Who Does Both DSLR and Digiscoping? (1 Viewer)

Matt_RTH · May 24, 2007

I'm considering buying a spotting scope to get better close up views of birds. I now have a DSLR with a range of lenses. Get a broad range of quality in results (maybe 10% are real keepers) but would like to see the more distant aves clearer.

Has anyone gone from DSLR to digiscoping or vice versa? I always like to capture the moments as I'm not good at remembering details to identify birds after the fact. Does serious digiscoping preclude regular viewing?

At this point, if I do get a scope I'd probably keep the DSLR handy anyway but if I can lighten the load to go with scope and a small digital, that might be preferable.

I guess the real question is for those who have done both, which results in the best and most consistent results?

Cheers,
Matt

IanF · May 24, 2007

I still dabble in both, though for bird photos I mostly use a DSLR+400mm lens nowadays. There's no comparison really for photo quality - DSLR is the way to go.

I've always thought that if you want good photos then that's what a DSLR+long lens is for.

I tend to regard digiscoping as an additional use for the scope you may already own. I'd never advocate buying a scope purely for digiscoping if it's decent quality photos you're after. It's perfect for viewing with but not really for photography - it's not easy to take consistent decent photos even when you've been doing it a while. You can take good quality photos through the scope but it's hard work as it's a contrived technique coupling a camera and a scope - neither of which were designed to work together.

There's actually quite a bit of overlap between using a DSLR and digiscoping. First rate digiscope results are usually had wth closer subjects - which puts them well within range of a DSLR anyway. The ideal biridng lens is at least 400mm but preferably 500mm or 600mm - but then you're talking serious money.

ikw101 · May 24, 2007

Matt

Can you let us know where you normally go birdwatching. Normally DSLR is far more reliable than digiscoping especially in woodlands, scrub etc..However, if you're regularly going to lakes, estuaries etc... the longer reach of digiscoping does have it advantages particulary with stationary birds. Please be aware that atmospheric haze particularly in a warm climate is often the major factor with digiscoping.

Regards

Ian

christineredgate · May 24, 2007

Since my purchase of a 400 lens a year ago,I rarely take digiscoped shots.But there are times when digiscoping of birds which are quite a distance away can be taken.Cannot afford a 600mm lens and indeed would not be able to hold it,but will still keep the scoping equipment for the times it can be used.

revs45 · May 24, 2007

I use a ED82 strictly for digiscoping. The P5000 is always attached to the scope always.
my wife uses a 80-400VR lens w/ her DSLR and there are many occasions when she will not even bother trying to get a shot when lighting conditions are grey or shady. with the digiscope though i am able to get those shots, it's a lot more forgiving.
when you start talking about big lenses for DSLR the thought of spending $5000 + for a lens when we are not making any money off our photos is unreasonable.
i think digiscoped pictures are getting close to the quality of DSLR now.
besides, if it (digiscoping) was easy it wouldn't be any fun now would it?

Matt_RTH · May 24, 2007

Thanks, all. I have a couple nice lenses but sometime my results aren't great compared to some I see.

Revs45, in what way would you say digiscoping is more forgiving? You mean in low light? If so, I'd imagine that it's due to the scope being on a tripod. I try to shoot with a monopod but sometimes the birds in flight are too high to get a sharp shot.

BTW, I'm very interested in raptors and birds in flight so digiscope may not be practical at all. I tend to go later, since that's when the raptors seem to be up and most compatible with my schedule. I do try to get out near dawn sometimes!

Attached is a recent one that I think could be much better but due to probably technique could be better.

Tannin · May 25, 2007

The "longer reach" of digiscoping is a myth. That's M Y T H myth. Take a good quality scope and digiscoping camera. Take a picture of a distant bird. Now, take a decent entry-level DSLR and a typical good quality lens in the 400mm class - 400D and 100-400, or D80 and Bigma as examples - and take a shot of that same distant bird.

Now, crop the DSLR shot to the same field of view as the digiscoped shot.

Compare. You will see for yourself that there isn't a lot to choose between the two.

Neil · May 25, 2007

I'm doing both but 80% is still digiscoped. It depends a lot on where you doing your photography. I Hong Kong we are mostly watching waders from hides over mudflats from 50 - 300 metres. We mostly have grey skies and not many raptor fly-bys so I'm 90% digiscoping as I have to have the scope with me anyway to find the Spoon-billed Sandpipers amongst the Stints.
In Florida where the birds come and sit on the end of your lens a 600 mm would be too much in some places. There it is more like 50/50 as there are a lot of raptor/egret/heron over-flights against blue skies.
I like digiscoping in woodlands too as you can sit down and cover up to 30 metres without wandering around and disturbing the birds. You get a lot less "keepers" though than with the DSLR and the 400/500 lens.
The question is - do you need a scope anyway? If not then just practice getting closer and don't worry about the distant shots as they are always there whatever gear you have.
Neil.

jcwings · May 25, 2007

Matt_RTH said:
Does serious digiscoping preclude regular viewing?

Yes. I digiscope (photo link at bottom) and it always interferes with regular birding. Birding can be quick and busy. But digiscoping means being patient and waiting for that cooperative bird to produce a decent shot. I can't comment on DSLR because mine has been ordered and I'm not using it yet. I plan on combining my new DSLR and scope to continue digiscoping. The results can be awesome.

This guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/faisca/sets/ has inspired me to buy the same camera he uses. I already have the Zeiss scope.

revs45 · May 25, 2007

Matt_RTH said:
Revs45, in what way would you say digiscoping is more forgiving? You mean in low light? If so, I'd imagine that it's due to the scope being on a tripod. I try to shoot with a monopod but sometimes the birds in flight are too high to get a sharp shot.

BTW, I'm very interested in raptors and birds in flight so digiscope may not be practical at all. I tend to go later, since that's when the raptors seem to be up and most compatible with my schedule. I do try to get out near dawn sometimes!

exactly, and yes, i suppose it does have to do with tripod now that i think about it.
i've only been semi-sucessful digiscoping birds in flight on one ocassion (northern harrier), that's typically where Audy's 80-400VR comes into play.

g8ina · May 25, 2007

Although I'm not in the same league as some digiscopers in here, I still take fairly good images with one of two DSLR based systems.

1) Nikon D70 and Tamron 28-300mm f6.3 - a pretty good all rounder lens, very useful if you can't easily carry more than one lens around and,

2) Nikon D70 with my 80mm astronomical telescope using "prime focus" - ie, just the D70 body with a T2 mount adaptor onto the scope, so there's nothing else between the 80mm lens and the sensor. This just acts as a 500mm f6.2 manual lens. I get no problems with vignetting, but it's all manual controls.

The most common digiscope technique is called "afocal projection" where you fit the camera onto the scopes eyepiece with an adaptor of some sort. This is the one that 99.99% use when they speak of digiscoping.

The only problem I really face using my PF method is the sheer size and weight of the scope, about 2.4kg, and with my medical problems, it's not an ideal situation. The manual operation is one which I have long since gotten used to. One of the nice features of this setup is the ability to use any type of astro eyepiece with a 1.25" (or even 2") barrel, and there is a lot of choice!

Because of this problem, I am currently trying to change my scope for a lighter (possibly Nikon) spotter, and maybe get a P5000 too, but we'll have to see how the finances run.

kevindurose · Jul 7, 2007

Interesting views expressed in this thread. I do both digiscoping and DSLR photography. I consider people that diss digiscoping are mostly digiscoping failures. I think there there is a lot more skill in digiscoping, and you also need to be using the right equipment, otherwise you are wasting your time. There also seems to be an obsession with adapters and holding the camera steady, when in reality its normally bird movement that blurrs photos, unless your working late in the evening and only getting really slow shutter speeds.

DSLR is for really close birds and flight/action shots, Digiscoping is for everything else. For this reason I tend to get a lot more servicable shots with digiscoping than I do with DSLR. Furthermore the compact weighs a few ounces , the DSLR around 10 pounds. Visit my blog and see if you can decide which are digiscoped and which shots are DSLR

www.kevindurose.co.uk/

Kevin

Tannin · Jul 7, 2007

kevindurose said:
I consider people that diss digiscoping are mostly digiscoping failures.

Good for you. As it happens, you are flat-out wrong. If you wish, ponder your statement awhile as visit here and here. Bear it in mind that those shots were all taken with a camera that no-one in their right mind would select as a first-choice digiscoping camera today (though the 4500 was regarded as the best around back in those days).

I'll say it again: the oft-told tale that digiscoping is better for distant birds is a myth. For the same dollar expenditure, a made-for-the-purpose SLR and 400mm-class lens will always equal and usually outperform a spotting scope and adaptor and cheap little general-purpose camera pressed into a role for which it was never designed. Even with distant static birds (where the digiscope is at its best and an SLR with a 400mm-class lens is at its weakest) when you crop and resize to make the picture look its best there is little difference. And, of course, in all other circumstances, the SLR delivers better photographic results, and far, far more of them per hour expended.

Digiscoping has, however, several major virtues when we pass to matters which do not have to do with picture quality:

* If you already own the scope, it is much cheaper. (If you don't have a quality scope yet, then it's quite a bit cheaper to get an SLR and, for example, a Sigma 50-500.)

* If you plan to carry the scope anyway (because you like looking at birds through it), then the added weight and clutter of an SLR and lens is not nearly as convenient as a pocket-size camera and digiscoping adaptor.

* If you mostly watch birds and take pictures as a secondary activity, digiscoping is a great way to balance your priorities.

* Digiscoping, you get to see a good deal more of the bird. (I've posted at length on this in the past - going from digiscope to SLR is quite a wrench so far as your pure enjoyment of the birds is concerned.

* Digiscoping is fantastic training for the aspiring photographer. It hones your patience, fieldcraft, and anticipation skills in a way that an SLR cannot do.

Digiscoping, in short, is a wonderful activity and I recommend it to anyone interested. There are many reasons to digiscope, however getting the best quality pictures is not among them.

kevindurose · Jul 7, 2007

Tannin said:
Good for you. As it happens, you are flat-out wrong. If you wish, ponder your statement awhile as visit here and here. Bear it in mind that those shots were all taken with a camera that no-one in their right mind would select as a first-choice digiscoping camera today (though the 4500 was regarded as the best around back in those days).

I'll say it again: the oft-told tale that digiscoping is better for distant birds is a myth. For the same dollar expenditure, a made-for-the-purpose SLR and 400mm-class lens will always equal and usually outperform a spotting scope and adaptor and cheap little general-purpose camera pressed into a role for which it was never designed. Even with distant static birds (where the digiscope is at its best and an SLR with a 400mm-class lens is at its weakest) when you crop and resize to make the picture look its best there is little difference. And, of course, in all other circumstances, the SLR delivers better photographic results, and far, far more of them per hour expended.

Digiscoping has, however, several major virtues when we pass to matters which do not have to do with picture quality:

* If you already own the scope, it is much cheaper. (If you don't have a quality scope yet, then it's quite a bit cheaper to get an SLR and, for example, a Sigma 50-500.)

* If you plan to carry the scope anyway (because you like looking at birds through it), then the added weight and clutter of an SLR and lens is not nearly as convenient as a pocket-size camera and digiscoping adaptor.

* If you mostly watch birds and take pictures as a secondary activity, digiscoping is a great way to balance your priorities.

* Digiscoping, you get to see a good deal more of the bird. (I've posted at length on this in the past - going from digiscope to SLR is quite a wrench so far as your pure enjoyment of the birds is concerned.

* Digiscoping is fantastic training for the aspiring photographer. It hones your patience, fieldcraft, and anticipation skills in a way that an SLR cannot do.

Digiscoping, in short, is a wonderful activity and I recommend it to anyone interested. There are many reasons to digiscope, however getting the best quality pictures is not among them.

I can assure you with a distant bird digiscoping with a decent camera not one of those 4500 things will take a better more detailed and clearer image than you can get with a professional DSLR and a 400mm lens. I'm not saying the picture would be of better quality overall but the tiny image of the bird you would have would not have the necessary detail. Think yourself lucky your not over here in England, our birds are not tame like yours in the states. Its really hard to get good images with a 400mm lens here without a hide.

JGobeil · Jul 7, 2007

Tannin said:
I'll say it again: the oft-told tale that digiscoping is better for distant birds is a myth. For the same dollar expenditure, a made-for-the-purpose SLR and 400mm-class lens will always equal and usually outperform a spotting scope and adaptor and cheap little general-purpose camera pressed into a role for which it was never designed.

Tannin, you surely have some nice pictures on your Web site to demonstrate that you are knowledgeable but I have to disagree with you on this one. There is a limit to cropping.

I have been birding with a DSLR for quite a while and I purchased a scope only recently. There are distant water birds that are too far away to even think about taking a photo with the DSLR. With the scope, they are seen clearly and can be photographed.

And believe me, I have tried everything to increase range. 20D with 100-400 IS, 1.4X, 2.0X, 1.4 + 2.0X (yes! ), mirror lock-up, remote trigger and, of course, cropping.

For those like me that cannot afford the very long lenses and have to be content with 400 mm class and TC, I think that digiscoping is an interesting solution. Will those long shots make first quality photographs, I don't think so - but they can be decent photos worth showing and are perfect for ID.

I am new to digiscoping and I still have everything to learn. But If I can learn to photograph decently what I see in the eyepiece, I will be quite happy.

When I go birding where there is water, lakes, rivers, sea, I bring the scope and the 20D. Both share the same tripod. This is quite a bit of hardware to carry but I think it is worth it.

Jules Gobeil
http://www.julesgobeil.com

Tannin · Jul 7, 2007

Dear God, don't ever mistake me for an American!

Tannin · Jul 7, 2007

OK, I am hearing you, gentlemen, but I remain unconvinced. I stopped digiscoping when my Canon A95 failed and Canon sent me a brand new but quite unsuitable A610 to replace it. The A95 was easily better than the CP4500s were, and I didn't get around to taking direct comparison shots between the A95 and the 20D/100-400 (which I did do with the Coolpix). Nevertheless, I did enough with the A95 to be happy to let the digiscoping rig go on the grounds that it wasn't achieving anything I couldn't do equally well and much more easily with the SLR. And, of course, since then, the 500/4 has made digiscoping entirely irrelevant to me. (Note, however, that I'm not comparing the 500/4 with a digiscoping rig: that would be rather silly as they are in entirely different cost classes - and weight classes too, as my poor back can attest!)

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the more recent P&S cameras have achieved anything meaningful by way of image quality improvement over the 5MP/6MP generation. They have a heap more megapixels, of course, but have quite clearly gone past the point where noise and diffraction take over from theoretical resolution as the limiting factor. But even, for the sake of discussion, were I to concede that point, it still would make no difference: DSLRs have improved too (or rather, I should say they have improved instead of marked time with non-improvements as the P&S cameras did) and the 20D I compared the 4500s to is long gone as a front-line model.

Perhaps the best thing would be to compare again: current-generation DSLR vs current-generation digiscoping rig. Alas, we are 10.000 miles apart.

Neil · Jul 7, 2007

Perhaps the best thing would be to compare again: current-generation DSLR vs current-generation digiscoping rig. Alas, we are 10.000 miles apart.[/QUOTE]

Tannin,
As this has generated a lot of interest can we set up some tests that can be replicated. The easiest is to use the back of a DVD as the target (as everyone should have one) and take some test shots at 10/20/30 metres. For those who have both systems they can do a comparison of full frame and cropped. Should be interesting as I haven't done this myself yet. Neil.

Tannin · Jul 7, 2007

Best if you do it, Neil. That way, we know that it's the same light and the exact same conditions. For some time I've been meaning to get together with my friend Recurvirostra (who posts here regularly) as he has a digiscoping rig, and do the same - though we have been more-or-less intending to do it with a bird; something easy that stays in the same place for a while like an egret or an ibis.

JGobeil · Jul 7, 2007

Neil, I suggest you go further than 30 meters. Many of us are interested in capturing far away subjects at 100 meters and even more. IMO, this is where digiscoping will do clearly better than DSLRs, unless you use one of those expensive long lenses.

Who Does Both DSLR and Digiscoping? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th

punk birder

Well-known member

Attachments

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Well-known member

punk birder

He's pining for the Fjords !

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Common; sedentary.

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Nature Photographer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread