Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
More discoveries. NEW: Zeiss Victory SF 32

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Image quality help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 7th July 2006, 18:26   #26
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Quote:
My first impression seeing your gear was that the eyepiece would be the weak link (I don't know this eyepiece ).
Neil,

I have been waiting for someone to say that. It is my theory as well. Through the naked eye the image that the eyepiece delivers is more than pleasing but I only paid $34 for it and at that price there must be some trade-offs. My guess is that the digital camera is magnifying any imperfections in the eyepiece design. I am going to have to start saving up for a 20 mm Pentax XW.

I have tried the camera down at 5 megapixels and other than a faster load up time in the graphics program I have not really noticed much of a difference in picture quality. However, that was before I started tinkering with alot of the camera's features. I also feel somewhat handicapped by not having aperature priority or shutter priority mode. The only functions I can directly control, related to digiscoping, are the ISO and EV compensation.

Those pics I posted above are at no zoom on the digital camera though I get much the same results up to about 2x. At 3x I seem to be able to get a bit grainier picture. I will try those settings you mentioned the next time I get out to take some pics.

Paul,

The last group of pictures were all with the Williams Optics adaptor in the picture and with a 2 second delay timer. That is the setting/setup that I have finally settled on for now. I will give those focus suggestions a try. I experimented today with first focusing the scope then mounting the camera and using the half-pressed shutter to get final focus. I am going to try it a few different ways to see which gives the best results though I am starting to believe that Neil's comments about the eyepiece are the real problems behind the lack of perfect focus. We will see.

Thank you both for the help. It is much appreciated.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 7th July 2006, 23:52   #27
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Hi Frank

Firstly - the photos are getting much better!

Looking at your setup shows daylight between your camera lens and your scope eyepiece. This is not good and will loose contrast and often detail, is there anyway you can put a tube between these?

Next and more of a problem, The finch photo looks as if it was in focus - as the wire cage looks fairly sharp. But the bird doesn't look as good. Now without going into heavy detail, this could be caused by your cameras built in noise reduction smudging out feather detail.

To reduce this you need to use low ISO - say ISO100, but as paul stated your shutter speeds are already very very low. So here's the rub - move your bird feeders so they are in the daylight. The difference will be huge.

The pigeon shot needed less compensation, i see its on +3. minus 3 would have been better. And has Paul said, focusing properly and carefully pays big dividends. Although I think the finch photo maybe in best focus. 20 yards away is quite a distance for a 20x eyepiece to resolve. You can cure this when you move the feeders into the daylight - and closer ;o)
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 8th July 2006, 02:50   #28
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Quote:
Looking at your setup shows daylight between your camera lens and your scope eyepiece. This is not good and will loose contrast and often detail, is there anyway you can put a tube between these?
Sure. I can put something simple together just to see if it makes a difference. If it does then I can get some PVC or rubber/plastic tubing for a more permanent solution.

Quote:
Next and more of a problem, The finch photo looks as if it was in focus - as the wire cage looks fairly sharp. But the bird doesn't look as good. Now without going into heavy detail, this could be caused by your cameras built in noise reduction smudging out feather detail.

To reduce this you need to use low ISO - say ISO100, but as paul stated your shutter speeds are already very very low. So here's the rub - move your bird feeders so they are in the daylight. The difference will be huge
That may work (moving closer and into the sunlight) but is probably the only thing I do not necessarily want to do for the feeders. In the summer with the full foliage the light is limited but from late fall through early spring I should be able to get some good shots of the feeders. I have the feeders set up where they are so that any discarded sunflower seed shells, etc... don't kill my lawn. However, I thought the point to digiscoping was so that you could get close-up pictures at fairly great distances. Maybe I am mistaken but 20 yards doesn't seem that far to me. What are your thoughts on the average distance for most digiscoping pictures?

Quote:
The pigeon shot needed less compensation, i see its on +3. minus 3 would have been better.
I believe I had it at the + .3 setting because that then pushed the histogram peak more into the center of the graph. To move it t -.3 would probably have underexposed the shot. Is that something I should occasionally shoot for?

Quote:
Although I think the finch photo maybe in best focus. 20 yards away is quite a distance for a 20x eyepiece to resolve.
With this thought in mind do you agree/believe with the other gentleman that a more expensive/higher quality eyepiece of the same magnification would yield better results?

Thank you again.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 9th July 2006, 03:59   #29
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD
Sure. I can put something simple together just to see if it makes a difference. If it does then I can get some PVC or rubber/plastic tubing for a more permanent solution.



That may work (moving closer and into the sunlight) but is probably the only thing I do not necessarily want to do for the feeders. In the summer with the full foliage the light is limited but from late fall through early spring I should be able to get some good shots of the feeders. I have the feeders set up where they are so that any discarded sunflower seed shells, etc... don't kill my lawn. However, I thought the point to digiscoping was so that you could get close-up pictures at fairly great distances. Maybe I am mistaken but 20 yards doesn't seem that far to me. What are your thoughts on the average distance for most digiscoping pictures?



I believe I had it at the + .3 setting because that then pushed the histogram peak more into the center of the graph. To move it t -.3 would probably have underexposed the shot. Is that something I should occasionally shoot for?



With this thought in mind do you agree/believe with the other gentleman that a more expensive/higher quality eyepiece of the same magnification would yield better results?

Thank you again.
Frank,
If you don't have much manual control over your settings then the Histogram may not be giving you the right info. If you are metering the whole scene and the bird is not filling the frame then the background will be throwing the exposure off and a centered Histogram could be overexposing the bird. I usually like a Histogram a little to the left as I prefer to underexpose the subject a little than to over expose it a little. You should be able to have some control over Aperture and Speed by selectiing Sports Mode or Landscape Mode or other functions that you may have. Sports mode would automatically select higher shutter speeds and higher iso and Landscope should give you lower shutter speeds and higher f stops. Your manual should tell you more.
For distance versus quality - with top quality 80 mm scopes 25 meters would be rule of thumb to capture detail in reasonable light. With a 65 mm scope 20 meters would be at the long end. My ideal range with my 80mm scope is 7 - 30 meters which is comfortable for most birds . In the summer the best time to photograph is within 2 hours of sunrise and sunset ( low angle of light is always best) and have the sun directly behind you. Quality drops off dramatically with high summer sun and longer distance (heat haze) even with the best of kit. If you can find a subject in the sun in the last 15 minutes of the day you'll be amazed at the detail you'll pick up that you wont get at midday.
Keep practising and they will come , Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th July 2006, 00:46   #30
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Neil,

Quote:
If you don't have much manual control over your settings then the Histogram may not be giving you the right info. If you are metering the whole scene and the bird is not filling the frame then the background will be throwing the exposure off and a centered Histogram could be overexposing the bird.
I can adjust the metering control to either Multi, Center Weighted or spot. I have been shooting mostly spot as I saw it mentioned as the best choice on some other threads in this forum. I can also adjust the Exposure Compensation and the ISO to either 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 or 3200.

Quote:
I usually like a Histogram a little to the left as I prefer to underexpose the subject a little than to over expose it a little.
I honestly know very little about photography. Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?

Quote:
You should be able to have some control over Aperture and Speed by selectiing Sports Mode or Landscape Mode or other functions that you may have. Sports mode would automatically select higher shutter speeds and higher iso and Landscope should give you lower shutter speeds and higher f stops.
I will try those suggestions. I know the camera has multiple "Best Shot" settings ranging from "Ebay" to "Landscape", etc....

Quote:
For distance versus quality - with top quality 80 mm scopes 25 meters would be rule of thumb to capture detail in reasonable light. With a 65 mm scope 20 meters would be at the long end. My ideal range with my 80mm scope is 7 - 30 meters which is comfortable for most birds . In the summer the best time to photograph is within 2 hours of sunrise and sunset ( low angle of light is always best) and have the sun directly behind you. Quality drops off dramatically with high summer sun and longer distance (heat haze) even with the best of kit. If you can find a subject in the sun in the last 15 minutes of the day you'll be amazed at the detail you'll pick up that you wont get at midday.
Thank you kindly for the information and suggestions. They should prove invaluable.

Quote:
Keep practising and they will come , Neil.
I have been and will continue to. I seem to be able to get about 2/3rds the quality that I am looking for. It is that final 1/3rd that seems to elude me. After reading all of the suggestions on here I feel I am being limited by three things. One, the distance I am taking these pictures at (approximately 20 yards). Two, the quality of the eyepiece that I am currently using though I am about to remedy that. Three, the lack of complete control over the aperture and shutter speed but I should be able to work around that after your suggestions.

