DSLR Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

oscar_hawk · Nov 7, 2011

Hi Guy's, This is my 1st thread on BF so appologies if this topic has been covered before. I have recently put together a digiscoping kit consisting of a Nikon RAll angled spotting scope with a 20x eyepiece and an EOS 40d. this gives me a magnifcation of 20 x 1.4 (28x)
I have been happy withe the results so far, for which I have used mirror lock to reduce camera shake at shutter release.
My dilema is, is digiscoping with only 20x eyepiece preferable to the expensive outlay of something such as a 300mm or 400mm telephoto lense.

Also, if digiscoping is preferable does anyone know where I could obtain a higher magnification eyepiece for the RAll, which I understand is no longer marketed by Nikon.

Cheers

KC Foggin · Nov 7, 2011

Hi Oscar and a warm welcome to you from the entire staff here at BirdForum.

I'm going to move your thread to the digiscoping section of the Forum as you are likely to get more feedback there

Dale Forbes · Nov 9, 2011

oscar_hawk said:
Hi Guy's, This is my 1st thread on BF so appologies if this topic has been covered before. I have recently put together a digiscoping kit consisting of a Nikon RAll angled spotting scope with a 20x eyepiece and an EOS 40d. this gives me a magnifcation of 20 x 1.4 (28x)
I have been happy withe the results so far, for which I have used mirror lock to reduce camera shake at shutter release.
My dilema is, is digiscoping with only 20x eyepiece preferable to the expensive outlay of something such as a 300mm or 400mm telephoto lense.

Also, if digiscoping is preferable does anyone know where I could obtain a higher magnification eyepiece for the RAll, which I understand is no longer marketed by Nikon.

Cheers

Hi Oscar,

What camera objective are you using behind your 20x eyepiece? for that will determine what effective focal length your setup is giving you. For example, if you are using a 50mm on your Canon, then you should have a focal length of 1000mm (x1.6 crop factor = ~1600mm). This setup has no autofocus and no image stabilisation, but you have a much longer focal length than the 300-400mm telephoto lenses you mentioned.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Dale

oscar_hawk · Nov 9, 2011

Hi Dale,

Thanks for the response.

There is no objective lens behind the 20x eyepiece, the scope is attached diectly to the camera body via a set up of various conectors ( nikon SSA attached to scope + screw adaptor + bayonet fitting attached to EOS 40D body)
I gather from your response that the introduction of a 50mm lens will give me a greater magnification, however I assume that this will also add to the instability of the set up.

I don't own a prime lens but use a couple of zooms (Tamron 28-75 f2.8 + Canon 70-200 f4)
Would you recommend a 50mm prime lens and if so, would an f1.8 be suitable? taking into account the expence of an f1.2
(I'm working on a budget known as "The Wife")

Cheers,

Oscar.

RJM · Nov 9, 2011

Hi Oscar,

Generally in photography it's focal length of the optical system, rather than "magnification" we are concerned with. Unfortunately, the eyepiece projection method you are using now tends to give the worst results terrestrially.

Anyway, without a lens between the scope eyepiece and camera body we can assume your current method is equivalent to ~1000mm manual focus supertele ens.

Frankly, I would use a traditional lens for the convienence of AF, image stabilzation, portability and overall better IQ. Your call though.

FineArt · Jan 15, 2012

RJM said:
Hi Oscar,

Generally in photography it's focal length of the optical system, rather than "magnification" we are concerned with. Unfortunately, the eyepiece projection method you are using now tends to give the worst results terrestrially.

Anyway, without a lens between the scope eyepiece and camera body we can assume your current method is equivalent to ~1000mm manual focus supertele ens.

Frankly, I would use a traditional lens for the convienence of AF, image stabilzation, portability and overall better IQ. Your call though.

My spotting scope came with threads to mount a T-adapter this was the recommended DSLR mounting method. The image was quite smeared by DSLR lens standards giving maybe 1MP of real information downrezed.

Is there a better way to mount a DSLR? I have very good lenses. I want the scope for more reach.

RJM · Jan 15, 2012

The best IQ with a dslr on a scope is obtained by first choosing a scope brand that offers a dedicated dsrl photo adapter that replaces the scopes eyepiece. Essentially its a ~2x teleconverter/image erecting lens. The Kowa PZ, Nikon FSA-L1/L2, and Pentax CA-35 are all examples of this. All convert the scope into a ~1000mm F11-13ish supertelephoto manual focus lens. Check their websites for relevent info and system charts.

