[JGobeil]

Originally Posted by maxxxx

I agree. What's between you and your camera is your business.

But when you try to talk to someone else it's helpful if both parties have a common understanding about what they are talking about. We need a common understanding for "prime focus" and "digiscoping" just as we need a common understanding when we use the terms "mother" and "father". Otherwise dialogue becomes literally non-sense.

You are right in one way Paul. It is nice to know what setup has been used. Just like a normal DSLR photo. Has it been made with a prime lens, a zoom lens, with a teleconverter added, a flash ?

For digiscoping, the generic term IMO, we should specify P&S digiscoping, prime focus digiscoping etc. I would rather say that than "I'm a prime focuser"....

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by JGobeil

You are right in one way Paul. It is nice to know what setup has been used. Just like a normal DSLR photo. Has it been made with a prime lens, a zoom lens, with a teleconverter added, a flash ?

For digiscoping, the generic term IMO, we should specify P&S digiscoping, prime focus digiscoping etc. I would rather say that than "I'm a prime focuser"....

Hi JGobei,
Would you also rather say, "I'm a prime focuser using my $800 'Graphite Tripod Elite Model #AAA+' tripod?" I'm not really sure that people need to know that one is/isn't a 'prime focuser.' A surgeon doesn't say, "I'm a scapel surgeon,"...or, "I'm a laserscopic surgeon."

I think that some of the information for the type of equipment a digi-photographer uses can be obtained in the exif, or perhaps placed on a business card, or an ad in the Yellow Pages of the phonebook.

Prior to digital photography, photographers weren't going around calling themselves 'prime focusers.' Is it really necessary now for one to start wearing a label that identifies one as a 'prime focuser'?

I fail to see the need for this specific a label or term for the type of equipment one is using to get the same end result as others...a picture. Best Wishes.

edit: that info isn't in the exif.

Respectfully,
Ron Davidson

[Ant]

Let me keep this simple.
Remember, this is only my oppinion.

Digiscoping: Using a digital camera, wether its a P&S, cameraphone, or DSLR with a scope to take high magnification digital photographs.
The DSLR when used to digiscope can use a normal SLR lens or a T2 mount fitted to an adaptor that replaces the scopes eyepiece or any other combination.

Digi<insert optical device here> eg digibinning discribes the optical device the photos are taken through.

Digiscoping is not using a DSLR and somthing like the canon 500mm f4 lens.

[iporali]

The term "digi-scoping" was coined by birdwatchers who didn't know (or care) almost anything about optical terms or their definitions. They started using this term and made it popular unaware that "their" technique had been used for ages by astronomers who had called it "afocal imaging/coupling". I find it highly unnecessary to try to define an inaccurate generic term in retrospect - like trying to define a "point-and-shoot-camera". Televue's "definition" shows that the astronomers and opticians just can't fight with the ignorance of us birdwatchers - and that is why they classified the most common form of digiscoping into afocal coupling. It is by no means a "formal" definition.

What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

Best regards,

Ilkka

[dantheman]

Originally Posted by iporali

What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

As long as we agree binoculars count as some kind of 'scope' then (Or at least each half does . . . duoscope anyone??!!)

'Pedants of the world unite'??

Hmmmm, actually it doesn't really matter that much . .

[iporali]

Originally Posted by dantheman

As long as we agree binoculars count as some kind of 'scope' then (Or at least each half does . . . duoscope anyone??!!)

'Pedants of the world unite'??

Hmmmm, actually it doesn't really matter that much . .

Not that it means anything to me either, but:

From Wikipedia
"Binocular telescopes, or binoculars, (also known as field glasses) are two identical or mirror-symmetrical telescopes mounted side-by-side..."

Now, where can I send membership applications for the 'United Pedants'?

Ilkka

[JGobeil]

Originally Posted by iporali

The term "digi-scoping" was coined by birdwatchers who didn't know (or care) almost anything about optical terms or their definitions. They started using this term and made it popular unaware that "their" technique had been used for ages by astronomers who had called it "afocal imaging/coupling". I find it highly unnecessary to try to define an inaccurate generic term in retrospect - like trying to define a "point-and-shoot-camera". Televue's "definition" shows that the astronomers and opticians just can't fight with the ignorance of us birdwatchers - and that is why they classified the most common form of digiscoping into afocal coupling. It is by no means a "formal" definition.

What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.

Best regards,

Ilkka

You write very well Ikka, and very wisely. I agree on all counts.

[Henry B]

Somehow I still think it,s going to remain "digi-scoping".

[chuckh]

Thanks for injecting some sanity into this forum.
I'm looking to buy a spotting scope to use with my canon s5.
Can I get something for around $500 total (incl. adapters etc.)?
If so, what do you recommend?