Considering giving up on digiscoping (1 Viewer)

[jcwu88]

Hi Scott,

I followed the previous thread from a link in my email, which took me to the private message. I didn't realize it was a private message as it looks very similar to a normal post thread. I asked a question about posting images on the "say hi" forum and one of the admins learned that just admins and developers can post an image to a PM.

Yes, the images of the bear (a black bear not a grizzly) were the same, to show the unprocessed vs processed and that I cropped it. The first one was unprocessed and uncropped, whereas the second was cropped a bit more. I will provide a better example in a bit. Distance has a huge impact on the quality of a shot, as does the quality of the glass. Honestly, a 600 mm isn't long enough for quite a bit of wildlife photography. However, the 1.4 or 2.0 extenders do work really well with a 600 mm prime lens. And yes the professional lenses like the 600 mm f/4 or the 800 mm f/5.6 are expensive at $13,000 US. The reason distance itself is important is that the farther away the subject is you are then dealing with atmospheric challenges like haze or heat waves. The other issue is if the subject is filling up a small part of the sensor, say just 10% then you are only using a very small percent of the image capacity of the sensor. For example, even on the R5 which has a 45-megapixel sensor, if the subject is too far away and only fills up 10% then your subject may only be 4.5 Megapixels image if you cropped it in close.

Digital noise is another challenge. Some cameras handle noise much better than others. And the modern mirrorless does a fantastic job. I never would have thought, 20 years ago, that I could shoot at an ISO of 12,800 or more and still get an okay shot. The beauty of this is that photographers can get away with a lens like the 800 mm f/11 (very low light or slow lens) and compensate with a higher ISO to accommodate for the f/11. The downside of this though is that you don't get the beautiful bokeh (blurred backgrounds) you get when shooting with a much lower f/stop lens. This is the reason why wedding or portrait photographers will pay a LOT more money for an f/2 or lower lens than the equivalent lens in an f/4. In addition, there is very good software now to dramatically eliminate digital noise in post-processing. Two of the best products in my opinion are DxO PureRaw (for processing raw files, this is all I shoot is raw), and Topz labs DeNoise which also does a great job with Raw and jpg files (DeNoise I think will work with other file types too but I'm not 100% sure).

I've been very interested in the Canon 800 mm f/11 and have been looking at dozens of reviews. A camera shop near me had one in stock and I purchased it on Tuesday along with the Canon 2.x extender. There is a Snowy Owl that visits Sachuest Point National Wildlife Preserve in Rhode Island most years. It was sitting out on some rocks in the ocean roughly 500 feet off-shore. See the Google Map image below:
View attachment 1417016

If you see the wooden platform near the path that says Fint Pt Lp trl (upper left hand corner) and the outcropping of rocks in the lower right corner, the distance according to Google Maps is roughly 500 feet. It was a cold and very windy day, a bit hazy, and the lighting on the owl was terrible. Standing on the platform all you could make out with the human eye was a white dot. You couldn't even tell it was an owl. I had my Canon R5 on one of the best carbon tripods that Manfrotto sells, the new 800 mm and the 2.0 extender. Thus I was shooting a 1600 mm at f/22. I'm not proud of the image as the conditions where not very good and the distance was too great.

I don't have a shot from a 50 mm to show what the human eye would see. But trust me, it would have been a small white dot.
The image was shot at 1600 mm, ISO 2000, f/22 1/500 sec shutter.
Here is the unprocessed image and the processed image (Run through DxO PureRaw, Adobe LRC and cropped). Again, I'm not happy with the quality at all but it was due to conditions and distance, not the lens. I will either go back and get better images under better conditions and lighting rather than deal with the blown out whites due to lighting challenges. Notice though that the image is taking up very little of the sensor so I don't have much in the way of Megapixels to work with. So even at 500 feet away, and a 1600 mm, the distance was too much. The sizes of the files are to large to attach so I had to cut and paste screen captures.

As seen looking through the camera 1600 mm, a good spotter with the 25-60x eyepiece would be closer to 2500 mm.

View attachment 1417017

Same image, processed and severly cropped.

View attachment 1417018

As to picking the best spotter, I agree, you must look through them to see which has the best quality. This is what I did after reviewing many reviews and studying lots of images. I think the f/stop of the spotter will all be the same based on the formula previously discussed. Selecting a spotter is all about the quality of the image which is due to the quality and size of the front lens, gases in the tube, and of course the quality of the eye-piece.

Again, I hope this helps.

Here's a few more pics taken with the 800 mm without the 2.x (shots had to be cut and pasted from a screen capture due to the size of the files):

800 mm f/11 ISO 1600 1/250 sec 200 feet away, shot is processed and cropped.

View attachment 1417020

800 mm ISO 1600 f/11 1/250 sec, 400 feet away this has been processed and cropped and not 100% in focus either.

View attachment 1417021

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!

Joe

Hi Joe,
Thank you for sharing photos. The snow owl photos are very nice at such long distance. At this distance, scope also have similar interference from air turbulence and sea humidity.
I also have RF800 with 2x extender for long distance bird photos; most of those for documentation.
One interesting thing is RF800 + 2x extender combos has very little chromatic aberration, which surprised me. I have used 100-400II with EF III 2x; and this combos showed some CA and images degraded substantially.

Jay

 

[jlacasci]

Hi Joe,
Thank you for sharing photos. The snow owl photos are very nice at such long distance. At this distance, scope also have similar interference from air turbulence and sea humidity.
I also have RF800 with 2x extender for long distance bird photos; most of those for documentation.
One interesting thing is RF800 + 2x extender combos has very little chromatic aberration, which surprised me. I have used 100-400II with EF III 2x; and this combos showed some CA and images degraded substantially.

Jay

The RF 800 is impressive for the size, weight, and cost considering the image quality. F11 does present lighting challenges, but I don't see any issues with sharpness due to diffraction without the 1.4 or 2.0. The images with the 2.x (f/22) are soft, I'm sure from diffraction let alone the atmospheric issues with the owl being so far away. However, Topaz Gigapixel helps when the subject is taking up such a small area of the sensor and Topaz Sharpen AI really helps with the softness. Now add in how impressive the new technology is with hi ISO and I'm not sure if I will ever spring for the 800 f/5.6. I'm getting too old to carry the beast around ;-)

Joe

 

[Joker9937]

Hi Scott,

I followed the previous thread from a link in my email, which took me to the private message. I didn't realize it was a private message as it looks very similar to a normal post thread. I asked a question about posting images on the "say hi" forum and one of the admins learned that just admins and developers can post an image to a PM.

Yes, the images of the bear (a black bear not a grizzly) were the same, to show the unprocessed vs processed and that I cropped it. The first one was unprocessed and uncropped, whereas the second was cropped a bit more. I will provide a better example in a bit. Distance has a huge impact on the quality of a shot, as does the quality of the glass. Honestly, a 600 mm isn't long enough for quite a bit of wildlife photography. However, the 1.4 or 2.0 extenders do work really well with a 600 mm prime lens. And yes the professional lenses like the 600 mm f/4 or the 800 mm f/5.6 are expensive at $13,000 US. The reason distance itself is important is that the farther away the subject is you are then dealing with atmospheric challenges like haze or heat waves. The other issue is if the subject is filling up a small part of the sensor, say just 10% then you are only using a very small percent of the image capacity of the sensor. For example, even on the R5 which has a 45-megapixel sensor, if the subject is too far away and only fills up 10% then your subject may only be 4.5 Megapixels image if you cropped it in close.

