Tannin
Common; sedentary.
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.
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.