mark b said:
The Apo77 is a much larger and heavier piece of kit. I'd doubt the quality improvements you would obtain would be worthwhile, myself, although I have no direct experience as others here have.mark b said:
As part of my 'new scope research' I looked at Richard Bledsoe's photo gallery which contains a lot of APO62 shots (until around a year ago), and they were simply fabulous. BUT he's based in the USA (where the sun always shines?) and was of the opinion that a larger objective scope would be more useful. An opinion that I've now come to realise, having looked through a lot of scopes since including the APO62 which I considered (I'm now getting a Nikon ED82)scampo said:
I doubt we take many shots in poor light, though, Steve. A bright day will always be best for digiscoping as the shutter speed will be much better and light levels, by the time the light has travelled its circuitous route through the scope and onto the film plane, are rather low at best. I don't know how much light is lost from 77 to 62mm, but I suspect no more than a stop.Steve Jones said:
. Maybe you could wait for one more year for that rumoured new Leica. 
The Leica 77 APO is a fantastic scope see my gallery for digiscope shots. I'm selling the whole digi-scoping kit for £800 as I have now gone completely Digital SLRmark b said:
I would say the lower magnification on the 62mm would be a boon for digiscoping, too.iporali said:Hi Mark,
In this case it is not a matter of brightness, it is a matter of power. The zoom eyepiece is 16-48x on the 62mm scope and 20-60x on the 77mm scope - the exit pupils (=brightness) are the same. In digiscoping the zoom works best at its lowest power, which means that to get similar brightness/pictures using a smaller scope you have to get correspondingly closer to the target. If you crank up the zoom, the exit pupil and eye relief get smaller. You get 0.4-1.0 f-stop faster speeds at the same power with larger scopes depending on the setup - and IMO this does help reducing the risk of blurred pictures. I have also often praised the 77mm Leica APO Televid for digiscoping.
But having said this, I am not sure I could recommend upgrading from a state-of-art compact scope to a larger, heavier and older design. I personally would upgrade the camera first
Best of luck, :t:
Ilkka
Steve Jones said:
Experience counts, Linz - I'm in agreement with you on second thoughts. That said, the smaller magnification is a definite advantage for beginner's digiscoping, perhaps. Shots of small passerines are very difficult at the best of times and for a beginner I reckon the slightly lower magnification is useful.griffin said:Richard is one of the best digiscopers there is. It is more down to him and his skill and ability making use of the equipment rather the 'what' equipment he uses. Either that or he's sold his soul..........! o
I feel qualified to answer your question as I have a 77 Apo and HAD a 62 Apo. I got far better results in UK with the bigger scope, no doubt. I use 20x on the zoom and disagree with Scampo in that 62mm is better for digiscoping - maybe for bigger subjects and where you are close, but for small passerines 20x ( on a 77 ) is better, even when "close".
I now use a DSLR but have to say that some of my best pics are digiscoped esp. Crossbills which is my thing. The DSLR is easier to use though....see the bird, 'shoot' the bird ! My Gallery is no longer here but will be on my website soon.
Go for the Apo 77, it is a cracking scope, amazing optical quality. Oh, and I believe mine has gone up in value as have my Swaro Bins - could sell them now and make money ( ish ), certainly not lose it !
Hope this helps,
Linz
griffin said:Richard is one of the best digiscopers there is. It is more down to him and his skill and ability making use of the equipment rather the 'what' equipment he uses. Either that or he's sold his soul..........! o
I feel qualified to answer your question as I have a 77 Apo and HAD a 62 Apo. I got far better results in UK with the bigger scope, no doubt. I use 20x on the zoom and disagree with Scampo in that 62mm is better for digiscoping - maybe for bigger subjects and where you are close, but for small passerines 20x ( on a 77 ) is better, even when "close".
I now use a DSLR but have to say that some of my best pics are digiscoped esp. Crossbills which is my thing. The DSLR is easier to use though....see the bird, 'shoot' the bird ! My Gallery is no longer here but will be on my website soon.
Go for the Apo 77, it is a cracking scope, amazing optical quality. Oh, and I believe mine has gone up in value as have my Swaro Bins - could sell them now and make money ( ish ), certainly not lose it !
Hope this helps,
Linz
