BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tannin" data-source="post: 958026" data-attributes="member: 2018">1: You are using a pair of lenses, neither of them designed for the task you are attempting2: You are using a strictly tripod-only system. You may use a tripod with a non-digiscope setup, but you can quite sensibly hand-hold any SLR lens on the market today (except perhaps the Sigma 300-800) if you wish. You can't do that with a digiscoping rig.3: You are accepting a massive difference in reaction time: no digital SLR is anything like as slow as a P&S, never mind the requirement to manually focus the scope as well as wait for the camera to auto-focus.4: You are working at around 2000mm in 35mm equivalent terms. With an SLR you rarely work at more than about half this magnification5: You are using a tiny little sensor which is dwarfed by even the midget Olympus "four-thirds" sensors, never mind the industry standard 1.6 and 1.5 size from Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al, or the even bigger professional-size sensors Canon make. That has very significant implications for your noise levels and your image quality.Obviously, I do not count attaching a DSLR directly to a scope as digiscoping. That is, quite clearly, using the scope as a manual-focus, fixed-aperture telephoto lens, i.e., a form of "normal" photography. Of the five differences I listed above, only #2 applies to this method. Notice also that it produces high-quality images much more akin to those produced by an SLR than to digiscoped images.</blockquote>

Verification