Will I be disappointed with digiscoping - my research says I probably will be. (1 Viewer)

I am a keen photographer and like many I am keen to get some sharp images of wildlife and birds. I own a Nikon D3 with pro lenses 24-70, 70-200, 105 macro and a 1.4TC. So the best lens set up I have currently for wildlife is only 340mm at f4.8 with a full frame sensor. This is rarely any good unless I get really close to my subject.

I have been looking to purchase a bird scope and am sure there is little to choose between the top end models from Kowa, Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. The Swarovski STM80 HD with TLS800 adaptor and the Nikon EDG85 with FSA-L2 adaptor appear to be the only 2 models that have a dedicated adaptor that replace the camera lens. All the others seem to require the use of an existing lens and unless I am wrong the adaptors would not fit my 24-70mm lens as the filter ring is 77mm.

So I appear to be looking at the Nikon and the Swarovski. My research on reviews shows them both to be good. - However when I search for images taken on this type of equipment I find them to be mostly lacking sharpness and often little detail. So am I likely to be disappointed with digiscoping and not get clear sharp images. Do i resign myself to the fact that I have to get close with my camera and camera lenses to get the images that will satisfy me and just purchase a high end scope and enjoy what I see live and cherish that in my own memory.

To move up to 400 or 500mm lenses is too expensive at the moment for me. I do understand that digiscoping will never be as good as a dedicated camera lens but if anyone has had any experiences that confirms my research into digiscoping or disputes it then please respond.

AnthonyFaragher said:

I am a keen photographer and like many I am keen to get some sharp images of wildlife and birds. I own a Nikon D3 with pro lenses 24-70, 70-200, 105 macro and a 1.4TC. So the best lens set up I have currently for wildlife is only 340mm at f4.8 with a full frame sensor. This is rarely any good unless I get really close to my subject.

I have been looking to purchase a bird scope and am sure there is little to choose between the top end models from Kowa, Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. The Swarovski STM80 HD with TLS800 adaptor and the Nikon EDG85 with FSA-L2 adaptor appear to be the only 2 models that have a dedicated adaptor that replace the camera lens. All the others seem to require the use of an existing lens and unless I am wrong the adaptors would not fit my 24-70mm lens as the filter ring is 77mm.

So I appear to be looking at the Nikon and the Swarovski. My research on reviews shows them both to be good. - However when I search for images taken on this type of equipment I find them to be mostly lacking sharpness and often little detail. So am I likely to be disappointed with digiscoping and not get clear sharp images. Do i resign myself to the fact that I have to get close with my camera and camera lenses to get the images that will satisfy me and just purchase a high end scope and enjoy what I see live and cherish that in my own memory.

To move up to 400 or 500mm lenses is too expensive at the moment for me. I do understand that digiscoping will never be as good as a dedicated camera lens but if anyone has had any experiences that confirms my research into digiscoping or disputes it then please respond.

Click to expand...

Coming from a photography background I think you'll find digiscoping with an SLR deeply frustrating; you simply won't want slightly dodgy 'record shots'.
Enjoy the scope for what it is and save for a longer lens;maybe a decent bridge camera for the record shots etc.
Good luck
Russ

A Canon 800mm telephoto lens costs around $13,000+ while a Nikon EDG82 + FSA-L2 would cost only $4,500 I reckoned.

There must be a trade-off in image quality.

However, I must add that if you have a rather cooperative subject, under good lighting and you are able to get near (ie fill the frame at around 1200mm in 35mm terms), you could get fairly sharp images with good details through digiscoping. One cannot complain in view of the price of the setup as compared to a telephoto lens setup:king:

Why don't you take a look at the photos by Azahari Reyes in the link below. He is using the EDG85/FSA-L2/DSLR combo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34746277@N02/

Thank you Russ and SeeToh for your comments. I think you have summarised the situation by saying that digiscoping is OK for record shots but not so good for good sharp photos. I had already looked at Azahari Reyes and find them to be lacking although most of his shots have been taken from considerable distance and then cropped so the resolution is quite low so the point you make that if you can fill the frame then you may get a fairly sharp image is a good one - but this applies to all photography. I find the majority of bird images you see have been heavily cropped - if only we could get a bit closer to them.

I have not yet made my final decision but I think I will be just investing in the scope initially. I just want to make the right choice so I have the right model to adapt later if I change my mind. I really need to test some equipment now.

Thanks Anthony

Something I noticed in Azahari Reyes's photos is how quickly the image smears away from the center of the photo. Look at the wooden post in this image and see the blurring towards the bottom of the photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/34746277@N02/6528858279/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Putting these adapters on a spotting scope is basically like turning it into a prime focus set up. Using an astro scope would be abetter choice for image quality and gets you to an image quality comparable to the big Canon and Nikon primes. Actually some test have showed better image quality in side by side comparisons. Once a teleconverter was added then the scope easily beat the Canon prime.

Anthony, have a look at my gallery linked at the bottom of my post for example photos through an astro scope. If image quality is paramount then this method will give you it. People say the weight is an issue, a set up like mine can weigh around 11 lbs with scope/tripod/camera but that is still less than a Canon 600mm with tripod and camera. My 600mm Skywatcher 80ED is pretty much the same as the new Canon 500mm at around 7lbs. Anyway, it's another option for you to explore.

Paul.

Perspective

AnthonyFaragher said:

I have not yet made my final decision but I think I will be just investing in the scope initially. I just want to make the right choice so I have the right model to adapt later if I change my mind. I really need to test some equipment now.

Thanks Anthony

Click to expand...

I have not been around much since last year, busy birding and other personal things. But it occurred to me that the initial question about being disappointed with traditional digiscope photography begs a more fundamental question. Are you a birder, or are you a photographer? Let me explain.

I believe I have noticed a difference in birders over the past one year of regular birding. I am going to generalize in order to make a point. The more traditional birders seem to be older retired or nearly retired folks who love simplicity and the elegance of more refined things (being empty-nesters, usually can afford to do so). These folks do not want to bring a camera with them, they only want their favorite brand of binoculars (usu. Swarovski) and want to enjoy the outdoor experience without complications. They don't even bring a field guide because they have it memorized. Nor an ipod since they have bird songs memorized also. They also like to move quite quickly from place to place. If spotting scopes are needed for looking at shorebirds, it needs to be light and powerful (usu. Swarovski or Zeiss).

Then there are others that like technology and want to wring every last bit out of it to help them on bird walks. Cameras with big sensors and big lenses slow people down and are cumbersome. A telescope with camera, barlow, extension tubes will weigh 10-11 lbs, plus a more hefty tripod and tripod head. A carbon fiber tripod that handles 13 lbs will cost $300+. A head that can handle around the same weight will cost $200+. Traditional birders who are nimble on their feet don't want that kind of weight to slow them down.

If you are in Photography mode, it might be best to think solo. If you are in birding mode, then joining a group activity is fun. But the converse is not true - when you are in Photography mode, others in a group will not like to be waiting around for you to take perfect pictures.

I use a Celestron Onyx 80 EDF and it works well but have not had it out much. I am actually giving a 10 minute presentation to my local birding club about "Bird Photography with a Telescope". I will say to them that the images will be same or better than expensive $2000+ spotting scopes for less than $1000 but have disadvantages of no waterproofing, heavier, and astronomy scopes may have a heavy green cast on the coatings that needs compensation in post-processing (mine does, have not heard of that problem with the Skywatcher or Orion). On the other hand, there is more flexibility with connections, adapters, eyepiece selection (I use Baader Hyperion 17mm and a modified Nikon spotting scope zoom) AND if I tire of this scope, I can sell it used and get a better one without changing ANY of my adapters and eyepieces. Also, most "digiscoping" needs to occur in good lighting conditions anyway, so waterproofing is not needed.

If you are a more traditional birder, you might want to think twice about a telescope. But if you can manage to wear two hats, photographer and birder (and can keep those activities somewhat separated), then by all means, go ahead with a telescope and use it with a camera with as large a sensor as you can afford (I use Pentax K200, 10Mpx DSLR).

Sorry for the long post but thought it useful for you since you seem to have some assumptions that you had not expressed and it is just my opinion based on one year of regular birding.

I am responding to the 2 posts from Paul Corfield and Goldenarrow. Firstly I would say I am first and foremost a photographer which is probably what you guessed. If I go birding with my wife I probably take few or no photos as she wants to press on whereas I want to stay for the moment - so you are absolutely right that you are better doing photography on your own.

Joining this forum has been enlightening and has allowed me to look at alternative systems - so now I am unsure which way to go. However I think my first investment will be a birdscope to help me with the birding and eventually I will invest in more powerful telephoto lens - meanwhile I will just have to get close to get the photos I want.

I do not think I will be going down the telescope route but it is definitely a much more cost effective route and the results do appear to be better than digiscoping.

Thanks for all your comments. Anthony

Maybe you should look at the Swaro Digiscoper of the Year winners and gallerys for the last 6yrs before you write digiscoping off.

As for adapters, Kowa and Nikon both have zoom capable dslr adapters but they will vignette on an FX camera at their widest setting. The Swaro adapter is a fixed 800mm focal length and should be OK on FX since it a relic from film SLRs. Should you decide on a traditional compact digicam method, Kowa offers the most adapters as well as a 25XLER eyepiece. FWIW, the bigger lens of the Kowa 88 also delivers about 1/3stop faster shutter speeds than a 80mm scope. A straight scope is generally preferred for digiscoping for its natural ergonomics and ease of use from a hide. As with any supertele lens, a gimbal on sturdy tripod offers the best mount.

Being local to me, the site below my signature might be useful for contact and advice too.
cheers Dave

Rioja

Thanks for the link I will check it out.

Regards

Anthony

Don't write off digiscoping....it is a skill. Look how long it took you to become a photographer with your equipment. It is not that easy to transfer to digiscoping as the skills are not the same. But in order to have good photos, you need good equipment, so not any different from photography in that case.

Also,. ...while shooting with a DSL might not be the best for photography, you can pick up some relatively cheap point and shoots and they work great.I know I use an older S90 canon and you can pick those up for $300 or so ... Compare to price of high priced lens.

now...just yesterday I was out and found some snowy owls. I had my camera and 400mm with me but that wasn't good enough. Tomorrow I am returning with my scope and digiscoping set up and will come back with a much better shot than I had with camera.

See my gallery at zenfolio http://lmans66.zenfolio.com/p871544059 I am still working and improving and I have been doing it for several years now. I love it....It allows me to slow down and bird and take shots at the same time...not just clicking off a thousand shots hoping to get one that is perfect. In my opinion, more skill involved in digiscoping... jim

RJM said:

Maybe you should look at the Swaro Digiscoper of the Year winners and gallerys for the last 6yrs before you write digiscoping off.

As for adapters, Kowa and Nikon both have zoom capable dslr adapters but they will vignette on an FX camera at their widest snetting. The Swaro adapter is a fixed 800mm focal length and should be OK on FX since it a relic from film SLRs. Should you decide on a traditional compact digicam method, Kowa offers the most adapters as well as a 25XLER eyepiece. FWIW, the bigger lens of the Kowa 88 also delivers about 1/3stop faster shutter speeds than a 80mm scope. A straight scope is generally preferred for digiscoping for its natural ergonomics and ease of use from a hide. As with any supertele lens, a gimbal on sturdy tripod offers the best mount.

Click to expand...

Really? A straight scope.... No. To disagree ( and this is a case in point that we all have our preferences n styles) .... I prefer an angled scope. For digiscoping and my adaptor... A straight scope wouldn't cut it.

Also, Swarovski has an equal number of adaptors and eyepieces etc.... Personally digiscoping works best at a zoom of 20 so kowas fixed 25 zoom is not my preference.

So ..... We each work with equipment that best suits our styles.... But in pointing out or promoting our brand....let's be fair n recognize that all alpha scopes are quality.... The one each of us elects to go with is more personal feel n fit. Not one of the alpha scopes really have anything on their side which includes light, color, focus etc.... Immeasurable for most part.... Jim

Imans

You have some nice images. I will be purchasing a scope regardless but if I do want to digiscope I want to make sure I buy the right one for my needs. I will attempt to try as many of my shortlisted scopes before I go ahead. Thanks for all your comments.

Anthony

Lack of Detail with Digiscoping? Disapointed?

Anthony ,,,
You have to be kidding there is plenty of Digiscoped Captures that rival some of the top prime lens ,,you ever consider alot of big lens users have Speed lights with Beemers to bring in the Micro contrast Sharpness and removing shadows?
Pretty shallow.

Kevin Bolton

Anthony

I have a full kit of Nikon lenses to 600mm as well as the Nikon EDG Fieldscope 85mm (non-VR) with the 20x-60x zoom and the 20x60x F mount adapter.

A scope is fantastic for birding, but digiscoping is quite different. And photography is even more different. If your primary goal is birding, and you want occasional photographs to document subjects or compliment your birding, a scope and adapter works well. If your goal is bird photographs while your wife is birding, you might prefer an alternative.

I've gotten some good images digiscoping. Best results come from the 20x-30x end of magnification. A tripod and gimbal head are very useful.

The big issues with digiscoping are high magnification and manual focus. As you would expect, with high magnification any vibration is a problem. The quest for adequate light is always a battle. And with manual focus at long distances, images are rarely as sharp as with your camera's AF system.

One option you might consider is the Nikon V1. I have been very pleased with the V1 and conventional lenses. The V1 has a 2.7 crop factor, so a 70-200 becomes a 190-540 f/2.8 equivalent. Add a 1.4 teleconverter and you end up with an equivalent 250-760 f/4. If you need more reach, the 300 f/4 and the V1 work very nicely together and could be combined with a teleconverter. And the fast movie mode of the V1 at 60 fps can be used for some wonderful birding images.