-------------------------------
Possibly if you could actually match it accurately to a scope that has already produced "an awesome" image. I see digiscoping as a picture of a picture.
Is there an alternative way? I don't know.
I don't think we are looking for awesome. Out of interest are you a birder? Sticking a cheap compact in front of a high quality scope can give ultra telephoto quality that cannot be matched by cropping, say a 300mm DA* with a 1.7x TC on a K5. As an image it might not be considered that good.
We are talking about trying to find an easier way to get a recognizable image of e.g a medium sized wader 100 metres away.
Perhaps not, it is just conjecture at this stage but worth wondering about.

I tend to agree with John. Like Frogfish I've avoided digiscoping but my fairly non photographer twitcher friend has some excellent results using an expensive Swarovski scope with a cheap NV4 Samsung compact but it always has to be on a tripod and is really for the record shots of those fairly static waders that are 50 metres away. Fun to try I reckon.
How would the magnifications compare between the two, say, a 60mm scope at 20x eyepiece and say 2x zoom on the compact against a 300mm on the Q. (35mm equivs)?

I've been a bit slow off the mark getting the way the Q works. Clearly with the K-adapter astronomic (literally!) focal lengths can be achieved. So for those birders that used to digiscope (not me) could this give comparable results to their sometimes very good old compacts/swarovski combos?

----------------------------
I wonder what a moon shot looks like with a 2900mm lens

Where exactly in Oz are you? Been to the East Coast a few times, love it!

There still seems to be quite a good stock of K5's around which aren't massively cheaper (~£80)than the new model. Surely the price of these will now drop including the secondhand market. I would have thought the K30 will then have to drop a bit to keep the same differential with the K5's price - at least until the stock goes?

If the DA560 is $8k then I can live with the £560 Sigma 150-500......[/quote]Same here although the DA* 300mm looks cheap all of a sudden!
You can always rent the 560mm from SRS for £500 per day

----------------
Not quite sure how I managed to miss this wasn't a new thread, Doh!
Interesting comments on the 18-250mm - I was just thinking of trading my DAL 55-300mm for one to get the extra wide angle. (I do have a Sigma 150-500 for the top end now.
quote> "Will post some photos when the weather improves"
Not something we can often gloat over with an Aussie after our splendid Olympic weather

------------------
Mmm, indeed David. Looks like back to the thoughts of 300mm A* + telecon for me then.

I had the Tamron 70-300 DI LD macro, whatever it was called. I did a lot of research and overall seemed to be considered similar or slightly better than the SIgma (because of the useful macro?). However my Pentax 55-300mm has proved to be better. If the DA version is too expensive, from what you have said, I doubt there are any real disadvantages in sources a DAL copy and bringing the price close to the Sigma.