A Matter of Direction
Back on Sunday, I wrote about my trials while trying to shoot bird photos with my 75-300mm lens. And, I mentioned a possible solution being to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 2X tele-converter to come up with a 400mm f/5.6 lens. Realistically, though, 400mm is only a 25% increase over a 300mm lens — and that just wasn’t going to be enough. If I want to be able to shoot itty bitty birdies in their natural environment, I’m going to need something really, really long.
Sure, Canon make a 600mm, image stabilized, f/4 lens that, with a 1.4X converter works out to an 840mm f/5.6. But, that lens, at $7200, is just a little 
out of my budget for anything!
I figured there had to be another way, and, of course, there is: digiscoping.
The concept of digiscoping – using a digital camera to take photographs through a telescope or binoculars — is not exactly a new concept. 
The results can be stunning, to say the least, and the cost is moderate. I’ve found that a decent spotting scope can be had for less than $400, with some of the best scopes being around $2100. The gear needed to attach the scope to the camera ranges from about $70 to just under $500, depending upon how fancy you want the mounting to be, and what kind of camera you want to mount.
So, now I have some considerations:
- Do I want to take this up? It’s definitely a new photographic direction for me. How often will I actually get out and go somewhere to make pictures of birds (or other faraway or small subjects)?
- What camera do I want to use with a scope? I could certainly attach either the XTi or a D70s to the scope. However, most digiscoping is done with decent point-and-shoot digitals, with quite excellent results. Doing so adds some expense — I dropped and broke my little Panasonic Lumix P&S digital the other day, so if I want to use a point-and-shoot, I’d need to buy a new one — add another $250-300 to the price tag!
- Do I really need the equivalent of 1250-2000mm lens? Or, should I buckle down and just get a good 70-200mm f/2.8, the 2X converter, and be happy with what I can get with that? No, I won’t be able to get a good shot of that wood thrush that’s 100 feet away up in a tree. But, I’ll get good images of the ponies at Assateauge in the sunset. The scope really won’t be a lot of good for that kind of shot. But, then, I’ve got that 75-300mm lens …
The digiscoping is looking very interesting. The ability to make images like some of these is certainly appealling.
you may wish to consider carefully if this is a new and valid direction, or if it is just a distraction from your primary direction…either way, should you choose to follow it, it’s an interesting direction and I would gladly join you on the quest!
Right. And the big question still bubbles to the surface — just was is my direction? It would certainly be an interesting tool to add to my nature photographers’ bag of tricks. Yet, it’s utterly useless for weddings and portraits.
The 70-200 2.8 lens is wonderful. It would make an ideal addition for your wedding business. I have used it with the 1.4 extender on many occasions and love it.
But I would not consider this a birding lens (even with the 2X.) I have the 100-400 f4 and even found that still doesn’t have the reach.
I recently invested in a 500 f4 and can finally get close enough. With the 1.4 it is still sharp as a tack. I actually don’t do much birding photography and use the extended reach to get to bigger wildlife that is farther away.
Maybe we can head out together one of these weekends and we can share toys.
[...] contact ← A Matter of Direction [...]
[...] read about digiscoping over at Geren’s place, I had a try at this myself - none too successfully, I must [...]