Image quality help (1 Viewer)

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.

FrankD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 (

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Timedrifter said:

Here are a couple of shots I just this minute took of a Greenfinch sitting in the tree across the road...

Click to expand...

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!!! (

digitalbirdy said:

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!!! (

Click to expand...

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,

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.

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!

Mick,

Thank you for the words of encouragement. I will take them to heart. Case in point, I was out practicing this morning but didn't really get a single picture worth posting about. Did I feel it was a waste of time? Certainly not. The fun part, at least for the time being, is always figuring out why the pictures didn't turn out better. As long as I can do that then I will continue to enjoy this sport!

Don't attempt to take pictures with the camera hand held, you are almost certainly doomed to failure!

Hi Mick!
I think in fairness you should qualify the above remark. I'm hoping that what you meant was don't handhold without a centring/locating device. If you mean don't hand hold at all then I think my above piccie illustrates the error of this. I personally know two dedicated digiscopers who ONLY hand hold and achieve results that match anything I've ever seen. Incidentally one of these two is a professional bird photographer.
I started out digiscoping using one of those universal adaptor thingies, but came to realise quite soon how restricting it was to my bird WATCHING. It just took too long to take the 'thingie' on and off, and as a consequenc it got left on the whole time; result, no looking through the eyepiece but via the camera screen - not good enough! And then there's the weight problem. In addition to the weight and bulk of the adaptor I found I needed a sliding balance plate between the tripod and scope to counteract the weight of the camera - more weight! Also you have the cable release and its associated bracket. Now I know you can get adaptors that swing out of the way, but you are still left with cumbersome outfit. Generally just lugging the scope and tripod about on long walks is sufficient for most people, let alone any more. The advantage of using a centring adaptor as I do is, firstly it weighs less than half an ounce, and apart from that all I have additionally to carry is my camera which being small slips in my back pocket. Result equals a lot more freedom both physically and and in the ability to use the scope to WATCH the birds. If all you want to do is photograph then forget all I've said, but in the main I personally believe that too many digiscopers get drawn into the equipment side and forget the original purpose of digiscoping which is to augment your WATCHING with the odd photograph. OK I'm off my box now!
Timedrifter

Timedrifter

Click to expand...

I mean that 'in my experience', using a camera without a cable release is invariably doomed to failure more often than not.

I know lots of guys who like you take pictures by pressing the camera against the eyepiece. Some of them take really good pics, which look great on the camera screen, but once downloaded produce dissapointing results. To get the best pics that way you must either have very steady hands or be using a really fast shutter speed.

However I do take your point about adaptors. They can be clumsy and the temptation is obviously to leave the camera in place which does interfere with the bird watching. Like a mug I have tried them all, and have just found a new one, which has a push fit over the eyepiece without use of screws etc. However I have a Nikon 4500 camera so don't suppose it would fit your camera.

Anyhow keep clicking and enjoying. Digiscoping adds a new dimension to your birdwatching. Its great to look back over the year and relive some of those memories of birding trips..... even if they are of a ducks bum disappearing down the river!!

mickporter said:

I mean that 'in my experience', using a camera without a cable release is invariably doomed to failure more often than not.

I know lots of guys who like you take pictures by pressing the camera against the eyepiece. Some of them take really good pics, which look great on the camera screen, but once downloaded produce dissapointing results. To get the best pics that way you must either have very steady hands or be using a really fast shutter speed.

However I do take your point about adaptors. They can be clumsy and the temptation is obviously to leave the camera in place which does interfere with the bird watching. Like a mug I have tried them all, and have just found a new one, which has a push fit over the eyepiece without use of screws etc. However I have a Nikon 4500 camera so don't suppose it would fit your camera.

Anyhow keep clicking and enjoying. Digiscoping adds a new dimension to your birdwatching. Its great to look back over the year and relive some of those memories of birding trips..... even if they are of a ducks bum disappearing down the river!!

Click to expand...

Hi again Mick!
Some interesting comments. Your point about either having a fast shutter speed or very steady hands I have to say doesn't necessarily follow, but I agree it does reduce the chance of producing a good image if only taking ONE piccie. Because of the availability of huge cards today there are no restrictions on how many pics you take. Like a lot of people I often set the camera on multishot and just keep the shutter pressed. My camera is about the same speed as yours in this respect, but with the bonus of being able to keep going until the card is full if need be. Using this method the chances of getting a good shot is increased enormously even with a low shutter speed or shaking hands. I have produced pics of very high quality at comparatively slow shutter speeds (30th) using this method. Some cameras are faster than our cameras; the Canon A620 that I have also, rattles them off like a machine gun even at the highest quality setting (using a fast Patriot Extreme card of 133).
I know the advantage the 4500 has the advantage of internal focussing and a threaded front end for fixing adaptors, but in my personal opinion I would still rather carry my gear than yours! I think the reason so many people are still using this great big beast of a camera is that in the early days of digiscoping it was the only available camera with all the requisite requirements. I hear a lot being said about the advantages of the movable screen, and I can see that if you are using a straight through scope. If you use an angled scope as I do I don't find it necessary. The A620 has this facility but I never used it at all. I KNOW that my little Casio Z120 is a better digiscoping camera than the 4500 in every respect, and although the macro facility is not as close, this is compensated for by the extra resolution of 7.2. The beauty of it also is that you can pick up a factory recon on eBay for about a hundred quid! I find it absolutely astounding that Warehouse Express are able to still sell these dinosaurs at three hundred quid!!! I must hastily add that this is DEFINITELY NOT a personal dig here Mick, its just that technology moves on and this four year old camera is showing its age. I'm just hoping that I save someone from spending a small fortune on a camera that, although good in its day, has now been overshadowed by several other much more compact cameras. The reason we see so many people still using them is I think because anyone coming into the 'game' sees so many pictures taken with them on sites like this and assumes it must be the camera to go for. If however you look open mindedly at the digiscoping camera section of this site you will notice a change in the air. More people are using the Fujis now, which I used for a while, a great camera but with focussing problems. Again you will see Casio being mentioned more as people overcome their instilled idea that Casio are only good at calculators. See what a professional thinks of Casio at this address if you're interested - http://www.kenrockwell.com/casio/exz750.htm
Anyway, I've rambled a bit off course and its time for me to follow those ducks bums into the distance!
Timedrifter

Hehehe yes I agree, my camera is probably a dinosaur now, but at the time it was state of the art. It does, and I do take multiple piccys, although at a high quality setting which I prefer, it is slow and I often miss shots while it saves the last.

I think the popularity of these camera's is probably due to Andy Bright's salesmanship in recommending them for this job!! Nikon must owe him a fortune in commission!!

As for the movable screen its a boon to me cause I have an angled scope and I am a little guy, so need sometimes in some hides to angle the screen down, or climb on a box!!

mickporter said:

Hehehe yes I agree, my camera is probably a dinosaur now, but at the time it was state of the art. It does, and I do take multiple piccys, although at a high quality setting which I prefer, it is slow and I often miss shots while it saves the last.

I think the popularity of these camera's is probably due to Andy Bright's salesmanship in recommending them for this job!! Nikon must owe him a fortune in commission!!

As for the movable screen its a boon to me cause I have an angled scope and I am a little guy, so need sometimes in some hides to angle the screen down, or climb on a box!!

Click to expand...

Hi Mick!
Very well made point about hide use. Also I agree entirely about Andy's right to commission!
Timedrifter

Hi Time drifter, you raise some interesting comments

"More people are using the Fujis now, which I used for a while, a great camera but with focussing problems"

Hi Timedrifter, which Fuji cameras are you referring to?

"I KNOW that my little Casio Z120 is a better digiscoping camera than the 4500 in every respect,"

could you possibly expand on this?

"If all you want to do is photograph then forget all I've said, but in the main I personally believe that too many digiscopers get drawn into the equipment side and forget the original purpose of digiscoping which is to augment your WATCHING with the odd photograph."

Well put, but from your replies, there are two camps in this, its just what rocks your boat

"I think in fairness you should qualify the above remark. I'm hoping that what you meant was don't handhold without a centring/locating device. If you mean don't hand hold at all then I think my above piccie illustrates the error of this. I personally know two dedicated digiscopers who ONLY hand hold and achieve results that match anything I've ever seen. Incidentally one of these two is a professional bird photographer"

The abiity to hand hold a camera to a scope, with a centring/locating device IMHO is a skill not many people can achieve, and hats off to those who can, i advocate the cable release in all my lectures due to a few points, the british weather all year round does not give us the luxury of fast shutter speeds as to those digiscopers in sunshine states, secondly, many many pictures i have taken in this country would not have been possible if i had tried hand held, working on an eigth or even a quarter of a second shutter speeds

Of the hand held pics i have seen on the web from this country, i would not entirely agree that hand held pics can match those consistantly against pictures taken using a cable release , by the way who is the professional photographer?

Rgds

Paul

Great comments guys. This thread is taking off when I thought it was all but done. I would love to see further comments on these issues.

Of the hand held pics i have seen on the web from this country, i would not entirely agree that hand held pics can match those consistantly against pictures taken using a cable release , by the way who is the professional photographer?

Click to expand...

Can we include the self timer function with the cable release? It would appear to serve the same function.

Paul Hackett said:

Hi Time drifter, you raise some interesting comments

"More people are using the Fujis now, which I used for a while, a great camera but with focussing problems"

Hi Timedrifter, which Fuji cameras are you referring to?

"I KNOW that my little Casio Z120 is a better digiscoping camera than the 4500 in every respect,"

could you possibly expand on this?

"If all you want to do is photograph then forget all I've said, but in the main I personally believe that too many digiscopers get drawn into the equipment side and forget the original purpose of digiscoping which is to augment your WATCHING with the odd photograph."

Well put, but from your replies, there are two camps in this, its just what rocks your boat

"I think in fairness you should qualify the above remark. I'm hoping that what you meant was don't handhold without a centring/locating device. If you mean don't hand hold at all then I think my above piccie illustrates the error of this. I personally know two dedicated digiscopers who ONLY hand hold and achieve results that match anything I've ever seen. Incidentally one of these two is a professional bird photographer"

The abiity to hand hold a camera to a scope, with a centring/locating device IMHO is a skill not many people can achieve, and hats off to those who can, i advocate the cable release in all my lectures due to a few points, the british weather all year round does not give us the luxury of fast shutter speeds as to those digiscopers in sunshine states, secondly, many many pictures i have taken in this country would not have been possible if i had tried hand held, working on an eigth or even a quarter of a second shutter speeds

Of the hand held pics i have seen on the web from this country, i would not entirely agree that hand held pics can match those consistantly against pictures taken using a cable release , by the way who is the professional photographer?

Rgds

Paul

Click to expand...

Hi Paul!
I'll take your questions in sequence.
The Fuji cameras were the F10 and F11.

Casio Z120 better than 4500.
This of necessity has to be a personal opinion I suppose but I'll give it a try. Firstly the size; a 120 slips into your jeans pocket with room to spare. Secondly, the ability to capture greater detail due to the larger pixel count 4.1 - 7.2. Thirdly much quicker response times in all departments, three very important ones being startup time, focussing and shot to shot time. If you use manual focussing the large magnified central area uses the WHOLE screen while focussing, very useful. If you are experienced with histograms the 120 has FOUR CHANNEL live histograms. Exposure compensation always available in the manual modes by simply pushing the OK button and then adjusting via the left/right buttons. There are lopads of other things but these are the main ones of interest that can be explained simply. For a more detailed look the benefits of this camera see my link in a previous post.

Re hand holding I can't but agree that at eighth or a quarter second you would be pushing your luck, but personally this situation has only very rarely occurred. The Fuji cameras which I have used fairly extensively do of course have a very usable ISO 800 which I have used to advantage. What I have also found is that different chips make certain images more friendly in terms of post. processing. I think you are more likely to lose shots more frequently with the slow start up and focussing of the 4500 than you would with the odd missed shot due to extremely bad light with the Casio.

As for your final comment the two different styles I think we will just have to agree to differ on this!
For reasons I won't go into I can't name the professional.
I will be more than happy to continue this discussion if you wish
Timedrifter

Having been using the Fuji F30 for the last few days I've been quite happy with many of it's features, especially it's speed (frame rate ) and it's low noise,high iso. With faster shutter speeds at iso 400/800 it's possible to freeze action without using a remote. Which is just as well as it doesn't have one.
What I do miss is a rotatable screen (I'm often in hides or shooting low to the ground ), a live Histogram and Custom Modes for storing my favorite settings. I wont be giving up my Olympus 7070wz just yet.
On handholding it would be necessary to have the bird stay still as it's very difficult to follow a moving bird and focus with one hand while holding the camera with the other. I handhold my little Leica C-Lux 1 and the Fuji F30 with my Swaro bins but the rubber eyecups hold the camera lens nicely. I just the bins on a ledge,fence or rock.
As digiscoping is a lot of hit and miss I wonder how many the handholders miss. The attached photo requires me to follow the bird as it moves around the rocks and as it takes up most of the frame even the slightest movement requires me to adjust the scope using both hands. I don't use a remote for this kind of photo, just squeeze off a series of frames as fast as I can. Neil.
ps this was taken using the Fuji F30's Chrome (Velvia look ) on a non-fluorite Kowa scope.