Considering giving up on digiscoping (1 Viewer)

[jlacasci]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please take my comments in context from my experience as a photographer. I recently purchased a Kowa TSN 883 with 25-60 eyepiece, phone adapter, and Kowa adapters for my Canon professional bodies. I am blown away by the optics looking through the scope with my eye. I am far less satisfied with the image quality with my Canon body attached, and even less so phone scoping. I've been a photographer for 40 years, but not video (I only mention video as I know some folks are taking 4K video or higher through their scope and obtaining prints from this). My tripod is the best 3 section carbon that Manfrotto sells. The images just don't cut it compared to when using a 100-500mm Canon RF even with a 2x teleconverter. I suspect my expectations were just too high. I love the idea of a 2000mm focal length, but I'm just disappointed to the point where I may sell the entire setup. Have other folks experienced the same thing?

Thanks,
Joe

 

[KC Foggin]

I truly enjoyed digiscoping but due to an injury to my shoulder I just couldn't handle the weight any longer and I just didn't enjoy doing it on a tripod.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please take my comments in context from my experience as a photographer. I recently purchased a Kowa TSN 883 with 25-60 eyepiece, phone adapter, and Kowa adapters for my Canon professional bodies. I am blown away by the optics looking through the scope with my eye. I am far less satisfied with the image quality with my Canon body attached, and even less so phone scoping. I've been a photographer for 40 years, but not video (I only mention video as I know some folks are taking 4K video or higher through their scope and obtaining prints from this). My tripod is the best 3 section carbon that Manfrotto sells. The images just don't cut it compared to when using a 100-500mm Canon RF even with a 2x teleconverter. I suspect my expectations were just too high. I love the idea of a 2000mm focal length, but I'm just disappointed to the point where I may sell the entire setup. Have other folks experienced the same thing?

Thanks,
Joe

It is understandable the scopes was built mainly for observation and getting pics/videos through it is a bonus for and even with that, mixed results are obtained with many factors such as heat haze, type of glass inside the scope, camera+lens+adapter combo etc. What I normally do, I shoot at lowest magnification on my Swarovski STX95 scope which is at 30x and cranked the zoom up to 70x if I need to document rare subjects regardless of the quality output. But the closer I could get to my subject, the better quality I got, but not up to the standard of prime telephoto lenses which is built for images/videos. That's what scope were built for.

Have you tried observe anything with your long lens for more than a minute? If yes, was the feeling of WOW is similar like how you observed with your Kowa scope? If not, then you know the answers for your questions above.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I truly enjoyed digiscoping but due to an injury to my shoulder I just couldn't handle the weight any longer and I just didn't enjoy doing it on a tripod.

Hope it gets better soon KC

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Hello Joe
Unlike you I have not been a photographer for as many years as you. I started as a birder progressing through scopes & old bridge cameras, to better scopes which would enable me to phonescope. ending up with a Zeiss 85 T-FL (20-75), adapters & S10 phone. The video results, in my opinion, were amazing but the limitations for reaction shots, BIF & small birds was very frustrating so got myself a Nikon D500, Sigma 150-600 & 1.4 TC & after trial & error and much practice was blown away by the results.
I got myself a Novagrade camera adapter from the US & tried the D500 on the scope expecting super far reaching results. Like you I was dissapointed. I also have good CF tripods & good heads but it still doesn't offer the flexibility or results of a hand held camera.
I will never sell my scope etc as I love the feel, quality & build of the set up but only take the kit out occasionally now when I feel like doing some videos as it's 4K on the phone. Like you, as with your Kowa, I really thought my Zeiss would give me the type of results without the cost of using a prime ( although I've never used one). As a birder I need a scope & the view with my phone as a viewfinder are amazing but when you have the photographer bug I don't think you can beat pro Canon/ Nikon / Sony bodies.
Regards
Ian

 

[jlacasci]

Thanks Ian. You've described my issue pretty well. What led me down this road wasn't really birding. I went to Yellowstone this July and knew that the distances were substantial and I would need more reach. Understanding the importance of optics, I wanted to use a high-quality scope. I needed time to get comfortable with the Novagrade and my phone (Samsung S21 Ultra) and my Canon. Renting for a month (time to use it then 2 weeks in the park) was going to run me close to $800. So I purchased the 88, Novagrade, 25-60 and it came with the 88 cover, and the equipment to attach the Canon. All in was around $3700.00. I already owned the Manfrotto so no loss there. If I decide to sell, I'm hoping I can get 2900.00 for it all. That would be the same price as me renting it all in the end. I did get to see wolves and pups in Lamar valley and a grizzly nearly three or four miles away. I'll be looking for a place to sell the gear perhaps next week.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Thanks Ian. You've described my issue pretty well. What led me down this road wasn't really birding. I went to Yellowstone this July and knew that the distances were substantial and I would need more reach. Understanding the importance of optics, I wanted to use a high-quality scope. I needed time to get comfortable with the Novagrade and my phone (Samsung S21 Ultra) and my Canon. Renting for a month (time to use it then 2 weeks in the park) was going to run me close to $800. So I purchased the 88, Novagrade, 25-60 and it came with the 88 cover, and the equipment to attach the Canon. All in was around $3700.00. I already owned the Manfrotto so no loss there. If I decide to sell, I'm hoping I can get 2900.00 for it all. That would be the same price as me renting it all in the end. I did get to see wolves and pups in Lamar valley and a grizzly nearly three or four miles away. I'll be looking for a place to sell the gear perhaps next week.

Thanks,
Joe

Hi Joe
If there's one big difference, I only ever see birds & may be a few dear....there certainly aren't any Grizzlies or Wolves in Britain other than in Zoos & Safari Parks...so you certainly did benefit by buying the Kowa etc. Let's hope you sell them all.
Best wishes
Ian

 

[jlacasci]

Quick update. As mentioned in this thread and others. I purchased a Kowa setup for Yellowstone and tried my hand at digiscoping and was not happy with the results. I've sold the Kowas setup, along with my Canon EF lenses and two older Canon pro bodies. I purchased a Canon R5, and a couple of RF lenses thus far. I'm loving the RF 100-500 with or without the 1.4 RF teleconverter. The focusing system is superb as are the optics on this professional lens. I am now very happy with the results of my setup. I don't get the reach of the 2000mm equivalent Kowa 883, but 700mm with the 1.4 on a 45 megapixel camera leave plenty of room to crop. Even shooting in 1.6 mode leave me a 17 megapixel image and increases the reach to 1120mm. Although there's really no need to shoot at 1.6, you can always crop in during post processing.

Here's an example:

 

[lmans66]

The quality of images coming from Digiscoping can IN NO WAY equal that of a camera with a nice prime lens....so just accept that.

But...it is the intangibles that make digiscoping worth doing. First, camera's with a zoom lens makes taking images of birds fairly easy. Today's cameras can track the bird / focus in flight....500-800mm is easy to take as you don't even have to have bird skills to creep up on the bird etc... Essentially, the skill has been taken out of photography when it comes to birds and most wildlife. I know, I will hear about this and get it in the shorts but, really....it is true.

Second...Digiscoping forces you to slow down and really concentrate on taking images. Not only in the actual taking, but also in the stealth aspect of slowing finding your way closer to your subject, or...have the subject come to you. This also is a lost art with modern cameras/lens.

Third...with Digiscoping, it really means you are limiting yourself to the number of photo's being taken. With modern camera's you can take XXX photo's per second and yes, given the camera capabilities and Len's ....you are bound to come up with a shot given you will / might have hundreds to select from. Skill, skill...what skill? But with digiscoping you will be forced to almost go back to a 'film-like' approach where you creep up to your subject, take a shot, ...perhaps refocus etc...take another shot.

The skill that is required of digiscoping is long gone when looking at current camera's and lens'. Years back, digital camera's and Len's were more on an equal footing with a scope + Point and shoot camera. They both were flawed in one way or another. Due to the nature of digiscoping, the flaw's still exist. So if you want to practice solid birding techniques with the hopes of getting a 'pretty good' shot....by all means keep on digiscoping. If your goal is a solid clear crisp image, ...shift to one of those 'do it all' camera/lens combo's..... Up to you.

Okay.... Let's see the negative comments tossed at me.... jim

 

[jlacasci]

The quality of images coming from Digiscoping can IN NO WAY equal that of a camera with a nice prime lens....so just accept that.

But...it is the intangibles that make digiscoping worth doing. First, camera's with a zoom lens makes taking images of birds fairly easy. Today's cameras can track the bird / focus in flight....500-800mm is easy to take as you don't even have to have bird skills to creep up on the bird etc... Essentially, the skill has been taken out of photography when it comes to birds and most wildlife. I know, I will hear about this and get it in the shorts but, really....it is true.

Second...Digiscoping forces you to slow down and really concentrate on taking images. Not only in the actual taking, but also in the stealth aspect of slowing finding your way closer to your subject, or...have the subject come to you. This also is a lost art with modern cameras/lens.

Third...with Digiscoping, it really means you are limiting yourself to the number of photo's being taken. With modern camera's you can take XXX photo's per second and yes, given the camera capabilities and Len's ....you are bound to come up with a shot given you will / might have hundreds to select from. Skill, skill...what skill? But with digiscoping you will be forced to almost go back to a 'film-like' approach where you creep up to your subject, take a shot, ...perhaps refocus etc...take another shot.

The skill that is required of digiscoping is long gone when looking at current camera's and lens'. Years back, digital camera's and Len's were more on an equal footing with a scope + Point and shoot camera. They both were flawed in one way or another. Due to the nature of digiscoping, the flaw's still exist. So if you want to practice solid birding techniques with the hopes of getting a 'pretty good' shot....by all means keep on digiscoping. If your goal is a solid clear crisp image, ...shift to one of those 'do it all' camera/lens combo's..... Up to you.

Okay.... Let's see the negative comments tossed at me.... jim

Hi Jim,

I agree in general to many of your comments. First off, I've been a photographer for 40 years and only recently considered digiscoping for my trip to Yellowstone. I needed the scope for the vast distances in Yellowstone. The effective 2000mm of the Kowa I had is what compelled me to purchase the scope. I shoot with Canon pro "L" lenses because I do demand critically sharp images. The cost of the largest prime L series is 800mm and cost around $13,000. The Kowa was a 2000mm, for well under $3,000. Lets start by saying I was not expecting the same quality between these two, of course not.

I would argue that a 2000mm scope attached to the camera (which is what I was doing) allows me to be much further away from the subject than the 800mm or even a 100-500 with a 2x teleconverter. So the stealth argument doesn't hold much water. With a pro-camera on the scope, you can still take advantage of the frames per second, once you achieve manual focus and exposure. The scope would work pretty well for stationary subjects, but would be ineffective in most cases for a quickly moving subject especially for birds in flight.

I agree with you on how great the newer technology is and it does help non-professionals achieve better results. Most pro's shooting birds are using all manual settings with the exception of focus. There is a lot to be said for the skill and knowledge of the photographer. As a way of an example, back when I was professionally shooting sports, a fan commented that he could get the same type of images I was getting with my pro body and 400 f/2.8 L. He was using a consumer Canon with an inexpensive Zoom. I offered to swap gear for the next batter. As an experienced photographer, I am adjusting exposure, focus, and shutter speeds on the fly as the lighting or situation warrants. When we compared shots, there really was no comparison. My shots were more in focus than his with proper exposure and much better composition. When you higher a plumber you don't higher them just because they have tools that you don't have. You higher them because of their knowledge.

However, I agree, the technology today is amazing and it does allow all shooters to obtain more keepers. But it takes the knowledge of an experienced photographer to truly leverage the tools.

I'm happy that I sold my spotting scope and applaud the folks who push that technology to it's limits.

Joe

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Hi Jim,

I agree in general to many of your comments. First off, I've been a photographer for 40 years and only recently considered digiscoping for my trip to Yellowstone. I needed the scope for the vast distances in Yellowstone. The effective 2000mm of the Kowa I had is what compelled me to purchase the scope. I shoot with Canon pro "L" lenses because I do demand critically sharp images. The cost of the largest prime L series is 800mm and cost around $13,000. The Kowa was a 2000mm, for well under $3,000. Lets start by saying I was not expecting the same quality between these two, of course not.

I would argue that a 2000mm scope attached to the camera (which is what I was doing) allows me to be much further away from the subject than the 800mm or even a 100-500 with a 2x teleconverter. So the stealth argument doesn't hold much water. With a pro-camera on the scope, you can still take advantage of the frames per second, once you achieve manual focus and exposure. The scope would work pretty well for stationary subjects, but would be ineffective in most cases for a quickly moving subject especially for birds in flight.

I agree with you on how great the newer technology is and it does help non-professionals achieve better results. Most pro's shooting birds are using all manual settings with the exception of focus. There is a lot to be said for the skill and knowledge of the photographer. As a way of an example, back when I was professionally shooting sports, a fan commented that he could get the same type of images I was getting with my pro body and 400 f/2.8 L. He was using a consumer Canon with an inexpensive Zoom. I offered to swap gear for the next batter. As an experienced photographer, I am adjusting exposure, focus, and shutter speeds on the fly as the lighting or situation warrants. When we compared shots, there really was no comparison. My shots were more in focus than his with proper exposure and much better composition. When you higher a plumber you don't higher them just because they have tools that you don't have. You higher them because of their knowledge.

However, I agree, the technology today is amazing and it does allow all shooters to obtain more keepers. But it takes the knowledge of an experienced photographer to truly leverage the tools.

I'm happy that I sold my spotting scope and applaud the folks who push that technology to it's limits.

Joe

Hi Jim & Joe

I agree with you both.

I felt I was being pure to birding & photography using a scope & smartphone (& DSLR attached) but even though I got some great shots & videos with my Zeiss scope the results & convenience of my camera way out way the smugness I felt by being true to the scope & birding.

You cannot react nor do bird in flight shots with a scope & the shear inconvenience of weight & set up misses most opportunities.

I cherish 🙂 my scope & will never part with it but have been totally taken in by the technique, incredible versatility & quality of results of a 'good camera & lens'.

It's not being a photographer, it's getting the result that matters.

All the best.. Ian

 

[Swampy Sam]

Wow! I have completely given up on photography and am now sketching through my optics. I have a few lenses and now keep them in a box and never get used. I usually use my 10x 42 Swarovski SLC binos on my tripod. I absolutely love this. I say do whatever makes you happy, and keeps you involved.

 

[lmans66]

Wow! I have completely given up on photography and am now sketching through my optics. I have a few lenses and now keep them in a box and never get used. I usually use my 10x 42 Swarovski SLC binos on my tripod. I absolutely love this. I say do whatever makes you happy, and keeps you involved.

I like this....it is an approach that really gets you into nature for sure. Bravo...I applaud you!!!! jim

 

[lmans66]

Hi Jim,

I agree in general to many of your comments. First off, I've been a photographer for 40 years and only recently considered digiscoping for my trip to Yellowstone. I needed the scope for the vast distances in Yellowstone. The effective 2000mm of the Kowa I had is what compelled me to purchase the scope. I shoot with Canon pro "L" lenses because I do demand critically sharp images. The cost of the largest prime L series is 800mm and cost around $13,000. The Kowa was a 2000mm, for well under $3,000. Lets start by saying I was not expecting the same quality between these two, of course not.

I would argue that a 2000mm scope attached to the camera (which is what I was doing) allows me to be much further away from the subject than the 800mm or even a 100-500 with a 2x teleconverter. So the stealth argument doesn't hold much water. With a pro-camera on the scope, you can still take advantage of the frames per second, once you achieve manual focus and exposure. The scope would work pretty well for stationary subjects, but would be ineffective in most cases for a quickly moving subject especially for birds in flight.

I agree with you on how great the newer technology is and it does help non-professionals achieve better results. Most pro's shooting birds are using all manual settings with the exception of focus. There is a lot to be said for the skill and knowledge of the photographer. As a way of an example, back when I was professionally shooting sports, a fan commented that he could get the same type of images I was getting with my pro body and 400 f/2.8 L. He was using a consumer Canon with an inexpensive Zoom. I offered to swap gear for the next batter. As an experienced photographer, I am adjusting exposure, focus, and shutter speeds on the fly as the lighting or situation warrants. When we compared shots, there really was no comparison. My shots were more in focus than his with proper exposure and much better composition. When you higher a plumber you don't higher them just because they have tools that you don't have. You higher them because of their knowledge.

However, I agree, the technology today is amazing and it does allow all shooters to obtain more keepers. But it takes the knowledge of an experienced photographer to truly leverage the tools.

I'm happy that I sold my spotting scope and applaud the folks who push that technology to it's limits.

Joe

Joe...I agree with you 100%...for a professional who is taking photographs, ....it is the professional and the skill that goes with it that makes the shot. For many though, it is just putting your 600mm on auto-pilot and snapping a shot. I am a street photographer and shoot manually too (my other hobby other than birding!). I see the same thing. Anyone can have an iPhone or some camera on 'P" mode.... but it is the skill of learning the light, the angle, the composition that go way beyond just snapping a shot. The same applies to those professionals who do nature photography. .... jim

 

[jcwu88]

Recently I got a Kowa 99a which is an excellent scope. In addition to enjoy watching, I took video by iPhone through 99a. Result is amazing- bright, vivid color and very sharp. It’s a joy to video documenting raptors nesting.
On the other hand, my Canon R6 + RF800 w/ or w/o 2x extender is also amazing! This set is very light considering it’s FL. Fast response, sharp images, and accurate animal eye AF is very helpful for natural photography.
When going to nice birding spots, I bring 99A and camera with cross body strep together. I can walk for miles with them and don’t miss anything

 

[Joker9937]

Well, Joe, I apologize for bending your ear in PMs, when I could have probably gotten my answers here. Funny how that happened...at least to me.

Being almost 50, I wonder what in the world I am doing spending significant money on chasing the best equipment in a hobby that is just that... a hobby. But, I can hardly help myself, because I like the "best", and do realize that the "best" does not always mean the most expensive. TALENT and experience, many times, plays a much more significant role in the hobby than buying the best tools, but buying the best can compensate for a bit of lacking talent and hopefully the experience can come with its benefits as well.

So, Joe's question was sort of my question to him, but being offered to a pro, him, from a newbie/rookie/inexperienced hobbyist.

That being said, seeing Joe's comment on one lens costing $13k, I think, might be the answer I am looking for. The best scope, appropriate adapter, and a nice mirrorless camera, are probably the best choice for me. I can get really nice photos, but maybe not the "best".

The bad thing, for me, though, is no birds in flight, no bucks chasing does during the rut, no quality photos of sparring bucks, and very few if any action shots of otters, beavers, or splashing GBHs.

Is there a decent option that does not break the bank that would compliment the digiscoping equipment? A lens that I could carry along with me that I could slap onto my camera that would let me grab those opportunities? Or, do I just need to buy a camera that doubles as high-quality video and be happy with the stills from that?

Most of my camera action happens as I hike. So, not usually my primary focus (no pun intended). However, having been lucky enough to have one of my digiscoping shots selected for a Ducks Unlimited calendar, I have started putting more thought into where and when I hike. Redheads are a bird I would REALLy like to get some nice shots of.

Ian, good to see your comments. I hope you are well. Always good to see your posts and see your photos.

 

[jlacasci]

Hi Joker,

You can absolutely complement the scope on your hikes. I'm a Canon guy and have been for a very long time. Canon, according to many experts has recently caught up with (perhaps surpassed) Sony's autofocus system. At least with the R6, R5 and R3. The R3 is over 6k and is Canon's pro body so probably out of the question. The R5 and R6 would be very good options. Key differences can be viewed here: Canon EOS R5 vs. R6: What's the difference?

In summary, although there are other differences:
Same autofocus and image stablization
Both are full-frame and can be set to shoot in 1.6 crop factor
Biggest differences: R5 45 Megapixel sensor vs R6 20
This give the R5 a big advantage when shooting 1.6 crop leaving you will a 17Mp image. It also gives you more crop options in post-processing.
The R5 has 8k video vs 4K on the R6.

R5 on BHPhotovideo:$3900
R6 is listed at $2500

You can sometimes find both on Canonusa refurbished with the same warranty for a few hundred less. Refurbished typically means someone purchased a new one and returned it.

The RF 800mm f/11 is around $1,000 and a 1.4x extender is $500 and I think the 2.x is $600.

If you went with the R6, 800mm, and 2.x the total would be $4100. This setup is small, light, and easily carried in a backpack with the scope.
If you didn't set the camera to 1.6 you're using a 1600mm with the 2. x. If you did set the crop factor, you are effectively shooting 2560 mm. But, you will need a lot of light. However, the R6 is very good in low light using high ISO. You can also use DXO PureRaw which is amazing at processing raw images to remove digital noise around $90, or Topaz Labs DeNiose, I think the same price. Of course, you could leave off the 2. x extender saving you 600 to start with, or even drop down to the 600mm RF f/11 which I think is 800 instead of 1000.

Joe

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Hello Scott
Long time no speak. Hope you & all of your family are well.
Pleased to see your post...
I got frustrated with the lack of versatility of the scope & phone although still use them very often, so bought a Nikon d500 (1.5 crop sensor), Sigma 150-600 Lens & Sigma 1.4 Teleconverter...giving me 1260mm at 600. After trial, error & research I eventually mastered the required techniques and now am obsessed with handheld bird photography. If you research it you can pick up some really good gear on line at reasonable prices. It's so satisfying to be able to react to small birds & BIF.
As we both know, you can get some really good vids & photos with a scope but the camera is better.
Some of my birder friends use easy to carry bridge cameras - Sony RX10 iv & Panasonic Lumix and get great photo & vid.results but in my opinion full frame & dslr cameras give better results.
I take a lot of camera/lens advice on YouTube from 'Tony & Chelsea Northrup'... real American pros who explain everything brilliantly.
I post most of my stuff on Instagram.com/ianfbyrnes & Twitter - @ianbyrnes2 & get a better response 😊.
Did you re-invest in another scope?
I think I may have said... Zeiss sent me a new zoom eyepiece because of the dust problem & I changed to an S10 like you.
By the way...(in my opinion) don't bother putting a camera on the scope, it's not only too fidely but the results are not what you expect. I got a Novograde adapter from BHP in the States.... its a good bit of kit but the camera is far more convenient.
Any way...nice to see you posting.
Take care.
Ian

 

[Joker9937]

Hi Joker,

You can absolutely complement the scope on your hikes. I'm a Canon guy and have been for a very long time. Canon, according to many experts has recently caught up with (perhaps surpassed) Sony's autofocus system. At least with the R6, R5 and R3. The R3 is over 6k and is Canon's pro body so probably out of the question. The R5 and R6 would be very good options. Key differences can be viewed here: Canon EOS R5 vs. R6: What's the difference?

In summary, although there are other differences:
Same autofocus and image stablization
Both are full-frame and can be set to shoot in 1.6 crop factor
Biggest differences: R5 45 Megapixel sensor vs R6 20
This give the R5 a big advantage when shooting 1.6 crop leaving you will a 17Mp image. It also gives you more crop options in post-processing.
The R5 has 8k video vs 4K on the R6.

R5 on BHPhotovideo:$3900
R6 is listed at $2500

You can sometimes find both on Canonusa refurbished with the same warranty for a few hundred less. Refurbished typically means someone purchased a new one and returned it.

The RF 800mm f/11 is around $1,000 and a 1.4x extender is $500 and I think the 2.x is $600.

If you went with the R6, 800mm, and 2.x the total would be $4100. This setup is small, light, and easily carried in a backpack with the scope.
If you didn't set the camera to 1.6 you're using a 1600mm with the 2. x. If you did set the crop factor, you are effectively shooting 2560 mm. But, you will need a lot of light. However, the R6 is very good in low light using high ISO. You can also use DXO PureRaw which is amazing at processing raw images to remove digital noise around $90, or Topaz Labs DeNiose, I think the same price. Of course, you could leave off the 2. x extender saving you 600 to start with, or even drop down to the 600mm RF f/11 which I think is 800 instead of 1000.

Joe

Joe, thanks for the detailed info. I like it.

Since I am not a camera/REAL photography guy (yet), and truly ignorant of most of the jargon, forgive me for questions that make this fact evident, please.

I am torn after reading this. If I spend $5,600, correct, I would end up with the R5, the 800mm lens, and the 2x extender? With that, if I understand correctly, with the crop factor (which, is one of the many things you said that I do not really understand), shooting at 2560mm, I would be shooting with the equivalent distance that a spotting scope would allow, but with far better quality. Am I understanding that properly?

When you say, "...you will need alot of light..", what do you mean by that? Would it be as difficult to get good photos at dusk as it is with a spotter at 50x with a cell phone, or are you just saying it will be more difficult than it would be during the golden hour? Or, I guess you could be saying that during the golden hour that reaching out with the max of 2560mm would not be good.

If that is even close to correct, you have me on the fence.

On the other hand, if I can screw my camera body on my spotter, and get very good quality, not as excellent as the above but definitely good, and spend $2k less, and keep my wife happy(ier), maybe I need to stick with a spotter.

I know that $5,600 would be just the start. I would need other bells and whistles. LOL That is how it always works. But, still sorely tempted.

Regardless, thanks very much for the info.

 

[jlacasci]

Excellent question. Read this link for a detailed explanation.

What is F-Stop, How it Works and How to Use it in Photography

I just arrived at a bird sanctuary in Rhode Island and will send more info later. After you read the article this next part will be more clear. The 800mm I mentioned is unlike most other lenses. You can't change the aperture, it is f11. Adding the 2x extender adds 2 more f stops or f22.

I will explain more later.

Joe