• 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.

Extreme Digiscoping (2 Viewers)

I agree with Jules that 100 meters is a good rule of thumb for serious digiscoping. But I like to include extreme close-ups, very small birds at closer distances or difficult to photograph subjects eg hummingbirds in flight.
I'm not looking forward to our winter light here in Hong Kong which is grey,gloomy,hazy.
Neil.
 
...
But I like to include extreme close-ups
...
Neil.

Talking about close-ups...

Attached are some close ups of digiscoped insects. (Reposted for convenience, already uploaded in thread elsewhere so you may have seen them already.)

The mating Red-Eyed Damselflies are at virtually point blank, ~6 meters. Relatively easy subject since they are still.

The Downy Emerald is at ~10-11 meters, more difficult subject to capture since always on the move.

Demonstrating the setup is useful for subjects as small as 5cm.

With even longer extension tubes the 600mm scope could theroretically be used for even more close-ups to photograph smaller insects at long range but I don't want to exercise to much torque/stress on the focuser and the DOF at F/7.5 is quite narrow.
 

Attachments

  • Red%20Eyed%20Damselfly%20(Erythromma%20najas)_2.jpg
    Red%20Eyed%20Damselfly%20(Erythromma%20najas)_2.jpg
    245.6 KB · Views: 284
  • Downy%20Emerald%20(Cordulia%20aenea).jpg
    Downy%20Emerald%20(Cordulia%20aenea).jpg
    224.1 KB · Views: 269
Very nice pictures Tord. How do you focus on a flying damselfly, manually or automatically? They don't follow a straight line of flight, so it seems extremely difficult to me.
 
Very nice pictures Tord. How do you focus on a flying damselfly, manually or automatically? They don't follow a straight line of flight, so it seems extremely difficult to me.
Thanks Jan,

I focus manually.

You need to pan and re-focus continuously, with the long focal length and narrow depth of field it takes some luck. With a clear background such as water it's easier.
 
Calvin, the song sparrow has much detail, especially given this very large distance. I also like the 230 meter kite with the mouse.
Thank you!

To be honest, I just use settings for my camera I found online (Coolpix 4500). I wish I could say I had a firm handle on ISO, f-stops, etc. like most of you do, but it always makes my head implode. I'm rather thankful the 4500 was such a popular digiscoping camera and was "all figured out" before I got started.

I do alot of "shotgun" photography: I have the camera set so if I hold the remote release down I can catch 4-5 shots as fast as the camera can manage before the buffer fills and I have to wait an eternity for them to save. I average 150 shots during my 1.5-2.0 hour Saturday morning outings, and on a good day I get 1-5 "decent" shots. Shots like the sparrow are 1-per-2000 shots or worse.

So if I even THINK the subject is going to move, I push, hold, and pray. That song sparrow was as much luck as "skill." I think the only real skill involved is manually focusing the C90 (quickly!) and trying to second-guess the behavior of my subject to capture a shot (to maximize focusing time). That sparrow is my best photo to date...luck, skill, or otherwise.

Yeah, the kite shot isn't world-class quality, but catching him with prey was pretty cool. I tried to take shots of him actually eating it, but they were too blurry. Was interesting, in a gruesome sort of way, to just watch.

Thanks again, you're too kind!
 
This morning I tried to digiscope a pigeon at about 75 meters distance. When I looked through my viewfinder I could clearly see the heat vibrations going up from the roof of the building. The attached photo also shows (the effect of) the heat vibrations, especially in the background. And also the sharpness of the image is affected. I posted this image in the gallery this morning, but I thought it would be usefull to post it here as well, because of the above discussion.
 

Attachments

  • 4_aug_small.jpg
    4_aug_small.jpg
    195.6 KB · Views: 339
Depending on the type of scope you have, those "heat waves" may just be a side-effect of the scope.

I get "circular blur" or maybe more accurately "circular highlights" on some of my photos and some reading online lead me to believe that it was a side-effect of using a Maksutov based lens system (which my C90 scope uses). Something to do with the secondary spot mirror's affect combined with the extremely short depth of field (don't recall the technical specifics).

I've attached a sample of what I mean (not retouched).

The effect seems alot like a really horrid use of a Photoshop filter, but it is generated by the scope. So far I've only seen them when photographing at what is almost too-short range for the scope (< 50m). Longer distances simply blur-out the out-of-field portions completely (for a much nicer effect).

The biggest villain in my photography lately isn't temperature, it's humidity. Or more to the point, "environmental moisture"...very light fog. Not enough to ruin my own vision but shows-up really badly when trying to photograph at long ranges.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN4135.jpg
    DSCN4135.jpg
    135.1 KB · Views: 202
Back out to the Purple Heron chicks with the new Sony RX 100 11.
I was very impressed with the results in the early part of the day before the heat haze.
This was at 200 meters again.
Neil
Sony RX 100 11 and Swarovski STX 95 mm Scope and DCB 11 adapter

Hong Kong,
China.
August 2013
 

Attachments

  • purple heron chick rx102 stx95 DSCN3540_edited-3.jpg
    purple heron chick rx102 stx95 DSCN3540_edited-3.jpg
    332.1 KB · Views: 372
At 200 meters...that's very good. How much is the total magnification you used on this one, or the 35 mm equivalent telelens length?
 
Neil,
I looked into the exif to understand the calculation. According to the exif data a NIKON Coolpix 330 was used for this picture, with a crop factor of 4.6. With that, I also arrive at around 3300 Fl for 35 mm equivalence. The Sony has a crop factor of 2.7. Do I understand something wrong?
 
Neil,
I looked into the exif to understand the calculation. According to the exif data a NIKON Coolpix 330 was used for this picture, with a crop factor of 4.6. With that, I also arrive at around 3300 Fl for 35 mm equivalence. The Sony has a crop factor of 2.7. Do I understand something wrong?[/QUOTE

The lens was at equivalent of 60 mm and the scope eyepiece was around 50x = 3,000 mm. I added another 10% for the slight crop I did on the image.
Neil.
 
I thought I would share the setup I'm using for recording the growth of the Purple Heron chicks.
I have two cameras recording video . The Sony DSC HX 200v at around 800 mm and the Sony DSC HX 9v at 300 mm. I have the Canon G1 X shooting time-lapse. On the scope I have the Sony RX 100M2 and the Nikon Coolpix P330 shooting stills and video.
After a morning session I end up with about 80 - 100 gigs and I go through about 8 batteries.
Neil
 

Attachments

  • digiscoping tower hide MP DSCN3390_edited-1.jpg
    digiscoping tower hide MP DSCN3390_edited-1.jpg
    197.9 KB · Views: 353
  • digiscoping tower hide MP DSCN3393_edited-1.jpg
    digiscoping tower hide MP DSCN3393_edited-1.jpg
    229.5 KB · Views: 237
The lens was at equivalent of 60 mm and the scope eyepiece was around 50x = 3,000 mm. I added another 10% for the slight crop I did on the image.
Neil.

OK, thanks for the clarification Neil.

I thought I would share the setup I'm using for recording the growth of the Purple Heron chicks.
Very nice setup! Is this your private cabin or is a public?
 
I also tried a larger distance this morning, on a Collared Dove: 180 meters. I used my Swarovski ATM 80HD and Panasonic DMC G3 with a 30 mm Sigma lens. Total 35 mm equivalent 3000 mm. Including some cropping I also arrive at around 3300 mm. Not bad, but not nearly as sharp as Neil's purple heron.
 

Attachments

  • 11-aug_small.jpg
    11-aug_small.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 205
The main Scrape has been drained for remedial work for about a week so I was shooting over mudflats. By about 9.30 am you could see the heat waves through the scope. Each photo digiscoped was different so I had to use Manual Focus.
The Eurasian Curlews are at about 70 meters (1800 mm ) and the Redshanks/Sandplovers at about 110 meters and the camera lens at full zoom (100mm) for a magnification of around 3,000 mm.
I couldn't get anything decent with the Nikon P330.
Neil

Sony RX 100 M2 and Swarovski STX 95 (30-70x zoom eyepiece) and DCB 11
Hong Kong,China
August 2013
 

Attachments

  • shorebirds roost Hide6 sony200v DSC02766_edited-1.jpg
    shorebirds roost Hide6 sony200v DSC02766_edited-1.jpg
    199.9 KB · Views: 391
  • eurasian curlews roost rx102 stx95_DSC2803_edited-1.jpg
    eurasian curlews roost rx102 stx95_DSC2803_edited-1.jpg
    423.3 KB · Views: 549
  • redshanks sandplovers roost MP rx102 stx95_DSC3243_edited-1.jpg
    redshanks sandplovers roost MP rx102 stx95_DSC3243_edited-1.jpg
    307 KB · Views: 453
I have done some experimenting and noticed that:
1. At short distance - say up to 25 meters at least - It is better (with my setup, Swarovski ATM 80 HD and Panasonic DMC G3 with 30 mm Sigma lens) to keep the telescope's magnification low, not higher then 30x, for good quality images
2. A cropped 30 x image is at this distance always better then an image made a 50 x scope magnification (and same 30 mm lens) croped to the same size.
3. At around 50 meters distance, there's not much difference any more, though 30 x cropped to the same size as a crop from a 50 x magnifiaction is still a little better.

I don't have a zoom lens, so I don't know if zooming a camera to a larger total magnification will have the same detrimental effects on image quality as the telescope zoom. For instance: a 30 mm lens plus a 50 x telescope zoom gives me a (35 mm equivalent) magnification of 60 x (3000 mm tele), but no good quality. If I would use 30 x magnification on the telescope and let a camera zoom in to 100 mm (35 mm equivalent) - giving also a total magnification of 60x - , would the image better, assuming equal optical quality etc. Has anyone tried this? If so: with which scope and camera?
 
This morning the air was stable and clear after some rain last night. I photographed this starling at 100 meter distance, at 60x magnification. It's uncropped. His head was a little in the shade, but I think it's not a bad picture for such a small bird at this distance.
 

Attachments

  • 13_aug_small.jpg
    13_aug_small.jpg
    196.5 KB · Views: 433
Last edited:
Neil, I am very interested in the Sony RX100 II. I hope you can answer some of my questions. I have a Swarovski ATM 80 HD and a DCB adapter
1. Is it possible to shoot in RAW using 'burst mode'? My Panasonic can only do the smallest JPEG's in super burst mode, the only mode with no mechanical shutter in this camera (mechanical shutter causes vibration when slower then about 1/1000 shutter time)
2. Is it possible to use the highest camera zoom with the DCB adapter?
3. Is the image quality as good or better then the older RX100?
4. If I read your postings well, you also use the Sony Nex-7. How is its image quality when digiscoping as compared to the RX 100 II?
5. Do you know a still better long distance camera then the RX 100 II?

Thanks for your time,

Jan.
 
The main Scrape has been drained for remedial work for about a week so I was shooting over mudflats. By about 9.30 am you could see the heat waves through the scope. Each photo digiscoped was different so I had to use Manual Focus.
The Eurasian Curlews are at about 70 meters (1800 mm ) and the Redshanks/Sandplovers at about 110 meters and the camera lens at full zoom (100mm) for a magnification of around 3,000 mm.
I couldn't get anything decent with the Nikon P330.
Neil

Sony RX 100 M2 and Swarovski STX 95 (30-70x zoom eyepiece) and DCB 11
Hong Kong,China
August 2013

Very impressive Neil, granted the distance and magnification.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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