• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon 450D + Skywatcher 80ED (1 Viewer)

I was using a fast enough shutter speed to do away with the need for a remote release.

Its hard to give options a workout in this country - we get so short changed with sunshine, that its a constant fight to get good bird shots.
 
I guess practice makes perfect but even from the beginning I've not had trouble focusing. With the scope at 600mm I'd probably get every shot in focus but it gets a little harder the more you try and up the magnification. When the magnification is really high and the images is bouncing around I just try and have a sharp bouncing image rather than a blurred one. Maybe check the cameras viewfinder and make sure it is set to suit your eyesight. More often than not I use the shutter release unless I think the bird wont be around for long and then I'll just aim and shoot. Rather than take a load of photos I pretty much refocus the scope every couple of shots or even every shot and that way I know I'm more likely to get the focus right. By focusing in and out all the time you start to get a feel for what's right. I tend to focus on the birds feet or whatever it's sat on as that's easier to see usually. If it's close enough then I just focus on the head. I never bother with live view myself.

Paul.
 
I've messed around with the dioptre but really thats only an issue if you're relying on manual focus, but even using AF a lot of my photos are soft / blurry

Maybe its partly me ( really bad eyes - cataract op on the 24th Feb ) but the cataract is only in one eye, the other eye is much better but not brilliant, and maybe its partly my lenses.
I dont even own a working Canon AF lens. But again, eye problems are only an issue if purely manually focusing

All mine are MF ( Pentax k, M42, Tamron Adaptall ) and the only lens i get consistently sharp pics with, is my Tamron SP Adaptall Macro 90mm

Its a pity you're so far away, otherwise we could have gone on a shoot during some nice weather, and you could use my gear and that would definately take me out of the equation, or perhaps prove i was the problem.
 
Last edited:
I shouldn't imagine it's the scope as there's nothing really that can go out of line. Make sure the lens retaining ring is done up tight and that's about it. If the lens was out of alignment it would show up as an optical defect in the images rather than a sharpness problem.

Here's three crops of the same photo I took this morning with the scope at 600mm. This is at 35m range and the first photo is uncropped, second photo about a 50% crop and third photo about an 80% crop. ISO800 and 1/100 sec as it was very dull. It shows what the scope is capable of on its own and even at this range the tiny hairs are easily visible under the birds beak.

Paul.
 

Attachments

  • crop1.jpg
    crop1.jpg
    194.1 KB · Views: 73
  • crop2.jpg
    crop2.jpg
    139 KB · Views: 63
  • crop3.jpg
    crop3.jpg
    154.7 KB · Views: 89
I'll try closer focus by stacking tubes and also leaving out the TC's, so 600mm only.

I can get focus to about 3 or 4 meters with the tubes i have here, although after about 20 meters, the scope wont focus
 
Definitely stick with the 600mm until you get better at it and don't give up too soon.

I took this really nice one of a Robin today from 10m with the Kenko 1.4 TC but unfortunately there was a piece of grape vine between me and the bird. Posted the 100% crop showing feather detail as another show of what detail can be captured. There was another Robin close by and this one I photographed had all its feathers raised up on its head as a sign of its annoyance. Got a Wren as well at same range but didn't quite nail it on focus but those Wren's just don't sit still for even a second.

Paul.
 

Attachments

  • Robin.jpg
    Robin.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 61
  • Robin2.jpg
    Robin2.jpg
    185.7 KB · Views: 86
  • Wren.jpg
    Wren.jpg
    133.7 KB · Views: 71
The feathers are magniff :t:

Now, as promised - i took a few @ 600mm , no TC's , but with about 200mm of Ext Tube for close focus down to about 3 or 4 metres, but as it happened, the Blackbird was about 7 metres

The head crop of 100% has absolutley zero PP. It was simply opened in DPP and immediately transferred to CS4 as a Tiff ( avoiding the weirdness you spotted when using ACR 5 into CS4 ) then saved for web.

The link is after PPing, and a bit of cropping, size reduction from 3888 pix to 1500 pix

Tripod / ISO 800 / 1/250th / Centre Weighted Ave.

Still pretty crap IMO

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/slapper/odds/BBird-PP.jpg
 
The 100% crop thumbnail didnt appear in the above post ? Weird

Here it is then
 

Attachments

  • Bbird100%.jpg
    Bbird100%.jpg
    191.1 KB · Views: 75
Shame you got rid of the 450D as we can't do direct one for one comparisons. For birds the 450D with higher resolution takes a better photo as far as capturing more detail but the 40D has more bells and whistles. For birds/wildlife though resolution is key and then ISO performance without the need for much else after that.

From the softness of the Blackbird I guess it's still a focusing issue but it only looks a fraction off and the processed image wasn't too bad considering the lighting and with it being black feathers. Maybe also try a shutter release cable and see what happens. Try some static subjects at close range and maybe post the best ones.

As a comparison this is my Robin without any post processing at all, just RAW straight into Tiff and save for web. The detail is already there and doesn't need much pp to bring it out further. ISO800 1/60sec hand held.

Paul.
 

Attachments

  • Robin3.jpg
    Robin3.jpg
    141.4 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:
I'm sure i read some where that the res. of the 40D is equal to the 450D. To get more pixels ( 12 per inch ? ) into the 450D, they're smaller, and so IQ works out roughly the same as the bigger pixels of the 10MP 40D

ISO in reviews was pretty equal as well, IIRC


It must be my focusing. Mind you , there's no way i can hand hold a shot @ 1/60th even with a 50mm lens
 
The extra 2 million pixels gives more cropping power which is important with a dslr on a scope and this helps bridge the gap with the higher magnification of spotting scope digiscoping. A dslr on an astro scope may only me useful up to around 4000mm equivalent but the excellent cropping ability of higher res sensors easily makes it a match against traditional digiscoping. Even better in my opinion.

Also DP Review said of the 450D "The new sensor is superb, and from a resolution point of view puts the EOS 40D to shame without losing any of the high ISO performance that has been Canon's trump card for so long."

Ideally you want to be going up in pixels which in turn allows you to use less magnification. Something like the 18 mega pixels of the 7D or new 550D would most likely only need the 600mm of the scope or at most the 1.4X TC most of the time.

For focusing you could try making something called a Hartmann Mask. It's basically a disc with 2 or 3 holes cut out of it. When the image is out of focus you see multiple images and when it is in focus you see only one. Take the disc off the scope to take the photo. I made one for when I take photos of planets like Mars, Saturn and Jupiter as it really helps get them dead on. I made mine out of an old lid that was roughly the right diameter to fit the scope. Even a thick piece of corrugated card would probably work as a test.

Some info here. http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=518

There's a template generator here. http://www.billyard-ink.com/Hartmann.shtml

Paul.
 
Last edited:
Paul
I have converted a DOI pentax mount to EOS, like your photos in the tred.
I did a misstake i managed to glue the DOI cell a bit of center its about 0.8mm more to one side of the macro tube.
Does this matter?
 
Last edited:
The extra 2 million pixels gives more cropping power which is important with a dslr on a scope and this helps bridge the gap with the higher magnification of spotting scope digiscoping. A dslr on an astro scope may only me useful up to around 4000mm equivalent but the excellent cropping ability of higher res sensors easily makes it a match against traditional digiscoping. Even better in my opinion.

Also DP Review said of the 450D "The new sensor is superb, and from a resolution point of view puts the EOS 40D to shame without losing any of the high ISO performance that has been Canon's trump card for so long."

Ideally you want to be going up in pixels which in turn allows you to use less magnification. Something like the 18 mega pixels of the 7D or new 550D would most likely only need the 600mm of the scope or at most the 1.4X TC most of the time.

For focusing you could try making something called a Hartmann Mask. It's basically a disc with 2 or 3 holes cut out of it. When the image is out of focus you see multiple images and when it is in focus you see only one. Take the disc off the scope to take the photo. I made one for when I take photos of planets like Mars, Saturn and Jupiter as it really helps get them dead on. I made mine out of an old lid that was roughly the right diameter to fit the scope. Even a thick piece of corrugated card would probably work as a test.

Some info here. http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=518

There's a template generator here. http://www.billyard-ink.com/Hartmann.shtml

Paul.

I dont think i saw the DP review - very interesting. I may have made a mistake selling off the 450D :-C

That hartmann disc is a real clever bit of cheap kit. I might have to give that a go. Cheers

Oh, by the way, i've ordered a katzeye plus focus screen and a seagull 2.3x viewfinder magnifier
 
Last edited:
Yes, they should both help. Glad you got the Plus version as the other version will black out the prism on the focusing screen because the scope is f7.5 . The plus version should work up to f11 which would allow at least a 1.4X tc to work.

With things like the Seagull 2.3X magnifier you will only see the central 50% of the viewfinder and then you just flip it up to see the meter reading etc at the edges of the viewfinder. Canon used to make one called the Canon Magnifier-S and this also only magnifies the central portion of the viewfinder, they turn up on ebay fairly regular but are a bit pricey. Some people modify the Nikon ones to suit the Canon although the magnification is lower but you can see the whole viewfinder without having to flip it up. I made my own one out of a couple of optics I had laying around and it worked pretty good. Haven't used it for a while now though.

The 40D isn't such a bad investment as the resale value is good and it will hold its price better than a used 450D. When you think how long the 40D has been out it still fetches a good price.

Paul.
 
I was under the impression that the PLUS version was the only option for the 40D.

I used to have the Pentax FB magnifier, which is just like you mention - flip up, and only the central portion magnified. I quite liked that one, though that was when i had a Pentax K 10D.

The Seagull is a lot cheaper - £17
 
I see, yeah, just had a look and the Plus is the only option. I once tried a cheap ebay one in my 450D and the split prism just showed up as a black dot because of the high f number of the scope. I scratched the original one getting it out so then had to buy a new Canon one to replace it. One of those expensive little experiments lol.

Paul.
 
Nice light today really showed off the feathers well. Three with the Kenko 1.4X from 10m.

I did a search on Flickr for images taken with the Kenko Pro 3X and was really surprised at the detail it captures. Similar to the detail from the 1.4X. I think I may just save up some pennies for that rather than spend any more on barlows.

Paul.
 

Attachments

  • sharp1.jpg
    sharp1.jpg
    168.5 KB · Views: 93
  • sharp2.jpg
    sharp2.jpg
    154 KB · Views: 98
  • sharp3.jpg
    sharp3.jpg
    194.5 KB · Views: 97
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top