Are we going to see a mid to alpha grade with built in digital camera (1 Viewer)

a lot of folks like photos of what they see through their bins......I know a lot of optics and photo companies would like to keep them separate....at least for the higher grade instruments of each discipline ...I know there have been some cheap bin attempts and some with monocular....none have ever amounted to much....but the techs seems to be meshing up better and better ..... any opinions one way or the other.....think Nikon, Canon, Minox, Leica, could do pretty well.....

guess I was badly mistaken....with the complete lack of response...I guess Its the Consumer that is resisting the combining of binocular and photographic technology into one quality sport/birding unit......at least on a up grade level....but why????....tradition???....

gunut said:

a lot of folks like photos of what they see through their bins......I know a lot of optics and photo companies would like to keep them separate....at least for the higher grade instruments of each discipline ...I know there have been some cheap bin attempts and some with monocular....none have ever amounted to much....but the techs seems to be meshing up better and better ..... any opinions one way or the other.....think Nikon, Canon, Minox, Leica, could do pretty well.....

Click to expand...

More and more I see birders carrying bins along with high-end cameras with zoom lenses. Quite often the camera is the primary tool used for precise ID's and analysis. The speed at which a bird at long distance, especially in flight, can be captured, displayed, magnified and accurately identified is the real optical/electronic revolution. The role of the binocular, for many, is limited to finding objects worthy of study in the camera. I surrendered my 35mm habit long ago but I'm sorely tempted to follow the trend and get a camera that will enhance my birding.

"Birding photographer Arthur Morris has virtually retired his binoculars and spotting scopes and now views birds almost exclusively through a Canon 7D Mark II coupled to a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens."
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/guide-birding-long-lenses

Gunny

Zeiss tried something like this with their Photoscope. The trouble with this is that the photo components need to be specially designed to fit into and work with the scope or bins optics and camera technology is changing so fast (look at what the cameras in phones and tablets can do these days) that by the time the bins or scope is launched the photo tech has moved on and offers more pixels and more picture enhancing software, faster ISO speeds with reduced noise and the bins or scopes get left behind and left on the shelf.

Lee

All the low end versions I have seen have effectively been separate binoculars with a camera bolted on. The camera not using the binoculars optics at all. The problem with such a set up is the size of the cameras optics is limited in diameter, this limiting the sensor size and thus the quality of the images. This is not a problem if you have a cheap plastic thing. If you are paying thousands for a high end binocular you would not be happy with an image that looks like it came from a cheap camera phone. If you share the optics you have to introduce complex systems to split the light path that compromises the quality of the optics, but even then the size of sensor you could use would be very restricted. One just needs to look at the size of the lenses used by bird photographers, often yielding less magnification that a pair of binoculars.

Sony did produce a composite binocular/video camera but I don't think i have ever seen one in the wild.

Weight and £££?

My take fwiw.

Working on the principle that a standard 50 mm camera lense (in old money i.e. not taking into account 1/3,2/3 or 3/4 frame ccd's) yields standard human vision in terms of relative depth of field perception and magnification.

An 8x would need to be a 400mm prime lense?

A zoom from say 100mm to 400 mm would be a 2x to 8x. That's optical zoom and not digital of course.

That's a lot of groups and elements there. Heavy and cumbersome.

A 'fast' version, say, a f2.8 through the range would be very expensive in high quality glass. You might need this if you're working in compromised light.

Even clouds can knock out whole f- stops at a pinch. Switch down to a faster ISO and you'll get more 'noise' although I daresay they've got some clever jiggery pokery to digitally amortise that to some extent with in built post-image techology now so an 800 asa/iso grain/noise looks like a 200.

Then you've got the camera body on top of that. A top line dslr from Nikon , Canon etc. is a lump and also big money.

A pair of top line binoculars is going to start to look like a steal compared to a comparable optical rig in camera gear.

Example - Canon eos 5d with 100-400ml f5.6 to 6.5 is about £3500.

A faster 300ml prime at f2.8 (two stops faster) is about £5500 lens only.

If you think about the sort of gear a jobbing touchline sports photographer uses then your looking at expensive, heavy and cumbersome equipment which requires bags and rucksacks to carry around.

