New Lens vs Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

[OronoBirder]

I'm new here, just found the site trying to find answers. I am an amateur photographer now using a Sony A6500, usually with a Tamron 18-300 lens.

I've been considering the Sigma 150-600 lens for birding, but found myself distracted by the alternative of digiscoping. That alternative would give me greater magnification, but what are the downsides? From reading some of the comments, it seems as though the digiscope adds some difficulties, but not having tried it I don't know what the problems are. Can someone elaborate on this?

 

[MiddleRiver]

I bird, occasionally carrying tripod and scope, but at least 75% of the time I have my a6600 and 100-400GM with me. The idea of having to setup tripod as I go along, is a deal-killer, full-stop ;-) The camera is bad enough, but at least that's always at my side as I look/watch birds with binos. It's possible to walk/bird with binos and camera, but digiscoping would require a sling so I don't have to quickly extend tripod legs etc. and would be incredibly cumbersome. Thus the reality that I carry scope no more than 10% of the time and only when birding big open areas - shorebirds, etc.

The 300mm would not be enough for me, since the 400 barely gets me there. I do have a 1.4x but I'm still not happy with IQ degradation. I've also been tempted by moving to a 600mm lens... we'll see. The 100-400 is superb IQ and relatively compact, and as a bonus, does great close-up.

 

[Mike Crawley]

In my humble opinion, it seems that a birder (assuming you are, of course) who is also a photographer and therefore familiar with the ergonomics of carrying a camera and large lens would always be more comfortable with getting a better lens.

It also appears that a non camera carrying birder adapts to digiscoping more readily as he/she is already familiar with the ergonomics of carrying a 'scope and tripod and isn’t inconvenienced by though of the extra weight add the additional faff associated with putting a tripod up (they’re probably doing it anyway). Of course they don’t get the flexibility of firing off a few frames and potentially capturing some images of a bird in flight or as it scurries into cover.

I do a little digiscoping and digibinning with varying results - mainly because I lack patience, rather than an equipment issue. I have a bridge camera too but usually too busy enjoying the bird(s) through my binoculars to get lots of images.

 

[lmans66]

I did digiscoping for years..... The difference is huge. Essentially...what is your main goal? Perfect photographs or the relative skill/ satisfaction factor needed for digiscoping?

Go the new lens option, if you feel the Sigma is worth it..... for good photo's. Photography with today's lens and camera's has become relatively a no-brainer in my thinking. Pretty easy....little skill (my opinion, take note). With large lens', even the skill of creeping up on the bird and using real bird watching techniques is lost within the tech. 600+ lens gets you close enough you can lag behind and eat your sandwich while still getting within inches of a bird. "AI" tracks birds and high ISO's and quick AF etc, makes the process all a bit too easy and less of a fun factor for me. But each to their own.

Digiscoping has always been an experimental process, but as of late the tools to digiscope by various manufacturers of scopes have made the process easier. In the old days we would fashion our own camera holders and have to use relatively cheap point and shoots to obtain an image. Yet even with the accessory advancement of digiscoping tools, it is not quick; it is difficult if not possible to follow birds in flight or flirty birds.

Each process is unique and uses a different skills set...but think. What is your objective for taking the photo?

 

[Mikbul]

Get a lens with IS if you can, otherwise you'll be stuck on a tripod in low light. This shot was taken in bright light with a 400mm L NON IS hand held 1/2500 sec. at f8. (Crop sensor so 672mm effective f/l)

 

[Elkhornsun]

With digiscoping you need a good scope and a good tripod and are not going to be able to shoot hand held as with your Sony camera and its lens. There are excellent phone holders to use a smartphone with a scope and they are not expensive. The cost is for the scope and its tripod and even a moderately priced set is going to cost around $1,000. Of course you can also use the scope and tripod for normal bird viewing.

 

[lmans66]

With digiscoping you need a good scope and a good tripod and are not going to be able to shoot hand held as with your Sony camera and its lens. There are excellent phone holders to use a smartphone with a scope and they are not expensive. The cost is for the scope and its tripod and even a moderately priced set is going to cost around $1,000. Of course you can also use the scope and tripod for normal bird viewing.

And...in terms of scope. You need light....so you need a 80mm or higher. A 65mm is a poor digiscoper. To get anywhere near the equal to a photograph, I believe you need a nicer scope than what you are suggesting for the price. Probably more like $3000 for a scope + lens. If I was going to go for it on a budget and still want a solid digiscoping set-up that I know is made in a country worth it's boot...I would go for the Meopta S2 80mm ($1800) plus the eyepiece ($900) and get a solid tripod + head for another $400-500..... From there, you only go 'up' in price with Leica, Zeiss, Swaro.... Stick with those. Forget anything Chinese in my opinion....

Click here for some information I put together on digiscoping.....https://www.atlanticaudubon.org/digiscoping.html

 

[Mikbul]

Televue

 

[lmans66]

The Televue to me, as a digiscoper is an entirely different animal. Not nearly (in my thinking) as easy....options are not as great etc. I looked into it several times but just found a traditional spotting scope more to me liking.

 

[Mikbul]

Obviously you have never owned one!