Using Spotting Scope or Telescope for Photography ???

Does anyone use a spotting-scope or telescope as a long-distance lens ?

Where can I find information on what all is necessary to connect my DSLR to the scope ?

I know that a T-ring and camera-specific t-ring adapter is necessary for connecting to most telescopes, but I can find very little information on connecting to spotting-scopes.

Also, information is very vague as to whether a specific spotting-scope will accept a camera or not.


How about a rifle-scope; can they be adapted for camera use ?


Many thanks.

There is a lot of information on what you are looking to do. Just need to use the right search word. The key word to find all the information you want is "Digiscoping"

Nogo wrote in post #17484788
There is a lot of information on what you are looking to do. Just need to use the right search word. The key word to find all the information you want is "Digiscoping"

Thanks.

When I searched "digiscoping" I came up with lots of information.

BuckSkin wrote in post #17486004
Thanks.

When I searched "digiscoping" I came up with lots of information.

I came across a good thread on 'digiscoping", but because it doesn't apply to me, I didn't "Follow" it and don't recall the specific location.

It did have a lot of useful info, though, so it would likely worthwhile to browse the results of your search!

i tried it. i bought all of the swarovski x stuff, digidaptor, swaro apo, gh4, 25mm 1.4, 20mm 1.7.

and honestly i grew tired of it. some people get crazy sharp pics. but most of these people are in florida where the birds are somewhat tame to people.

i decided i'll keep the swaro atx + 95mm and sell the rest of the stuff and just use my big whites.

There is a lot of info on digiscoping..

But, it's of no use unless you are doing astro photography.
The only place it has still would be with very large telescopes for astro photography.

For any other kind of photography, You can get a compact camera with up to a 2000mm equivalent lens now. (Canon's G3x goes out to 600mm, has a 1" sensor and thus has very good image quality)

You can get a decent used SIGMA or Tamron in the 500mm zoom range for a few hundred dollars, and put it on a $200.00 DSLR, and beat any digiscope out there for useability and performance (and IQ)

With digiscoping you are shackled to a tripod and telescope, no autofocus, and poor image quality.

I tried it back in the late '80s with a celestron scope and a film camera. Horrible results. If all you're interested in is identification, you might be happy.

Check out Tara Tanaka. She is amazing at it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17652968
For any other kind of photography, You can get a compact camera with up to a 2000mm equivalent lens now. (Canon's G3x goes out to 600mm, has a 1" sensor and thus has very good image quality)

I was recently amazed by a Nikon camera that a guy had at a recent civil war reenactment.
I am not familiar at all with any of this new technology and have no idea what model or type his camera was other than it was a Nikon and I don't think it was possible to swap lens on it.
He didn't discuss focal range in so many MMs, but in so many "X", like a rifle scope; it seems like I remember him saying either 600X or maybe 6000X concerning the comparison shot we made.

I had my Canon T3 with Sigma 18-250 extended to 250mm and he used whatever it was that he had.
There was a re-enactor on a horse about a thousand or more yards across the field.
The best I could do was the whole rider, horse, and quite a bit of real estate with my zoom out as far as it would go.
He captured one of his jacket buttons and you could easily read the insignia - hand held - I was amazed.

Yes, Nikon has the longest ultra-zoom camera out there. 24-3000mm equivalent!

BuckSkin wrote in post #18976451
I was recently amazed by a Nikon camera that a guy had at a recent civil war reenactment.
I am not familiar at all with any of this new technology and have no idea what model or type his camera was other than it was a Nikon and I don't think it was possible to swap lens on it.
He didn't discuss focal range in so many MMs, but in so many "X", like a rifle scope; it seems like I remember him saying either 600X or maybe 6000X concerning the comparison shot we made.

I had my Canon T3 with Sigma 18-250 extended to 250mm and he used whatever it was that he had.
There was a re-enactor on a horse about a thousand or more yards across the field.
The best I could do was the whole rider, horse, and quite a bit of real estate with my zoom out as far as it would go.
He captured one of his jacket buttons and you could easily read the insignia - hand held - I was amazed.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18976561
Yes, Nikon has the longest ultra-zoom camera out there. 24-3000mm equivalent!

It's the Nikon P1000 and retails for around $1,000 (there's an older version, the P900 that sells for about one-half the price). I bought one for my 15 year old daughter to use on our trip to Yellowstone this summer.

Yes, the zoom is amazing and makes the camera a lot of fun to use. It comes in handy in a place like Yellowstone where the animals are often a long distance away. I used it several times just to see what was off in the distance. As for image quality, I would just say that it is "ok". Uncropped images look pretty good but cropped ones turn to mush fairly quickly. As for noise, I couldn't figure out how to set the camera above ISO800 (although I think it may be possible). At 800 and below, it's ok. Basically, I consider the camera a fun tool for getting phone camera quality images. Since returning from the trip, I haven't used the camera, as I much prefer my DSLRs and telephoto lenses (although admittedly at a much higher price point).

Oh, one more thing: I used to have a Canon sx50 which is a similar style camera. Since most professional sports teams don't allow you to bring a DSLR and long lens, I would take the sx50. I liked being able to zoom in on the action. Here's a photo of (then) Atlanta Brave Tommy LaStella fouling a ball off. After taking the photo, I looked up to see the ball screaming right at us. It landed next to my daughter and I was able to grab it. My first and only major league foul ball and I've got a photo of it leaving the bat!

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …7782633_o-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A

Thanks for sharing the info and real-world experience.
I will make it a point to ask him, but I bet his Nikon is as you described.

More and more lately, I see the "photographer" guys around here going to those soccer-mom cameras; it seems it is more about dumping a days shooting on FaceBook before you eat supper, no matter that image quality really suffers.

BuckSkin wrote in post #18976451
I was recently amazed by a Nikon camera that a guy had at a recent civil war reenactment.
I am not familiar at all with any of this new technology and have no idea what model or type his camera was other than it was a Nikon and I don't think it was possible to swap lens on it.
He didn't discuss focal range in so many MMs, but in so many "X", like a rifle scope; it seems like I remember him saying either 600X or maybe 6000X concerning the comparison shot we made.

I had my Canon T3 with Sigma 18-250 extended to 250mm and he used whatever it was that he had.
There was a re-enactor on a horse about a thousand or more yards across the field.
The best I could do was the whole rider, horse, and quite a bit of real estate with my zoom out as far as it would go.
He captured one of his jacket buttons and you could easily read the insignia - hand held - I was amazed.

.
If you only saw his results on the back of his camera, then I would be a little hesitant to assume that the image quality is really up to par when he is zooming in that far. . A lot of images and close-up details look pretty good on the back of a camera, then when one gets home and views them on a big high resolution monitor, they are really disappointed.

Almost any time anyone photographs anything really far away, and brings it in real close with extremely long telephoto optics, image quality is likely to be only "fair", due to the fact that no matter how good the optics are, you are still shooting through a lot of atmosphere, and thereby a lot of the particulate matter in the atmosphere that they may not realize is there - mainly water vapor, dust particles, and heat distortion.

Digiscoping could be a lot of fun, and a perfect thing to pursue, if you are not too concerned about getting top level image quality and fine detail rendering.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18984937
Digiscoping could be a lot of fun, and a perfect thing to pursue, if you are not too concerned about getting top level image quality and fine detail rendering.

My main interest in digiscoping, or any long-range method, is for those numerous occasions where I can barely see the intended target way across a field and any hope of getting any closer is non-existent due to the wariness of the subject; it could very well provide the only recognizable shot.