Does size matter?. (CCD, When digiscoping )

[alan_rymer]

Andy?, anyone?.

I be after gettn mysen a wun o thes new fangled digipal camra's.

I don't really want to go down the coolpix route, but?.
The two camera's I am currently most interested in have high zooms.
Minolta DiMAGE Z1 10 x optical 3.2 Mp 4AA Batteries MMc
Fuji Finepix S304 6 x optical and 3.1 Mp 4AA Batteries xD card
Both have threads for filters etc.
Ive almost decided to go for the Minolta DiMAGE Z1 , but, I vaguely remember a discussion about the CCD size and suitability for digiscoping.

DiMAGE Z1 has a 1/2.7 inch CCD
Finepix S304 has a 1/2.7-inch CCD

Compared against some of the camera's which seem to be most used for the task:

Coolpix 4500 1/1.8-in. CCD
Canon G3 1/1.8 inch CCD

What is actually meant by these sizes and what effect does this have when placed at the end of a scope and looking through the LCD or viewfinder.

I am finding selecting a camera more frustrating than choosing a scope, in both cases the budget is important. £400 is max, less would be better!. :-C

[Highway Man]

Hi Alan

Any particular reason why you "don't want to go down the Coolpix route"

Mark

[Andy Bright]

I don't really know about this one, hopefully someone else does.

As ccd size increases, lenses get bigger and this can cause problems.... though some camera like the cp5000 do o.k.

Digiscoping is bloody hard work with the right gear....using inappropraite cameras turns it into a nightmare if you want more than a blurry record shot. Like it or not, the Coolpix family still rules in the world of digiscoping.

[rogerscoth]

Hello Alan,
May I ask what 'scope (and eye-piece) you use?

Roger

[alan_rymer]

Mark

If I could use the Z1 for digiscoping, ie birds staying still or relatively so, good.
For many other birds particularly small birds a 10x zoom would be fine without a scope. So taking pictures of moving birds would be much easier.
Those are the two main reasons:
Some of the others are:
I like the idea of AA batteries, easy to change and non-Nmh are always available from the nearest shop. I have a non zoom 300k pixel camera and 3 sets of 2000+MaH already.
Several people in these forums have experienced problem with the 4500. I know there are many things in the 4500 favour in that:
Its a well used camera and photographic problems should be easily solved.
Also, adaptors are known and available, it goes on!.

I guess another reason I don't want to go that route is I,m just plain awkward and don't see why I should have to do what other people do!. Its like people queued up to exit through one side of a double door, I walk past , open it, then go through the other one.
And the Z1 is cheaper
Yorkshiremen eh!. You can take em out of Yorshire, but you can't take Yorkshire out of them!. :egghead:

[alan_rymer]

Roger

Opticron ES80 and 20-60HDF Zoom or 32x HDF.

[digi-birder]

Originally posted by Andy Bright
Like it or not, the Coolpix family still rules in the world of digiscoping.

Not in my book it doesn't! ;)

[Andy Bright]

You'll have to post a few more of your bird photos to remind me about the fact that you get along well with the Canon :t:

[digi-birder]

Will do - only we're a bit busy preparing to move house at the moment and I haven't been out digiscoping (or even birding) very much.

[Andy Bright]

Originally posted by alan_rymer
Mark

If I could use the Z1 for digiscoping, ie birds staying still or relatively so, good.
For many other birds particularly small birds a 10x zoom would be fine without a scope. So taking pictures of moving birds would be much easier.
Those are the two main reasons:
Some of the others are:
I like the idea of AA batteries, easy to change and non-Nmh are always available from the nearest shop. I have a non zoom 300k pixel camera and 3 sets of 2000+MaH already.



Nikon cp990 (to many the best digiscoping camera) uses AA batts and you could purchase a teleconverter to extend it's focal length. Total, maybe above £400 if you buy secondhand cp990 from a shop with a guarantee.

One other alterative is to buy a specialist digiscoping eyepiece for your scope, this would allow other cameras to be used with slightly better results but still not great with cameras with big zooms. As a birder, I don't like using an e.p. not entirely suited to birding.

[Steve G]

Hi Alan,
The differences in the size (area) of the CCD(or CMOS) is much like the difference between different formats in film cameras. A large CCD equates with eg. medium format whilst a smaller CCD would be equivalent to ordinary 35mm film. In medium format a longer focal length lens is needed to produce an image circle that will cover the larger film area. A 100mm lens is roughly a standard lens in medium format but if it could also be fitted to a 35mm camera it would effectively be a 2x telephoto.This sounds a bargain in bird photography as you get a greater magnification effect;however, medium format images can be blown up to a much greater degree before getting graininess in comparison to 35mm. The analogy is similar in digital where smaller CCDs need smaller lenses to produce the same effect or if using the same sized lens the smaller CCD would produce an apparently larger image (really an increased crop). The smaller CCD is however likely to produce an image that is less able to be blown up before pixelation occurs.In general the larger the CCD the more true pixels it can generate(some digital cameras such as many of the Fujis use a built-in interpolation to double the pixel output however only half of these pixels are true pixels).
With a telescope + the zoom lens on the digicam the image circle generated by the scope-lens combo will become greater at lower magnifications(when you look down a telescope with a zoom eyepiece & then "zoom" in the image light circle gets smaller).Digiscoping combo magnifications using even a low magnification eyepiece(eg x20) with a 10x zoom lens on the camera produce a staggering 200x magnification -this is often too great a magnification & in association with it the least movement of the combo setup will produce image shake & blurred images. As a result a lower magnification is needed & the resulting image circle from the scope-digicam lens may then become greater than the CCD area giving vignetting.
Confused?-you should be, the whole thing is a brainteaser to get round. There is an excellent internet resource that covers this & other photography issues-mainly associated with SLR photography: try the luminous landscapes website. The most appropriate link relating to CCD size is :
[url]www.luminous-landscape.com >check out the tutorials in the "understanding series" -specifically inderstanding dSLR lens magnification.

Best of luck!8-P

[eric s]

Another reason that CCD size matters is that usually (but not always) the larger CCD will have less noise. One of the causes of noise is interference and packing more photosites (the things in the sensor which actually do the sensing) into a smaller area can be a problem.

Now, this isn't the only cause of noise, but it is one. Other things can overwhelm or improve that source of noise so I wouldn't make CCD size your largest worry. I would be more concerned with the dimentions of the lens, finding a good mounting system for it. Will it cause vignetting? How much? How easy is it to manual focus (or will you just shoot at infinity?)

Not wanting to do something because many others do it can be a good thing (trying new ways does sometimes find a good way) and it also can be bad (maybe enough people have tried it in different ways that the common way is actually really good.)

Eric

[alan_rymer]

Many thanks to everyone for responding.
Unfortunately, It seem as if I have to take the scope in to a shop and hope the shop will put batteries in the camera and see what shows when its held up to the eyepiece!.

Maybe I'll go for a 2nd user 990 instead!.

Or baybe I'll still be looking this time next year?. I hope not, I didn't sleep at all well last night. I had CCD's and camera's and birds running around inside my head.

[Highway Man]

I didn't sleep at all well last night. I had CCD's and camera's and birds running around inside my head.


Think that's bad wait until you start taking pictures.

Seriously though Alan, I had an Olympus 960Z before my Nikon it was great except that the more I zoomed in the more vignetting I got. The point being that when I bought the camera I didn't check its compatabilty with my scope. Before I bought my Coolpix I had set my heart on another Olympus, until I took my scope into Jessops. It was terrible and I quickly changed my mind went with the majority and bought a 995. Absolutely no regrets and the batteries last 3 times longer than NMah.


Mark

[digi-birder]

The Lithium-Ion battery life is far greater on my Canon G3 than it was on the 995. I have bought a spare (non-Canon) battery and a universal charger from Jessops and have no issues at all with the battery. My sister, who doesn't digiscope, has a lower spec Olympus camera with AA batteries and she always seems to be charging them.

The shop should be happy to let you try the cameras, Alan, if it means a purchase for them. I went to Jacobs and took a couple of CF cards and asked to take some snaps with the Canon and Olympus 5050Z.

I didn't try them with the scope, but I had done a bit of research beforehand and narrowed it down to those two models. I knew that I would get vignetting and that the commercial adapters were not going to fit. I just wanted a camera that would focus properly and take sharp pictures, which the 995 appeared not to be doing.

Also, find the cheapest price of the camera you want and ask the shop to price-match. I saved £130 by doing this - Jessops gave me the Amazon price.

[James]

I have a Fuji finepix S602 which is a great camera but absolutely useless for digiscoping. I have been told (but you will need to check this out) that ALL models by Fuji are similarly useless on a scope.

James

[digi-birder]

In general, it is cameras with external zooms which are not supposed to be any good for digiscoping, but, as I have discovered, it can be done.

Having said that, I don't get perfect pictures every time. Last weekend, for instance, none came out sharp enough to keep. I still need to refine the technique.

[Ruby]

James' comment re: Fuji cameras prompted me to go off on a bit of a tangent and ask for some help, as I have been trying to get my own Fuji Finepix 601 to work through my new ES80 scope.

I do not have any method of mounting the camera to the scope, so rely on hand-holding up to the eyepiece (20-60HDF zoom)

On the plus side, I have been able to get some pics which are recognisable for what they are supposed to be (big help for getting more experienced guys to help with id!!)

The big problems are :-

1. Getting the whole thing lined up – I’m getting better with practice, but my intended target has often moved off by the time I’m ready to go.
2. I am using my camera in aperture priority semi-auto mode (theory being that I set the aperture at 2.8 (max on the FP601) in the hope of getting the fastest possible shutter speed to freeze motion and camera shake. Even with the camera wide open I am still only able to get shutter speeds of 1/250 or 1/500 under the brightest of conditions. On a dullish day the more usual range is something like 1/60 or 1/100 at f2.8.
3. I am using my camera’s auto-focus in ‘spot’ mode. Theory being that I focus the scope on the object, try to centre the intended target and then let the camera sort out its own focus.
4. The result of the above is that my pictures always look ‘soft’ to a lesser or greater degree. I attach an example of a Kestrel which I shot at about 100m range with the scope on minimum zoom (x20) and with the camera well into digital zoom territory (maybe x5) and managed to get 1/100 at f2.8. As you can see, it’s a bit underexposed and quite blurry.

Getting to the heart of it, do you think that I’m better off persevering with this set-up. More practice will certainly help and I’m thinking that a fixed, low mag eyepiece might let more light in, and coming up with some method of fixing the camera to the scope plus use of a remote shutter release would help with camera shake.

Alternative B is just to give in, go with the flow and buy a Coolpix set-up, which seems to be more suited to the job.

What do you think??

Any advice much appreciated…


Rgds…. Ruby

[rogerscoth]

I have been told (but you will need to check this out) that ALL models by Fuji are similarly useless on a scope.

James,
I have had some reasonable success with the combination of a Opticron HR66A 'scope, 40929 DTL eye-piece and own design adaptor fitted to a Fuji S304 (3800) camera. There are some pics. in the Gallery - proof that "all models by Fuji are similarly useless" is not a true statement. I have held my son's Fuji F601 up to my recently purchased ATS80-HD 'scope (20-60 eyepiece) and the vignetting disappears at about half zoom. I did not take a picture, but I guess it would have been OK. I am still searching through many options for my own new 4-5 megapixel camera for use with the ATS80-HD - there are a few new cameras being introduced that look very interesting, so there is a lot of compatibility testing to do!

Roger

[paclett]

Alan,
The CP series of cameras became popular due to the internal zoom and excellent results being attained by many, see gallery.
I have 3 CP's 2 990's and a 4500 along with Andy here I would only part with 1 of the 990's under exceptional circunstances, as there performance is slightly sharper than the 4500 which is also VG, the ease of use and fitting to scope is a real doodle so try it you will love it. PM me if you want a 990!

[alan_rymer]

paclett

Oh, I fully understand the reasons why the Coolpix 990,995,4300 are the preferred camera's for digiscoping. I've seen the gallery grow so much over the last 10 months or so and looked enviously at the results that can be achieved.
Many thanks for your offer, you never know, I may end up contacting you!.:flowers: