[Ashley beolens]

I am thinking about changing my camera, I currently have a Minolta (bought on the cheap from my brother in law who works for them) Diamage somethong 3.3 mega pixles, which in itself is a great camera, but unfortunatly has an external zoom, which makes digi scoping hard, some pics are good but most are ok at best. What I am after is some advise on what other cameras are available that work well for digi-scoping, preferable not too expensive. I know of the obvious, coolpix 4500, but that is a bit out of my price range at present.

Cheers in advance for the help.

Ashley

Good thread. I would like to see a table listing the best cameras from the digiscoping point of view, regardless of price. Has anyone evaluated anything other than the 4500? It's an interesting question.

[T0ny]

Have a look at www.dpreview.com - I am currently looking at the reviews of the 4500. None so far on digiscoping, but that may be elsewhere on the site & I've not yet found it.

Tony

Thanks very much indeed for that Tony - I'm just printing it out. very useful.

Peter

[Andy Bright]

Digiscoping isn't likely to feature in camera reviews on the big digicam sites like Steves Digicams or DPreview..... the forums on these sites are a better place to look.

I know we are always banging on about the Nikon range for digiscoping, but it really is the case that digiscoping with almost all other digicams will inevitably lead to frustration and disappointment.
Vignetting issues due to the lens size/position aside, there is the problem of putting a digiscoping adapter in front of your camera's lens... you'll need a filter thread that doesn't rotate when you zoom/focus the camera. Some digicams have shroud type adapters available that give a fixed thread just beyond the maximum reach of the camera and allow a digiscoping adapter to to be used (I'm thinking Olympus 3030,4040,5050).

An often forgotten benefit of the Nikon cp950/990/995/4500 is the swivel lens.... allowing you to tilt the monitor up or down to get a perfewct view.... some other camera have a tilting monitor, but these rarely have much travel.

Don't forget secondhand....from a camera shop they'll have a limited guarantee, and camera shops just love secondhand!

Marysan has just got her hands on the Nikon cp4300 and has already used it on someones scope to get a really nice G-B Heron pic. This camera could be an option for those on a budget.... moving lens but a Nikon accessory/filter adapter is available to stick a digimount or L.C.E adapter onto it.

Regards,
Andy

[T0ny]

Thanks for that, Andy - I'm still amazed at some of the users' reviews and the ideas they have for what the camera should be capable of. The ?guy complaining he had to read the manual is the best one so far ...

Tony

[Ashley beolens]

Thanks for that, I'll have a look at the sites mentioned.

[Andy Bright]

Yeah, there are some very odd people inhabiting DPreview.... especially in the forums on there.
StevesDigicams is my preferred place, some good info on the forums there.
You'll find these sites are dominated by Americans who are interested in using dirty great astro scopes for digiscoping... you try lugging one of those up Blakeney point on a windy day!
Andy

[Ashley beolens]

I have looked at Marysans pic and it is great but I recall in a different thread Andy mentioning that a coolpix 775 or 885 was not thought to be up to the job as well as others but they look very similar cameras?

Is there a chance all the digiscope users that read this can post what camera you use so I can get an idea

[T0ny]

Originally posted by Andybrightuk
You'll find these sites are dominated by Americans who are interested in using dirty great astro scopes for digiscoping... you try lugging one of those up Blakeney point on a windy day!
Andy

I thought that astro scopes had a correction lens omitted, to allow more light in, thus giving an upside-down-image, or am I thinking pre-computer and -coating days ?

Tony

[Andy Bright]

Yes, my thoughts were that if the 885 is fine.... why not the 775? both have a 3x optical zoom. I'm sure the 775 would produce reasonable results held up to a scope, the Nikon UR-E? accessory lens fits on to it (Marysan used her old 775 with a tc2 teleconverter on it).
Yet I know for a fact that digiscoping adapters don't work with it, Trev Codlin (L.C.E. Winchester) said it was no good ages ago and someone on here said it definitely didn't work with a conventional adapter.
It must be a very popular camera... everyone on here seems to have one!
Very strange.

Cameras said to be able to digiscope (people are using them), though some vignetting is likely and use of standard adapter may not be possible, are;

Canon G1
Canon G2 (vignetting is very bad!)
Canon A20
Canon A40
Kodak DC4800
Olympus 3000z
Olympus 3030z
Olympus 4040z
Olympus 490z
Sony S70
Nikon cp5000
Nikon cp950
Nikon cp800
Nikon cp880
Nikon cp885
Nikon cp950
Nikon cp990
Nikon cp995
Nikon cp4500
Plus some of the older Fuji camera (1700 and similar, not the big ones like 6900)
Leica Digilux 1

Andy

[Andy Bright]

Tony: I think some use image erctors to turn the image around again, though that may compromise the image? A number of the cheaper astro scopes give a standard view... Celestrons and some Meades. They're not exactly weatherproof either... not exactly what you want in good ol' Blighty
Andy

[Ashley beolens]

That is just what I need Andy thanks

But sorry to be a pain in the um.... you know what.. which of the ones mentioned can use a standard adapter?

[Andy Bright]

Hi Ashley.
Not sure on all of them. All the cameras except the Nikons cp800,950,990,995,4500 have a moving lens....The Canon make an add-on lens adapter (gives a fixed thread in front of lens) for the G1 and G2, Olympus make a similar device for the 3030 and 4040.... not sure about the rest.
Fuji made a digiscoping adapter for some of their cameras.

Maybe an idea to contact www.eagleeyeuk.com for advice or Trevor Codlin at L.C.E. Winchester as he knows what works and what doesn't for digiscoping..... he's a digiscoper with a camera shop/birding optics shop so he should know!!

I know January isn't a good time to be forking out ££, I know my credit card is pretty hot after xmas!
Andy.

[Ashley beolens]

Sounds like i'm gonna have to start saving my pennies!

Which of the Coolpix 995 (second hand) or 4500 would you recomend Andy? I have read the reviews on digiscoping forums/websites and your own review in Bird watch, but no one seems to give a conclusive argument for either. I would assume that as the 4500 has a quicker focus lock that would be the better choice for Birds but I would like someone who has used both to give me a real answer!!!

[Andy Bright]

Don't forget the Nikon cp990..... I, and most of the 'old crowd' of digiscopers rate it slightly higher than the cp995 for picture quality.... it only has a 3x optical zoom (4x on cp995/4500) but this could be the reason why the results look marginally better. Build quality is far better than the cp995 and it uses AA batteries (buy them anywhere and the latest Nimh rechargeable AA's last a lot longer than the Nikon Li-Ion batts)

I use the cp4500....but wouldn't sell my cp990 for anything (well, not quite).

995 vs 4500 isn't an easy one to answer.... if you can get a cp995 for a good price, you won't go wrong. The cp4500 is all metal, rugged, smaller and slightly lighter in weight than the cp995.... monitor is smaller on the cp4500 but of a higher quality (if you have poorish eyesight, the cp990/995 may be better).

I don't think many people will notice much difference in picture quality between all three of the major digiscoping cameras.... no difference if your main interest is for web/monitor pics rather than big prints.
THe cp4500 is a 4mp camera vs the 3mp of the cp995..... but unless you're making large prints (like myself), you're never likely to notice the missing 1mp (though it does allow you to crop to enlarge the subject more, while retaining enough pixels for a good print).
So to sum up.... get the most affordable of the three cameras if your budget is tight, they'll all perform.
Andy B

[digi-birder]

Hi all,

I started out with the CP 775, and quickly upgraded it to the 995 within a couple of weeks. Warehouse Express were good enough to let me return it and pay the difference.

I did get some pics with the 775 - will post them when I've got a minute (and the Gallery is back up). I had the Nikon URE3 (I think) adapter to give the camera a screw thread to fit a digiscoping adapter onto, but ended up using a piece of plastic plumbing joint.

The photos were awful, but then so were the first ones taken on the 995. Maybe if I had persisted, they would have been OK with a bit of practice. I know of someone who uses the 775 with a home-made adapter from a pill bottle or something, and he gets reasonable results.

I certainly prefer the 995 to the 775, and I think it's discontinued now anyway. I have a friend who has the 4500 and he gets some excellent shots with that. I'm quite miffed really, as he has the same scope, tripod, etc, as I do and he has been getting sharp pis from day one.

My problem, which I've mentioned before, and it has been mentioned by other people on other forums, is that I think that my 995 focus is off. I may try and get it returned to Nikon soon for testing. I've heard tell that focus has improved on return from the service department. I don't think all 995s are affected as most people using them are getting cracking photos. Trust me to get a duff one! Bad workman always blames his tools, and all that.

[Andy Bright]

Focus is always a hot topic for digiscopers, the problem is that there are so many different ways of using the focus modes on the camera.

Another factor is that some focus the scope onto the subject with the naked-eye and then connect the camera to takle the shot, others focus the scope with the camera already attached via the monitor.
I find that the latter method works best for me, especially with the camera in 'macro' mode. Always remember to switch off the continuous focus of the camera.... make sure it only attempts to focus when you half-press the shutter button (this seems to be the default setting on the cp4500), otherwise you can be all over the place! If you use the former method... manual focus (on the camera) set to infinity can provide good results.

A common problem is that the camera is always desperate to focus on the nearest object in the view, even when you use the AF zone focusing in manual mode (where you select the focus area).

Remember that the camera rarely sees things as you do.... the scope may look focused onto the subject with your naked-eye but the camera may have other ideas! That's why I focus via the monitor.

And if anyone tells you that they get perfect shots everytime with digiscoping.... they're telling 'porkies'. I'm happy with 1 good shot out of 15, thank goodness for big memory cards and continuous shooting mode.
Regards,
Andy B

[digi-birder]

Well, I've tried every which way, Andy.

Macro, landscape, manual focus on infinity. Continuous focus is off, I use the manual AF mode and set the red bracket on the subject. Even with this setup, I've had a perfectly sharp cliff edge and a very blurry Kittiwake.

I've tried every recommended setting known to digiscopers worldwide, and I've had off-forum (Yahoo) email suggestions from 'experts' and gone through hours of tests on inanimate objects. But I do think that I am getting better now. As you say, 1 shot out of 15 is good. maybe I wasn't taking enough shots in the beginning and all the ones I did take were not worth keeping. Now I do take plenty.

I won't go on - I've gone through it hundreds of times and was getting so frustrated at people apparently getting it right every time, and beginners having perfect focus, and people hand-holding in a force 10! I exaggerate slightly, but you know what I mean.

I will keep practicing (and maybe send the camera for checking!).

[digi-birder]

Just as an add-on little question - I can't find the instructions for attaching photos to messages, in the event of the Gallery being unavailable, which it is at the moment. I've checked the FAQs etc. I'm obviously not looking in the right place, if it is there somewhere.

[Andy Bright]

You use the 'attach file' and browse to your image on your p.c. It's situated just below the 'options' part when you type a reply.
Hope that helps,
Andy

[IanF]

Originally posted by digi-birder
Just as an add-on little question - I can't find the instructions for attaching photos to messages, in the event of the Gallery being unavailable, which it is at the moment. I've checked the FAQs etc. I'm obviously not looking in the right place, if it is there somewhere.

What Andy says is the way to do it for new threads, but if you want to attach a photo to a reply in a Forum, you must hit the 'Post Reply' button in order to access all of the reply features, rather than use the 'quick reply' box below the threads.

[Andy Bright]

Ooops, forgot about the 'quick reply' window. Thanks for pointing that out, Ian
Andy

[digi-birder]

Cheers guys. Never noticed that little button there.

Here's the promised photo taken with Coolpix 775. As you can see, it's rather - well, rubbish!

[IanF]

Originally posted by digi-birder
.........
Here's the promised photo taken with Coolpix 775. As you can see, it's rather - well, rubbish!

I wouldn't go as far to describe it as rubbish. Look how sharp the seed in the feeder is. The depth of field is very narrow at such long zoom ranges and the focus has picked up the feeder rather than the Goldfinch, but the colour saturation is good, if a little too much. Did you have it on autofocus or manual, as if manually focussed you could prefocus a few inches in front of the feeder and it would have been a stunning shot, though lighting is perhaps a little strong.
]I've been reading up on digiscoping issues as I've just bought a Kowa 823 which I hope to use with a 990. One of the main issues seems to be getting focus to lock on the subject that you want rather than what the camera autofocus picks up. I think Andy quoted taking fifteen shots to get one decent one - you weren't far off there - just a couple of inches !