Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

DigiScope or Camera/Lens?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 08:02   #1
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
DigiScope or Camera/Lens?

Visiting nature reserves in the UK and Germany I notice a big increase in folks carrying DSLR cameras and long lenses rather than digiscoping.

Looking forward over the next couple of years or so, which option will you be using and why?

Hopefully your answers will explain whether this trend is real or whether I am mistaken and if it is real, what the reasons behind it are.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 15:50   #2
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,798
Hi Lee,
Although I don't do digiscoping, I have used both long lenses, some very long, and eyepiece projection with very long lenses or telescopes., which is I think the same as digiscoping.

The quality achievable with just a lens may be somewhat better, but one sacrifices the scale achievable with digiscoping.

I suppose there is a desire, maybe unjustified, in trying to get superb quality at a smaller scale.
This used to be the realm of the professional photographer.

Military long distant photography also employs very long lenses or enhanced eyepiece projection.

Horace Dall, I think, pushed his 16.5inch Dall Kirkham's focal length to 1,100 metres if my memory is correct, for a photo of Mercury. This is rather insane, but it got results. He also invented the atmospheric prism corrector, which is available nowadays as a commercial copy. 1,100 metre focal length lenses are not available.

The 4 inch resolution at 250 miles from the 70 inch aperture big bird telescopes needs image enhancement
somehow.

Digiscoping needs a smaller package than long lenses, and is cheaper.
Also the long lenses used for birdwatching are not long compared to astro equipment.

I saw two Astro Berlin refracting lenses at the old Calumet headquarters and asked if one was for sale, but the owner said no. One was 2,000mm f/11, the other 2,000mm f/10.
Nikon, Zeiss and Minolta had large 1000mm mirror lenses. Olympus a small 1000mm mirror. There was also a 1600mm mirror and a 2000mm mirror.
Usually these very long lenses are mirror lenses as CA becomes very difficult with refracting lenses.

I had the Zoomatar 2,000mm f/14 mirror lens, but basically I think it was junk. Impossible temperature effects with a very odd design in unsuitable material body. It was made for cine, but I cannot see how it was any good.

TTH had 30x T.V.and cine zooms with 25 to 30 lens elements. That is why they needed their patented tunable multicoating, around 1960, which was essential to make them workable.

Last edited by Binastro : Thursday 14th June 2018 at 16:01.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 16:20   #3
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,798
Refracting lenses longer than 500mm or 600mm focal length are difficult to make even with modern glass.
A zoom lens may be a bit easier as this is employing some enhancement of basic focal length.

I had an excellent Tewe 600mm f/5 lens, which was very high quality.

Also a Dallmeyer 24 inch f/5.6. Someone wanted to buy it, but I didn't want to part with it. Eventually I relented and I am pleased I did, as it went to a disabled photographer who needed it for indoor theatre work on a medium format camera, maybe a Pentacon Six. There was little available at the time at any sort of affordable price.

Pentax made an 800mm lens, maybe f/4 and also a better regarded f/6.7? for the Pentax 6x7 camera.
I had a Pentax 1000mm f/8 refracting lens, which was fairly O.K. and easy to adapt to Minolta with a Minolta to Pentax 42mm screw adapter.

I also had a large cricket wooden camera. I can't remember the lens focal length.
One of these was used for a coronation photo, maybe 1930s?

The Ross 50 inch f/8 refracting lens was very good, but again CA becomes a problem.
There were longer military refracting lenses. I can't remember if the 144 inch f/8 for 28 inch square format film was refracting or not.
There was an enormous 30 inch or 32 inch aperture lens that surfaced in a Finnish magazine but went back to classified.

The Wray series 3 lenses designed by Prof. Wynne, c. 1960 maybe, were really excellent. In 12 inch, 24 inch and 36 inch focal length. Probably rare nowadays.

The 40 inch f/5 lens designed by Baker in the U.S. is reportedly superb.

Modern long lenses can cost upwards of $10,000.

Last edited by Binastro : Thursday 14th June 2018 at 16:53.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 17:01   #4
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
As always you are a mine of fascinating info.

Stephen Ingraham commented on this general topic and this is posted as a sticky on this forum:

You don't buy a scope to take pictures of birds. You buy a scope to look at birds. That is what it was made for. You carry it the field while birding to look at birds. If you have an interest in photography as well, you can attach a camera to the scope to take pictures of birds. It is a lot of fun, will produce some amazingly satisfying images, and adds very little weight or expense beyond what you are already carrying. And, you can take photos of the birds you see from fairly long distances, casually, without much special effort beyond attaching the camera. That's digiscoping.

You don't buy a lens to look at birds. You buy a lens to take pictures of birds. That is what was made for. You carry it in the field while photographing birds. That involves a whole set of skills, mostly centered on getting close enough to the bird to fill the frame. If you want to also look at birds, you carry binoculars and use them when you get close enough (because you certainly are NOT carrying both a spotting scope and a long lens, and you are not getting very satisfying looks at birds through your long lens). With experience and skill your images of birds will be beyond satisfying...they will be stunningly detailed studies of the living creature. That's bird photography.

There are three reasons a photographer might buy a spotting scope and small camera instead of a lens, if he or she is willing to accept the level of image quality possible with digiscoping. Working from a distance, image quality with digiscoping will be as good as and generally considerably better than a long lens working much beyond frame filling distance (arguably, but that is my experience), but it will never equal the quality of a frame filling bird taken at 12 feet with 600mm lens, or even at 24 feet with a 2X extender. The three reasons: 1) indeed, to work from greater distances than a long lens allows, 2) to limit the weight and bulk of the equipment carried (a scope and camera is always going to be lighter and easier to carry than a long lens), and 3) to control expense (Even the best digiscoping rig will cost half what a 600mm IS lens does).

There are no reasons why a birder would buy long lens instead of a spotting scope. :)

Where you see yourself and your desires and needs in all that will answer your question.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 21:28   #5
DRodrigues
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Coimbra
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Visiting nature reserves in the UK and Germany I notice a big increase in folks carrying DSLR cameras and long lenses rather than digiscoping.

Looking forward over the next couple of years or so, which option will you be using and why?

...

Lee
Some quick guesses:
1 - DSLR (also mirorless...) and their big lenses continued to improve (e.g. high ISO noise reduction), and their prices became more accessible... In the case of lenses was also because of Sigma and Tamron - I'm remembering the 150-600mm lenses - these also explain the decrease of the use of astro-telescopes as telelens;
2 - Top quality spotting scopes continue to increase cost - a 150-600mm lens cost less than a alpha 85mm scope...;
3 - increase in numbers of people interested on bird photography as main interest - birding comes after photography.
__________________
David
_____________________

http://www.pt-ducks.com
DRodrigues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 22:13   #6
KC Foggin
Super Moderator
BF Supporter 2018
 
KC Foggin's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach SC "Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places"
Posts: 236,137
I used to digiscope but to be honest the weight of it all when carrying while out birding, got to be too much for my shoulders and it seemed like i made quicker responses in catching a bird with a camera and a long lens. Yes, you can get some awesome images through digiscoping but I just felt I was more capable with birds in flight holding a camera rather than tipping or turning the scope on a tripod.
__________________
KC a/k/a common KC

Karma - What you send out
Comes right back at ya
KC Foggin is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 15th June 2018, 11:02   #7
jring
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,545
Hi,

in my limited experience I would not talk about a trend from watching and digiscoping towards pure photography - it really depends on the occasion, I think.

If it's just your normal walk across some patch, there's hopefully bins for everybody and usually a spotter or two and sometimes sb with a long lens. Sometimes people have a small cam or phone for proof or ID shots through the scope, but I think you don't have the time for serious digiscoping in a group.

Of course, if there is a chance of seeing a rarity, the number of hardcore imaging people usually rises sharply, and you can see lots of long lenses and the occasional digiscoper too - everybody else queuing for a nice look through my old Kowa...

I personally have to say that I did try taking bird pictures a few years ago (some were even acceptable), but after I had the chance to enjoy a nice long and close-up view through a good scope, I saw what I had missed before while messing around with the camera.

So for me it's a scope with the occasional phone image though it. Plus you can share the experience (as long as the bird sits still) easily while showing around even a price-worthy bird image on a small camera screen is not a lot of fun...

Joachim
jring is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th June 2018, 12:58   #8
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
Hi,

in my limited experience I would not talk about a trend from watching and digiscoping towards pure photography - it really depends on the occasion, I think.

If it's just your normal walk across some patch, there's hopefully bins for everybody and usually a spotter or two and sometimes sb with a long lens. Sometimes people have a small cam or phone for proof or ID shots through the scope, but I think you don't have the time for serious digiscoping in a group.

Of course, if there is a chance of seeing a rarity, the number of hardcore imaging people usually rises sharply, and you can see lots of long lenses and the occasional digiscoper too - everybody else queuing for a nice look through my old Kowa...

I personally have to say that I did try taking bird pictures a few years ago (some were even acceptable), but after I had the chance to enjoy a nice long and close-up view through a good scope, I saw what I had missed before while messing around with the camera.

So for me it's a scope with the occasional phone image though it. Plus you can share the experience (as long as the bird sits still) easily while showing around even a price-worthy bird image on a small camera screen is not a lot of fun...

Joachim
Thanks for your input Joachim.

Lee

Last edited by Troubador : Monday 18th June 2018 at 14:23.
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 11:34   #9
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,404
Lee,

Great question and I think Stephen illustrated the "focus" of each type of photography nicely. It depends on your intent. If you are just birding and happen to want to take a picture then digiscoping makes a great deal of sense. If your focus is strictly to take the highest quality pictures then a long lens is the way to go.

Having said that, there are plenty of times my intent was to go and take pictures of birds but I digiscoped, or rather phonescoped, instead. I think that is an important distinction to make as phonescoping makes digiscoping even more attractive as it further decreases the cost. Very few people don't have smart phones these days and I would be willing to bet that many birders already own a scope. The only piece of the puzzle that is missing is the adapter and there are quite a few affordable adapters available today.

Picture quality isn't too shabby with the latest phones either (or even the phones that are a few years old. )

You also don't have to buy the most expensive consumer spotting scopes to get decent results either. :-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	yellow1.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	213.3 KB
ID:	666423  
__________________
Visit our Optics Review site......
http://opticstheviewfromhere.com/
Digiscoped videos .....
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAf...1LMvsLF0DExoog
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 12:11   #10
Nick-on
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: deepest darkest Herefordshire
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
As always you are a mine of fascinating info.

Stephen Ingraham commented on this general topic and this is posted as a sticky on this forum:

If you want to also look at birds, you carry binoculars and use them when you get close enough (because you certainly are NOT carrying both a spotting scope and a long lens, and you are not getting very satisfying looks at birds through your long lens).

Lee
Not meaning to be contradictory but I do, carry a scope and long lens that is. Not everytime but when I think it necessary. I carry a Nikon FS3 ED with Sherpa 600 tripod with a MV500AH head using a scopac carrier, a nikon D7200 with Sigma 150-600C on a sling and a pair of Leica UVHD+ 7x42 round my neck. And while I am not quite in my dotage, although some may disagree, I am no spring chicken either. Will admit that I dont carry it all too far, usually less than 5 miles or so, however I find the weight acceptable and usually carry food and drink in the carrier as well.
I am a birder first and foremost and getting good views is a priority but I like taking pictures as well and have never got on with digiscoping.
I have just bought a very small lightweight 50mm scope and am on the lookout for a small cf tripod to go with it which I hope will 'extend my range' a bit......

Nick
Nick-on is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 12:54   #11
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD View Post
Lee,

Great question and I think Stephen illustrated the "focus" of each type of photography nicely. It depends on your intent. If you are just birding and happen to want to take a picture then digiscoping makes a great deal of sense. If your focus is strictly to take the highest quality pictures then a long lens is the way to go.

Having said that, there are plenty of times my intent was to go and take pictures of birds but I digiscoped, or rather phonescoped, instead. I think that is an important distinction to make as phonescoping makes digiscoping even more attractive as it further decreases the cost. Very few people don't have smart phones these days and I would be willing to bet that many birders already own a scope. The only piece of the puzzle that is missing is the adapter and there are quite a few affordable adapters available today.

Picture quality isn't too shabby with the latest phones either (or even the phones that are a few years old. )

You also don't have to buy the most expensive consumer spotting scopes to get decent results either. :-)
Thanks Frank, your views have been echoed by others.
Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 12:56   #12
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick-on View Post
Not meaning to be contradictory but I do, carry a scope and long lens that is. Not everytime but when I think it necessary. I carry a Nikon FS3 ED with Sherpa 600 tripod with a MV500AH head using a scopac carrier, a nikon D7200 with Sigma 150-600C on a sling and a pair of Leica UVHD+ 7x42 round my neck. And while I am not quite in my dotage, although some may disagree, I am no spring chicken either. Will admit that I dont carry it all too far, usually less than 5 miles or so, however I find the weight acceptable and usually carry food and drink in the carrier as well.
I am a birder first and foremost and getting good views is a priority but I like taking pictures as well and have never got on with digiscoping.
I have just bought a very small lightweight 50mm scope and am on the lookout for a small cf tripod to go with it which I hope will 'extend my range' a bit......

Nick
Hi Nick
It has become clear that many people feel the same as you Nick and don't choose between digi or camera/long lens but have both available and choose what to carry according to what they want to achieve on the day.

Thanks for your input.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 21:21   #13
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,444
I think the responses above cover big budgets nicely, or specific needs (bird watching vs bird photographing as the primary goal).

For me, I started with "digiscoping" (didn't even know it was called that) because you can get an inexpensive camera attached to an inexpensive scope or telescope and reach out to 100200m distant and take decent photos.

And this is a requirement anywhere I bird, because "getting closer" isn't an option and is technically illegal.

Once I got hooked, I looked into "doing it right" with a nicer scope and/or a nicer camera and frankly couldn't afford either. I got steered towards superzoom bridge cameras as a compromise: far more mobile, though I did sacrifice some reach (100m is about the limit, I miss taking those 200m-away photos sometimes).

I got a chance to heft a "really nice" camera rig that only went to 300mm focal length and it was too heavy for long walks. Anything longer would be too much.

So the world isn't quite as black and white as one might think if you're on a budget or have back or neck issues.

Only reason I have a decent set of binoculars after all these decades is because Nikon Prostaffs are available as an anniversary gift for years of service at work. First time I've had a set this nice, and I admit when the lighting is too dark for my camera or the bird is too far away, the binoculars are a way to enjoy the spaces between taking photos.

As a point of reference: I enjoy the watching, but the photographic capture has always been where I find the joy and challenge.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 20th June 2018, 06:22   #14
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Thanks for your response Kevin.
Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th June 2018, 13:17   #15
Binoscoper
Also a spotting scoper
 
Binoscoper's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Torrington, North devon
Posts: 42
I currently do binoscoping, hence my user name. I get by with a home made adapter and my 10x binoculars on a velbon tripod. At my current stage in life I can't afford a spotting scope or DSLR camera. Even if I could, I'm not all that fussed on ultimate picture quality.

In the future though, I plan on buying something like a lumix fz82 or whatever might be out by then.
Binoscoper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th June 2018, 15:41   #16
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binoscoper View Post
I currently do binoscoping, hence my user name. I get by with a home made adapter and my 10x binoculars on a velbon tripod. At my current stage in life I can't afford a spotting scope or DSLR camera. Even if I could, I'm not all that fussed on ultimate picture quality.

In the future though, I plan on buying something like a lumix fz82 or whatever might be out by then.
A pair of binos on a tripod can give you many enjoyable experiences with or without a camera.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st June 2018, 22:40   #17
fazalmajid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Visiting nature reserves in the UK and Germany I notice a big increase in folks carrying DSLR cameras and long lenses rather than digiscoping.

Looking forward over the next couple of years or so, which option will you be using and why?

Hopefully your answers will explain whether this trend is real or whether I am mistaken and if it is real, what the reasons behind it are.
I don't know if this is a trend, but I use either a lightweight Canon Rebel SL2 with a 55-250mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (2x-8x equivalent) or a heavier Fuji X-T2 with 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 LM OIS XF lens, optionally with a 1.4x teleconverter (3x-12x or 4x-18x equivalent).

Anecdotally, I have read many reports on camera forums of people getting good results with 1-inch sensor ultrazoom bridge cameras like the Sony RX10 IV or the Fuji FZ-2500 instead, including for birds in flight, and there are even compact ultrazoom cameras like the Panasonic ZS200, unfortunately their lenses tend to be on the soft side.

The DSLRs are much more convenient than third-party digiscoping adapters, have better quality than smartphone sensors, and have built-in optical image stabilization.

I'd love it if someone made a compact digital camera with a fixed 8x magnification lens, in a form factor similar to golfing rangefinders or monoculars.

Last edited by fazalmajid : Thursday 21st June 2018 at 22:50.
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st June 2018, 22:57   #18
fazalmajid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
As a point of reference: I enjoy the watching, but the photographic capture has always been where I find the joy and challenge.
Interesting, there are some psychological studies that suggest the act of taking a photograph sometimes detracts from the actual experience:
https://petapixel.com/2018/06/04/sim...s-study-finds/
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 22nd June 2018, 00:23   #19
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazalmajid View Post
Interesting, there are some psychological studies that suggest the act of taking a photograph sometimes detracts from the actual experience:
https://petapixel.com/2018/06/04/sim...s-study-finds/
Seriously, turning to science to tell someone what they should enjoy? That's...odd.

Though I do get it...I can't understand people who stare at a concert through a smart phone when they are there, in person.

But my animal photography is about the challenge of the photo and the details it captures. Details I'd never see or appreciate with my eyes, or binoculars, or a scope. Nor can I go back and look at as often as I want.

Because the funny thing about memory is it degrades over time, becomes subject to bias, distorts, and inflates. The photo always is what it is...I enjoy it almost as much each successive view as I do the first time. And I can share what I saw with others, which I can't do with my memories.

Both have a place...the looking and the photographing. Kinda not cool to imply one is better than the other.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018

Last edited by CalvinFold : Friday 22nd June 2018 at 14:17.
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 22nd June 2018, 17:12   #20
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Seriously, turning to science to tell someone what they should enjoy? That's...odd.

Though I do get it...I can't understand people who stare at a concert through a smart phone when they are there, in person.

But my animal photography is about the challenge of the photo and the details it captures. Details I'd never see or appreciate with my eyes, or binoculars, or a scope. Nor can I go back and look at as often as I want.

Because the funny thing about memory is it degrades over time, becomes subject to bias, distorts, and inflates. The photo always is what it is...I enjoy it almost as much each successive view as I do the first time. And I can share what I saw with others, which I can't do with my memories.

Both have a place...the looking and the photographing. Kinda not cool to imply one is better than the other.
Nicely expressed Kev, thanks for sharing.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 22nd June 2018, 18:44   #21
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
BF Supporter 2018
 
Kevin Conville's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of Chaos
Posts: 1,921
I've done / do both. For me it is primarily about speed. An SLR with a long lens is WAY faster to use therefore easier to get the shot. The lens speed is much faster with a long lens allowing faster shutter speeds which is critical for sharp pics.

You will miss a lot of images when digiscoping and for flitty, active birds it can be as frustrating as golf. BIF are virtually impossible. Generally, image quality is much higher from files out of a DSLR. Less noise, higher ISOs, sensor size, high shutter speed

It's true that one must use better fieldcraft with the long lens as you'll (generally) need to be a bit closer, but you'll have better tools to work with once there.

Que the list of photos posted depicting good results from digiscoping. I have some myself (look at my early gallery pics if interested), but the percentage of keepers and the chances of successfully getting the image of that rare or unique opportunity is far greater with a camera and lens IMO.

Added: My experiences are being out in the wild. No zoos, nature preserves, no hides / blinds. For those circumstances where one is afforded more time and opportunity, the differences between digiscoping and telephoto work may become narrower.
__________________
my bird pics

Scott's Miracle Grow KILLING Birds, for Years!
read this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=226714

Last edited by Kevin Conville : Friday 22nd June 2018 at 18:51.
Kevin Conville is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Up dating my digiscope camera dicklynch Digiscoping cameras 1 Thursday 9th April 2015 14:15
Digiscope camera required Ian Gasper Say Hello 6 Tuesday 2nd March 2010 07:15
Digiscope camera adaptor Felipe Swarovski 15 Monday 4th January 2010 19:11
Digiscope with a compact digital camera? CBB Digiscoping cameras 29 Monday 4th September 2006 17:15
Canon A620 Digiscope Camera? phill Digiscoping cameras 1 Tuesday 10th January 2006 00:03

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24373794 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:04.