leica d-lux 3 & televid apo 77 (1 Viewer)

Paul Hackett · Nov 18, 2006

Jeff Bouton said:
Paul,

I will address your specific concerns to the best of my ability, but will then give up on "beating a dead horse" here. Those interested in advice or continued commentary from me are welcome, of course, to contact me privately, but I feel I'm beginning to belabor the same points here.

To be VERY honest with you Paul, I am here trying to help as a user who has had (again IMHO) great success digiscoping with this rig, as a birder not as a Leica employee. Before the introduction of the D-Lux 2, I used a Nikon Coolpix 4500. When I switched to the D-Lux 2 my percentage of "keepers" tripled. It is from this standpoint that I make my claim, that the D-Lux 2 & 3 are excellent cameras for digiscoping, as a counterpoint to those who claimed how "VERY disappointed" they were in the product, because I find this to be in direct conflict with my personal experience. Yes I work for Leica and certainly expect folks to take what I say with skepticism. However, I am being very upfront with my affiliations and am not trashing any competitor's products or pretending to be a neutral party. It's just not my style. I'm suggesting (as you imply as well) the camera does take great images.

I will not try to deal with specific claims of other cameras being better suited, as again to be very candid and frank, I haven't had opportunities to try them. I will only address what I know and not shoot up smoke screens. I will continue to stand by my claim that I find the D-lux cameras to be very effective because I personally continue to get great results every day and instead of arguing about this, I'm posting my images to let others judge for themselves.

I know definitively others are using many other P&S brands and models with great success, but from my personal experience I feel I can PROVE definitively that the D-Lux cameras DO take good images, because I have MANY.

I agree with your comment about the advantage of a cable release, and I hope we will see this in the future, in the interim I have images of a very simple solution that one user in the US made that works VERY well and can be added in about 5 minutes for any interested. I also appreciate your constructive criticism on what you would like to see improved on the adapters. This is the first generation on these products and as with any product lines it is likely that improvements will be discovered and made on subsequent models. Feedback from end users is THE VERY BEST criticism to get because it adresses true issues encountered in the field.

Regarding your claims of the overwhelming price, I'm afraid I don't agree with your take here. The Leica digital adapter is <1/2 the price of our competitor's branded solutions and at $599 US the D-Lux 3 is VERY competitively priced among other 8 mp, image-stabilized cameras, with a fast f/2.8 lens!

Lastly Paul, I'd like to comment about your observations about Leica not considering digiscopers in R&D... and the C-Lux not being designed as a digiscoping camera... etc.

OF COURSE this is true Paul! NO MANUFACTURER is desigining a "digiscoping camera" for one very simple reason. Even if you created the "Perfect digiscoping camera" and every other digiscoper in the world purchased the unit, you probably still wouldn't make enough money to cover your R&D and production costs! When developing these models planners are considering how many millions of units will sell in ~9-10 months (the average run time of new digital p&s cameras) and all considerations are (naturally) centered around producing a unit that takes stunning portraits, scenics, etc. as a stand alone unit! To even think that cameras are designed around digiscoping is IMHO a bit naive!

I'd be real curious to know if you counted every unique member of every digiscoping group worldwide, what the number of end-users would be? I suspect it's comparatively small, and given the overwhelming selection of cameras that lend themselves to digiscoping in today's competitive marketplace, how many units do you realistically expect a manufacturer would sell? Do the math, lets say very optimistically a manufacturer could sell 2,500 units and R&D costs were at $5 million. Said manufacturer would have to sell these at $2000 each just to cover R&D, let alone other expenses and making a profit!... Talk about an expensive camera!!! So I think we digiscopers need to be realistic here and give up on the idea that someone will create a camera that considers digiscoping as a primary use especially when >90% of sales are for portrait use!

The truth of the situation is these cameras are produced and if they produce good images through the scope then manufacturers try and consider an inexpensive way to attach this to the scope not the other way around. Sorry to be long-winded folks, but this last point is one I hear all the time that is not very realistic at all and I wanted to address.

As promised here are a handful of images I took 2 days ago with the D-Lux 3 through the Televid as proof of the image quality. Am I stating it is the best?.... I don't know, have tried enough of the others to really know, but I know the D-Lux camera has worked wonderfully for me over the past year. It mounts rapidly, and I've gotten definitive images (even high quality in most cases) of EVERY rare bird I've seen with it since last year. Again those interested in seeing more please contact me privately and I have a link to a site with over 100 images taken with the D-Lux 2 as well. I've been very happy with this camera and will continue to suggest it works very well not as a Leica employee but as a birder getting regular stunning images!

Paul, I look forward to meeting you here in the US in April and hope we can spend some time together digiscoping in the field. I'd like to compare results and learn more from you in person regarding your experience with equipment I've not had the opportunity to use.

Sincerely,

Jeff Bouton
>20 year professional field biologist, tour leader, and birder who also happens to work for Leica!

PS - These are just 4 of my favorite images out of ~150 taken in three hours in the evening after arriving here in NM 2 days ago (I can prove date and times through the EXIF files!) At any rate, I don't know about the rest of you, but from my perspective, I think the camera performs INCREDIBLY, and again I have NO complaints with the images I'm getting! (remember also these are greatly reduced/compressed for inclusion here)

PPS - Rentocharman, I'd like to talk to you more at length about what you are seeing. I have to admit that in general I carry the APO Televid 77 so will experiment more with the 62 to see if I notice any differing results. Regarding the black corners at the top of the screen, I would suggest double checking the two set screws are fully tightened (one that attaches to ocular, 2nd controls slide feature). If there is still some inherent play here the camera can sag and tilt upward resulting in these dark, upper corners. This could also cause other problems like uneven shading, etc. if the two lenses are not square to one another. Feel free to contact me personally to discuss.

Jeff

Thanks for a very informative reply,

just a couple of things

Ref my question regarding if you would point out the fault to the customer before they buy, that the adpater not being long enough and the camera lens hitting the eyepiece and switching off, could you answer that question please?

See a previous thread on this forum ref Leica Digiscoping

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=54360

I am reading this thread and these people seem to have found out the problems AFTER they have purchased the product? Does that not strike you as a little odd? these are customer opinions

Some information upfront would go a long way to the customer so they have an informed opinion before they buy, as clearly the people on the previous thread did not.

I can accept the learning curve of the end user with new equipment, but to be then told the set up actually doesnt fulfill their expectations? or doesnt function to its full capacity?i.e. adapter length and touching lens switching off the camera. I presume the people mentioned in the thread have bought this product based on Leica literature they have read which told them the items purchased were compatible, and the Leica brand which is known for quality

Pricewise in the UK for suitable P & S digiscoping cameras, its still the most expensive camera

Jeff, the images are great that is not the point i am making, the camera is a quality product, no question, and so are the previous cameras, its just that the marriage of these two items is not great when you look at other cameras and adapters on the market, can we at least agree on that along with customers who have actually bought product who are also stating this, whether you are wearing your Leica hat or Birder hat?

I am also looking forward to some interesting and informative discussions and exchange of ideas when i come over.

Regards

Paul

DJW · Nov 20, 2006

Decided to take the plunge and bought a Leica D-Lux 3 over the weekend. I have never digiscoped before and I have attached one of a set of pictures I took of an obliging swan on my local nature reserve. Whilst by no means perfect I am relatively impressed with the quality for a first attempt. Once I have become better acquainted with the camera and applying some of the comments made on this thread I feel that this camera could be very exciting.
I hope to show more pictures and join the discussion as I become more familiar with the camera.

Regards

Dave

Paul Hackett · Nov 23, 2006

For those interested in this thread, a link to blog of a digiscoper called Bill Schmoker from the States who has attached a home made cable release to his Leica digiscoping adapter, and seems to have done a great job! page down to see the blog on tweaking his digiscoping rig,

http://brdpics.blogspot.com/

Paul

Jeff Bouton · Nov 24, 2006

Paul Hackett said:
Jeff

Thanks for a very informative reply,

just a couple of things

Ref my question regarding if you would point out the fault to the customer before they buy, that the adpater not being long enough and the camera lens hitting the eyepiece and switching off, could you answer that question please?

See a previous thread on this forum ref Leica Digiscoping

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=54360

I am reading this thread and these people seem to have found out the problems AFTER they have purchased the product? Does that not strike you as a little odd? these are customer opinions

Some information upfront would go a long way to the customer so they have an informed opinion before they buy, as clearly the people on the previous thread did not.

I can accept the learning curve of the end user with new equipment, but to be then told the set up actually doesnt fulfill their expectations? or doesnt function to its full capacity?i.e. adapter length and touching lens switching off the camera. I presume the people mentioned in the thread have bought this product based on Leica literature they have read which told them the items purchased were compatible, and the Leica brand which is known for quality

Pricewise in the UK for suitable P & S digiscoping cameras, its still the most expensive camera

Jeff, the images are great that is not the point i am making, the camera is a quality product, no question, and so are the previous cameras, its just that the marriage of these two items is not great when you look at other cameras and adapters on the market, can we at least agree on that along with customers who have actually bought product who are also stating this, whether you are wearing your Leica hat or Birder hat?

I am also looking forward to some interesting and informative discussions and exchange of ideas when i come over.

Regards

Paul

Paul,

Sorry to be so late in replying I was short on time on and had troublesome internet connections on the road. Digiscoping was good however!

To answer your burning question though.... absolutely I demonstrate this all the time! However, unlike you I don't consider this a great fault as much as a minor inconvenience for two simple reasons:

1) I would never suggest running the camera zoom way out for typical photographic subjects anyway. As you do this your resolution, and available light degrade resulting in less clear images at slower shutter speeds. The only time this is really useful is when trying to gain a documentation shot of a very distant subject and as such I don't see as an issue in most applications.

2) Even when this is necessary though, it isn't impossible as you suggest. Yes it is impossible to do with the zoom eyepiece, IF (and only if) the adapter is seated flush against the scope body. In instances where I feel the need to run the zoom out further it is simply done by loosening the lower set screw, pulling the adapter/camera combo back, running the zoom out, and then letting the assembly slide back, and re-tightening the lower set screw again. This takes only moments to accomplish and the only difference is that the assembly isn't seated all the way against the scope body.

So as I said, I see this as a minor inconvenience at best. Especially when considering by your own admission that "the images are great". I mean that is the purpose and function of the product correct?!?... As I suggested in a previos post there is no such thing as a "perfect digiscoping set up" and we can certainly find drawbacks and criticisms with every rig out there... and as we know if something can be criticized, someone amongst the many readers here will eventually hit on it!

Of course that is what makes BF such a great resource, because you can receive lots of feedback from valid and useful to far off base and everywhere in between.

I demonstrate this equipment across the country at bird fests on average every other weekend somewhere in the US and this has never struck me as a major fault, nor have I had any consumer balk when shown how to adjust for this on rare ocassions when needed. Perhaps future models could allow for this, but to expand the design to allow greater travel would mean making the piece taller/longer. I don't know if this was the reasoning on this first design or not but I can tell from personal observation this would then make the unit too long for use on the shorter fixed focal length eyepieces. So we would likely have to produce two seperate models, which would result in some confusion in the marketplace and likely cause both to be higher priced (something you already suggest is too great).

So in conclusion, I'll reiterate that the adapter offers quick, and effective performance and produces (again in my experience) great images. Here are a couple more images that I got in 2 hours Friday morning before setting up my booth at 8 AM. We can sit here and debate the finer points until the cows come home, but I've never been one for hard sell and prefer to let the products and results speak for themselves. If any are interested in seeing more recent images you can peruse some of my images at the following site:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16435490@N00/

Good birding all,

Jeff Bouton
Leica Sport Optics, USA

PS - I'll admit to a bit of luck on the flying tandem Sandhill Cranes!

PPS - note the wide angle view of the sillouhetted cranes. This was accomplished using the 32x WW (wide angle) eyepiece with the D-Lux 3 set to the wide angle 16:9 aspect ratio resulting in a wide angle telephoto. This was fun and something not easily done with many other digiscoping cameras! I also took some fun wide angle video clips with the camera capturing the large flocks as they flew to and from roost.

Paul Hackett · Nov 24, 2006

Jeff

Very interesting that you mention about the possible need for two adapters, one for WA lens and one for the zoom lens

i do feel that your comment on not running the camera out to its full zoom is not realistic, people will take pictures using the full zoom, its a fact, and that is why its hits the eyepiece and switches off.

Would it help the existing users if you could put down in summary form, the solutions you have qouted in this thread to the problems discussed, so future users can just look at one reply?

It would be interesting to see if current users of your system have benefited from your comments and have changed their opinion now you have explained how to get round the problems, if they would care to comment?

Although you have explained the set up to potential users yourself, most people buying the setup, will either use optic shops or buy from the internet, would you not think it prudent to place some written instruction in the box of the adpater for future buyers? you obviously have spent much time with this set up and feel you have resolved the issues, and as you are a Leica employee, if you put that idea forward to management, surely it would be accepted as helping the customer? or even an explanation on the Leica websites on how to overcome these issues

"To answer your burning question though.... absolutely I demonstrate this all the time! However, unlike you I don't consider this a great fault as much as a minor inconvenience"

IMHO you have played down the problems noted, but i think that is because you have spent so much time with the rig, it is second nature to you to set it up and use, but not to the first time user or people who have spent some time with the rig, and dont seem to have gotten the hang of it or still cant, and do not have any realistic instructions on how to do so

My job in the real world away from birding is a Quality Manager, if i was receiving customer feedback like you have been receiving on this forum, it would be in my own interests to follow through on all information received, discuss with my management team, and then set an agenda to resolve the problem or at least notify my customers formally of a solution. i accept you dont feel that it is that serious enough to act upon in some formal way

Jeff, your company has a realistic opportunity to help the people who have replied on this thread and the other thread mentioned, you have a great oppurtunity to help your customers or potential customers and its not costing you anything to do so, this is an international forum so many eyes see this thread, nearly a 1000 hits now, if you went away, discussed it, then came back on and said Leica have decided to do this and this and this etc. you would have people singing your praises, and the most important thing? customer satisfaction! because the manufacturer listened to their customer, if you continue to extol the virtues of this setup, and play down the problems, and no formal information from the company is forthcoming despite whats been raised by customers and myself what message do you think that sends out?

Paul

hinnark · Nov 24, 2006

I still didn´t get what is so special with the described problems. I think every camera with an external zoom objective will produce the same trouble no matter which scope or adapter is used. You really don´t need to be an expert to see why this is the case. So we only have to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of an external camera zoom and why Leica may have decided to use an external one.

Steve

Paul Hackett · Nov 24, 2006

hinnark said:
I still didn´t get what is so special with the described problems. I think every camera with an external zoom objective will produce the same trouble no matter which scope or adapter is used. You really don´t need to be an expert to see why this is the case. So we only have to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of an external camera zoom and why Leica may have decided to use an external one.

Steve

Steve

You are missing the point, the point is that Leica are claiming everything works, scope.eyepiece camera, adapter, all made by Leica, by Jeffs own admission he felt there is a comprimise with the adapter bewtween its use for the zoom lens and WA lens if the adapter had been tested then this problem could have been eliminated, Yes or No? Not all digsicoping cameras switch off when the lens hits the eyepiece, thats a fact, a small number of suppliers have contacted me to explain they had asked the very same questions at Photokina in Germany this year regarding the marriage of the leica cameras and adapter, and embarrased faces were the order of the day, fact!

I just wish people would come clean about this saga, accept that there is a problem, dont play it down, and realistically help those that have bought the product to make the most of their kit, rather than muddle through, or are the people who have raised this issue on the threads on BF a figment of my imagination? how many more people are out there who are having problems?

Jeff cant be everywhere to explain the issues as good a job as he has been doing here, and hats off to him for that for coming onto BF, if he hadnt come onto BF explaining how to deal with the issues, would Leica customers be any the wiser?

Paul

hinnark · Nov 25, 2006

Paul,

so we have a switch off of the camera when the objective hits at something as the only special thing with the D-Lux. This could be a kind of protection of the zoom mechanics or the objective itself. In the world of optics we have tons of marketing issues with all companies and I think this fact is common knowledge of all buyers. What I have read about the Leica Digital Adapter was only that it can connect Leica D-LUX and many other cameras to the Televid scope, though. I think digiscoping is always a kind of trade off from a photographic point of view. To build a camera for primary digiscoping purposes is obviously an economical risk, see the Kowa TD-1 or the limited number of Zeiss DC4. The risk is that the market is too small for something so special while an universal digital camera stays versatile.

Experience of most digiscopers has shown that a magnification around of 20x works best for digiscoping. Not all manufactores offer a 20xW EP. Leica does and that´s good. The Leica adapter is one of the most lightweight universal adapters on the market. It is easy and compared with other systems fast to use. The Leica D-LUX camera has an external zoom objective and so the user has to live with the disadvantages of this kind of construction for digiscoping.

Steve

Sc0tty · Nov 25, 2006

Paul Hackett said:
Steve

You are missing the point, the point is that Leica are claiming everything works, scope.eyepiece camera, adapter, all made by Leica, by Jeffs own admission he felt there is a comprimise with the adapter bewtween its use for the zoom lens and WA lens if the adapter had been tested then this problem could have been eliminated, Yes or No? Not all digsicoping cameras switch off when the lens hits the eyepiece, thats a fact, a small number of suppliers have contacted me to explain they had asked the very same questions at Photokina in Germany this year regarding the marriage of the leica cameras and adapter, and embarrased faces were the order of the day, fact!

I just wish people would come clean about this saga, accept that there is a problem, dont play it down, and realistically help those that have bought the product to make the most of their kit, rather than muddle through, or are the people who have raised this issue on the threads on BF a figment of my imagination? how many more people are out there who are having problems?

Jeff cant be everywhere to explain the issues as good a job as he has been doing here, and hats off to him for that for coming onto BF, if he hadnt come onto BF explaining how to deal with the issues, would Leica customers be any the wiser?

Paul

I'm no expert and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that the camera switching off when the lens hits the eyepiece would be a good thing because it protects the eyepiece from damage.

Rich.

iporali · Nov 25, 2006

hinnark said:
The Leica D-LUX camera has an external zoom objective and so the user has to live with the disadvantages of this kind of construction for digiscoping.

Steve,

I think the main point was that a camera that either vignettes or hits the eyepiece is NOT a good digiscoping camera. During the brief history of digiscoping there have been many excellent cameras which have not been great successes in digiscoping (Canon G1,2,3,4... Nikon CP5400, Canon A600, Leica D-Lux2). And maybe the single biggest reason in these cases has been that they need(ed) more eye-relief for unvignetted pics than most eyepieces provide. Careful users have been able to compensate the lack of eye-relief by moving the camera closer when the lens is not extended maximally - but this is a MAJOR usability shortcoming, because of often unpredictable zoom behaviour.

Many popular digiscoping cameras (Canon A80/95, S60/70, Ixus/Elph, Sony W, Fuji F10/11/30, Nikon (too many to list), Olympus 7070, Panasonic FX01/Leica C-Lux1 etc...) can be adjusted far enough from the eyepiece that the entire zoom range can be used with no risk to hit to the eyelens and with very little or no vignetting at all.

You CAN get great pics with those "difficult" cameras, but for many digiscopers the cost of manual controls, fast lens, remote control, rotatable screen etc. is too high if you only can use a narrow zoom range and/or risk hitting to the eyepiece with the extending zoom.

I agree with Paul that in Leica's recommended digiscoping setup consisting of their own scope, adapter and camera, the fact that the zoom can collide with the eyepiece is unacceptable. IMO the small C-Lux1 would be a better choice.

Best regards,

Ilkka

hinnark · Nov 26, 2006

Ilkka,

it took some time but I think I get it now. Thank you for explanation. I found a small notice that comes with the Leica Digitaladapter where they give advices about vignetting and touch of the camera´s lens. But these information are given in general.

Steve

ricklawes · Nov 26, 2006

Richard Scott said:
I'm no expert and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that the camera switching off when the lens hits the eyepiece would be a good thing because it protects the eyepiece from damage.

Rich.

Hi Rich
it would appear that if the drive switches off on contact between the two lens then switching off is irrelevent the damage has already been done. Clever would be to switch off before contact.
Regards
Rick

Jeff Bouton · Nov 26, 2006

ricklawes said:
Hi Rich
it would appear that if the drive switches off on contact between the two lens then switching off is irrelevent the damage has already been done. Clever would be to switch off before contact.
Regards
Rick

Rick,

Here again everyone is assuming this function has ANYTHING to do with digiscoping. Nearly every camera with an extending lens has a shut off mechanism which prevents you from burning out the tiny weak motor which drives the lens and nothing more. Regarding hitting the lens, and damaging it. This motor is so weak I'd think you have as much chance of damaging your eyepiece with it as you would pressing your thumb against the eyepiece surface.

For the benefit of those who are aghast they may have to slide the camera back while zooming the lens on the camera. Your likely right this isn't the camera adapter combo for you, but there isn't a single system out there that couldn't be faulted in one way or another. This isn't an exact science. So I don't believe there is any perfect system out there anywhere. It seems most camera models these days have external zooms because the industry trend is to make more compact smaller bodied cameras. Out of curiosity has anyone assembled a list of camera models with internal zooms still being made.

I realize the old Coolpix series had this feature (990, 995, 4500) but I'd bet my bottom dollar my new system will outperform anyone using this antiquated system from a standpoint of speed and ability to take more images. Given the postage stamp sized, low-res dark screen and incredible lag time. I guarantee I'd capture more shots.

Granted if there are newer cameras out there, with bright, large screens, image stabilization, and comparable resolution in megapixels, with internal zooms I'm certain they would perform very well. These would be a great alternative for those who are troubled by having to take an extra step when increasing zoom (e.g. moving the assembly back, then sliding in again after zooming). However, I'm certain these same individuals would be troubled by the fact that the camera wasn't instantly centered on the scope as the D-Lux is (adapter is machined to lens ring diameter so it is fool proof in this regard which other cameras aren't).

All in one solutions (built in cameras) can eliminate all of these type problems, unfortunately these are typically units that are transferred from similar medical products used on microscopes. As a result they aren't built to accomodate quick shutter speeds. Because light is split internally and only a portion goes to the eye and the sensor respectively these units have a maximum shutter speed of 1/250th of a sec in best case lighting. I suspect this will be a big issue in areas where the sun isn't out and bright often.

At any rate, my point here again is that there are many options, but not any that are perfect. As surely as there are many options in scope, and binocular models, there are many in digiscoping and what one person finds a fantastic option others will surely hate.

I will spend no more time defending my personal position, or that of Leica as I feel I've said all that needs to be said on behalf of the equipment and company. Anything more will just be getting into the argumentative category, and when one sees one going to great lengths to grind an axe like this, I personnaly always wonder if that person has an agenda.

I will make a personal statement regarding my integrity though. I've been fully forthright as a Leica employee and hope that some will give me a bit of credit for this. I could have easily hidden behind a false name or pretended to not have an affiliation with any company as many on this list do.

I haven't gone out of my way to trash any competitor's products and feel I've adequately made my point and presented a contrary stance to those in criticism of a system that I have great success with. PERIOD! I hope my genuine & honest protrayal of my association with Leica adds some credence to my claims. I'd encourage all on this list to realize that sometimes people with strong negative opinions are not always being as honest or fair, but sneaky isn't my style. (I'm not implying anyone in this particular thread is, but we've definitely seen this in the past and it is something that happens regularly on some of these forums!)

Good birding all,

Jeff Bouton
Leica Sport Optics, USA

iporali · Nov 27, 2006

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply. I hope you did not feel offended by my criticism, it was meant to be constructive and not targeted to you, but to Leica designers, who surely could modify their adapter so that the users wouldn't need to find workarounds to use it (and then add a remote release bracket, please

http://brdpics.blogspot.com/2006/11/tweaking-my-digischmoking-rig.html) . I am sure there are none on this thread who have an axe to grind; just a couple of digiscopers, who are a little annoyed that often otherwise fine cameras require too much eye-relief to work well in digiscoping - and cause problems with zooming. In my experience this is common to most larger high-end compacts, not by any means specific to the Leica D-Lux3. I have a Nikon CP4500 and a Panasonic FX01 (=Leica C-Lux1) and - as I have said earlier - I think I get about 10x more keepers AND less vignetting with the new camera despite its "external zoom" and all-automatic design. External zooms as such are not a problem if the zoom movement fits inside the "eye-relief" distance. Unfortunately larger cameras do have a larger movement range. I have discussed about this very same thing concerning the 4x-zoom-Canon A620. In "my kind of use" the A620 would vignette or hit the eyepiece, but many users seem to be happy with it. And if people are happy with the Leica, that is also fine with me.

One way to show the point I have been talking about is to take a series of shots of the same target at different zoom settings from wide to tele end. It would clearly show where the possible vignetting appears and disappears. I could take a similar series with my Panasonic/Leica together with my zoom and wide-angled eyepieces.

I, for one, appreciate your honest portrayal of your association with Leica - people like you are very valuable to this forum. I guess this just goes to show how we are trying to use you as a channel to send feedback to those at Leica who make decisions and designs of the products - if we, as customers, think something is wrong or could be even better.

Best regards,

Ilkka

Paul Hackett · Nov 27, 2006

Jeff

I have raised points on this thread that other people accept as a problem, namely from end users, optic shops and digiscopers, i have received a number of PMs noting me of that

Its a sorry state when the valid points i have put forward have been played down ( note they are not trashing your statements, thay are all facts) The end user does have problems with the marriage of this kit, thats a fact, not with the quality of image produced. The points i have raised are from an opinion/perspective of an experienced digiscoper who actually tries out the product.

This will be my last post on this thread, i would of hoped that some of my suggestions to help the customer which were constructive and sincere, would have at least been listened to rather than completley ignored, that is your perogative. i feel Leica have missed out on a realistic opportunity to help current users and future users, again, my own opinion

Paul

Jeff Bouton · Nov 27, 2006

Paul Hackett said:
Jeff

I have raised points on this thread that other people accept as a problem, namely from end users, optic shops and digiscopers, i have received a number of PMs noting me of that

Its a sorry state when the valid points i have put forward have been played down ( note they are not trashing your statements, thay are all facts) The end user does have problems with the marriage of this kit, thats a fact, not with the quality of image produced. The points i have raised are from an opinion/perspective of an experienced digiscoper who actually tries out the product.

This will be my last post on this thread, i would of hoped that some of my suggestions to help the customer which were constructive and sincere, would have at least been listened to rather than completley ignored, that is your perogative. i feel Leica have missed out on a realistic opportunity to help current users and future users, again, my own opinion

Paul

Paul,

FYI - I haven't missed your point at all. I got it loud and clear the first, second, third, fourth, and again on the your fifth posts. I even thanked you for the positive feedback on an earlier post. Regarding the 'Leica missing a great opportunity...' this is not true at all. All of this good feedback is going straight to the design team for consideration, so again I thank you all for posting commentary, complaints, observations, etc. This is good stuff.

I do find your accusation that Leica has missed the boat disturbing, though as certainly someone with your personal background understands that Rome isn't built in a day and rolling out new products is a lengthy process. It's these argumentative style posts that put me on the defensive. I still suggest the digital adapter 2 is an excellent piece, even given these observations. It is the first slide on adapter (tubular) that works irrespective of filter thread rings, so this does add a new wrinkle to adapters that hadn't been considered before this model. So these observations on how it can be improved are great points and ARE NOT being lost, rest assured.

I think the unique clamp-style designs makes the unit actually a lot easier and universal than many previous products on the market. Competing products that required filter thread rings were VERY troublesome for retailers/end users as it required folks to become infinitely familiar with a whole host of accessories for varying camera models and for those who had cameras already it was very troubling to find out they couldn't use a branded adapter because there were no accessories available.

This need for filter threads is also problematic, because another trend in newer p&s cameras seems to be not including this feature and not producing accessory lines (likely because the lines run their course in 8-9 months on average). At any rate, the clamp design now allows usage by many other camera models that could only be used with platform style adapters (e.g. swing arms, flip-style adapters, etc.) in the past. These style adapters do produce images, but even the best crafted pieces are prone to mis-alignment due to the camera swivelling on the 1/4x20" screw mount or simply by the camera not re-centering properly.

OK I'm defending the product again I said I wouldn't sorry.

I will reiterate one last time though, that I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that these points and considerations are going straight to the top and will be considered by the R&D team responsible for new product development within the week! So all of these observations are not in vain and NO OPPORTUNITIES have been missed.

NOW to go off on a tangent that is less equipment related but has to deal with usage that I would love to hear feedback on..... Paul suggests in an earlier post that, '...many users take images at full zoom regularly ...' (or similar).

Is this true? How many folks do this regularly? This is not something I find often in my personal observations of digiscopers here in the states. If there are "MANY" of you out there doing this on a regular basis, I'd ask why? Do you find the advantage of greater magnification, worth losing shutter speed/color saturation, etc.? Especially, if you have a newer higher megapixel camera I'd question whether it isn't more advantageous to have a brighter, crisper subject (albeit smaller) and then possibly crop in photoshop or similar.

I think all agree that use of digital zoom capabilities on cameras is not as effective as enlarging/cropping on the computer with more sophisticated imaging software. I'd question whether it doesn't make more sense to take an image of a smaller subject with more available light, particularly in areas where the sun doesn't shine as often to gain the shutter speed necessary to stop motion blur?

So digiscopers, what are your observations here?...

Good birding,

Jeff Bouton
Leica Sport Optics, USA

rentoncharman · Nov 27, 2006

In response to Jeff's latest post requesting user response I can give you my latest experiences with the D-Lux 3 and Apo-Televid 62 and the Leica digital adapter 2.

My earlier posts described the problems I was having minimising vignetting and dark shadowing. I must say I was preoccupied with setting the system up to give a full frame image with minimal vignetting. With the zoom lens in particular I always then suffered degradation of the image by variable dark shadowing.

I now tackle things differently. I have found there is an optimum distance for positioning the camera lens from the eyepiece which gives a very clear and good quality image and this varies depending on the eyepiece used and in the case of the zoom lens it varies with the zoom setting. This optimum position does however give a circular vignette and I've noticed that if the camera lens is in the optimum position the circular vignette edge is sharp.

I don't use camera zoom anymore. The magnification is determined solely by the eyepiece setting. Using this set-up I get good quality images but I do need to crop out the vignette in Photoshop - this is no problem since I shoot raw anyway.

Use of the x26 WA eyepiece gives very little vignetting compared with the zoom but finding the optimum distance is still important to give clear images.

It would be preferable to have no vignetting AND a clear image of course but I don't think my system can give both based on a prolonged number of hours fiddling with the setup.

An important point here is that I'm using the Apo 62. I have asked Jeff to establish if there is any difference in the performance of the 77 compared with the 62 and he has promised to respond. Just wondered if anyone else can help.

iporali · Nov 27, 2006

rentoncharman said:
An important point here is that I'm using the Apo 62. I have asked Jeff to establish if there is any difference in the performance of the 77 compared with the 62 and he has promised to respond. Just wondered if anyone else can help.

Because the magnifications on the smaller scope are lower, there is actually no difference in brightness at the same eyepiece settings (exit pupils are the same). Also vignetting is only determined by the eyepiece (eye relief & apparent field-of-view). What you do get with the larger scope, all else being equal, is more reach, but at the same time you lose some (true) field of view. I prefer the idea to sacrifice some magnification rather than brightness with the compact scopes.

Ilkka

Atlanticza · Dec 6, 2006

I have just purchased a Leica D-Lux 3 along with the Leica Digital Adapter for use on my Apo-Televid 77, and I think, judging by the comments posted here that Leica is getting the short stick. Granted my first shots were somewhat a hit and miss affair... vignetting, camera switching off when the lens hits the eyepiece, shadow fall off and so on. But like any enthusiastic photographer (albeit I have a lot more experience with my more conventional Canon digital SLR gear) I omitted to read the manual and did not read enough background information on a forum such as this. Leica's recommendation for "best image quality" is to use the 20x/16x and 32x/26x eyepieces . I have the 20-60x eyepiece which, according to the manual "can also be used". Yes it can but expect the problems I've already mentioned above. There is also a warning that states "when zooming, make sure the camera's lens barrel does not touch the eyepieces. This may cause the camera to switch itself off or even cause damage to both units." So now I know: the 20x is considerable shorter than the 20x-60x eyepiece and I would assume that a "collision" of this nature would not happen if I used Leica's recommended eyepiece; I also assume that vignetting would not occur to the degree it does at the moment. As yet I have not purchased the 20x or 16x I would appreciate any feedback that fellow members may offer: Would either of these "recommended" eyepieces improve my present discouraging digiscoping experience?

scampo · Dec 6, 2006

ricklawes said:
Hi Rich
it would appear that if the drive switches off on contact between the two lens then switching off is irrelevent the damage has already been done. Clever would be to switch off before contact.
Regards
Rick

What damage has been done? The damage that would occur is not collision damage - that would not be an issue at all. Rather the damage that would occur is if the micro-motor that moves the lens mechanism forward couldn't do so - then it would burn out in next to no time.

leica d-lux 3 & televid apo 77 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Birding for Fun

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Steve Campsall

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread