though I did a fair bit of photography as a teenager back in the '70s, I haven't done much since then and I'm a raw beginner at digiscoping. I've never owned (or even used) any type of scope, with or without camera. But I don't want to waste money on stuff that I will only want to replace later on.

2: The Nikon cameras I have used are so slooooow. (My friend has a Coolpix 5700.) For that reason, I was very tempted by a Leica Digilux, but everybody seems to say that they are not much good for digiscoping. (sigh) Also, I'd much rather "proper" focus & aperture rings rather than this cumbersome modern press-button arrangement. But in the end, the camera will no doubt be replaced by some incredible wonder at half the price before too long anyway. Cameras are changing so fast!

3: This is supposed to be a hobby, not an obsession! I want to be able to walk around, look at the flora, enjoy the birds, not just spend all day trying to get perfect pictures. (OK, I want to take perfect pictures and not have to work hard for them.) Just how hard do you have to work to get good results with a digiscope setup? From some of the comments and questions, I get the feeling that it's a real black art and that something a little less ambitious might be better - but if I was to go the 35mm and telephoto lens route, it would cost much the same, restrict the number of shots I can sensibly afford to waste, and leave me with films to be developed and scanned in ... so that would be pointless. Is there any sort of lesser option?

4: Is it possible and practical, when on a trip, to leave the whole rig (camera, scope, tripod) set up, just with a lens cap on the scope and the tripod folded, so as to be able to take advantage of whatever bird comes into sight as you walk around the next corner? Or does one really need to spend a long time fiddling about connecting everything and setting up, and just hope that the bird is still in the same district? Or, putting it another way, how long does it take you, assuming a moderate amount of practice, to go from walking around to actually clicking the shutter?

5: Right now, I can get an ex-demo Leica Televid 77 (non-APO) for almost exactly half the price of an ATS80HD. I am inclined to go with the Swarovski anyway ... or is that just throwing away good money on something that won't really make all that much difference in practical use?

Uhhh ... I still have 483 questions left. But perhaps they better wait for another thread.

Darn! I think I just posted this in the wrong section. Sorry about that.

Welcome Tannin. It seems to me that you did post this in the right forum. I am not a digiscoper, so will not answer all of your questions, but let me do a few. First, you WILL notice a difference on the HD vs. non-HD, at least looking with the naked eye, so I imagine you would with the camera also. So if you really do not want to waste money, go with the HD model now, and the Swarovski is certainly a good choice. And what about the Leica? There was a discussion about this some time ago. Do a search for Leica and it should turn up. It was under the "Scope" forum.

Personally, I would recommend only going digital. Whether you do so with a lens or scope is merely a matter of choice. Will you have to work hard? Well, getting semantics out of the way, yes, with any set-up you will have to work hard if you really want that "perfect" shot (not sure it exists).

Yes, something better will come out in the future. Compare today's cameras to where the computer was at the 486 stage. At some point you just have to take the dive when the water feels right. However, the scope will last you a lifetime, and there are less advances with scopes than there are cameras.

Just remember, there will be a significant learning curve (most likely) and don't get frustrated that your pics aren't half as good as Andy's right from the get-go. I think a lot of people make this mistake, because Andy makes it look so easy. Then again, maybe you are a prodigy and they will be even better from the get-go.

Hello Tannin and welcome to bird forum. Would you be the Tannin who has done some work on the Wikipedia website concerning your native birds? If you are, you will probably recognise my name? Anyway, regardless, a warm welcome to this site.

This rather brings to mind a thread on Bird Forum some months back about the then newly announced Kowa TD-1 :

www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1047935077.html

Unfortunately, I guess this doesn't quite look like what digiscopers or potential digiscopers are looking for. I guess something rather more "modular" (digiscopers seem to do modular )) is what's required. Wonder if anything is in the pipeline? I did wonder at the time whether anyone would start a thread looking for suggestions about what might constitute the ideal. It seems to me the ideal is that a new standard format be devised, or "physical CCD size". (This could be square or even circular). A digiscoper would have an OTA adaptable to photography or as a spotting scope, an autofocus zoom lens component ("ah, autofocus..." I hear), a camera body and ideally separate (and potentially upgradeable) viewfinders (better EVFs) and backs (more pixels!).

If someone knows about a committee working on this somewhere, perhaps they'll spill the beans...

Meantime, Tannin, I'm quite sure more helpful, practical and informed advice will follow...

Wow! Quick responses. Thankyou all. Alas, I have to go to work now, but there is a lot to chew over here later on today. But very briefly, Kevin's carbon fibre suggestion seems likely to put my "buy right, buy once" philosophy to the test - I just did a quick & dirty price lookup on the web and that is some serious money for a tripod! I'll read more and chew that one over - it's winter here in Ballarat so there is no particular hurry. (And more views on the difference are welcome, of course.)

Hi Steve! Yup, same old Tannin. (Same nic, live in Oz, interest in birds, appalling spelling - that must have been an easy one to guess!) I remembered that over in the other place you mentioned spending quite a bit of time on a forum devoted to birds, nice to see that I've come to the right place!

Yike! I'm late! Thankyou all, back tonight.

Hi and welcome to BF. Sorry it's taken me a few days to reply.
This post is in the right place now.... I moved it pretty quickly to the general digiscoping section. Don't worry too much about posting in the wrong place by accident, I'll move them to the right place.

1: This seems rather like overkill. Though I did a fair bit of photography as a teenager back in the '70s, I haven't done much since then and I'm a raw beginner at digiscoping. I've never owned (or even used) any type of scope, with or without camera. But I don't want to waste money on stuff that I will only want to replace later on.

Buy a high-end scope and it will probably last a lifetime, the service back-up from the top scope manufacturers is very impressive.

2: The Nikon cameras I have used are so slooooow. (My friend has a Coolpix 5700.) For that reason, I was very tempted by a Leica Digilux, but everybody seems to say that they are not much good for digiscoping. (sigh) Also, I'd much rather "proper" focus & aperture rings rather than this cumbersome modern press-button arrangement. But in the end, the camera will no doubt be replaced by some incredible wonder at half the price before too long anyway. Cameras are changing so fast!

As with most electronic goods, there's always something 'better' in the pipeline .... though this isn't always true with digiscoping cameras, few are really suitable and it's not guaranteed that the next model will be any good for this method. Anyway, if it takes pictures that you are happy with today it will take good pictures tomorrow.

In terms of focus aquisition speed, this is pretty much dependant upon the zoom range of the camera. In ideal circumstances you will have half-pressed the shutter button so that the camera is already locked onto the subject, then a further press takes the shot instantly. If you want to take action shots of birds.... forget digiscoping and go slr+long lens

At least the focus ring on the Swarovski scopes is reminiscent of of traditional camera focus ring. Aperture is pretty much redundant for digiscoping (and much bird photography in general).... you main concern will be adequate shutter-speed, so f# will be set to lowest at most times (aperture priority). Although aperture may be fractionally more relevant in bright conditions in a country like yours.

3: This is supposed to be a hobby, not an obsession! I want to be able to walk around, look at the flora, enjoy the birds, not just spend all day trying to get perfect pictures. (OK, I want to take perfect pictures and not have to work hard for them.) Just how hard do you have to work to get good results with a digiscope setup? From some of the comments and questions, I get the feeling that it's a real black art and that something a little less ambitious might be better - but if I was to go the 35mm and telephoto lens route, it would cost much the same, restrict the number of shots I can sensibly afford to waste, and leave me with films to be developed and scanned in ... so that would be pointless. Is there any sort of lesser option?

That's hard to answer, everyone has differing abilities.... some pick it up straight away, others struggle for ages. Ability to judge focus via a relatively small lcd monitor is one of the keys to success. If I get one 'keeper' in 10 to 20 shots, I'm more than happy. Again, if your standards are high... wanting immaculate A3 prints, forget digiscoping. Don't forget that a nice looking digiscoped shot on the web doesn't neccessarily mean the full version will make a great print, it's not difficult to make a poorish shot (from a printing perspective) look great on the web.

4: Is it possible and practical, when on a trip, to leave the whole rig (camera, scope, tripod) set up, just with a lens cap on the scope and the tripod folded, so as to be able to take advantage of whatever bird comes into sight as you walk around the next corner? Or does one really need to spend a long time fiddling about connecting everything and setting up, and just hope that the bird is still in the same district? Or, putting it another way, how long does it take you, assuming a moderate amount of practice, to go from walking around to actually clicking the shutter?

Yep, I often carry the whole set-up complete.... with a well practised routine, you can be shooting in a few seconds.

5: Right now, I can get an ex-demo Leica Televid 77 (non-APO) for almost exactly half the price of an ATS80HD. I am inclined to go with the Swarovski anyway ... or is that just throwing away good money on something that won't really make all that much difference in practical use?

The non APO77 is a very impressive scope, as is the non HD Swarovski (much of Ann Cook's earlier work was done on a non HD Swaro').... optically they are similar to the top models from other manufactureers. Taking an image through a scope puts great demands on the optics, any flaws are obvious in a still photo..... where-as your eyes won't notice much difference in real-time viewing through the scope. If you can stretch to an HD/APO, you should probably go for it.... otherwise you will always be wondering!

Thankyou Brian and Kevin for reassuring me that it is good to just go straight to the best available, and to take your time in doing so, even as a complete beginner. Given that, I suppose this is not the ideal moment to announce that, between posting yesterday and arriving at the office a half-hour late, I slipped into the local photography shop and ... er ... bought a tripod and head?

I didn't go for a carbon fibre one in the end: a plain Manfrotto 190NAT but (largely on the strength of this thread a 501 head. I haven't seen the head yet, they have ordered it in for me, it will arrive next week, I imagine.

There is no hurry as I don't have anything to screw into it yet. What happened to my "just get the best" theory here? A couple of things: first, at less than a tenth of the price of a top-end scope, I can live with the idea of replacing the tripod later on if it seems worth stepping up. Second, I had a look at the aluminium ones, mentally allowed for the weight of tripod, head, scope, camera, spare batteries, and so on, and figured that the difference between maybe 10kg and 11.5kg was not huge, at least not by comparison with the price difference, which was lots! And third, a little mental self-trickery - by "saving" $700 on the tripod, I've nearly paid for the difference between an ATS80 and and ATS80HD. (Assuming I go Swarovski, which is the way I'm leaning at present.)

Norm: thankyou for that link. It's a very interesting idea, and worthy of a seperate thread, which I'll start shortly.

Several people have commented on the steep learning curve to be expected. A learning curve is OK: I'd be a fool to expect to be able to do anything worthwhile without practice. It was the thought that maybe there would be an ongoing struggle, that I might be looking at turning pleasant summer birding expeditions into long, grim struggles with an armload of expensive equipment, and losing track of the reason I'm here in the first place - to simply enjoy the birds. I feel reassured now: thank you gentlemen.

Andy and Kevin both reassure me that (with practice) I'll be able to walk around with the rig more-or-less intact, and be shooting without too much fiddling. Excellent! Years ago (I suppose I was 15 or 18) I pretty much stopped doing photography because I found that I would get on a plane and go somewhere special, then spend the entire trip trying to get perfect pictures - and then, on getting home, discover that I had some nice shots, but that I had practically no memory of the place itself or of just being there and enjoying it. If the only thing you get out of a trip is great pictures, then wouldn't it be easier to just spend one-tenth as much and pay a professional photographer to take the pictures for you? No need to leave the armchair! OK, I'm exagerating now, but there is a balance to be struck between photography and just enjoying the moment. I feel more confident now that, all this fancy equipment notwithstanding, I'll still be able to find that balance.

Andy, thankyou for your comments. I take your points about action photography and ultimate quality. I'm aiming for good quality shots, yes, but that's "good" as in "looks good on a 19 inch monitor". I have no A3 ambitions. Perhaps, one day, I'll look at the SLR route, but the cost seems to be astronomical: I could sell my car and still not have enough to pay for a big Canon lens! Digital SLRs will only get cheaper and better as time goes by: I'l digiscope for now and consider the question again in maybe five years time. (Who knows? I might be rich by then. And good optics will still be dear but the electronics will have dropped a lot.)

Anyway, that's tripod, head and camera settled: the next decision is the adaptor. I'll re-read some other threads and web pages about that first, then ask questions later (if need be). Here in Ballarat (a small country town in Victoria about 80 miles west of Melbourne) I can pick up a camera anytime off the shelf and have a scope delivered promptly from Sydney or Melbourne, but the range of available adapors seems to be limited. So it makes sense to get the adaptor first (as it might have to come from the UK or somewhere), and also any other specialised bits.

Thankyou all once again for your very generous help, and I'll keep you posted.

No problem with digiscoping if you want a good looking shot on a 19 inch monitor... even so, you can get some knock-out A3's with a typical digiscoping camera, they just won't come along too often... you should get many shots capable of 10x8 that will compete with many film prints.
Andy

Death of a credit card

Many thanks to all. Today, having chewed over a great deal of advice, I took the plunge and ordered a scope. Alas for my poor credit card, I settled on:

• Swarovski ATS80 HD
• 20 - 60 zoom eyepiece
• Swarovski adaptor

The gear should arrive by early next week, I think. The scope was, in some ways, the easiest decision. There are lots of people here (and elsewhere) who have said that the Leica 77 and the Zeiss 85 and maybe one or two others are top class, and some even rate one or another of them above the Swaro, but just about everyone agrees that the Swarovski is excellent. Having no experience of my own to judge by, I have to respect that.

Several other factors played a part: I like the compact size; so far as I can tell by looking at pictures and reading reports, the non-metalic finish should be very practical and durable; and maybe the relatively close minimum focus distance of 5 metres might help cover some of those "in-between" situations, where the bird is too far away for the camera's mere 3X optical zoom.

Then there was the adaptor problem: easily the most difficult part of all to decide on. Being able to simply order one with the scope as part of the same package and know it will work with my gear was certainly an attraction. OK, it's an absurd price - about $AU250 - for two metal rings with screw fittings, but in the overall scheme of things another $100 or so doesn't seem to matter too much. Of all the adaptors, the one from Finland seemed the most attractive in theory (zoom while attached), the LCE most cost-effective, but the Swaro had the enormous advantage of being actually here, in this country, right now. International mail-order is such a pain.

There don't seem to be any good close-up pictures of the Swarovski adaptor on the web anywhere, just some small-scale ones that leave me a little unsure of how it actually works, so I'll post some close-ups here when it arrives in a week or so. (I think it's more-or-less the same as the LCE, but I'll have to wait and see.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I am wondering if it will be practical to (Shock! Horror!) drill a hole in it to give access to the zoom. But that too will have to wait. After all, I might discover that I don't particularly miss that feature. Time will tell.

That seems to leave just three things:

• Camera
• Spare batteries or similar
• Lots of flash cards

Oh, plus the small matter of learning how to drive the thing!

Flash cards are easy: I work in the computer industry, so those I can just order in with the rest of my stock. (My current Sony uses those stupid memory stick things, so I can't simply reuse them.)

Batteries: it rather sounds as if the external battery pack that I've seen recommended here will be the go. I'll hunt around and discover what's available in Australia first. But there is no great hurry, I can survive on a single battery while I'm learning, and if need be get one from the UK.

Camera. Is there any reason not to get a Coolpix 4500? I know there are people here using all sorts of other cameras, so speak up gentlemen! Assuming that digiscoping is the primary task, is there any reason to consider a different camera?

