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="iporali" data-source="post: 1221912" data-attributes="member: 2925">The term "digi-scoping" was coined by birdwatchers who didn't know (or care) almost anything about optical terms or their definitions. They started using this term and made it popular unaware that "their" technique had been used for ages by astronomers who had called it "afocal imaging/coupling". I find it highly unnecessary to try to define an inaccurate generic term in retrospect - like trying to define a "point-and-shoot-camera". Televue's "definition" shows that the astronomers and opticians just can't fight with the ignorance of us birdwatchers <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> - and that is why they classified the most common form of digiscoping into afocal coupling. It is by no means a "formal" definition. What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope. Anything further (even Clay's nice summary above) takes us on a slippery slope. I strongly agree with Boomer, Paul, Jules, Robert etc. who - if I am not mistaken - support very loose "definitions" or no definitions at all. We already have all the accurate terms for free use to anyone who want/need to be more specific with the techniques.Best regards,Ilkka :t:</blockquote>