• 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.

Digiscoping vs. DSLR (1 Viewer)

Sir William

Sir William

I'd rather be birding
Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this type of question, but I couldn't find a better spot to put it!

I was browsing through somebody's digiscoping pictures and they are breathtaking! Looking up the equipment used the total price was under $1500. What are the other benefits to digiscoping and what are the fallbacks to doing it instead of just using a higher end DSLR and lens? Does digiscoping give you a better range and how is the quality compared to a telephoto lens?

Thanks so much. Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject!
 
Big lenses for DSLRs tend to get very pricey very quickly !

I use a DSLR with my 500mm FL astro scope instead of a VERY expensive lens. In this instance, the big difference is that usually, DSLRs will use "prime focus" ie, no lenses or eyepieces between the scope body and the camera body, just an adaptor. With compacts, the norm is afocal projection, ie, the camera with its built in lens, sits on an eyepiece in the scope.

Pros and cons ?

Prime focus can only be at one mag setting, effectively the scope acts as a telephoto lens, so no zoom. Also, exposure is (again, usually) fully manual, and does take some practise and experimentation. On the plus side, less glass in the optical path usually means better quality images with less chromatic abberation or other distortions. Sometimes not easy with standard spotting scopes, more common with modified astronomical scopes which can actually be cheaper.

Afocal projection can use a load of different eyepieces and zoom factors and the exposure is usually automated to some degree. Eyepieces make a BIG difference to the quality of the shot. Much easier with spotting scopes.

Of course, if you can afford £4000 odd for a 500mm f4 lens, fine :)
 
I think one of the main advantages of digiscoping is that many birders already own a good scope and tripod. It is therefore quite cheap to buy a suitable compact digital camera and an adapter.

There is also less to carry about – just the small camera and adapter rather than an additional relatively bulkly DSLR and big, heavy lens. Of course, if you're not worried about having a scope with you as well there's not much difference.

The DSLR route does seem to produce better results with moving birds and is probably easier and less cumbersome in use.

Ron
 
As Ron has written, if you have a very good scope along with a steady tripod and head you're half way there. If the camera features include a cable release or remote firing, all the better. Results will be good.
 
Many birders already have a scope so adding a digicam and adapter is an easy upgrade for them. It's hard to carry a long lens and a scope (you only have one tripod ).
But getting up close is an important reason. This snipe photo was taken at the equivalent of 4800 mm (60x on the Swaro zoom and 81 mm on the CP4500 zoom ). No way of getting closer as he was 30 metres out on the mudflats. Neil.
 

Attachments

  • common snipe DSCN0711.jpg
    common snipe DSCN0711.jpg
    124.5 KB · Views: 568
What adaptor?

What adaptor do you use with DSLR?
I have a Leica Apo Televid 77 telescope and use a point and shoot camera for digiscoping at present.
I wondered about a direct coupled DLSR.
Leica quote £388 for an adaptor with a Leica screw fitting, which gives an 800mm F8?


g8ina said:
Big lenses for DSLRs tend to get very pricey very quickly !

I use a DSLR with my 500mm FL astro scope instead of a VERY expensive lens. In this instance, the big difference is that usually, DSLRs will use "prime focus" ie, no lenses or eyepieces between the scope body and the camera body, just an adaptor. With compacts, the norm is afocal projection, ie, the camera with its built in lens, sits on an eyepiece in the scope.

Pros and cons ?

Prime focus can only be at one mag setting, effectively the scope acts as a telephoto lens, so no zoom. Also, exposure is (again, usually) fully manual, and does take some practise and experimentation. On the plus side, less glass in the optical path usually means better quality images with less chromatic abberation or other distortions. Sometimes not easy with standard spotting scopes, more common with modified astronomical scopes which can actually be cheaper.

Afocal projection can use a load of different eyepieces and zoom factors and the exposure is usually automated to some degree. Eyepieces make a BIG difference to the quality of the shot. Much easier with spotting scopes.

Of course, if you can afford £4000 odd for a 500mm f4 lens, fine :)
Click to expand...
 
An SLR and lens is more useful for photographing birds that are moving about (e.g. flying birds) as you can take a photo much more quickly. However, you have to get quite close to the bird to get a decent photo (asssuming a typical 400/500 mm lens) and this is not always easy. Digiscoping allows photography from a more realistic distance, but requires the birds to be reasonably static.
 
Sir William said:
Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this type of question, but I couldn't find a better spot to put it!

I was browsing through somebody's digiscoping pictures and they are breathtaking! Looking up the equipment used the total price was under $1500. What are the other benefits to digiscoping and what are the fallbacks to doing it instead of just using a higher end DSLR and lens? Does digiscoping give you a better range and how is the quality compared to a telephoto lens?

Thanks so much. Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject!
Click to expand...

There is a third way between using a point and shot with a spotter and using a DSLR with conventional telephoto lens'.

This third way has important advantages over either of the above methods and should be considered.

In order to save me a lot of typing go to this thread. There is plenty of detail and pictures to explain what's going on.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=61282

SF
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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

J
Which camera or phone for digiscoping?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Luca1970
L
M
iPhone 15 pro max 5x lens for digiscoping?
Replies
5
Views
4K
Elpha8888
Elpha8888
J
Help pls Which phone/ compact camera?
Replies
0
Views
715
Jhanlon
J
O
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 vs. Victory SF 8x42
Replies
4
Views
544
Scott98
S
K
Nikon Monarch Fieldscope vs Celestron Regal M2 80ED vs Vortex Diamondback - tough choice
Replies
19
Views
1K
jring
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top