Videoscoping v Hi zoom Video cams (1 Viewer)

I notice now some lower end (Samsung - cost sub-£200) camcorders have 33x optical zoom.

Previous best was 30x Panasonic. Assuming a rock-steady hand or better a solid tripod base, has anyone tried such machines for birding?

Sure, I appreciate it isn't the huge magnification of digi-scoping, but it is also fair to say it isn't the technical "faff on" (set-up) either - with the added bonus that not only does it not matter if the bird moves, but is preferred lol.

Now as I say, I haven't tried this approach, but wonder if others have and what they think? I fully accept it is yet another piece of gear to drag around, but before ahem, upgrading my old camcorder, wonder if many people keep video diaries?

Apart from Paul Hackett of course

Steve

Quacker said:

I notice now some lower end (Samsung - cost sub-£200) camcorders have 33x optical zoom.

Previous best was 30x Panasonic. Assuming a rock-steady hand or better a solid tripod base, has anyone tried such machines for birding?

Sure, I appreciate it isn't the huge magnification of digi-scoping, but it is also fair to say it isn't the technical "faff on" (set-up) either - with the added bonus that not only does it not matter if the bird moves, but is preferred lol.

Now as I say, I haven't tried this approach, but wonder if others have and what they think? I fully accept it is yet another piece of gear to drag around, but before ahem, upgrading my old camcorder, wonder if many people keep video diaries?

Apart from Paul Hackett of course

Steve

Click to expand...

Hi Steve

A decent 2X converter might also be a worth a go ( 66X) but may need to be on a tripod to keep it a little steady? if you do go that route, fork out for a decent 2x converter, it does make the difference ( Sony types are normally the best quailty but not the cheapest!

Rgds

Paul

By the way thanks for the plug!

Quacker said:

I notice now some lower end (Samsung - cost sub-£200) camcorders have 33x optical zoom.

Previous best was 30x Panasonic. Assuming a rock-steady hand or better a solid tripod base, has anyone tried such machines for birding?

Click to expand...

This

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/48/black-redstart

was done using a JVC 25x optical zoom camcorder. Don't even think about using a superzoom without a tripod - a monopod doesn't cut it.

You get much better signal quality and reach using a non superzoom camcorder and a scope

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/56/videoscoping

(note this is a crop from the original video) because quite franky superzoom optical quality stinks at the long end. They get soft as hell - you need leica or zeiss or Swaro glass at the business end if you're going to try and get birds from a quarter of a mile away and the cheap plastic camcorder lenses aren't in that class.

I did try putting my Sony HG2032 2x teleconverter on the front. You really don't want to do that, unless you want an object lesson in chromatic aberration, flare and coma If you're gonna magnify a lens by 25x it needs to be of exceptional quality.

Paul Hackett said:

Hi Steve

A decent 2X converter might also be a worth a go ( 66X) but may need to be on a tripod to keep it a little steady? if you do go that route, fork out for a decent 2x converter, it does make the difference ( Sony types are normally the best quailty but not the cheapest!

Rgds

Paul

By the way thanks for the plug!

Click to expand...

Any time Paul - ever get that wind-cancelling microphone problem sorted out? - eventually you will take my advice and do it all post production ;-)

On a more serious point, this Samsung camcorder @ 33x optical costs £150ish - would it really be worthwhile spending almost as much apon a converter?
and

If so, which one? - needless to say this is not only not my field of expertise, but worse than that, I've never even seen a camcorder converter let alone purchase or even use one.

66x mag (variable up to) on a tripod sounds interesting though...

ermine said:

This

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/48/black-redstart

was done using a JVC 25x optical zoom camcorder. Don't even think about using a superzoom without a tripod - a monopod doesn't cut it.

You get much better signal quality and reach using a non superzoom camcorder and a scope

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/56/videoscoping

(note this is a crop from the original video) because quite franky superzoom optical quality stinks at the long end. They get soft as hell - you need leica or zeiss or Swaro glass at the business end if you're going to try and get birds from a quarter of a mile away and the cheap plastic camcorder lenses aren't in that class.

I did try putting my Sony HG2032 2x teleconverter on the front. You really don't want to do that, unless you want an object lesson in chromatic aberration, flare and coma If you're gonna magnify a lens by 25x it needs to be of exceptional quality.

Click to expand...

I assume the Samsung 33x is not a suitable lens to add a converter to.

Regards to your two shots, did I misunderstand what you typed? - the first picture was sharper etc. much better than the videoscoped second, though much closer. Bear in mind, my original query was an alternative to scope with camcorder.

PS we're talking record shots as opposed to prizewinners btw.

Presumably, as users of "higher end" camcorders, what kind of marque/lens are we looking at before adding a converter might not be worthwhile?

Quacker said:

Regards to your two shots, did I misunderstand what you typed? - the first picture was sharper etc. much better than the videoscoped second, though much closer.

Click to expand...

No, I screwed up. Sorry. What I meant was the purple sandpiper

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/12/purple-sandpiper

which was about a third the distance of the gull, and is full frame. I did a quick retest on a branch in the garden and the same jvc camcorder wound fully out to widest angle poss with a 30x eyepiece on the scope gives pretty muc the same FOV as the JVC on full tele (the scope has a little bit of the edge in mag) Zeiss glass beats JVC glass/plastic hands down, and it collects more light which helps beat down noise.

The redstart isn't a fair comparison as it was about 2m away at one point. Though on the fence posts which was a bit further away you can see the softness at the edges.

The gull is what you can get if you go nuts on reach and then blow up the video 2x. Trying to shoot (video-wise) a gull at almost a quarter of a mile is never going to be easy. I'll try and get a more like for like comparison, as I am trying to convince myself I don't need to pack my scope for a foreign trip as I'm not sending it in checked baggage.

Presumably, as users of "higher end" camcorders, what kind of marque/lens are we looking at before adding a converter might not be worthwhile?

Click to expand...

I think this depends both on the quality of the camcorder lens, the add-on lens and on the total mag of the camcorder. My Sony 2x is the HG (high grade) variety which was just short of a ton ISTR. It works okay on my old panasonic 15x camcorder, because its aberrations are only magnified 15x. That's not to say it was not obvious that this added softness and a loss of contrast, but that under some conditions that was a price worth paying.

Bung the same lens on a 33x camcorder and its distortions are going to be twice as big when they hit the tape. And while it's called HG, it is uncoated. That = flaretastic if the sun's anywhere in front of you - and we can't always get the sun behind our shoulder. No filter threads, so you can't stick a lens hood on, so you end up waving your hand in front to shade the sun on it.

The purple sand and the redstart are what you'll get as record shots, and they're quite nice for what they are. That's the sort of thing you'll get from a superzoom camcorder. What I don't think you'll find a good idea is to stick a 2x converter on a superzoom (zoom > 20x) and work at 40-60x magnification, because you will have the opical elements of a cheap and nasty scope with a recording facility. Whereas if you use your scope to give you most of the optical magnification you will generally be using a much better lens to do the work. Of course the downside is the general unwieldy mess.

Quacker said:

I notice now some lower end (Samsung - cost sub-£200) camcorders have 33x optical zoom.

Previous best was 30x Panasonic. Assuming a rock-steady hand or better a solid tripod base, has anyone tried such machines for birding?

Sure, I appreciate it isn't the huge magnification of digi-scoping, but it is also fair to say it isn't the technical "faff on" (set-up) either - with the added bonus that not only does it not matter if the bird moves, but is preferred lol.

Now as I say, I haven't tried this approach, but wonder if others have and what they think? I fully accept it is yet another piece of gear to drag around, but before ahem, upgrading my old camcorder, wonder if many people keep video diaries?

Apart from Paul Hackett of course

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve

To get back to your original request of just using a camcorder with a high magnification, you can do anything with digiscoping, its just the reality of what quality are you prepared to accept knowing the limitations and agreeing your budget before you start, yes you can get the Samsung with 33X, yes you can put a 2X converter on it, yes, it wont be picture perfect as Ermine points out, yes, videoscoping does suffer in bright light with burnout, yes, you need to keep it all stable, some new camcorderes have a contrast or exposure facility so this can reduce glare but not all, and yes its a trade off. You just need to see it for yourself what it can do and accept its limitations, and yes somtimes it is not possible to view before you buy, the main problem you will encounter of you just using the camcorder will be the distance between you and the bird

What you may take a look at is your setup now, what bits will you add to your day out? a camcorder, 2x converter, tripod?

