Slr or Compact Digital (1 Viewer)

On the Bird ID page there are a series of photos of a Grasshopper Warbler taken by CJannic using a Canon 300D. It is not clear whether the photos were taken using a) a zoom lens, b) photoadapter attached to scope c) digiscoped using an adapter to bring the camera to the scope. They are good photos but they do highlight an aspect of using a dslr. The bird is not quite in focus and the depth of field is small.

I have a 300D and I have found it difficult at times to get a sharp focus, ,especially if using auto as the camera invariably wants to concentrate on something else. So you switch to manual, and focusing through a scope means using the scope focus or if using an adapter both the scope and camera.

There have been many photos placed here taken using a digiscoped compact and some using a dslr with a zoom but I cannot recall any examples of using a dslr with a zoom on smallish birds or discoping with a dslr. There have been many threads on digisoping or going on the dslr route. Although I have 300D and a variety of lenses, I have given up on this for bird photos and digicsope using a compact digital.

What are the views out there on either method and any examples to support the choice between the two or overcoming the difficulties of using a dslr? What about you members who purchased a special adapter or rail to use the dslr, any examples to show in support of your chosen method?

Robert

Personally I find that the dslr (I also use a 300d) is great for flight shots and for birds that are fairly close. However when birds are a bit further away I tend to digiscope instead and have just bought a 32x eyepeice to try and make digiscoping easier/more sucessful. I carry both my 300d and my coolpix 4500 when out birding, so hopefully I'm ready for most situations.

As for the focus issue on your 300d if you use the 'P' mode on the dial you can select which of the focus points the camera uses. I find that this gives me better results as it stops eth camera from trying to focus on the background.

Hi Robert!

Depth-Of-Field is an optics or rather physics thing. A X mm lengthed lens has at Y m distance only Z mm Depth-Of-Fiels. And there is NOTHING you can improve on this. If you want to have a greater depth you need to get closer!

If your little bird preferes to fly away then, you can use a very big (and very expensive) lense to get your pictures as sharp as possible. But even with this its not possible to increase the depth of field!!!

A good idea would be, to minimize the size of the sensor to get an immense croping-factor, but the lens manufacturers are not able to produce their lenses smooth enough (at the moment)...

Taking pictures through a thin teleskop over big distances will produce much unsharper pictures even if the bird is frozen for ages. This is optics.

I'm using for this a 400/2.8 with 2x converter, what gives me 800/5.6 lens. Others are using a 600/4 with 1.4x converter (2x not possible on this) which results in a 840/5.6. Both lenses have about the same weight (7kg with converter, camera and batteries) and are NOT REALLY portable.

Around June to October I was using my 400/2.8 with a 300D and I got good results - same as with my analog gear. The only disadvantage was the small buffer (only 4 RAW pics), the low transfer speed to the card and the missing wheel on the bodies back. So I changed to the 20D. I've sold my analog bodies then.

Rgds

Canon350d-Swaro 65HD+TLS 800 Adaptor

This is probably the best quality digi-scope picture I have to date an it shows how little depth of field you have with the fixed aperture scope set up. The settings were 160 sec @ 200 iso on a sunny day. This is a nice full frame image, but the greater the distance the more the laws of physics conspire against a good picture. If you look at some of my other posts you will see why I reached the SLR solution? I also use a 75-300 IS lense and aspire, at some point, to the 100-400.

jim

degen said:

Hi Robert!

Depth-Of-Field is an optics or rather physics thing. A X mm lengthed lens has at Y m distance only Z mm Depth-Of-Fiels. And there is NOTHING you can improve on this. If you want to have a greater depth you need to get closer!

Rgds

Click to expand...

This is not toally true. Depth of field also depends very much on aperture size - the smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field - try using the depth of field preview button with the lens set at different F numbers.

I use a DSLR (Nikon D70) with a Tamron 200-500mm lens. Although some images aren't sharp, i usually get some reasonable ones - probably as sharp if not sharper than is possible with digiscoping.

I have a number of shots of "small birds" in my gallery -

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/18597

Hi All
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. If I may respond collectively. I have to say Postcardcv, how on earth do you manage to carry 2 cameras, lenses, binoculars. scope, tripod, perhaps food and drink together with all the other sundry items. Even when taking my wife, I couldn't manage that. I will look at your idea on the P mode.

I have a photoadapter just like the one used by you Jimminlondon99, but I found that the rear weight on the scope was a hell of a problem and made it very difficult to fix on to the subject always providing it did not move in the meantime. My tripod is a Manfrotto144 with 128RC head, but the weight made it difficult to move around easily and to lock in position.

Hi Rezmole. I looked at your gallery and think many of your shots are ace. Correct me if I am wrong but you appear to concentrate on taking photos and do not take out the scope. So in that case it is a matter of whether one is taking pictures or birding as it is difficult to do both at the same time. It seems that Regen concentrates on taking photos also.

I note no response from anyone using a dslr with an adapter fixed to the eyepiece rather than a photoadapter, which may be significant and possibly indicate as I have felt dslr are not really suitable for digiscoping in the true sense of what this is. The lens sizes Regen refers to means that even at 800m this is only 16x mag, not much bigger than the binoculars and means you really have to be quite close, opportunistic and very patient. I have done this in the past, no images in gallery as I am referring to film time! The lenses I own are not strictly big enough ie 75-300 and a 2x converter for the Canon and a Sony dsc75 for digiscoping. In the past I have also done videograbs but quality by this method is poor and do not enlarge. I also see Regen has found that the 300D is not good for burst photography, that is something I came across as well

Clearly each to his own. For photography in the widest sense a dslr and a god lens is what is needed and if your are birding and taking the occasional shots then digiscoping with a good compact and scope is the answer. I wish I was fit enough to carry all the gear like Postcardcv then that would be the ticket.

In view of the number of threads one sees about dslr and digiscoping it is obviously a long running dilemma for many people as to the route to take.

Thank you all

Robert

Robert L Jarvis said:

I have to say Postcardcv, how on earth do you manage to carry 2 cameras, lenses, binoculars. scope, tripod, perhaps food and drink together with all the other sundry items. Even when taking my wife, I couldn't manage that.

Clearly each to his own. For photography in the widest sense a dslr and a god lens is what is needed and if your are birding and taking the occasional shots then digiscoping with a good compact and scope is the answer. I wish I was fit enough to carry all the gear like Postcardcv then that would be the ticket.

Click to expand...

Trust me it has nothing to do with being fit, I'm certainly not.
As for how do I carry it all - I have the 300D with Sigma 170-500 lens in a lowepro (micro trekker 200) backpack along with two spare lenses (28-300 and 18-55 - hopefully I'll soon add a macro lens too), flashgun, coolpix 4500, notebook, spare batteries and extra memory cards. I have my bins round my neck and my scope (attached to tripod) over one shoulder - I normally have my baby in her pushchair too so stow her stuff and food underneath.
I've just weighed my kit and it comes in at 12.3kg for the lot, I think that the vital thing is the lowpro backpack which is very comfortable to use and helps to distribute the weight.

degen said:

Hi Robert!

Depth-Of-Field is an optics or rather physics thing. A X mm lengthed lens has at Y m distance only Z mm Depth-Of-Fiels. And there is NOTHING you can improve on this. If you want to have a greater depth you need to get closer!

Rgds

Click to expand...

Well, you can change to a smaller aperture. And using a digital SLR effectively increases your depth of field over using film because of the crop factor (i.e. you are using a wider-angle lens for the same field of view).

Getting closer reduces depth of field but improves the detail.

Hi Postcard
Any room for Granny? Was baby included in the weight!! Must look out for Birder pushing a baby buggy next time I am in Norfolk.

Seriously however the 28-300 and 18-55, are they Canon and do you use a teleconverter with them? and with the Sigma?

Robert

Robert L Jarvis said:

Hi Postcard
Any room for Granny? Was baby included in the weight!! Must look out for Birder pushing a baby buggy next time I am in Norfolk.

Seriously however the 28-300 and 18-55, are they Canon and do you use a teleconverter with them? and with the Sigma?

Robert

Click to expand...

The 18-55 is the Canon lens that came with the camera - it's not a great lens but is useful for landscape shots. The 28-300 is a Sigma, whilst not much use for most bird photography, it has a good close focus (under 1m at 300mm) and is a very versatile lens. It's great for taking pics of the kids and also for flowers and approachable birds (like those in the picnic area at Titchwell). I don't use a teleconvertor with any of the lenses (mainly because I don't have one) - I've used a friends 1.4x and 2x and would like a 1.4x, not so keen on the 2x (which is a shame as they are about to sell that one).

I do also have a photo adaptor to connect the dslr to my scope, but do not use it very often. It is a fairly long process to set up, so unless I'm spending a lot of time at one spot I tend not to bother with it. The weight excluded baby (she's another 8.5kg), when she's in the buggy it's easy - however when I have to carry her as well as the kit...

Robert L Jarvis said:

Hi All
Hi Rezmole. I looked at your gallery and think many of your shots are ace. Correct me if I am wrong but you appear to concentrate on taking photos and do not take out the scope. So in that case it is a matter of whether one is taking pictures or birding as it is difficult to do both at the same time. It seems that Regen concentrates on taking photos also.
Robert

Click to expand...

No, i don't concentrate on taking photos. I usually go with my girlfriend who uses a Leica APO 77. I don't have my own scope, but often use hers. Most of the time we both use our bins.

I tend to look through bins first, then have a session using the scope, then, I'll pick up the camera and look for photo opportunities. Sometimes it depends what mood i'm in. I can going out one day and come back with 150+ pictures. Other days i'll hardly take any. Quite often i'll miss a photo because i'm using the scope, or bins (this usually happens when a bittern takes flight - still after that "good" bittern shot!)

postcardcv said:

Trust me it has nothing to do with being fit, I'm certainly not.
As for how do I carry it all - I have the 300D with Sigma 170-500 lens in a lowepro (micro trekker 200) backpack along with two spare lenses (28-300 and 18-55 - hopefully I'll soon add a macro lens too), flashgun, coolpix 4500, notebook, spare batteries and extra memory cards. I have my bins round my neck and my scope (attached to tripod) over one shoulder - I normally have my baby in her pushchair too so stow her stuff and food underneath.
I've just weighed my kit and it comes in at 12.3kg for the lot, I think that the vital thing is the lowpro backpack which is very comfortable to use and helps to distribute the weight.

Click to expand...

Similar to how i do it. I have a lowerpro backback, although i tend to have my camera (and 200-500mm lens) in my hand, mounted to a monopod. Bins are around my neck. I carry my Manfrotto 055 tripod on a strap over my shoulder. My girlfriend carries her bins and she has a ruckscak in which she carries her scope and the food and flasks.

My lowerpro has enough room for my 28-300mm lens (very compact), a flask of tea, biscuits and other bits and pieces such as field guide, spare batteries, memory cards etc.

If i were going on my own, i'd just leave the flask and carry the camera in the lowerpro, leaving me free to carry the scope on the tripod, over my shoulder.

It can be done. Not easy, but OK if you are somewhere you can get plenty of rests (in hides etc)

You said
"but I found that the rear weight on the scope was a hell of a problem and made it very difficult to fix on to the subject always providing it did not move in the meantime. My tripod is a Manfrotto144 with 128RC head, but the weight made it difficult to move around easily and to lock in position."

I share your sentiment and have found an answer if you are good with a screwdriver, hacksaw and file? See the link below

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=35743

It looks more drastic than it is and I have been out for 2 long treks with the scope, TLS and 350d on the tripod over my shoulder without it moving at all.

I have attached a cropped "soft" shot of a Heron at approx 60 metres. I am not sure if the lose of quality is due to movement in the tripod (despite using cable release?) or the limit of the TLS adaptor, or both?
Jim