• 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 vs. DSLR Test (1 Viewer)

Jules,
Ok, you're right. The Nikon gear was a D200 plus 70-200/2.8 AFS VR and the digiscoping rig was the 8400 plus Swarovski ATS80HD scope and Sw 30x eyepiec. So the Nikon was 350 mm and the digiscoping rig was 1110 mm. Neil.

Thanks for the info. This is an interesting quiz. I took the liberty to copy your photographs but the copies were destroyed afterwards. I enlarged them 300% in PS. The noise and cropping/enlarging artefacts ON the bird seems similar, the noise and cropping/enlarging artefacts AROUND the bird silhouette seems higher on Camera B but there is not much difference. However, the cropping/enlarging artefacts on the background are MUCH LOWER on Camera A.

This leads me to believe that Camera A was the digiscoping setup since you did not have to crop it to compare it with the other one. Of course, if you have applied gaussian blur on the background.... but that would not be fair, isn't !

IMO, to the eye, both birds are quite similar in terms of overall quality and sharpness but the difference in the backgrounds is visible. This is a difficult test since we are looking at 400x544 px images.

How far were you from the bird ?
 
Jules,
There would have been a bit of "blurring" to photo A as that's the way my mate processes. These were taken by two different photographers at the same time and processed by them separately (used with permission ).
The distance was about 38 metres.
Photo B is the digiscoped one.
My mate who took Photo A was very disappointed that his cropped image was not as good as the digiscoped one. Neil.
 
This is an interesting thread which has rekindled a few old thoughts many thanks to everyone for contributing.

About 6 years ago I was at the Swarovski factory in Austria trying out various kit and one of the items they let me play with was their film camera adapters, (brilliant company, nothing was too much trouble for them). I had with me by chance my old Pentax TTL film camera which I used. After quite a few wasted exposures and focussing problems, I got use to manually correcting the exposure. I was impressed by the results, but the wastage of so many frames did put me off.

Maybe, it's time to revisit this procedure and experiment.
 
Jules,
There would have been a bit of "blurring" to photo A as that's the way my mate processes. These were taken by two different photographers at the same time and processed by them separately (used with permission ).
The distance was about 38 metres.
Photo B is the digiscoped one.
My mate who took Photo A was very disappointed that his cropped image was not as good as the digiscoped one. Neil.

Ok, the blurring explains the difference in the backgrounds but again, to my eye, both birds are as good. There are differences of course but they could be caused by focus and depth of field. One thing is sure, your mate has done a fantastic processing job.

Bear in mind that my comments should be taken lightly, since I am no expert, far from it. I have a fairly good expertise with a DSLR but I am just beginning with digiscoping.

By the way, I tested a Canon A640 yesterday with my scope and it does not work. The pictures were very sharp but I was unable to get rid of vignetting. I tried 2 adapter setups the LA-DC58F with a FoxFoto F-Adapter as well as a universal type adapter. Too bad, I liked this little camera...

Now I am hesitating: P5000 or F31fd. The Fuji has only 6 MPX, so that will limit cropping, it uses XD cards which I don't have and I would have to buy and modify an adapter. I tested the P5000 briefly last May and the pictures were VERY soft but I suspect that the problem was behind the camera.... and I did not have vignetting problems,

What do you think ? The eye relief of my Vortex Skyline 20-60X 80 mm is 19 inches. This scope will likely be replaced eventually by better glass.
 
Jules,
There are some long running threads on these three cameras in this forum. They can all work with the right eyepiece/adapter combo. Have a look at the A640 thread for what works and what doesn't. The P5000 would probably be best for your current setup. Neil.
 
Jules,
There are some long running threads on these three cameras in this forum. They can all work with the right eyepiece/adapter combo. Have a look at the A640 thread for what works and what doesn't. The P5000 would probably be best for your current setup. Neil.

