• 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)

If you don't need auto-focus have a look at the "Photography using 'Astro' telescopes" section

Yes, this is the way to go where you use a prime lens setup. I have tried my hand at digiscoping many times, and the results are always blah. This includes using a Celestron Regal 100ed along with a variety of much better eyepieces than what came with the scope. Now there is nothing wrong with the scope. Instead, there is something wrong with the method.

Unfortunately, spotting scopes are not made with prime focusing in mind, and it is impossible to get the camera closs enough in prime mode. Even when using a Sony e-mount camera with only 18mm flange to sensor distance. You just cannot get the camera close enough.

Astro scopes, on the other hand, privide for a very broad focus range, and it becomes easy to achieve focus.

Now be aware that cheap astro scopes are no better than spotting scopes.

I do have an Explore Scientific 102ed that has FL of 714mm and produces razor sharp images. But its big and heavy.

An alternative might be to look at Astro Tech. They have some very nice Astro Scopes in a variety of sizes and at reasonable prices. I have one with a 60mm objective and 360mm focal length that is outstanding. I had bought it to have a small scope with half the focal length of the Explore Scientific 102ed.

Once you have tried prime focus, there is no going back to digiscoping.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is the way to go where you use a prime lens setup. I have tried my hand at digiscoping many times, and the results are always blah. This includes using a Celestron Regal 100ed along with a variety of much better eyepieces than what came with the scope. Now there is nothing wrong with the scope. Instead, there is something wrong with the method.

Unfortunately, spotting scopes are not made with prime focusing in mind, and it is impossible to get the camera closs enough in prime mode. Even when using a Sony e-mount camera with only 18mm flange to sensor distance. You just cannot get the camera close enough.

Astro scopes, on the other hand, privide for a very broad focus range, and it becomes easy to achieve focus.

Now be aware that cheap astro scopes are no better than spotting scopes.

I do have an Explore Scientific 102ed that has FL of 714mm and produces razor sharp images. But its big and heavy.

An alternative might be to look at Astro Tech. They have some very nice Astro Scopes in a variety of sizes and at reasonable prices. I have one with a 60mm objective and 360mm focal length that is outstanding. I had bought it to have a small scope with half the focal length of the Explore Scientific 102ed.

Once you have tried prime focus, there is no going back to digiscoping.
I fully agree with above. m43 is well suited for this application as the smaller sensor size will enable narrower field of view. The IBIS is also a great asset as it mitigates shake blur which otherwise could be an issue when light is poor.

I have several scopes, ranging from 480mm F/6 to 714mm F/7. Apochromats (triplets) with FPL53 high quality glass and decent Crayford focuser can be bought at a price point starting around 1000€ and they will deliver very nice results, much better results than you will get with afocal digiscoping.

Here a sample taken with the 480mm F/6 scope
 

Attachments

  • P2260751.jpg
    P2260751.jpg
    469.8 KB · Views: 256
I used to digiscope (though I didn't know what I was doing had a specific name) in order to see far enough to take photos. No option to "get closer" due to protected spaces. So really had no choice. You can look here to see my digiscoping rig; granted not as high-end as others use and even bulkier, but I found the costlier rigs are just as cumbersome from watching other scope- and long-lens carrying folks.

Given the balance between quality, range, weight, price, and portability, I found consumer bridge/superzoom cameras the best option to get away from hauling a tripod and sandbags around and being stuck to a single location once set-up. Once I was free'd from the tripod I really started to enjoy myself so much more.

My girlfriend, who uses a DSLR and a NIKKOR 70-300mm lens can't match my distance; I can reliably reach out to 80-120 meters with the SX60. We've look at longer lenses for the DSLR but they are heavy and then start requiring tripods. Even some of the fixed-apterture 200mm lenses really need a tripod (or weight-lifter's arms!).

So it just depends on your needs, and the compromises you're willing to make.

If I were to move beyond my SX60 HS (see setup here), I would definitely look into micro fourth-thirds cameras to see if they have any good long-distance lenses. The smaller form factor might make the weight-vs-distance tolerable. I couldn't do it with DSLR and enjoy myself. YMMV.

If you decide to digiscope there are only really two decent ways to do it in my research: an adapter for a direct DSLR-to-scope interface or shooting from the eyepiece with a non-externally-zooming lens (fixed lens or internal-zoom lens).

Personally I'm not fond of using smartphones for this purpose. The fisheye and perspective distortion drives me crazy, and that includes the iPhone 6 Plus, Samsung Note 4, and Note 5.

On the upside, I kept all my digiscoping gear because they might get a second life in astrophotography. |:D|

DISCLAIMER: I used to read the telescope-photography forum, which is some extreme digiscoping, and you can get nice bird photos over seemingly impossible distances. So don't get me wrong, if you want to digiscope, go for it. Good results are possible with practice and skill.
 
Last edited:
Hi, this post is a combination reply and introduction to the forum.

I have been a birder for decades, and for many years I took quick photos as best I could while concentrating on chasing birds. Over time, I gravitated increasingly to bird photography, as I became less a bird lister and got more into the Zen of just observing and photographing birds. I have been fortunate enough to afford, in my dotage, some very good (Nikon system) gear, including big lenses.

I recently have gone on some commercial birding excursions in which the leaders have used and shared their excellent spotting scopes. On these trips I do not take my megalenses, of course, but I do take a tele zoom, as many traveling birders do these days. These experiences have reminded me of how terrific it is to be able to see birds close up through a scope rather than through a camera viewfinder, which degrades the observed image somewhat.

So in recent months I have taken up digiscoping again (I tried it a bit back in the old Nikon 4500 days, then gave it up). Sometimes I go out into the field to observe shorebirds or ducks equipped with my aging Pentax PF80-ed scope, and then in a waist pack I carry my Instant Digiscoping Rig, composed of a Nikon 1 V2 camera, its 18.5mm lens, and a Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece. Swapping out the Pentax eyepiece(s) for the camera rig is quick and easy. This way, I get to really observe the birds, and I still get pretty good photos sometimes. The photos are by no means as good as what I can get with a 600mm megalens, but they are good enough to post online.

So, I have found that yes, digiscoping is "worth it," sometimes. I do have the luxury of choice, and I do still go out on excursions and overseas trips that are primarily geared to photography. I have reconciled myself to the reality that I cannot completely optimize both bird observation and photography, but I am trying to do both.
 
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