Getting better?? (1 Viewer)

[digi-birder]

After an overload of decorating, I took advantage of an extra day off from work today, and did some more digiscoping practice in the garden. I was determined to try everything possible to get some decent results, otherwise the camera was going as far away as possible!

I met someone yesterday with a cheap Canon digi-camera, hand holding it to his scope (Kowa) and his photos were pin sharp. He tried his camera in my scope eyepiece and the pics in the monitor looked excellent. He told me that someone else had been in the hide earlier on with exactly the same setup as mine (Coolpix 995 and Opticron ES80 scope) having exactly the same problem with soft images. Nothing he and his friend (who also has the 995) did helped in getting an in-focus shot. His friend went through his camera settings and put this person's exactly the same - still no joy. Could this be some sort of incompatibility issue? I've been pricing up Canon cameras today in between digiscoping!

Anyhow, here is the first of two photos taken today in the garden. They have been sharpened slightly, but they're certainly better than any previous efforts. Normally, no amount of Photoshop work would make any difference.

Opinions and ideas would be gladly welcomed.

 

[digi-birder]

Second image.

 

[T0ny]

The second one looks pretty good to me, Diane - I'd hoped to do some digiscoping myself over the weekend, but waving reed stems in a gale aren't a good subject !

Tony

 

[Ragna]

Diane
How sligtly were they sharpened in photoshop.Andy B. gives recommedations on his web site on sharperning in photoshop, but i sometimes have to exced these to get a shaarp photo.Both your shots look sharp to me. Remember that when you look in a cameras monitor the camera would have already sharpend the image,and they all have small monitors so lots of shots look sharp.

 

[digi-birder]

Thanks for the feedback Tony and Graham.

I followed Andy's camera settings and the Photoshop instructions from his website. I don't think the sharpening settings were too far different to what he states. I have used higher settings in the past with not too much effect, the photos were so badly focused in the first place (or something!).

The only thing different that I did today is that instead of using macro focus, I used manual focus set on infinity (not the mountain symbol) and focused with the scope. I have tried this setting before, but perhaps did not take enough shots to test it.

It helped, I think, that the sun was shining and I got a decent shutter speed.

 

[Ragna]

Diane
Ialso use the manual focus set to infinity most of the time, if the bird is sitting still long enough i then sometimes switch to close focus, dont seem to find much difference between the two,but manual is easier.Like Tony said your 2nd image looks very sharp is your scope the ed version

 

[Ragna]

Diane
Forgot to ask are you using an adapter or hand holding your camera.

 

[Andy Bright]

The second shot looks excellent, Diane. The exposure looks slightly different between the two images, I'd be interested to see the exif data from them (second image looks as if the sun is out, the first with the sun in?) I'd stake money on the second image having a faster shutter-speed.
Maybe your scope prefers infinity focus?
Certainly a huge improvement, hopefully it's more than a one-off and you've hit the right combination.
Andy

 

[KC Foggin]

Diane, I have yet to come up with a sharp photo digiscoping. All of them are on the soft side. I have attributed it to lack of knowlege and experience. These are terrific as far as I'm concerned. Most especially the second one. I think I will try the manual infinity with my scope as well this weekend.

 

[bcurrie]

Diane,

You know, we now have a forum to critique a person's photos. Might be a good place for this/these photos.

 

[IanF]

Hi Diane,

The second one looks about spot on. I find Goldies a difficult bird to get a decent photo of in dtrong sunlight becuse of the strongly contrasting colours. A bright overcast day is far better for this species as the lighting enables both the black feather detail and bright whites to show detail.
Focus wise it looks as if you've got the focus spot on for the feeder as opposed to the bird itself, though it isn't too far out. I'd say an element of softness is caused by CA - prurple colour fringing - on the bill and chest, which could be removed in PS.
Practice makes perfect as they say

 

[digi-birder]

Ragna:
The Opticron is HD glass. I use the LCE adapter and a manual cable release. This is what made me so mad the other day when this guy was just holding a cheap camera to the scope and getting photos twice as good as any I've ever had.

Andy:
Pic 1:
Quality Mode : FINE
Metering Mode : Center-Weighted
Exposure Mode : Aperture Priority
Speed Light : No
Focal Length : 29.7 mm
Shutter Speed : 1/42.3 second
Aperture : F4.9
Exposure Compensation : 0 EV
White Balance : Auto
Lens : Built-in
Flash Sync Mode : N/A
Exposure Difference : N/A
Flexible Program : N/A
Sensitivity : ISO200

Pic 2:
Quality Mode : FINE
Metering Mode : Center-Weighted
Exposure Mode : Aperture Priority
Speed Light : No
Focal Length : 24.3 mm
Shutter Speed : 1/110.1 second
Aperture : F4.4
Exposure Compensation : 0 EV
White Balance : Auto
Lens : Built-in
Flash Sync Mode : N/A
Exposure Difference : N/A
Flexible Program : N/A
Sensitivity : ISO200

Exif data as requested - looks like you're right about the sun. Might be booking a trip to see you soon, just to see if it's not just a fluke.

KC:
I have had nothing but soft photos for over a year since taking up digiscoping. I attributed my problems to not having a stable set up - hence the adapter and cable release to try and eliminate the possibility of camera shake. Then I read about focus problems in the 995 and the camera has recently been back to Nikon for checking. No report was returned with the camera so I don't really know if they did find the focus to be out or not. I wasn't sure what the problem was. Still don't - unless I have cracked it at last.

Brian:
I was toying with the idea of putting it in the Critique forum. Looks like it would have been the best place to post this. I'll do that next time.

Ian:
This is the best Goldfinch I've managed to get. Trouble is it's the most common bird in our garden, so I don't have much option of any other birds to have a shot at (so to speak).

The focus has been a problem, even when using the five focus brackets method. I have found, by testing on static objects, that the brackets do not quite match up to what comes out in focus on the photo. I thought I would give the infinity setting a chance, which does not have the bracket option. Therefore I did not know where, exactly, the camera was focusing on.

I did follow Andy's website instructions for CA adjustment, but I think it was on another photo that I put in the gallery. These were merely as a quick demo of my findings re the focus.

I just wish my practice had not taken so long!

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll keep you posted as to whether this success keeps up.

 

[IanF]

Ian:
This is the best Goldfinch I've managed to get. Trouble is it's the most common bird in our garden, so I don't have much option of any other birds to have a shot at (so to speak).

The focus has been a problem, even when using the five focus brackets method. I have found, by testing on static objects, that the brackets do not quite match up to what comes out in focus on the photo. I thought I would give the infinity setting a chance, which does not have the bracket option. Therefore I did not know where, exactly, the camera was focusing on.

Just one point on the five focus zones. I have the Nikon 4500 which has this feature. I find the central zone is very wide and doesn't always lock focus very well. I get better results from using one of the small surrounding zones instead. In your shot I would have selected the upper one to get the head and eye.

It may help.

 

[digi-birder]

Thanks Ian.

I have tried all the brackets at one time or another. I agree that the central one is quite difficult to get in the right spot. On this occasion though, as I was on infinity, the brackets do not appear.

 

[Mugil]

Hi all, before I have got my new CP4500 (last week), I have been digiscoping with "bad" Sony DSC P-51 (2.0 megapixels) and max. 2 x zoom. Unfortunately for all us with Nikon CP series, some cameras (cheap) produce better and sharper shots, as it was with my Sony. But as Andy said could be also problem with different scopes and their lenses. So the best tandem it seems to be Swaro ST 80 HD and CP. And others tandems? Lets go try everything possible to resolve the problems, so we can help others new digiscopers with their tandems or future buying.

Iztok

 

[digi-birder]

Iztok,

Thanks for your comments. I was definitely beginning to think that it could be a problem of compatibility between the camera and scope. I don't know many other people with the same combination.

I am going to do a test this weekend with my sister's Zeiss scope and try her cheaper Olympus camera with my scope. I hope I reach a conclusion soon.

Certainly upgrading (downgrading) the camera would be the cheaper option rather than the scope, but I suppose a better scope would not go amiss!

 

[Geoff Pain]

Most people recommend ISO 100 I see your using ISO 200,give 100 a try I don't know if it will make any difference but who knows?

Geoff

 

[digi-birder]

Geoff,

I do normally use ISO 100 - it was when the sun disappeared briefly and I couldn't get a higher shutter speed than about 1/60th, that I increased it. I know from experience that I can't get any good results at such a slow speed. Couldn't get them at higher speeds either for that matter!

You name it - I've tried it.

 

[digi-birder]

I thought I'd post as a continuation of this thread as it sort of carries on the 'getting better' theme.

After much gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair, and having met several other digiscopers who told me what I already knew, that the Coolpix 995 was not focusing correctly, I decided to push the boat out and get another camera - the Canon Powershot G3.

I have researched various options and have seen some excellent digiscoped photos taken with the G3, so decided on this one. As a matter of interest, the cheapest UK price was £469 on Amazon.co.uk, but I went down to Jessops in Meadowhall and they price-matched it (their price was £598).

I only got the adapter yesterday, so I haven't tried attaching the camera to the scope yet, but attached is a photo I took the day I got the camera, hand-held to the scope in the garden.

I have cropped out the vignetting and cloned the aberrations from around the bird (some still remain round the foliage) then sharpened it. Compared with the first photos taken with the 995, even those where I attached the camera to the scope, this looks promising.

I know I seemed to be getting the hang of it by using the manual infinity setting on the camera, but it went downhill a bit from there to the point where the camera was really struggling to find any point to focus on.

Just thought this might be interesting if anyone's thinking of buying a camera for digiscoping. The Coolpix series is not the be-all and end-all - at least for me.

 

[KC Foggin]

Another Canon convert huh? Having not seen too many of your nikon digishots I can't really compare Diane. This definitely looks promising considering it was hand held.