The Coolpix seems the obvious one to go for if you're looking to benefit the most from others' experience. I guess the only reservation has to be that just a few 995s and 4500s are reputed to give problems with digiscoping. Then if you're a beginner you might be reluctant (on sound principles) to simply blame your equipment. You may have seen the thread below:

www.birdforum.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4668

I guess if you follow Andy Bright's advice to the letter initially and aren't getting at least sharp pictures you'll know something's up.

Gee, with all those computers and digiscoping stuff, I'd hate to have to do your dusting :-O

Thanks, Norm. No, I hadn't seen that thread. It worries me a little.

No matter. Today I took my credit card firmly in my shaking hands and bought a CP4500. Complicated little things, aren't they!

My 501 head turned up too. Between that, the camera, and the Swarovski, this seems to be turning into rather an expensive week!

Saw your post in the Nikon cameras forum. Sorry, I knew about that thread too but didn't give it much attention :storm:
I mean, I'm sure you know from your computers background, you could end up waiting for ever for the latest upgrade. And we can see what's out there now in practised hands can give superb results. Don't know if you knew but Paulyoly (the May competition winner) has only been doing digiscoping a few months (though I understand he had a bit of techie background from photographing his tropical fish). And I guess you'll need time to learn how to use all the stuff before the Spring. I only have a simple Panasonic Lumix camera; I dread to think what the much more sophisticated Nikon Coolpix manual/tome is like.

Good reading, practising and luck! I'm really looking forward to seeing some of your pics in the gallery. I posted my first today. They're not up to much but I have to say I somehow feel better for having done so.

Best wishes

Norm

Thanks, Norm. Yup, I'm working my way through the manual and taking lots of pictures of my lounge room wall at the moment. Master the camera first, worry about attaching it to the scope when that part arrives next week, I guess.

Actually, I was really tempted to post some pics I took on Sunday. Not one of them was a bird, alas, they were all fungi. I went on an Australian Plants Society trip to a stringybark forest not far from here. It was raining, off and on, and everything was wet, and I have never seen such a profuse variety of fungi before! In the space of a couple of hours, I shot off almost 200 frames, nearly all of them vaguely mushroom-shaped things in every shade imaginable, glistening with moisture and framed against the mosses and the leaf litter.

My old Sony, for all its faults, is wonderful for macro work, and there are a couple of dozen-odd shots that I really like. As for birds, the place was deserted. I saw precisely two: an unidentified small brownish thing that might have been a Jacky Winter (one of the Australian robins) , and an unfamiliar looking medium-size tubby fellow that I had trouble identifyig at first (was it a woodswallow, I thought?) until I realised that he was simply a very wet (and thus greenish-coloured) Grey Shrike-Thrush with his feathers puffed up against the cold of winter - a bird that we see at home every day or two.

But I didn't care: for once, the non-bird attractions were such that I was actually pleased not to be distracted by looking at birds.

I'll toddle off and admire your work in the gallery shortly.

Cheers - Tony

Tannin, why not post your fungi shots in the Fungi forum (in the "Other Wildlife" section)? You might give some new challenges to colin j who seems to be a bit of a genius at identifying such things. Even if he finds them easy, at least you'll have names to go to your pics and you never know, you might even inspire him to get a digital camera himself...

Norm

Thanks (belatedly) Norm. I did that.

Last Saturday I tried the digiscoping rig out for the first time.

It was cold, dull, drizzling now and then, but not windy, and there were few birds about. (Most of them have more sense than to come out on days like that.)

I started in open bushland. After a couple of hours with nothing worth keeping, I decided that with my current skill level trying to photograph small, active, birds like honeyeaters, thornbills, Silvereyes and robins was beyond me. For our regular crowd, I'll have to (a) get a lot better at fast aquisition and focusing, (b) wait till the weather improves so that I can lie in wait with their favourite spots pre-framed and focused (water, grevillia blossom, seed, fruit on the trees), and (c) get luckier!

So, not wanting to finish the day with nothing worth looking at to my credit, I spent the last hour or so looking for easier targets: magpies, crows, and a pair of Spur-winger Plovers. Even with the Swaro wide open at minimum zoom, I was only getting between 1/30th and 1/60th most of the time because of the very dull day, but I banged off lots and lots of shots, in the hope that the law of averages would come to my rescue. By the end of the day, about 1 in three was half-decent - not great, but OK.

Framing the shot and then just holding the shutter down and letting the Nikon take three or four in succession seems to be a good way to reduce camera movement. (I don't have a remote release yet.)

I doubt there are many easier subjects than Masked Lapwings, but a half-dozen or so of my Lapwing shots are ... well ... good genough that I could post them in the Gallery and not feel too bad about it. (In fact, one of them is ... er ... how do I link to the gallery? It's there somewhere.)

More bad light on the Sunday, but a Red-rumped Parrot that wasn't bad (and, a bonus, we hadn't seen one of those before.)

Today (Saturday again) came the pay-off. I figured that waterbirds would have to be the easiest (as they tend to stay more-or-less in one spot for a while), and I wandered down to a lake about 3 blocks from my house, spent an hour or two there while the light was good. In a moment, I'll put some results in the gallery. Only common birds (Australasian Coot, Hardhead, more Masked Lapwings, Pacific Heron, Pacific Black Duck), but I am very happy indeed with the results.

Thanks heaps Andy and all Bird Forum members - I started knowing nothing, but now I have a really nice bit of equipment and the results are speaking for themselves.

Tony

Hi Tony,
Thanks for a valuable insight into the trials and tribulations of the new digiscoper, it sounds like you are one of those who manage to pick it up very quickly. I'll be looking in the gallery very shortly.
Always best to start with the less active birds.... large birds, or those close to you are always the best starting point.

Although you have huge magnification at your disposal, it's always best to get as close as possible to the subject.... all the methods employed by true 'pro' bird photographers are relevant to the digiscoper, so a good book on bird photography is a must.... though an experienced birder can often have the upper hand when it comes to pedicting the movements of the subject.
Happy digiscoping,
Andy

Well done Tony. Fantastic start and with Spring on its way what prospects too!

Difficult to deduce too much from screen-size pictures, but it seems to me your later duck pictures look "sharper" than the lapwing one. If you agree, wonder what you'd put this down to: contrastiness of light; resolution being lowered by drizzle; some camera shake at the slower shutter speed (despite absence of wind)?

You seem to me to have got focus very well (wonder if the experts agree). Certainly it seems you don't need to worry about having one of those dodgy Coolpix cameras that digi-birder was unlucky enough to have (though maybe that's now working out for the best). I don't recall you mentioning whether you decided to get the Xtend-a-View pro that some members on the forum recommend so highly. Maybe you don't need it if you're managing to find focus alright; though maybe when that Aussie sunshine really starts to strut its stuff, you'll be grateful for a sunshade (not forgetting that protective lens cap, of course...)

I guess it must be really difficult to get on top off all that kit and feel you are in control and can do things quickly. Saw an interesting post from Paulyoly in which he indicates he thinks he's more or less got to that stage; results would certainly bear this out. As a result, he's now become more conscious of the limitations imposed by the slowness of the autofocus of the Nikon and its speed at saving out those big pictures (something you mentioned in your first post).

Must echo Andy's thanks to you for taking the trouble to share these experiences; fascinating stuff...

Norm

Much sharper, Norm. It hadn't occured to me to put that down to anything except poor light. The plovers were at around a 30th to a 60th of a second. Tripod or no tripod, it's very difficult to keep everything still for long enough at that sort of shutter speed. Essentially, it was a case of hold my breath, hold the shutter release down for a while, let the Nikon bang off three or four shots and hope the bird doesn't move.