As Ermine points out its all about low magnification, the vidoescoping set up for low mag and sharpness that i currently use is my Zeiss 65 scope with the Eagleeye lens and after consulting with Stephen Ingraham the Zeiss Optics Consultant for the US, the Eagleeye lens comes out at 7.5 - 8 X magnification on their 65 scope, which gives a maximum magnification of 75x - 80X mag for videoscoping using a 10X optical zoom camcorder, light and weather issues in this country, distance from the bird, fieldcraft etc, all have to be taken into account. i use my Sony DVD 403E camcorder for recording my video diaries with a mixture of hand held footage and vidoescoped footage,

I have posted this pic before - Pacific Golden Plover up in Whitburn 2002, Sony PC100, Leica APO 77, Eagleye 10X lens, using the stills setting of 1 mill pixels, resized, levels and sharpened. Hope this at least gives you some food for thought on what you you need, and what is actually acheivable

Rgds

Paul

To put some science into the comparison, I was at Minsmere this morning and tried all three techniques. Situation was East Hide, in the morning with the sun behind me and I was looking west - couldn't really get much better light. So you don't get to see the shocking flare the 2x uncoated Sony 'High grade' lens can add...

Same geese, same light, same distance. crop from full screen, no processing otherwise. I should have locked the colour balance of the JVC first



leftmost -
jvc camcorder zoomed right out to full wideangle + Zeiss scope
full image http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/images/060908_barnz.jpg

middle
jvc at full tele, no add-ons (25x)
full image http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/images/060908_barnj.jpg

right

jvc at full tele, with Sony HG 2x TC
full image http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/images/060908_barnjs.jpg

The right hand image has the highest mag. But it's not the best picture - the feather patterning on the black patch at the front of the goose is more visible on the smaller LH shot. And the awesome falloff of sharpness towards the edge is a deficiency of cheap superzooms at the long end, and is aggravated by the 2xTC which has some of this too. The generous amount of purple haze is presumably CA through all that glass and plastic.

Your mileage may vary, but I think this is a case of you don't get 'owt for nowt. However, the JVC superzoom gives me the best fo all worlds here - if I can't be bothered to go for the full rig I can run it at superzoom and take all the aberrations. Or if I want to videoscope, I can rack it to the wide-angle end to clear vignetting and use this with the scope. Which is cool. I could try and run it at the long end, and get 25x30 = 750x mag. I've tried it. You really don't want to go there

There pictures are overly kind to the superzoom/TC combo. First off, there was bags of light. Everything gets soft and mushy in low light as the camcorder aperture opens up. There was no sun shining on the TC - to which you can't fit a lens hood. The flare means the black bits of these gees would be light grey. And when watching video, the horrible softness to the edge of the picture make the whole experience like looking through a fisher-price telescope where only the centre of the TV is sharp.

Assuming most other factors being the same or comparable, the setup with the larger front element should give you better detail (especially at longer distances). The setup with the larger front element should also be able to offer more light for the sensor.

Hi Steve,

I have tried both approaches. I have a Canon Ixus 55 compact stills camera which does 640 x 480 MP4 videos which are amazingly clear. I have attached this camera using a Baader MicroStage clamp to the eyepiece of my 'scope and can get very close in, clear videos. I think this probably produces better video than does my camcorder, which is a sub-£200 JVC DV recorder with 32 x optical zoom. The JVC is great, however, in other respects. The ability to run it for an hour on a tripod allows you to catch birds on favourite perches etc, whereas the camera approach is limited by memory. So I use both. Take a look at my website for some recent pics of a red backed shrike (at Skateraw last weekend): http://www.roslinnature.com/SkaterawShrike.html Most are done with the Ixus and 'scope, but the end run of the 8MB video is with the camcorder. On the index page of my site (http://www.roslinnature.com) you will find links for videos from the JVC of a great spotted woodpecker drumming, and a spotted flycatcher catching flies.

All vids have undergone some compression with Windows MovieMaker to make them a manageable size for the web. Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Neil

Quacker said:

I notice now some lower end (Samsung - cost sub-£200) camcorders have 33x optical zoom.

Previous best was 30x Panasonic. Assuming a rock-steady hand or better a solid tripod base, has anyone tried such machines for birding?

Sure, I appreciate it isn't the huge magnification of digi-scoping, but it is also fair to say it isn't the technical "faff on" (set-up) either - with the added bonus that not only does it not matter if the bird moves, but is preferred lol.

Now as I say, I haven't tried this approach, but wonder if others have and what they think? I fully accept it is yet another piece of gear to drag around, but before ahem, upgrading my old camcorder, wonder if many people keep video diaries?

Apart from Paul Hackett of course

Steve

Click to expand...