Subject: Re: Photo questions
Date: Feb 22 23:16:28 1996
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


>Don has already covered the main problems with shooting through a spotting
>scope but if you are not inclined to put a lot of money into a long photo
>lens, it is possible. I just tried this myself and got a few keepers.

Just a clarification. I wouldn't describe these as "problems", but
rather "limitations".

I think a lot of rare-bird-shooters who just want to show up at
a birder's night, or document a rarity, could do well through a
scope. Well...slides are a bit tough, but 1000 ISO print film
is really pretty good.

I see birders out there who've bought 300/2.8 lenses plus extenders
who couldn't photograph their own navel with proper exposure. Even
with an assistant. Indeed, I struggled long and hard with the notion
of plunking bucks down for such a lens (leading me down the slippery
slope towards my 600), but I decided to "go for it" after watching
a well-known Oregon birder photographing with such a lens, with a
2x converter, out an automobile window ... WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING!

GRRRR...at the moment, I felt justified in bopping him and taking
the lens, but decided to buy my own instead.

You can do as well on a tripod with a scope and fast film as he
did, chug-a chug-ing his engine, vibrating that expense glass.

>The quality of the image is probably not going to be as good as what you
>would get with a lens designed for photograpic use.

It simply won't, but ... do you really care? A slightly soft scope
shot with vignetting corners, but frame-filling, will beat a super
sharp shot of a teensy 105mm.

So ... back to my original note: fast film (scopes have small
apertures) and low expectations (you won't be able to publish
these). You can have a lot of fun and make nice snapshot prints,
though.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, more at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza