Digiscoping doesn't suck

[ChrisNardone]

http://astromart.com/forumphotos/168513.jpg

I took this image this evening. I was suprised by an earlier thread that slammed digiscoping. I just got some of this equipment today so I can't yet give 100% accurate numbers, but this is about 1200mm. The bird was about 50 feet away. I couldn't get a shot like this with my 300mm and 1.4 t.c. Not that this is a spectacular shot, it was just a test. Anyway, I wanted to give anyone interested in this an idea of the kind of results that are possible. The scope is a Pentax PF-80 ED (used $475), with a Scopetronix Maxview 40 ($169), and a Canon 10D. Shutter 1/250.

[CyberDyneSystems]

That Pentax is a fine intrument too...

No,. Digiscoping isn't all bad,. but the difference in Image quality is apperent most fo the time when compared to quality photographic optics.

If Digiscope images are acceptable (as well as the manual focus and small aprture) another alternative is one of thoes manual focus 1000mm "pro-optic" or other such brands (even "Adorama" brand) manual telephoto lenses. These go for about $200.00 - $300.00 dollars and there out put matches a good digiscope set up,.. and they usually cost a LOT less.

Digiscoping has its advantages,. but you just can't compare it to a real lens...
look at the difference in contrast and color...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1503107&outx=560&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[cowman345]

it can work but gah! look at the chromatic abberration in the bottom of the frame around the twigs and branches... but it's certainly not terrible, per se.

-dave-

[ChrisNardone]

O.K. this isn't fair. Look at the strong backlighting on my image too. This was "first light", a test image in my back yard. When you say it can't compare, try comparing a telephoto lens side by side to the digiscope setup in the field. You won't hardly see the bird in the picture. Obviously if you can get close enough the camera lens will win. But reach/price, I say the digiscope setup wins.

[Scottes]

But reach/price, I say the digiscope setup wins.

The reason it wins is that the bird is bigger in the frame. So there will be many times that it will get something that CDS's 400 won't get. But I'll take CDS's bird any day.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hey!

You changed the picture! :)

That one does look better.

[CyberDyneSystems]

But reach/price, I say the digiscope setup wins.

The reason it wins is that the bird is bigger in the frame. So there will be many times that it will get something that CDS's 400 won't get. But I'll take CDS's bird any day.

Not to mention,. I liked the scene in my little sparrow pic.. the red leaves, the white berries.. (after all it's only a sparrow)

I bet if it was cropped so the bird filled the image.. (the above is not cropped beyond a slight trim on one edge) .... well,. you know whaere this is heading... :wink:

[ChrisNardone]

Hey!

You changed the picture! :)

That one does look better.
:D
L.O.L. You didn't think I was going to give in without a fight. By the way, PS CS Camera Raw plugin is awesome. The Chromatic abberation and Vignetting compensation tools are perfect for tweaking this sort of photography. I'm going to go out tomorrow and take some side-by-side 300 f/4L IS 1.4 T.C. versus the disiscope setup.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I knoiw you can get longer shots at a lower cost with the Digiscope,., but your 300,, f/4 is a super nice peice of glass! If you get close enough,. that thing will be so sharp it's images will slice the Digiscope prints to shreds :)

O-kay,. gauntlet received,.. a 100% crop;

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2704700&outx=682&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[ChrisNardone]

http://astromart.com/forumphotos/161276.jpg

I absolutely agree that L glass is way sharper. I am going to find out tomorrow which can resolve better at extreme distances. Side-by-side.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh,.. that one is really nice! :shock: :shock:

[GenEOS]

I have seen some really nice digiscope work on photosig.com. One guy gets some bird shots that are amazing. But he is using a much cheaper camera than a 10d on his rig. The pictures are not L glass stunning, but for birds that are hard to get images of up close, it is a cheaper, portable thing for him. He enjoys getting shots closer than most can get with "normal" gear.

How may of us would not give up a kidney for a Canon 1200mm with a 2x doubler....but you know that is not going to happen. So, you give a little quality to get images you want to get...

Some digiscope set ups suck, because of the quality of the optics...focusing is difficult too. DOF is almost non existant.

[mjordan]

If all you are going to do is show your work on the web, there are a lot of cheaper alternatives out there. But if you want to print the images at any size above 4x5, you are going to be very dissapointed in the results unless you have good glass, as well as good exposure and focus.

Mike

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree that digiscoping is in fact a lot easier with the likes of a canon 960 as opposed to a DSLR :)

[Scottes]

Wow:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=5791&b=vg1&st=0&la=621&ph=12&sid=28 777&u=28777

[karusel]

My god. There sure is a lot of good photos there.

[Scottes]

Yes, some of the folks over there are truly amazing. Guy Tal hangs there a lot, and the "Mooseman" Bill Silliker, Jr. did, too. Andy Rouse is there a bit and Andy Morrison and too many others I don't know yet. Great place.

[GenEOS]

There is a post on sportsshooter from a member that was at PMA. He posted a shot in his member gallery of a new digital scope with a built in 3MP camera. It is in essence a 1350mm lens... He said the prints were impressive for birders. I can't come close to the focal length for the money. He said the 8x10 prints look good.

Done mistake me here, I think it would be nice to have if your main thing is birding and not trying to get the finest print you can.

My wife and I do this a lot and you always can't get a recognizable image with short focal length camera gear. Wouldn't be too bad for the gun range either!