Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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, 5.00 average.
Old Friday 1st August 2014, 23:11   #1
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
4K Videoscoping with Sony FDR-AX100E

Hi,

Here is a quick videoscoping test of my new 4k camcorder Sony FDR-AX100E:



https://vimeo.com/102306498



I dithered about buying this 4K camcorder or Panasonic GH4. Both devices gives excellent HD results. But for 4K, Panasonic needs an extra part which costs c. 2000 USD. So I choose Sony.

Sony FDR-AX100E also gives full HD footage in 10 bit 4:2:2, when you downconvert from 4K to full HD (A complex calculation but that is true) which is the broadcast standart for many TVs. On the other hand, it is harder to use this camcorder for videoscoping then Panasonic high end handycams (i.e. TM900 or X920). For example Panasonic camcorders starts immadietely when you open the LCD screen, but Sony FDR-AX100E waits 1-2 seconds to wake up, which is unacceptable for bird videography.

Another hardness is the large zeiss lens of Sony FDR-AX100E. It is an excellent and very sharp lens. But front lens diameter is larger than many scope eyepieceses and exceeds vignetting limits. Even on my Showtime adapter vignetting goes at 10x zoom while I am using 300mm f5.6 class lens. I belive it needs to use a very large eyepiece such as Kowa TSN-VA3, for good results in videoscoping. Otherwise vignetting is inevitable. Although you can get clear full HD images when you crop 1/4, this camcorder shines when you downconvert from 4K to full HD.

Another important thing is extremely critical focusing while videoscoping. Sharpness is easily gone with a small turn of the front lens. But it has a image magnification button and this helps for precise focusing.

Altough all of these negative issues, I am very very satisfied with my purchase. It is far more better than my old Panasonic TM700. Low light is much better without noise. And the new XAVCS codec is far more effective then AVCHD codec. But please do not forget, 4K means huge amount of data and my 7 years old MacBook Pro is burning while I am editing 4K footage.

I can recommend the Sony FDR-AX100E only for videoscopers who has large eyepieces at lower magnification scopes. Otherwise Panasonic X920 with a normal spotting scope is still a better choice for full HD.

Murat F. Özçelik
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th August 2014, 00:26   #2
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,173
Murat,
Well done on the new purchase.
The Panasonic GH4 will shoot 4k video in the camera at 4.2.0 8 bit but if you want 4.2.2 10 bit then you need the external recorder. With the Sony A7s you need the external recorder to shoot 4k.
I notice a bit of vibration in some of the clips. Did you do any stabilisation in software? It seems that most of the vibration comes at the beginning of clips so I suspect that it may be a result of the manual focusing.
Anyway looking forward to seeing more from this camera.
Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th August 2014, 15:49   #3
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
Hi Neil,

Thank you very much. Panasonic GH4 is a very nice camera. I seriously considered to buy that one. But because of several reasons I decide to buy Sony AX100 instead of Panasonic GH4. First of all GH4 needs for 4K both DMW-YAGH İnterface unit also another HDMI external 4K recorder. This would make my system quite big. That is why I passed Panasonic. Anaother issue is that Panasonic uses some cropped part of the 16 MP CMOS sensor for digital tele. It is loseless but it does not use whole sensor area on digital tele shots. I compared digital tele shots with my old Panasonic TM700 footage. Result is almost equal and very nice. On the other hand Sony AX100 uses the entire 20MP 1 inch sensor area. Then it downconverts to 4K or full HD. The result is extremely, bitingly sharp with reasonable dynamic range. The problem is there are not enough very sharp add on lenses for this camcorder. So you may not notice the real sharpness of this camcorder on web clips. 10 bit 4:2:2 is another issue. I read many pro video forums and most of pro shooters agree that 60Mbps 8 bit 4:2:0 XAVCS 4K footage meets and exceeds the 10 bit 4:2:2 AVCHD Full HD footage. In that case four pixel creates one pixel and crominance and luminance values meets 10 bit 4:2:2 specs. Bit rate is also important. It is generally accepted that mp4 is two times efficient than mp2 format. And AVCHD is also two times more efficient than MP4. According to Sony the new XAVCS format is two times more efficient than AVCHD. So at the same bit rate you can get more detail.

The vibration on my clips is caused by bad editing. Actually I am working on 3000mm-10 000 mm focal lengths. So vibration is unavoidable. But the real problem is my support system. It is weak for such a system. I use manfrotto 190 mini pro tripod and gitzo G2180 fluid head. It is acceptable when I use 300mm and below focal lenght lenses. But when I use 500 mm Hassy it is useless. Recently I bought a cartoni HIDV tripod and head. Although the head is better, I did not like the legs. For me it is necessary to have a very practical and rock steady system since I am stopping while I am driving. That is why I am planning to buy a Sachtler Hotpod single action tripod. Any suggestion is welcome.

Considering your question, I did not use any kind of software stablisation. Because 4K files are huge when you uncompress them. And any aditional action will cause several extra hours rendering time for me. I will use digital stablisation when I change my computer. Untill then I just cut off the stable parts of the footages. On the other hand, any touch to the camcorder, including manual focusing or touching scren, causes huge shaking while I am videoscoping. I just ordered a sirui support bar for reducing such shakings. I will share the pictures and the footages when it comes. Thanks again.

Murat F. Özçelik
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th August 2014, 23:58   #4
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muratfaik View Post
Hi Neil,

Thank you very much. Panasonic GH4 is a very nice camera. I seriously considered to buy that one. But because of several reasons I decide to buy Sony AX100 instead of Panasonic GH4. First of all GH4 needs for 4K both DMW-YAGH İnterface unit also another HDMI external 4K recorder. This would make my system quite big. That is why I passed Panasonic. Anaother issue is that Panasonic uses some cropped part of the 16 MP CMOS sensor for digital tele. It is loseless but it does not use whole sensor area on digital tele shots. I compared digital tele shots with my old Panasonic TM700 footage. Result is almost equal and very nice. On the other hand Sony AX100 uses the entire 20MP 1 inch sensor area. Then it downconverts to 4K or full HD. The result is extremely, bitingly sharp with reasonable dynamic range. The problem is there are not enough very sharp add on lenses for this camcorder. So you may not notice the real sharpness of this camcorder on web clips. 10 bit 4:2:2 is another issue. I read many pro video forums and most of pro shooters agree that 60Mbps 8 bit 4:2:0 XAVCS 4K footage meets and exceeds the 10 bit 4:2:2 AVCHD Full HD footage. In that case four pixel creates one pixel and crominance and luminance values meets 10 bit 4:2:2 specs. Bit rate is also important. It is generally accepted that mp4 is two times efficient than mp2 format. And AVCHD is also two times more efficient than MP4. According to Sony the new XAVCS format is two times more efficient than AVCHD. So at the same bit rate you can get more detail.

The vibration on my clips is caused by bad editing. Actually I am working on 3000mm-10 000 mm focal lengths. So vibration is unavoidable. But the real problem is my support system. It is weak for such a system. I use manfrotto 190 mini pro tripod and gitzo G2180 fluid head. It is acceptable when I use 300mm and below focal lenght lenses. But when I use 500 mm Hassy it is useless. Recently I bought a cartoni HIDV tripod and head. Although the head is better, I did not like the legs. For me it is necessary to have a very practical and rock steady system since I am stopping while I am driving. That is why I am planning to buy a Sachtler Hotpod single action tripod. Any suggestion is welcome.

Considering your question, I did not use any kind of software stablisation. Because 4K files are huge when you uncompress them. And any aditional action will cause several extra hours rendering time for me. I will use digital stablisation when I change my computer. Untill then I just cut off the stable parts of the footages. On the other hand, any touch to the camcorder, including manual focusing or touching scren, causes huge shaking while I am videoscoping. I just ordered a sirui support bar for reducing such shakings. I will share the pictures and the footages when it comes. Thanks again.

Murat F. Özçelik
Murat,
4k certainly needs an upgrade of all the whole system. I upgraded my tripod to a Gitzo Series Two carbon fibre and it made a big difference, but only up to about 2,000 mm. I need a stronger support system for 3,000 mm plus too. I do have a old wooden surveyors tripod which I've converted to take the Manfrotto 501 video head and it is very stable, but I keep it in Sydney ( I live most of the year in Hong Kong) as it's too heavy to carry around on public transport and the long walks at the wetlands here.
I like the look of the Sachtler system too and every time I go to B and H in New York I look at it.
I upgraded my computer to the new 27 inch iMac with 16 gigs of RAM. It's not bad for handling the 4k using FCP X, although I should have got 32 gigs.
I plan to get the Mac Pro next but it will have to wait until the new budget year.
If you like I could process a short clip for you through FCP X. Just send me about 3 seconds to my email at
neilfif11@yahoo.com.au
Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 00:06   #5
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
Neil,

I agree 4K is a whole new world for everyone, including film industry. But the results worth the pain. We will upgrade our systems step by step. Because there is no ideal set up for ultra tele videography. Every part that is used in a set up, should be carefully choosen and discussed with other users. For example the information you mentioned about your old wooden tripod being more stable than most modern tripods, is very valuable. I think wood has a better absorbing ability than aluminium and carbon fibre. I looked at and scrutinised many tripods. But I am still unable to come to a final decision. Currently I have short listed three tripods: Gitzo Ocean series 5, Foba alfae and Sactler HotPod 14. Sactler is the fastest opening one with pneumatic column. But it lacks ground level ability. Gitzo is the most modern but it is four section and opens slower. Foba is a classic aluminium, with excellent craftsmanship features.

Considering computers, I am a mac user since 1989. I slowed down changing my computers in last 8 years. I believe that, the footage quality is effected by digital, optic and support system's quality. Not with computer quality. The only factor that forces me to change the computer, is the software compatibility. For example I can not use FCPX on my mac book pro. So I plan to upgrade next year.

I send you a link to download the original sony file. I am also uploading it to your shared folder. I edited same file in I movie and uploaded it to my vimeo page. If you kindly edit it in final cut pro and upload to vimeo, we can compare the compression quality between IMovie and FCPX. The setting that I export was H264, 25p, 30Mbps.

Here is the link:


https://vimeo.com/102916085
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 01:17   #6
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muratfaik View Post
Neil,

I agree 4K is a whole new world for everyone, including film industry. But the results worth the pain. We will upgrade our systems step by step. Because there is no ideal set up for ultra tele videography. Every part that is used in a set up, should be carefully choosen and discussed with other users. For example the information you mentioned about your old wooden tripod being more stable than most modern tripods, is very valuable. I think wood has a better absorbing ability than aluminium and carbon fibre. I looked at and scrutinised many tripods. But I am still unable to come to a final decision. Currently I have short listed three tripods: Gitzo Ocean series 5, Foba alfae and Sactler HotPod 14. Sactler is the fastest opening one with pneumatic column. But it lacks ground level ability. Gitzo is the most modern but it is four section and opens slower. Foba is a classic aluminium, with excellent craftsmanship features.

Considering computers, I am a mac user since 1989. I slowed down changing my computers in last 8 years. I believe that, the footage quality is effected by digital, optic and support system's quality. Not with computer quality. The only factor that forces me to change the computer, is the software compatibility. For example I can not use FCPX on my mac book pro. So I plan to upgrade next year.

I send you a link to download the original sony file. I am also uploading it to your shared folder. I edited same file in I movie and uploaded it to my vimeo page. If you kindly edit it in final cut pro and upload to vimeo, we can compare the compression quality between IMovie and FCPX. The setting that I export was H264, 25p, 30Mbps.

Here is the link:


https://vimeo.com/102916085
Murat,
I'm downloading the file now. I see that it's upside down due to the box you are using to connect to the lens. This must make it difficult to follow action when you are in very tight. Are you able to back off the zoom a bit as see you don't have any wide shots?
Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 01:42   #7
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
Neil,

The zooming ability is very limited since the lens of the camcorder is big. Vignetting goes at almost full zoom. But since it is a 4K camcorder, you can crop without vignetting as full HD. I don't have much files yet. Especially wide shots. But I can send a few days later. Yes The images are upside down. I wish this Sony had a mirror image mode as big brother i. e. Z100. But for me this is not a big issue. My brain do same thing automatically. I wish my mac would do the same thing. As far as I remember somebody was using a small magnet next to the screen for image mirroring. But it is a dangerous issue for such sensitive electronics.
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 08:11   #8
redeyedvideo
It's like water off a duck's back!
 
redeyedvideo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northampton
Posts: 3,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I upgraded my computer to the new 27 inch iMac with 16 gigs of RAM. It's not bad for handling the 4k using FCP X, although I should have got 32 gigs.
I've been following this thread with interest as I previously recorded video (hence the username) before going back to stills. One of the reasons I gave up was because my iMac couldn't handle HD and also the conversion to web caused interpolation problems.

Neil, you do know that you can upgrade memory I presume? Crucial memory is about half the price of Apple and is just as good so if you do decide to add 32 gig I could be interested in your 16 gig if you want to sell.

I recently upgraded to the 27 inch iMac with an i7 processor and 3TB hard drive in view of returning to video though I have the basic 8GB ram though I upgraded the graphics to NVIDIA GeForce GTX780M with 4GB GDDR5 memory.

I used a Manfrotto 525MVB tripod with 503 video head which I found adequate when used at low level though with the magnification you're using Murat, you'd need one of those tripods they use at sporting events which weigh a tonne and look like they're made of scaffold poles!

Here's a shot of my set up - that's not me using it by the way!

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...6/ppuser/18004
__________________
Dave J
redeyedvideo is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 13:36   #9
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
Hi Dave,

Your setup is very lovely :-) These vervet monkeys were making mad the dogs in the garden when I was in Nairobi.

Considering tripods in videoscoping, I have formulated basically, which may not be true or depend on many factors. But if the quality of the tripods are equal, I can say:

For 2000mm focal length, you need at least 2kg tripod,
For 3000mm focal length, you need at least 3 kg tripod,
For 4000mm focal length you need at least 4 kg tripod,
....,
....,
....,

This may not seem to be logic, it is working. Try it :-)

Years ago (during 80's), I had similar formulation for lenses:

For Nikon, Canon lenses, price per kg of the lens was 1000 USD,
For Leica Lenses, price per kg of the lens was 2000 USD,
For Hasselblad lenses, price per kg of the lens was 4000USD.

Strangely my formula was working almost for every lens (It needs to be adjusted these days).

Murat F. Özçelik
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 17:17   #10
redeyedvideo
It's like water off a duck's back!
 
redeyedvideo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northampton
Posts: 3,163
Thanks Murat.

I would say the quality of the head is of equal importance to the weight of the tripod. I found it almost impossible to pan when using full zoom without the picture showing judder. I usually wait for the bird to walk out of the frame and use careful editing to avoid panning unless the bird is already moving or in flight.
__________________
Dave J
redeyedvideo is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 9th August 2014, 22:07   #11
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
I agree Dave.

The weakest point of the system always determines the image quality. Same or similar problems I have when I am videoscoping. I am also rarely panning when I use high magnification. But one advantage of the ultra tele videography (or videoscoping), is that most of the birds in my footages behave natural. I mean, I took my footages when the birds are resting, preening or singing. I never use a blind or hide. Birds look at me and put a safety distance between herself and me. This distance changes from species to species. But when I preserve this distance, birds are generally relaxed and act as if I am not there. For example a Nikon or Canon 600mm lens and d800 body needs 6-7m distance for fullframing a small passerine. But my setup (hassy 500mm+Showtime adapter+Panasonic TM700 camcorder) needs 20+ meter for full framing a small passerine. This is a big advantage. At that distance the birds feel that they are safe. One disadvantage is my footages are generally static ones. I mean I can not catch a peregrine hunting with videoscoping. But I can catch while the falcon eating the prey.

Murat F. Özçelik
Muratfaik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 2nd December 2014, 14:28   #12
gregbaker
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hartford, UK
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muratfaik View Post
Hi,

Here is a quick videoscoping test of my new 4k camcorder Sony FDR-AX100E:



https://vimeo.com/102306498



I dithered about buying this 4K camcorder or Panasonic GH4. Both devices gives excellent HD results. But for 4K, Panasonic needs an extra part which costs c. 2000 USD. So I choose Sony.

Sony FDR-AX100E also gives full HD footage in 10 bit 4:2:2, when you downconvert from 4K to full HD (A complex calculation but that is true) which is the broadcast standart for many TVs. On the other hand, it is harder to use this camcorder for videoscoping then Panasonic high end handycams (i.e. TM900 or X920). For example Panasonic camcorders starts immadietely when you open the LCD screen, but Sony FDR-AX100E waits 1-2 seconds to wake up, which is unacceptable for bird videography.

Another hardness is the large zeiss lens of Sony FDR-AX100E. It is an excellent and very sharp lens. But front lens diameter is larger than many scope eyepieceses and exceeds vignetting limits. Even on my Showtime adapter vignetting goes at 10x zoom while I am using 300mm f5.6 class lens. I belive it needs to use a very large eyepiece such as Kowa TSN-VA3, for good results in videoscoping. Otherwise vignetting is inevitable. Although you can get clear full HD images when you crop 1/4, this camcorder shines when you downconvert from 4K to full HD.

Another important thing is extremely critical focusing while videoscoping. Sharpness is easily gone with a small turn of the front lens. But it has a image magnification button and this helps for precise focusing.

Altough all of these negative issues, I am very very satisfied with my purchase. It is far more better than my old Panasonic TM700. Low light is much better without noise. And the new XAVCS codec is far more effective then AVCHD codec. But please do not forget, 4K means huge amount of data and my 7 years old MacBook Pro is burning while I am editing 4K footage.

I can recommend the Sony FDR-AX100E only for videoscopers who has large eyepieces at lower magnification scopes. Otherwise Panasonic X920 with a normal spotting scope is still a better choice for full HD.

Murat F. Özçelik
Hi Murat - you say the X920 with a normal spotting scope works OK however for me there is far too much vignetting. What attachments to the scope are you using?

Greg
gregbaker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 2nd December 2014, 23:46   #13
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbaker View Post
Hi Murat - you say the X920 with a normal spotting scope works OK however for me there is far too much vignetting. What attachments to the scope are you using?

Greg
Greg,
Murat is using a specialised videoscoping Showtime adapter with a Hasselblad 500 mm lens. These setups give very high magnifications with minimal/no vignetting with videocams with 10/12x lenses.
There are other ways to do this which are more conventional but require eyepieces with more Eye Relief than normal ( at least 25 mm). The Kowa 25x LER eyepiece does a good job and will fit a Swarovski scope. Kowa also have a VA Series of adapters with lower magnification but much higher Eye Relief ( 60 mm) so you can use more of the videocams zoom range without vignetting.
Kowa also have the Lens/scope system which work with DSLRs/NEX/M4/3rds cameras without lenses - 350/500/850 mm modules.
Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd December 2014, 10:34   #14
gregbaker
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hartford, UK
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Greg,
Murat is using a specialised videoscoping Showtime adapter with a Hasselblad 500 mm lens. These setups give very high magnifications with minimal/no vignetting with videocams with 10/12x lenses.
There are other ways to do this which are more conventional but require eyepieces with more Eye Relief than normal ( at least 25 mm). The Kowa 25x LER eyepiece does a good job and will fit a Swarovski scope. Kowa also have a VA Series of adapters with lower magnification but much higher Eye Relief ( 60 mm) so you can use more of the videocams zoom range without vignetting.
Kowa also have the Lens/scope system which work with DSLRs/NEX/M4/3rds cameras without lenses - 350/500/850 mm modules.
Neil.
Thanks again Neil - you raised some interesting ideas for me so if you don't mind, rather than continue to hijack other topics, I'll raise a new topic in the VideoScoping section of this forum to highlight what I'm trying to achieve and what I think you've told me already.

Greg
gregbaker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd December 2014, 13:18   #15
Muratfaik
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ankara-Turkey
Posts: 122
Hi Greg,

Sorry for the late reply (I was away). But Neil is already answered your question (Thanks Neil). My eyepiece (Showtime adaptor) has 1x magnification. It is basicaly a reverse mounted 50mm (f: 1.4?) lens. Considering the vignetting, with your swarovski scope and Panasonic X920 is another issue.

Your Swarovski scope has actually a 350mm lens and approximately 3.5X-7X magnification prism-eyepiece combo. The eyepieces of the spotting scopes are actually specifically designed reverse mounted wide angle lenses. According to optical rules, the exit pupil is calculated by dividing the front lens diameter of the scope to the magnification of it. On your set up it should be as 80mm/25X=3.2mm! When you zoom the eyepiece of the scope to the 50X it goes to 1.6mm. This means heavy vignetting. And there is no zoomable range without vignetting. Lowering the magnification with another eyepiece, is one of the best/viable solution for avoiding vignetting for you. But the problem is, there are not much high quality low magnification eyepieces on the market.

Showtime adapter and Kowa VA3 are two high quality eyepieces that can be used with camcorders without vignetting. But be ready for upside down images. As far as I know only Canon camcorders has miror image mode. Sony EX3-PMW300 etc. has also this mode, but these are huge camcorders for videoscoping.

If you strictly want to use Pana x920 with Swarovski scope (with its own eyepiece), you have three options:

either you crop the unvignetted area (and be happy with the SD footage),

or you use the digital zoom untill vignetting is gone (actually very little quality loss),

or you should use, another small optical part i.e. TLS APO (which is actually a wide angle lens) which spreads light beam to the camcorder's big lens.

I do not recommend 3'rd option since it will cause optical quality loss. As far as I remember there was somebody using option 2 with remarkable quality footage.

Murat F. Özçelik
Muratfaik 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
Videoscoping with the Sony Nex 6 Neil VideoScoping 2 Saturday 4th January 2014 08:55
Videoscoping with the Sony HDR-SR8 Neil VideoScoping 6 Wednesday 24th September 2008 23:29
Sony SAL-500F80 Telephoto 500mm f/8.0 Reflex Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Rosah Sony 10 Tuesday 22nd April 2008 20:42
Which Sony HDR best for videoscoping? ed keeble VideoScoping 1 Monday 14th April 2008 14:31
videoscoping with Sony HDR-HC3E musti Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 2 Monday 14th May 2007 11:22

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.21050406 seconds with 24 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:46.