>>4100767>A 50x spotting scope is equivalent to a 2500mm lens and a fraction of the cost. Is it worth it to just buy that and mount a smartphone to the eyepiece?The image will be dim and honestly pretty blurry and noisy compared to a "real" camera but it will be a photo at least.
Bird photography, if you do not want to be a good hunter and learn to sneak up on animals and insist on fool frame, is a horrible fucking money pit for gear.
>Nice $1500 70-200mm f2.8 but that's too short>Nice $2000 150-450mm f4 but that's too short>600mm. Full frame. Now you're ALMOST there. Zoom with your feet kiddo.This is like the whole reason micro four thirds cameras sell, because you get images out of 20mp camera with a 300mm f2.8 lens that are like the ones you'd get out of a 300mm f5.6 with the ISO bumped up two stops and cropped to 1/4 of the size on a full frame camera with like 80 fucking megapixels, while the whole camera setup is about the size of a FF mirrorless with a 70-200 f2.8, and way cheaper than a FF mirrorless camera with 80 fucking megapixels (MFT is a little over 1/4 the sensor area). For most people, with the way modern sensor and postproccessing software performs, that is more than adequate and can take magazine-grade shots. If you are a mere mortal and want to take really high quality pictures of birds without sneaking around you should probably just buy a smaller camera.
