Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 1.00 average.
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 11:51   #26
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
 
JGobeil's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxxxx View Post
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"....
__________________
Jules Gobeil
Nature Photographer
http://www.julesgobeil.com
JGobeil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 14:13   #27
Boomer
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGobeil View Post
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

Last edited by Boomer : Sunday 15th June 2008 at 14:24. Reason: edit: that info isn't in the exif.
Boomer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 18:22   #28
Ant
North Wales birder

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,896
Blog Entries: 6
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.
Ant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 21:15   #29
iporali
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,263
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
iporali is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 21:26   #30
dantheman
Sweet ... !!
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 8,994
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by iporali View Post
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 . .
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 21:36   #31
iporali
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
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
iporali is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th June 2008, 21:54   #32
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
 
JGobeil's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by iporali View Post
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.
__________________
Jules Gobeil
Nature Photographer
http://www.julesgobeil.com
JGobeil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th June 2008, 09:20   #33
Henry B
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lhanbryde-Elgin.
Posts: 3,215
Somehow I still think it,s going to remain "digi-scoping".
__________________
henry
Henry B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 18th June 2008, 00:07   #34
chuckh
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
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?
chuckh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Definition of a bird-day ColinD Information Wanted 4 Saturday 26th February 2005 20:40
Definition for "buffy ground color" Sergio Escutia Bird Identification Q&A 4 Monday 20th September 2004 14:27
Chromatic Abberation definition Justin Binoculars 28 Wednesday 25th August 2004 17:19

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.18147206 seconds with 19 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:12.