Travel equipment (1 Viewer)

[eschenmark]

I was wondering which equipment (binoculars, spotting scope, camera) are you guys using if you go birding overseas (for example in South America) ?

 

[Mono]

I don't take anything different what I would take at home. It depends on the type of birding you are planning on doing, for example if you are going to be mainly in woodland you might not take a scope, but that applies just as well at home. If you have particularly valuable equipment I would make sure it is covered by your insurance. Check local laws and customs regulations, some countries prohibit certain optics or require you to obtain import permits.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I took exactly the same kit to Costa Rica, as I took to the USA, as I took to Scilly and as I take on a general local birding day out.
Full size binoculars; 80mm 'scope; tripod; basic inexpensive bridge camera; field guide and notebook

 

[njlarsen]

I less and less frequently take a scope when traveling, instead I rely on the camera to give me distant views. My camera is a Pana with 100-400 mm (200-800 equivalent), so not an extreme reach bridge camera, but still gives me about as much clarity as I would from the scope (when zooming in on the image in the viewfinder/on the rear screen).
Niels

 

[THE_FERN]

Depends a bit on type of trip. If it's a tour with a guide you can either rely on your guide's telescope or take advantage of the fact you're not driving etc to take your own.

When I'm by myself I take bridge camera (insects, plants, landscapes), SLR + 100-400, bins, small 50mm telescope plus a few bits and bobs, but basically a flipside rucksack's worth. I now have thermal scope too but that's small.

Tbh I don't use the scope much and if you've a really good mobile camera you can largely ditch the superzoom. I would dearly love to lose the SLR but it remains essential for id for me. Perhaps an upgrade from my 7dii would help. Alternatively you could get a really good superzoom and ditch the SLR (but most fall down on speed of focus)

It also depends on the habitat. Above works well in topics but wouldn't in estuaries

 

[temmie]

Imho, there are 3 important factors whether to take a scope or not:

If a target bird that 100% needs a scope to see it (well), I'll take it.

The last couple of years, checked in luggage is often optional on many flights. If I have to pay too much for checked luggage, and the scope (+tripod) is that one thing that doesn't fit in my carry-on, I'll leave the scope home.

As mentioned by Niels, a modern camera often gets you a fairly good amount of reach that is equivalent to a 20x scope view.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I'm perhaps guilty of taking more gear than I really need, although I'd rather be safe than sorry on trips, having had problems with binoculars and lenses in the past. I pretty much always take a scope and lightweight tripod, although on trips where I don't think I'll use the scope a huge amount I take a small Nikon ED50 rather than my 85mm Swarovski. I also take a spare lens for my camera, both for offering options and as a back up. I also take a (small) pair of spare binoculars. Sometimes I end up lending these to a guide (who occasionally don't have bins themselves). I also take a small sound recorder.

 

[nkbj]

I travel with 8x32 or 8x25 binoculars, a Sony RX10 IV bridge camera (24-600mm eqv.), and sometimes a small spotting scope (Svbony SV410 9-27x56) on a lightweight travel tripod. The tripod goes in the checked luggage, the rest in cabin luggage.

Besides this equipment I take field guides supplemented by Merlin with the appropriate language pack(s) on the phone.