Chotacabras
Active member
I'm getting into birding more seriously, and I want to be able to take ID record shots (as opposed to high-quality photos).
Which approach do most people use for this? 1) DSLR + telephoto? 2) Superzoom camera? 3) Digiscoping with DSLR or compact? 4) Phonescoping? 5) Other?
Some context. I'm in the UK. I do a lot of woodland birdwatching (so there's often not much time to find the bird with scope, then fit camera or phone, then ensure focus/exposure). I have a full-frame DSLR with 300mm lens, but really can't afford 500mm plus teleconverter. I have a very old scope which works pretty well at 15 or 20x, goes up to 45x but pushing it; I use a fairly heavy tripod. Phonescoping seems a great idea; but because of the challenge of finding birds quickly in treetops/bushes with scope, perhaps better DSLR with 300mm handheld and high ISO, leave scope in car when I'm in woodland? Save phonescoping for wetland birds etc? [Evidently 300mm image will then need to be blown up, generally won't be anything near full-frame].
Thanks in advance for any tips and opinions!
Which approach do most people use for this? 1) DSLR + telephoto? 2) Superzoom camera? 3) Digiscoping with DSLR or compact? 4) Phonescoping? 5) Other?
Some context. I'm in the UK. I do a lot of woodland birdwatching (so there's often not much time to find the bird with scope, then fit camera or phone, then ensure focus/exposure). I have a full-frame DSLR with 300mm lens, but really can't afford 500mm plus teleconverter. I have a very old scope which works pretty well at 15 or 20x, goes up to 45x but pushing it; I use a fairly heavy tripod. Phonescoping seems a great idea; but because of the challenge of finding birds quickly in treetops/bushes with scope, perhaps better DSLR with 300mm handheld and high ISO, leave scope in car when I'm in woodland? Save phonescoping for wetland birds etc? [Evidently 300mm image will then need to be blown up, generally won't be anything near full-frame].
Thanks in advance for any tips and opinions!