head suggestion? (1 Viewer)

I've been thinking about a digiscoping rig for awhile, so I've been reading stuff in a variety of places out on the web.

One thing which has surprised me is the head choice. In photography circles, the larger lens users all seem to go for large ball heads (arca swiss & kirk for example.) This does not seem to be the choice that many use with scopes (and therefor for digiscoping.)

Why? Is it purely cost (the companies I listed make very expensive heads) or something else I'm missing?

I've used a scope before (a few dozen times) but I've never owned one. So its quite possible that I don't know something which experience would otherwise have taught me.

Eric

Hi Eric

I think Digiscoping is a birdwatchers way of recording what they`ve seen for this reason they`re using equipment that they already have,so something like a specialist head doesn`t always come into the equation.Maybe later on when a birder becomes hooked on digiscoping they start looking at ways to improve their shots.

Regards Stevo.

Eric,

Hello from another Massachusetts Bird Forum member. I think Stevo is right, most digiscopers start out as birders, and most birders use video heads for their scopes. Video heads are designed for smooth panning and have handles, both of which make it easier to scan with a scope. The smooth panning is not so important for digiscoping; the handle is convenient but not necessary. A typical video head, like the Manfrotto 128RC/Bogen 3130, works OK for digiscoping but as you get more interested in photo quality, you start looking at heads (and legs) that provide more stability. You can go for a more heavy-duty video head, like a Manfrotto 501 or Gitzo 2380, a ball head, a pan-and-tilt or a gimbal head. I think the choice is largely a matter of personal preference; they all have their strengths and almost any high quality head desgined for fairly heavy equipment will work.

Glen

Yep, Stevo has hit the nail on the head.... most digiscopers are birders utilising what they already have and probably happy to keep it that way rather than maybe use equipment that get in the way of general birding.
I always try to avoid head recommendations.... it really is very personal. The more expensive fluid heads (not quite pro) are more suited to digiscoping than the smaller ones often used by birders.... but there is a significant weight penalty that many birders are unable to put up with.
Andy

I see the logic about not wanting to advice... Maybe I should have asked my question this way. Has anyone ever used a ball head (and therefor no handle for steering) with digiscoping and does it work well? I can see how not having the handle would be annoying. With a camera & lens, its fairly self contained and (it should be) easy to turn and aim where you want. Maybe the nature of the digiscoping setup makes the handle much more valuable.

I wonder if some of it doesn't have to do with the fact that a scope doesn't have to be amazingly stable until you try to put a camera on it. I know I learned very quickly that I thought I was stable (from 8.5x binoc use) but it was obvious I wasn't once I picked up a camera with a 600mm mirror lens.

I've never used ball head (even in photography, I'm researching right now.) It just surprised me that so many people in photography say "the only acceptable thing for long lens shooting is a big ball head... and the pinnacle is the Arca Swiss B1" and then when I've looked at scopes I only see video heads.

Eric

Eric

Neil Fifer, an Australian photographer who is a member of the birds-pix and digiscopingbirds email lists, uses an Arca-Swiss ballhead for digiscoping and likes it. But I agree with you, I am so accustomed to having a handle that I think shooting without one would be awkward. You are also right about the greater need for stability -- inadequate tripods and heads are one of the biggest sources of problems in digiscoping.

Glen

I have used a ball head with my old Nikon f90 + 300mm f2.8 ... yep, very good but you need to have your hand on the camera for tracking active birds and shooting... fine with fast shutter-speeds with a genuine lens, but we don't really see those shutter-speeds at the magnifications that digiscoping entails. You don't want any part of your body touching the set-up when taking the shot.

I prefer a pan & tilt.... many other like fluids. The best fluids that I've tried have been from Gitzo (not a conventional fluid) and Sachtler, but they really are heavy and expensive beasts. Could also consider some of the larger Manfrotto fluids.

Two distinct groups are now meeting up through digiscoping..... the devout birders and the digital photographers who have happend upon the method via the web and fancy a crack at bird photography (big focal lengths are quite macho, especially when you can get it on the cheap So not all digiscopers have the same priorities.
Andy

Sounds like we're dancing around the same thoughts and conclusions that I had come to (but without the experience to back them up.)

Having to maneuver the digiscoping rig without a handle is doable, but not as convenient. But its also partially a question of what you are used to.

With a camera you already have to have your hand on the camera, so it really isn't any different when the camera is mounted on a tripod.

So not all digiscopers have the same priorities.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this. Maybe in specifics, but in general we all care about sharp, clear pictures of our subjects. The specifics differ on what is "sharp" and "clear". What I'm wondering is what the best gear for the money is (after I don't skimp on the scope) that will get me to that end. My target is probably set too high, as I come from a photography background (shooting with the very nice 100-400L) but I'd rather lower my target to something still high than accept something lower which is partially lowered by shake a better head or 'pod would solve.

So I think I'll keep looking at a pan/tilt head right now, as the handle could be handy in keeping the digiscoping rig setup correctly.... if my hands aren't there, I can't disturb it.

Eric

“ So not all digiscopers have the same priorities. ”

What I mean by this is that a birder isn't going to compromise his/her ability to bird successfully by having digiscoping gear that gets in the way of their main hobby.... i.e using scopes/eyepieces that are not entirely suited to birding.
It's basically a method for birders to get record shots of the birds they see (with the equipment they'd normally use), something pin sharp and able to print well at A4 is very nice but they wouldn't do it at the expense of their main interest.... in any event, images of that quality are the exception rather than the rule.
Regards,
Andy

With a camera you already have to have your hand on the camera, so it really isn't any different when the camera is mounted on a tripod.

So I think I'll keep looking at a pan/tilt head right now, as the handle could be handy in keeping the digiscoping rig setup correctly.... if my hands aren't there, I can't disturb it.

Click to expand...

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think both of these comments are a little off-base.

First, you do not have to trigger the shutter with your hand when the camera is on a tripod, as in disgiscoping. You can use a cable release, air bulb, remote control or the camera's self-timer to avoid the camera shake that is introduced when when you press the shutter button with your finger. Many, if not most digiscopers use one of these methods.

On the second point, the purpose of a handle on a head is to help aim the scope or lens, not to eliminate hand-induced camera shake. The camera, head and handle form a (hopefully) rigid unit and holding the handle while you shoot can cause camera shake just as easily as touching the camera. You have to remember to let go of the handle before you shoot.

Glen

I've gotta learn to be clearer. But at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was making assumptions that are wrong... so you should all keep correcting me!

Most articles about long lens technique for cameras say that it is in fact better to have your hand on the trigger (if you press the trigger properly, which is to roll your finger over it and not to poke or use a "sudden jab" at it.) This hand helps absorb some of the shock waves produced by mirror slap. That is also the same reason they suggest having your off-shutter hand rested gently but firmly on the top of the lens, over the tripod mount. It also absorbs shock waves and helps steady it from the wind (some use bean bags for the same result.) Then the camera hand does most of the the aiming.

You could use mirror lockup and a remote shutter, but for the really nice action shots this doesn't work (obviously.) I could post links to some well-written articles about these techniques if people care.

Mirror slap is the killer with long lenses with an SLR. But most cameras used in digiscoping don't have a mirror, so this isn't an issue and remote triggers work well. So how you handle a digiscoping rig can be different. I assume the hand or beanbag on the scope might be good to help with wind vibrations, along with hanging a bag off the bottom of the center column. But the hand on the trigger seems unnecessary.

I am assuming that a digiscoping rig isn’t as secure a setup as a SLR & long lens. So it’s better to keep your hands away from the camera once you know it’s right. That led me to assume that aiming by turning the scope (or the camera) isn’t the best way to do it and it could cause the camera/scope coupling to have problems. Therefor the handle (something a ball head lacks) is very useful. Is this an incorrect assumption? You all have infinitely more experience than I do.

Andy,

Gotcha. I don’t get something good enough for A4 prints with my camera, so I’m certainly going for that while digiscoping. I would be willing to get a eye piece which was better for digiscoping, but I’m more looking at it as a way to satisfy my bird watching desires and take pictures I couldn’t get otherwise. I’ll get that 500 f4 eventually (or the sigma 300-800) but not anytime soon.

Eric

I understand about the value of having your hands on the camera and lens for long-lens SLR shooting. I thought you were still talking about digiscoping.

eric s said:

I assume the hand or beanbag on the scope might be good to help with wind vibrations, along with hanging a bag off the bottom of the center column.

Click to expand...

Yes, some digiscopers do these things. I have my camera bag attached to my tripod legs to add mass to the rig.

I am assuming that a digiscoping rig isn’t as secure a setup as a SLR & long lens.

Click to expand...

A digiscoping rig can be just a solid as an SLR/long lens, but the consequences of any insecurity at all are much more severe because of the higher magnification, so the digiscoping rig will always seem less secure.

That led me to assume that aiming by turning the scope (or the camera) isn’t the best way to do it and it could cause the camera/scope coupling to have problems. Therefor the handle (something a ball head lacks) is very useful. Is this an incorrect assumption? You all have infinitely more experience than I do.

Click to expand...

My scope was always coming loose from my old head and I'm sure trying to aim by pushing the scope instead of a handle would have made the problem worse. The connection with my current head is much more secure and I could probably aim with the scope without any coupling problems, but I still think it would be harder to get the frame where you want it quickly without a handle. I think the same thing would be true for an SLR with long lens, but I have never used such gear and 100% of my digiscoping experience is with a handle, so I don't really know. Neil Fifer who I mentioned previously gets great digiscoping shots with a ballhead, so it certainly can be done.

Glen

eric s said:

Gotcha. I don’t get something good enough for A4 prints with my camera, so I’m certainly going for that while digiscoping. I would be willing to get a eye piece which was better for digiscoping, but I’m more looking at it as a way to satisfy my bird watching desires and take pictures I couldn’t get otherwise. I’ll get that 500 f4 eventually (or the sigma 300-800) but not anytime soon.

Eric

Click to expand...

Those ball head/long lens instructions must be written in stone.... I've got that in several of my bird/wildlife photography books, almost word for word :t:
Yep, digiscoping set-up is lighter than slr/long lens... which doesn't aid stability. I use a stone bag and/or lower tripod right down with legs splayed out to widest angle.
Digiscoping involves far longer equiv focal lengths than slr/long lens and consequently slower shutter-speeds.... so it's definitely hands-off operation when the shot is taken.

If you pm me your e-mail address, I'll send you a full size image for you to judge quality... probably send you one that has been exhibited at A3, some can even make that size. It's doubtful whether there's a better third-party eyepiece for use with your scope.
One of the guys on here at the moment is posting some very nice shots using his scope with a photo adapter and dslr (Nikon D100).... photo adapters cost quite a lot, but you'll get an 800mm f10'ish manual focus prime lens for your trouble (Swaro' do a 1100mm one as well)... just to give you more options 3
Andy

Andy Bright

I've sent the PM. Thanks for offering to send that.
Gosh, I really dropped an important word in my post, didn't I? Gotta love dyslexia. That should have read:

I don’t get something good enough for A4 prints with my camera, so I’m certainly not[\b] going for that while digiscoping.

I guess the carried some sarcasm which might have yielded the meaning I intended.

There is a person over at Steves who uses a D100 & 50mm f1.? to shoot through the eye-piece using a home made adapter. I might try this for fun, but I already want to get a simpler digital for my girlfriend to carry and use.... so why not get one fit for digiscoping?

Glen Tepke

My logic was that if you have to be that careful at 1000mm (500 with 2xTC) that you would certainly have to do the same and more digiscoping (which can get 2-5 times more reach.) So I was trying to extrapolate it to digiscoping.

Good to hear that a digiscoping rig can be built up into 1 cohesive structure. I worried about that.

Maybe it's an aspect of the manfrotto head I tested (don't remember the model, damn!) I found it rather stiff in turning & aiming. The arca swiss I used at a photo store was much easier/faster to turn and aim. But that could easily be an aspect of a cheap head or badly adjusted. I'm going to go back tomorrow and try again. The Audubon store in Lincoln isn't exactly the place to find a wide variety of high quality pods and heads. (Not a carbon fiber in the bunch.)

I wonder what Neil Fifer uses for a QR plate and ball head? Humm.

Thanks for all this wonderful information and clarification. And your patience with a person who knows just enough to confuse himself. I greatly appreciate it, you have both been a great help.

Eric

Eric,

Your logic is correct. My only point was that it is the extra magnification that causes problems, not any inherent physical instability in digiscoping rigs.

Re digiscoping rigs, the bigger and beefier the parts, the more cohesive the rig will be.

You were probably testing the Bogen 3130 (Manfrotto 128RC) which is the most popular head for birding and therefore digiscoping. They are near their performance limits with the weight of a scope and camera, but if you fiddle with the knobs you should be able to get it to pan reasonably smoothly and many people do just fine with them.

There is another thread on this forum about the Manfrotto 501 (don't know the Bogen #) which is a heavier video head that users seem to like. I use a Gitzo 2380 which also works well.

I can pm you with Neil's email address and you can ask him about his setup.

Glen

I'll check out that head (and read that thread again.) Thanks for the suggestion.

Eric

Gentlemen, I'm following this discussion with interest. At the risk of dragging it slightly off-topic, two coments.

I'm using a Manfrotto 501, and have never used anything else so I don't have anything to compare it to. Essentially, with everything else I've had to learn over the past month or two, I have paid zero attention to using the head properly. I just screwed it up to within a fraction of as tight as it would go in both directions (pan and tilt), and have left it like that ever since.

I accept that I have to push hard on the handle and that it only moves very slowly. I know I should take out an hour or so to experiment with it, but (in my defence) I plead diminished responsibility. There are only three possible situations: (a) it's dark and I'm indoors so I can't use the scope, (b) it's light but I'm at the office or otherwise tied up, and (c) I'm not at work and it's not dark, in which case I'm either pointing it at a bird and don't have time to muck about with experiments just yet, or else I'm looking for the next bird. Doesn't seem to leave much opportunity for practicing. (Winter here, so there is no "after work" on weeknights: it's dark when I get home.)

So my question is this: what is the most effective way to use that head? Presumably not what I'm doing now.

(I'll post again for my second question.)

Second question. I don't have a remote release, so almost evey shot I've taken has been with the following method. I hold the handle in my left hand, both to steady the rig, and to "micro-aim" it exactly where I want. (Nearly always, the scope settles such that the bird is (say) half out of frame and I'm only seeing feet, no head, so I just lean on the handle a little to adjust it.) This puts a little tension into the rig and holds it fairly steady.

With my right hand, I squeeze the shutter release. Results are variable: some excellent shots, lots that are not quite right. Good light and fast shutter speeds makes a huge difference. Keeping still and trying to squeeze as gently as possible helps. Setting the Coolpix 4500 to "continuous" and letting it ripple-fire off two to four shots running helps too, as I'm not moving on the shutter release, just holding it in. And that dreaded Nikon shutter delay no doubt helps a bit also: by the time the thing stops leaning on its shovel and starts actually taking pictures, any residual vibration from me pressing the shutter release has had a chance to dissapate.

Sometimes I do it the other way: get the scope just so in a hands-free state, and then try to squeeze the shutter release without moving anything. This seems to give both the best and the worst results: when I get it right, they are very nice, but when I wobble the thing, it's worse than ever

Having dragged this thread half off-topic already, I might as well keep on going and mention my friend with the CP5700. She got a Nikon remote release gizmo as part of the deal (MC-EU1). From what I've heard about the Nikon remote gizmo, I suspect that they threw it in with the camera as a sweetener because they didn't expect that anyone would actually want to pay cash money for it, and they might as well get rid of it this way. She's never used it.

But being a nice sort of friend, she's lent it to me to try out, which I'll do tomorrow. If I like it, I'll either offer to buy it or, more likely, mail order the apparently superior third-party one made and sold in the USA. (Thanks for that link, by the way, Andy - which can be found in a more appropriate forum than this off-topic post.)

Anyway, I'll report my results when I've had a play with it, but in the meantime, is there anything I ought to know about it?

Oh, and Eric. Yes please: I'd like to take a look at those links you mentioned a little further up.

Tony

I got the 501 today, along with a Manfrotto Carbon One to mate with my ATS-80 HD. I was out at a National Wildlife Refuge for about 3 hours using it. Not a lot of experience, but here it goes.

I found the 501 a little slow to turn while testing it. A little more resistance than I wanted. In the field, though, this didn’t seem to matter. It was still fast enough to follow the osprey, GBHs, egrets and other things I watched. I would like to find a way to make it handle faster and smoother. In the store they kept reassuring me that it would get smoother over time. I tried to adjust the friction, but it made no difference (I think it was at its minimum.) I’m going to play some tomorrow and see what I can do. I’ll post the results. It’s supposed to be hot, humid and then thunder shower… so I think I’ll have time inside to play.

I have used ball heads on cameras a few times and they have fantastic pan/tilt resistance (fully adjustable.) But I felt that the handle (which a ball head lacks) was a useful thing so I didn’t go that route. Although I did wonder if it would be possible to attach a handle some how, with a clamp or something.

I can’t say much about the remote trigger. Harbortronics make some very nice remote shutter releases for the CP4500 and a few others. Maybe it works for the 5700 as well? Check out:

http://www.harbortronics.com/

Sure, here are some long lens technique links. These two are the best written of the bunch I have:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/bh0201-1.html

and

http://www.naturephotographers.net/ejp0801-1.html

Eric