Digiscoping vs. DSLR Test (2 Viewers)

[Matt_RTH]

Did a digiscoping comparison. A very modest test with very basic, inexpensive (relatively) equipment. Higher end gear would have different results.

Test gear:

Rig 1:
Pentax K10d 10MP DSLR with Sigma 135-400mm lens (APO).

Rig 2:
Vintage 60mm scope with 15x eyepiece (not 15mm, 15x) - non-ED.
Fuji F30 digital.

Target: a standard resolution chart. (Yes, I know we shoot birds but birds aren't quantitative).

Test conditions:

All shots taken handheld. Would be slightly sharper on tripod but I rarely use a tripod. F30 shots handheld to scope. 400mm F8 aperture for lens sweet spot. F30 shot at F5 which is widest aperture at full zoom. Diffraction sweet spot of the F30 lens is F4 so slightly limited. Test target 26 m away. This is atypical of my scoping use, which is frequently in the 100-200m+ range.

Cons of test:

No sharpening applied other than defaults in cam or raw. Minimal white balancing. Handheld, not tripod (but this is more realistic for me). Only done at modest 15x. 25 or 30x which are more typical for birding may produce better images, but may be subject to more shake. Requires further testing. Didn't pay particular attention to exposure. Basic levels in Photoshop but clearly different exposure levels.

***Conclusion***:

Moderate digiscoping rig slighly sharper than mid range dslr rig. DSLR faster and easier to deal with, but can't deny digiscoping quality. Some CA noticeable in non-ED scope. I would imagine that higher end 80mm scopes would be noticeably sharper, and of course brighter at a given level of mag.

***Images for review (unsharpened except in camera or RAW convertor):

F30 100 pct crop:
http://i7.tinypic.com/4z8rnmu.jpg

Fuji Orig:
http://i8.tinypic.com/53ghvt1.jpg

K10d 100 pct crop:
http://i9.tinypic.com/4raet13.jpg

K10d Orig:
http://i14.tinypic.com/4tis6lk.jpg

K10d Resize (similar in size to F30 100 pct crop):
http://i10.tinypic.com/4th1blz.jpg

 

[Neil]

Good test in realistic conditions Matt. I hope to do a similar one with my klt today. Neil.

 

[Sout Fork]

I would think that so long as these shots are hand held that they are test of your ability to hold steady for a particular shot rather than saying much about the equipment involved.

SF

 

[Matt_RTH]

I know that Sigma lens and its limitations on a very solid mount and any margin of error introduced between hand held and tripod is nominal IMHO. The scope is a lesser known quantity but it's clearly not half bad. I did hand held as it's very real world for me but I'd really like to see others' results. Here's a URL to download the test chart: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/USAF.pdf. Print at >= 600 dpi.

 

[Roy C]

Would be interesting to see this test done on a solid tripod and remote release thus eliminating human error.

 

[Sout Fork]

I know that Sigma lens and its limitations on a very solid mount and any margin of error introduced between hand held and tripod is nominal IMHO. The scope is a lesser known quantity but it's clearly not half bad. I did hand held as it's very real world for me but I'd really like to see others' results. Here's a URL to download the test chart: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/USAF.pdf. Print at >= 600 dpi.

Ok I'll give it a try

The following were taken with a DSLR (Pentax) a Pentax 100mm ED spotter and between the two a Pentax SLR camera adaptor.

NOTE:
This setup is neither the conventional disgiscoping setup with a scope+eyepiece+adaptor+point and shot zoom camera lens+point and shot camera body nor the traditional SLR+Telephoto lens.

Instead it uses a rather expensive SLR camera adaptor between the SLR (body only no lens) and the spotting scope. This gives me the equiv of a 1910mm (38x) fixed aperture (f12) telephoto. This setup has the advantage of being optimized just for this specific purpose. Snap it all together and it works first time and everytime.

Took three pics:
1. 100feet (30m)
2. 85feet (26m)
3. 50feet (15m)
4. and a 200 percent blowup of the 100 foot frame to give me the same scale as the 50 foot frame. Compare this to the actual 50 foot frame to see the difference.
5. Finally a pic of my setup.

All shots were taken on a tripod with remote release.

Don't know what it proves but there you are.

SF

 

[Matt_RTH]

This thread could cost me a Pentax 100mm! Very sharp.

For comparison to my original test, I'll try to get a couple tripod mounted shots from two different lenses, the Sigma and a Tokina, at F11 which is the sharpest for both.

 

[JGobeil]

Sout Fork, what was the size of your target ? Could you post some pictures of birds taken at a good distance with that setup ?

 

[Sout Fork]

Sout Fork, what was the size of your target ? Could you post some pictures of birds taken at a good distance with that setup ?

Standard letter size - 8.5"X11"

As I take photos of mostly small passerines I don't have much that is at a "good distance" in absolute terms, say over 500 feet, so this is the best I could do.

Bunny taken about 80 feet and cropped.
Heron taken at about 300 feet
Eagle at about 1/8 mile
Redstart at about 150 feet
And finally, for the record, what it will do as a closeup at about 20 feet (Grosbeak)

SF

 

[JGobeil]

Thanks a lot Sout Fork. These give a pretty good idea of what your setup can do. These are nice pictures, all keepers. The Redstart in particular, taken at 150 ft, is a good example.

 

[Neil]

Excellent test Sout Fork . Shows what the big Pentax can do. Nice images too.Neil.

 

[Roy Halpin]

I have been shooting the Pentax PF80ED and the PF65EDll with a XW20 eyepiece, 43mm to 49mm(m) step ring attached to the Pentax 40mmf/2.8 lens and K10D with better than hoped results. You can see my setups on my Flickr site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7887345@N07/sets/72157600519720342/

 

[Sout Fork]

Thanks a lot Sout Fork. These give a pretty good idea of what your setup can do. These are nice pictures, all keepers. The Redstart in particular, taken at 150 ft, is a good example.

Actually they are not very good examples of what the equipment can do. The were selected for technical reasons (distance) and are not really typical of what the setup can do.

So I'll throw in some more typical shots.
Don't ask about distance I really can't remember them all.

SF

 

[JGobeil]

I have been shooting the Pentax PF80ED and the PF65EDll with a XW20 eyepiece, 43mm to 49mm(m) step ring attached to the Pentax 40mmf/2.8 lens and K10D with better than hoped results. You can see my setups on my Flickr site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7887345@N07/sets/72157600519720342/

Thanks Roy for the info on your setup. I was not aware of the Bogen 3420.

Very nice photos. The pics you took at Viera Wet Lands are truly superb.

 

[Matt_RTH]

Sigma 135-400 and Tokina 400mm 100% crops (not resized) attached.

F11.
Ap priority.
12 second timer to eliminate shake.
Tripod mounted.
ISO 100.
Shade WB.

Tok is manual focus but did take several. Surprised by that one.

 

[Sout Fork]

Sigma 135-400 and Tokina 400mm 100% crops (not resized) attached.

F11.
Ap priority.
12 second timer to eliminate shake.
Tripod mounted.
ISO 100.
Shade WB.

Tok is manual focus but did take several. Surprised by that one.

I'm surprised by both of them.
While one is relatively better than the other neither one is even just adequate. Something else is causing this softness other than optics.

Both Sigma and Tokina make better glass than this.

I have a $220 Sigma APO macro Zoom 70-300mm that gives me much better performance than this. See pic.

I strongly doubt that these out of focus shots are the result of poor lens performance. Are your other lens' like this also?

SF

 

[Matt_RTH]

26m as before. Any chance you can take same shot with your 300? It isn't the * series Pentax but I expect something better.

 

[Neil]

This is a DSLR plus AF lens and an 8400 on a scope comparison. Both taken of the same bird, on the same day on tripods. The digiscoper was about the 3 metres further away. Can you tell which is which? Neil.

 

[JGobeil]

This is a DSLR plus AF lens and an 8400 on a scope comparison. Both taken of the same bird, on the same day on tripods. The digiscoper was about the 3 metres further away. Can you tell which is which? Neil.

Hey ! This is not fair... You have to tell us more about each setup. For example, you won't get the same results at 500mm with a Sigma 170-500 or a Canon 500 prime.

 

[Neil]

Jules,
Ok, you're right. The Nikon gear was a D200 plus 70-200/2.8 AFS VR and the digiscoping rig was the 8400 plus Swarovski ATS80HD scope and Sw 30x eyepiec. So the Nikon was 350 mm and the digiscoping rig was 1110 mm. Neil.