Digiscoping vs. DSLR Test (5 Viewers)

[JGobeil]

Kevin,

I was writing my last post when you uploaded yours. Sorry I have not read it before posting.

IMO, the DSLR picture you submit cannot be compared to the digiscoped one since they are not the same size. This is unfortunately the problem with those tests that are anything but valid scientific meaningful tests. However, they sure are a lot of fun and give us good indications as long as we do not take anything for granted.

I should tell you that I have worked quite hard to extend the reach of a DSLR and I think I know what I am talking about. I started with a 10D and a 28-300 Tamron - not enough reach. Added a Tamron TC - still not enough reach and I lost quality... Moved to a 20D to get more MPX - it made cropping more effective and added some reach. Bought a Canon 100-400 IS L - huge improvement but still not enough reach. Added a 1.4X Canon TC - some improvement but not all the time - still not enough reach. Added a 2.0X Canon TC - very soft but ok for ID pictures. I also worked quite hard in PS to learn how to crop, enlarge, sharpen and correct properly - still not enough range.

Improving range is the problem in birding for most of us. Unfortunately I don't have the budget to buy one of the Canon big guns.

Last Spring, I got my first scope, a Vortex Skyline - 20x60 80mm. Is not a top quality scope but it is surprisingly good. I have made a few attempts at digiscoping with it with so-so results. Tried a P5000 and got soft pictures, probably my fault but I couldn't live with the slow focus anyway. Also tried a A640 and could not get rid of vignetting, no matter what I tried and believe me I did try because I loved this camera. Also tried an old Pentax 3mpx and got decent results but the 3mpx and lack of lens threads were a problem. Also tried my 20D with a 50mm f/1.8 and I quickly understood why most people don't go the DSLR route for digiscoping. Finally, last week I bought a used A95 for a good price, a camera that is known to work well - I should get it tomorrow and will use it for a while to gain expertise.

As you can see I don't have much experience if not at all digiscoping but I know quite a bit about the technique, having read everything there is on the Web. I have also studied a lot of pictures and I think I know what it can do and cannot do.

 

[JGobeil]

Kevin, thanks for your comments about my Web site. You will surely be interested to know that the Grebes eating bullfrogs pictures are about 100% crops.... It was very early in the morning and the light was horrible and yellowish - also I had forgotten my flash. This was probably at the extreme limit of my DSLR capability, if not beyond - I have shown those pictures because of what they represent, not because of their quality of course.
http://julesgobeil.com/nouveautes-en.htm

I am presently revamping my site - I have not added pictures to it for more than a year now. It should be ready late Summer early Fall.

Regards
Jules

 

[kevindurose]

Jules,

Please look at the photos can you not understand both pictures are the actual pictures just cropped. To see the difference you need to open them up and compare them side by side with them both zoomed in so that the same parts of the photo are the same size. You will see that in the DSLR pic the word 'fat' is not legible. This is due to the fact that the pixel size of the DSLR is not fine enough to record all of the detail at 20m. In the digiscoped pic it clearly is. I cannot possibly post both pics at the same size because the DSLR pic is obviously a larger image.

An A95 is a good decision for digiscoping but my advise would be get a 30wa x lens for your scope, zoom lenses are a complete waste of time for digiscoping. Or preferably get a kowa 823 fluorite with a new type 32xWA, and your digiscoping will be 5 times better.

About 60% of shots including the dragonflies on my blog are taken with the A95 held to the kowa scope, take a look.

http://kevindurose.co.uk/

 

[kevindurose]

Jules,

I have just realised why you are having trouble seeing what i am talking about. You have to be careful how you view images attached to these messages. follow this procedure:

double click on attached image,this brings up a window with the image in.

you must then maximise this window to full screen otherwise the image will be only saved at screen resolution (probably only a couple of hundred pixels wide.

When you have done this, right click the image and choose save picture as (not save as otherwise you get a hmtl doc.), then save the jpeg to your desired location. You can then open both pics side by side in photoshop. The DSLR pic is smaller in size because it contains less pixels than the digiscoped shot. Both shots are as they came out of the camera just cropped.

 

[JGobeil]

Jules,

Please look at the photos can you not understand both pictures are the actual pictures just cropped. To see the difference you need to open them up and compare them side by side with them both zoomed in so that the same parts of the photo are the same size. You will see that in the DSLR pic the word 'fat' is not legible. This is due to the fact that the pixel size of the DSLR is not fine enough to record all of the detail at 20m. In the digiscoped pic it clearly is. I cannot possibly post both pics at the same size because the DSLR pic is obviously a larger image.

An A95 is a good decision for digiscoping but my advise would be get a 30wa x lens for your scope, zoom lenses are a complete waste of time for digiscoping. Or preferably get a kowa 823 fluorite with a new type 32xWA, and your digiscoping will be 5 times better.

About 60% of shots including the dragonflies on my blog are taken with the A95 held to the kowa scope, take a look.

http://kevindurose.co.uk/

Kevin,
I could be wrong, but I think that we doing it and you doing it before posting is not the same.

Since your DSLR has less reach, you have to enlarge it using the Zoom Slider in PS until the Coke bottle is the same width as the other pic. Then you crop each picture at the same dimensions without changing the resolution to keep only the contents analysis part and you post those 2 pics.

IMO, doing it the other way around will not achieve the same results. I tried it your way and one of the pics is badly pixellized. It should not be like that.

 

[kevindurose]

Jules,

check that the DSLR picture is 474 pixels wide, the digiscoped one should be 771 pixels wide. The digiscoped one has more pixels because with the higher mag of the digiscoping outfit. The DSLR pic is obviously pixelated this is because of the comparitively low magnification which means the coke bottle only takes up a small part of the frame compared to the digiscoping effort.

 

[JGobeil]

Kevin, it just doesn't work.
In your post of yesterday, when you first show the photographs, there is 1 pic with the 20D and 2 with the A95.
Here are the dimensions of the pics:
20D 500+ 1.4TC: 636x544
A95 zoom at 3.5: 588x524
A95 zoom at 2.8: 800x659

Today you post 2 pics and one of those is supposed to be the same as yesterday. You don't specify which is wich but none of those 2 has the same dimensions as one from yesterday:
Pic 1: 771x762
Pic 2: 474x339

How do you think we can compare if you change the dimensions at will ? Also, yesterday you tested the 500 with the TC, today you test the 500 without the TC. Obviously you have not done this on purpose, but it shows the problem with home tests - the parameters of the test are not well defined and are not constant - also, there are no tools but the eye, influenced by our own biased opinion, to measure the results. Like you say: "Can we test some cameras properly ?"

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you. We all do that. If I read our posts on this thread, I realize that we both tried to convince the other... Well, why not ? This was fun isn't ? At one time, I even thought of buying a bottle of Coke to do the same test with my DSLR setup...

 

[JGobeil]

Jules,

An A95 is a good decision for digiscoping but my advise would be get a 30wa x lens for your scope, zoom lenses are a complete waste of time for digiscoping. Or preferably get a kowa 823 fluorite with a new type 32xWA, and your digiscoping will be 5 times better.

About 60% of shots including the dragonflies on my blog are taken with the A95 held to the kowa scope, take a look.

http://kevindurose.co.uk/

Thanks for the suggestions Kevin. I believe that the 823 has been discontinued. I don't know what I'll do. I bought this scope for my wife who is not into photography and it is perfectly adequate for her. This scope in a pretty good performer for the price.

However, I understand it is not the ideal lens for digiscoping. I think I will play with it for a while and watch for bargains... Who knows !

Nice photos on your blog. Congrads !

 

[Paul Hackett]

Jules

Having read this thread for a while it seems to me that we have a stalemate, Kevin has done his best to show you why he has come to his conclusions, i accept that his size of image may have differed and the DSLR pic was a little soft, but this is not a scientific experiment in any sense and conditions change, light, distance, heat etc, so at best any testing done cannot be quantifiable, its down to the opinion you form at looking at the images on a screen based on the facts you are given, my reasoning behind this is that -

1. The point he raises about a bigger image gained by digiscoping versus cropping a DSLR is credible even with or without the same pixel file size on P & S cameras attached to a high quality scope and eyepiece using the lowest ISO setting, this also depends on the size of lens used on the DSLR

2. I think that if you had a decent scope possibly you may have much more acceptable results, but reading your own thread it seems that you seemed to not get along with your digiscoping setup, a fact a lot of people do struggle with and point out to me when i am doing my digiscoping lectures.

3. The fact is that we digiscopers have to get the best out of the equipment we use, which in reality, was not made specifically for this purpose anyway, as opposed to DSLR has been specifically manufactured for the purpose of taking pics?

4. The biggest flaw in this debate IMHO is how can you quantify sharpness of a picture when a DSLR in most cases has Autofocus and Digiscoping is done by Manual focus or eye to hand coordination? one is constant, one is variable in every sense of the word, its down to the individual and the abilty to focus or not on a regular basis.

To illustrate the detail you can achieve in Digiscoping, I have attached two pictures of the same bird, (Stonechat) bird on the left just resized to 800 pixels, the right picture is resized and lightly enhanced with levels and sharpening, (Paintshop Pro 7) to me this shows good detail and maybe illustrates Kevin's point of view ( pictures do get slightly compressed when uploaded) another factor to consider?

Equipment - Zeiss 85 Straight Scope, 30X WA eyepiece, Contax U4R Digital Camera (4 mill pixels) estimated at around 20 metres distance, Manfrotto 393 head, Manfrotto 055MV tripod

Taken at 19.41 last Saturday, Temp around 15C? Setting sun, North Gare, Teeside, UK

Original file size 843.2KB
Focal Length 13.1mm
ISO 50
Aperture F4.1
1/60th Sec
Spot Meter
Spot Focus

Interesting debate though!

Best Regards

Paul

 

[normjackson]

Jules

Having read this thread for a while it seems to me that we have a stalemate

Not exactly, more like :
http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/f03-cse471-mailarchive/msg00081.html

 

[Matt_RTH]

Not exactly, more like :
http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/f03-cse471-mailarchive/msg00081.html

That's pretty good but I'm absolutely fascinated by the whole thread though my decision is made

 

[Paul Hackett]

Not exactly, more like :
http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/f03-cse471-mailarchive/msg00081.html

Norm, Nice one!

 

[JGobeil]

Paul,

Thank you for your interesting comments. I appreciate your sensible input.

English is not my mother tongue so maybe I have not made myself clear. I will try once more.

My opinion is that DSLR is better at close range and that digiscoping is better at long range. I don't think anybody can argue with that statement. The question is: Where do they meet ?

Kevin tried to demonstrate that at 20 meters digiscoping is a clear winner and this where I disagree. He may be right but, IMO, he has not demonstrated it because his test is flawed. His DSLR picture is soft and we cannot compare both setups with the pictures he has posted because they are not equivalent. His argument it that digiscoping, because of the high magnification of the lens, contains more details. Kevin has demonstrated a good understanding of digiscoping - his argument is true and it is the reason why digiscoping has a much longer range. Neil's extraordinary pictures at up to 120 meters in this thread http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=85210 demonstrate that very clearly.

Neil, earlier on this thread, has posted a test made at 38 meters where the results of both systems are just about equal.

So, where is the breaking point ? I think it depends on the equipment, the conditions (mainly light) and the expertise of the photographer. I suspect it lies somewhere between 25 and 40 meters but this is just a guess - I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

Paul, you bring very good arguments to convince me that digiscoping can turn out very good results - I have known and accepted that for quite a while. Please don't make me say what I have not said. I am not trying to imply that DSLR has the edge on digiscoping, not at all. Also, my arguments are not based on my results with digiscoping - I have honestly described my equipment and expertise and it is not much indeed - my opinion is based on the results of experienced photographers I have seen on this site and elsewhere (your attached photographs are a good example). Digiscoping has matured a lot in the past years and talented photographers are producing extraordinary photographs using this technique - this is why I have started to experiment with digiscoping and I still have a long way to go, but I intend to get there.

I thank you and Kevin, as well as the others that have contributed to this thread, for helping me out in my quest for excellence in photography.

 

[JGobeil]

Not exactly, more like :
http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/f03-cse471-mailarchive/msg00081.html

Norm, thanks for your positive contribution to this thread. It is much appreciated.

 

[kevindurose]

Jules,

You mention the digiscoping shot is a different size. The reason for this is that i didn't save it to my hard drive here at home. I had the original here so I just cropped the relevant bit from the smae photo. I would post the whole photo but this forum will not allow this without resizing the photograph. For obvious reasons this would not allow the detail we are concerned with to be seen. I did offer to send over the originals via email, but as yet, you have declined this. I do not accept the fact that the 2nd DSLR photograph is soft, although I do acknowledge the first was as i said earlier. You say you are new to digiscoping, there are many of us here, Will and Paul above included who have been digiscoping for 4 or 5 years, which in this country would be enough to have clearnt a trade such as an electrician etc. etc. From this perspective I think its not unreasonable to assume that we know our trade and weknow what we are talking about. I wont say this again you are wrong in what you believe and I can honestly say I have never met anyone in my life who has so much trouble understanding such a basic concept. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DISTANCE AT WHICH DIGISCOPING WILL START TO PRODUCE MORE DETAIL IN A PICTURE THAN DSLR. IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW BIG THE SUBJECT IS. I was only trying to help you. It appears that you think i am trying to trick you, get one over on you, or i am just talking rubbish. Non of these are the case.

 

[JGobeil]

Kevin,

Unfortunately, like Paul Hackett said, it seems we have a stalemate, so I think we might as well stop the discussion here. I assure you I did not want to trick you, get one over on you and I don't think you vere talking rubbish. Reading your last post, you were obviously under that impression and I am truly sorry for it.

Regards
Jules

 

[kevindurose]

this message is not intended for jules,

If anyone is genuinely interested in comparing between digiscoping and DSLR. Here is a comparison of the two techniqes zoomed in from my photos above. Due to the difference in size due to the fact that the equivalent area of the same object takes up less pixels in the DSLR picture. I have had to resize the DSLR (lower half) by roughly half to make both parts of image of similar size. On top of this i have turned the brightness and saturation of the DSLR image up a little to make the images a bit more similar in appearance.

Digiscoped above, DSLR =500mm sig below.

make your own minds up, i'm sure some of you will prefer the lower part of the image!

note the fly on the DSLR image

 

[Sout Fork]

this message is not intended for jules,

If anyone is genuinely interested in comparing between digiscoping and DSLR. Here is a comparison of the two techniqes zoomed in from my photos above. Due to the difference in size due to the fact that the equivalent area of the same object takes up less pixels in the DSLR picture. I have had to resize the DSLR (lower half) by roughly half to make both parts of image of similar size. On top of this i have turned the brightness and saturation of the DSLR image up a little to make the images a bit more similar in appearance.

Digiscoped above, DSLR =500mm sig below.

make your own minds up, i'm sure some of you will prefer the lower part of the image!

note the fly on the DSLR image

Just taking these two pics at their face value they are both equally poor.

SF

 

[Paul Hackett]

Jules

There has been a lot of generalisation in this thread, can we start to get a bit more specific for those of us reading this thread?

1. Is it possible for you to show us some photographs taken with your DSLR set up which seem to convince you that there is more detail in DSLR pics at 20 metres than Digiscoping at the same distance? as i am very intrigued as you still think DSLR pictures have more detail at this distance, perhaps you can send two images? one picture uncropped and one picture cropped? again i want to understand your point of view and try and see where you are coming from

2. The other point i forgot to mention in my previous reply, is that detail in a picture to me, means that the picture needs to be sharp in the first place to see that detail, thats why i posted the two pictures, you didnt seem to elaborate on my unsharpened picture i posted, do you consider my unsharpened picture has not as much detail in it as a typical DSLR shot at the same distance perhaps?

3. Another point to consider is that in camera sharpening, my Contax U4R is set on zero setting or "normal" i presume you are expecting the DSLR setup to be the same? to me this has a noticeable effect on a unenhanced picture and can affect detail

Again, me trying to understand your point of view as we seem to be going round in circles?

Regards

Paul

 

[kevindurose]

Just taking these two pics at their face value they are both equally poor.

SF

Sout,

remember these are taken from 20metres away and the text is only about 3mm high which is smaller than when you click on it, remember we are enlarging drastically here. Try photographing the text from an open book and 20metres and see if you can do better.