• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Digiscoping worth it? (1 Viewer)

Arie G

Member
Hello,

I've been photographing birds now for a year, using m43 equipment. Often, when in the field, birds are too far away to capture them well. I've been thinking about buying a scope and trying some digiscoping, I've looked through one once and I was very impressed! However most pictures I see from digiscoping are average at best, I'm afraid image quality will disappoint me, especially when paying €3000 for a decent scope (I've been looking at the Kowa 883 and Swarovski ATX 85). Also the digiscoping setup, especially for the Kowa seems huge and cumbersome, I need to travel alot with it.

Any advice?

Thanks!
 
I used to digiscope with a Coolpix 4500 through a Swarovski 65 edl scope.got some pretty good stuff, my friend , a pro photographer was surprised at the quality of some of my stuff.it could have been better had I been a more competent snapper.i still sometimes digiscope with an Olympus 3000 tough camera. pretty good on dragonflies. however I use a camera on its own mostly now as I find digiscoping a bit frustrating. if you are a bit of a masochist ...go for it!
 
Wouldn't recommend digiscoping as a method for any serious photographer. But it's ok for documentation purposes (video, stills) at long distance and stationary birds.
 
Wouldn't recommend digiscoping as a method for any serious photographer. But it's ok for documentation purposes (video, stills) at long distance and stationary birds.

I second that. Digiscoping is great when you need a scope anyway for observation and perfect images are not your main aim. If photography is your main purpose, you have to get longer lenses (Pana 100-400 or Oly 300) and work on techniques to getting closer.
 
Really nice pictures! I just started to use a m4/3 and the 100-400 lens as well, but I am still far from the results you are getting.

A scope gives you more reach indeed. And if conditions are right, you can get nice images.

But there are important limitations to keep in mind:
- You're basically limited to static subjects. Birds in flight are near impossible, moving birds on the ground are difficult.
- For long distances, most of the time the atmospheric conditions don't allow for really sharp images. The best digiscoping pictures usually show birds in close distance.
- The whole set-up is cumbersome, especially compared to a small and portable kit as yours.
- Not cheap: A decent scope, stable head and tripod and adapters cost you easily 3000-5000 €

If the added reach is worth the investment, you have to decide. I'd say, if you also interested in observation and bird ID, then go for it. In the Netherlands, a scope is pretty much a must for birding.
 
Last edited:
I've come to the conclusion that digiscoping merits consideration if you are in need of a scope for observation (not only for photography) and the best and most affordable photography option is a smartphone with dedicated adapter (e.g. from PhoneSkope).

I have used various cameras and adapters but find them all a hassle to carry and set up, whereas my iPhone can be connected to my scope very quickly and my (low) expectations have been exceeded.

However the fact remains that to get high quality shots you really need to put less distance between yourself and your subject, so perhaps use of a portable hide or focusing on fieldcraft or choosing more approachable subjects should be your priorities.
 
You know quite well what you are doing,and your work is the proof..I think the Swaro ATX system could be a good option considering the modular nature of the scope and the fact that you can pack it in a compact case..the results you are getting are very good,but you will get excellent quality from either of those scopes and your M4/3 set up.
 
It really depends on your aim, but I don't find digiscoping to ever be particularly worthwhile, and I am not keen on carrying a cumbersome digiscoping setup. If you are truly worried about documenting rare birds in the field, a camera is almost a must. If you want some casual shots of distant birds, something like a phone adaptor can suffice. But I really don't see the appeal of a scope + large digiscoping adaptor for a DSLR or mirrorless camera when you could carry a ~$500 superzoom bridge camera and get better results 90% of the time, or carry a 300-400mm or longer lens and your DSLR, and get better results 98% of the time.

The only time I think a digiscoping setup could be nice would be picking through tons of gulls, but again I would just use a cel phone with a phone case or even hand held. On the subject of phone cases, I shelled out for the Phoneskope case for my HTC Android phone and it was essentially useless. Results were not a lot better than handheld, and it required me to remove my phone's current case (pretty painless), snap together a fidgety two piece rigid case around my phone, then afterwards, try to remove the two piece case, which, as it turns out, is actually quite a pain in the butt. In the end I didn't use it much due to the hassle, and the case started to break fairly quickly despite very modest use. So if you do go for a phone case setup, be sure you like the ergonomics! The iphone phoneskope cases that I have seen have been one piece slide in designs which appear to be superior, I was disappointed that the HTC case was not the same.
 
Also to echo others, I think digiscoping at any distance is about 75% reliant on atmospheric conditions and getting the scope very still and the camera centered and still, then about 20% scope quality, and finally 5% camera quality. Honestly, aside from the Swarovski adaptor that mates a scope body (sans eyepiece) directly to a DSLR as a manual focus lens, I haven't seen many good digiscoping results at genuine distance, and I haven't personally seen any reason to use other than a cel phone as there are so many other limiting factors in the chain.
 
Delia and others, apologies if my comments were dismissive of digiscoping - let me say more clearly that that is all just my opinion! However I will say, without reservation, that my HTC specific phoneskope adaptor was terrible :)

Personally, I am awaiting a bit more advancement in the autofocus abilities of the prosumer bridge cameras as I am longing to carry less weight than a DSLR + 100-400 lens.
 
Hi Pbjosh,

Personally, I am awaiting a bit more advancement in the autofocus abilities of the prosumer bridge cameras as I am longing to carry less weight than a DSLR + 100-400 lens.

Hm, have you tried the FZ1000? The autofocus seems to be as good as the one of my old Sony alpha 700 DSLR. Not sure how it compares to a more modern DSLR's, though.

Regards,

Henning
 
Also to echo others, I think digiscoping at any distance is about 75% reliant on atmospheric conditions and getting the scope very still and the camera centered and still, then about 20% scope quality, and finally 5% camera quality. Honestly, aside from the Swarovski adaptor that mates a scope body (sans eyepiece) directly to a DSLR as a manual focus lens, I haven't seen many good digiscoping results at genuine distance, and I haven't personally seen any reason to use other than a cel phone as there are so many other limiting factors in the chain.

Diffraction is worth mentioning also.
For example even with the largest scope (ATX95) the f-stop is as small as f9.5 at 30x...
Diffraction for MFT cameras with small pixels seem to start already at f5.6, so diffraction will be limiting on resolution and sharpness.

"Even at 30x magnification, the combination is flirting with diffraction softening, and extending the magnification further reduces aperture to ranges where we're definitely going to see some diffraction softening."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...rovski-scopes-pinch-hit-for-a-super-tele-lens
 
Last edited:
From my observation, getting a great quality images is depending with your distance to the birds regardless of any equipment. Below is the Black & Yellow Broadbill taken less than 10m away at one of the lodge where I worked. Resized only.

Swarovski STX95 + Nikon V1

DSC_3421 Black & Yellow Broadbill.jpg

Long distance birds capture with the scope sometimes produced a flat contrast image too. If money is not a problem, I will get myself the 600mm or 800mm lens for serious photography. Digiscoping is good when you can only bring one equipment during birding hahaha ;)
 
Hi Pbjosh,

Hm, have you tried the FZ1000? The autofocus seems to be as good as the one of my old Sony alpha 700 DSLR. Not sure how it compares to a more modern DSLR's, though.

Regards,

Henning

I haven't used it but have seen results and have discussed it with an owner. Ditto the Sony RX10iii, and I've played with the Canon SX60. I think the FZ1000 probably leads the pack on autofocus, and the Sony has the best lens. They are both a LONG ways from the autofocus performance of my Canon 7DII. I don't need that good most of the time - I would keep the Canon and my IS lens for seabirds but for carrying in the field, a superzoom bridge is almost there for me. I think one or at most two more product cycles and I'll get one. I really am not looking for the ultimate in image quality, it's mostly ability to document birds, so I'm more worried about low light and autofocus performance than ultimate sharpness and pixel count!
 
I used to digiscope all the time with a variety of cameras with my Swaro scope.

For fairly static birds you can get very good results and 2000mm - 3000mm reach easily achieved with a x3 camera mated to the scope.

However, as others have indicated, the setup is a bit cumbersome and carrying a fairly heavy tripod and scope in the field takes some doing especially if you are also lugging along a DSLR or equivalent setup with a long lens.

With advances in camera technology and long lenses being somewhat more affordable than they used to be, one can get quite decent pictures with for example m43 + 100-400. The equivalent focal length is 800mm and then one can use an in-camera crop-zoom to take it to 1600mm and still have some room to crop further in post processing. But looking at your great pics, I'm sure you have gone through this already.

In 2017, I would probably consider a later version of the Nikon P900 as a better option to Digiscoping for very long zoom, and stick with m43 for any bird in the 1500mm range.

Hello,

I've been photographing birds now for a year, using m43 equipment. Often, when in the field, birds are too far away to capture them well. I've been thinking about buying a scope and trying some digiscoping, I've looked through one once and I was very impressed! However most pictures I see from digiscoping are average at best, I'm afraid image quality will disappoint me, especially when paying €3000 for a decent scope (I've been looking at the Kowa 883 and Swarovski ATX 85). Also the digiscoping setup, especially for the Kowa seems huge and cumbersome, I need to travel alot with it.

Any advice?

Thanks!
 
I'm quite happy with digiscoping with a similar equipment (Olympus micro 4/3 EM-10+ ATX 85 + APO 23mm). I'm not a photographer, neither I would dedicate a day in pay-for hides (not the best scenario for digiscoping, otherwise). I just (quickly) switch between birding and taking photos in public access areas and I think the result is quite good in terms of relationship cost/quality and diversity of species & situations photographed.

I always stay in the lower end of magnification (x25 in my scope), working around 1200 mm equivalent focal length, croping if necessary rather than using more magnification in the scope.

That said, obviously everyone has its own objectives and quality expectations in wildlife photography. Mine were widely overcome. Digiscoping results are good enough to put them on 50 x 70 cm paper format

Some examples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136473006@N08/albums
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top