• 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.

Celestron (1 Viewer)

The combination would be ok but do a search for donut bokeh which you will get with this scope or any other type of mirror scope. Have a look at the thread here at my post #6 where I linked to some C5 images with donut bokeh. Personally I'd always go with a refractor type scope. The mirror scopes are cheap enough if you need such a high magnification but you need good light too. More often you probably wont need such a high magnification and would get better photos with a refractor.

Paul.
 
Paul, as a matter of fact, since that thread surfaced and your link, I have been keeping an eye out for the C5 LOL.

Whitehill, the trade off are (when compared to our common 80ED/ED80):
Pro:
1) More compact
2) Longer FL 1250mm Vs 600mm

Con:
1) Donut bokeh
2) Less contrast
3) Higher f ratio of 9.84 Vs 7.5 but if you compare to FL it actually becomes a pro with 80ED having f 15.6 if extended to similar FL of C5.

It all depend on your style of shooting. If you just want to enjoy a casual hike or walk and want to get some birds as well, then the C5 would be better. If you want higher quality picture taken, you go the Refractor way with hide or camouflage and wait for birds to come. Having a longer FL may not always be better. This morning an Eagle perched just 20 feet in front of me and my 80ED with a 2X TN can only capture the upper body without the tail LOL. Before I could take out the TN, it's gone.
 
Personally I see the longer focal length as a con. The reason being is you generally need to be quite far from the subject to get it all in the frame and that introduces distortion problems from heat shimmer etc. In the middle of the day I get this trouble even at 10m at this time of the year.

Paul.
 
Ive got the SW 102mm similar style to the C5,1300 mm f13 very good scope which suits me for what I want it for,I use it as a spotting scope and also doubles as a lens when my Sigma 80-400mm isnt enough focal length,by using this and not having to crop as much is usually better quality than using just the lens and cropping in,ive got some decent results with it especially in video mode...
 
Personally I see the longer focal length as a con. The reason being is you generally need to be quite far from the subject to get it all in the frame and that introduces distortion problems from heat shimmer etc. In the middle of the day I get this trouble even at 10m at this time of the year.

Paul.

I can practically only be able to use a TN the first hour after sunlight picks up. After that atmospheric distortion kicks in. Before the sunlight picks up, the scope would be too dark for my eyes with the TN. But if I am shooting from under thick tree canopies, I can shoot longer with the TN because of less distortion in the shade and mostly would be shooting at higher (more vertical angle) objects.

The C90 would be excellent if not for the f 13.3. Handy for easy carrying around more often.
 
I have an Omni 127, which I believe is supposed to be like the C5, and I just call it JUNK optics. You have to use a very long eyepiece because of the focal length and then there is a problem with the central obstruction. I know, I know, some people use it, but it is on my shelf. Unsharp optics also for visual. Gene
 
well, i must say that all these statments does'nt even make me wiser. that's because I'm a really bloody beginner...
I now decided to join a workshop for digiscoping with one well known expert in Germany (Gerd Rossen). He's got various scopes and a lot of equipment and - as i hope - lots of practical advice...
I'll do that probably at July 6 and will report later here.
Ty all
Heinz
 
hi! for first I must repeatthat my english language is not good, so please forgive my errors..I try to explaine.. I'm using C5 and Canon550 in direct focus, I mean without eyepieces and mirror (the image is not inverted). Before I used Skywatcher 90 (1250mm,f=14) and now that I'm using C5 I can tell you that the quality and the colors of my pictures are really better. I bought it for 475€ two months ago, in a famous internet site in Germany. It's cheap if you think that you can have 1250mm and f=10. Well, I never tried by lens scope, but I know the similar quality needs big names, like Kowa or other...how much for them? of course this is a decision to take, but if you start now maybe it's better to save money and make experience. I'm happy of my pictures, I know it's not easy to take good pic but this is good satisfaction to me when I take good one. Anyway, the best problem is the manual focus: for example, if the subject is near (I'm talking around 10-15 meters), you know that if the bird is long 10cm, you will have focus only on the head of it (I'm sorry I don't know the right word..depth...?). If the subject is really far (around 250-500meters), you have better focus (ehmm...1 meter?bit more?) but the air could distort the subject, in particular if you work near a river. So...little subject in medium distance? hard to advise...
if you decide to use eyepiece (with zoom?why not...) all change but the price too, and the quality goes really down (everything between the light and the camera will be a filter). In past I took pictures by eyepiece GSO 32mm (1250/32=39x),it's cheap eyepiece so I can see distorsion, you can see some of my pictures in http://hobbydigiscoping.blogspot.com/
the good solution could be a focal reduction 0,63x, it resolve focus sensibility and light too, just you could have black bord but you can crop after, anyway it's really expensive (around 250€?)
What I can say is just that I love mirror scope, and digiscoping for me is all what is around the single picture: find a good place, be patient and wait the right moment surrounded by nature,really good moment for relax. The mirror is not easy, but this is what I love, because if I want to take easily a good picture, it's sufficent to use google images, eheh...
Ah, the last things: I have an EF 70-300 IS USM Canon that, used on the "not full frame sensor", gives to me a theoric 112-480mm (1,6x factor for not full frames cameras, EF not EF-S), for no more than 500€, with autofocus and stabilizer too: I think if you need this focal, maybe it's better if you don't buy a telescope, right? other important thing is that the Canon 600 has not fixed display that 550 doesn't have...good! the angolation for take pictures sometime is terrible for your neck, the 600 can resolve you many problems, eheh...
I would like to tell you more about my experiences but my not so good language is really limit to me, I'm sorry, my blog is in italian but please write me if you have questions about... :)
See you, bye! Stefano
 
Celestron make a .63x reducer for the C5 ...this should get you 787mm @ f6.3. Doesnt seem to bad to me, as long as you can take a liking to bokeh of mirros.

If atmospherics dictate 1250mm will give you soft /poor photos, fit a .63x reducer
 
Or make a .6X focal reducer like the one I use which cost virtually nothing and works as good as or better than the commonly available (expensive) options.

There's a thread here on how I made mine. Plus there's plenty of photos in the photo gallery such as all the Blue Tit images at the bottom of this page here.

Paul.
 
hi Paul...do you mean that you made by yourself a focal reducer??? ...I'm so curious about it! do you think that it is possible to apply to my Celestron C5? how? do you have pictures of it? :)
I'm using a cheap GSO 0,5x, but I have really strong distorsion, bad quality!...
 
great job Paul,I started to look for lens in ebay, I hope to find them all! if I don't buy celestron foca reducer, I'm really happy. Now that I have a 1250mm focal, sometimes I would like to can take pic of all bird, not just its head! I'll write when I'll have new pics, I hope soon, anyway I'll try to understand if other lens are good for make same focal reducer... :)
thank you again, bye!
Stefano
 
.........Paul, I made focal reduct. using the lens of the finder that I found in the Celestron C5 kit...I'm so lucky!!! the size is perfect for the adapter of the reflex, I just fixed it but I had 1mm of difference!!! I think it's a 0,7x, anyway this is the link where I have posted pics http://hobbydigiscoping.blogspot.com/2011/07/faidate-nel-digiscoping-il-riduttore-di.html
....Paul, thank you, folowing your guide I made it gratis!!!! grazie!!!

Stefano
 
Last edited:
about focal reducer

hi! I tested my focal reducer and I tried to calculate the reduction, it seems to be around 0.60x. Two pics of wonderful moon, I hope you like it B :)

Celestron C5, Canon 550d, 1/40sec, ISO-200
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6093 (Large).jpg
    IMG_6093 (Large).jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 72
  • IMG_6104 (Large).jpg
    IMG_6104 (Large).jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 79
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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