That's one hell of a commitment.

As already mentioned, even top line camera bodies date pretty quick in digital. Then their resale value drops off a cliff relatively sharply.

Look at some of Leica's early forays into digital and their R series bodies for further examples.

I'm long since out of cameras and my physics may be profoundly wrong about magnification but the gear prices and sizes are more or less as they are.

When you cross that analogue to digital 'bridge' you do so at the ccd and whilst you can rely on the big players not to change their premium lenses and lense mounts/couplings more than once in a generation as they're largely limited by physics, the ccd and everything behind it in the command chain is superceded pretty quickly and limited only by cost and minaturisation for now.

I should expect that in the next few years we'll reach genuine parity or even exceed what is possible on 35mm acetate film at the prosumer level (I believe most feature films are shot on digital and not 70mm nowadays and there are digital Hasselblads and twin lenses etc.) if it hasn't got there already. As I say, I'm waaay out of touch.

I couldn't say for sure if this is exclusively the reason why this technology has not come to market at the top end but I would humbly hazzard a guess that it might be in the mix.

Tm

thanks to all for posting their opinions....I just thought they tried it with some cheap stuff years ago....and with all the optical/digital advancements....that maybe the tech had caught up to the idea???...will just have to wait and see...I wont be able to afford it anyhow....

gunut said:

thanks to all for posting their opinions....I just thought they tried it with some cheap stuff years ago....and with all the optical/digital advancements....that maybe the tech had caught up to the idea???...will just have to wait and see...I wont be able to afford it anyhow....

Click to expand...

Sigma do various zoom ranges and widely available second hand (at least in UK) and fitting Canon and Nikon af mounts. Sigma always had a reasonable reputation as a third party manufacturer.

May not hook up with all the model specific sensors like image stabilisation etc.

I would post links but it doesn't seem to work.

Second hand bodies also available. Doesn't have to be top line if you're not fussy about latest interlacing algorythms, smaller ccd's and such like. Certainly good enough for computer/ipad grade display.
Possibly not printing though.

Reckon I could try and kit myself out with something passable for £600-£700 if I hunted around.

One advantage in such a fast turnover of kit is the availability of 'clean' gear at reasonable prices.

Would suggest a tripod or bare minimum monopod and also that body firmware updates still available for download via manufacturers website even if the body is no longer made. It won't be anything major.

Cheaper still you could look at digital magnification but that may seriously compromise image quality at such large magnifications.

It can be done if that's what you want. Pro level gear may also be available to be rented or leased under some circumstances if you have a project in mind.

Tm

Hi,

my take on this is the following - it just does not make sense economically for the user. Zeiss tried it with the photoscope in the spotting scope market and it didn't really catch.

The reason is simple, you pay a lot for high quality optics good for many years and soon to be obsoleted electronics in a package.

A better way to do this is to offer possibilities to adapt existing cameras to scopes or bins. Kowa for example has smartphone sleeves which allow some selected smartphones (apple and samsung) to be used with their binocular and scope lines.

Another very smooth adaption is a Swaro scope and compact cam with the DCB series adapters.

A DSLR or mirrorless system camera is also not really a substitute although it's used by some as such. The main problems are weight, a rather uncomfortable one-eyed view and the fact that due to the sensor in prime focus even rather low magnifications need big glass. Eyepiece projection is less demanding.

Joachim

It is all about the compromise between size of optics (lens) and the sensor size. The sensor in a (digital) camera is the primary defining parameter of image quality. In general, the larger the sensor, the better the image quality, all else being equal. Nowadays, the smaller sensors are catching up somewhat via in-camera post-processing to enhance the images (e.g. - dynamic range, post-focus or focus-stacking, etc.) where the smaller images can be processed much quicker than larger images without overheating the equipment.

Larger sensors require much larger optics. Look at a 600mm (or even a 400mm) lens for a 35mm-equivalent sensor...it is HUGE! Double that to get your binoculars, and you have some pretty hefty binos to try lugging around in the field.

Capturing photos of birds is the better way to analyze what you are seeing, checking for bird band combinations, etc., as opposed to a quick glance through binos or even a spotting scope. Digiscoping is an option, also.

I would utilize a Panasonic G85 mirrorless m43 camera in the field. It is relatively small, has built-in stabilization, and can be used in conjunction with the PanaLeica 100-400mm zoom that also has built-in stabilization (so you get both stabilizations working together). Combine that with Panasonic's "post-focus" technology, or their "focus-stacking" technology, and it shouldn't be too hard to get some decent shots at 800mm (35mm equivalent). That would be the equivalent of 16x binoculars.

Do some cropping in post to digitally "zoom in". With the post-focus technology, you should be able to get decent resolution at 32x, which is spotting scope territory. Except you have the luxury of studying the bird photo all day long, or all year long, as opposed to a few seconds.

Pricing: I think the Panasonic G85 camera is currently around $900, and the lens is currently around $1700. Yes, you can buy a very nice scope for that, but then you are limited to digiscoping or those quick glances at a bird...

jring said:

Zeiss tried it with the photoscope in the spotting scope market and it didn't really catch.

Click to expand...

They made ONE, albeit basic mistake: The didn't make the camera unit interchangeable. That's why the Photoscope didn't really work for most people - when it came onto the market the sensor was already out of date, with fairly low resolution and so on. And there was not way you could exchange the camera unit for a better one.

Other than that the Photoscope was a really nice piece of equipment, with good optical quality when used as a scope.

Hermann

Mono said:

Sony did produce a composite binocular/video camera but I don't think i have ever seen one in the wild.

Click to expand...

I had the Sony DEV-3. Pure, unalloyed garbage. I doubt the newer models are any better.

Themoog said:

An 8x would need to be a 400mm prime lense?

A zoom from say 100mm to 400 mm would be a 2x to 8x. That's optical zoom and not digital of course.

That's a lot of groups and elements there. Heavy and cumbersome.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. My casual birding camera is a Canon Rebel SL1 with a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens. This is equivalent to 2x-8x magnification range, and very lightweight. About 80% of the quality of my old "serious" rig (Canon 5DmkIII + EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM) or my new one (Fuji X-T2 with XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR and 1.4x TC).

You can even get lightweight ultrazoom cameras like the Panasonic ZS60 (poor in low light) and ZS100, and for better quality the bridge ultrazooms like the Sony RX10III, Panasonic FZ2500 and Canon G3X.

Ideally someone would come up with a fixed-focal 8x camera using folded annular optics, which are way more compact than conventional lenses, but the decline in the camera market has starved R&D for niche products.

fazalmajid said:

I had the Sony DEV-3. Pure, unalloyed garbage. I doubt the newer models are any better.



Not necessarily. My casual birding camera is a Canon Rebel SL1 with a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens. This is equivalent to 2x-8x magnification range, and very lightweight. About 80% of the quality of my old "serious" rig (Canon 5DmkIII + EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM) or my new one (Fuji X-T2 with XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR and 1.4x TC).

You can even get lightweight ultrazoom cameras like the Panasonic ZS60 (poor in low light) and ZS100, and for better quality the bridge ultrazooms like the Sony RX10III, Panasonic FZ2500 and Canon G3X.

Ideally someone would come up with a fixed-focal 8x camera using folded annular optics, which are way more compact than conventional lenses, but the decline in the camera market has starved R&D for niche products.

Click to expand...

Fazal. Happy to bow to superior knowledge.

What sort of ballpark money would one be looking at for these various configurations?

The OP may like to know for future reference and I'm kinda curious myself.

The principle of a good quality nature-geared optical system which permits 'capture' for later evaluation in a portable(ish) format may indeed be niche now but what's the old saying?

'Build it and they will come?'

There could be a much larger leisure market just under the surface.

My instinct is that this, as you demonstrate, is rapidly approaching that point of coalescence in terms of digital technology,form factor and price.

These things can often find their way to market as hand-me-downs from military tech e.g. Gps, Arpanet, gore tex and so on. I heard that Angenieaux used to make tank scopes at one point (although I'm not sure if that is indeed true). I have little doubt that there's a lot of cross-fertilization under the umbrella of a specialist optics company.

My glasses have stepless Nikon progressive lenses. Distance, computer screens and reading all in one but for the shifting of an eyeball or subtle tilt of the head. Multicoated, thin, lightweight, CA corrected and photochromic. Frankly remarkable technology imho. And here's the rub - almost certainly in the realms of a fairytale at consumer level ten years ago.

(Apologies to OP for rambling and side tracking. I'll watch this one from the sidelines from now on. Thank you for letting me participate. Hat, coat, gone:flyaway

Tm

Themoog said:

What sort of ballpark money would one be looking at for these various configurations?

Click to expand...

• Canon SL1 + 55-250: about $700. You can get a $600 bundle with the 18-55mm and 70-300mm kit zooms, but the 70-300mm non-L is optically inferior to the 55-250mm.
• Fuji X-T2 + XF 100-400mm + 1.4 TC: $4,000 but they regularly have promotions and rebates
• Canon 6D + EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM: $3300
• Nikon D500 + 300mm f/4E PF ED VR: $4000
• Panasonic ZS60: $400
• Panasonic FZ1000: $700
• Panasonic FZ2500: $1200
• Sony RX10III: $1600
• Canon G3X: $900

Keep in mind most of these have optical image stabilization, and better optics than most binoculars, even alphas.

Much heavier as well, so you'd need to add the cost of a sturdy tripod and a Wimberley gimbal head, another $1000 or so.

The principle of a good quality nature-geared optical system which permits 'capture' for later evaluation in a portable(ish) format may indeed be niche now but what's the old saying?

'Build it and they will come?'

There could be a much larger leisure market just under the surface.

Click to expand...

Sports optics is a small market compared to photo equipment, which is itself small compared to smartphones that are cannibalizing it.

My instinct is that this, as you demonstrate, is rapidly approaching that point of coalescence in terms of digital technology,form factor and price.

These things can often find their way to market as hand-me-downs from military tech e.g. Gps, Arpanet, gore tex and so on. I heard that Angenieaux used to make tank scopes at one point (although I'm not sure if that is indeed true). I have little doubt that there's a lot of cross-fertilization under the umbrella of a specialist optics company.

My glasses have stepless Nikon progressive lenses. Distance, computer screens and reading all in one but for the shifting of an eyeball or subtle tilt of the head. Multicoated, thin, lightweight, CA corrected and photochromic. Frankly remarkable technology imho. And here's the rub - almost certainly in the realms of a fairytale at consumer level ten years ago.

Click to expand...

Another one is fluid lenses, like the oil-lens binoculars from Frank Herbert's "Dune", which are soon coming to a smartphones.

Here is a quick-and-dirty samples gallery from several cameras.
The second photo is a sample from the Sony DEV-3, to show just how bad the image quality is in comparison with the Canon (1st frame).

Pileatus said:

More and more I see birders carrying bins along with high-end cameras with zoom lenses. Quite often the camera is the primary tool used for precise ID's and analysis. The speed at which a bird at long distance, especially in flight, can be captured, displayed, magnified and accurately identified is the real optical/electronic revolution. The role of the binocular, for many, is limited to finding objects worthy of study in the camera. I surrendered my 35mm habit long ago but I'm sorely tempted to follow the trend and get a camera that will enhance my birding.

"Birding photographer Arthur Morris has virtually retired his binoculars and spotting scopes and now views birds almost exclusively through a Canon 7D Mark II coupled to a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens."
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/guide-birding-long-lenses

Click to expand...

That is an interesting thought. All previous discussions about the digital future of binoculars in this forum have been about when binoculars will become digital, e.g. when will the quality of electronic view finders be able to compete with the view of an optical device. Perhaps this will never happen, and future birders will just more and more use the ever better cameras instead of optical binoculars ...

dalat said:

That is an interesting thought. All previous discussions about the digital future of binoculars in this forum have been about when binoculars will become digital, e.g. when will the quality of electronic view finders be able to compete with the view of an optical device. Perhaps this will never happen, and future birders will just more and more use the ever better cameras instead of optical binoculars ...

Click to expand...

That seems the most likely path to me, that cameras replace the optics over time. Japan camera manufacturers are moving to 8K video for the 2020 Olympics, that level of performance makes the switch easy.