Another digiscoping noob - do I even understand my options (1 Viewer)

OK, so I want to do some digiscoping.

I've just bought a Celestron Ultima 80 ED, largely on the basis of things I've read here saying that except at high zoom it pretty much matches scopes costing well into 4 figures. It replaces an old second hand Kowa 25*60, that looking through a friends Opticron 20-60*80 has persuaded me is inadequate.

For general walks I have also just bought Bushnell Elite 10*42 bins, and actually they provide just about as much detail as the Kowa, and seem to me far superior to my old East German Zeiss 8*32s. Also have a Canon SX30IS, bought early this year, which, while it doesn't have the ultimate quality of a dslr, has the flexibility to shoot targets of opportunity at distance and very close up, and provides, to my eye, good results. But it would be hard, if not impossible, to get it to work with the scope.

But when I want to spend a day looking for wildlife to look at and photograph I'd want to take the new scope, and digiscope with it too.

As I understand it my options would be: -

1) Buy a universal adaptor and a compact camera to dedicate to the scope.

Advantages

Cheaper.

Can use camera zoom to provide more magnification, and in fact might have to to avoid vignetting.

Disadvantages

Poorer optical system getting between objective lens and CCD

Having to use LED screen to line up shots, difficult in poor light

Smaller chip, and probably inability to use raw data.

Always feeling that if I'd spent more, I could have done better.

2) Buy a DSLR body to dedicate to the scope with an appropriate T-ring.

Advantages

Quality, Quality, Quality

Easier to set up, I guess.

Disadvantages

More to lug around

Price - and having to wait until I can save up a bit. I am not a rich man, and the bins and scope are just about on the limits of what I could afford.

Is that about it? Am I wrong about anything, if so what?

ETA anything left out?

Which would you guys do?

All advice gratefully received.

Another edit. It has just struck me that another constraint on the system as a whole would be the resolution of the laptop or HD TV that I view the pics on. I wouldn't be thinking of printing a lot of my future ouput, if any.

Which makes me wonder if the difference in quality between a DSLR and a compact would actually show up, given that constraint.

David

You didn't say whether you already own a compact camera or a DSLR.

I'd think twice about buying a DSLR for bird photography through a scope. While you might get some good images, it's quite difficult. Focus is manual and it is tough to get everything sharp. You'll need a tripod - and a more robust tripod with a heavier DSLR. I'd stick with the compact camera and adapter for the time being.

You don't need to worry about monitor resolution. Your monitor and your TV will easilyhandle the resolution your camera can produce. Everything will look worse on a TV - you are blowing up an image to a large size and will notice any out of focus issues. Most monitors will handle your images just fine.

I own neither a compact camera nor a DSLR. I do own a good bridge camera with a big objective lens, which cannot be removed or replaced. One guy on another forum suggests I can indeed use it, but I am sceptical about that.

From what you say, buying an 80ish quid compact and a universal adaptor might well be the cost effective way to go.

Say 100-120 quid total.

I can live with that.

I also have to get new spectacles.

I use, all the time, varifocals for my age related close vision combined with a not severe but significant astigmatism problem, and reactive lenses for comfort walking and driving in sunlight.

Until I got this scope, and my Bushnell Elite 10*42 bins, I've seen the optics I own as the constraint, but now it is the eyesight that is the constraint.

I need a pair of non reactive distant vision spectacles, I think, and the people I spoke to at Specsavers agree.

They say about 25 quid.

Can live with that, too.

David B