Digiscoping vs. digital SLR+ telephoto

[rb_stern]

Hi,

I have been digiscoping for a couple of years, and while there is always room for improvement, I'm now reasonably often satisfied with my results. However, sometimes, both in the gallery here, and on Birds-Pix, there is a stunning, ultra-sharp eye-catching photo, that I really admire. More and more often, these turn out to have been taken with a digital SLR and telephoto lens, and presumably cropped or enlarged in Photoshop to bring out the bird. Does anyone else notice this, and have any comments?

Richard

[IanF]

I agree with your comments Richard. I think that we have to remember that DSLR's are designed with photography in mind. They have the highest of quality optics.

Digiscoping to my mind is a compromise. Many bird watchers already have a scope for viewing and taking a photo of the bird is an added bonus without the expense of buying even more additional and very expensive equipment.

Budget wise DLSRs and their lenses are way out of my league, but digiscoping is at least attainable.

Digiscoping has advantages in that a shot of a bird can be obtained at a longer distance than DSLRs meaning fieldcraft is less of an issue. Whilst out birdwatching and you see something special you can easily obtain an image without humping a load of photographic equipment around.

Having said that Mr.Poh in particular seems to be able to obtain very high quality images through digiscoping.

[peteh]

Hello Richard,
I have noticed this big time,
especially Rayhs cracking shots with his new Canon 10d.
If I could find 3grand lieing about somewhere I would definately get a digiSLR as well.
I would like to know alot more about digislr'ing (is that a word?)
Especially at what distances is it a waste of time attempting a shot at ... or maybe if someone could post a thread with example shots from certain distances.. that would be helpful.

Pete.

[Adey Baker]

I think good digi-scoped shots can be made to look better if you're prepared to spend time on them in Photoshop. Removal of colour-fringing, if you know how to do it, can make them look sharper, for instance.

Presumably, if you're prepared to spend a lot on a DSLR then you're going to put a good lens on the front of it so you'll have the equipment to take a sharp shot without any need to spend much time on the computer.

As for distances, Pete, I'm not that good at judging them but both Carl Baggott and I have found that, although you can get 'acceptable' digiscoped images at quite considerable distances, there's no doubt that the closer you get the better. With a small bird this can be just about as close as the bird will allow you 'in the open' - with an SLR you always seem to need to be 'that bit closer'!

Digi-scoping, of course, works best with a fairly static bird. SLRs definitely come into their own with a very mobile or flying bird.

I suppose how much importance you put on the final shot will determine which road you take. You won't be alone wrestling with the pros and cons!

[Sumit]

Hi Richard and eveyone else,
I find this thread very interesting having progressed through SLR to digiscoping to DSLR (Nikon D100).
My pursuit of bird images is essentially to document species and I do not aspire to be a great bird photographer, good is good enough. That said, I would unhesitatingly choose the DSLR over Digiscoping and film, specially for my form of photography. The 10 top reasons being:
1. The flexibility of ISO choice (low light is no longer an issue)
2. The low grain at high ISO speed
3. The cropping in camera resulting in larger (magnified) images
4. The improved sharpness over film and scope (camera uses the centre of the lens)
5. The larger chip (over Coolpix) size resulting in larger images with more information to work on.
6. Better control over digital parameters like white balance, hue, tone etc.
7. The ability to work with quality optics
8. Ability to record images in native formats like RAW, NEF etc.
9. Mobility
10. Better storage (than film) and ability to take countless images.

An important point (in terms of this thread) to note is that a DSLR with a 400mm lens can compare with a Digiscoping set-up for birds that are some distance away. The in camera multiplier makes the lens an effective 600mm (Nikon) and the image size being larger than a Coolpix, cropping will provide another 200- 300mm effective range if we compare similar outputs. My best images of digiscoped birds (which were close) would have been within the range of my DSLR set-up. Birds further away would still require the tripod and the 10kgs of equipment!
It is pouring in our parts, but I'll do a test when the sun comes out.
Sumit

[Sumit]

And as is usual with my postings, I forgot to mention the most obvious. Autofocus! can't trust my middle-aged eyes with a once in a life time opportunity.

[Walther Loff]

My 2 cents worth:
I do belong to our local birding club, one member has the Canon 10D with a Sigma 500 mm lens, I use the Nikon CP5000 attached to a Bausch & Lomb 80mm ED Lens with a 20X60 zoom eyepiece.
We both took a picture of Pelicans at 600 feet away.
We compared images and his was a speck on the screen, mine I had 1/2 of the screen occupying the Pelican.
Yes the Dslr is great, but I have not had any luck with the lottery.
cheers
walther
www.walther-loff.com

[Tannin]

Keep talking, gentlemen, I am folowing this discussion with keen interest.

[smeltmill]

Thank you Richard, for posing the question.

This is a topic I have been resting my mind on for a little while as Mrs G B-S. Has a significant life mile stone looming.
As photography is one of her interests the family have been considering a digital camera.
It has to be an SLR as she likes to be in charge of her own destiny (I know - it begs the question why she has been strapped along side me all these years - surely every one is entitled to one mistake) Currently the Nikon D100 is the camera that has swum to the top of the list. I managed to introduce her to one at the Bird Fair hopefully without arousing to much suspicion and it was the one she came back to for a second try.

Here comes the request.

Dear Summit.

Could I prevail upon your good nature and ask you to consider writing an objective report on your D100.

Thank you all for your contributions.
Yours etc.
Gordon Boreham-Styffe.

As Tannin says keep talking gentlemen.

[rogerscoth]

As Sumit has said, and Tannin has concurred, this is a really interesting and somewhat enthralling thread. I, along with many others, look forward to the next instalment!

Roger

[rayh]

Having read this thread with intrest I though I'd post a couple of shots taken at the weekend of a Citrine Wagtail in Norfolk at 50yds+ in not the best of conditions.(niether a brilliant shot)

The Digiscpoed shot was taken at 200asa approx 30xmag with a SwaroAT80HD
The DSLR Shot at 400asa 500mm x2 converter.

They have both been cropped to about the same size file.

What do you think.

[Tannin]

Yes please. Be very helpful.

[rayh]

Posted in members gallery

[peteh]

Thanks Ray.
that shows exactly what I wanted to see.

Right any rich millionaires out there got 3 grand floating about ;)
heh

[robinm]

I guess the bottom line for a lot of people (me included) is that having already invested a lot of money in a scope digiscoping is the only financially acceptable option.

Another factor is the cost of the weight training etc I would need to do at the local heath club to carry camera and telephoto lenses in addtions to bins, scope tripod etc.

I am sure from a strict photographic angle the DSLR is the better option - as examples seem to demonstrate - but I don't have unlimited money.

[sparrowbirder]

very good comparisons ray, is the dslr that much better though considering the cost of the equipment, how much is a decent lens to go with the £3000 camera!!im afraid il be sticking to digiscoping,unless i win the lottery!!!!

[birdforum]

We are very pleased to announce, that a world "star" of Nature photography is writing an article for us, and It should be posted here soon. He will also be a regular contributer to the forums and Magazine:t:

[Sumit]

Hi Gordon,
Just saw your request.
Then last post indicates that all our queries and apprehensions should be taken care of. But I am happy to send a pm to you if you want (on my experience with the d100).
I must say, that in my opinion, all 6mp DSLR's are almost created equal and your choice depends on brand preference, accessory support and wallet. I was surprised to note that a D100 type camera costs Stg 3000, I paid about usd1600 in Singapore and the lens costs about usd 1100. At those prices I believe their is value in the cost difference between a Swaro and a DSLR set-up.
Sumit

[tarves57]

Peetee, The Canon EOS 10D now costs around £1250 (body only).
Not sure if it's fast enough for you, I've only had it a day, but the pictures are unbelievable.
I think it has gone down in price because there is a new version SLR (but with almost the same specification, missing nothing you would really need), coming out mid September. It's called the Canon EOS 300D and it will cost £899 for the body, or £999 with a lens (wide angle zoom, can't remember the size).

Susan

[peteh]

<------Jealous!!! :)

[sparrowbirder]

can you digiscope with a dslr!!! has anybody bought out any adaptors for them, ive still got one of those kowa slr adaptors,suppose its hardly worth spending that much on a camera if you dont buy a decent lens to go with it!! all depends what you want,im very happy with digiscoping,it suits me fine for my needs,im basically a birder who takes a few photos occassionally, have to stop somewhere unless you want to be really serious and carry around a ton of kit!!! I find it really handy,got one of those waist pouches to carry all my cp stuff,hardly know its there!! obviously some people are never happy with what they have got,if you can afford it go for it!!

[Andy Bright]

Originally posted by sparrowbirder
can you digiscope with a dslr!!! has anybody bought out any adaptors for them, ive still got one of those kowa slr adaptors,suppose its hardly worth spending that much on a camera if you dont buy a decent lens to go with it!! all depends what you want,im very happy with digiscoping,it suits me fine for my needs,im basically a birder who takes a few photos occassionally, have to stop somewhere unless you want to be really serious and carry around a ton of kit!!! I find it really handy,got one of those waist pouches to carry all my cp stuff,hardly know its there!! obviously some people are never happy with what they have got,if you can afford it go for it!!

You've hit the nail on the head as to what digiscoping is all about.... digiscoping is for birders when they are out birding, it's not ideal for the photography orientated but it does allow you to bird efficiently whilst having the opportunity to get a pleasing reminder of the bird. Genuine bird photography and birding do not mix well imho.
Having said that..... I'll be using a dslr+long lens in the near future, so I know my birding will suffer!
Andy

[peteh]

Maybe there could be a digislr gallery, would be handy to be able to look thru the quality pictures in one place.

Pete.

[sparrowbirder]

must admit though digiscoping has given my birding a whole new lease of life,think I was goin a bit "stale" now im "gettin out more" to coin a phrase,and im getting much better quaility shots than I ever could with my SLR..people sometimes say even digiscoping can affect the birding,not me,it just enhances it!!

[peteh]

OOoooer now then.. with Canon bringing out the 300d.
What is everyones opinion on what digi slr to buy?
the 10d for 1200 quid
the 300d for 800 quid
or the d60 (used) for 800 quid.

Ive just read a few reviews on the 300d and by the sounds of it its the 10d but made out of plastic and with some bits taken away. I assume then if my money can stretch to it, then its got to be the 10d?

Thanks
Pete.

[Paulyoly]

I just purchased the canon 300d, digital rebel for me, along with the sigma 50-500mm zoom, i'm curious to see what can be done with this setup. I will try and take a comparison pic with the 300d and compare it to this pic taken with my 990 and pentax pf80ed

this was taken at 20 feet, camera in macro mode at half zoom, straight out of the camera, no extra sharpening or contrast adjustment. I'm sure when i get my dslr+sigma i will be able to duplicate this pic at the same distance, light might be different though. Just want to see the different. I bought the dslr more for large birds. I'll still use the scope on small birds. i should point out that i only resized this pic, no cropping. I would think at this distance the increased image quality of the dslr with the 500mm lense will blow this pic away. We shall see.

[RonR]

If it was any clearer one would see if it had fleas.o:)

[Geoff Brown]

That is a superb photo.

[Paulyoly]

Originally posted by Geoff Brown
That is a superb photo.


Thanks, the pentax with the xl-28 (18x) eyepiece is really in it's element at 30 feet or less, not to practical for larger birds though. I think this was taken at 1/30 or 1/60 of a second as are most of my pics.

[sparrowbirder]

thats amazing for an unprocessed photo,,mine never turn out anything like this straight from the camera,mine are always softly focused and not very sharp!! always need to apply quite a lot of processing (sharpening etc)to get anything decent..I think the difference between lower and higher end scopes is marked!!

[Paulyoly]

Originally posted by sparrowbirder
thats amazing for an unprocessed photo,,mine never turn out anything like this straight from the camera,mine are always softly focused and not very sharp!! always need to apply quite a lot of processing (sharpening etc)to get anything decent..I think the difference between lower and higher end scopes is marked!!

I think most of the high end apo/flourite/ed/hd scopes are pretty much the same, it's the eyepiece that makes the difference, a fixed eyepiece like the pentax xl-28 is always going to produce a sharper pic than a zoom, same holds true in slr photography. Remember this is a 18x eyepiece, i have the 25x pentax which doesn't perform quite so well.

[GR Triever]

Originally posted by Paulyoly
Thanks, the pentax with the xl-28 (18x) eyepiece is really in it's element at 30 feet or less, not to practical for larger birds though. I think this was taken at 1/30 or 1/60 of a second as are most of my pics.

So Paul, are you telling us that the Pentax starts suffering after 30 ft? Can anybody comment on the optimum range of the other scopes? I'm going to be upgrading in the next two-three weeks, and am torn between saving a bundle with the Pentax or taking the plunge with either Swaro or Zeiss.

[Paulyoly]

Originally posted by GR Triever
So Paul, are you telling us that the Pentax starts suffering after 30 ft? Can anybody comment on the optimum range of the other scopes? I'm going to be upgrading in the next two-three weeks, and am torn between saving a bundle with the Pentax or taking the plunge with either Swaro or Zeiss.


No that's not what i'm saying, what i'm saying is with the xl-28 eyepiece (18x) i get the most detail when i'm within 30 feet, i've gotten great pics from further away, but if the bird will fit in the frame at 30 feet and i can get within 30 feet then that's what i try to do. When looking through the eyepiece the image looks awesome at any distance from the subject. You will not be disappointed with the pentax and the xl28 eyepiece, i can't speak for the zoom eyepiece as i've never tried it. For digiscoping the xl28 is the way to go.

I've gotten my digital rebel and sigma 50-500 and so far my scope and cp990 produces greater detail from the same distance, i've yet to actually test the two, but i think the sigma may be going on ebay and the digital rebel to if nikon comes out with a 5 megapixel swivel lens.

[Paulyoly]

GR Triever,

Don't let the pic of the female cardinal fool you, the cp990 doesn't due the pentax pf80ed-a justice. If i had a camera that could actually capture the image i see trough the scope then i'd be fat dumb and happy, well maybe just happy. I'm so sure that you will be as impressed that i'd be willing to refund you the shipping on your scope, but unfortunately my wife would kill my a$$.

Buy the Pentax, save your money, you won't regret it!

By the way i've never used a swarovski, but i'm going to go try one soon just so i can see what all the fuss is about.

[GR Triever]

Paul,

Thanks for the info; my "problem" is that I've seen the Swaro, Leica, and Zeiss, but nobody in my area has a Pentax for comparison. Another question: what adapter for the camera?

[Paulyoly]

Well i made my adapter, but if you'd be using the xl-28 eyepiece then any of the one size fits all adapters will do, there is no adapter i know of for the zoom eyepiece.

[sjprg]

Thought I would add this image to the discussion.
Canon 10D 70-200mm f/2.8 lens

http://www.pbase.com/image/21789522

Paul

[eric s]

Hi peteh!

You ask a question comparing the 10D to the 300D. I would generally agree with your statement. If you can stretch your money, get the 10D. It’s like they took the 10D and a pair of scissors and snipped here and cut there. The 300D has some good things going for it, but after owning the 10D for about 5 months I’m glad the 300D wasn’t there to tempt me. If it was I might have been cheap and gotten it… and then regretted it every day there after. The biggest deal-killer (to me) is that they shrunk the buffer depth to 4 pictures and slowed it down (2.5 a second instead of 3.) The 10D does 9 pictures a second and that isn’t enough some times!

It is smaller and lighter, thought. That is something that should not be overlooked. If weight does matters. Not enough (in my eyes) to make me want it, but it does matter.

Eric