Digital noise is another challenge. Some cameras handle noise much better than others. And the modern mirrorless does a fantastic job. I never would have thought, 20 years ago, that I could shoot at an ISO of 12,800 or more and still get an okay shot. The beauty of this is that photographers can get away with a lens like the 800 mm f/11 (very low light or slow lens) and compensate with a higher ISO to accommodate for the f/11. The downside of this though is that you don't get the beautiful bokeh (blurred backgrounds) you get when shooting with a much lower f/stop lens. This is the reason why wedding or portrait photographers will pay a LOT more money for an f/2 or lower lens than the equivalent lens in an f/4. In addition, there is very good software now to dramatically eliminate digital noise in post-processing. Two of the best products in my opinion are DxO PureRaw (for processing raw files, this is all I shoot is raw), and Topz labs DeNoise which also does a great job with Raw and jpg files (DeNoise I think will work with other file types too but I'm not 100% sure).

I've been very interested in the Canon 800 mm f/11 and have been looking at dozens of reviews. A camera shop near me had one in stock and I purchased it on Tuesday along with the Canon 2.x extender. There is a Snowy Owl that visits Sachuest Point National Wildlife Preserve in Rhode Island most years. It was sitting out on some rocks in the ocean roughly 500 feet off-shore. See the Google Map image below:
View attachment 1417016

If you see the wooden platform near the path that says Fint Pt Lp trl (upper left hand corner) and the outcropping of rocks in the lower right corner, the distance according to Google Maps is roughly 500 feet. It was a cold and very windy day, a bit hazy, and the lighting on the owl was terrible. Standing on the platform all you could make out with the human eye was a white dot. You couldn't even tell it was an owl. I had my Canon R5 on one of the best carbon tripods that Manfrotto sells, the new 800 mm and the 2.0 extender. Thus I was shooting a 1600 mm at f/22. I'm not proud of the image as the conditions where not very good and the distance was too great.

I don't have a shot from a 50 mm to show what the human eye would see. But trust me, it would have been a small white dot.
The image was shot at 1600 mm, ISO 2000, f/22 1/500 sec shutter.
Here is the unprocessed image and the processed image (Run through DxO PureRaw, Adobe LRC and cropped). Again, I'm not happy with the quality at all but it was due to conditions and distance, not the lens. I will either go back and get better images under better conditions and lighting rather than deal with the blown out whites due to lighting challenges. Notice though that the image is taking up very little of the sensor so I don't have much in the way of Megapixels to work with. So even at 500 feet away, and a 1600 mm, the distance was too much. The sizes of the files are to large to attach so I had to cut and paste screen captures.

As seen looking through the camera 1600 mm, a good spotter with the 25-60x eyepiece would be closer to 2500 mm.

View attachment 1417017

Same image, processed and severly cropped.

View attachment 1417018

As to picking the best spotter, I agree, you must look through them to see which has the best quality. This is what I did after reviewing many reviews and studying lots of images. I think the f/stop of the spotter will all be the same based on the formula previously discussed. Selecting a spotter is all about the quality of the image which is due to the quality and size of the front lens, gases in the tube, and of course the quality of the eye-piece.

Again, I hope this helps.

Here's a few more pics taken with the 800 mm without the 2.x (shots had to be cut and pasted from a screen capture due to the size of the files):

800 mm f/11 ISO 1600 1/250 sec 200 feet away, shot is processed and cropped.

View attachment 1417020

800 mm ISO 1600 f/11 1/250 sec, 400 feet away this has been processed and cropped and not 100% in focus either.

View attachment 1417021

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!

Joe

Regarding dangerous animals and some of my experiences.

Sometimes you get very close. If you stop a safari vehicle to let elephants pass, the elefants choose where they go and they may come very close. Lions sometimes use vehicles as cover when they hunt and you may find them right beside you. Do not worry, drivers and guides read the animals and know how to act. E.g. once we were charged by some cape buffalo bulls which can be quite grumpy. The driver revved the engine into a roar, let the clutch go and the jeep made a quick jump towards the angry buffalos. They backed off.

Do not expect to much. Some encounters are rare. After many trips I have seen a lot of different species, but I still have not seen wild african dogs, and only the top of a cheetah in tall grass. To see the big five in one trip may require serious effort and luck. A leopard spotting may require days and a really good guide.

Sometimes you get surprised. In India there are up to 85 people killed by tigers each year. However visiting the Western Ghats the locals showed very little fear for tigers. Probably because healthy tigers do not see humans as dinner. Maneaters are rare.
Once we had a tiger encounter, face to face, at very close range. We were a stetched-out group, walking along a path. After rounding a boulder some of us saw a tiger right in front of us. The tiger calmly looked at us before disappearing into the bushes. After some time the tiger appeared again resting in full view on a cliff a little further away. Even the last members of our group which had missed the first encounter thus got the opportunity to see it. Quite an experience and our local guide was extatic. We were not in a tiger conservation area so the encounter was not expected.
Earlier we had heard a tiger during a walk and our local guide started a ”conversation” with the tiger. The tiger responded. Our guide suggested that we should go and find it. He was not joking and we had a lenghty discussion. It was late in the day and getting dark. In the end our team leader was worried and did not approve so we had to abort. Luckily we got our tiger encounter later.
One animal the locals feared much more than tigers was elephants. At the slightest noise or encounter with fresh elephant dung, we had to back off as quickly and silently as possible.

I have only encountered bears from safe hides or seen them from a car.

Some animals are more of a nuisance. E.g. baboons. Let the locals/staff handle them. They probably have powerful slingshots and know how to use them. Beware, these animals are very strong and can give nasty bites. When parking do not let windows open for ventilation. Animal bandits take advantage of every opportunity.

Be reasonably observant. You may encounter snakes, scorpions and other nasty creatures. In some places checking your clothes and footwear before jumping into them is not a bad idea. Do not appoach a cute ”kitten” if you find one in the shadows on your way to dinner at the lodge. Mama leopard might be very close. Do not panic but back off!

Follow the rules. Once a member of our group went for a swim, disregarding warning signs for crocodiles. When it is forbidden to leave your vehicle exept at certain resting places, you have to obey, no matter what. I have seen people leave their vehicle within striking distance of lions which were hidden in the grass. Idiots.

If you behave sensibly you do not have to worry. Accidents are extremely rare. It is probably more dangerous to drive a car at home than to participate in a safari.

The real dangers are people and disease.

People. Once our birding group spent a night in a very basic and dirty hotel in Africa. Usama bin Ladin was obviously well regarded . We even found his portrait attached to our room keys. Some places are bandit country and you may be kidnapped or even killed. On one occasion we had to hire two guards with AK-47s before we were permitted to proceed. Check with your foreign office before you go. Sometimes it is prudent to check safety issues with your embassy and local police and get your presence and plans approved and recorded. On a trip in the Middle East, we had to report to our embassy every day.

Disease. Take recommended shots and pills and use mosquito nets when available. You do not want to catch malaria or other diseases. You may have to consider the risk of catching e.g. bilharzia. Once a roommate caught malaria by disregarding such rules.

Especially in hot and humid conditions when you sweat a lot, take good care of your passport and other travel documents. Keep them dry in a plastic enclosure. If you turn up at airports, customs or border controls with your documents in disorder, damaged by moisture and turned into loose pages you will have issues!

To illustrate how close you can get I attach some photos. All pictures are slightly cropped. The hyena is almost not cropped at all. Still, the elephant was a little to close.

Regarding high ISO. Yes, I agree that todays cameras are very good at handling high ISO. But it comes at a price. You loose dynamic range. This can become an issue. With most lenses the smallest aperture is f16. There is a reason for that. If the aperture gets small enough you loose sharpness due to diffraction. As a matter of fact f16 is already at the limit and should be avoided if possible. If max sharpness is your goal. Perhaps something to keep in mind when combining slow lenses with powerful converters. A important issue is AF performance. Earlier the camera manufacturers specified good AF performance at f5.6 or better. Recent cameras can manage f8 or better with good AF performance. These limits are of course specified at certain light levels. In my experience the limits are not so carved in stone as the specifications suggest, but you definetely pay a high price in AF speed if you go to far.

Hi Joe,
Thank you for sharing photos. The snow owl photos are very nice at such long distance. At this distance, scope also have similar interference from air turbulence and sea humidity.
I also have RF800 with 2x extender for long distance bird photos; most of those for documentation.
One interesting thing is RF800 + 2x extender combos has very little chromatic aberration, which surprised me. I have used 100-400II with EF III 2x; and this combos showed some CA and images degraded substantially.

Jay

I think this thread is beneficial and I appreciate all of the input from the folks on here. Most of you, if not all, are far more experienced birders and photographers than I. Even though I did not start this thread, thank you for letting me piggyback. I do not intend to hijack it, but hopefully my questions and input also help future BF readers.

Anyway, thank you all three for your input. Joe, those owl pics, considering all of the factors involved is impressive. It gives me hope that maybe real photography equipment is within reach at some point. Thanks for explaining stuff too. Much appreciated.

Figge, WOW! You have really been on some REAL photography trips. Very cool. That does help explain some of the behind-the-scenes for the crazy good photos out there. Your photos are great! Love the elephant.

Jay, thank you for your input. Since you and Joe, both, speak highly of that 800mm lens, I have hope that it will work for me when the time comes.
So, since my last post here, I bought a scope. I will not say which brand quite yet, because I am not sure I will be keeping it. I am cautiously optimistic, but not 100% convinced yet. While I have had dozens of astro scopes, dozens of binos, and several spotters, most have been "classic" scopes. This is the first new spotter, and other than a few binos, first new optic period. So, forking over thousands on one scope was a bit painful. If it does not live up to its marketing, star test well, and perform under rough conditions, I will be taking advantage of the "money back" guarantee.

The star test is tentative. No good skies since Friday, except a brief minute last night. My artificial star for my astro scopes needs batteries. Plus, I am no pro at it. So, even though it is tentative, it looks very close to identical on both sides of focus, possibly some mild SA, and little to no astigmatism. But, there is possible roughness or something going on. Not sure. Hopefully skies will clear to all me to finally tell for sure. I actually wasted too much time (5 minutes) looking at Jupiter and Saturn before the clouds rolled in. Jupiter was a sharp disc and I could see the equatorial belts distinctly. The moons were sharp discs too. Saturn was sharp and I could pick out the color variations. Beautiful. I did not have the extra magnification of the doubler/extender. But, at the scope's max the planets were very nice. Very hopeful another night will solidify my analysis.

Real world performance seems to be supportive of the star test, but I am trying NOT to let one influence the other. On tree trunks and other yard-targets, the image was as sharp and detailed at the max power as it was at the minimum. I added the doubler/extender and saw the same quality in the image as well. In the field, it seems to do well also.

I attached a couple photos from tonight. Skies were cloudy, and the Kingfisher was mostly between the sun (thickly filtered by clouds anyway) and me. The Kingfisher was around 40-50 yards away. Slight breeze, slow shutter speed, etc, made the images slightly fuzzy. The phone recorded F1.8, 1/60s, 6.70mm, and ISO62. I captured in the RAW mode on the phone. I had to edit in PS Express. I do not have the correct adapter yet, and the phone REALLY had serious vignetting. So, the photos are hugely cropped. If I understood you guys correctly, that really affects the final photo quality.

The Bald Eagle was under the same conditions, except the sun was behind me and the distance was around 100+yards. I did not have it well centered within the vignette, so I had to add the fancy framing to try and put lipstick on a pig. PLUS, someone that actually knows how to properly edit could have probably made the lipstick look better.

I know these leave much to be desired, but I have hope that this will get me by for awhile before I buy a real camera and lenses. Curious on your input on if it is even worthwhile to continue with a scope, or if these "photos" are still too far short of the real thing to be worthwhile. Granted I should try under better conditions, but I only have so many days to try and return.

PS. I tried to add the RAW images so you could see what it started with, but so far I can't.

 

[jlacasci]

I think this thread is beneficial and I appreciate all of the input from the folks on here. Most of you, if not all, are far more experienced birders and photographers than I. Even though I did not start this thread, thank you for letting me piggyback. I do not intend to hijack it, but hopefully my questions and input also help future BF readers.

Anyway, thank you all three for your input. Joe, those owl pics, considering all of the factors involved is impressive. It gives me hope that maybe real photography equipment is within reach at some point. Thanks for explaining stuff too. Much appreciated.

Figge, WOW! You have really been on some REAL photography trips. Very cool. That does help explain some of the behind-the-scenes for the crazy good photos out there. Your photos are great! Love the elephant.

Jay, thank you for your input. Since you and Joe, both, speak highly of that 800mm lens, I have hope that it will work for me when the time comes.
So, since my last post here, I bought a scope. I will not say which brand quite yet, because I am not sure I will be keeping it. I am cautiously optimistic, but not 100% convinced yet. While I have had dozens of astro scopes, dozens of binos, and several spotters, most have been "classic" scopes. This is the first new spotter, and other than a few binos, first new optic period. So, forking over thousands on one scope was a bit painful. If it does not live up to its marketing, star test well, and perform under rough conditions, I will be taking advantage of the "money back" guarantee.

The star test is tentative. No good skies since Friday, except a brief minute last night. My artificial star for my astro scopes needs batteries. Plus, I am no pro at it. So, even though it is tentative, it looks very close to identical on both sides of focus, possibly some mild SA, and little to no astigmatism. But, there is possible roughness or something going on. Not sure. Hopefully skies will clear to all me to finally tell for sure. I actually wasted too much time (5 minutes) looking at Jupiter and Saturn before the clouds rolled in. Jupiter was a sharp disc and I could see the equatorial belts distinctly. The moons were sharp discs too. Saturn was sharp and I could pick out the color variations. Beautiful. I did not have the extra magnification of the doubler/extender. But, at the scope's max the planets were very nice. Very hopeful another night will solidify my analysis.

Real world performance seems to be supportive of the star test, but I am trying NOT to let one influence the other. On tree trunks and other yard-targets, the image was as sharp and detailed at the max power as it was at the minimum. I added the doubler/extender and saw the same quality in the image as well. In the field, it seems to do well also.

I attached a couple photos from tonight. Skies were cloudy, and the Kingfisher was mostly between the sun (thickly filtered by clouds anyway) and me. The Kingfisher was around 40-50 yards away. Slight breeze, slow shutter speed, etc, made the images slightly fuzzy. The phone recorded F1.8, 1/60s, 6.70mm, and ISO62. I captured in the RAW mode on the phone. I had to edit in PS Express. I do not have the correct adapter yet, and the phone REALLY had serious vignetting. So, the photos are hugely cropped. If I understood you guys correctly, that really affects the final photo quality.

The Bald Eagle was under the same conditions, except the sun was behind me and the distance was around 100+yards. I did not have it well centered within the vignette, so I had to add the fancy framing to try and put lipstick on a pig. PLUS, someone that actually knows how to properly edit could have probably made the lipstick look better.

I know these leave much to be desired, but I have hope that this will get me by for awhile before I buy a real camera and lenses. Curious on your input on if it is even worthwhile to continue with a scope, or if these "photos" are still too far short of the real thing to be worthwhile. Granted I should try under better conditions, but I only have so many days to try and return.

PS. I tried to add the RAW images so you could see what it started with, but so far I can't.
View attachment 1417671View attachment 1417672

Hi Scott,

These look pretty good knowing they come from a phone with a scope. If you'd like to try and email me the raw files I'd be willing to run them through DxOPureRaw and edit them with Topaz Labs Sharpen AI? My Samsung Ultra S21 can shoot in true RAW. Not a lot of phones can do that, so if you can send the raw file that would be great! If you don't want to, no problem at all. What size are the original files? My personal email [email protected] may work, if not I can provide you with my work email which has a much higher limit.

Joe

 

[Joker9937]

Hi Scott,

These look pretty good knowing they come from a phone with a scope. If you'd like to try and email me the raw files I'd be willing to run them through DxOPureRaw and edit them with Topaz Labs Sharpen AI? My Samsung Ultra S21 can shoot in true RAW. Not a lot of phones can do that, so if you can send the raw file that would be great! If you don't want to, no problem at all. What size are the original files? My personal email [email protected] may work, if not I can provide you with my work email which has a much higher limit.

Joe

Thanks, Joe. Do not go to trouble for me, but I am interested to see them. I know editing by a knowledgeable person can make a fair photo into something really nice. But, you need something good to start. LOL.

 

[startover]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please take my comments in context from my experience as a photographer. I recently purchased a Kowa TSN 883 with 25-60 eyepiece, phone adapter, and Kowa adapters for my Canon professional bodies. I am blown away by the optics looking through the scope with my eye. I am far less satisfied with the image quality with my Canon body attached, and even less so phone scoping. I've been a photographer for 40 years, but not video (I only mention video as I know some folks are taking 4K video or higher through their scope and obtaining prints from this). My tripod is the best 3 section carbon that Manfrotto sells. The images just don't cut it compared to when using a 100-500mm Canon RF even with a 2x teleconverter. I suspect my expectations were just too high. I love the idea of a 2000mm focal length, but I'm just disappointed to the point where I may sell the entire setup. Have other folks experienced the same thing?

Thanks,
Joe

 

[startover]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please take my comments in context from my experience as a photographer. I recently purchased a Kowa TSN 883 with 25-60 eyepiece, phone adapter, and Kowa adapters for my Canon professional bodies. I am blown away by the optics looking through the scope with my eye. I am far less satisfied with the image quality with my Canon body attached, and even less so phone scoping. I've been a photographer for 40 years, but not video (I only mention video as I know some folks are taking 4K video or higher through their scope and obtaining prints from this). My tripod is the best 3 section carbon that Manfrotto sells. The images just don't cut it compared to when using a 100-500mm Canon RF even with a 2x teleconverter. I suspect my expectations were just too high. I love the idea of a 2000mm focal length, but I'm just disappointed to the point where I may sell the entire setup. Have other folks experienced the same thing?

Thanks,
Joe

I came across this thread and it perfectly captures what I went through as well. Glad I am not alone. Returned the TSN-99A. The IQ was just not there. I am having better luck with the 100-500 RF with just cropping, not even with the 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. I got a TSN-501 with a fixed 20-40 eyepiece just for spotting--not digiscoping. It weighs 1/5th of the TSN-99 and costs 1/10th.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Because spotting scopes were built for viewing and telephoto lens are not. If buying scope solely for pics/videos and expecting the results are similar from telephoto lenses, that would beat the purpose of the spotting scope. So the quality of images taken from the scope would not be able to compete with actual lenses made for pics and videos. Bigger scopes are made for better details for human eyes but not for camera attached on its eyepiece.

Both images were taken almost the same distance but different year.

Scarlet-rumped Trogon with Swarovski Optik STX95 scope + TLS APO + Nikon V1



Bornean Banded Pitta with Nikon D3s + 300mm 2.8 VR II with 2x TC III

 

[startover]

Beautiful--thank you for sharing. The good scopes certainly deliver on the promise of spotting and viewing.

 

[2Gunns]

Recently I got a Kowa 99a which is an excellent scope. In addition to enjoy watching, I took video by iPhone through 99a. Result is amazing- bright, vivid color and very sharp. It’s a joy to video documenting raptors nesting.
On the other hand, my Canon R6 + RF800 w/ or w/o 2x extender is also amazing! This set is very light considering it’s FL. Fast response, sharp images, and accurate animal eye AF is very helpful for natural photography.
When going to nice birding spots, I bring 99A and camera with cross body strep together. I can walk for miles with them and don’t miss anything

I have to ask bc I just can't find any cellphone digiscoping adapter for that tw11 wide angle eyepiece! What or which one did you use and where did you get it?!

Can you put someone give me the measurements so I can find a universal adapter for that eyepiece?! Please!!

I'm about to get my very first spotting scope the newest iteration /Gen 2 if the Kowa 55A and for the life of me I can't find a cellphone adapter.

Thank you