Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

Paul Hackett · Oct 16, 2008

Bill/ Paul

I gave an opinion on paul's comments, paul's point on cost and quality of astroscopes has been noted, we beg to differ on this subject, its not who is better, its another informed choice

Not all my points were answered, people will make their own minds up, if you are swayed by the astroscope, fine, but for the record there are far more people using scopes than astroscopes for digiscoping IMHO.

Its your personal chice at the end of the day Bill, i was offering another opinion, if its down to cost, then the skywatcher is for you

Paul

Bill Durden · Oct 16, 2008

Paul Corfield, I see you use a Baader eyepiece. Where does this go in your exploded view of the scope? You don`t mention eyepiece in all you need for start up kit.

Also what about being able to zoom?

Neil · Oct 16, 2008

Bill Durden said:
I have a EOS 40D W/100-400L IS. I`m finding that I don`t have the reach I need.

Been checking all the threads I could find. Still at a lost.

Want too use my EOS 40D. Now where to go from here. Don`t have $7 grand for a canon long len. Seen on another Forum a Skywatcher ED 80 pro. that will fit my 40D with attachmens. Any advice?

Bill,
You need to be clear in your mind how much more reach you need. Usually you never have enough unless you are photographing at feeders.
As I do a lot of digiscoping of egrets and waders on the muflats, I need from 800 - 3000 mm. As I'm in a hide most of the time, waterproofing is not so important but robustness is, as my scopes get dropped and knocked all the time. As I digiscope for hours a day, ease of focusing is very important. As I digiscope in the high humidity of summer (which lasts for 5 months ), how it handles this is important. Maybe waterproofing is important then.
My requirements of ruggedness for carrying long distances (it's 6 kms round trip to the furthest hide at Mai Po here ) make a scope a more sensible solution. My Swarovski has had 500,000 images through it and been dropped several times without damage.
Value for money for backyard and occasional digiscoping ( 1 day a week ) would make the Skywatcher a very good option.
I would be interested to setup a shootout between the Skywatcher and Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski though. Does anyone have both systems?
Neil.

Bill Durden · Oct 16, 2008

Neil said:
Bill,
You need to be clear in your mind how much more reach you need. Usually you never have enough unless you are photographing at feeders.
As I do a lot of digiscoping of egrets and waders on the muflats, I need from 800 - 3000 mm. As I'm in a hide most of the time, waterproofing is not so important but robustness is, as my scopes get dropped and knocked all the time. As I digiscope for hours a day, ease of focusing is very important. As I digiscope in the high humidity of summer (which lasts for 5 months ), how it handles this is important. Maybe waterproofing is important then.
My requirements of ruggedness for carrying long distances (it's 6 kms round trip to the furthest hide at Mai Po here ) make a scope a more sensible solution. My Swarovski has had 500,000 images through it and been dropped several times without damage.
Value for money for backyard and occasional digiscoping ( 1 day a week ) would make the Skywatcher a very good option.
I would be interested to setup a shootout between the Skywatcher and Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski though. Does anyone have both systems?
Neil.

Neil,

First time owing a camera. 8mos. old now. So I am a Newbie.
I`m shooting Egret, Herons Eagles...ect. Wanting to shoot some Wild Deer also.

I don`t shoot at a feeder.

Most of my shots with the canon 100-400L IS is too far to turn out sharp details. Probley OPERATOR ERROR I`m sure. I`ll be shooting from a car/hide.

My pocket book is not large enough too get a Swarovski.

Maybe some day,when I get as good as you guys I can sell my pics and then get a Swarovski or the likes.

Thanks again for all the help.

Paul Corfield · Oct 16, 2008

Bill Durden said:
Paul Corfield, I see you use a Baader eyepiece. Where does this go in your exploded view of the scope? You don`t mention eyepiece in all you need for start up kit.

Also what about being able to zoom?

I really only use the eyepiece for looking through, star gazing etc. It's not needed for the dslr set up on the astro scope.

For getting more reach (zoom) you use teleconverters or barlows or a combination of the two if you need really long reach. They are both shown on the exploded view and in the position where you would normally put them.

Paul.

RJM · Oct 16, 2008

Bill Durden said:
Most of my shots with the canon 100-400L IS is too far to turn out sharp details. Probley OPERATOR ERROR I`m sure. I`ll be shooting from a car/hide.

Since you already have a nice 400mm zoom, you might want to first investigate using a 2x-3x teleconverter lens between the zoom and the camera. Check with Canon for your options.

Much easier and cheaper for the dSLR beginner than going to a telescope that will require you to master the camera's Manual settings and probably also require a new mount/tripod.

cheers,
Rick

Paul Corfield · Oct 16, 2008

Neil said:
Bill,
You need to be clear in your mind how much more reach you need. Usually you never have enough unless you are photographing at feeders.
As I do a lot of digiscoping of egrets and waders on the muflats, I need from 800 - 3000 mm. As I'm in a hide most of the time, waterproofing is not so important but robustness is, as my scopes get dropped and knocked all the time. As I digiscope for hours a day, ease of focusing is very important. As I digiscope in the high humidity of summer (which lasts for 5 months ), how it handles this is important. Maybe waterproofing is important then.
My requirements of ruggedness for carrying long distances (it's 6 kms round trip to the furthest hide at Mai Po here ) make a scope a more sensible solution. My Swarovski has had 500,000 images through it and been dropped several times without damage.
Value for money for backyard and occasional digiscoping ( 1 day a week ) would make the Skywatcher a very good option.
I would be interested to setup a shootout between the Skywatcher and Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski though. Does anyone have both systems?
Neil.

This is another thing I tend to disagree with, seems to be all I do

Maybe it's because I'm young and fit but every weekend I take my scope out for long treks through the countryside. I never get back and think I need a lighter or more rugged scope. I just have it mounted on the tripod and carry it over my shoulder and it just balances itself out. If needs be it would be very easy to make a clip on strap and some wide webbing or use a strap already made for something else. Then just carry it on your back which is actually my next project for my scope. The only thing you could say against this type of scope is that they aren't waterproof. That's about the only argument I see depending if you wanted to shoot in adverse conditions. Then you'd need some sort of waterproof bag or something for transporting the scope. If I had the time I'd be out everyday with the scope. As it is I use it everyday in the back garden.

Paul.

Bill Durden · Oct 16, 2008

Thanks Paul Cornfield for all the info. Now all I have to do is talk the wife into it.

mak · Oct 17, 2008

Paul Corfield said:
The best birding scopes are astro scopes, they just aren't built with birders in mind. That was apparent at the 2008 spotting scope review when they said "TeleVue 85mm Evergreen scope, which continues to offer the most breathtaking optical image available anywhere on this planet."Paul.

Up until this point a good argument. So a review states that this or that is best, well I know very little about digiscoping or photography, but I do know a little bit about optics and if you believe all the reviews and base everything on them, then your argument is less effective. Reviews are subjective and should be taken as such.
mak

Paul Corfield · Oct 17, 2008

mak said:
Up until this point a good argument. So a review states that this or that is best, well I know very little about digiscoping or photography, but I do know a little bit about optics and if you believe all the reviews and base everything on them, then your argument is less effective. Reviews are subjective and should be taken as such.
mak

Regardless of the quote, I think it's pretty well known that the TeleVue 85 is an amazing scope. Plus the 2008 Spotting scope review is very thorough, all the scopes are lined up side by side etc etc.

Paul.

kshea · Oct 17, 2008

Bill,

I'm not sure this has been mentioned but you may also want to invest in a cable release remote for your D40. I have found that with my photos it really helps improve the overall clarity and sharpness using a remote and they're fairly inexpensive.

~K

Neil · Oct 17, 2008

Paul Corfield said:
Maybe it's because I'm young and fit but every weekend I take my scope out for long treks through the countryside.

Paul.

Paul,
Ah, to be young and fit again. One of the things I've found over the last 10 years or so is that good images can come from a wide range of equipment ( although my US$100 Bushnell wasn't much good but at least it got me started ).
Keep up the good work, Neil.

vkalia · Oct 18, 2008

mak said:
Up until this point a good argument. So a review states that this or that is best, well I know very little about digiscoping or photography, but I do know a little bit about optics and if you believe all the reviews and base everything on them, then your argument is less effective. Reviews are subjective and should be taken as such.

Well, that is all well and good, but there are 2 things you are missing:
- the scope review referred to by Paul is only one review; generally speaking, pretty much every reference to the Televue has lauded it as being the best viewing instrument around.
- the image quality obtained from astro scopes cannot be matched by birding scopes. I spent quite a bit of time researching this, and checking out lots of sample images. Technically speaking, the images from an astro scope show more detail than images from birding scopes.

As for weatherproofing - it is a a fairly trivial task. Plenty of rain jackets available for superteles which can be modified to fit the scope.

As RJM said, plenty of other reasons to get traditional scopes - lightweight, no need to fiddle around for weatherproofing, easier to carry/transport, etc.

Vandit

PS: Paul, dunno why, but I had a mental picture of you as being in your 50s or 60s...

mak · Oct 18, 2008

vkalia said:
Well, that is all well and good, but there are 2 things you are missing:
- the scope review referred to by Paul is only one review; generally speaking, pretty much every reference to the Televue has lauded it as being the best viewing instrument around.
- the image quality obtained from astro scopes cannot be matched by birding scopes. I spent quite a bit of time researching this, and checking out lots of sample images. Technically speaking, the images from an astro scope show more detail than images from birding scopes.

As for weatherproofing - it is a a fairly trivial task. Plenty of rain jackets available for superteles which can be modified to fit the scope.
Vandit

I am not having a go at the Televue or any instrument in general, just the basis of some reviews. After 12 years in the industry, I have met a lot of people who purchased something based purely on a review without testing it, only to find that it is not the instrument for them.
mak

vkalia · Oct 19, 2008

mak said:
I am not having a go at the Televue or any instrument in general, just the basis of some reviews. After 12 years in the industry, I have met a lot of people who purchased something based purely on a review without testing it, only to find that it is not the instrument for them.
mak

You are spot on there - I agree, relying on just 1 review, without taking into consideration the reviewer's biases and preferences, is not always the best course of action. No arguments there.

Vandit

Derry · Oct 22, 2008

as an owner of a TV85 for many years (12) I can attest to the quality this scope offers in every setting,, I have owned several scopes from small (2" objective) to large (12.5" mirror) and now in my retirement days I have two remaining,, the TV85 and my 3.5 Questar field model,,

if you ever have a chance to view through a TV85 be prepared for wanting to own one,, they are not light and would certainly never recommend for toting all over the woods but for a hide or light hiking they are hard to beat for crystal clear viewing and magnificent colors,, the TV85 even beats my Questar when it comes to color but not resolution,,

Derry

JGobeil · Oct 24, 2008

RJM said:
Since you already have a nice 400mm zoom, you might want to first investigate using a 2x-3x teleconverter lens between the zoom and the camera. Check with Canon for your options.

Much easier and cheaper for the dSLR beginner than going to a telescope that will require you to master the camera's Manual settings and probably also require a new mount/tripod.

cheers,
Rick

The 1.4X TC is the most the 100-400 can take. More magnification will make the pictures too soft and unusable. When using the TC, make sure you have an extremely stable support.

JGobeil · Oct 24, 2008

mak said:
Up until this point a good argument. So a review states that this or that is best, well I know very little about digiscoping or photography, but I do know a little bit about optics and if you believe all the reviews and base everything on them, then your argument is less effective. Reviews are subjective and should be taken as such.
mak

Mak,

I cannot comment about the TV85. However, I own a Astro-Tech 80ED and I can say that it is at least as good, if not better, as the top spotting scopes. 2 weeks ago, I was on a birding weekend with our local ornithology club and I was able to compare it with Kowa, Swaro and others.

I think it is normal. The spotting scopes manufacturers have to contend with difficult design parameters: weight, length, waterproofing, ruggedness, appearance, etc. On the other hand, the refractor scope is simply a 2 element doublet - not very rugged, long, heavy and not waterproof.

By the way, waterproofness is more than being resistant to water. It means that the lens cell will be resistant to humidity and dust.

Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Attachments

Nature Photographer

Nature Photographer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread