Magaliaman Loc: Magalia, CA

One would think that's true, but my experience has been otherwise. A good example would be this: Hold your finger a foot or so from your eye. Close your right eye and look, now close your left eye and look. The point jumps correct? That's because of the difference in the center point of your left vs right eyes. The amount of that Jump changes as the object moves nearer or further away. Now sight a doorknob 30 feet away. It doesn't appear to jump as much.

The same thing Happens with your Red dot sight, only the difference is the center point is higher and lower (not left and right like the example of your eyes.) The camera is looking thru the lens which is usually a few inches Lower than your Red Dot. Therefore distance DOES affect where your focus point really is. Especially if your trying to focus on a birds eye at 850mm.

My advice is try it. It works, it helps, but its not the "end all" perfect solution to BIF. It's just another tool in the bag, but it doesn't make every shot a keeper.

I Suspect if you had a point and shoot or rangefinder type camera where your not actually looking thru the lens itself, the rangefinder viewer would be physically closer to the red dot sight and therefore have a lesser effect on distance.

-Gary

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Same to you my friend. Same thing for your post. At least mine was factual, yours was truly SNARKY.
There are a LOT of people out there who like gadgets, including me.
Over time, I have bought my share, and like many gadgets I have owned, most are no longer in use. Some folks who have bought this gadget, no longer use it because it really gets in the way more than it is helpful. Some folks have employed it and continue to use it. I have never had the need for such a gadget.
And further, neither do all of the 50 + folks I shoot with in Florida's wetlands.
In fact, over the past 5 years shooting around over thousands of photographers, I have only seen one, and at the time that young lady was not using it to photograph the fast flying Anhinga's that were zooming past us.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Concur about the parallax Gary but if the sight and the lens are calibrated at whatever distance, presumably within the preferred range you'd be shooting (~100 yds) and the reflex dot is placed anywhere within the focus area, the camera should acquire focus. Again we're not talking about 1 moa as we would for shooting sports, 3, 4 or greater moa would seem appropriate for cameras....seems for less than $100 I could get the A-S mount, the Picatinny Rail and a decent holographic sight and try it....Cheers

Magaliaman Loc: Magalia, CA

You are 100% Correct. If you're distance is calibrated to 100 yards, and (within some tolerance) you aim at a bird in that range, the red dot sights are extremely accurate. Plus the best thing is they give you some situation awareness. But what happens when that bird just appears at 50 yards, or even 150 yards when you're dialed in at 100? That's where I find the red dot lacking. Its just not something you can adjust immediately, and its hard to compensate by the "seat of your pants" on a moments notice.

If I were you I'd do it, but don't expect it to be a perfect solution to BIF photography.

-Gary

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Never had that problem with the Olympus EE-1. One's eye does not need to be perfectly inline with the sight/lens axis. It is designed to allow for one's eye being a little off axis.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Some good thoughts. I personally would not attempt to shoot a bird at 150 yards or even 100 yards. The result would mean extensive cropping and quality image loss.
I shoot much closer than that, my max. range would be 100 feet. I like to put as many pixels on the bird as I can. That is why I do not need this gadget.
However, I do appreciate those that like and use them. But for me, they are ineffective at best.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Thanks Gary, I personally would prefer to keep both eyes open when attempting to follow targets rather than looking through an OVF with one eye.....either way it takes practice, practice, practice.

Magaliaman Loc: Magalia, CA

In ideal conditions I agree with you totally. Although sometimes (See pic) you have to shoot under less than ideal circumstances. 925' for this picture.

(Download)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Never had that problem with the Olympus EE-1 sight. One's eye does not need to be perfectly inline with the sight/lens axis. One's eye can be slightly off axis and the dot still stay in place on the target.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You are correct that one does not need a dot sight to shoot BIF. But number of keepers increases almost two fold for me. Why shoot at 50% or less when one can shoot at double that with a dot sight? It is a lot less frustrating and a lot more fun to shoot at the higher rate. My vote is for the dot sight, hands down.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

That sounds like you have to use a tripod. Can you get a 80% keeper rate without a tripod? That is what the Olympus EE-1 eyesight is for. It is for sport capture without a tripod of any sort.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I hate to say it, but I haven't tried that yet. And I own an Olympus E-M1mkII that has the ProCapture on it. Thanks for reminding me to use all of my camera's abilities.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The Olympus EE-1 is a "projected" dot that remains in the view sight and is not a laser beam that shines on the target. The camera still does all the focusing.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There is a brightness switch on the Olympus. Bright sky or background are no problem.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

That is were the differences between the gun site and the dot sights are. No distance calibration and can be view from a fairly wide angle. I comes down to what one is willing to pay for. Absolutely nothing wrong with your setup. You have my vote for doing it yourself.