DigiScoped Televue-85, Sigma 50-500mm and Panasonic FZ28 (1 Viewer)

I have just bought a Sigma 50-500mm lens to go on my EOS1000. So, I have done some tests and here are the results from three separate set-ups:

* Panasonic FZ28

* EOS1000 with Sigma 50-500mm

* EOS1000 digiscoping through my TeleVue -85

None of these shots has been messed with (just cropped to include the same view) and they are all taken from a tripod with time delay to avoid camera shake and at maximum zoom. The target is about 1,000m away (ie one kilometre) and the light was cloudy.

Looking at the "Fire Hydrant" sign at the top left gives the clearest quality indication.

How much would I have to spend to do significantly better than the digiscoped TeleVue-85? Would a Canon 800mm lens for £10,000 be better?
.

Looks like the EOS1000 digiscoping through the TeleVue -85 comes out best. Maybe just a nice 400mm f5.6 and 1.4 converter would do better ?

BTW love Gib, looks like you are on the balcony of the Rock Hotel

EDIT send me the airfare + Hotel + meals and I will bring my 400 f5.6 + 1.4

Nikon Kid said:

... looks like you are on the balcony of the Rock Hotel

Click to expand...

Good guess! Next door ...

I am a little (OK, a lot) disappointed to discover that the expensive lens I have just bought is measurably worse than using the TeleVue-85 as a "digiscope". On the other hand, using the TeleVue-85 is very slow as you have to use manual focus and exposure and it is fixed - there is no zoom.

Still, the Sigma 50-500mm is in turn measurably better than the Panasonic FZ28 (and damn well should be as it costs ten times as much) and is easy to use. It was bought to take photos of ships off my balcony using a tripod and it will fulfill that function.

Actually, on reflection, the TeleVue-85 is a very high quality piece of kit (it costs more than the Sigma lens) and in general a fixed lens is always going to be better than a zoom because it is optimised at just one focal point rather than having to perform over a large range of values. So, the TeleVue ought to be better and it is!

So, knowing what I know now would I still have bought the Sigma? On balance, yes. A fixed lens never really works with large objects like ships (birds, maybe) unless thay are several miles away (otherwise you get half a ship) in which case haze is a bigger factor than lens quality. So, Sigma 50-500 zoom it is ...

Good test. What lens and eyepiece did you use for the Televue test? The Televue has the reputation as one of the best pieces of glass out there and should do a much better job over distance than than the other two solutions, particularly in poor weather.
Neil.

Neil said:

Good test. What lens and eyepiece did you use for the Televue test? The Televue has the reputation as one of the best pieces of glass out there and should do a much better job over distance than than the other two solutions, particularly in poor weather.
Neil.

Click to expand...

I have tried doing digiscope through the eyepiece and have never got that to work reliably despite buying a so called universal adaptor. See:

http://www.thingysoft.com/myblog/2008_week014.asp#16

Eventually I bought a "proper" attachment - see:

http://www.thingysoft.com/myblog/2008_week030.asp#7

That is why there is no "zoom effect".

Anybody thinking of "digiscoping" should bear in mind that it is all very well demonstrating that it "works" but can you do it when it is cold, overcast and raining? Not to mention that for a lot of the shots I take you have ten seconds from start to finish - that includes yelling "Omigod where is the battery?", inserting the battery, turning it on, zooming in, focussing and shooting. In the case of the Euro fighter I think we had only about 5 seconds ... see:

http://www.thingysoft.com/myblog/2008_week035.asp#10

I bought the TeleVue-85 because I thought that just for once in my life I would buy the very best rather than going for the cheap option. It does not get used a lot but I love having it around - you can read the names of ships when with the naked eye you can only just see the ship!

I suppose it just boils down to money get some canon L lens jobbys and you are away, nice 50d and any zooming you can do by cropping.
I really don't know how different it is in lens choice for a little Sparrow v P&O Aurora but the best scope I have seen is the Kowa TSN big bucks

Yes I have stayed at the Rock Hotel a few times, was coming over this year for a 4 day stay, but can't get the cheap deals of a couple of years ago.

I have added your blog to my links it might make me waver and spend money :-O

Not a really fair comparison for the following reason (correct me if I am wrong).

To show the same image section the three photos had be be cropped and blown up to the same scale, depending on the camera's focal lens more or less. If I would add the best of the line 50mm prime lens, take the same picture from the same vantage point and blow the image up to show a comparable section I would see nothing but a few pixel blobs.

For a real comparison of image quality I would have to adjust for the different focal length by increasing the distance with increasing focal length. This would tell me what lens has the best resolution/image quality. If this wouldn't be the case nobody would drag a 500mm 4.0 around to take bird photos. A 50mm would do the trick and cropping and blowing up the photo on the computer would do the rest.

HOWEVER, nobody will argue that digiscoping will give you the best reach for your money! Results speak for themselves, and once more this was clearly demonstrated in this study. Still digiscoping has a few disadvantages and for those Nikon Canon etc. will not have to worry about the market for long focal length primes.

Digiscoping with DSLRs, in comparison with the conventional P&S digiscoping, allows for even higher quality images mainly due to lower high ISO noise (faster shutter speeds). All this reminds me to look more seriously into options to attach my D80 to the Pentax scope .....

Ulli

Seaspirit, you are right in the sense that it is not fair to say "I can read the distant lettering better, therefore it is a better lens" BUT I think it would be fair to say "I can read the distant lettering better, therefore it is a better lens for reading distant lettering" If that is not tautological.

It is very easy to lose sight of your objective and, to quote Yogi Berra, if you don't know where you are going you will end up someplace else.

So, I am looking for the best system to take photos of ships at considerable distance and read their names and IMO numbers if possible. Presumably similar objectives apply to bird photos where you want to be able to see individual feathers and what they had for lunch (but what do I know)

So far, in this quest I have established to my satisfaction, that for this limited objective the DigiScoped TV85 is the best I have (ie "better" than the Sigma 50-500) The Panasonic FZ28, incidentally, is fantastic for the money. It is also very small, discreet and easy to use - like a SEAT Leon as opposed to a Ferrari (I can bore for some time on cars)

The £10,000 question is "Would the Canon 800mm be measurably better?"

You wont know till you look through it on your balcony.

Nikon Kid said:

You wont know till you look through it on your balcony.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that sums it up, unfortunately.

Actually, you can do a lot worse than the Panasonic DMC FZ28 - you can probably get one for about £200

Here is a shot just casually taken while walking through Gibraltar yesterday, of a couple of bird type things - it has not been messed with - just cropped and reduced to 1024 width to comply with forum rules. It is just point and shoot - high zoom and full auto ...

A Pair of Herring Gulls

Yellow-legged Gulls, the Mediterranean equivalent.

I am a silly boy, I looked at the legs and thought they are not yellow enough.