It is possible to get reasonable shots that way, but I doubt I'd ever get that real pin-sharp result we all aspire to, and it's hard work! Very frustrating when you see the perfect shot opportunity go by and you darn well that the shots you got will probably be mediochre at best.

Here is an example, from yesterday (Sunday). Those two would have made a wonderful shot. I knew perfectly well that, being only about 40 minutes before sunset and raining to boot, there was just about zero chance of getting anything worth keeping. That was at a 60th, looking into the light, and with the ISO cranked up to 400 in the hope of at least getting something to remember them by. (Cropped and reduced to 1/3, which helps get rid of the ISO 400 graininess at least.)

It was also about three stops after I'd decided it was much too dark to bother trying to take any more picures with the scope! No doubt I'll settle down eventually and get a bit more realistic, but when you see something special ...

(The black on the side is a fencepost in the foreground. I moved a foot to my right but by the time I'd reaquired the thistle there were no robins on it.)

No matter: that's a wonderful spot. Just a country road in rather degraded, overgrazed farmland about a half hour from Ballarat. The moment I get a day off and the light is anything like decent, I'll nip back there and see what I can catch. In the evening darlk there was a family of about 25 White-winged Choughs - absolutely wonderful birds, I can sit and watch them for hours - various parrots and cockatoos, ravens and magpies (of course - they are everywhere) and, best of all, a pair of Scarlet Robins and a pair of Jacky Winters (another species from the same family). The pasture is degraded, and there are thistles dotted about here and there (introduced, of course, and a noxious weed) but the robins didn't mind in the least: so far as they are concerned, the thistles simply make convenient perches custom made for them.

I hadn't thought to ponder alternative explanations for the relative lack of sharpness of the plover pics until just now when you suggested (a) lack of contrast in the light and (b) rain.

Now that you mention those, they make sense, though I'd guess that between them they account for ... oh .. maybe 5 to 10% of the difference only. Throw in another 5% to allow for more practice at focusing and holding the camera still. Add bit more because the duck is twice the size but at about the same distance.

For now though, at this time of year, I aim to follow three rules: more light, more light, and more light. My ducks (mostly shot at anything between a 125th and a 500th) are vastly better.

And where you can't get more light (or even if you can), as Andy says, get closer. I can see the wisdom in that from looking at my results so far: nearly all the best shots are from not too great a distance, wonderful Swarovski optics notwithstanding.

Focus. I was worried about focus. But, I have to say that I haven't done anything about focusing. I just leave the Nikon alone and focus the scope. I wonder if growing up on manual focus cameras in the 60s and 70s helps with that. Before I bought the Mavica a couple of years ago I had never owned an auto-focus camera.

The other thing that it reminds me off, oddly enough, is tuning a guitar - something I did often for 20-odd years when I used to play every day. I'm way off-topic now, but the thought processes are very, very similar: you have the exact same sort of cues; two points on either side of the right point that are obviously wrong and, if you listen (look) in exactly the right way, some very subtle cues, almost sub-conscious, felt rather than sensed, that tell you when you have it exactly right. On the tiny Coolpix screen, it's like tuning up in a noisy room. (Excuse me, I'll get back on topic now.)

Having heard all those tales of focus problems from obviously competent people, and yet having had none at all myself, I really do wonder if there is something to the theory that Nikons are not all created equal; that when you buy one, you take pot luck as to its ability to auto focus. For that matter, my friend's 5700 seems harder to focus than the 4500. I'll have to investigate that.

Also on my to-do list is tracking down a good book on bird photography. Andy's advice has been spot on so far, so I'll take that one on board too. There is so much to learn!

I haven't got an extend-a-view yet. At least for now, I'm comfortable with the standard display (though I'd have paid quite a bit more to have it bigger). My friend, though, wears glasses and we might get one anyway, if not for my CP4500, then for her 5700. (They take the same size extender.)

As for taking trouble sharing these experiences, not at all - I am learning lots! Thank you (all of you) for helping me learn this difficult but thrilling art.