I think i will do just that.
regards
rush
On 8/5/06,
Herschel Mair <herschelmair@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. Cheap telescopes have much lower quality than cheap photographic lenses.2. High quality lenses cost more than photographic lenses.3. You have no aperture control.4. You must get hold of a mount that doesn't confuse the 350D's metering system.5. At high magnifications beyond about 300mm, you need a VERY sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up and a remote release.I personally think you should go for the 70 - 300.herschel
rush rouge <pixelrouge@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:hi..
I love Bird watching.But have been unable to photograph them for the lack of equipment.
Now i want to buy some stuff for the purpose but only temperorily say for 6 months. Budget limit $150 - $200.
I had 2 choices :
1. sigma 70-300 mm f/4.0 lense.
2. Tokina 400mm f/5.6 lense [reseller's]
But i just came to know about Digiscoping.
And now i think it would b a better investment as i can use the telescope for other purposes later on.
My query is R results with 350D satisfactory.It seem that sutter speed will b slowed down drastically. Also if i decide to buy the equipment what would U suggest ? Can U help me with this pls .
What r ur views on this topic..
regards
dakooHerschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of OmanAdobe Certified instructor+ (986) 99899 673__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
