> I've not looked into them
> personally; if I were to do daytime terrestial images, I
> would probably just add a telephoto to the camera.
> _and_ carry binos has needed.
indeed. telephoto photography just about mandates a tripod. long
telephoto lenses on 'point and shoot' cameras, digital or otherwise, just
don't work that well as the size constraints means they aren't very 'fast'
which means you need longer shutter speeds which means shake and motion blur
is an even bigger issue.
My preferences for binoculars, assuming money is not a constraint, are most
any Leica or Zeiss models. I particularlly liked the Zeiss B/GA 7x42 and
8x56 models when I last looked at a bunch, but these are $1000-$1200, OUCH.
Next step down from those would probably be the larger/better Nikon models,
with various Swift, Pentax, and Minolta binocs not too far behind. For
conventional birding binocs, the Swift "Audubon" 8x44 are decent for a
reasonable price.
Avoid discount store brands like Tasco at all costs.
For a digital camera suitable for long distance nature photography, the
Canon S1 IS is intriguing...
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s1is.html (this has a 380mm
equivalent lens with image stabilization). There is also an available
teleconverter for this camera which will give you a 600mm equivalent focal
length, which is extreme telephoto.
Received on Thu Sep 23 11:21:44 2004