Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

action shots w/ digiscoping

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 8th June 2003, 02:39   #1
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
action shots w/ digiscoping

Can anyone tell me if digiscoping will work on sequential shooting for action shots , or is the digiscoping mainly for those "oh - hey birdie, thanks for sittin' there so long and posing for me" shots ? I don't want to do digiscoping if my camera isn't good enough "without a scope" , or if I can't add another lens to the camera,and don't want to do it if I can't get flight shots or shots of the wings , etc. if I can't do this with the scope on. So can anyone give me some advice on maybe using the sports or action mode with digiscoping?
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th June 2003, 08:22   #2
Andy Bright
Administrator
BF Supporter 2020
 
Andy Bright's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: S.E. England
Posts: 5,322
Hi Shell,
I think you may be better off saving for a digital slr camera and a longish lens.... I really feel that you want too much from digiscoping and/or 'pro-sumer' type digital cameras. It's a fine method for birders, but maybe not ideal for those more interested in traditional bird photography.

Action shots require fast auto focus operation, fast shutter-speeds and camera's without significant shutter-lag (the time delay between pressing the shutter and capturing the shot). Besides, digiscoping is a manual focus method so you're at an immediate disadvantage for most traditional bird photography compared to an slr with AF lens.

Regards,
Andy
__________________
www.Digiscoped.com
also, if you're particularly bored, try www.andybright.com - mediocre aviation photography
Andy Bright is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 8th June 2003, 13:31   #3
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
Thank you Andy ! That is exactly what I wanted to know. I guess I am asking for too much . I guess it will just have to be a good camera with what I want then, and that digiscoping thing must wait :) Thanks so much for the help !
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th June 2003, 13:35   #4
Steve J - Darlo
Registered User
 
Steve J - Darlo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darlington, Co. Durham
Posts: 38
I agree with Andy. i dont think the two should be confused. Bird photography with the camera. Record bird shots with the digiscoping.

Steve j - Darlo
Steve J - Darlo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th June 2003, 13:40   #5
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
Thank you Steve, you are so right ! I do want too much at one time :)
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th June 2003, 15:54   #6
Paulyoly
Senior Member
 
Paulyoly's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 252
Just a bird flapping it's wings isn't a problem unless it's in a shaddy area, but a bird in flight is almost impossible, i say almost because i have done it several time, but it can't compare to a digital slr.

http://www.pbase.com/image/16661583

http://www.pbase.com/image/16661579

http://www.pbase.com/image/16661582

If the bird is large and far off you can pan with the scope/camera and get some decent shots like this one.

http://www.pbase.com/image/16661588

all these were taken with the pentax 80ed and cp990, but i agree with andy, you would benefit from a canon 10d with a 400mm lens.
Paulyoly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th June 2003, 16:36   #7
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
WOW ! Those photos are beautiful ! Thank you for the input, I will certainly check out more info on the canon 10d . I appreciate the help !
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th June 2003, 23:53   #8
Paulyoly
Senior Member
 
Paulyoly's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally posted by Shell
WOW ! Those photos are beautiful ! Thank you for the input, I will certainly check out more info on the canon 10d . I appreciate the help !
I mentioned the canon 10d because it is one of the cheapest digital slr bodies on the market today, i think it cost around $1500usd, which is the price of the swarovski 80hd scope, of course you still have to purchase the lens and storage media. I think the real disadvantage of digiscoping over traditional photography has to be the limited depth of field( how much of the subject is in focus)
Paulyoly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th June 2003, 00:24   #9
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
Oh yes, I just looked at the price of camera, lens I ''wanted'' and the other ''necessary'' items , and that deal will have to wait. That's alot of money . So it looks like I'm back to looking at digital cameras again . Thanks alot for your help !
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th June 2003, 18:27   #10
stevo
Registered User
 
stevo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hogwarts.
Posts: 2,929
Hi Shell

Have you considered something like a Nikon cp4500 & their 3x teleconvertor lens?At full zoom this would give you 456mm.Plus if you decided to have go at digiscoping you would just have to buy the adapter(assuming youve already got a scope).

Regards Stevo.
stevo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th June 2003, 18:37   #11
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
Oooh - no Stevo , I haven't considered that. But I do thank you for the info. That is not a bad idea at all. I don't have a scope, but if the camera with the 3x teleconverter can take great, quick action shots, then I can surely wait on the scope. I will go look up the specs on the nikon cp4500. I guess it depends on the shutter speed and if there is any lag on that. And also, with the olympus, without a teleconverter lens, I get up to 380mm. But I do already have a 1.7x tele. So I'll have to see what the extra 3x lens will be too. Kind of compare the total packages . But I sure will look at cp4500 and see what the 3x lens will cost. Thanks so much for giving me the tip !
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th June 2003, 18:46   #12
stevo
Registered User
 
stevo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hogwarts.
Posts: 2,929
Hi Shell no problem with the info,one word of caution I read several pieces about the Olympus 7 series cameras on this forum where people had experienced big problems with them.I think the thread is under the Olympus section,the problems only apply to the 7 series ultra zoom cameras & not any others!!

Hope this helps Stevo.
stevo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th June 2003, 18:53   #13
Shell
Registered User
 
Shell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mississippi, United States
Posts: 137
Oh yes, I am VERY aware of the problems. I have (currently) the C-2100 ultra zoom and I MUST buy another camera before sending this one in to get repaired. It quits on me and works for me WHEN IT WANTS TO ! But in order to have it repaired, I have to buy another first because I can't go without a camera while this one is getting repaired. I have just 2 months left on my warranty, and CompUSA (where I bought the camera) will replace my camera or give me store credit for another if they can't fix it. So we worked a deal with the management that we could buy another camera 1st then they would reimburse us the difference, when I get my camera back (or not). They will not give me a ''LONER" camera while mine is getting repaired, so that's why I'm going to buy another, so I won't have to be without one. Yes, it's an addiction , this photography thing :)
__________________
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Shell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th December 2003, 11:49   #14
Ido
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 5
[/font]
These pictures are not in a very high quality, but considering the long distance, my lack of experience and the fast movment of the objects, I think they show that digiscoping can be used for action photos in amateurish level, yet not as good as digital SLR and a good lens.
The picture of the Vulture was taken from ~300m.
The picture of the Cranes was taken from ~200m.
I guess that the experts from the forum can significantly improve the quality by digital processing.
[IMG][font=Arial]
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Vulture1.JPG
Views:	384
Size:	108.2 KB
ID:	4473  Click image for larger version

Name:	Crane1.JPG
Views:	418
Size:	178.7 KB
ID:	4474  
Ido is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th December 2003, 12:04   #15
nigelblake
don't re member
 
nigelblake's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 4,049
Sadly it is a common misconception that digital processing can significantly improve an image that does'nt quite make the grade. Unfortunately if the image is lacking the recorded detail needed, then no amount of processing will add feather detail, and quality etc to the picture.
nigelblake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th December 2003, 12:12   #16
Ido
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 5
And this Heron was not flying, but its head was moving fast.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Heron1.JPG
Views:	388
Size:	394.6 KB
ID:	4475  
Ido is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th December 2003, 12:20   #17
Ido
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelblake
Sadly it is a common misconception that digital processing can significantly improve an image that does'nt quite make the grade. Unfortunately if the image is lacking the recorded detail needed, then no amount of processing will add feather detail, and quality etc to the picture.
Thank you Nigelblake,
I'm sure I still have much more to learn (that's my main reason for being here.)
Ido is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18861008 seconds with 29 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28.