Cost of camera?

[Mad_Sunday]

I am new to this so please forgive me if I'm missing something.

I have been looking for a camera to use with my Opticron Imagic 80 (see earlier post) and have been ploughing through as many posts and reviews etc. as possible to try and narrow my choice. Previously I had been thinking about a DSLR but this had been put on hold (I fancy the new 4 thirds Olympus system but was waiting for the release of the new super zoom 70-300 which doubles to 150-600mm on 4 thirds). I thought I could get 1 of the older pentax 990/ Contax type camera's and use it on the scope until I made the jump to DSLR. My findings are rather strange. The price for these OLD camera's on Ebay seem crazy!

I'm watching a Contax 300 at the moment which is already at £21 (over 24 hours to go) plus £4 postage for a 3 mp OLD camera. (A coolpix 990 Nikon made £50 recently!)

Add to this the cost of an adapter from Optiron of £49.

Also from Opticron is an adapter at £49 for the NEW Samsung NV3 which is for sale at Dixons or Amazon for £99 with free delivery!

Surely the price of these old camera's is WAY too much considering that the adapters cost the same, and you get a warranty and twice (at least) the pixels with a new camera.

Also, some of you are paying hundreds of pounds for the latest Nikon or Canon compacts but the price of DSLR's are now falling to a point just above them. Whats better, a P5100 costing over £200 plus a top flight scope, or a DSLR (£300 body + 300 (600) mm lens)?

Kindly comment on these 2 ponits, I'm looking for value for money.

Regards, Pete.

[postcardcv]

Older cameras prices are entirely based on demand, the older digiscoping cameras can command a decent price (Nikon 4500 will still sell for ~£100), as they are tried and tested. I guess a fair few will sell to people buying them as back up cameras. Standard compacts can be very cheap, I recently picked up a Canon IXUS (boxed, with memory card and case) for £25 - an excellent camera and works well for digiscoping. A lot of those digiscoping are using cheaper adapters or handholding, so the difference in price of the camera may be more of an issue.

As for digiscoping vs a DSLR and lens - for many digiscoping is a much cheaper option as they already own a scope. Also many birders do not want the hassle of carrying a DSLR and long lens when birding, a compact camera is easier to take with you and will still allow decent shots. A friend who uses a Canon with the 100-400 zoom recently got the Nikon P5100 and loves it. The Nikon is a good deal less to carry (he'll always have his scope anyway) and can give excellent results. Also with digiscoping he can shot birds at greater distances than I can with a 500mm lens.

[NoSpringChicken]

Hi Pete.

I don't think the two systems are directly comparable. If you are really interested in taking the very best photographs of birds I think the DSLR route is the only way to go. It will give you the ability to take quick opportunistic shots and flight shots, both of which are not possible with digiscoping.

Digiscoping is fine if you have the time to set up the shot and the bird is more or less stationary. It can also possibly give you a bit more reach than reasonably priced DSLR systems. In my case I have a scope with me anyway and carry an adapter and camera so that, if an opportunity for a photograph arises, I have the gear with me to do it. I don't normally go out specifically to photograph birds.

The drawback with the DSLR is that it is a lot more expensive once you start purchasing a selection of long lenses (it seems that many photographers here are not content with just one lens.) You can easily start spending thousands of pounds. On the other hand, if you already have a scope, an outlay of a further £150-£250 will get you a system capable of taking very good, if somewhat limited, photos.

Ron

[Mad_Sunday]

Thanks postcardcv,

yes I understand the "always have the scope with me" argument.

I just cant see there is a need for an expensive compact as well as a scope if the £99 Samsung is as good as some of its owners/reviewers say it is.

Plus, surely its got to be better than a p4500 at the same price? (mouse hovering over the buy it now icon).

Enlighten me ;-)

Pete.

[postcardcv]

Thanks postcardcv,

yes I understand the "always have the scope with me" argument.

I just cant see there is a need for an expensive compact as well as a scope if the £99 Samsung is as good as some of its owners/reviewers say it is.

Plus, surely its got to be better than a p4500 at the same price? (mouse hovering over the buy it now icon).

Enlighten me ;-)

Pete.

I agree that the 4500 is old, slow and outdated... but I've still not seen a compact camera with better image quality. The fully manual controls and stunning macro make it a very useful camera. That said if I was buying a digiscoping camera now I wouldn't even consider it, the shutter lag is just so annoying.

The Samsung is a fine camera, I'm even tempted myself at the price (cannot imagine how much trouble I'd get in if I bought another camera). Some of the more expensive cameras do have advantages. The Nikon P5100 has more manual controls and better performance at high ISO, both are very handy for digiscoping. Having seen shots out of the 5100 I can see why so many people are buying them. All that said the NV3 is a proven digiscoping camera and at £99 it's got to be a good choice.

[NoSpringChicken]

All that said the NV3 is a proven digiscoping camera and at £99 it's got to be a good choice.

I agree, especially as there is the bespoke Opticron adapter available for it.

Ron

[iporali]

Pete,

I am afraid it is your scope that is going to be the bottleneck even if you used your camera phone. An expensive scope and a cheap camera may work very well, but a cheap scope and an expensive camera just never works.

Ilkka

ps. Some examples of phonescoping with a very good scope (Kowa TSN823 IIRC):
http://koti.welho.com/tlaurins/phonescoping/best%20off.htm and
http://www.phonescoping.com/

[Mad_Sunday]

Thanks guys'

Ordered! £109 including delivery before 1pm tomorrow!

My wife will want to kill you both ;-)

Pete

[Mad_Sunday]

Hi Ilkka,

Yes I realise that the IM80 is not a Top flight scope but "I always have it with me" ;-) I am hoping the 80mm objective will help.

Your photo's are very good, what range are the birds I wonder?

Pete.

[iporali]

Your photo's are very good, what range are the birds I wonder?


Oops - sorry about confusion. The photos are not mine - they are taken by Tommi Laurinsalo, who has pioneered phonescoping in Finland. He has had some exhibitions (one in India right now, btw) and those images are really stunning even printed.

I would guestimate the shooting distance to be more or less 10 m.

Ilkka

[oldbaldman]

Hi Pete,

I am a complete newbie at digiscoping and have started by using my old canon ixus 4 through my Swaro STS80HD scope with the 20-60 eyepiece. I simply hold the camera on 3x, the max optical zoom, to the eyepiece and click, and eventually the camera does click, although it can seem to be an age.

I do not know how to post pics here, not very computer literate, but if you pm me your email address I will send you some examples, these are not anywhere near as good as the pros here, but show what can be achieved with a basic set up and juts offering an old camera up to the eyepiece.

atb

dave

[Mad_Sunday]

Thanks for the offer but I've already tested the theory using my bino's and the old camera I had. I got a few (crappy) shots of starlings in the garden but it did prove to me the idea had possibilities.

As an update my Samsung NV3 arrived Saturday (next day) and seems like a really good buy for £99.

In addition the Contax 300 made £44 on Ebay!!! plus £4 p&p. Half the price of the Samsung, I still don't understand why anyone would pay that much for an old model.

My next project is to test the camera/scope by hand holding the camera (anti shake on) and seeing how things go. I then intend to make an adapter, because after buying the Camera for only £99 I can't justify paying £49 for a bit of plastic ;-)

Hoping to post a few pictures soon, regards and thanks again for your input,

Pete.

[Mad_Sunday]

Hi again,

I have had a few test sessions with the scope, results are a bit strange.

I used the NV3 hand held and found the following.

1 I have to fold down the eye cups to get a full frame without using the zoom.

2 results were mostly blurred due to camera shake.

3 rather dull image that will need a bit of messing with on the laptop.

I also tried my camera phone so had something to compare against. This was a bit of a shock due to the following.

1 Full frames with the eye cups up (my normal situation)

2 blurring much less using the "sport" mode which takes 3 pictures in quick succession.

3 much brighter image..........no idea why?

I tested the NV3 in both auto and program modes (using some settings found on this forum) and used the phone on it's auto "sport" mode.

Bottom line, using the phone with the scope is MUCH easier and gives better results. Despite it not having an optical zoom I just hold it to the eyepiece and it works.

The Samsung is on Ebay!

Pete.

[Mad_Sunday]

Samples taken with the samsung NV3 and HTC touch phone.

Pete

[GarnockFocus]

I used a Canon A85 with the IM80 with reasonable results (I think it was a 27x wide eyepiece).

[GarnockFocus]

Hi again,

Bottom line, using the phone with the scope is MUCH easier and gives better results. Despite it not having an optical zoom I just hold it to the eyepiece and it works.

The Samsung is on Ebay!

Pete.

Looking at your images there is a lot of CA (the purple fringing) and that is more likely to be the scope causing that!

[postcardcv]

Looking at the EXIF data on the heron shot with the NV3 shutter speed is clearly the issue, I can oly guess you didn't have much light. Any shot taken at 1/15th of a second hand held will suffer from blur caused by shake. You've got the ISO set at 80 (lowest setting?), keeping it low will keep the IQ as high as possible, but in poor light crank it up to increase your shutter speeds. For handheld digiscoping I found I needed at least 1/100th shutter speed and faster is the subject is moving. Although I enjoy handheld digiscoping an adapter will make a real difference especially at slow shutter speeds. Give it another go when the sun is out and don't be scared to crank up the ISO to get the shutter speeds you need.

[Mad_Sunday]

Yes, the optics of the scope are not the best, It does have the 25x wide angle lens, not a zoom. However, you would expect the dedicated camera would get better results in terms of brightness compared to a phone!

The phone is always with me, smaller than the NV3 with a nice bright 2.5 inch screen, it's a PDA and has the Collins eBird Guide on it too. It is easier to take a scoped photo with than the dedicated camera. So I save carrying a camera AND a field guide with me..............no contest!

I am never going to get great detail using this scope with any camera so have decided to go back to plan A and get the Olympus e410 with a 14-48 zoom which is only £279 at Argos and later get the 70-300 zoom (equates to 140-600mm) to use when I want to take quality long range shots.

Pete.

[GarnockFocus]

I found the SE W810 phone took better photos than my Fuji 340 using a Hawe Endurance scope (£199 budget scope) , but when I got the Fuji F30 it was easily better than the phone, there is a lot of trial and error in Digiscoping combo's, I have never used the NV3 but I have heard it quite good. As PostCardcv said, low ISO in low light wont get good pics, my Kowa TS613ED is the same in poor light, if its dull I crank the ISO up to 4 and 800 to get faster shutter speeds as I only do handheld, I cannot be doing with brackets :-)

Good luck.