• 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.

One Definition for DIGISCOPING please. (1 Viewer)

For those familiar with optics there is no confusion at all about what the term "digiscoping" means and what it does not mean.

For a formal OPTICAL definition go here:

http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=237

So by that definition, using a point and shoot type camera (fixed lens), or indeed mobile phone camera comes under digiscoping (ie it isn't prime focus) as the lens isn't removed (as it can't be!) . . ??

I know it isn't digital, but I have a photo of a Spoonbill I took in flight (pretty bad) about 15 years ago, taken by removing the lens off my Practica Super TL (sorry!) and offering it up to my spotting scope . . . would that be 'Prime Focus' or is it that term just used in digital photography?? The scope became the lens . . .

Also, I presume there is no term for taking images using a fixed lens film camera married (held or fixed) to another optical device (scope)?? (Submitted a record of Green-winged Teal in the Canaries by that means once)

(Now merrily going down the subdivision route! . . . ) Cheers,

Dan
 
And with all that in mind there's no one actually posting any true prime focus pictures so no reason For Texun to have started this thread in the first place.

Paul.

I shoot all the time with prime focus. I consider it my "normal" method.

All of the following were taken at prime focus (nothing between the front objective and the camera's focal plane but air).
 

Attachments

  • PECKER13.jpg
    PECKER13.jpg
    90 KB · Views: 155
  • Tananger07.jpg
    Tananger07.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 166
  • NuthatchRB03.jpg
    NuthatchRB03.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 162
  • finch2.jpg
    finch2.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 155
  • blackbird rusty 01.jpg
    blackbird rusty 01.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 156
I shoot all the time with prime focus. I consider it my "normal" method.

All of the following were taken at prime focus (nothing between the front objective and the camera's focal plane but air).

Yes but Texun is moaning about threads that are only about prime focus photography in the digiscoping section of which there aren't really any. He wants it all for what he terms "true digiscopers".

Paul.
 
Why do we need a definition???? Just get on with what ever does your photos for you.

I agree. What's between you and your camera is your business.

But when you try to talk to someone else it's helpful if both parties have a common understanding about what they are talking about. We need a common understanding for "prime focus" and "digiscoping" just as we need a common understanding when we use the terms "mother" and "father". Otherwise dialogue becomes literally non-sense.
 
I agree. What's between you and your camera is your business.

But when you try to talk to someone else it's helpful if both parties have a common understanding about what they are talking about. We need a common understanding for "prime focus" and "digiscoping" just as we need a common understanding when we use the terms "mother" and "father". Otherwise dialogue becomes literally non-sense.

You are right in one way Paul. It is nice to know what setup has been used. Just like a normal DSLR photo. Has it been made with a prime lens, a zoom lens, with a teleconverter added, a flash ?

For digiscoping, the generic term IMO, we should specify P&S digiscoping, prime focus digiscoping etc. I would rather say that than "I'm a prime focuser".... 3:)
 
You are right in one way Paul. It is nice to know what setup has been used. Just like a normal DSLR photo. Has it been made with a prime lens, a zoom lens, with a teleconverter added, a flash ?

For digiscoping, the generic term IMO, we should specify P&S digiscoping, prime focus digiscoping etc. I would rather say that than "I'm a prime focuser".... 3:)

Hi JGobei,
Would you also rather say, "I'm a prime focuser using my $800 'Graphite Tripod Elite Model #AAA+' tripod?" I'm not really sure that people need to know that one is/isn't a 'prime focuser.' A surgeon doesn't say, "I'm a scapel surgeon,"...or, "I'm a laserscopic surgeon."

I think that some of the information for the type of equipment a digi-photographer uses can be obtained in the exif, or perhaps placed on a business card, or an ad in the Yellow Pages of the phonebook.

Prior to digital photography, photographers weren't going around calling themselves 'prime focusers.' Is it really necessary now for one to start wearing a label that identifies one as a 'prime focuser'?

I fail to see the need for this specific a label or term for the type of equipment one is using to get the same end result as others...a picture. Best Wishes. :t:

edit: that info isn't in the exif.

Respectfully,
Ron Davidson
 
Last edited:
Let me keep this simple.
Remember, this is only my oppinion.

Digiscoping: Using a digital camera, wether its a P&S, cameraphone, or DSLR with a scope to take high magnification digital photographs.
The DSLR when used to digiscope can use a normal SLR lens or a T2 mount fitted to an adaptor that replaces the scopes eyepiece or any other combination.

Digi<insert optical device here> eg digibinning discribes the optical device the photos are taken through.

Digiscoping is not using a DSLR and somthing like the canon 500mm f4 lens.
 
The term "digi-scoping" was coined by birdwatchers who didn't know (or care) almost anything about optical terms or their definitions. They started using this term and made it popular unaware that "their" technique had been used for ages by astronomers who had called it "afocal imaging/coupling". I find it highly unnecessary to try to define an inaccurate generic term in retrospect - like trying to define a "point-and-shoot-camera". Televue's "definition" shows that the astronomers and opticians just can't fight with the ignorance of us birdwatchers ;) - and that is why they classified the most common form of digiscoping into afocal coupling. It is by no means a "formal" definition.

What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

Best regards,

Ilkka :t:
 
What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

As long as we agree binoculars count as some kind of 'scope' then ;) (Or at least each half does . . . duoscope anyone??!!)

'Pedants of the world unite'??

Hmmmm, actually it doesn't really matter that much . . ;)
 
As long as we agree binoculars count as some kind of 'scope' then ;) (Or at least each half does . . . duoscope anyone??!!)

'Pedants of the world unite'??

Hmmmm, actually it doesn't really matter that much . . ;)

Not that it means anything to me either, but:

From Wikipedia
"Binocular telescopes, or binoculars, (also known as field glasses) are two identical or mirror-symmetrical telescopes mounted side-by-side..."

Now, where can I send membership applications for the 'United Pedants'?

Ilkka :t:
 
The term "digi-scoping" was coined by birdwatchers who didn't know (or care) almost anything about optical terms or their definitions. They started using this term and made it popular unaware that "their" technique had been used for ages by astronomers who had called it "afocal imaging/coupling". I find it highly unnecessary to try to define an inaccurate generic term in retrospect - like trying to define a "point-and-shoot-camera". Televue's "definition" shows that the astronomers and opticians just can't fight with the ignorance of us birdwatchers ;) - and that is why they classified the most common form of digiscoping into afocal coupling. It is by no means a "formal" definition.

What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

Best regards,

Ilkka :t:

You write very well Ikka, and very wisely. I agree on all counts.
 
Thanks for injecting some sanity into this forum.
I'm looking to buy a spotting scope to use with my canon s5.
Can I get something for around $500 total (incl. adapters etc.)?
If so, what do you recommend?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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