• 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.

Digiscope with a compact digital camera? (1 Viewer)

CBB

Well-known member
Hi all,
I've just been on a well known camera seller's website and they've got a compact camera attached to a scope. (Samsung and Opticron) Can you digiscope with a digital compact? Sorry if this is a stupid question. It's just that it would save me some money for a few months. I've already got a scope and digital compact.

Chris

PS. Short two letter answers will not offend. I've just seen maestro's thread but not sure if it's the same type of question. Sorry all.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the compact camera, some are much better than others. As I understand it the problems arise with the DSLR and anything thing else with a large front lens or high zoom factor, you say you already have a compact and a scope so have a go hand holding, practise with them you might be pleasantly surprised, you will certainly learn about the things to worry about for future purchases.

Mick
 
CBB said:
Can you digiscope with a digital compact?

Yup, that's how most people do it. Digiscoping tends to be a combination of scope and compact camera - like the Nikon 4500 or 9XX range, the Contax / Kyocera range, or a host of others (I believe Fuji are quite popular at the moment, but have a scan through the digiscoping threads here for more info).

I've not heard good things about the Samsung / Opticron combo, but have no experience myself. The main requirements seem to be for a camera with a small diameter lens (ie my Panasonic FZ20 is no use at all) and relatively low zoom (3x or 4x) - again, there's a huge amount of technical information on BF explaining the whys and wherefores of this.

You can either handhold the camera to the eyepiece (worth a go to see what you get) or attach it with an adaptor for greater stability - hence sharper pictures.

Try www.digiscoped.com, Andy Bright's website, for some initial information on digiscoping.
 
Cheers Mick and Mark. The Samsung is a digimax s500 with a Zoom 5.8-17.4mm and it's an opticron imagic 80. pleased with both on their own. Will give it a go. Cheers for the links too.

Chris
 
Hi Chris,afaik most digiscopers use compact cameras with a zoom range of /up to 3x to avoid vignetting. I think every-one else is watching the tele just now. The Maestros camera has a 10x zoom and this again afaik is no use for digiscoping. Also an other site you could have a look at is www.digiscopingbirds.com hope this helps,regards, henry.
 
CBB said:
Cheers Mick and Mark. The Samsung is a digimax s500 with a Zoom 5.8-17.4mm and it's an opticron imagic 80. pleased with both on their own. Will give it a go. Cheers for the links too.

Chris

Hi Chris, just had a look at the camera online - seems OK in principle, certainly the right sort of camera. Best of luck, and remember that most people find digiscoping quite frustrating to start with - a steep learning curve, but worth it.

For handholding, the main tip I would give is to do whatever you can to keep shutter speeds fast - shoot in good light, don't overdo the eyepiece zoom / camera magnification (both steal light), use higher ISO if you have to, even underexpose the picture a little if you can - all to keep shutter speeds at 1/60 or above (and preferably much much higher).

Have fun.
 
hornet said:
Hi Chris, just had a look at the camera online - seems OK in principle, certainly the right sort of camera. Best of luck, and remember that most people find digiscoping quite frustrating to start with - a steep learning curve, but worth it.

For handholding, the main tip I would give is to do whatever you can to keep shutter speeds fast - shoot in good light, don't overdo the eyepiece zoom / camera magnification (both steal light), use higher ISO if you have to, even underexpose the picture a little if you can - all to keep shutter speeds at 1/60 or above (and preferably much much higher).

Have fun.

Cheers again for the advice. Will give it a go. Lets hope it's sunny tomorrow then!!

Chris
 
Mickymouse said:
Depends on the compact camera, some are much better than others. As I understand it the problems arise with the DSLR and anything thing else with a large front lens or high zoom factor, you say you already have a compact and a scope so have a go hand holding, practise with them you might be pleasantly surprised, you will certainly learn about the things to worry about for future purchases.

Mick


Had a go today and was quite suprised. Light was good. I'll give it another couple of days and then post one on the critique thread. I'm assuming everyone gets something that looks like a tunnel and then crops.

Chris
 
mooskibaby said:
I'm not to sure really i want a digital camera but i don't know wether to get one or to use digiscoping.

From my point of view I'd love a digital slr with a big lens but cant afford one. I've decided to try digiscoping as I already have a scope. I think a lot depends on what you already have and what you can afford.

Chris
 
Last edited:
CBB said:
From my point of view I'd love a digital slr with a big lens but cant afford one. I've decided to try digiscoping as I already have a scope. I think a lot depends on what you already have and what you can afford.

Chris
Same here, I would love a DSLR but I can't justify the expense and another thing to keep in mind is carrying all this stuff, you can get good results with Digiscoping just by keeping a little camera in your pocket.
That tunnel effect is what everyone calls vignetting and you might be able to get rid of that by zooming in a little way on the camera don't over do it though because it makes the image soft for some reason another thing to try is to see if you can't knock up some sort of centering guide, mine is made from an old plumbing fitting that helps enormously.

Mick
 
Mickymouse said:
Same here, I would love a DSLR but I can't justify the expense and another thing to keep in mind is carrying all this stuff, you can get good results with Digiscoping just by keeping a little camera in your pocket.
That tunnel effect is what everyone calls vignetting and you might be able to get rid of that by zooming in a little way on the camera don't over do it though because it makes the image soft for some reason another thing to try is to see if you can't knock up some sort of centering guide, mine is made from an old plumbing fitting that helps enormously.

Mick


Can you explain your centering thing a little more. It sound good but I cant picture it.

Chris
 
I can show you what I mean, sorry the pics are bad but they should demonstrate what I mean, I used a plumbing fitting because that's what I found which was about the right size, others have used film containers with tape wrapped round them, I leave mine stuck on the scope all the time and look through it for normal use, when a picture opportunity arises I switch on the camera and poke it in the hole and fire away then when I have finished shooting I put the camera back in my pocket, it's very convenient that way.
Hunt about and see what you can find to adapt, there must be something.
Hope this helps.

Mick
 

Attachments

  • AdapterScope.JPG
    AdapterScope.JPG
    28.1 KB · Views: 361
  • AdapterCamera.JPG
    AdapterCamera.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 364
Well i have an opticron telescope and a a little canon photo shot A510. Would a little camera like that be ok for digiscoping?
 
mooskibaby said:
Well i have an opticron telescope and a a little canon photo shot A510. Would a little camera like that be ok for digiscoping?

No reason why not - it looks about right. The best way to find out is simply to try it!

First focus the scope on something static while you practice (ie not a bird). I'd recommend a box of cornflakes at the end of the garden, works for me.

Now hold the camera to the eyepiece as close as you can without touching glass to glass (on mine I can rest the camera on the eyepiece without the lenses touching). Half press the shutter release until you get a focus lock, and have a look at the image you're getting on the screen. You may need to adjust the scope focus a little.

If you are getting a lot of black around the edges (vignetting), try zooming the camera to 2x or 3x. If that gets rid of it, and you have a decent image, then you're in. Welcome to digiscoping.

It is unlikely that you have just taken a brilliant image, but hopefully you've got something to work on. There are dozens of ways to improve the image, and loads of information around on how to go about it.

A few important ones are:
Fast shutter speed (good light, not too much magnification, high ISO if necessary)
Reduced vibration (good tripod, adaptor, shutter release cable)
Better equipment (larger objective lens on the scope, ED or flourite glass)

You can take the whole thing from nice and simple handheld record shots, right through to fantastic near DSLR quality photography (examples of both abound in the gallery).
 
hornet said:
No reason why not - it looks about right. The best way to find out is simply to try it!

First focus the scope on something static while you practice (ie not a bird). I'd recommend a box of cornflakes at the end of the garden, works for me.

Now hold the camera to the eyepiece as close as you can without touching glass to glass (on mine I can rest the camera on the eyepiece without the lenses touching). Half press the shutter release until you get a focus lock, and have a look at the image you're getting on the screen. You may need to adjust the scope focus a little.

If you are getting a lot of black around the edges (vignetting), try zooming the camera to 2x or 3x. If that gets rid of it, and you have a decent image, then you're in. Welcome to digiscoping.

It is unlikely that you have just taken a brilliant image, but hopefully you've got something to work on. There are dozens of ways to improve the image, and loads of information around on how to go about it.

A few important ones are:
Fast shutter speed (good light, not too much magnification, high ISO if necessary)
Reduced vibration (good tripod, adaptor, shutter release cable)
Better equipment (larger objective lens on the scope, ED or flourite glass)

You can take the whole thing from nice and simple handheld record shots, right through to fantastic near DSLR quality photography (examples of both abound in the gallery).
All of the above. Plus:

If your camera has a multishot function, switch that on, often the first shot is a little blurred, but subsequent ones are better.
 
The only thing is marc is that i was told that it's not good for the telescope to do that, i don't know why though.

You can buy a special adaptor though. Yet they cost £100 pounds.
 
mooskibaby said:
The only thing is marc is that i was told that it's not good for the telescope to do that, i don't know why though.

You can buy a special adaptor though. Yet they cost £100 pounds.

I'll bet you can, you'd be amazed how much money you can spend if you want. There's always someone ready to help you part with money (adaptor, shutter release cable, screen shade, heavier tripod, battery pack, aiming devices, spare batteries, extra memory cards, back up memory devices and on and on and on).

I can't imagine how you can damage your scope unless you touch the camera to the eyepiece glass. This is to be avoided at all costs. But many people happily manage like this, doing all their digiscoping by just handholding a camera to the scope - it's got to be the best way to start, to see if the camera and scope work together, and see if you want to spend more money making a better set up.

As for adaptors, there are loads of different kinds, and they're not all £100 - what sort of scope have you got?
 
I have got an opticron imagic 65mm fieldscope.
Does that make a difference.
Would you say that it is better to get a digiscope stand to rest the camera onto?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top