What are the most important camera features (1 Viewer)

This is my first post on the bird forum. Looking forward to spending a lot of time here. I have been away from birding a long time, but now I am making it a point to get back into it (slowly!). Previously, I familiarized myself thoroughly with the bird life around my native East Texas region. Now, I am beginning to investigate the bird life that Singapore has to offer....

OK enough with the introductions....this isn't the right forum anyway

I have been reading a lot in the last few weeks about birds around SE Asia. During my research, I stumbled across Laurence Poh's (sp?) digiscoping site. I have to say, I was very excited to know that there is a way to photograph birds without making a huge investment. God knows, as a teenager, it was my dream to photograph birds.....Now, I think I will finally get my chance!

The purpose of this post is to try and piece together some of the things I have been reading about digiscoping so that I might make a 'sensible' initial investment with a view towards possibly upgrading (if required) in the future.

I will apologise in advance as this will be a long post....please bear with me

So...here we go:

Camera: From what I can tell the following are very desirable features of a digiscoping camera:

1) Small lense - Needs to mate with a scope in such a way that viginetting (sp?) is not an issue.
2) Fast writing - Needs to be able to write the image to disk as quickly as possible to allow as many shots as possible within a short period of time.
3) Large LCD - Fairly obvious...better to frame the subject
4) Good battery life - Dont want a camera that needs battery replacement every 20 shots or so
5) 'Flexible' LCD - An LCD that can be rotated / tilted to facilitate easy viewing no matter where scope happens to be pointed
6) Scope support - Must be able to support a connection to an external lense ie scope...Dont think this is an issue with all the custom adaptors, but I am not sure
7) MegaPixels - 4 Seems to be acceptable, but 5 would probably be almost perfect
8) Manual features - The camera features should allow it the flexibility to be set at optimum 'levels'....Honestly, I will have a lot to learn around this aspect
9) Low 'noise' at ISO 100 - Since light is an issue when using a scope, you need a camera that can produce high quality images at ISO 100 or less.

Now the questions:

1) It appears that there is no issue with an external zoom. The first articles I read stated that one of the reasons the Nikon CP series was so desirable was because of the internal zoom feature. Am I correct that this is really not a concern?

2) This is related to number 1 at the top about small lense. I have seen many mentions of using an SLR type camera for digiscoping. Does this mean that lense size is really not an issue? Does it come down to the scope?

3) Assuming that all the 9 points above are true (to some extent), there should be a large number of cameras fit for purpose...correct?

I dont like the coolpix range....When I first saw them on the shelf a few years back, I just did not see the logic. I am happy that I dont have to buy a CP...just my personal view.

Cameras that I am considering: Sony W5 (why is the pixel count for the large LCD so low?), Canon A95 (hate the plastic body), Kyocera SL400R (not asthetically pleasing...sigh....just wouldn't buy this camera unless there was no other choice)....and hopefully a few others after reading some responses from everyone.


Scope

I have never used a scope. After seeing the prices, I am suffering from sticker shock! The most important features for a scope:

1) Large of objective lense - approximately 80mm
2) The shortest possible eye relief - allows the camera to placed as close to the lense as possible
3) Best quality glass - Relates to getting the best image and lighting conditions possible
4) Compatibility - Scope must adapt to camera

Questions:

1) Is it possible to recommend a scope that could be called budget w/o a tremendous sacrifice in image quality or lighting requirements?
2) I saw some scopes that are not weather proof and have 100mm/125mm lenses and are not very expensive (sorry dont remember manufacturer). Would the obvious poorer glass quality be in any way compensated for by the larger lense? I dont think I will go this route I am just curious.

I am considering a Nikon scope eventhough you can hardly call it budget! This is going to be the toughest part for me.....


Using the digiscoping outfit

I have read that the usual procedure is basically to find the image in the scope, then mount the camera and take the shot. Is this correct? Is there any situation that might allow the camera to remain attached continuously?

Please excuse me for repeating what has been said many times before. I am just trying to get a grip on the basics before I make an investment. I dont expect anyone to answer all questions, but I hope a few will answer a few and I can begin getting my head around this. I appreciate everyone's input.

Thanks
Scott

Hello Scott,

A couple of months ago I was in a situation like you are now. Extreme tele wildlife photography has been my childhood dream, until I saw some high quality digicoped photos taken with equipment that I could afford. Still expensive, but certainly cheaper than regular (D)SLR gear.
Your camera/scope checkpoints seem valid. I think the quality of the scope is the most important. Get the best you can. The scope is by far the most expensive part of the setup, the digital cameras still evolve at a rapid pace, and you may want to try a new model in a few years time. I opted for the Swarovski ATS80HD + 20-60x zoom eyepiece, and I am very pleased with it. I use the Canon A95 camera, which is good, but not perfect for the job.
For me, getting accurate focus is the most difficult part of digiscoping. I have never had good results with autofocus, so I use manual focus all the time. The problem is that the A95 LCD is small and relatively low resolution, but the good thing is that the A95 has a "center magnification" option when in manual focus mode. With center magnification on, it is almost possible to see if you have exact focus. But it remains a matter of guessing the sweet spot. My ideal digiscoping camera would have a large, hi-res tiltable LCD, with center magnification, and a low-noise sensor. The A95 is ok at ISO 50 and 100, but a lot of times you would like ISO 400 or 800 for faster shutter speeds... But given a stable tripod and shutter release cable, and some luck, it is possible to take sharp photos at 1/10 sec! Continuous shooting mode is very important, you can make short controlled bursts of shots, of which one may be much better than the others. At long shutter speeds is it so important to capture the 'dead moments' of an animal in motion.

I leave the camera on the scope at all times (when digiscoping). Don't waste time fiddling with your equipment, every second counts! I use a fluid head on the tripod for fast and smooth aiming. Getting the bird on screen quickly is a challenge too, but you will get better the more you do it.

See my gallery for pics taken with ATS80HD + Canon A95.


Good luck,
Erwin

Hi Scott

Welcome to a frustrating world where trade offs are inevitable. I don't think there is a "made for purpose" camera and you have indicated features on the 3 most common which you don't care for. Personally I use an CP4500 and it works but, like the others, has its limitations. It is probably best to deceide which is least difficult until someone brings out the perfect option.

For scopes on a budget I would look seriously at Pentax. Don't know what prices are like in Singapore but they are very affordable in the US where I got mine but silly money in Europe hence not many are used in the UK. It is a lot of scope for the money and all my gallery pics were taken with one.

You don't want to know much do you?

Odds and ends of answers:

Eye-relief ... I thought more was better
'Flexible' LCD ... absolutely!!!
Small lens ... not necessarily

Absolutely the most important parts of a digiscoping setup are the scope and the adaptor. You need a bright scope that is easy to focus accurately. The adaptor needs to be easy to place/remove the camera.

Contrary to Erwin's comment of leaving the camera on the scope at all times, I've found I get a much higher percentage of good photos if I focus the scope and then place the camera. You can get good shots either way but the auto-focus of the camera has to work a bit harder if the scope isn't focused well. Hence my statement that the adaptor is perhaps the 2nd most important part of a digiscoping setup.

Don't forget a sturdy tripod (can't carry a digiscoping setup around your neck!) along with a remote release.

Now all that said ... I have a Swarovski ATS80HD with 20-60x zoom. The zoom is handy but it will be rare that you take a decent photo at over 30x. I use a couple of Nikon CP5000 cameras with my setup. But I have never been happy with digiscoping. A digital SLR with a telephoto is the way to go if you want really good photos. All depends on what you are stalking which lens works best. A good zoom of 100-400mm is what many use. Not as powerful as a scope, but it is much brighter and gives much higher quality images.

I recently added a Canon 20D and 100-400mm zoom lens to my equipment - the lens is autofocus and image stabilized. And you can wear this setup around your neck (or better with a bino harness). Gets you lots of shots that you would never ever get with a scope. The quality of the photos is better than those produced by the cameras one usually attaches to a scope.

Digiscoping is fun and you can do it on the cheap. Just don't expect perfect photos with each shot and do expect to miss more than a few shots while you setup or fiddle with your equipment.

There are also lots of "prosumer" level digital cameras out there with good optical zooms (EagleEye OpticZoom 5x) that can be enhanced by add-on lenses giving you an optical zoom of 15-30x for around $500-600!

Hm! I guess you are going to get a few different opinions here - best advice is to read through the digiscoping forum threads as most cameras suitable for digiscoping are discussed.

I guess my thoughts on suitablility of camera differ from the advice you have already received. One at a time -

Camera

1. A narrow lens diameter such as the Nikon CP4500 is preferable in order to reduce vignetting.
2. Writing speed. Faster is usually preferable as you can take more photos before the bird flies off - but not all memory cards are as good/reliable as others.
3. Large LCD is only better if it's good quality. A high quality small LCD is better than a large sized grainy one. Not so much for framing as for using it to focus on the subject.
4. Good battery life is important though battery packs are quite common now which far outlast any built in battery. The Contaxc SL300RT and Kyocera SL400 suffered this problem but using a battery pack it's no longer an iesue.
5. Flexible LCD. Preferable especially if using an angled scope. Either tha LCD on a rotating extension arm or a rotating body.(CP4500)
6. Scope support - two issues here - mounting the camera to the scope and support of the scope itself. First consideration is the scope itself. Can't stress too highly that you really do need a high quality stable tripod to hold the scope steady. Without that no matter how high quality the scope/camera - results will be poor unless everything is held very steady. As regards adapters - personally I wouldn't be without one plus a remote cable release+bracket - many people though manage to take decent photos hand holding the camera to the scope.
7. MP - Personally I favour more rather than less, but lens/CCD quality is more important. 4 MP does me fine but with matched lens, larger CCD and 6+ Mp I dare say results could be better.
8. Manual features - nice to have once you have got to grips with things, but really an automated camera which gives good colours, exposure and detail is preferable for digiscoping when speed is of the essence to capture the bird before it flies.
9. ISO - low tends to be better as it usually equates with less noise.

Questions -

1. Internal zoom is still a boon as there is no danger of the lens itself contacting the glass of the eyepiece. External zooms are fine as long as they're capable of taking an adapter to mount the camera to the scope some are but many (most) aren't. Yes this is one of the reasons the Nikon CP4500 is so suitable for digiscoping.
2. Jury still out on this. You will struggle to find many examples of a DSLR used in digiscoping. The large size/weight of DSLRs is as much an issue as the large diamter lens, not to mention that DSLRs don't have rotationg LCDs and even if they did, the LCD often cannot be used as a live viewing screen as it can with a digital compact camera. The width of the lens is an issue in itself - so overall I guess DSLRs available now aren't really suitable - unless someone comes up with a mini-DSLR!
3. No - very few digital cameras fit the bill.

I think very few people rated the quirky CP4500 design for it's intended use of general photograhy - I didn't either. Digiscoping is a contrived use of a digital camera for a purpose it wasn't deigned for. Having said that the CP4500 fits the bill very well and even today goodness knows how many years on, there isn't a camera that can beat it for digiscoping. It's a shame it's been discontinued. The Contax SL300RT and the Kyocera SL400 looked to be ideal replacements for a while but they didn't last long in production. At present if I needed a new camera for digiscoping I'd be considering the Canon A95 or the Olympus C7070 - if I couldn't get hold of a CP4500

Scope

1. 80 mm + is preferable as it lets more light in so give a higher shutter speed.
2. Eyerelief - it's more important that the camera be placed the correct distance from the eyepiece rather than worrying about eye relief. If a scope is suitable for viewing then it should be for taking photos. The camera will be more or less positioned where the eye would be ie. close to the eyepiece!
3. Can't strees more than enough the importance for glass quality. For good quality photos you do need the higher quality glass eg ED, APO, HD, Fluorite etc. Ordinarily glass is okay for viewing but not for taking photos as CA and softness of images can be a big problem.
4. More a question of camera must fit the scope - though for some scopes adapters can be very expensive.

Questions

1. Best advice is to buy the best quality scope you can afford. Personally I'd only consider Kowa, Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski - used or new. If they're to expensive then personally I'd rather save until I could afford one. If yu're wanting a 'starter scope' for a few years then the likes of the Nikon is well worth considering.
2. Waterproofing - there are quite a few scopes available which aren't waterproof. Waterproof scopes don't gather dust inside or let in moisture which at some point may cause fogging. If you're only likely to want the scope a year or so and only in dry weather then they're still worth considering. It's lens quality rather than lens size that matters. Non ED glass has a tendency towards CA (chromatic aberration or purple fringing) no matter the size.

Nikon do make some very nice scopes - they certainly have their fans though I'm not one of them. There are some very good examples of digiscoped shots in the Gallery taken with their ED scopes.

Digiscoping is certainly an acquired technique which needs a good bit of practice and is in no way an easy to use or quick technique. I tend to think of digiscoping as a means of taking some photos whilst out birdwatching with the scope.

If it's primarily photos you want to take then really a camera+long lens will virutally always give better and easier to get results.

Thanks everyone!

Thanks for all the good feedback. The thing that is most clear to me right now is that I need to continue researching the topic. I am keen to take good quality photos of birds, but I need to understand more about what this means ie... Will I always be limited to 20 meters with a stationary scope or a DSLR with lense?? For some reason, I keep thinking 20 meters is not that far, but I am probably not fully appreciating how far that is. I plan to take note this weekend when I am out with my 8x42's!!

Again, thanks for the input and I will continue to follow the threads that appear here.

Scott

For Digiscoping I find that 20-30m at 20x eyepeice and 2-3x camera zoom is the optimum distance for digiscoping.

Longer distances are possible in good lighting but quality drops off as you increase eyepiece and camera zoom - both from softness of the image from asking too much of the optics and atmospheric pollution especially though from heat haze. Having said that I often take photos at 40-60 m in good conditions getting reasonable results but the ratio of keeper shots is poor. Eyepiece magnification is good to around 30-35x but beyond that it's way too powerful leading to soft images.

Anything over 60m then just expect record shots though occasionally a decent one is possible.

I don't own a DSLR but I know several people who do. Quality of photo results far outstrips digiscoping but you do need to get an awfully lot closer to the birds. Even with a 400mm lens 20m is asking a bit too much for an equivalent shot taken through a scope. 5-6m is a much more realistic expectation. This is the main reason I haven't yet gone down the DSLR route myself - not to mention the cost for a decent quality long lens.

A few counter points on some specific areas.

IanF said:

1. A narrow lens diameter such as the Nikon CP4500 is preferable in order to reduce vignetting.

Click to expand...

The narrowness of the camera lens is not a factor in vignetting. The usual limiting factor is the entrance pupil location for the camera lens. It is true that cameras with large diameter lenses often vignette. But this is because most of these cameras have long zooms and entrance pupils that are very far from the surface of the first lens element.

Of course, nobody publishes entrance pupil data, so in the end you need to listen and see which cameras others have been successful using. But you can pretty much figure that any camera with a 5x or longer zoom will have the entrance pupil problem big time and many with shorter zoom ranges will also have the problem.

IanF said:

2. Eyerelief - it's more important that the camera be placed the correct distance from the eyepiece rather than worrying about eye relief. If a scope is suitable for viewing then it should be for taking photos. The camera will be more or less positioned where the eye would be ie. close to the eyepiece!

Click to expand...

The correct distance is dictated by the eye relief (exit pupil location) and the entrance pupil location of the camera. You can't divorce eye relief from the issue.

For most spotting scopes, camera placement comes down to a matter of closer is better. This is because most eyepieces are a few millimeters short of delivering a more optimal eye relief. Although closer is not always better.

The entrance pupil for the human eye is very close to the eye's front surface. This lets people use eyepieces with an eye relief of 10mm or less. A digital camera's entrance pupil is seldom so ideally placed. 10mm of eye relief will be a real problem with even the best digiscoping cameras. The CP99x/4500 cameras performed best with 19-20mm of eye relief. The Olympus C7070 prefers a couple more millimeters. Other cameras might get by with a little less. Eyepieces that are good for people with glasses are the area where you want to look. I'd be very cautious of any eyepiece for digiscoping that has less than 17mm of eye relief and I'd prefer to see 20mm or more (it really depends on the camera). It is usually easier to increase camera to eyepiece distance to accomodate too much eye relief than to decrease camera to eyepiece distance when there isn't enough eye relief.

IanF said:

If it's primarily photos you want to take then really a camera+long lens will virutally always give better and easier to get results.

Click to expand...

This all depends on how close you can get to the bird. If you can get close regularly, then by all means use a long lens and a DSLR. Life will be simpler and you will be happier. But if you can't, then digiscoping can provide better results. The difference between a DSLR with a good or even excellent lens and a good digiscoping rig with a Coolpix 5000 or especially with a c7070 isn't as great as many people would think.

An autofocus DSLR with a long lens is easier to use. But things will get dicey with a DSLR as well if you start shooting at 800mm and greater equivalent focal lengths. You end up with slow lenses that you need to put on tripods and/or fast ones that are very large and bulky that also need to go on tripods. And you introduce mirror/shutter vibration that digiscoping completely avoids. Any form of ultra long lens photography gets pretty tricky.

Again...Thank you to everyone who has posted replies. It sounds more and more like there are more than just a few options

Currently, I am considering the following cameras:

1. Sony DSC W5
2. Fujifilm F10 - I have much success with Fujifilm (have owned 4 cameras). The lack of manual control is probably an issue here....anyone care to share experience with this camera?
3. Canon A95 - Hard to ignore the track record of this camera in terms of digiscoping

Still looking, but these are the ones getting most of my attention