Digiscoping vs. digital SLR+ telephoto (1 Viewer)

rb_stern · Aug 27, 2003

Hi,

I have been digiscoping for a couple of years, and while there is always room for improvement, I'm now reasonably often satisfied with my results. However, sometimes, both in the gallery here, and on Birds-Pix, there is a stunning, ultra-sharp eye-catching photo, that I really admire. More and more often, these turn out to have been taken with a digital SLR and telephoto lens, and presumably cropped or enlarged in Photoshop to bring out the bird. Does anyone else notice this, and have any comments?

Richard

IanF · Aug 27, 2003

I agree with your comments Richard. I think that we have to remember that DSLR's are designed with photography in mind. They have the highest of quality optics.

Digiscoping to my mind is a compromise. Many bird watchers already have a scope for viewing and taking a photo of the bird is an added bonus without the expense of buying even more additional and very expensive equipment.

Budget wise DLSRs and their lenses are way out of my league, but digiscoping is at least attainable.

Digiscoping has advantages in that a shot of a bird can be obtained at a longer distance than DSLRs meaning fieldcraft is less of an issue. Whilst out birdwatching and you see something special you can easily obtain an image without humping a load of photographic equipment around.

Having said that Mr.Poh in particular seems to be able to obtain very high quality images through digiscoping.

peteh · Aug 27, 2003

Hello Richard,
I have noticed this big time,
especially Rayhs cracking shots with his new Canon 10d.
If I could find 3grand lieing about somewhere I would definately get a digiSLR as well.
I would like to know alot more about digislr'ing (is that a word?)
Especially at what distances is it a waste of time attempting a shot at ... or maybe if someone could post a thread with example shots from certain distances.. that would be helpful.

Pete.

Adey Baker · Aug 28, 2003

I think good digi-scoped shots can be made to look better if you're prepared to spend time on them in Photoshop. Removal of colour-fringing, if you know how to do it, can make them look sharper, for instance.

Presumably, if you're prepared to spend a lot on a DSLR then you're going to put a good lens on the front of it so you'll have the equipment to take a sharp shot without any need to spend much time on the computer.

As for distances, Pete, I'm not that good at judging them but both Carl Baggott and I have found that, although you can get 'acceptable' digiscoped images at quite considerable distances, there's no doubt that the closer you get the better. With a small bird this can be just about as close as the bird will allow you 'in the open' - with an SLR you always seem to need to be 'that bit closer'!

Digi-scoping, of course, works best with a fairly static bird. SLRs definitely come into their own with a very mobile or flying bird.

I suppose how much importance you put on the final shot will determine which road you take. You won't be alone wrestling with the pros and cons!

Sumit · Aug 28, 2003

Hi Richard and eveyone else,
I find this thread very interesting having progressed through SLR to digiscoping to DSLR (Nikon D100).
My pursuit of bird images is essentially to document species and I do not aspire to be a great bird photographer, good is good enough. That said, I would unhesitatingly choose the DSLR over Digiscoping and film, specially for my form of photography. The 10 top reasons being:
1. The flexibility of ISO choice (low light is no longer an issue)
2. The low grain at high ISO speed
3. The cropping in camera resulting in larger (magnified) images
4. The improved sharpness over film and scope (camera uses the centre of the lens)
5. The larger chip (over Coolpix) size resulting in larger images with more information to work on.
6. Better control over digital parameters like white balance, hue, tone etc.
7. The ability to work with quality optics
8. Ability to record images in native formats like RAW, NEF etc.
9. Mobility
10. Better storage (than film) and ability to take countless images.

An important point (in terms of this thread) to note is that a DSLR with a 400mm lens can compare with a Digiscoping set-up for birds that are some distance away. The in camera multiplier makes the lens an effective 600mm (Nikon) and the image size being larger than a Coolpix, cropping will provide another 200- 300mm effective range if we compare similar outputs. My best images of digiscoped birds (which were close) would have been within the range of my DSLR set-up. Birds further away would still require the tripod and the 10kgs of equipment!
It is pouring in our parts, but I'll do a test when the sun comes out.
Sumit

Sumit · Aug 28, 2003

And as is usual with my postings, I forgot to mention the most obvious. Autofocus! can't trust my middle-aged eyes with a once in a life time opportunity.

Walther Loff · Aug 28, 2003

My 2 cents worth:
I do belong to our local birding club, one member has the Canon 10D with a Sigma 500 mm lens, I use the Nikon CP5000 attached to a Bausch & Lomb 80mm ED Lens with a 20X60 zoom eyepiece.
We both took a picture of Pelicans at 600 feet away.
We compared images and his was a speck on the screen, mine I had 1/2 of the screen occupying the Pelican.
Yes the Dslr is great, but I have not had any luck with the lottery.
cheers
walther
www.walther-loff.com

Tannin · Aug 28, 2003

Keep talking, gentlemen, I am folowing this discussion with keen interest.

smeltmill · Aug 28, 2003

Thank you Richard, for posing the question.

This is a topic I have been resting my mind on for a little while as Mrs G B-S. Has a significant life mile stone looming.
As photography is one of her interests the family have been considering a digital camera.
It has to be an SLR as she likes to be in charge of her own destiny (I know - it begs the question why she has been strapped along side me all these years - surely every one is entitled to one mistake) Currently the Nikon D100 is the camera that has swum to the top of the list. I managed to introduce her to one at the Bird Fair hopefully without arousing to much suspicion and it was the one she came back to for a second try.

Here comes the request.

Dear Summit.

Could I prevail upon your good nature and ask you to consider writing an objective report on your D100.

Thank you all for your contributions.
Yours etc.
Gordon Boreham-Styffe.

As Tannin says keep talking gentlemen.

rogerscoth · Aug 28, 2003

As Sumit has said, and Tannin has concurred, this is a really interesting and somewhat enthralling thread. I, along with many others, look forward to the next instalment!

Roger

rayh · Aug 28, 2003

Having read this thread with intrest I though I'd post a couple of shots taken at the weekend of a Citrine Wagtail in Norfolk at 50yds+ in not the best of conditions.(niether a brilliant shot)

The Digiscpoed shot was taken at 200asa approx 30xmag with a SwaroAT80HD
The DSLR Shot at 400asa 500mm x2 converter.

They have both been cropped to about the same size file.

What do you think.

Tannin · Aug 28, 2003

Yes please. Be very helpful.

rayh · Aug 28, 2003

Posted in members gallery

peteh · Aug 28, 2003

Thanks Ray.
that shows exactly what I wanted to see.

Right any rich millionaires out there got 3 grand floating about

heh

robinm · Aug 28, 2003

I guess the bottom line for a lot of people (me included) is that having already invested a lot of money in a scope digiscoping is the only financially acceptable option.

Another factor is the cost of the weight training etc I would need to do at the local heath club to carry camera and telephoto lenses in addtions to bins, scope tripod etc.

I am sure from a strict photographic angle the DSLR is the better option - as examples seem to demonstrate - but I don't have unlimited money.

sparrowbirder · Aug 29, 2003

very good comparisons ray, is the dslr that much better though considering the cost of the equipment, how much is a decent lens to go with the £3000 camera!!im afraid il be sticking to digiscoping,unless i win the lottery!!!!

Birdforum · Aug 29, 2003

We are very pleased to announce, that a world "star" of Nature photography is writing an article for us, and It should be posted here soon. He will also be a regular contributer to the forums and Magazine:t:

Sumit · Aug 29, 2003

Hi Gordon,
Just saw your request.
Then last post indicates that all our queries and apprehensions should be taken care of. But I am happy to send a pm to you if you want (on my experience with the d100).
I must say, that in my opinion, all 6mp DSLR's are almost created equal and your choice depends on brand preference, accessory support and wallet. I was surprised to note that a D100 type camera costs Stg 3000, I paid about usd1600 in Singapore and the lens costs about usd 1100. At those prices I believe their is value in the cost difference between a Swaro and a DSLR set-up.
Sumit

tarves57 · Aug 30, 2003

Peetee, The Canon EOS 10D now costs around £1250 (body only).
Not sure if it's fast enough for you, I've only had it a day, but the pictures are unbelievable.
I think it has gone down in price because there is a new version SLR (but with almost the same specification, missing nothing you would really need), coming out mid September. It's called the Canon EOS 300D and it will cost £899 for the body, or £999 with a lens (wide angle zoom, can't remember the size).

Susan

peteh · Aug 30, 2003

<------Jealous!!!

Digiscoping vs. digital SLR+ telephoto (1 Viewer)

Richard stern

Moderator

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread