[Hanno]

Hi folks,

I went through every thread in the digiscoping forum, and am more confused. I use an Optolyth TBS 80 scope with a 30WW lens, which i would like to continue using. My questions:

1. What camera would be best-suited? Coolpix 4500 (assuming I can still buy it somewhere)?

2. And what adapter would I need? Preferably, I would like a set-up that is easy to install and remove, I don't really want to have the camera attached all the time.

Thanks in advance for your help,

Hanno

[glazzers]

Hanno

I have just bought the Canon A80 which I am very pleased with. You can see the set up and my first attempts at the following link. Best of luck.


http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=17539

[IanF]

The CP4500 still seems to be the best suited as with the CP990 - even harder to get hold of! I had hoped a 5 or 6 mp camera would have superceded them by now, but not by the looks of it.

[AndyC]

Amazon are still selling the Nikon 4500....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...745882-6661434

AndyC

[scampo]

The improvement in sharpness from 4 to 6mp is, I am reliably informed via the Yahoo digiscoping forum, significantly less than might be expected, even though the file size rockets. It seems that 4mp is a very good compromise (hardly the right word!).

[abbotalefan]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Amazon are still selling the Nikon 4500....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...745882-6661434

AndyC

...and Pixmania

http://www.pixmania.com/uk/uk/20623/...lpix_4500.html

Abbotalefan

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by abbotalefan

...and Pixmania

http://www.pixmania.com/uk/uk/20623/...lpix_4500.html

Abbotalefan

Is that the price new? If it is then it's seriously cheap - or do you have to add items like the battery to the price? A year ago I saw it for over £500.

AndyC

[scampo]

Ah well - I bought one two months ago and paid the higher price. A very good company to deal with, though!

[bill lord]

Originally Posted by abbotalefan

...and Pixmania

http://www.pixmania.com/uk/uk/20623/...lpix_4500.html

Abbotalefan

and Warehouse Express, £399

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by scampo

The improvement in sharpness from 4 to 6mp is, I am reliably informed via the Yahoo digiscoping forum, significantly less than might be expected, even though the file size rockets. It seems that 4mp is a very good compromise (hardly the right word!).

I moved from a 3MP CP995 to a 5MP CP5000. This represents a mere 25% increase in linear detail. If you are really trying to make nice prints, then a move from 3MP to 5MP might make sense. Right now the Olympus C5060 seems to be the best candidate, but there are too few people using it to really say for sure.

A move up from 4MP would be difficult to justify considering the even smaller increase in the amount of detail resolvable.

4MP to 8MP probably makes good sense, but there isn't a suitable camera yet.

[Hanno]

The Coolpix it is then, I suppose. However, I cannot order over the internet (import takes here in Vietnam are murderous) so I hope that I can pick one up in Thailand this summer.

[scampo]

Originally Posted by Jay Turberville

I moved from a 3MP CP995 to a 5MP CP5000. This represents a mere 25% increase in linear detail. If you are really trying to make nice prints, then a move from 3MP to 5MP might make sense. Right now the Olympus C5060 seems to be the best candidate, but there are too few people using it to really say for sure.

A move up from 4MP would be difficult to justify considering the even smaller increase in the amount of detail resolvable.

4MP to 8MP probably makes good sense, but there isn't a suitable camera yet.

Thanks, Jay - I think it was your similar post I recalled from the Yahoo group.

[abbotalefan]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Is that the price new? If it is then it's seriously cheap - or do you have to add items like the battery to the price? A year ago I saw it for over £500.

AndyC

Yeah, that's the price new. I bought a camera plus 128mb card 'promo pack' a couple of weeks ago for about 330 quid, including next day delivery. I was well pleased!

Abbotalefan

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by Hanno

The Coolpix it is then, I suppose. However, I cannot order over the internet (import takes here in Vietnam are murderous) so I hope that I can pick one up in Thailand this summer.

Well, if you are a bit adventurous, you might consider the 5MP Olympus C5060. As I said, there aren't many people using it, but Ooi Beng Yean and a few others in Maylasia are posting very nice images and report good success. I haven't seen them switch to the CP4500 or back to the CP990 and they are in the company of some very good digiscopers such as Laurence Poh.

I very much like the CP5000, but its wider angle lens requires more care in selecting a matching eyepiece.

[jebir]

Originally Posted by Jay Turberville

Well, if you are a bit adventurous, you might consider the 5MP Olympus C5060. As I said, there aren't many people using it, but Ooi Beng Yean and a few others in Maylasia are posting very nice images and report good success. I haven't seen them switch to the CP4500 or back to the CP990 and they are in the company of some very good digiscopers such as Laurence Poh.

The Olympus C5060 has a very fast AF which is a definite advantage for digiscoping. It has all the bells and whistles that you can dream of and with some practise you can really twek the way you take the your pictures. The objective lens is moving in and out when zooming the camera. I guess, that limits the use to one zoom setting, i.e., the longest focal length (which presumably gives the most protruding lens) in order to not accidentally cause jamming the lens towards the eyepiece?

I use a 5MP Olympus C5050 for which I have use a special eyepiece with very long eyerelief in order to avoid vignetting while digiscoping.

Cheers, Jens.

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by jebir

The objective lens is moving in and out when zooming the camera. I guess, that limits the use to one zoom setting, i.e., the longest focal length (which presumably gives the most protruding lens) in order to not accidentally cause jamming the lens towards the eyepiece?

I use a 5MP Olympus C5050 for which I have use a special eyepiece with very long eyerelief in order to avoid vignetting while digiscoping.

Cheers, Jens.

It really shouldn't. if you use a CLA-7 adapter tube, there would be no risk of the zoome lens hitting the eyepiece. I couldn't find much on this adapter, but I'm assuming that it has some standard thread size on the lens end that would allow it to mate to a digiscoping adapter. My assumption is that the situation is very similar to that with my CP5000 that uses a UR-E6 adapter to made to the eyepiece adapters.

[jebir]

Originally Posted by Jay Turberville

It really shouldn't. if you use a CLA-7 adapter tube, there would be no risk of the zoome lens hitting the eyepiece. I couldn't find much on this adapter, but I'm assuming that it has some standard thread size on the lens end that would allow it to mate to a digiscoping adapter. My assumption is that the situation is very similar to that with my CP5000 that uses a UR-E6 adapter to made to the eyepiece adapters.

The CLA-7 has a proprietary Olympus bayonet that, as far as I know, only fits the Olympus tele- and wide angle converters WCON-07C and TCON-17C made by specifically for that camera. However, I think Soligor and Raynox are making third party lens tubes with standard 52 mm treads. That might be one way to go then.

Cheers, Jens.

[mickporter]

"The improvement in sharpness from 4 to 6mp is, I am reliably informed via the Yahoo digiscoping forum, significantly less than might be expected."

They are lying mate...... There is a huge difference. Just compare the difference between the Nikon and your Fuji 602, and that camera is interpolated upto 6M and not a true 6 megapixel.

I suppose record shots of birds taken by digiscoping probably is not going to show much improvement. The time taken for the camera to save pictures of that size would not be suitable for this hobby. But any more serious photography and it makes a huge difference in the outputted pictures on the printer.

The other factor is that DSLR's or top of the range big megapixel cameras usually also output in RAW format, which means there is no loss in picture quality by compression. No serious photographer would use anything less when doing wedding photographs or portraits etc.......

[scampo]

[quote=mickporter]"The improvement in sharpness from 4 to 6mp is, I am reliably informed via the Yahoo digiscoping forum, significantly less than might be expected."

They are lying mate...... There is a huge difference. Just compare the difference between the Nikon and your Fuji 602, and that camera is interpolated upto 6M and not a true 6 megapixel.

Yes - point taken, Mick. But for digiscoping, I suspect, as you suggest, less of a practical difference.

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by mickporter

"The improvement in sharpness from 4 to 6mp is, I am reliably informed via the Yahoo digiscoping forum, significantly less than might be expected."

They are lying mate...... There is a huge difference. Just compare the difference between the Nikon and your Fuji 602, and that camera is interpolated upto 6M and not a true 6 megapixel.

"Huge difference" and "significantly less than might be suspected" are pretty vague references. So lets be a bit more precise.

A CP995 at 3.1MP has a 2048x1536 pixel image. Moving to a CP4500 (which is actually a bit less than 4MP) adds about 25% more pixels, but increases the linear resolution only about 10% (2048 increases to 2272). So your 8x10 image might be enlarged to 8.8x11 with no noticable decrease in quality. As you go up the scale, a 1MP increase means less and less as a percentage increase in linear resolution.

Most cameras used for digiscoping have smallish sensors that use typical Bayer type CCD sensors. If the sensor type changes in a significant way, then a simple look at the numbers may not be sufficient. The Fuji 602 uses a different sensor design. It gets a bit better performance out of its 3MP sensor. By my eye and the tests done at DPreview.com, its better than the typical 3MP and not quite up to the quality level of a typical 4MP camera.

There are other sensor designs as well. The Foveon is only a 3MP sensor, but it performs almost as well as a 6MP DSLR sensor since it lacks the Bayer mask. And the larger sensors on a 6MP DLSR sensor have lower noise than the smaller sensors on the typical digicam used for digiscoping.

Originally Posted by mickporter

I suppose record shots of birds taken by digiscoping probably is not going to show much improvement. The time taken for the camera to save pictures of that size would not be suitable for this hobby. But any more serious photography and it makes a huge difference in the outputted pictures on the printer.

I regularly shoot at 5MP and can fire off a sequence of 7 images non-stop. I don't see how shooting at 6MP - a mere 20% increase in data - should present much of a problem if the camera is designed to quickly process that size of an image.

Originally Posted by mickporter

The other factor is that DSLR's or top of the range big megapixel cameras usually also output in RAW format, which means there is no loss in picture quality by compression. No serious photographer would use anything less when doing wedding photographs or portraits etc.......

Now the time required to write a RAW file might very well slow down the camera to the point of crippling it for wildlife photography. I think the DLSRs do manage to write RAW files a bit faster.

Anyway folks, what makes a "huge difference" or what is "significantly less than might be expected" is certainly open to different interpretations. I suggest that anyone interested in the topic should take the time and interpret for themselves with their own eyes. Download original unaltered files from DPreview.com or similar sites that keep such examples. Then print them or have them printed and decide for yourself with your eyes. That is precisely what I did when I moved from a 3MP to a 5MP. The difference was not dramatic IMO, but it was noticable to me and I decided that, for me, it was worth the expense. In fact, a friend prefered the 3MP image that I printed - which makes the point that the content of the image has a huge impact on how well it can tolerate being enlarged - even when images have as large a gap as that between 3MP and 5MP.

Of course, this is only speaks to the camera when used normally. Digiscoping brings another set of questions and issues into the discussion. For instance, sensors with greater resolution reach the limit of the scope's magnification sooner.

[scampo]

"...[W]hich makes the point that the content of the image has a huge impact on how well it can tolerate being enlarged."

An oft forgotten point, Jay, I fear. It does seem to me that on the Yahoo forum especially there are a few contributors who seem more interested in technical data than the content of the photo itself. Style over content is the way the world's moving, though, that's a fact.

[mickporter]

Originally Posted by scampo

"...[W]hich makes the point that the content of the image has a huge impact on how well it can tolerate being enlarged."

An oft forgotten point, Jay, I fear. It does seem to me that on the Yahoo forum especially there are a few contributors who seem more interested in technical data than the content of the photo itself. Style over content is the way the world's moving, though, that's a fact.

Which is when you have to ask yourself 'why am I taking these pictures?'

Depends whether your hobby is birdwatching or photography! I suspect that for most people on here it would be birdwatching, with photography and computing thrown in. I love both hobbies and would love to combine the two. When I photograph a bird I would love to see all the feather detail and colours come out. (I have not achieved that yet I hasten to add!!) Most guys will be perfectly happy with a bird sat on an out of focus twig! Thats fine.

I agree with Jay though that focus and detail are very much in the eye of the beholder. What makes a good photograph for me would be quite different from you or him.

I also am a bit of a techno freak. I like things with lots of buttons and features. Not for me these shiney plastic things that do everything for you!! I like proper cameras with lots of settings and gadgets, even if I can't understand what they are all for!!! They will all come in handy one day. Won't they???

I have a friend who really infuriates me, by just carrying everything in an old gas mask case. His telescope is about 50 yrs old, his binoculars came off the ark, and he doesn't even use a tripod. He uses a battered old bean bag. He has just bought a digital camera for around a hundred pounds and takes pictures by pressing it against the eyepiece............. And his pictures are much better than mine. Must be beginners luck. It can't hold out!!!!!!!! He should be barred from the RSPB immediatly for his shoddy equipment!!

[scampo]

We all have a friend like that, Mick - they're a pain bacasue they often look so relaxed to the point of smugness... but who can blame them?

I've been a birder since before I knew it was a 'hobby' as a kid, and took up photography as a young teenager. I've only just begun 'digiscoping', though and just haven't yet been able to find the time for it despite buying the kit!

I'm not sure I agree that sharpness and detail are subjective, though - nor did Jay say that, did he? Certainly, composure and exposure are the keys to a good photograph for me rather than having a zillion pixels to brag about.

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by scampo

I'm not sure I agree that sharpness and detail are subjective, though - nor did Jay say that, did he? Certainly, composure and exposure are the keys to a good photograph for me rather than having a zillion pixels to brag about.

No, I didn't say that. But I do believe that the perception of sharpness is - to some extent at least - subjective. The test image I mentioned demonstrated that to me. They were of the very same subject (a house) but were framed almost identically. But they were taken at different days in the year and at different times of day. The extra resolution offered by the CP5000 was obvious to me, but I figured to get an outside view. My friend, a partner in our 3D graphics studio and a person who often has a more critical eye than me chose the CP995 image as the image that looked better. When I pointed out specific areas where it was clear that the CP5000 image held detail better, he agreed. But nonetheless, when simply viewing the large images (printed as large as I could fit using my Epson 1280 on A3 paper), the lower resolution image had more visual "pop" and seemed the clearer and sharper image.

BTW, you can replicate the test yourself by downloading the pics here. I'm pretty sure I used the house images from the "far field test".

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/C50FARLF.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/C9XFARGF.HTM

And while having a zillion pixels won't make a photo good, I can't imagine how having a bunch could ever make a picture worse. There is an investing concept that I think applies here as well. "Quantity has a quality all its own."
This can be seen to some extent in large format pictures. While I'm not thrilled with the composition I'm very happy with other aspects of my attempt to go a bit nuts on the quantity side of things with this composite image.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woo...ilaWide_SM.jpg (350KB)

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woo...s/GilaWide.jpg (1MB)

So this might make an interesting very large print, but won't be nearly as interesting at 10" wide - which is why I've made the images available at sizes so large that you'll probably have to scroll the image to view it all. And this brings us full circle to Mick's opening point. Its important to ask yourself why it is that you are taking a particular picture. That is a huge help in deciding what kind of approach to take.

[scampo]

""Quantity has a quality all its own."

I like that - sounds very American to me. I have an image of lots and lots of lovely doallars, Jay! But pounds will do for me...