d70 getting to 1000mm on a budget. (1 Viewer)

cfagyal said:

As for those asking about digiscoping....The quality of images from a DLSR are so many light years ahead of digiscoping it is really not worth considering moving away from a DSLR. Yes you can get decent images from digiscoping, but you can't get anywhere near what you can get with a DSLR and a high quality lens. The glass used in digiscoping just isn't that good in comparison. The resolution certainly isn't nearly as good. The lack of a flash (and no the popup flash on your Nikon Coolpix 4500 doesn't count) seriously hinders things as well.

Click to expand...

Well, how many light years exactly?

It is very true that good and especially excellent optics on a DSLR will be able to deliver more resolution per image frame than just about any digiscoping setup I can think of. But these same good optics don't have the reach of a good digiscoping rig either. If you can get close enough to your bird to get the framing you want, then the DSLR and good lens will deliver a better image. But if you can't get as close and have to crop the image in any substantial way, the advantage begins to disappear quickly.

The 5Mp of my CP5000 is less than the 6Mp of a D70, but the 8Mp of a CP8400 can probably deliver about the same level of detail - given decent optics in front of it.

As for flash, both the CP5000 and CP8400 have hot shoes. Other digiscoping cameras also offer schemes for using auxilary flash as well.

Digiscoping rigs are also nice and quiet and don't have shutters and flipping mirrors to induce vibration at low shutter speeds or make noise that distracts the subject. This image (its a 1920 x1536 crop from a CP5000 and prints well at 8x10) was taken at f/6.1 and 1/14 second at ISO 100 and an equivalent focal length of 1550mm.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/thrasher/Curvebilled_Thrasher_0021_MMPKAZ.jpg

A 170-500mm Sigma zoom with a 1.4x teleconverter would give an 1050mm equivalent on a D70 and an effective aperture of f/8.8 (which can create a problem with phase detection autofocus with some cameras BTW). You'd probably want to stop down to f/11 or even f/16 for better sharpness. To keep the same shutter speed, you'd need to bump the ISO of the DSLR to 400 or possibly 800 if you use f/16. You can get to 1/60 by bumping the ISO to 1600 or 3200. But now you are definitely hurting image quality.

The D70 has 2000 vertical sensor "pixels" and the CP5000 has 1960. The D70 will get about 10% more resolution out of its pixels, but the CP5000 has 50% more image magnification in this situation. If the optics were equal, this would work out to about a 30% linear resolution advantage for the digiscoping rig. Its hard to say how much better the Sigma zoom with extender at f/16 is as compared to the digiscoping rig, but it has to be 30% better at ISO 1600 or more to reach parity. The resolution tests of my digiscoping rigs tells me that they don't lose 30% of their sharpness as compared to the camera alone. So its not likely that parity would be reached.

Bottom line, is that there aren't lightyears of difference in this particular case. They are about on par or the edge goes to the digiscoping rig.

My point here is not to disuade anybody from using DSLRs. They are great cameras and surely are the better choice for many people for a variety of reasons. The best bird photographers use them. But these pros also tend to use very fast and very expensive lenses (many thousands of dollars) and are also very skilled at and spend a lot of time getting close to their subjects. You might want to factor in such things when making equipment choices. You also might want to take hyperbolic statements that measure photographic performance in terms of "lightyears" with a grain of salt as well.

Jay Turberville said:

Well, how many light years exactly?

Bottom line, is that there aren't lightyears of difference in this particular case. They are about on par or the edge goes to the digiscoping rig.

Click to expand...

Jay,

I snipped most of the quote out, except the above. My point is, and if you do the scientific research you'll find this...resolution is not pixels. Pixels has almost nothing to do with resolution (There are plenty of white papers that talk about pixels as compared to resolution, as there are a lot of pixel happy photographers who think upgrading from 3.2 to 4.1 to 5 to 6.3 megapixels automatically upgrades their resolution. That isn't always the case. I'll leave it up to you to do some google searches to find out the physics behind sensor technology. A good place to look might be www.luminous-landscape.com as I believe one of his articles deals with pixels and resolution). When I was speaking resolution, I was speaking in terms of resolving power of the lens. The small lens attached to the front of a coolpix by default is miserable in comparison to a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4, or really any prime lens in either Nikon's or Canon's lineup for that matter.

Most prime lenses resolve in the neighborhood of 80-85 lines per millimeter. The sharpest ones (such as the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS USM) lose almost no contrast or sharpness near the center of the lens, and lose a slight bit on the far outside edges of the lens. You can read the MTF charts for this lens to verify this. Compared to say, a 50-500mm sigma zoom lens, the differences are night and day, but then again so is the price difference. Compared to a lens attached to a compact point and shoot digital camera, there is no comparison. The compact point and shoot digital camera probably has half, if not less of the resolving power of a SLR prime (i.e. not zoom) lens.

Now there are newer compact digital cameras that claim to have higher quality lenses. For example, the Canon PowerShot Pro 1 claims to have a Canon L series 7xzoom lens on it. I'd be quite curious to see an MTF chart of that lens. It claims it is equivalent to a 28-200 f/2.4-3.5L lens. I would wager such a compact digital camera would perform decently well roughly equivalent to what a 28-200mm variable zoom lens would perform on a DSLR, especially considering the Powershot Pro 1 series is using a DIGIC processor, which may very well be the same DIGIC processor used in the Canon DSLRs. However...you are not only going through the glass on the lens, but also the glass on the scope. That is a LOT of layers of glass to go through, and a lot of room for distortion, loss of sharpness, and loss of contrast.

I will grant you, that with a digiscoping rig you do have superior reach. I have however found (I used to digiscope with a Nikon Coolpix 995 and Nikon Fieldscope III 60mm ED a few years back) that the farther out the subject, the less detail was possible, and the more consistently blurred the image was. I found that really I never did miss the "reach" of a digiscoping rig, but still regret the thousands of shots I threw away because of poor quality that would have been saved with a DSLR+Lens.

I will also grant you that a DSLR setup will probably cost you more money up front. Of course that depends on what you buy. Getting a very nice scope with ED/APO quality glass (necessary for good digiscoping) will run you 1000-1500$ which would cover the cost of a DSLR. Add in the adapter, remote shutter release, etc and you add several hundred more dollars. Add in the top of the line compact digital camera to mate to it (in the past the Coolpix line, now I don't know) and you add another 700-900$ and you are looking at a 2500-3000$ purchase. You could have a Canon 20D, Canon 580EX flash and a Canon 400mm f/5.6L + 1.4xTC for that price and have the same setup I have. Less reach, but a significant amount of increase flexibility, better resolving power, etc. You won't see a whole lot of flight shots with digiscoping gear, nor will you see a whole lot of multi-flash professional hummingbird setups, nor will you see many 16x20 or 20x24 prints with a digiscoping setup either.

If digiscoping was "equivalent or slightly better" than DSLR+SLR Lenses, then you'd have professionals using it for photography. Fact of the matter is the cameras are inferior by a large margin, the lenses are inferior by a large margin, and the overall system is dramatically inferior. That isn't to say decent shots can't be had. The one you posted is quite nice. I've seen plenty that are quite nice. But to say that digiscoping is a better image making system just isn't valid from a technological standpoint. The technology doesn't support that claim, nor does the science.

Cheers,

cfagyal said:

Jay,
My point is, and if you do the scientific research you'll find this...resolution is not pixels. Pixels has almost nothing to do with resolution

Click to expand...

Pixels are not resolution, but there is a very predictable relationship if you first understand the nature of the sensor in question. That is why I included the 70% and 80% factors in my post. I did a survey of a number of cameras as tested by DPReview.com and that was the general grouping. The notion that pixels have almost nothing to do with resoluton is simply wrong.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/sensorRes.html

I did my math hastily and sloppily though. The difference in resolution vertically between the CP5000 and the D70 is closer to 15-20%, not 10%.

cfagyal said:

When I was speaking resolution, I was speaking in terms of resolving power of the lens. The small lens attached to the front of a coolpix by default is miserable in comparison to a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4, or really any prime lens in either Nikon's or Canon's lineup for that matter.

Click to expand...

No. You specifically referenced DSLRs, not lenses. And the specific camera that is being discussed in this thread is the Nikon D70. This thread also is specifically about how to get 1000mm on the D70 inexpensively. The 300mm and 500mm lenses don't get us there and they cost $3000 and upwards. They miss the mark in focal length and in cost. The request was for an inexpensive solution.

cfagyal said:

Compared to a lens attached to a compact point and shoot digital camera, there is no comparison. The compact point and shoot digital camera probably has half, if not less of the resolving power of a SLR prime (i.e. not zoom) lens.

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong about the fixed lens digital camera. The lens on the CP5000 clearly resolves better than 100 lp/mm. This is a pretty easy to confirm fact since the DPReview.com test shows a resolution of 1350 LPH and the sensor height is 6.6mm. This means 204 lines/mm or 102 lp/mm. The CP8400 resolves 125 lp/mm or better. And these resolutions are what is recorded by the CCD. A direct MTF test would probably reveal greater resolution since the sensor exhibits color moire artifacts which indicates that the sensor is receiving detail near or greater than the Nyquist limit.

Furthermore, the 80 lp/mm from the two lenses you mentioned will be wasted to some degree since the sensor of a D70 can only record about 52 lp/mm.

cfagyal said:

However...you are not only going through the glass on the lens, but also the glass on the scope. That is a LOT of layers of glass to go through, and a lot of room for distortion, loss of sharpness, and loss of contrast.

Click to expand...

Hey! We agree on something. The extra glass, the fact that an eyepiece is not optimized for photography on a flat plane and the fact that none of the "extra" optics are optimized for the purpose of photography is a real issue that affects image quality. But rather than guess about these affects, I test them. You can see the results here.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/digicat/digicat.html

A good digiscoping rig does pretty well in the center delivering results nearly on par with the camera lens alone with the use of a bit of sharpening.

cfagyal said:

I found that really I never did miss the "reach" of a digiscoping rig, but still regret the thousands of shots I threw away because of poor quality that would have been saved with a DSLR+Lens.

Click to expand...

Like I said in my previous post, if the DSLR setup will provide the reach you need, it is the way to go. Aside from noise issues (and I know at least one person who has a problem with at least some birds being spooked by the noise), its a pretty obvious choice. But the original question was about getting 1000mm equivalent focal length. That's tough to do on a budget with a DSLR.

cfagyal said:

I will also grant you that a DSLR setup will probably cost you more money up front. Of course that depends on what you buy. Getting a very nice scope with ED/APO quality glass (necessary for good digiscoping) will run you 1000-1500$ which would cover the cost of a DSLR. Add in the adapter, remote shutter release, etc and you add several hundred more dollars.

Click to expand...

I digiscope using a $250 1000mm f/10 Rubinar mirror lens. My eyepiece set me back about $125. I made my eyepiece adapter. I might have another $100 in other bits and pieces. The results compare very favorably with a much more expensive Swarovski ATS80-HD. Expensive glass is not necessary for good digiscoping.

cfagyal said:

If digiscoping was "equivalent or slightly better" than DSLR+SLR Lenses, then you'd have professionals using it for photography. Fact of the matter is the cameras are inferior by a large margin, the lenses are inferior by a large margin, and the overall system is dramatically inferior. That isn't to say decent shots can't be had. The one you posted is quite nice. I've seen plenty that are quite nice. But to say that digiscoping is a better image making system just isn't valid from a technological standpoint. The technology doesn't support that claim, nor does the science.

Click to expand...

Anybody wanting to investigate these "facts" should look for the claimed dramatic differences in camera image quality on good review sights like DPReview.com. With the exception of low noise at high ISO, you will find no dramatic difference between DSLR image quality and fixed lens digicam image quality. Differences, yes. Dramatic ones, no.

I made no general claim that digiscoping is a better image making system. You are merely propping up strawmen to show that you can tip them over. Please re-read my closing paragraph in my previous post. I was quite clear.

My complaint with your post is and was that your assessment was a hyperbolic over-generalization. I gave an example where the result would be expected to be about on par. I could find examples where digiscoping should do better and examples where a moderately priced DSRL rig would be better.

My complaint about your follow-up post is that you simply have a number of basic and verifiable facts wrong.

The claims I make are based on solid understanding of the fundamentals involved and on my direct personal testing of digiscoping gear.

Digiscoping is not the be-all end-all of photographing birds. It has certain advantages and disadvantages. A consumer DSLR with a slow 400mm lens and a 1.4 converter isn't the be-all end-all either. (And, BTW, a 400 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4 converter is out of spec for the 20D's autofocus system.) But it too has certain advantages and disadvantages. The point is to understand what those advantages and disadvantages are and to choose the approach that best suits your situation.

Jay Turberville said:

Digiscoping is not the be-all end-all of photographing birds. It has certain advantages and disadvantages. A consumer DSLR with a slow 400mm lens and a 1.4 converter isn't the be-all end-all either. (And, BTW, a 400 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4 converter is out of spec for the 20D's autofocus system.) But it too has certain advantages and disadvantages. The point is to understand what those advantages and disadvantages are and to choose the approach that best suits your situation.

Click to expand...

This excerpt from a post today by Neil Fifer on the Yahoo Group Digiscoping Birds demonstrates the point.

" I've just come back from 4 days in Singapore where I wandered
around looking at some of the nature reserves in that tropical city.
I was in the field for 12 hours every day. I decided to travel light
and only took my D100 and Sigma 170-500mm APO lens. Big mistake. I
should have taken the digiscoping rig instead. The hides at the
Sungei Buloh Wetlands were about 20ft high and the tides high tide
roosting sites were 50-300ft away with the medium tides over these
few days. Due to the heat most of the birds hang around in the
canopy in the shade for most of the day and they have some big trees
in Singapore. ...

...I'm only taking the Swarovski and Kyocera combination next time I go.

Getting to around 1000mm, I have a couple of solutions. If it is possible to carry the heavy equipment, I take my 500 /4 AFSII + TC-20EII, a Gitzo 1348 and a Wimberley Gimbal head. Sometimes, I take the Nikkor 1000/11 reflex for weight, but the 500+TC-20 normally gives better pictures.
When I can't take along heavy stuff, I take with me a 50/1.8 lens, or better off a 45/2.8 lens, the Leica Apo 62 with the x16-48 (20-60 with the Apo77) eyepiece or the X26 eyepiece (X32 with the Apo 77).
Shooting via a telescope is almost as fast as shooting with a long lens. At around X20 with the 50mm lens attached I get a 1000mm/16 approx. lens.
A little dim, but still useable.
At those focal lenghts, no additional camera support is needed besides the tripod. The quality is almost as good as with my P&S cameras.
At much longer focal lengths, only the P&S can do the job properly. Here's a sample taken with this combo using my D100. The D2X is far better for this use because of the MLU capability but I have'nt played with it too much for digiscoping yet.

I was experimenting the other day, and realized that I still had my old Tamron 500mm-SP f8 mirror lens in a bottom drawer, so I recently bought an adaptall thread for a Nikon mount, attached my Kenko 1.4X converter, and tried it on my d70. This gives the equivalent of about a 700mm. (1120mm. in film SLR terms) f11 lens, with no metering or auto-focus with this particular combo. So I tried some hand-held shots using guesswork, the "sunny f16 rule" and the histogram, to estimate exposure, and manually focussed - using ISO 1000 equivalent, to try some bird shots. It was rather hit and miss, and not nearly as satisfactory as the 80-400VR Nikkor. But here are a couple of relative hits, for interest.

Richard

D70+Nikkor 70-300G f6.5+2x TC Should be about 1200mm f8 35mm Equivalent (I think) and should be quite good in good light.

The 70-300G is dirt cheap - I got mine free with an F75.