Thread: Nikon P1000 vs Spotter and digiscope

Hey mate.

For a quick assessment of an animal in the distance a decent camera will tell you if it's worth getting closer or not quite quickly. I also take several photos near max optical zoom, then zoom in on that using the camera. Rather than use a digital zoom.

You need to have a decent tripod and take the photo with a remote or on self timer (otherwise you'll never get a crisp shot of anything over several hundred metres away. I use a Canon SX60 for this. Simple and I've found them very reliable.



This was a stag we spotted on a slip 2.6kms away. With this one photo we could tell he was worth a closer look. We chased him for three days but he was old and smarter in that country than us.



This chamois buck was 1.8kms away, and we could immediately see he was good, but couldn't tell how good. We put the spotter on him and made our decision very easily. He ended up going 11 inch.

For more detail and trophy assessment once you've closed the gap a bit, the spotter is the better option in my opinion - but it has to be a decent one.

Phones have greatly improved the versatility of a spotter I think, prior to our modern phones which can attach to them and record and photograph extremely easily, a spotter was a pain in the arse to sit looking through. Very single use back then. But not now.

We do normally carry both, as I enjoy photography and filming stuff, but Glen loves his Swaro spotter and needs to justify spending the coin on it For me personally, a camera serves both purposes well, is a fraction of the bulk and weight, and I've not forked out several thousand on a spotter that I find hard to justify to be honest.

Nine times out of ten, if you see a mature & big trophy of any species, you will know immediately if it's worth pursuing. If you're not 100% sure in the first instance of spotting it, then it's probably not.