Regarding my comments re the fact I obtain better results re Digiscoping than from an SlR.As has already been mentioned the distance is the main factor,especially with a good scope.I have some really good A4 pics from Digiscoped images,I think to achieve the same with an SlR(digi) one needs an excellent lens,and also one needs to understand the ins and outs of camera settings,etc.For the less well informed amongs't us,we can achieve (sometimes) a lovely clear picture,very well enlarged from the scope and a simple camera such as the 4500.But,and it is a big but,when one sees the images on the gallery from DigiSLR's using the 500mm lens,and indeed the fantastic one from Nigel(Blake) he used a 100-400mm well yes DigiSlr's are perhaps catching up with digiscoping.It could be that I am not an expert photographer and my 28-200mm lens coul;d not compete with the 300mm to 400mm and above,which is why I find that digiscoping ,to me produces better results.But I have now a larger lens ,with a converter,so will be experimenting soon,and then I can draw my own conclusions.
But as I have already mentioned for the ones of us who cannot afford the high powered lenses,or do not have the technical know how to produce the best from a DigiSLR,then digiscoping is a good option and does produce stunning results.Just to be able to print in a photo the image one sees through ones scope says it all for me.