cannon p/s A610 and A620

[BRITATE]

Can anyone tell me how good the performance is
on these cameras for digiscoping

[yossi]

The A620 which I own is very limited for digiscoping. In most of it's zoom range it vignettes and I gave up trying to use it for this purpose. Some people use it at the widest setting with the maximal zoom power of the eyepiece. This is too limiting for me.
As just a camera - it's a very nice camera.

[BRITATE]

thanks for the info,saved me making a wrong purchace

[Mickymouse]

Let us know what you go for, I intend to get a A620 anyway, in every other area other than vignetting it seems to be great and so far in my experience people make to much of vignetting anyway, I seem to crop away most of my pics in any case vignetting or not but to be honest I am only trying to get record shots or help for IDing later.

Mick

[jourdaj]

Let us know what you go for, I intend to get a A620 anyway, in every other area other than vignetting it seems to be great and so far in my experience people make to much of vignetting anyway, I seem to crop away most of my pics in any case vignetting or not but to be honest I am only trying to get record shots or help for IDing later.

Mick

Mick,

Yossi's correct w/r to vignetting w/ the A620. On the Leica APO's w/ the 20-60X zoom vignetting is a real problem. I have the Zeiss 85 T*Fl w/ the 20-60X zoom and find vignetting to be less of a problem (but still there). Otherwise I think the camera is great. It focuses fast, and allows continuous shooting w/ a great buffer capacity.

Here are some of my latest images taken w/ the A620 and Zeiss 85 (hand-held):

http://www.pbase.com/jourdaj/canona620

I'm very happy w/ it! Good luck,

Jerry

[yossi]

Very very nice pictures Jerry.
You were using in most of them the widest zoom setting (7.3mm=35mm equivalent on 35mm format). Isn't this somewhat limiting you?
I'm using the 85mm equiv. setting (maximal tele) with my CP8400 and I feel limited in comparison to the great 154mm I had with the CP4500.

[jourdaj]

Very very nice pictures Jerry.
You were using in most of them the widest zoom setting (7.3mm=35mm equivalent on 35mm format). Isn't this somewhat limiting you?
I'm using the 85mm equiv. setting (maximal tele) with my CP8400 and I feel limited in comparison to the great 154mm I had with the CP4500.

Yes, sir. I tend to take most of my pics at 60X w/ the camera at its widest. This is limiting, and somewhat a lower magnification that I used to get w/ my Nikon CP990 (which only showed vignetting at its widest zoom and at 20X).
But, until a better camera presents itself I find that I'm taking much better images w/ the A620. And, the adaptor tube allows me to handhold without the need for expensive or cumbersome commercial adaptors.

Best,

Jerry

[erniehatt]

Yes, sir. I tend to take most of my pics at 60X w/ the camera at its widest. This is limiting, and somewhat a lower magnification that I used to get w/ my Nikon CP990 (which only showed vignetting at its widest zoom and at 20X).
But, until a better camera presents itself I find that I'm taking much better images w/ the A620. And, the adaptor tube allows me to handhold without the need for expensive or cumbersome commercial adaptors.

Best,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,
I use the A610, which by all accounts is the same as the A620, I use mine on a budget type scope, with a home made bracket, no adapter needed and can get settings on the camera od 8.5, 9.5, 10.8, ok there is some very faint evidence of vignetting at some dettings, but personally I dont mind this, as it is a technique used by Professional Photographers for many years to draw attention to the main subject ie the bird. Difiscopers seem to have an obsession with Vignetting. Ernie
:brains:

[iporali]

Fantastic digiscoping Jerry!


...without the need for expensive or cumbersome commercial adaptors.
I think this is also the very reason you have so successfully minimized vignetting with the A620.

Ernie: Try a tube adapter with the A610 and see what kind of vignetting digiscopers are so obsessed with. :t:


Ilkka

[erniehatt]

Fantastic digiscoping Jerry!



I think this is also the very reason you have so successfully minimized vignetting with the A620.

Ernie: Try a tube adapter with the A610 and see what kind of vignetting digiscopers are so obsessed with. :t:


Ilkka

Sorry Ilkka, Im missing something here, first I am not sure what a tube adaptor is, if it is so bad then why persist with them, perhaps you can explain it a little more. Ernie

[iporali]

Sorry Ilkka, Im missing something here, first I am not sure what a tube adaptor is, if it is so bad then why persist with them, perhaps you can explain it a little more. Ernie
OK Ernie, here we go. The "tube" adapters were maybe the first (and still a very popular) method to connect a digital camera to a spotting scope. You can see samples of different models eg. here http://www.digiscoped.com/Adapters.html. Most adapters had 28/37/52mm threads at the "camera end" of the tube and this was why the cameras with non-moving "internal zooms" and filter threads were handy in digiscoping (like the swivel-Coolpixes). Some other cameras with external zooms were also possible to attach to these adapters by filter-barrels like these http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/A620A610image.html. If the camera had a 3x zoom range of 35-105 mm the external zoom didn't move back and forward too much. It was usually possible to cover the zoom with a filter barrel, connect to a digiscoping adapter - and together with a wide-angled eyepiece the entire zoom range of the camera could be used without any vignetting. This kind of setup made/makes digiscoping more repeatable compared to hand-holding.

Lately camera manufacturers seem to have started to favour longer zoom ranges (4x->), which means that often at the tele-end (>140 mm) the lens extends so far from the camera body that the "Lensmate"-style filter adapters must be physically long. Now, if we connect a long filter tube to a digiscoping adapter tube, the camera is quite far from the eyepiece and the eye-relief of the EP easily becomes insufficient - and severe vignetting may appear especially at lower zoom settings. IMO this shows that digiscopers' requirements are simply not strong enough to drive the digital camera development. ;)

So, if the tube adapters cause vignetting, people stop using them. If the camera can be used at some zoom settings, digiscopers may use it handheld or with adjustable adapters, but both have their drawbacks (instable or cumbersome) - and the camera hardly becomes a big hit. If the A620 only had a 3x zoom, it would IMO dominate the digiscoping market: it has *almost* everything right.

Best regards,

Ilkka

[erniehatt]

OK Ernie, here we go. The "tube" adapters were maybe the first (and still a very popular) method to connect a digital camera to a spotting scope. You can see samples of different models eg. here http://www.digiscoped.com/Adapters.html. Most adapters had 28/37/52mm threads at the "camera end" of the tube and this was why the cameras with non-moving "internal zooms" and filter threads were handy in digiscoping (like the swivel-Coolpixes). Some other cameras with external zooms were also possible to attach to these adapters by filter-barrels like these http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/A620A610image.html. If the camera had a 3x zoom range of 35-105 mm the external zoom didn't move back and forward too much. It was usually possible to cover the zoom with a filter barrel, connect to a digiscoping adapter - and together with a wide-angled eyepiece the entire zoom range of the camera could be used without any vignetting. This kind of setup made/makes digiscoping more repeatable compared to hand-holding.

Lately camera manufacturers seem to have started to favour longer zoom ranges (4x->), which means that often at the tele-end (>140 mm) the lens extends so far from the camera body that the "Lensmate"-style filter adapters must be physically long. Now, if we connect a long filter tube to a digiscoping adapter tube, the camera is quite far from the eyepiece and the eye-relief of the EP easily becomes insufficient - and severe vignetting may appear especially at lower zoom settings. IMO this shows that digiscopers' requirements are simply not strong enough to drive the digital camera development. ;)

So, if the tube adapters cause vignetting, people stop using them. If the camera can be used at some zoom settings, digiscopers may use it handheld or with adjustable adapters, but both have their drawbacks (instable or cumbersome) - and the camera hardly becomes a big hit. If the A620 only had a 3x zoom, it would IMO dominate the digiscoping market: it has *almost* everything right.

Best regards,

Ilkka

Ilkka, I thankyou for the explanation, I am much obliged. I see you point, I have the lensmate adapter which I use to attach a tele converter etc. An found it to be quite useless for digiscoping with the A610. So being on a pension and budget wise, I have designed my own, which I can use at various zoom settings with no or very little vignetting, really with only a slight shading at the edges, which doesn't concern me to much, I suppose it is a case of individual choice, if it has a sharp edge to it I would be very concerned. Thanks again Ernie

[ajmorales]

The threads concerning the viability of particular cameras suited for digiscoping fails to consider the scope factor; eyepiece in particular. The scope manufacturers have as yet NOT designed a system specifically for digiscoping! This has led many of us 'tinkerers' to discover the cameras that perform well for the existing scopes we own. We are quick to dismiss the camera in most cases and fail to consider the OTHER side of the equation; the scope eyepiece. I have been successful in this digiscoping endeavor by addressing the 'scope' side by using a 2" eyepiece. This addressed the vignetting issue for my canon A610 experience. With the 2" 26mm eyepiece fitted to my Celestron 750mm 'cat' lens from my 35mm film days, I can now shoot at camera zoom 7.3mm (widest) with little to no vignetting!

AJ

[ajmorales]

By the way,
I am using a 'tube' adaptor. A PVC pipe fitting! I modified the fitting to hold onto to the eyepiece so I can use for aligning the camera to the eyepiece.

AJ

[ajmorales]

Decent results DO happen under unfavorable conditions!
This one was an interesting case; early evening shot of some white throated sparrows. I didn't want the shutter speed to go slower than 1/60th, but the light conditions required much slower! The camera was suggesting 1/8 - 1/15th based on aperture priority 'all the way open'. I dropped into manual mode & set to 1/50th. The original image was obviously under exposed. I experimented with the arithmetic 'adding' of the original image plus a copy of the original image! Here is the result! a keeper for me!

AJ

[Mickymouse]

AJ how do you do the adding? looks like a very interesting and useful technique.

Mick

[ajmorales]

AJ how do you do the adding? looks like a very interesting and useful technique.

Mick
I accidentally stumbled on it while experimenting on some featured I had never used before! I am using Paint Shop Pro XI. If alternate applications are used, there should be a similer 'feature' or 'tool'. Here's the steps in Paint Shop Pro;
1. Open up the image of interest
2. Copy the the image & paste as new image
3. Click >IMAGE >ARITHMETIC
4. Select the 'add' function
5. make sure the two images, original & copy, are selected to apply the add function to.
6. click >OK

I have a suspicion this is what the astronomy group uses when they refer to 'stacking' images.

AJ

[ajmorales]

Another 'recovered' image, by applying the 'add' function, from a few days ago ...

yellow rumped warbler (Myrtle?)

AJ

[ajmorales]

Here's my home-brew digiscoping 'rig'. I find that 'left-over' house project components work quite well; PVC plumbing fittings for a DCA (digital Camera adapter). Not as elegant as some folks, but it works for me!

AJ

[Mickymouse]

Thanks for that AJ, when I get the time I shall see if I can do that with the Gimp.
My adapter is also made from an old plumbing fitting, alas I seem to have deleted the pic but it is posted on here somewhere.

Mick

[ajmorales]

Finally got this elusive dude that happened to always be aware when the camera was settin-up! This time I decided to shoot through the window instead of scaring him away while opening the window. Got the following keeper!
AJ

[ajmorales]

Still a bit on the colder side here in Minnesota USA. These 2 shots were taken through my upstairs window viewing the backyard feeder.
Heavy overcast; we may be having snow in the next few days!
Oh well, with winter arriving, I will be looking forward to the Snowy Owl(s) at the MSP airport again (a total of 4 individuals were seen last winter!).
AJ

[ajmorales]

Santa Clause delivered a new toy to my house!
This shot is taken with an Orion Apex™ 127mm Compact “Mak” Telescope fitted with my 2" 26mm plossl eyepiece. The scope spec is 1540mm (f/12.1) focal length. With the 26mm eyepiece, the scope provides a 60x(59.2x calculated) magnification. Looks very promising...
AJ

[ajmorales]

Shooting at a scope equivalent of 60x (59.2) with the Orion Apex 127mm MAK fitted with a 2" 26mm widefield eyepiece. Reference shots attached.
AJ

[Neil]

I understand the Canon lovers like to use these cameras for digiscoping but with so many cameras out there that give vignetting free images at all zoom steps and with better screens ( the Canon A640 low res screen is the worst I've seen and almost useless for reviewing in the field ), I don't understand why people can recommend them to people getting into digiscoping for the first time in some cases and need all the help they can get from a "friendly" camera. As I've said in other threads , unless you have a pre-disposition for Canon at all costs I would look elsewhere than these A600 series cameras. Neil.

[erniehatt]

I understand the Canon lovers like to use these cameras for digiscoping but with so many cameras out there that give vignetting free images at all zoom steps and with better screens ( the Canon A640 low res screen is the worst I've seen and almost useless for reviewing in the field ), I don't understand why people can recommend them to people getting into digiscoping for the first time in some cases and need all the help they can get from a "friendly" camera. As I've said in other threads , unless you have a pre-disposition for Canon at all costs I would look elsewhere than these A600 series cameras. Neil.
Neil,
What you don't seem to understand, is the fact that everyone is not as well off as you seem to be. Some like myself have to choose a camera that will work under many conditions, usually Digiscoping is not the main use, also many people trying digiscoping for the first time already have there camera of choice. Ok as you say the lcd is not the best, but there are still many other cameras out there in the same boat, but there are ways and means of getting over the problems, if you are willing to try, I as far as I know I have never told anyone to buy a canon, or any other come to that, but I have defended them from people like yourself who has no wish to try and work things out. I am not an egotist. Ernie

[Neil]

Ernie,
I figured you would respond quickly. I don't understand what it has to do with money. I'm retired , have a lot of cameras and don't have a car. You're right in saying most people only can afford/want one camera for digiscoping. If you or I have some experience with that camera all we can do is mention whether it is "good for digiscoping". And as we've heard from some very experienced digiscopers in this forum , it is very difficult to recommend the A600 series to a new user. You use a magnifyer to use the screen , someone else has to zoom out to 60x and can only use the camera at wide zoom to get images, most others can only use the camera in one zoom position and even then they have to crop a lot to remove vignetting/shadowing . My point is we have to be very careful in recommending cameras to people asking for general advice because they may not have the experience/dedication of some of us in this forum. I've seen too many people give up digiscoping over the years because they found it too hard and no fun.
I hope I don't offend you or others by mentioning other cameras that I might have or have used but if that is the case I will shut up. There's probably been enough discussion on this subject anyway. That's all from me, NeiL

[Robert L Jarvis]

Ernie, I fully appreciate the points you make but leaving aside vignetting issues, I agree with Neil on the lcd display. It is awful and that goes for my A95 as well. On my camera the lcd has 118000 pixels where as the F30 has a bigger screen and 230000 pixels. It does not take a genius to see which will give the better display. By the way at the moment Warehouse Express are selling the F30 for £145 now that is not expensive.

The only compact Canons with a decent lcd display are the Ixus but after having had a look at these do not think they are really suitable for our hobby.

[erniehatt]

Ernie, I fully appreciate the points you make but leaving aside vignetting issues, I agree with Neil on the lcd display. It is awful and that goes for my A95 as well. On my camera the lcd has 118000 pixels where as the F30 has a bigger screen and 230000 pixels. It does not take a genius to see which will give the better display. By the way at the moment Warehouse Express are selling the F30 for £145 now that is not expensive.

The only compact Canons with a decent lcd display are the Ixus but after having had a look at these do not think they are really suitable for our hobby.

Thanks Robert,
I fully agree that the cameras are not the thee all to end all where digiscoping is concerned, probably none are, as many posts confirm. My argument is this, don't run a camera down because it does work as you wish it to, fair enough, point out the good and bad, point people to threads where some have had or are having good results, but leave out ( the camera is no good for digiscoping). Neil says some comments turn people away, that also I go along with, surely, if someone already has a particular camera, and see's these negative remarks, then they also may give up before they even start. As Neil says, the argument has just about out grown it's self, we should agree to disagree and leave it at that. Ernie

[rmel66]

Shooting at a scope equivalent of 60x (59.2) with the Orion Apex 127mm MAK fitted with a 2" 26mm widefield eyepiece. Reference shots attached.
AJ

I know this thread is about 600 series canon digicams, but came across this webpage with an osprey digiscoped through an orion 5" mak scope, presumably the same scope that you use and just had to share.
BTW, the camera used is a canon a540.

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/view_photo.asp?pid=11896&sg=4

Rmel66.

[erniehatt]

I know this thread is about 600 series canon digicams, but came across this webpage with an osprey digiscoped through an orion 5" mak scope, presumably the same scope that you use and just had to share.
BTW, the camera used is a canon a540.

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/view_photo.asp?pid=11896&sg=4

Rmel66.

That is a great image, And on looking at a preview of the A540 I see it like other Canons is 4X zoom, after seeing an image like that how can they be concidered no good for Digiscoping, the mind boggles. Thanks for posting. Ernie

[Paul Jarvis]

For me the end result is what matters. If you are happy with your pics then so be it. As for the screen you can't judge it unless you can test other cameras along side it at the same time, or buy a few cameras to add to your bag. The $$$ adds up! There is no doubt about the F30 and its results, they are very good.

Dad, does this mean you may going for the F30 then to replace the A95 if it is only 145 from WHE?

[erniehatt]

For me the end result is what matters. If you are happy with your pics then so be it. As for the screen you can't judge it unless you can test other cameras along side it at the same time, or buy a few cameras to add to your bag. The $$$ adds up! There is no doubt about the F30 and its results, they are very good.

Dad, does this mean you may going for the F30 then to replace the A95 if it is only 145 from WHE?

Well said Paul, something I forgot to mention in the reply to your dad, on a converted scale, around $A360, that is around 2/3 of my fortnightly pension. Also WHE will not deal with Australia, even via credit card. Ernie

[Robert L Jarvis]

No you cheeky buggar, I am sticking with my A95.

Ernie, I have disagreed with comments regarding the 4x zoom and vignetting issues of these cameras many times on here haveing used my son's camera. I found that it is a question of setting it up right. The camera is capable of some great images.

For the future I would wish that Mr Canon put in a better lcd screen, digic 3 processing and ISO ability of upto 2400 at least, on the next generation of the "A" series caompacts.

[erniehatt]

We can only dream Robert. Im a bit of a fiddler, so am prepared to work at making it work, it's half the fun. Regards Ernie

[LynnTX]

That is a stunning image. I am familiar with that scope since I am really more into astronomy that birding. Those are nice scopes and are often used for astonomical imaging. Actually kind of small for astronomy, but great for terrestrial views.

Lynn