Neil, I have tried the A640 with every possible combinaison of zoom and distance from the eyepiece and I cannot get rid of vignetting. So this option is out. I think I will try the P5000 again - it is slow but I think I can live with that and I like everything else about it.

Thanks a lot for your help.
 
26m as before. Any chance you can take same shot with your 300? It isn't the * series Pentax but I expect something better.

As requested:

Taken with Sigma 70-300mm DG APO Zoom.
ISO 200, f8, default settings, mirror lock up, remote, on tripod at 85 feet (26m), at 300mm.

SF
 

Attachments

  • test result july 14.jpg
    test result july 14.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 117
Digiscoping v DSLR head to head test

carried out a test between my digiscoping equiptment and my DSLR at 20metres.

Subject coke bottle, cloudy and cool.

DSLR
canon 20D plus sigma 500mm f4.5 +1.4 convertor, 100 ISO, remote cord, velbon tripod

Digiscoping
canon A95, kowa 823 +32wa(new type) 50 ISO, picture taken using self timer, velbon tripod. Two photographs taken, one with no zoom on camera (f2.8, other camera zoomed as far as f3.5.

All three pictures cropped to roughly the same size, DSLR image originally a RAW, converted to jpeg with no enhancements.


Save and open alongside each other in photoshop. Clearly less noise in the DSLR photo, but tons more detail in the digiscoped shots.

left hand image DSLR, middle digiscoped camera zoom at f3.5, right pic digiscoped camera zoom at f2.8
 

Attachments

  • 500plus1_4conv.jpg
    500plus1_4conv.jpg
    223.2 KB · Views: 156
  • a95f2_8.jpg
    a95f2_8.jpg
    224 KB · Views: 148
  • a95f3_5.jpg
    a95f3_5.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:
uncropped resized images 800pixels wide, in photoshop CS3 (bicubic best for reduction option) attached for comparison.
 

Attachments

  • uncropped SLR.jpg
    uncropped SLR.jpg
    233.3 KB · Views: 125
  • a95 f3_5uncropped.jpg
    a95 f3_5uncropped.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 114
  • a95f2-8uncropped.jpg
    a95f2-8uncropped.jpg
    351.6 KB · Views: 105
Kevin, not a very good example since your DSLR photo is seriously out of focus.

I think you'll find if you look at the uncropped versions Kev has posted that it isn't seriously out of focus. It is just that the DSLR set up hasn't captured the detail of the small letters and numbers like the digiscoping has- thus proving Kev's point he made in another thread.

Will
 
Last edited:
possibly out of focus or maybe mirror bounce! it sounds like a sledge hammer on the 20d. I was relying on the canons auto focus, obviously if it is out of focus it just proves it not as accurate as one would hope. one reason could be the fact I was on AI servo, I use this for moving subjects its a lot of hassle to remember to keep changing it. I will try the shot again with single focus mode, no converter and mirror lock up.
 
I think you'll find if you look at the uncropped versions Kev has posted that it isn't seriously out of focus. It is just that the DSLR set up hasn't captured the detail of the small letters and numbers like the digiscoping has- thus proving Kev's point he made in another thread.

Will

Will,

I agree with you that "seriously" out of focus may be pushing it a little. However, I don't think cropping should introduce focusing problems like we see in Kevin's DSLR cropped picture unless there is already a focus problem.

Of course, cropping introduces problems because one has to live with the native resolution of an image and it is impossible to show more detail that there is in the picture. Not only will cropping introduce problems like pixellization but it will magnify the defaults of the picture, like digital noise, chromatic aberration, lens quality (sharpness) and focus problems. In this case, the cropping is moderate and does not seem to introduce significant faults but it clearly shows a problem with focus or sharpness of the lens + TC.

Kevin's DSLR setup is 22X while his digiscoping setup is 32X. However, the 20D is 8mpx while the A95 is 5mpx. I figure that the additional 3mpx should just about compensate for the magnification difference of both setups. I just can't see how the digiscoped image can show more detail at that distance.

Granted, the uncropped resized image looks sharp but it is often the case with those very small pictures. The same is true with images we get on the LCD screen of cameras: they look great in the field but can be really bad on a large computer monitor.

Kevin, I doubt that mirror bounce is causing a focus problem at decent shutter speeds. IMO, the problem with that picture is likely caused by improper focus and softness of your lens and TC combinaison.
 
Jules,
As I said i will redo the DSLR shots. Having said that, I have succsessfully carried out this test before and I can assure you the digiscoping setup will reveal more detail than the DSLR equiptment, simply based on the fact that there is more magnification. This follows the same principle that a converter fitted to a DSLR setup can give more detail. You are quite wrong in saying that the digiscoping setup is 32x magnification and the DSLR is 22x. You are forgetting that the digiscoping camera has zoom as well which increases the overall magnification considerably. Anyway i will get back to you with the photographs so that you can see for yourself.
 
Jules,
As I said i will redo the DSLR shots. Having said that, I have succsessfully carried out this test before and I can assure you the digiscoping setup will reveal more detail than the DSLR equiptment, simply based on the fact that there is more magnification. This follows the same principle that a converter fitted to a DSLR setup can give more detail. You are quite wrong in saying that the digiscoping setup is 32x magnification and the DSLR is 22x. You are forgetting that the digiscoping camera has zoom as well which increases the overall magnification considerably. Anyway i will get back to you with the photographs so that you can see for yourself.

Kevin,

I figured 32X for the digiscoping setup because you wrote that there was no zoom on the A95: "Two photographs taken, one with no zoom on camera (f2.8, other camera zoomed as far as f3.5."

I just don't believe that, at 20 meters, a good quality 32X 5mpx digiscoping setup should give more detail than a 22X 8mpx DSLR cropped to the same size. If it does in your example, it is probably due to focus problems or softness of your lens + TC combinaison.

A good example is a DSLR plus AF lens and an 8400 on a scope comparison posted by Neil on this thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=90831
Both photographs are very close in terms of quality. Neil figures that the digiscoping setup won and I liked the DSLR one better. These were taken at 38 meters - 20 meters would probably have favoured the DSLR because much less cropping would have been needed. The D200 is 10mpx and the 8400 8mpx.

I am sure that there will be a distance from where digiscoping has the advantage but I suspect it is further away than 20 meters. To be honest, the test should be made with equivalent setups: The DSLR should be Canon or Nikon with a good quality prime lens, the digiscoping setup should use a camera known to perform well for this use, a top of the line Kowa or similar and an optimized adapter. Both should have the same MPX, 8 or 10mpx. The DSLR picture should then be cropped to the same size as the digiscoped picture. The target should be one designed to be able to judge quality like the one suggested in the above thread.

Kevin, I respect your opinion and I don't have the expertise nor the reputation to pretend that I am right. However, looking at your DSLR picture makes me believe that there is a flaw somewhere in your equipment or your procedure. I suspect it is the lens and TC combinaison that produces inferior results in terms of focus and/or sharpness.
 
Kevin,

I figured 32X for the digiscoping setup because you wrote that there was no zoom on the A95: "Two photographs taken, one with no zoom on camera (f2.8, other camera zoomed as far as f3.5."

I just don't believe that, at 20 meters, a good quality 32X 5mpx digiscoping setup should give more detail than a 22X 8mpx DSLR cropped to the same size. If it does in your example, it is probably due to focus problems or softness of your lens + TC combinaison.

A good example is a DSLR plus AF lens and an 8400 on a scope comparison posted by Neil on this thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=90831
Both photographs are very close in terms of quality. Neil figures that the digiscoping setup won and I liked the DSLR one better. These were taken at 38 meters - 20 meters would probably have favoured the DSLR because much less cropping would have been needed. The D200 is 10mpx and the 8400 8mpx.

I am sure that there will be a distance from where digiscoping has the advantage but I suspect it is further away than 20 meters. To be honest, the test should be made with equivalent setups: The DSLR should be Canon or Nikon with a good quality prime lens, the digiscoping setup should use a camera known to perform well for this use, a top of the line Kowa or similar and an optimized adapter. Both should have the same MPX, 8 or 10mpx. The DSLR picture should then be cropped to the same size as the digiscoped picture. The target should be one designed to be able to judge quality like the one suggested in the above thread.

Kevin, I respect your opinion and I don't have the expertise nor the reputation to pretend that I am right. However, looking at your DSLR picture makes me believe that there is a flaw somewhere in your equipment or your procedure. I suspect it is the lens and TC combinaison that produces inferior results in terms of focus and/or sharpness.

I remember being in Southey Woods near Peterborough a few winters back with Kev and we had the same discussion then.

Personally I didn't believe Kev either at first- but we tested it on a number plate in the car park and the numbers came out clear in both but the small words at the bottom of the number plate were only read-able with the digiscoping set up. The digiscoping set up was the same as Kev is using now and the DSLR set up was a Canon 20D and Sigma 500mm.

Then came along a local photographer who was using a Canon 500mm lens and a top of the range Canon camera and we did the same test. Although the results this set up got were sharper than my DSLR set up, the small words at the bottom of the number were only just read-able and digiscoping set up yet again beat the DSLR in detail.

When in Turkey this year I took shots of a Roller at about 20 metres range with both digiscoping and DSLR and the digiscoping won.

Where DSLR wins is through action- flight shots are very hard with digiscoping although some are beginning to perfect it (check out this http://bp3.blogger.com/_yDkyZF58fQU...vwfJEJY/s1600-h/Copy-of-IMG_5891_filtered.jpg by John Wright).

I guess a top of the range Canon camera with a 500 lens and 2x converter would beat the digiscoping set up at 20 metres perhaps?

Will
 
Jules,
I will post up shots later. As i said above i have acknowledged that the DSLR photo is not as it should be. I will retake the photograph later. I am coming from the position that I have taken test shots between the two systems in the past and can say without any doubt that digiscoping can reveal more detail in a photograph.

The thing that you are confusing is the distance a photograh is taken at. I have no doubt that providing the image of the bird is large enough in the photograph then the DSLR will win everytime. But the point you are missing is that when you start to need to crop your DSLR photograph, lets say by half, then the digiscoping is superior because the bird is already filling the frame, or at least at the desired size anyway. The distance to a bird is relative to its size, its not just a case of out right distance. So lets say with a DSLR and 500mm lens at 20m a small warbler portrait may need a certain amount of cropping, whereas the digiscoped shot may need no cropping.

I dont entirely agree that there is a need to compare a 8-10 million pixel point and shoot camera. I cant see any obvious difference between a 5 and 9 million pixel point and shoot camera (see can we test some cameras properly thread).

I'm not sure sigma would agree that the sigma 500mm f4.5 lens is significantly less sharp than the canon and nikon equivalents. I belive there is plenty of discussion on thuis subject on other threads on this subject in the DSLR section.

Do you honestly think I would bother to carry digiscoping gear as well as DSLR when my DSLR gear would suffice for all situations.
 
Last edited:
Jules,

The digiscoped shot is from yesterday, the DSLR shot is from today. Both taken under similar conditions. The DSLR shot was taken using mirror lockdown, no convertor, 100 ISO and focus set to single. I will have to remember to switch to single shot next time, not that birds are perfectly still very often. I suspect using AI servo was why my original DSLR shot was soft? DSLR image was converted straight to jpeg with photoshop CS3 with no adjustments.

The digiscoped pic is as yesterday with canon A95 with kowa 823 scope.

The reason the images are cropped differently is because the maximum size allowed here is 800pixels wide. Both images are unchanged apart from cropping.

The best way to appreciate the difference between the images you have open them both in photoshop side by side. Failing that, carefully open one at a time and look at the word fat on the coke bottle. Due to the larger pixels of the DSLR there is clearly less detail.

However, I'm actually a bit suprised the DSLR +500 sigma did so well against the digiscoping kit.

Maybe a 500mm or 600mm, canon professional camera with a 2x convertor might give the digiscoping gear a run for its money. What this does illustrate, and has been said on this forum before countless times there is room for both methods. There is no getting away from it digiscoping is a great method for getting good quality bird shots. I stress the word good, perhaps excellent shots would be fairer. People who think digiscoping is for record shots only, are naive. The other thing going for digiscoping is carrying a 4oz camera on top of ones normal birding gear is no great hardship, carrying the DSLR, 500 lens etc. etc. is. thats probably why many of the Canon supergun owners don't even have binoculars. I can see you don't by the looks of your website, or has something nasty happened to that house finch, or is that some nasty case of chromatic abberation. Only joking, nice pics particually the pied billed grebes eating bullfrogs.

If anyone wants to see the originals for reference let me know. I can either email originals or post here resized at 800 pixels wide.
 

Attachments

  • a95f3_5.jpg
    a95f3_5.jpg
    374.8 KB · Views: 134
  • slr 500sigma.jpg
    slr 500sigma.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:
Humm... Kevin, you are making me say things I haven't said.

1. "The thing that you are confusing is the distance a photograh is taken at". I don't think I am confusing anything and I fully understand your claim. My opinion is that at 20 meters in the conditions of your example, the DSLR should be just as good, if not better. At more distance, quality will deteriorate of course - where, I don't know.

2. "I cant see any obvious difference between a 5 and 9 million pixel point and shoot camera" I have not said that there is one (even if I do think that there is one). What I said is that there is a difference between a 8mpx DSLR and a 5mpx P&S. Not only does the 20D has 3mpx more, it has a bigger sensor and less digital noise than the A95. Also, a decent DSLR lens should be better than a P&S camera lens - maybe not to the eye on a small print but when enlarged it will show up quite clearly. All these make me believe that a 50% crop should not introduce the softness of the image you have produced with your test. I often crop images by 50% and the picture does not deteriorate significantly as long as it is sharp at the start - granted, it has to loose some sharpness and detail but it will remain a good quality picture.

3. "I'm not sure sigma would agree that the sigma 500mm f4.5 lens is significantly less sharp than the canon and nikon equivalents." I have not said that either. What I said is: "I suspect it is the lens and TC combinaison that produces inferior results in terms of focus and/or sharpness." It could be human error, the lens, the TC or a combination of lens and TC. IMO, Canon and Nikon professional line lenses generate better results than Sigma (if not, why do most of the pros use them and how would you justify the huge price difference ?) but I don't think that the difference would show up in the kind of test conducted here. However, adding a TC to a zoom lens is known to produce soft results. By the way, what brand of TC do you use ?

4. "Do you honestly think I would bother to carry digiscoping gear as well as DSLR when my DSLR gear would suffice for all situations." I have not said that either. My opinion is that:
A. The DSLR is a clear winner at close range.
B. The digiscoping rig wins at long range (Long range remains to be defined. IMO it is further away than 20 meters).
C. In between, it depends on the photographer, the conditions (mainly light) and the equipment.
D. I also think that the DSLR is easier to use, more flexible, more usable in limit light conditions and will produce more keepers within the limits of its reach. I won't debate this one as we could be arguing for the rest of our lives...

5. "can say without any doubt that digiscoping can reveal more detail in a photograph". This is a very bold statement you are making there isn't ! In order to claim that, you would have to show us serious tests to demonstrate it without a doubt and, with all due respect, I don't think your Coke bottle test did that.

Kevin, this argument is a lot of fun and I am sure we would enjoy ourselves if we could meet to discuss it live ! Unfortunately, we will probably never get a clear answer because neither of us has the expertise or the equipment to conduct a scientifically valid test.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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