• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Celestron C90: Spotting Scope or Telescope? (1 Viewer)

CalvinFold

CalvinFold

Well-known member
I spotted this section a while back and the photos of everyone's "telescopes" seem to be what a layman would traditionally think of: long-tube telescopes.

But was looking at the specifics of the Maksutov lens system the Celestron C90 uses, and wondered if really I'm using a "telescope" for digiscoping?

It's confusing because right now, the C90 is marketed as a "spotting scope" but previous iterations were marketed as "compact telescopes" (and the Celestron page shows astronomy samples). The Wikipedia article on the subject leans towards calling these "telescopes."

I only ask because maybe I should be looking here for advice more than the regular "spotting scope" forums. Or maybe both are quite applicable? Have I entered some blurry realm between the two categories?
 
I'm no astronomy expert, far from that. However, looking at the picture of the scope and the specs, I think it is an astronomy scope, not a conventional spotting scope.

Regards
Jules
 
My Celestron 80ED refractor scope was also once labeled "spotting scope" by Celestron (now discontinued), but is of course an astronomy scope.
 
It is definitely an astronomy telescope. The name 'spottingscope' for the C90 is only a marketing trick. Which doen't mean that it cannot be used for birding. I used one for birding for 20 years before buying my Swarovsky 80 mm. I have compared the two - visually - when I just had the Swarovski. The C90 delivered less contrast (though the optical quality was good) and much less color the the Swaro.
 
Scopes on a larger telescope are used as a finder. They are named 'finder' or 'finderscope'. I never heard or read the word 'spottingscope' in this context.
 
CalvinFold said:
I spotted this section a while back and the photos of everyone's "telescopes" seem to be what a layman would traditionally think of: long-tube telescopes.

But was looking at the specifics of the Maksutov lens system the Celestron C90 uses, and wondered if really I'm using a "telescope" for digiscoping?

It's confusing because right now, the C90 is marketed as a "spotting scope" but previous iterations were marketed as "compact telescopes" (and the Celestron page shows astronomy samples). The Wikipedia article on the subject leans towards calling these "telescopes."

I only ask because maybe I should be looking here for advice more than the regular "spotting scope" forums. Or maybe both are quite applicable? Have I entered some blurry realm between the two categories?
Click to expand...

A Maksutov can be a spotting scope, so can a refractor. And both can be astronomy scopes. It depends more on how they're mounted and used than the actual optical tube itself. I have examples of both and have used them for wildlife photography and astrophotography.

A concern I would have about the C90 for digiscoping is bokeh. Catadioptric scopes like the Maksutov or the SCT produce donut shaped artifacts in some photographs where highlights are out of focus. Be sure that bokeh is not a problem for you in your situation.
 
beep said:
A concern I would have about the C90 for digiscoping is bokeh. Catadioptric scopes like the Maksutov or the SCT produce donut shaped artifacts in some photographs where highlights are out of focus. Be sure that bokeh is not a problem for you in your situation.
Click to expand...
I had read about that effect, didn't realize it had a name. For birding/animal photography it really isn't a problem so far. I've only seen it when trying to shoot close ranges (<50m). Gives an effect like a weird Photoshop filter around the subject (hasn't affected the in-focus subject, only background elements).

I spent some time debating pros and cons in my price range as well as how any scope would work with my camera, the C90 has proven a decent balance.

On the plus side, I haven't done night time astronomical observations since I was a kid, so the C90 might prove a nice "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of device. :)

Maybe some year I'll have the funds for nicer toys. ;-p
 
IMO, bad quality photos are useless. The danger is that you may end up with a scope you don't use. I suggest you be careful with economy optics - what you will save in dollars will cost you in image quality. Why don't you wait a little longer to save some more and buy a scope with a proven track record for birding.

I bought a bargain price scope a few years back and was never able to take decent photos with it. I changed it recently for a Sky-Watcher 80ED, that is not much more expensive, and my photos are just as good as photos taken with my Olympus 100-300mm.

Mirror scopes may be good for astronomy but are not proven performers for land use as far as I know. See how many mirror lenses are available for peanuts on eBay...
 
*shrug*

What can I say, compared to using my camera with an 8x Sharpshooter lens, these photos make me really, really happy?

Considering these shots with the C90 are better than anything I've ever taken (and farther away), and are in lousy weather not terribly suited to distance photography, or my camera, or my skill with camera settings...well, you get the idea.

I'm not aiming for National Geographic or to even be published, just to capture well enough for my own smiles. If anyone else enjoys them (and apparently some do), that's a very pleasant thing too.

If there are drawbacks, then I simply set realistic expectations. No biggie. Budget is a budget (which has other considerations besides more perfect photography).
 
CalvinFold said:
*shrug*

What can I say, compared to using my camera with an 8x Sharpshooter lens, these photos make me really, really happy?

Considering these shots with the C90 are better than anything I've ever taken (and farther away), and are in lousy weather not terribly suited to distance photography, or my camera, or my skill with camera settings...well, you get the idea.

I'm not aiming for National Geographic or to even be published, just to capture well enough for my own smiles. If anyone else enjoys them (and apparently some do), that's a very pleasant thing too.

If there are drawbacks, then I simply set realistic expectations. No biggie. Budget is a budget (which has other considerations besides more perfect photography).
Click to expand...

Hi Calvin,

By all means, keep on shooting and enjoying your photos if you are satisfied with them. This is a hobby and there are no rules, no exams - we all do as we please and that is perfectly OK.

My post was only meant to prevent you from making the same mistake I did. However, your goals and standards may very well be different from mine and that is correct. Please take my advice for what it is worth and adapt it or reject it according to your needs.

By the way, I envy you to be able to stick to your budget... :t:

Best regards and good luck in your project
Jules
 
Hi Calvin

Bearing in mind the optics you are you using (and the range of some of your shots) I think you have produced some very acceptable images. The Coolpix 4500 is a good camera. I was very upset when mine broke!

keep up the good work.
 
I think Graham said it best..."bearing in mind."

I'm a hack photographer at best. So while Jules has a point, that overly bad equipment can really ruin the experience, in my case I knew "overly good" equipment was probably just a waste of money given my camera, skill, etc. (even taking the budget out of the equation).

I looked around and there's a fairly sizable price jump between the C90-esque prices and better scopes. And the C90 got better and more consistent positive reviews than non-astro "spotting scopes" in this price range, and even beyond.

Do I want all the more expensive cameras, scopes, tripods, etc.? Oh heck yeah. I think the biggest thing I can't do is birds-in-motion...I'm jealous of those photos.

Someday...when my skills and budget catch-up, when I feel "I can do better if only my gear where better." :t:

Right now, it's more like "I could do better if I actually had some sunshine and a better understanding of my camera." 3:)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

B
Spotting scope for casual astronomy, or something else?
Replies
17
Views
2K
wllmspd
W
A
Suggestions appreciated for a spotting scope for astronomy
Replies
18
Views
5K
albie...
A
L
Retired elementary teachers researching light weight spotting scope outfit
Replies
2
Views
969
CMB
C
kimmik
DIY prism shift image stabilisation for spotting scope/telescope/monocular
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
kimmik
kimmik
M
Advice for first spotting scope (+ tripod)
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Hermann
Hermann

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top