FineArt · Jan 15, 2012

What about with a reflecting telescope, is there a similar type adapter for a 2" eyepiece hole?

RJM · Jan 15, 2012

Nope.

Paul Corfield · Jan 16, 2012

FineArt said:
What about with a reflecting telescope, is there a similar type adapter for a 2" eyepiece hole?

There are adapters for mounting a dslr to a 2" eyepiece hole. They don't have any optics in because the image produced by the telescope is already the correct way up for the dslr. Reflecting telescopes aren't all that good for daytime imaging though so I wouldn't persue that option any further if I were you. The images are generally quite poor in contrast, the scope produces donut bokeh and the scopes are generally too powerful.

Paul.

FineArt · Jan 16, 2012

Paul Corfield said:
There are adapters for mounting a dslr to a 2" eyepiece hole. They don't have any optics in because the image produced by the telescope is already the correct way up for the dslr. Reflecting telescopes aren't all that good for daytime imaging though so I wouldn't persue that option any further if I were you. The images are generally quite poor in contrast, the scope produces donut bokeh and the scopes are generally too powerful.

Paul.

Sounds like good advice, thanks.

Out of curiosity do you know why reflecting scopes have poor contrast? Can it be fixed in raw conversion? It seems a shame that something with no chromatic aberration, therefore much cheaper to make to very high quality, would suffer other problems. From my basic knowledge of optics lens coating transmit 97% to 99% for the top coatings. Why are front surface mirrors unable to reflect a high percentage of light or is it some other problem?

I think I will try to get an APO triplet refractor around 100mm diameter by 1000mm fl. Will the objective lens focus on the sensor (APS-C) or does it need some additional lens and/or extension?

Thanks again.

FineArt · Jan 16, 2012

I guess I found my answer.

RJM · Jan 16, 2012

Reflecting telescopes with large central obstructions have less contrast than refractors. But it is relative, depending on the aperture and the target.

AFAIK, there are no 100mm F10 triplet APOs made. Such a bazooka will need a huge mount too, perhaps weighing 30kg+.

Why don't you tell us what you want to photograph and your budget?

FineArt · Jan 16, 2012

This was a shot I took that was too close. If the grizzly had been in a bad mood it could have been on me in seconds. I got carried away trying to get the shot.

In the future I want to use range with a perch location.

FineArt · Jan 17, 2012

I ordered the Meade 5000 APO 80. The price is great since they are now pushing the 6000 replacement. The 102 was too expensive.

FineArt · Jan 17, 2012

Here is a bird I shot with the 300 prime. the 16MP version is crisp.

I am looking for the new scope to be as good at longer range. I have no problem with manual focus, it's quite natural to me.

RJM · Jan 17, 2012

I can only assume your rational for the Meade was cost. Otherwise a zoom lens like the Sigma 150-500mm is the smarter choice. Even adding a 1.4x TC to your 300mm prime would be better.

FineArt · Jan 17, 2012

I find that hard to believe. I plan to use the scope at 1000 to 2000mm equivalent in 35mm terms. The Canon 1200mm is over $100k so yes, cost is the issue.

FineArt · Jan 17, 2012

I guess the part you arn't aware of is the 4000 has 2, 3 and 5x field flatteners speciffically designed for it. That gives me 480, 960, 1440, 2400 FL or I can combine any with my 1.4 or 2x G series teles.

:-D

ericbowles · Jan 23, 2012

There's no free lunch with this stuff. I have a Nikon EDG 85 scope with the FSA-L2 adapter. I also have a Nikon DSLR with 600mm lens and teleconverters, so I can go with high quality gear to the longest focal lengths.

The problem is that as you get to longer focal lengths, it is very hard to have a fast enough shutter speed and enough stability to get a sharp image.

At 20x sharpness is not a problem. But my long lens has the same reach plus autofocus. I need to be at 35-40x before you get to the point where a scope has any advantage over a camera lens and a crop. At higher magnifications such as 60x, the scope is very dark and hard to focus, so while sharp images are possible you can't get sharp enough and reliable enough images to be worth the tradeoff.

For photos, stick with a DSLR and a long zoom like the 150-500 from Sigma or the Tamron 200-500. Get a good tripod and learn excellent technique.

For birding and occasional photos, the scope and adapter is a good choice but it functions more as proof of sight than great images.

DSLR Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

Oscar_Hawk

Very, very long time member

Swarovski Optik, Austria

Oscar_Hawk

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread