• 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.

Stepping up from an old prosumer camera: afocal or prime? (2 Viewers)

CalvinFold

CalvinFold

Well-known member
Most people fall in love with Leica cameras, I happen to be having a tough time giving up my old Coolpix 4500 for digiscoping and all-around photography. ;-p

Given my needs, I think Micro Four-Thirds type cameras are the way to go...enough "push here dummy" features, and enough manual features, and lots of lense choices, to make me happy. DSLR cameras are way over my head and too big and heavy.

So a question comes up:

I understand digiscoping can really be achieved two ways:

--like I do now, which is afocal (aiming the camera at the image in the scope's viewfinder)

--as a "prime lens" (correct me if I get the terminology wrong), where you remove the scope's eyepiece and attach the camera directly to the back of the scope (using a T-mount or T-ring)

So as I shop for a camera and double-check the availability of adapters, which method should be my goal...afocal or prime?

If it matters:

--My scope is a Schmidt-Cassegrain type. Maybe not the best for digiscoping, but what I have for now and is multi-function.

--My interest is in long-range photography of birds and animals. 50m to 300+m, so I appreciate the longest practical zooms possible.

--In theory, allowing the camera to access all it's automatic features is plus.

Outside of deriding my current scope (is what it is for now), I'll accept any lens, adapter, M43/MFT camera education you also want to provide. :)
 
No opinions?

Tough to find info on this on the web. Seems like the going advice from Google readings is NOT to use the scope as a prime lens because you lose much of the magnification (without resorting to adding lenses to the stack, Barlows, etc.).

Seems either shooting from the eyepiece (to keep the image upright and magnified) or getting an straight-through "eyepiece projector" (to remove the elbow from the light path) is the way to go.

I don't understand optics enough to figure out how to keep the magnification, keep the image upright, and maximize quality, sharpness, and available light. Seems the less lenses and elbows the better, but not sure which method is best.

Only thing I may start with even on my CURRENT setup is upgrade the 32mm Celestron plossl that came with the scope to a 32mm TeleVue plossl.
 
CalvinFold said:
No opinions?

Tough to find info on this on the web. Seems like the going advice from Google readings is NOT to use the scope as a prime lens because you lose much of the magnification (without resorting to adding lenses to the stack, Barlows, etc.).

Seems either shooting from the eyepiece (to keep the image upright and magnified) or getting an straight-through "eyepiece projector" (to remove the elbow from the light path) is the way to go.

I don't understand optics enough to figure out how to keep the magnification, keep the image upright, and maximize quality, sharpness, and available light. Seems the less lenses and elbows the better, but not sure which method is best.

Only thing I may start with even on my CURRENT setup is upgrade the 32mm Celestron plossl that came with the scope to a 32mm TeleVue plossl.
Click to expand...

You may be better off on an astronomy site for info on this. Maybe the Televue site. I have the Televue 32 mm plossl and it was the preferred eyepiece years ago when people were experimenting. I used it on my old Swarovski ST scope. I also have a Swarovski 15 mm eyepiece (30x) which was not bad but the 32 mm has better Eye Relief.
Neil.
 
Can I suggest reposting this question on the digiscoping forum on Birdforum - its the one above Cameras etc.

It is possible that this question may be missed by die hard digiscopers in its current location.
 
iveljay said:
Can I suggest reposting this question on the digiscoping forum on Birdforum - its the one above Cameras etc.

It is possible that this question may be missed by die hard digiscopers in its current location.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yeah, I kinda got that impression, so I had already started two other threads with different takes on the subject:

Both have yielded interesting information and takes on the subject. :)
 
I am a mft camera user but not a bird photographer as such. Mft is great for travel photography but may be seen as too limiting for serious bird photography. Olympus and Panasonic offer telephoto zoom lenses up to 300mm or 600mm full frame (or 35mm) equivalent. Once upon a time this was regarded as more than adequate for bird photography but these days many bird photographers can afford and use much longer lenses. Using very large telephoto lenses especially coupled to dslr with APS-C sized sensors allows photographers to fill the frame from greater distances. Also the size and weight of a mft body is less significant when using big lenses and massive tripods.
I understand Olympus have a 1.4 teleconverter in preparation which will extend their 300mm zoom to 420mm or 840mm full frame equivalent.
Important note Olympus lenses do not have image stabilisation they rely on their sophisticated camera body stabilisation, whereas Panasonic lenses incorporate image stabilisation.
Neither of the mft 300mm zooms are over heavy.
in the UK don't see many mft bird photographers.
 
Last edited:
Well, in my case, MFT is one heck of a step-up, in theory, from my 4 MP Nikon Coolpix 4500. So everything is kinda relative.

I'm not so much "a birder" as someone who just gets joy from photographing animals going about their lives without being bothered by me because I'm so far away to begin with (I prefer mammals, actually, but birds are more often targets of opportunity). Also couple that with the fact that I am surrounded by dozens of parks, but none of them allow me to get off-trail to get close to my subjects anyway, and I have essentially been "digiscoping" before I ever knew it was a thing. For me it was always "how do I shoot that animal close-up, or closer-up, without stepping off the trail?"

Because of that, I've always had a "prosumer" camera so I could attach longer lenses. The 4500 took threaded lenses like the Eagle Eye for great zoom for such a small camera. And the recent addition of the C90 scope has just been wonderful, despite the "limitations" everyone says it has.

Seems this class of camera has vanished, so the MFT seems the logical upgrade path.
 
CalvinFold said:
Well, in my case, MFT is one heck of a step-up, in theory, from my 4 MP Nikon Coolpix 4500. So everything is kinda relative.

I'm not so much "a birder" as someone who just gets joy from photographing animals going about their lives without being bothered by me because I'm so far away to begin with (I prefer mammals, actually, but birds are more often targets of opportunity). Also couple that with the fact that I am surrounded by dozens of parks, but none of them allow me to get off-trail to get close to my subjects anyway, and I have essentially been "digiscoping" before I ever knew it was a thing. For me it was always "how do I shoot that animal close-up, or closer-up, without stepping off the trail?"

Because of that, I've always had a "prosumer" camera so I could attach longer lenses. The 4500 took threaded lenses like the Eagle Eye for great zoom for such a small camera. And the recent addition of the C90 scope has just been wonderful, despite the "limitations" everyone says it has.

Seems this class of camera has vanished, so the MFT seems the logical upgrade path.
Click to expand...

Before you make any decisions have a look at the threads in the Canon section on the Canon SX50 and the new SX60. The SX50 zooms to 1200 mm and the just released SX60 to 1365 mm . That is the range I used to digiscope with the Nikon Coolpix 8400. Technology has come a long way in the last 10 years.
Neil.
 
Neil said:
Before you make any decisions have a look at the threads in the Canon section on the Canon SX50 and the new SX60. The SX50 zooms to 1200 mm and the just released SX60 to 1365 mm . That is the range I used to digiscope with the Nikon Coolpix 8400. Technology has come a long way in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
The problem I'm having reading those threads, and the specs often quoted, is the "mm". I measure my distances in meters...as in "how far can I reasonably reach out and photograph a subject filling 50-100% of the available image area."

I noted the SX60 claims a "65x zoom," but I've come to realize that figure is relative and not necessarily an indicator of distance. I know my scope is "42x zoom" (ideally) combined with the Nikon Coolpix's 4x zoom (and I'm usually zoomed in all the way to avoid vignetting and to fill the frame)...so not sure how much "zoom" that is. So again, I only know my current effective shooting distance...which is about 200-300m (though I oft wish I could reasonably reach out to 400m or more)

So the answer I'm looking for it "will it shoot out to 200-300m with good quality with the above qualifications?"

Are suggesting I can reach out to 200-300m with a bridge camera (I'm assuming the SX cameras you quoted are "bridge cameras"), tripod, and no scope? Do these bridge cameras have the same image options and functionality of a MFT or DSLR? If so, you definitely have piqued my interest. :)

And if I seem arguementative, I'm not. Just trying to suss-out my options, but get the lingo I know, and my personal experience, to match-up with the lingo use here (which is a bit more "serious/pro" than I'm capable of). You have been incredibly helpful...and patient. :)
 
CalvinFold said:
The problem I'm having reading those threads, and the specs often quoted, is the "mm". I measure my distances in meters...as in "how far can I reasonably reach out and photograph a subject filling 50-100% of the available image area."

I noted the SX60 claims a "65x zoom," but I've come to realize that figure is relative and not necessarily an indicator of distance. I know my scope is "42x zoom" (ideally) combined with the Nikon Coolpix's 4x zoom (and I'm usually zoomed in all the way to avoid vignetting and to fill the frame)...so not sure how much "zoom" that is. So again, I only know my current effective shooting distance...which is about 200-300m (though I oft wish I could reasonably reach out to 400m or more)

So the answer I'm looking for it "will it shoot out to 200-300m with good quality with the above qualifications?"

Are suggesting I can reach out to 200-300m with a bridge camera (I'm assuming the SX cameras you quoted are "bridge cameras"), tripod, and no scope? Do these bridge cameras have the same image options and functionality of a MFT or DSLR? If so, you definitely have piqued my interest. :)

And if I seem arguementative, I'm not. Just trying to suss-out my options, but get the lingo I know, and my personal experience, to match-up with the lingo use here (which is a bit more "serious/pro" than I'm capable of). You have been incredibly helpful...and patient. :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry about the questions as it's a bit confusing.
I've been digiscoping a Spoon-billed Sandpiper this week ( size of a stint) with the scope and the Panasonic GH4 and the bird is small in the frame. I would need about 7,000 mm to half fill the frame.
The Canon SX60 HS is 1365 mm . This video was shot from 50 - 500 metres at various zoom settings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X-cckfnBqA
For better quality I could use the scope but in a wooden hide with 15 photographers and birders around me I can't get enough stability to zoom the scope much beyond 30x. The SX60 sits on the hide window sill which is the most stable part of the hide.
If stability is not a problem for you then you could zoom out more on your scope to max the resolution of your big objective. But you will find that it will be difficult to get much better images at 200 metres . It's a long way out.
A Grey Heron is achievable but a dove, not so much.
Neil.
 
At about 0:34 on your video, how far away would you estimate that shack is, and that grass you're zoomed in on?

Is that with or without a scope?
 
Neil said:
That's Hide 3 in the Wetlands and it's about 130 metres from where I was standing.
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume "without scope"?

Did you say you were not at maximum zoom?

Seems impressive, and pretty darned close to what I get now using a scope and the old Nikon Coolpix 4500.

I went over to the Canon forums and found a thread about the SX60 and am asking similar distance questions there.

You may very well have steered me away from MFT, but honestly in a good way. I had no idea the bridge cameras came in these "superzoom" models.

Of course, even if I go this route, I still might be tempted to see if the SX60 could some how be rigged-up with the scope... |8)|

Thanks again!
 
Can anyone speak to the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H400, which seems to have a bit longer range (1550mm vs. 1365mm on the SX60?

What about the Nikon P600 (1440mm)?

Just wondering if the extra distance of the Nikon (slight) or Sony (considerable) is outweighed by negative aspects of these other cameras.

Mind you, it does seem the Canon SX series has been popular with birders, just wondering since my primary motivation is distance: how far can I zoom in on that bird/mammal waaaaay out there?

Thanks!
 
There are, of course, lots of points of comparison with those three cams, other than total zoom. Pop over to DPReview where there are quite a few threads currently focussing on the cameras you mention
 
Also, do "search this forum" starting from the camera section of birdforum with each of those camera names.

Niels
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

MelospizaMelodiaFan
Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Missy_MT_AK
M
postcardcv
possible return to digiscoping...
Replies
1
Views
777
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
T
Old v's new?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Thrupenney Bit
T
Y
Best tripod head for attaching/detaching a camera from the scope
Replies
7
Views
1K
etn991
E
F
Hello from Wiltshire
Replies
8
Views
296
iseegeorgesstar
I

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top