-
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.
Superzoom vs. digiscoping (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hinnark
- Start date
IvanCavallazzi
Well-known member
Second target with the regal+t3...16/30/48.
And again the cropped version is just like the one I posted before. Post#13.
So please take a look at the close up regal pic I posted in post #13.
And again the cropped version is just like the one I posted before. Post#13.
So please take a look at the close up regal pic I posted in post #13.
Attachments
Last edited:
IvanCavallazzi
Well-known member
Finally this is the first target with the regal+t3 but using the camera lenses... I used the manfrotto arm and the tripod to align both.
True digiscoping... far better than eyepiece projection. As I said before unhappily I could not manage to repeat that because I was kind of hurting the lenses and the eyepiece... to put both together in the right angle.
As soon as I find the correct ring and my 50mm arrive I can re-do the test.
Also I would like to say that superzoom and digiscoping... as you can see, are not opposed. By the way one actually starts where the other ends.
SX30 goes from 24 to 840(0.5x to 17x) while the regal goes from 840 and up(16x to 48x). So it is good to have both, as they cover different "reach"/lenghs.
Not only the superzoom and digiscoping supplement eachother in lengh, but also as the things themselves it is coherent. One can be used handheld and go with you in your backpack... while the other is a bit more stationary considering the need of tripod. It is good to have both.
For example my setup is almost inexpensive. The only things I would do different is about the superzoom... comparing images the Nikon P500 is better than the SX30... the nikon has better noise performance at high ISO.
Also my T3... nowadays I would pick a Sony a55 instead... as it lacks the mechanically moving mirror and so it archive a far better burst performance(12/s) and seems to be a great camera.
True digiscoping... far better than eyepiece projection. As I said before unhappily I could not manage to repeat that because I was kind of hurting the lenses and the eyepiece... to put both together in the right angle.
As soon as I find the correct ring and my 50mm arrive I can re-do the test.
Also I would like to say that superzoom and digiscoping... as you can see, are not opposed. By the way one actually starts where the other ends.
SX30 goes from 24 to 840(0.5x to 17x) while the regal goes from 840 and up(16x to 48x). So it is good to have both, as they cover different "reach"/lenghs.
Not only the superzoom and digiscoping supplement eachother in lengh, but also as the things themselves it is coherent. One can be used handheld and go with you in your backpack... while the other is a bit more stationary considering the need of tripod. It is good to have both.
For example my setup is almost inexpensive. The only things I would do different is about the superzoom... comparing images the Nikon P500 is better than the SX30... the nikon has better noise performance at high ISO.
Also my T3... nowadays I would pick a Sony a55 instead... as it lacks the mechanically moving mirror and so it archive a far better burst performance(12/s) and seems to be a great camera.
Attachments
Hi Ivan,
thank you very much for that very interesting and enlightening work. I think you are right that digiscoping starts where the superzoom ends. Dale did say this also.
The amount of resolution or image sharpness of the photos made with the Canon SX30 in message 13 first pict and 21 third picture, appears to be about equal (being the light slightly different). I can read at that yellow can "MASSA CORRIDA interior" in both images and nothing more. With the cropped image at msg 13, second pict. I can even read the letters and numbers at the white label on the right lower corner of the can. So it would be interesting to look at a crop of the Canon SX30made image in msg 21 (with no engaged IS at max zoom).
I'm still looking for the best suitable superzoom/bridge camera with the Canon SX30, Fuji HS20, Sony DSC-HX100V or Nikon P500 in closer choice. I need something really lightweight and versatile because I want to take photos of butterblies, dragonflies but also plants and mushrooms and of course birds. At closer distances, the digiscoping setup operates way too slow in my experience. I really miss a view finder with the digiscoping setup in eyepiece projection, especially when the target is not placed at infinity. I was leaning to the Canon as there is also a filter adapter available for 58mm thread for which I have some gear. But now you make me unsecure because you would chose the Nikon as an owner of the Canon.
Steve
thank you very much for that very interesting and enlightening work. I think you are right that digiscoping starts where the superzoom ends. Dale did say this also.
The amount of resolution or image sharpness of the photos made with the Canon SX30 in message 13 first pict and 21 third picture, appears to be about equal (being the light slightly different). I can read at that yellow can "MASSA CORRIDA interior" in both images and nothing more. With the cropped image at msg 13, second pict. I can even read the letters and numbers at the white label on the right lower corner of the can. So it would be interesting to look at a crop of the Canon SX30made image in msg 21 (with no engaged IS at max zoom).
I'm still looking for the best suitable superzoom/bridge camera with the Canon SX30, Fuji HS20, Sony DSC-HX100V or Nikon P500 in closer choice. I need something really lightweight and versatile because I want to take photos of butterblies, dragonflies but also plants and mushrooms and of course birds. At closer distances, the digiscoping setup operates way too slow in my experience. I really miss a view finder with the digiscoping setup in eyepiece projection, especially when the target is not placed at infinity. I was leaning to the Canon as there is also a filter adapter available for 58mm thread for which I have some gear. But now you make me unsecure because you would chose the Nikon as an owner of the Canon.
Steve
Last edited:
IvanCavallazzi
Well-known member
I never checked out the Sony , Panasonic or Fuji.... but between Nikon and Canon; The Nikon is lighter, far faster frame per second, better lcd, and far better noise control.
Take a look at this samples(it is a very utile site)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
If you go there in the still life iso 800 with both cameras you will notice how Nikon´s can reach a nice result at high ISO while the Canon simply can not.
The Nikon has a little bit shorter zoom (810) vs the Canon (840)... but that little more zoom and the good IS system do not make up to the overall better performance of the Nikon.
Possibly the sony is even better than both, I don´t know...
Today is raining and cloudy... as soon as the sun decides to shine back over the targets I re-do the crop test. Also when I finally manage to screw the camera with lenses on the regal... I ll post the samples.
Take a look at this samples(it is a very utile site)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
If you go there in the still life iso 800 with both cameras you will notice how Nikon´s can reach a nice result at high ISO while the Canon simply can not.
The Nikon has a little bit shorter zoom (810) vs the Canon (840)... but that little more zoom and the good IS system do not make up to the overall better performance of the Nikon.
Possibly the sony is even better than both, I don´t know...
Today is raining and cloudy... as soon as the sun decides to shine back over the targets I re-do the crop test. Also when I finally manage to screw the camera with lenses on the regal... I ll post the samples.
Yes, the difference in noise is quite distinctive in these iso 800 images.
Some test reports done by German photo magazines seem to indicate that at the moment the new Sony has the best image quality among the superzooms. But I just realized that the LCD monitor of this camera isn't moveable. For that reason I have to rule the Sony out because this is an important feature for me when doing close-ups close to the ground e.g. with mushrooms, insects or flowers.
Steve
Some test reports done by German photo magazines seem to indicate that at the moment the new Sony has the best image quality among the superzooms. But I just realized that the LCD monitor of this camera isn't moveable. For that reason I have to rule the Sony out because this is an important feature for me when doing close-ups close to the ground e.g. with mushrooms, insects or flowers.
Steve
Similar threads