I took a few shots this morning. Here is the best I was able to come up with.
ISO 100
F 2.8
1/300
EV -0.7
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	doveok.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	66.0 KB
ID:	51555  
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th July 2006, 23:18   #31
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Re: "Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?"

Good question, the answer is - we are not actually underexposing it, we are trying to get it right. The camera makers often don't seem to with their automatic settings, for reason better known to them!

At the end of the day, if the photo looks right, its right. Its doesn't matter what the settings say.

Looking at your last photo post, its very much looks as if its could well be that only your optics (maybe the eyepiece) are letting you down now. As the photo looks reminicent of my early shots with a low quality scope.
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th July 2006, 23:40   #32
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,178
[quote=FrankD]Neil,







I honestly know very little about photography. Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?

I find that there are always a part of the bird's plumage (white/yellow) which will blow out if you meter for average grey. This dove photo shows a big improvement over you first images. I took the kiberty of just treaking it a little. Ihope you don't mind.Neil
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	attachment.adj.jpg
Views:	123
Size:	110.4 KB
ID:	51693  
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th July 2006, 02:53   #33
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
DB,

That may very well be the case. I hope to attempt to remedy that in the next day or two. I took some more pictures today while picnicing with my family. Nothing special in terms of bird species just some swallows and a catbird. My problem now seems to be that the images look fantastic on the display of my camera but then they look dull and dim when they are uploaded to the computer. Any ideas?

All pictures below were brightened, contrasted and sharpened as well as downsized to 800x600 to fit into this forum. I think I may be losing something in the resizing though as the pictures really start to look "blocky" now that I have uploaded them to this post. The second swallow and the goldfinch probably look the most realistic when compared to the original image on the display of my camera though both still show less detail and are much more dim (even after editing) than what I originally viewed.

Neil,

I most certainly do not mind. The only problem is that my computer does not want to recognize the file extension for that pic. What modifications did you make and what program did you use? Thank you for the help.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	swallow1.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	42.2 KB
ID:	51719  Click image for larger version

Name:	swallow2.jpg
Views:	118
Size:	47.8 KB
ID:	51720  Click image for larger version

Name:	goldfinch2.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	87.7 KB
ID:	51722  Click image for larger version

Name:	catbird2.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	46.8 KB
ID:	51723  Click image for larger version

Name:	swallow5.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	46.1 KB
ID:	51727  


Last edited by FrankD : Tuesday 11th July 2006 at 03:01.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th July 2006, 16:54   #34
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Hi Frank

Interesting photo looking up at the raven? It has certainly told a story about your optic system. The purple fringing in fron of the bird and green fringing behind, means that your scope is not focusing the complete colour spectrum of light properly.

Its bending some colours too much and others not enough. So all you get in focus is a few 'others'. (thats non tech speak).

An early scope of mine did that - not as bad though, it had a great eyepiece but a poor objective lens (the big front lens). With a 20x eyepiece it was acceptable - just. But when I bought a better quality scope body, the 20x and 32x eyepieces made photos look awesome.

Now with your scope, I do not know if its the eyepiece or the objective lens that is the culprit. So I bow to others knowledge.
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th July 2006, 20:23   #35
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
DB,

Thank you for the advice. I believe it would be the eyepiece. The scope's objective features Low Dispersion Glass but the eyepiece was an inexpensive, though current, design offered from a local business. I have a Siebert 19 mm on order and expect to see it tomorrow at some point. It reportedly has better control of chromatic abberation, especially in the center of the field and a flatter overall image. It will be interesting to see if that corrects some of my "issues". I believe the image you were referring to is that of the Gray Catbird and I can see the color fringing you mentioned. Even on the Barn Swallow I see a bit of it over the tail feathers and back.

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Thanks again.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 12th July 2006, 21:07   #36
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
I received the new eyepiece and was taking some pics with it today. In the backyard I could not tell much of a difference between it and the 20 mm EWA. In fact, the design of the EWA with its wider ocular lens gives a more relaxed view in my opinion. However, I did take the setup up to the local lake where I took the picture of the swallow on Monday. The difference at greater distances was obvious. The Seibert 19 mm gives better contrast and resolution as well as a brighter image. I was fortunate to snap one half decent shot of an Orchard Oriole but the resolution on the camera was set down to 5 megapixels (no optical zoom) and the Oriole was a good 35 yards away. Cropping it leaves a very blocky and grainy image. I will upload it as soon as I downsize it for the forum. I am going to give this new eyepiece a good workout and see what type of quality pics I can come up with.

Last edited by FrankD : Wednesday 12th July 2006 at 22:56.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th July 2006, 21:29   #37
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Hi Frank - I look forward to seeing them.

PS. I always find photos come out best at highest resolution and best quality setting. (and no zoom.)

By the way as for maximum distance for digiscoping, I tried photographing some tall ships at around a 2 mile distance last week. Sadly it was also really foggy, so none came out well - not on a professional level anyway.

Okay, I admit tall ships are a bit bigger than a bird ;o)
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th July 2006, 22:48   #38
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
DB,

Thanks for the reply. I have decided not to post the Oriole photo as it looks absolutely horrible when I downsize it to 800x600 to fit in this forum. Very blotchy and totally unrepresentative of what it looks like as wallpaper on my computer. I am going to try and take some more pics as time permits. Hopefully tomorrow.

I have a general question though and thought I would post a new thread as some folks might not want to read all the way through this entire thread to get to it. How does eyepiece size (15 mm, 20 mm, etc..) play into the digiscoping equation?
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th July 2006, 07:16   #39
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD
DB,



I have a general question though and thought I would post a new thread as some folks might not want to read all the way through this entire thread to get to it. How does eyepiece size (15 mm, 20 mm, etc..) play into the digiscoping equation?
Frank,
The power of the eyepiece is calculated by dividing it into the Focal Length of the scope ( 460 / 20 = 23x power, or in 35 mm terms 1150 mm ). As I've mentioned somewhere else for an 80 mm scope you really don't want to excede a combined 60x magnification (eyepiece x camera lens ) or 3000 mm . For a 65 mm scope that would be a combined 50 x or 2500 mm . So if you have a high powered eyepiece , say 15 mm ( which is 30x on my Swarovski ) you don't want any more than 2x ( 100mm in 35 mm terms ) in the camera. Which is why the cameras with lenses of 3 or 4 x zoom are the ones to use for digiscoping (Eye Relief of eyepieces and camera lens behaviour have a big part to play here to ). Also you want an eyepiece with as close to 20 mm of Eye Relief as possible and the Eye Relief of higher magnification eyepieces is usually too short to eliminate vignetting.
I hope this answers you question, Neil
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th July 2006, 12:28   #40
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Neil,

Thank you for the reply. The maximum effective magnification is something I had wondered about.

My question with eyepiece size was a bit more extensive. I posted a new thread to that effect on the forum.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 17th July 2006, 02:18   #41
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Here are some recent attempts with the Pentax 65 mm, Casio Ex Z1000 and the Siebert 19 mm eyepiece. All shots were taken this evening at about 15 yards with reasonably good light. Camera settings were ISO 200, F4.8 1/10. No exposure compensation. Video editing included the photoshop's one touch fix and sharpening. The images were downsized to 800 x 600 for the forum.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gooddove.jpg
Views:	139
Size:	45.6 KB
ID:	52304  Click image for larger version

Name:	autodove3.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	65.8 KB
ID:	52306  

Last edited by FrankD : Monday 17th July 2006 at 02:21.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th July 2006, 16:08   #42
Timedrifter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough UK
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD
Here are some recent attempts with the Pentax 65 mm, Casio Ex Z1000 and the Siebert 19 mm eyepiece. All shots were taken this evening at about 15 yards with reasonably good light. Camera settings were ISO 200, F4.8 1/10. No exposure compensation. Video editing included the photoshop's one touch fix and sharpening. The images were downsized to 800 x 600 for the forum.
Hi Frank!
I have just found this thread while checking for Casio posts. I have been trying several cameras recently for digiscoping including Fuji F10 and F11, Canon G2, Canon A95, Canon A620 and at present the Casio Z120. The Casio is without doubt the best so far. Its major drawback (this model anyway) is the small screen without antiglare. Having proved to myself the worth of the camera I'll probably get a Z750 shortly. I was amazed to discover via your post that the Z1000 doesn't have Aperture and Shutter priority modes - I think you should downsize! Does the Z1000 have manual focus? If it does you may well profit from experimenting with it. The manual focus on mine works brilliantly. There is an enlarged square in the middle of the focussing frame and when you touch either the left or right buttons this portion instantly takes up the whole screen! This is much superior to any other camera I've used, where normally you just get that little square in the middle magnified, and the surrounding portion stays the same. There are so many brilliant things about this camera that are great for digiscoping that I think more and more people will start using it, or its big brother, soon. As far as I'm concerned Casio Rules!
Anyway, getting back to your progress, because progress is certainly what it is, I think you must realise now what a drawback your previous eyepiece was. The last two piccies are a vast improvement with good sharp focus on the eye, you should be very pleased. It seems to me that you are reaching, or have reached, the stage where further improvement will only come with loads of practice. You certainly seem keen enough, and that's half the battle.
I think you should be less worried than you appear to be about your percentage of 'saves.' If you get one good one in twenty be very pleased, sometimes its only one good one in a hundred. But that's where digital photography really scores, you can take hundreds of photos for no extra cost, so multiple shot mode isn't a problem. One small point here, it is very well worth while to spend extra money on a fast card. I couldn't believe the difference it made when I went from a standard card to the one I use at the moment, a Patriot Extreme, which runs at 133.
Getting back, have a look at Andy's Photoshop tips, and don't feel bad about using it. I would think that 99 per cent of photographers use some form of post processing of their work. The only thing to beware of is that you don't alter the original colour of whatever creature you shoot. In difficult recognition situations this is essential.
I wish you all the very best with your endeavours, and I assure you that the crispness of detail you long for is just around the corner.
Timedrifter
Timedrifter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th July 2006, 18:23   #43
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Quote:
The Casio is without doubt the best so far. Its major drawback (this model anyway) is the small screen without antiglare. Having proved to myself the worth of the camera I'll probably get a Z750 shortly. I was amazed to discover via your post that the Z1000 doesn't have Aperture and Shutter priority modes - I think you should downsize! Does the Z1000 have manual focus? If it does you may well profit from experimenting with it. The manual focus on mine works brilliantly.
Timedrifter,

Thank you for the posting. I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

Yes, that is one interesting difference between the Z750 and the Z1000. The amount of manual control on the Z750 does make it more desirable for digiscoping and I had considered going with it instead...alas too late as the return period was over for the Z1000. The Z1000 does have manual focus control though I have only briefly played with it. Maybe I should experiment further in this case. I have toyed around with setting the focus on Infinity and then just focusing with the focusing knob on the scope itself with limited success. It seems that there are so many options on today's cameras. It takes a great deal of time just experimenting with all of them in a myriad of combinations to see what eventually works best for your setup.

Quote:
There are so many brilliant things about this camera that are great for digiscoping that I think more and more people will start using it, or its big brother, soon. As far as I'm concerned Casio Rules!
I hope so. I think their line of cameras shows some potential especially if someone more experienced with digiscoping than myself would actually take a crack with one. My setup is fairly restrained by budget. If someone with an 80 mm Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon, etc.. would give one of the Casios a whirl then much better results could probably be achieved. I do not think folks give Casio much thought as they are not typically considered when it comes to digital cameras. The funny thing though is that they actually came out with the first consumer camera back in the '90s.

Quote:
Anyway, getting back to your progress, because progress is certainly what it is, I think you must realise now what a drawback your previous eyepiece was. The last two piccies are a vast improvement with good sharp focus on the eye, you should be very pleased. It seems to me that you are reaching, or have reached, the stage where further improvement will only come with loads of practice. You certainly seem keen enough, and that's half the battle.
Thank you for the compliments. I have been trying. Any chance I get I try to at least get out for a bit to take a few shots in the backyard or at one of the local lakes. I hope to go out on a more extended birding excursion tomorrow. With luck I might catch something that is less "run of the mill".

Quote:
I wish you all the very best with your endeavours, and I assure you that the crispness of detail you long for is just around the corner.
Thank you and I wish you the best with yours. I hope to hear about what you eventually purchase and then would like to see some of your digiscoped pictures. If you get a chance then take a look at the Casio Exilim thread I posted in the Digital Camera section of this forum as well as the Pentax 65 mm and Knight Owl eyepiece thread in the spotting scope forum.

Good luck.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th July 2006, 20:15   #44
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Signet with soft down.

Here's a signet I photographed through my hand held 10x Binos with my F10 on Sunday. It was early evening but the sun was still very bright. Estimated distance around 10 or 11 yards (about 10 metres) .

Its not a good photo of the signet, and technically only the near bits are in focus. But even so, the F10 allows us to be able to see the texture of the down clearly. I think this is to do with Fuji's excellent sensor and noise control.

I know this was fairly close distance for scoping and the oreiginal photo is about 4x bigger than this - and on it you can almost feel the softness of the down (feathers?).

I tried to move to a better angle and closer, but mum swan wouldn't let me anywhere near - in fact it got a little scary a couple of times!!!

She definately won :o(
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	signet1285_650.jpg
Views:	116
Size:	141.6 KB
ID:	52487  
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 18th July 2006, 20:25   #45
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Very nicely done DB and with a pair of binoculars to boot. It amazes me the clarity and detail some folks can get even with just a good pair of binoculars and relativel low magnification. I would guess that speaks to the quality of the camera and the binocular itself. I tried digiscoping with my Nikon 8x42 Venturers and the pictures came out fairly decent with little to no vignetting. The only problem was that the distance was much farther and once I cropped the photo I noticed some CA blurring the fine details of the image. Maybe a closer shot would have turned out better.

Thank you again for the help you provided throughout this thread.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th July 2006, 09:17   #46
Timedrifter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough UK
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD
Timedrifter,

Thank you for the posting. I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

Yes, that is one interesting difference between the Z750 and the Z1000. The amount of manual control on the Z750 does make it more desirable for digiscoping and I had considered going with it instead...alas too late as the return period was over for the Z1000. The Z1000 does have manual focus control though I have only briefly played with it. Maybe I should experiment further in this case. I have toyed around with setting the focus on Infinity and then just focusing with the focusing knob on the scope itself with limited success. It seems that there are so many options on today's cameras. It takes a great deal of time just experimenting with all of them in a myriad of combinations to see what eventually works best for your setup.


I hope so. I think their line of cameras shows some potential especially if someone more experienced with digiscoping than myself would actually take a crack with one. My setup is fairly restrained by budget. If someone with an 80 mm Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon, etc.. would give one of the Casios a whirl then much better results could probably be achieved. I do not think folks give Casio much thought as they are not typically considered when it comes to digital cameras. The funny thing though is that they actually came out with the first consumer camera back in the '90s.



Thank you for the compliments. I have been trying. Any chance I get I try to at least get out for a bit to take a few shots in the backyard or at one of the local lakes. I hope to go out on a more extended birding excursion tomorrow. With luck I might catch something that is less "run of the mill".



Thank you and I wish you the best with yours. I hope to hear about what you eventually purchase and then would like to see some of your digiscoped pictures. If you get a chance then take a look at the Casio Exilim thread I posted in the Digital Camera section of this forum as well as the Pentax 65 mm and Knight Owl eyepiece thread in the spotting scope forum.

Good luck.
Hi Frank!
Here are a couple of shots I just this minute took of a Greenfinch sitting in the tree across the road. I paced this out at 32 yards, so its a good test of what the camera can do. The EXIF data give 320th @ F6 and zoom at 17mm which is about two thirds. It was of course at maximum quality setting and the ISO was 50. My scope is an old version Kowa TSN3 with one of their very latest 20mm wide angle eyepieces. This eyepiece is actually made for their latest 600 series scopes, but is backward compatible. I shoot handheld using a home made centring/positioning adaptor.
The original photo which is underexposed has been reduced for uploading. The close crop was first cut then adjusted in Photshop. First the brightness was adjusted with Curves. Next sharpening was applied with Unsharp Mask (indicator approximately half way) and finally Despeckled.
I think this shows the potential of the camera very well. It would be easy to show a superb looking piccie taken at close range but that doesn't prove too much. This is not a good piccie in terms of exposure and it could possibly have been improved via a fixed adaptor. I'm not claiming anything for piccie other than it showing the potential of the camera. If it had the screen of the Fuji it would be completely unbeatable.
Timedrifter
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CIMG0968red2.gif
Views:	125
Size:	259.5 KB
ID:	52528  Click image for larger version

Name:	Greenclosecrop.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	397.7 KB
ID:	52529  
Timedrifter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th July 2006, 11:27   #47
digitalbirdy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timedrifter
Here are a couple of shots I just this minute took of a Greenfinch sitting in the tree across the road...
Hi Timedrifter

Thats a really sharp photo for 32 yards (and great colour). I think it says a lot for your scope setup.

Frank, my bino's are the cheapest on the market but have very good lenses - I think, well certainly for up to medium distance work (They won't focus very close though). They are 'Meade' and normally retail at well under 50 (approx $80). I bought mine new at Christmas for only 10 at a local bargain store.

I tried some 1,000 binos last week, which were very impressive, but sadly there is no way I can justify them on my budget!!! :o(
digitalbirdy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th July 2006, 12:07   #48
Timedrifter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough UK
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalbirdy
Hi Timedrifter

Thats a really sharp photo for 32 yards (and great colour). I think it says a lot for your scope setup.

Frank, my bino's are the cheapest on the market but have very good lenses - I think, well certainly for up to medium distance work (They won't focus very close though). They are 'Meade' and normally retail at well under 50 (approx $80). I bought mine new at Christmas for only 10 at a local bargain store.

I tried some 1,000 binos last week, which were very impressive, but sadly there is no way I can justify them on my budget!!! :o(
Hi Digitalbirdy!
Thanks for the comments.
Re the bins, I haven't personally seen the ones you use so can't comment. What I can say is that a few months back I bought a pair of Eschenbach Farlux SPS 7x42 BG off of eBay for about 125.00. I was instantly very pleased with them. About a month or so back I bought a pair of Leica Trinovid 8x42 also off of eBay and was very surpised to find them not as good as the Eshcenbachs in terms of image quality. You couldn't fault the construction but that wasn't the point. My Eshcenbachs handle well, have a very good eye relief (I wear glasses) and are waterproof (nitrogen purged). I sold the Leicas straight away with no regrets at all. They may have 'snob' value round your neck, but what I'm interested in is clarity, definition and colour fidelity. If you are happy with yours then stick with them, but bear in mind that you don't HAVE TO spend a fortune to get quality.
Regards
Timedrifter
Timedrifter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th July 2006, 18:29   #49
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Timedrifter,

Thanks for taking the time to take those pics and post them. I would definitely say that the camera shows potential. The pics are indicative of a typical digiscoping situation and not necessarily the "best conditions". I look forward to seeing more of your pics when you have the time.

DB,

I never would have guessed that the binoculars you were using were so inexpensive. The picture taken through them was pretty good when you factor in the price.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th July 2006, 21:27   #50
mickporter
Oswaldtwistle birder
 
mickporter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Frank congratulations on your perseverance. I don't own your brand of camera so I cannot help much with settings etc. But what I want to comment on or at least reinforce:
  1. Is the need to focus the scope as well as the camera.
  2. Don't attempt to take pictures with the camera hand held, you are almost certainly doomed to failure!
I would recommend you find someone else who take pics using your type of camera succesfully, and ask for their settings. Once you have those you can then tweak them to suit. Its just practice, practice and practice again. You will never get perfect shots every time, I am sure even Andy B will never admit to that, but your success rate will increase. Get a big memory card for your camera, and take as many shots as you can. Doesn't matter if you waste 9 out of 10 so long as one is the shot your looking for. Your not wasting film!
__________________
[email protected]
mickporter is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digiscoping with Swarovski 80mm and 65mm Spotting Scopes Point and Shoot Cameras mdholland Digiscoping cameras 4 Friday 19th May 2006 14:39
Cornell Review Ratings of Audubon Image Quality Hogjaws Swift 8 Saturday 11th February 2006 20:54
digiscoping image quality: CP7900+ED82 vs CP4500+LeicaAPO77 pes The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 6 Tuesday 24th May 2005 22:27
Photoshop JPG quality - HE..ELP! ornithopod Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 4 Sunday 28th November 2004 15:44
EOS 1Ds image quality nigelblake Canon 8 Thursday 22nd January 2004 16:24

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.34993911 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:15.