• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Scope vs. lens with teleconverter (1 Viewer)

tve

New member
Xmas brought a spotting scope so I decided to buy the camera adapter to go with it (T-mount) and see how it compares to my 300mm f/4 AFS with TC-14E. I have not been able to find any such comparisons anywhere on the web, so I figured I'd take the risk and return the adapter if I didn't like it. The folks at Eagle optics have good prices and a nice return policy, so it all seemed worth a try!

So the comparison is:
D100 + Nikon 300mm f/4 AFS-II + TC-14E vs.
D100 + Zeiss Diascope T* FL 65AN + T-mount adapter

The price of the two combos is actually very comparable. Without the camera both come in at around $1400 (including a zoom eyepiece for the scope). The scope ends up being a 700mm f/12 manual focus lens. The 300mm+TC a 420mm f/5.6 autofocus lens.

I wrote up a full review with sample images at http://h.voneicken.com:88/photo/Scope/ but if you don't have to time or inclination to read here is one comparison series. I cropped identical areas out of photos taken a few minutes apart and upsampled the lens+teleconverter and lens-only versions to match the resolution of the scope. All then went through minor unsharp-mask (80% 0.8 in photoshop).

Diascope 700mm f/12:
http://h.voneicken.com:88/photo/Scope/Sharpness/20040103-113940-sml.jpg

300mm + TC f/11:
http://h.voneicken.com:88/photo/Scope/Sharpness/20040103-115022b-sml.jpg

300mm f/8:
http://h.voneicken.com:88/photo/Scope/Sharpness/20040103-115219b-sml.jpg

Surprised? It's pretty clear that the scope comes ahead in resolution. The fine detail in the rock face just isn't there in the other photos and no image processing is going to bring that out. But the chromatic aberration is also clear! Other tests show that the contrast and color of the two combos are very close to one another.

The bottom line for me is actually that the handling of the scope is just too poor. Specially it's really difficult to get it stable on a tripod because of flex and just plain imbalance. So I'm returning the lens adapter and will buy a TC-20E for the same price. 600mm f/8 should be pretty comparable...

Hope you enjoy this little comparison and please don't flame too hard about the comparison shots. I did my best at making an apples to apples comparison with limited time and I'm well aware of the fact that this is not a scientific experiment.

--
- Thorsten
 
Hi,
Thanks for this interesting post!
I'm not going to get into all of the ways that this experiment might be redone or revised; I certainly accept that the Zeiss scope would give you terrific photos. But in making a price/usefulness comparison remember that the scope can be used for "birding" as well as for photography.

When you use the D100 for long distance photography of birds that don't move or don't move much, a good idea is to use the camera's "anti-shock" feature, which locks up the mirror until mirror vibration stops. I have found this a terrifically useful feature.

As for using the telescope, why not consider getting a small Coolpix or other little digital camera and doing digiscoping? This will give you a lot more magnification than your 300 + 2x combination, and this leads to more flexibility in the field. I have a good rig for dslr photography, including a manual focus 500 f4 Nikon tele and teleconverters, but I also do digiscoping when I have a bird for which I really need a long reach.

You will get much better balance with the camera/scope combination if you use something like a Gimbal tripod head, such as that made by Wimberley, or else a good ballhead plus the Wimberley sidekick accessory. I know, this ends up being a lot of money, but these are one-time investments, hopefully.
 
Of course you're right with your "usefulness" comment. I'd add that I have Nikon's scope converter, which is a 10x eyepiece with a nikon lens mount. It turns my 300mm lens into a 30x scope. I'd say it makes about as good as scope as the zeiss makes a lens :)

I did use the anti-shock feature as well as a 2 second timer. I don't think any of the photos I posted are moved. But plenty others are...

Your points about digiscoping and a better tripod head are certainly valid, and I'm fully aware of these things. Digiscoping is very intriguing, but just doesn't do it for me. If *I* am taking the photos, the quality I get with digiscoping vs. DSLR just doesn't cut it. Clearly different people take photos for different purposes. If I can't hang it on my wall as quality 5x7 or 8x10 print, it's really worth it to me, and *I* just can't get that with digiscoping. (The *I* referes to my amount of time and patience to a large degree.)

For me this whole exercise was more an act of curiosity. There are plenty of digiscoping web sites around and plenty of photos taken with much more expensive lenses, but I couldn't find anything about the scope photo adapters. So since I was buying the scope for birding, I decided to give the photo adapter a try. Worst case I was going to loose some shipping charges, best case I had a new lens...
 
Hi Thorsten,

On behalf of Admin and the Moderators I'd like to welcome you to Bird Forum and for the interesting comparisons :t:

I am in a similar position as regards a new scope or do I go down the DSLR+long lens route? There is no doubt in my mind that whilst digiscoping can give some very good results, it seldom produces results as good as those from a DSLR+lens which after all are designed for that particular job.

After due consideration I intend upgrading my scope. I'd get far more use out of the scope for birdwatching and have the added benefit of use for digiscoping. A DSLR and long lens can only be used for one thing and are still bulky to carry around.

Horses to courses as they say. Eveyone's needs are different.
 
Last edited:
TVE, thanks for this interesting comparison. Your fine results with the Diascope make me wonder if using a DSLR with my Zeiss 85 mm would give better results than Coolpix 4500 with the scope! The bigger Zeiss is supposed to give 1000 mm equivalent instead of 700 mm for the 65 mm scope.
 
I have a hard time believing that the coolpix yields better pictures than the DSLR. At the end of the day what counts in the number of pixels and the number of photos per pixel. To meit looks like the DSLR pretty much pushes the limits of the scope, so I don't see how a different camera could be better.

Now from a different perspective, if you get a good digiscoping adapter I think it's much faster to put&take the coolpix, so you may get pictures you wouldn't get with the DSLR just because of time.
 
I don't think anyone can or will argue that all things being equal, a Coolpix will outperform a D100 or other dslr. The point is that digiscoping with a Coolpix has advantages, e.g., high magnification and a shutter that lacks a mirror box. Moreover, to get optimal performance out of a dslr, one has to spend a LOT of money on very expensive lenses. At the end of the day, the point is to come up with good, closeup photos that one can share with others. I've seen some terrific images taken by skilled digiscopers. Personally, I still take nearly all of my photos with my dslr gear, largely because it's more familiar and yes, easier. But I'm going to keep trying to master digiscoping; it's fun and the high magnification possible is definitely alluring.
 
Sounds like we have violent agreement in general...

I have a hard time with the magnification argument though. As far as I can tell, my images are very close to the resolution limit of the scope. I mean, how much worse do you want the CA to get? Unless the photo adapter is causing the problems and these problems don't show up with the regular eyepiece (mhh, I'm doubtful) I don't see how more magnification gets you anything in terms of real image quality.

Now what sounds attractive is the no mirror slap. Is it correct that the coolpix cameras have no part moving when the image is taken? No aperture blades moving? I guess if you use a remote relase that could mean that you end up with a lot fewer stability problems.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top