Choosing a New Digiscoping Camera (1 Viewer)

CalvinFold · Aug 22, 2014

[Some of this covered in my previous thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=271361]

I have a Coolpix 4500 that I love for digiscoping, really, but watching my girlfriend get gorgeous handheld shots with her D700 is giving me camera envy. I think I envy the resolution, image stabilization, and lack of "grain" (gaussian pixelation) the most. To be fair, she's constantly amazed at the photos I get from the Coolpix 4500.

Granted, she doesn't like the weight of the D700, and is looking to move down to a Micro Four Thirds (M43). And I've heard these M43s might make good digiscoping cameras.

Here's my current rig for digiscoping: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/471236/ppuser/119570

Looking, for now, only to change out the camera, not the scope, let's get that out of the way. It is multifunction for me since I also have plans to do some basic amateur astronomy and overall, bokeh not withstanding, I'm happy with it.

I guess really the key features I need, relative to the Coolpix 4500:

--Still have autofocus available when using a scope.

--Shoot either afocal (from the eyepiece) or directly from the tube of the scope (which you can do from the Celestron) if it makes more sense

--Available electronic remote shutter release (cabled).

--Faster shutter speed (the Coolpix is horrible at capturing moving objects)

--Image stabilization

--Better highlights (white birds) and shadows (low light, dawn/dusk, overcast).

--A "non hack" way to put the scope and camera together. The generic camera brackets are horrible. The DigiMount I use now is...acceptable. I'd really like a setup where the camera is more firmly mounted to the scope.

--A good, bright, big viewing screen.

--Something that is decent off-camera as well. Perhaps in the vein of "pop the camera off the digiscoping rig, pop-on a medium-range lense, and shoot general photography and medium-to-long range."

Again, I'm not a pro photographer, and generally have "prosumer" skills and needs. So full-on manual, DSLR type cameras are just overkill for me. Either a prosumer (high-end consumer) or "amateur friendly" M43 is likely more my speed.

Thanks for the help!

Neil · Aug 28, 2014

CalvinFold said:
[Some of this covered in my previous thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=271361]

I have a Coolpix 4500 that I love for digiscoping, really, but watching my girlfriend get gorgeous handheld shots with her D700 is giving me camera envy. I think I envy the resolution, image stabilization, and lack of "grain" (gaussian pixelation) the most. To be fair, she's constantly amazed at the photos I get from the Coolpix 4500.

Granted, she doesn't like the weight of the D700, and is looking to move down to a Micro Four Thirds (M43). And I've heard these M43s might make good digiscoping cameras.

Here's my current rig for digiscoping: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/471236/ppuser/119570

Looking, for now, only to change out the camera, not the scope, let's get that out of the way. It is multifunction for me since I also have plans to do some basic amateur astronomy and overall, bokeh not withstanding, I'm happy with it.

I guess really the key features I need, relative to the Coolpix 4500:

--Still have autofocus available when using a scope.

--Shoot either afocal (from the eyepiece) or directly from the tube of the scope (which you can do from the Celestron) if it makes more sense

--Available electronic remote shutter release (cabled).

--Faster shutter speed (the Coolpix is horrible at capturing moving objects)

--Image stabilization

--Better highlights (white birds) and shadows (low light, dawn/dusk, overcast).

--A "non hack" way to put the scope and camera together. The generic camera brackets are horrible. The DigiMount I use now is...acceptable. I'd really like a setup where the camera is more firmly mounted to the scope.

--A good, bright, big viewing screen.

--Something that is decent off-camera as well. Perhaps in the vein of "pop the camera off the digiscoping rig, pop-on a medium-range lense, and shoot general photography and medium-to-long range."

Again, I'm not a pro photographer, and generally have "prosumer" skills and needs. So full-on manual, DSLR type cameras are just overkill for me. Either a prosumer (high-end consumer) or "amateur friendly" M43 is likely more my speed.

Thanks for the help!

Have a look at the Sony Rx100 M3 which is a a big step up from the 4500. Micro Four Thirds is the way to go. Look at the Panasonic GX7.
Neil

CalvinFold · Aug 29, 2014

Just so I'm clear, the "Sony DSC-RX100M III" is an M43? Or is it a really, really, REALLY nice pocket camera?

The Panasonic LUMIX GX7 does look nice.

Neil · Aug 29, 2014

CalvinFold said:
Just so I'm clear, the "Sony DSC-RX100M III" is an M43? Or is it a really, really, REALLY nice pocket camera?

The Panasonic LUMIX GX7 does look nice.

The Sony is pocket camera with a 1 inch sensor and a pop up electronic viewfinder. The GX7 is well specified micro four thirds camera. It's not pocketable.
Neil

CalvinFold · Sep 10, 2014

Has anyone tried using the Olympus OM-D E-M5?

Bit more than I had thought to spend, but it is highly regarded by both working professionals, traditional birders, and even amateurs like myself who are caught between point-and-shoot and full-on DSLR ("prosumers"). Kitted with the 12-50mm lens (when I'm not digiscoping) seems like an overall good camera and value. Lighter weight than most, near as I can tell.

I'm leaning away from the Panasonics for digiscoping because Olympus gets higher marks for their in-body image stabilization and their JPEG algorithm quality (since I generally don't want to fiddle with RAW all the time). I like the idea, from a technical standpoint, of having all the brains in the body, not the lenses.

Neil · Sep 14, 2014

CalvinFold said:
Has anyone tried using the Olympus OM-D E-M5?

Bit more than I had thought to spend, but it is highly regarded by both working professionals, traditional birders, and even amateurs like myself who are caught between point-and-shoot and full-on DSLR ("prosumers"). Kitted with the 12-50mm lens (when I'm not digiscoping) seems like an overall good camera and value. Lighter weight than most, near as I can tell.

I'm leaning away from the Panasonics for digiscoping because Olympus gets higher marks for their in-body image stabilization and their JPEG algorithm quality (since I generally don't want to fiddle with RAW all the time). I like the idea, from a technical standpoint, of having all the brains in the body, not the lenses.

The Olympus should be very good for digiscoping with the right lens, although the the in-body IS probably won't be effective for the long focal lengths that digiscoping achieves. The video of the Olympus is not as good as the Panasonics.
Neil.

CalvinFold · Sep 15, 2014

Neil said:
The Olympus should be very good for digiscoping with the right lens, although the the in-body IS probably won't be effective for the long focal lengths that digiscoping achieves. The video of the Olympus is not as good as the Panasonics.

Changed my mind again and decided the E-M10 is a better fit than the E-M5.

What do you mean by "right lens"? I was figuring on a direct Micro Four-Thirds adapter straight onto the camera. What I haven't quote figured out is whether to use the scope as a prime lens (yet still get the magnification I want) or shoot afocally (eyepiece projection).

I'm not concerned about video.

Thanks much for your insights.

Neil · Sep 17, 2014

CalvinFold said:
Changed my mind again and decided the E-M10 is a better fit than the E-M5.

What do you mean by "right lens"? I was figuring on a direct Micro Four-Thirds adapter straight onto the camera. What I haven't quote figured out is whether to use the scope as a prime lens (yet still get the magnification I want) or shoot afocally (eyepiece projection).

I'm not concerned about video.

Thanks much for your insights.

One of the advantages of Micro Four Thirds is the 2x Crop factor. You don't want to have too much magnification though for many situations. With the Swarovski STX95 you have to ask the egrets/herons to step back about 50 meters to get them all in the frame. My ideal range is 800 - 1800 mm (90%). I do occasionally like to go out to 3,000 mm plus for kingfishers and other stationary subjects but you need a very firm setup and no wind.
If you want to be able to use the scope for viewing as well then the Swarovski TLS APO type connection is the way to go. I use it with the Panasonic GH3/GH4, Nikon V1/V2 and Sony Nex 6/7.
Neil.

CalvinFold · Sep 17, 2014

Neil said:
One of the advantages of Micro Four Thirds is the 2x Crop factor. You don't want to have too much magnification though for many situations. With the Swarovski STX95 you have to ask the egrets/herons to step back about 50 meters to get them all in the frame. My ideal range is 800 - 1800 mm (90%). I do occasionally like to go out to 3,000 mm plus for kingfishers and other stationary subjects but you need a very firm setup and no wind.

It sounds like what you're suggesting, in laymen's terms, is that I should just try it with the extension tube, MFT-to-scope adapter (i.e., t-ring), and see if I get the same range I'm used to on my current setup?

Or put in Photoshop/design terms: due to the higher effective resolution (going from 4MP to 16MP), and the huge change in physical sensor size, there is a certain "zoom" inherent with the very act of upgrading to the MFT format, so I don't need as much optically-based magnification to get the same photos I'm taking now with the Coolpix 4500?

I guess in either of those terms is I'm looking to get full-frame images of medium-sized birds of prey (juvenile red-tailed and red-shoulder hawks, adult white-tailed kites) at around 50-200 meters, and reasonable photos out to 300-400 meters. I don't expect to shoot much closer than 10-40 meters (10m currently being barely able to keep a squirrel entirely in frame).

One thing that might be worth pointing out is right now the Coolpix 4500 has a 4x internal zoom, which means I have quite a bit of flexibility, even with some vignetting, of keeping a wide range of distances in full-frame. Not sure how that translates to MFT+Scope.

You can see my gallery for examples of what I've done with just the Celestron C90, 32mm plossl, and an old Coolpix 4500.

Many thanks to everyone patiently reading and walking me through this. It will help greatly when I go to buy equipment. :t:

Neil · Sep 20, 2014

CalvinFold said:
It sounds like what you're suggesting, in laymen's terms, is that I should just try it with the extension tube, MFT-to-scope adapter (i.e., t-ring), and see if I get the same range I'm used to on my current setup?

Or put in Photoshop/design terms: due to the higher effective resolution (going from 4MP to 16MP), and the huge change in physical sensor size, there is a certain "zoom" inherent with the very act of upgrading to the MFT format, so I don't need as much optically-based magnification to get the same photos I'm taking now with the Coolpix 4500?

I guess in either of those terms is I'm looking to get full-frame images of medium-sized birds of prey (juvenile red-tailed and red-shoulder hawks, adult white-tailed kites) at around 50-200 meters, and reasonable photos out to 300-400 meters. I don't expect to shoot much closer than 10-40 meters (10m currently being barely able to keep a squirrel entirely in frame).

One thing that might be worth pointing out is right now the Coolpix 4500 has a 4x internal zoom, which means I have quite a bit of flexibility, even with some vignetting, of keeping a wide range of distances in full-frame. Not sure how that translates to MFT+Scope.

You can see my gallery for examples of what I've done with just the Celestron C90, 32mm plossl, and an old Coolpix 4500.

Many thanks to everyone patiently reading and walking me through this. It will help greatly when I go to buy equipment. :t:

The 4500 lens is very different to the lenses of today as it had a 38 - 155 lens and it's "sweet spot" in Macro Mode was about 70-100 mm (from memory). Most short zoom digicams eg Nikon P300/310/330/340 are about half that. So the 12 megs of a P340 would give you twice the magnification of the 4500 ( if my maths are right) but it's 40 mm sweet spot v 80 mm on the 4500 would bring you back to the same. Using the Sony RX 100 M3 with it's 20 meg sensor would give you about a 50% increase in effective magnification.
Neil.

CalvinFold · Sep 23, 2014

Neil said:
The 4500 lens is very different to the lenses of today as it had a 38 - 155 lens and it's "sweet spot" in Macro Mode was about 70-100 mm (from memory). Most short zoom digicams eg Nikon P300/310/330/340 are about half that. So the 12 megs of a P340 would give you twice the magnification of the 4500 ( if my maths are right) but it's 40 mm sweet spot v 80 mm on the 4500 would bring you back to the same. Using the Sony RX 100 M3 with it's 20 meg sensor would give you about a 50% increase in effective magnification.

Which is kinda why I am wondering if I want the same capability out of a MFT what can be done about it?

Are there ways to compensate? Would an inline Barlow work? Or attaching some sort of lens to the camera (one that still allows the camera+lens to be then attached to the t-ring)?

I am going to miss the ability to "choose my zoom" like I do now with the 4500, so just wondering if that ability is just "gone" with cameras like MFT or DSLR, or just isn't a big deal, or are there other ways to mimic the ability?

I am looking at MFT because they are smaller and more overall usable than DSLR (for me, YMMV). I'm not really looking at any P&S camera that has an extending lens because my few tries with that sort of setup with digiscoping is a pain in the backside (just too much fiddling to set-up well, too much hit-and-miss).

The old Nikon Coolpix 4500s (and 9x0 twist bodies) were a unique animal I guess, but MFT just seems the best way to "up my game."

Again, I appreciate your patience and help.

Tord S Eriksson · Jan 11, 2015

lAte into the discussion ...

CalvinFold said:
Which is kinda why I am wondering if I want the same capability out of a MFT what can be done about it?

Are there ways to compensate? Would an inline Barlow work? Or attaching some sort of lens to the camera (one that still allows the camera+lens to be then attached to the t-ring)?

I am going to miss the ability to "choose my zoom" like I do now with the 4500, so just wondering if that ability is just "gone" with cameras like MFT or DSLR, or just isn't a big deal, or are there other ways to mimic the ability?

I am looking at MFT because they are smaller and more overall usable than DSLR (for me, YMMV). I'm not really looking at any P&S camera that has an extending lens because my few tries with that sort of setup with digiscoping is a pain in the backside (just too much fiddling to set-up well, too much hit-and-miss).

The old Nikon Coolpix 4500s (and 9x0 twist bodies) were a unique animal I guess, but MFT just seems the best way to "up my game."

Again, I appreciate your patience and help.

To me the obvious answer is a Nikon V3, which has excellent focusing capability (fastest focus around, without bragging. Sadly I can't afford one just now). The lens to use is the 18.5mm (equals a 50mm on a full format camera). If you search eBay and similar sites you might find a V1 at a low, nice price, but the same lens is the best choice!

Sadly no anti-shake using that lens. The best lens for Nikon 1 cameras is the 70-300CX, aka Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 70-300, but that is a slightly expensive lens. It is the sharpest lens there is, and it is just as sharp in its long end (300mm), as my much more expensive, and heavier, 80-400 is at the same focal length! And it has a very good anti-shake to boot!

Hard to find, the 70-300CX is, as Nikon seem to have delivery problems! But it is well worth the effort, as you can with that take excellent frre-hand shots, that equals a 800mm lens on a full format camera!

We are still experimenting when it comes to digiscoping, and an interesting alternative would be using a Pentax K-30 (can be found on Amazon at a very, very, friendly price, and the K-50 — a very minor update — costs just a little bit more, and is easy to find anywhere), plus a suitable lens (i'd say the HD DA40, but others might differ), as the Pentax range of cameras have excellent anti-shake system built-in.

Olympus E-M5 is another candidate we have tried, where the Panasonic 25 lens seems to be the lens you should use! That camera, too, has an excellent anti-shake system built-in.

We are trying all three approaches (Pentax, Olympus, and Nikon), but as yet have gotten the best results with the V1/V2 (with the 18.5/1.8), and the K-30 (without a lens attached, so you need a very good eyepiece)!

CalvinFold · Jan 11, 2015

Well, since I originally posted, I have since purchased a Canon SX60 and abandoned digiscoping (though really, the SX60 is "digiscoping without the scope" considering the range).

Quite happy with it: same range as my previous scope-n-camera and far more portable. My gallery has images from my first three outings. Still learning to get the most out of it, but I'm impressed so far.

It's not a MFT or DSLR, but it's a great compromise considering how I use it.

HenryA · Feb 17, 2015

CalvinFold said:
Well, since I originally posted, I have since purchased a Canon SX60 and abandoned digiscoping (though really, the SX60 is "digiscoping without the scope" considering the range).

Quite happy with it: same range as my previous scope-n-camera and far more portable. My gallery has images from my first three outings. Still learning to get the most out of it, but I'm impressed so far.

It's not a MFT or DSLR, but it's a great compromise considering how I use it.

I currently have the Nikon ED82a scope, but the original coolpix 7900. Been looking at either upgrading to Nikon 1 or other camera for the scope, or the Canon SX60HS that you mention. I have to 30x and 75x digiscope eyepieces, so my range would be much greater, and a 4/3 camera should produce nicer images over 1/2.3. But.... the lighter weight, remote shooting and other options on the super zoom are attractive. Opionions on the trade offs?

CalvinFold · Feb 17, 2015

I liked finally getting untethered from the tripod and scope with the SX60. I still carry around the tripod to steady really long shots, but I don't use it very much now unless I have a subject who is sitting still or everything is a long ways out.

I really think it is, as you say, quality vs. convenience.

I'm not going to really try hard to make a case either way...MFT or DSLR and a good scope win for quality over long distances. SX60 can't compete.

I have found the SX60 to be a good compromise...a way to "digiscope" without being tethered to a tripod, scope, or unable to get good shots at close range quickly...and walking around unencumbered.

I suggest checking out my gallery and note the descriptions where I give the distance-to-subject on my shots. So far, these are all hand-held, no tripod. Judge for yourself if the quality is acceptable (bearing in mind I do post-processing because I'm trying to follow ETTR principals to get around shortcomings with the camera).

Choosing a New Digiscoping Camera (1 Viewer)

More options

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Tord S Eriksson

Tord

CalvinFold

Well-known member

HenryA

"Experience is what you get, right after you need

CalvinFold

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread