Low priced digiscoping (1 Viewer)

[erizzo]

Best low priced digiscoping

I need to get a good scope with in price range of $300 and $400 (can be used but in good shape and hopefuly waterproof). I'm going to get a Nikon coolpix 4500 and I need a scope for it.
I want to be able to get into digiscoping. And I'm going to go up to the US in Dicember. So I hope I can get some good prices.
What would be the best scope within that price range???
I was thinking maybe Bushnell or Opticron?? What do you think, or maybe something else???

 

[Bill Atwood]

As far as I know, in the US Opticron is ONLY available from the ABA. I believe this has severely restricted their move into the NA market.

I haven't done any digiscoping, but it sure seems that all of those folks use the best and most expensive scopes possible. Sorry to say, I don't think $300 is going to get you very far.

 

[Pie Face]

How about a second hand Kowa TSN3/4. They have a nice bright 77mm Flourite lens and are excellent alongside the 995/4500. Buying a cheap new scope will give you poor results. For the best results you really need a large objective lens preferably a flourite/HD/APO option. They should be lots of good quality second hand Kowas around in the US there's certainly plenty over here.

Regards

Mark

 

[Bill Atwood]

I would think that the TSN3/4 with one of their fixed eyepieces would be a good choice. I don't think they are selling for $400 though. I thought about mentioning that last night, but it was late and I had downed a few adult beverages at our state fair.

I really haven't seen many used scopes for sale in the US, although that may be changing. Birders over here don't seem to have the upgradeitis that alot of us on Birdforum has. Whenever I try to sell one, people who don't know me are rather shocked, and I commonly get "Why in the world would you sell your xxxx scope?" People who do know me go, "There he goes again!"

 

[scampo]

How about a second hand Kowa TSN3/4. They have a nice bright 77mm Flourite lens and are excellent alongside the 995/4500. Buying a cheap new scope will give you poor results. For the best results you really need a large objective lens preferably a flourite/HD/APO option. They should be lots of good quality second hand Kowas around in the US there's certainly plenty over here.

Regards

Mark

Good advice - this must be the best s/h scope for the price for digiscoping, and a TSN1/2 would also be okay, if not as good owing to the lack of ED / fluorite glass in the objective lens.

Warehouse Express (www.warehouseexpress.com) still have crazy offers on the non-ED Nikon Fieldscope III and that, with a 30xW eyepiece would also be a good scope for digiscoping - Nikon make a first class camera adapter, too, for attaching the CP900/4500 series. This company are first class to deal with and the UK warranty must surely be transferable.

 

[Pie Face]

I would think that the TSN3/4 with one of their fixed eyepieces would be a good choice. I don't think they are selling for $400 though. I thought about mentioning that last night, but it was late and I had downed a few adult beverages at our state fair.

I really haven't seen many used scopes for sale in the US, although that may be changing. Birders over here don't seem to have the upgradeitis that alot of us on Birdforum has. Whenever I try to sell one, people who don't know me are rather shocked, and I commonly get "Why in the world would you sell your xxxx scope?" People who do know me go, "There he goes again!"

There's a very nice looking TSN1 (not flourite) on ebay at the moment for $440.

Mark

 

[Jay Turberville]

I need to get a good scope with in price range of $300 and $400 (can be used but in good shape and hopefuly waterproof). I'm going to get a Nikon coolpix 4500 and I need a scope for it.
I want to be able to get into digiscoping. And I'm going to go up to the US in Dicember. So I hope I can get some good prices.
What would be the best scope within that price range???
I was thinking maybe Bushnell or Opticron?? What do you think, or maybe something else???

If you are primarily interested in digiscoping and less interested in direct viewing, I would seriously consider using a catadioptric (uses mirrors and lenses) scope. I have been using such scopes for nearly two years and I believe they offer the best digiscoping value - if you are willing to live with their limitations. I wrote this overview earlier this summer.
http://www.jayandwanda.com/digicat/digicat.html
It compares two cats to an ATS80HD.

If direct visual use is as important or more important than digiscoping, then looking for a used scope with ED, HD etc. glass is probably your next best option. Scopes that do not use the more exotic glass are usually very good visually, but have significant shortcomings for digiscoping. And frankly, a lesser brand without the more exotic glass is almost sure to be very disappointing. It will probably have a poorer eyepiece and erecting prism as well.

If you choose a refractor, I strongly advise spending the extra money for the better glass from a mid or top level maker.

 

[scampo]

All you say makes sense, Jay, but I am sure I have seen good digiscoped shots from scopes such as the Nikon Fieldscope and other non-ED, top makes. The kind of glass Nikon and others use in their scopes is likely to be rather special, even when not fluorite. What do you think?

 

[Jay Turberville]

All you say makes sense, Jay, but I am sure I have seen good digiscoped shots from scopes such as the Nikon Fieldscope and other non-ED, top makes. The kind of glass Nikon and others use in their scopes is likely to be rather special, even when not fluorite. What do you think?

I suppose all modern optics are - historically speaking - special. But I don't think the issue is whether the glass is special. The issue is what gets recorded by the camera. And an acrhomat simply is not as well corrected as the other designs.

Yes, you can get decent shots with the standard versions of scopes good brand scopes. But that will happen over a narrower range of circumstances. White birds and/or bright backlit scenes will probably be a regular problem. You can spend time touching up the photos to remove this fringing to get even better results, but I think its better not to have the problem or to have less of it to begin with. Low contrast shots will probably turn out OK a lot of the time. But they won't have the "pop" that the better scopes offer. Even when the color correction problems aren't obvious, the standard achromat design will not provide contrast and sharpness at the same level as the more exotic designs.

I've looked at a LOT of image on Birds-pix in about two years and the better images are pretty consitently taken with the better scopes (or a DSLR). And if the difference is visible in web-sized images, then its probably pretty significant.

As a practical matter in my own digiscoping, I constantly flip-flop on which scope to use, my Rubinar or the AST80HD. The ATS80HD is more versatile, but the Rubinar is easer to use (due to its straight through design) and provides image quality that is essentially the equal of the ATS80HD. In some ways it is better (color correction) and in some ways the ATS80HD is better (slightly more contrast/snap in the picture and more even field illumination). The Swaro's ability to let me use super low magnification (versatility) with my CP5000 is really what keeps me coming back to it. But the reality is that I use each about half the time. I think that says something significant considering the Rubinar, eyepiece and misc. bits set me back little more than $400.

I have a hard time imagining a standard birding achromat doing as well for digiscoping as either of these. So I think suggesting a cat over a standard refractor for the budget minded makes a lot of sense. I hope people who read my suggestions understand the caveats though. For most regular birding situations, the cats don't do as well. (Though they should be very good for very long reach situations.) Anyone seriously considering spending money that is dear should carefully read my ENTIRE article and make sure they have a good idea of how they intend to use the scope.

 

[erizzo]

Thanks for the posts everybody
Ill check out those scopes. and does antbody think the Busnells are any good??

CHILE JUST WON THE FIRST PLACE IN TENNIS DOBLES IN THE OLIMPICS.
VIVA CHILE

 

[KC Foggin]

Well if you are going to be in the states, you might take a look at Eagle Optics Raven. Fine scope for the price.

 

[erizzo]

Are the Nikon Sky and Earth any good or are they too cheap???

 

[erizzo]

Well if you are going to be in the states, you might take a look at Eagle Optics Raven. Fine scope for the price.

Do you know if they are any good for digiscoping???
probably not for suck little money.

Thanx

 

[KC Foggin]

Do you know if they are any good for digiscoping???
probably not for suck little money.

Thanx

That's what I started out digiscoping with. Fine scope with a 78mm lens Some chromatic abberation (purple fringing) that is easily removed in an imaging program.

Angled: http://www.eagleoptics.com/search.asp?q=raven&pid=3190

Straight: http://www.eagleoptics.com/search.asp?q=raven&pid=3191

 

[erizzo]

Looks pretty good.
But I'm thinking if I sould just wait and save some more money to get a better scope and start up better insted of not waiting and get something that isnt good.
I guess I'll probably wait. Probably till I have doble or more.
I still have till end of November. So we'll see.
Thanxs a lot KC and to all the others that have helped me. I'll still be happy to hear of any other option.

 

[scampo]

Are the Nikon Sky and Earth any good or are they too cheap???

Lots of folk rate these cheaper Nikon scopes - and they are good. The eye pieces are small compared with the top scopes and take a bit of time to get used to, but the view is good, sharp and clear (and wide). I almost bought one a while back but decided to push the boat out and buy a Nikon ED82A; I have never regretted it. For digiscoping, the Sky and Earth scopes won't produce especially high quality images, but they would work. Really, for digiscoping, as has been suggested, you need to look at the top end - preferably withn ED objectives; and that only comes at a price. There are cheaper options as has been said above - s/h Kowa Prominar scopes, Nikon ED78...

 

[erizzo]

Well I think I' going to wait some time and get a Leica televid 62m. They say they are very nice and weigh very little
I hope I can buy it some time soon so I can have something worth it.
Thanks anyways Scampo.

 

[scampo]

Well I think I' going to wait some time and get a Leica televid 62m. They say they are very nice and weigh very little
I hope I can buy it some time soon so I can have something worth it.
Thanks anyways Scampo.

For digiscoping, unless you have very good light all of the time, a 77-85mm scope is always recommended (and don't forget you'll need the Apo / ED / HD varieties).

 

[erizzo]

For digiscoping, unless you have very good light all of the time, a 77-85mm scope is always recommended (and don't forget you'll need the Apo / ED / HD varieties).

So what yor're telling me is that its better to get the televid 77 for digiscoping than the 62m??

 

[Bill Atwood]

So what yor're telling me is that its better to get the televid 77 for digiscoping than the 62m??

I believe that's what Scampo is saying Erik.

While I have no digiscoping experience, my other experience with birding and bird photography optics has reinforced the saying of "you get what you pay for". I imagine alot of the folks on these forums who are serious birders and digiscopers have tried to start out on the cheap, only to find out it in the long run it actually ended up costing more to get the results they wanted. It appears that most digiscopers have scopes that cost at least $800, and more like $1,200 to $1,800.

Doesn't mean you cant do it with something less, but the results won't be as good, or it will be significantly more difficult to get good results.

I imagine the best "bang for the buck" would be to acquire a used Kowa TSN 3/4 or a used Swarovski AT/ST.

Of course, starting at the low $ end does provide a means of satisfying my perverse urge to crave and fondle new toys.