Handheld digiscoping? (1 Viewer)

Jared · Feb 19, 2013

Hi there

I'm just about to take delivery on my first scope and was wondering if it possible to get decent record shots by simply holding a compact against the eyepiece without using any kind of bracket (the scope will obviously be on a tripod!)

I'm not expecting any great results, just something I can use to identify something I don't recognise immediately in the field (I'm fairly new to birdwatching so this is a fair few birds!

)

If it is possible, what sort of compacts would suit. I've been looking at the Sony RX100 for a while, but am wondering if the high resolution will make things a bit more blurry?

Thanks in advance for any help :t:

lmans66 · Feb 19, 2013

Yeah you can do that and in fact that is how digiscoping got its beginnings...so try it.

As to what camera works best....depends on the scope and the lens. So just try a few as all will have issues in regards to that technique but all doable too.... best of luck and have fun, jim

Smithhill · Feb 19, 2013

Jared
No,No, not the RX-100, it has a large sensor. Small sensors,such as the LX-3 can have speeds as much as 100 times faster than a large full frame camera. That is because in digiscoping a fixed amount of light goes to the sensor, so, the smaller it is the brighter. Gene

This is from the little 120 gram FH-1. Do you need a better image? Click on the image to make it larger.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7778422664_71b4cede51_b.jpg

Jared · Feb 20, 2013

Thanks for the advice guys :t:

I hadn't thought about the sensor size but that makes perfect sense.

How about something like Panasonic LX - 7??

davpen · Feb 20, 2013

Smithhill said:
Jared
No,No, not the RX-100, it has a large sensor. Small sensors,such as the LX-3 can have speeds as much as 100 times faster than a large full frame camera. That is because in digiscoping a fixed amount of light goes to the sensor, so, the smaller it is the brighter. Gene

This is from the little 120 gram FH-1. Do you need a better image? Click on the image to make it larger.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7778422664_71b4cede51_b.jpg

Gene/Francis, the Sony RX100's sensor is only 1", ie the same as the Nikon V1. Both cameras are being used for digiscoping with great success. In your post you inadvertantly give the impression that the LX3 (sensor size 1/1.63") might give as much at 100 times faster shutter speeds than the RX100 but this is nonsense. Perhaps you're thinking of the RX-1?

I do take your point about the benefits of smaller sensors though. For my kind of digiscoping (distant birds, often in poor light) I wouldn't want to go over 1".

Jared, hope this hasn't derailed your thread. Not sure about the LX7. I know the LX3 and 5 have been used successfully by some, but others have found their lenses to be not particularly digiscope-friendly.

David

RayMurray · Feb 20, 2013

Jared
My experience is that to reduce vignetting (the photo appearing in a circle within a black rectangle) - there needs to be some correspondence between the physical size of the camera lens and the scope eyepiece.
I use the 30-60 zoom eyepiece on my Swaro, which which is around 20mm diameter - with this you need to use a camera where the lens housing that projects out of the camera body when switched on - is roughly comparable. I use a Panasonic Lumix TZ6 that fits the rubber part of the eyepice like a glove.

There are a bunch of other compacts that have much smaller diameter lens housings - c 10-12mm across. These can't be used with my scope eyepiece as
a- there would be too much vignetting
b - the metal/plastic of the lens housing of the camera would end up scratching the eyepiece lens
c - hand-holding within the frame would be difficult

However there are eyepieces that are much smaller in diameter that would probably be OK - so fit the camera to the eyeopiece.
[this is where the demmise of Jessops is a bit of a bugger! - harder to try it out]

If you are like me and are looking for 'record' shots and not necessarily the pin-perfect image - that will be fine. I can't be bothered with complex gizmos to secure the camera to the scope eyepiece. I like to just lift out the camera from my pocket and grab a number of images.
Vis a vis exposures - I generally just use the 'green' icon on the camera that is auto exposure - or the fastest exposure I can get away with.

About a third of the pics are junk, a third OK, if there is nothing else, and the last third fine and good enough to show as slides in a Power Point etc at Club meets etc.

I think of myself as a birder that takes pics rather than a photographer that goes birding. My priority is to carry my scope to see birds, and you can get an image so easily of anything you see on the scope (bar flight) in a second or so that why bother lugging around an SLR with a big lens!

Ray

Paul Hackett · Feb 21, 2013

davpen said:
Gene/Francis, the Sony RX100's sensor is only 1", ie the same as the Nikon V1. Both cameras are being used for digiscoping with great success. In your post you inadvertantly give the impression that the LX3 (sensor size 1/1.63") might give as much at 100 times faster shutter speeds than the RX100 but this is nonsense. Perhaps you're thinking of the RX-1?

I do take your point about the benefits of smaller sensors though. For my kind of digiscoping (distant birds, often in poor light) I wouldn't want to go over 1".

Jared, hope this hasn't derailed your thread. Not sure about the LX7. I know the LX3 and 5 have been used successfully by some, but others have found their lenses to be not particularly digiscope-friendly.

David

Totally agree Dave

With Gene you have to let the pictures do the talking and make your own mind up

Sony RX100, Kowa 884, New 25 - 60 Kowa Zoom eyepiece, Digisco Turbo adapter

Great camera, probably one of the best all rounders out there at the moment, for sensor quality, FPS, burst mode, manual focusing highlighter, Full 1920 HD video, just lacks an EVF for me, but what do i know ? B

Paul

Jason Bugay Reyes · Feb 21, 2013

Paul,

What do you think of the Digisco Turbo adapter ? Hehehe

Smithhill · Feb 21, 2013

I did not mean to imply that the LX-3 was 100 times than the RX-100. I was saying the LX-3 may be 100 times faster than a full frame 1 x 1 1/2 sensor camera. That is if the LX-3 is at zero zoom. Gene

Jim M. · Feb 21, 2013

Smithhill said:
I did not mean to imply that the LX-3 was 100 times than the RX-100. I was saying the LX-3 may be 100 times faster than a full frame 1 x 1 1/2 sensor camera. That is if the LX-3 is at zero zoom. Gene

What do you mean by "faster"? Faster what? Please clarify.

Paul Hackett · Feb 21, 2013

horukuru said:
Paul,

What do you think of the Digisco Turbo adapter ? Hehehe

It is a very well engineered and thought out adapter and is of excellent build and quality, but very expensive

Paul

Paul Hackett · Feb 21, 2013

Jared said:
Hi there

I'm just about to take delivery on my first scope and was wondering if it possible to get decent record shots by simply holding a compact against the eyepiece without using any kind of bracket (the scope will obviously be on a tripod!)

I'm not expecting any great results, just something I can use to identify something I don't recognise immediately in the field (I'm fairly new to birdwatching so this is a fair few birds! )

If it is possible, what sort of compacts would suit. I've been looking at the Sony RX100 for a while, but am wondering if the high resolution will make things a bit more blurry?

Thanks in advance for any help :t:

Please tell us what scope and magnification/type of eyepiece you are getting, so we can help you?

Paul

Tarsiger · Feb 21, 2013

Just piggy-backing on this thread.
Paul or anyone else - with a Swaro ATS HD 65mm in conjunction with the 25-50W eyepiece what would be the best compact camera option?
Thanks in anticipation.
Russ

Foxy · Feb 21, 2013

If I can throw my own exprience into the ring, I am really keen to learn from those who are doing a good job at digiscoping although I would definitely put myself into the same category so well put by RayMurray: a birder that takes pics rather than a photographer that goes birding. I use the (very) old Swarovski ST80 which is still an excellent 'scope with a 20-60 zoom eyepiece and a Canon compact with a small lens that is completele overlapped by the scope eypiece but still has a big black vignette. Not such a problem as I can crop it but there must be a better option. I always hand hold as I prefer to look through my scope and sketch the birds with photographs being a bonus. Hand held has given some excellent results but a lot of dross. Anyone any suggestions as to a better camera? I'm afraid a better scope is out of the question!!

Jared · Feb 21, 2013

Thanks for all the feedback.:t:

Paul, I am using the new ATS65HD with the 25-50w ep, so not expecting stellar results due to the small objective...I have a DSLR for the kind of thing.

Really I'm in the same boat as Foxy as I like to try and takes notes/draw the bird before I do anything, so really just wanted something in my pocket as a back up....and that I can use outside of birding when I dont want to cart a DSLR around. I really want something that is proper pocketable.

Tarsiger - great scope

Smithhill · Feb 21, 2013

J. Moore
Both the LX-3 and FH-1 would have a shutter speed of about 4.3 times faster than the RX-100 under the same digiscoping conditions. I stress this because the major problem with hand holding will be movement. Gene

Paul Hackett · Feb 21, 2013

Jared said:
Thanks for all the feedback.:t:

Paul, I am using the new ATS65HD with the 25-50w ep, so not expecting stellar results due to the small objective...I have a DSLR for the kind of thing.

Really I'm in the same boat as Foxy as I like to try and takes notes/draw the bird before I do anything, so really just wanted something in my pocket as a back up....and that I can use outside of birding when I dont want to cart a DSLR around. I really want something that is proper pocketable.

Tarsiger - great scope

OK its a good scope and eyepiece, no real problems there, handheld will be fine in bright conditions but UK weather (!) will give you lower shutter speeds, which could lead to blurrred pics

So you may have to learn a few basic settings (if your camera of choice has any) to try and get a picture either on timer or a higher ISO setting no matter what camera you decide to go with, maybe a home made adapter that is minimalist maybe your answer? Youtube has a few of those, any 3X - 4x magnification compact camera will do,

One tip is to get yourself to a local PC World or similar where there are lots of compact cameras, do your homework on line to see if they have any suitable models of the magnification you want.

Take scope and tripod to the store, on your eyepiece, twist/pull the eyepiece cover up to the maximum so it creates a recess where you can try and see if the compact camera when the zoom is extended SITS inside that recess? (NB be careful with the camera you dont scratch the eyepiece ) point to a bright light or light walls inside the store to show the vignetting, others on here may have camera's that fit their swaro eyepiece handheld, so may be able to advise?

This is purely if you want to do handheld shots, oh, and take lots of shots if you do go down this route, handheld normally means your hit rate will be lower than that with a fixed adapter in my experience, unless you have a really steady hand !

Regards

Paul

Jim M. · Feb 21, 2013

Smithhill said:
J. Moore
Both the LX-3 and FH-1 would have a shutter speed of about 4.3 times faster than the RX-100 under the same digiscoping conditions. I stress this because the major problem with hand holding will be movement. Gene

Thanks. However, I still don't fully understand the theory or the basis of the calculations. Can anyone provide a reference or link explaining the theory that smaller sensors make better use of light in digiscoping--even when larger sensors perform better in low light in ordinary photography? Also, assuming this theory is correct, might adjusting settings, e.g. selecting a smaller picture size on a larger sensor camera, eliminate the supposed advantage?

I'm asking because like OP, have been looking for a compact camera with good image quality for occasional digiscoping and other uses, and the RX-100 strikes me as the best option out there for my needs.

Jim

rabu · Jan 12, 2014

Jim M. said:
Can anyone provide a reference or link explaining the theory that smaller sensors make better use of light in digiscoping--even when larger sensors perform better in low light in ordinary photography?

I assume:
The occular pupil of the scope have a given (relative small) size. Big sensors need big lenses because the sensor need / can collect more light.
But the small ocular pupil does not give such huge amount light which the big lens can collect and so the ISO or time must go up.
I assume the size of the occular pupil must match the size of the lens pupil.
Right?

looksharp65 · Jan 12, 2014

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2906089&postcount=13

This shot was handheld and the focal length equivalent would be about 2500 mm before cropping. And it's a Lumix TZ40 P&S camera.

//L

Handheld digiscoping? (1 Viewer)

Member

Out Birding....

Smith20

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Smith20

Member since 2007

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Smith20

Well-known member

Member since 2007

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread