Digiscoping - overview of scoping and camera lens image sizes/magnification (1 Viewer)

mikenott · Mar 21, 2010

I was wondering if anybody is able to either post images or put a hyerlink to a site that illustrates what typical image sizes you see with (say) a 20x , 30x, 40x digiscoped image versus (say) a 300, 400, 600, 800(?) digital SLR lens?

I realise there are more variables (such as optical zoom on point and shoot digital cameras), and that this question may have been asked before, but I can't find them and I am unable to find somewhere to test this out myself.

Michael

RJM · Mar 21, 2010

Michael its fair to say that digiscoping "magnifications" start above where dSLR with a 600mm lens leaves off. So unless you use telecoverters and heavily crop a pic taken with dSLR it will never appoach the equivalent focal length/image scale/magnification of a digiscoping kit used near the low end of its range.

Rick

Paul Corfield · Mar 22, 2010

Have a look at my gallery to see what a 600mm lens will do. I use 1.4X, 2X and 3X teleconverters. With a 3X teleconverter and a 600mm lens a photo of something Pigeon sized at around 100m doesn't require any cropping at all really. As any digiscoped photos of any merit are taken at much closer distances then there isn't really any reason to use one method over the other.

All images in my gallery are over 30m to over 200m for the flight shots.

Paul.

roger48 · Mar 22, 2010

Paul,

I do not see how you can make such a statement that any digiscoped picture of any merit will be taken at distances of, I assume from your post, less than 100 metres. And who is judging the merits of any pictures?

I have seen many excellent shots at far longer distances which have been digiscoped and plenty of poor photographs taken with 600mm lenses.

There is one big reason many people do not use 600mm lenses, they cost about £6,000 for a wide aperture one; scopes and cameras do not.

Paul Corfield · Mar 22, 2010

The sort of photos that win competitions like digiscoper of the year are mostly close range stuff that don't really push any boundaries. Once you get into longer ranges it's all dependent on air quality anyway as any heat from the sun sets up air currents that ruin the details. Closer will always better.

I spent many years digiscoping with various scopes/cameras and most recently a couple of years with a dslr and 600mm astro scope. I've been able to reach just as far with the 600mm scope and get better photos too. Cost of the scope when I got it was £250 and although it's a fixed aperture it compares very well to a £6000 lens as far as image quality.

I'm certainly not against digiscoping, but there's no great divide any more between a dslr/lens combo and digiscoping. It's easy to push an astro scope to over 5000mm for example which is usually more than enough.

Paul.

walt-m · Mar 22, 2010

Sorry to but in but I am waiting for a teleadapter for my 40d and eos t mount
for my opicron scope i have been advised not to forget i also need to times by 1.6x
please what is that for, as the camera is heavy is there anything i need when
joining camera to scope.

Thanks for any info.

Musoman · Mar 23, 2010

The MAX dslr EOS mount is a great adapter for the scope and cam body.

Forget mulitplying anything by 1.6x. Your scope will be 500mm/ 600mm/ or what ever it is, on every camera you mount it on, despite what marketing rubbish you've read elsewhere.

You'll need a steady tripod, and a decent head, preferably a pan & tilt, rather than a ball head, but thats just my experience and preference

walt-m · Mar 23, 2010

Thanks Musoman for your reply, I do have manfu scope with a pan& tilt head,
so all should be O K then when my bits arrive.

reguards

Paul Corfield · Mar 24, 2010

mikenott said:
I was wondering if anybody is able to either post images or put a hyerlink to a site that illustrates what typical image sizes you see with (say) a 20x , 30x, 40x digiscoped image versus (say) a 300, 400, 600, 800(?) digital SLR lens?

I realise there are more variables (such as optical zoom on point and shoot digital cameras), and that this question may have been asked before, but I can't find them and I am unable to find somewhere to test this out myself.

Michael

I don't know of any sites with good comparisons but I'll post this example I took this morning at a measured 70m (230ft). This is 600mm lens with a cheap 3X teleconverter I picked up on ebay for around £5. The photo has no cropping at all. This is with a Canon 450D which has 1.6X crop sensor. On a 2X crop sensor like Olympus or Panasonic G1 the bird would appear even closer. I think 70m is a fair digiscoping range but it just illustrates that you don't need to do that much cropping with a dslr, this photo wouldn't need any for example. Even if this was a couple of hundred meters it would only need about a 50% or 70% crop to look like this. Plus most modern dslr's can easily crop to 50%, 75% or even 100% while retaining very high levels of detail.

Paul.

Neil · Mar 24, 2010

Michael,
Lot's of info around this subject back in the old threads but I haven't seen anything recently. As Paul mentioned the quality of DSLR sensors these days can give so much cropping detail that the digiscoping advantage has been reduced/eliminated. Where I am (Hong Kong) the quality of the air has got much worse too which also negates the digiscoping advantage.
I took these photos yesterday as a test of digiscoping without a tripod (using the window ledge for support ). The Panasonic G1 on the Nikon 300/4 +1.7x tele and also on the Swaro 30x eyepiece with 20/1.7 and 50 mm lenses.
Photo 1 is G1 plus 300 + 1.7x = 1020 mm
Photo 2 is a crop from photo 1
Photo 3 is the G1 and 20/1.7 lens and Swaro 30x = 1200 mm
Photo 3 is the G1 and 50 mm lens and Swaro 30x = 3000 mm

These were record images only as Manually focusing was difficult without the stability of a tripod and there was heat haze over the water.
Distance was about 80 metres.

Neil

Hong Kong,
China.
March 2010

lmans66 · Mar 25, 2010

I still see a measurable distance in the digiscoping....much better than the camera. The digiscoping shows more detail, let alone being closer. In fact, some of the birds, even at that distance come in very sharp. The camera is still lagging in sharpness and even in closeness.
Now a 400mm with a TC might net a bit more distance but not sure on the clearness of it...

Paul Corfield · Mar 25, 2010

I can set my scope up for digiscoping or as a 600mm prime lens so here's a comparison of both at virtually the same focal length.

The first photo is 600mm scope with Kenko Pro 3X teleconverter which gives 2880mm equivalent. Range was 50m and photo is uncropped.

Second photo is with a 35X eyepiece and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 which is a very sharp lens. This set up gives 2824mm equivalent. Range is the same, 50m approx and photo uncropped.

Lens plus teleconverter comes out better here.

Paul.

Neil · Mar 25, 2010

Paul Corfield said:
I can set my scope up for digiscoping or as a 600mm prime lens so here's a comparison of both at virtually the same focal length.

The first photo is 600mm scope with Kenko Pro 3X teleconverter which gives 2880mm equivalent. Range was 50m and photo is uncropped.

Second photo is with a 35X eyepiece and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 which is a very sharp lens. This set up gives 2824mm equivalent. Range is the same, 50m approx and photo uncropped.

Lens plus teleconverter comes out better here.

Paul.

Paul,
Good test.
Photographers are still going to want AF though. Particularly the older guys. If they put a Micro Four Thirds/ Four Thirds camera on a Sigma 50-500zoom then they have a good birding combo with AF and Image Stabilising. They won't have the scope for observing though.
I like the scope digicam/combo though as you can quietly scan through the packs of waders looking for anything interesting with flags/bands. A 30x eyepiece really gets you out there into the action which a camera lens/600mm scope can't do.
As my knee is now playing up I'll have to leave some of my gear at home from now on. Decisions , decisions...
Neil

lmans66 · Mar 25, 2010

In Paul's example, the 600 version wins....yes. I think we have to stick with what most people have or can afford. I would say a good test would be if someone brings in a Sigma 150-500 or a Nikon / Canon 400 with TC. Compare those against a quality scope with a camera, either a point and shoot such as the Nikon p6000 or the like. Those seem to be the most popular of both digiscopers and camerafolks. A good comparison to show image quality as well as the affordability of the set up.

And, to top it off completely.....have images taken of both larger birds (raptors or shorebirds) as well as smaller birds. That is the challenge.

kristoffer · Mar 25, 2010

This might say more about what scope and camera vs. what camera and lens you use, rather then suggesting that digiscoping is worse then dsrls.

Paul Corfield said:
I can set my scope up for digiscoping or as a 600mm prime lens so here's a comparison of both at virtually the same focal length.

The first photo is 600mm scope with Kenko Pro 3X teleconverter which gives 2880mm equivalent. Range was 50m and photo is uncropped.

Second photo is with a 35X eyepiece and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 which is a very sharp lens. This set up gives 2824mm equivalent. Range is the same, 50m approx and photo uncropped.

Lens plus teleconverter comes out better here.

Paul.

Paul Corfield · Mar 25, 2010

kristoffer said:
This might say more about what scope and camera vs. what camera and lens you use, rather then suggesting that digiscoping is worse then dsrls.

I'm not saying one is worse than the other. For me I've always wanted to find the cheapest way to get the best photos I could with a decent amount of reach which is around 4300mm with my set up. I tried digiscoping many years but couldn't progress because of the price of scopes. When you think my 600mm 80ED scope was only £250 compared to say nearly £2000 for a Swaro then there's no competition. The glass compares the same but the price difference is vast. Yes it's a little heavier (7lbs) and isn't waterproof but I can live with that.

My set up costs so far

600mm 80ED scope - £250
Kenko Pro 1.4X TC - £90
Kenko Pro 3X TC - £62
Canon 450D - £450

Total - £852

I don't think there's anything that can come in this cheap and produce images of this quality and I've certainly tried.

There's also the wide range of people and what they want from digiscoping in the various formats. I can look through the viewfinder of my dslr and for me that is good enough as a makeshift eyepiece for viewing as I'm generally after a photo. Some people have a dslr fixed on the back of a spotting scope so the spotting scope has basically changed from a viewing instrument to a lens. Then there's traditional digiscoping where the point and shoot camera can rotate out of the way of the eyepiece.

The thread though initially was about a comparison of digiscoping and a dslr lens at various magnifications and how they compare. I showed that 35x and 50mm lens compares to 600mm with 3X teleconverter.

Anyway, it's my 40th Birthday today and I've had a few beers so I'm rambling a bit. Ignore any rubbish I might have typed. :t:

Paul.

kristoffer · Mar 25, 2010

You are more of a photographer then me. I am a birder who likes to photograph birds. So when I go out birding I always have to bring my scope, bins etc, so a dslr with a long lens will be something extra to bring, the scope is not, it is always with me. Also the purchase of the scope does not fall into photography for me, it´s a tool for birding. If I can use it as a lens it´s a bonus for me. A lens for a dslr is an extra spending for me, so it really has to offer alot that the digiscoping don´t. So if a compact camera and a scope can offer me close to or the same as a designated lens and camera, then I rather just shoot through the scope.

Image quality of the both methods seem to be more down to the user. Neils digiscoped images are perhaps the best bird photos (image quality) Ive seen on birdforum, and we have plenty of really talented photographers here. So both can produce quality images. Naturally photographing small and fast birds moving up and down a tree is close to impossible with digiscoping, but I mostly need digiscoping for long range photos of quite mobile birds. So, lots of text! Btw, I m a poor photographer, but I like to talk about the subject

Paul Corfield said:
I'm not saying one is worse than the other. For me I've always wanted to find the cheapest way to get the best photos I could with a decent amount of reach which is around 4300mm with my set up. I tried digiscoping many years but couldn't progress because of the price of scopes. When you think my 600mm 80ED scope was only £250 compared to say nearly £2000 for a Swaro then there's no competition. The glass compares the same but the price difference is vast. Yes it's a little heavier (7lbs) and isn't waterproof but I can live with that.

My set up costs so far

600mm 80ED scope - £250
Kenko Pro 1.4X TC - £90
Kenko Pro 3X TC - £62
Canon 450D - £450

Total - £852

I don't think there's anything that can come in this cheap and produce images of this quality and I've certainly tried.

There's also the wide range of people and what they want from digiscoping in the various formats. I can look through the viewfinder of my dslr and for me that is good enough as a makeshift eyepiece for viewing as I'm generally after a photo. Some people have a dslr fixed on the back of a spotting scope so the spotting scope has basically changed from a viewing instrument to a lens. Then there's traditional digiscoping where the point and shoot camera can rotate out of the way of the eyepiece.

The thread though initially was about a comparison of digiscoping and a dslr lens at various magnifications and how they compare. I showed that 35x and 50mm lens compares to 600mm with 3X teleconverter.

Anyway, it's my 40th Birthday today and I've had a few beers so I'm rambling a bit. Ignore any rubbish I might have typed. :t:

Paul.

Paul Corfield · Mar 25, 2010

kristoffer said:
Yes, I understand what you mean. I do not agree that the Pentax compares to the Swarovski though, I own the PF65ED and it´a good scope but the Swaro is way better optically. And ergonomics is much better on the swaro too.

Some confusion as I don't own a Pentax scope. I use a 600mm Skywatcher 80ED astro scope which has a very high quality glass. For my digiscoping comparison photos I used a 17mm Baader Hyperion eyepiece and 50mm f1.7 Pentax lens in the same scope.

Paul.

kristoffer · Mar 25, 2010

Sorry, I was on the train and did not read carefully enough, I thought it said PF80. My bad.

Paul Corfield said:
Some confusion as I don't own a Pentax scope. I use a 600mm Skywatcher 80ED astro scope which has a very high quality glass. For my digiscoping comparison photos I used a 17mm Baader Hyperion eyepiece and 50mm f1.7 Pentax lens in the same scope.

Paul.

mooreorless · Mar 25, 2010

Drink a beer for us Paul, Happy Birthday.

Steve

Digiscoping - overview of scoping and camera lens image sizes/magnification (1 Viewer)

Flawed but improving!

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Out Birding....

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Out Birding....

Used Register

Well-known member

Used Register

Well-known member

Used Register

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread