carracarra13
Member
well folks I am just taking the plunge into didgiscoping, and paul is giving me food for thought,
-
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.
Some digiscoping experiments with a dslr (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paul Corfield
- Start date
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
Really loving the 1.5X teleconverter and using it all the time now instead of the 2X teleconverter. The 1.5X seems to resolve more detail than all the 2X converters I've tried so I'm going to save up for a new Kenko 1.5X which will be better quality than the Vivitar I have now plus I can double them up for long range stuff.
Photo below of a Tree pipit was taken with the 1.5X from around 20-25m range (75 feet approx).
Got a tiny 50mm Russian pancake lens coming tomorrow which has a good reputation for sharpness so I'll give it a try through the eyepiece when it arrives.
Paul.
Photo below of a Tree pipit was taken with the 1.5X from around 20-25m range (75 feet approx).
Got a tiny 50mm Russian pancake lens coming tomorrow which has a good reputation for sharpness so I'll give it a try through the eyepiece when it arrives.
Paul.
Attachments
Excellent result Paul. I wonder whether there are any old Leica/Zeiss glass out there that would add something to the mix?
Neil
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
The Zeiss lenes are M42 thread mount which is adaptable to most dslr's. Of all the Zeiss lenses the only one I'd really like to try would be the Zeiss Flektogon 35mm which has a very good reputation and hence sells for high prices on ebay. Maybe also the Zeiss Pancolar 50mm but I doubt it's any better than other good 50mm lenses.
The Leica lenses tend to be M39 thread mount so a little harder to get a good adapter. I don't know much about the lenses but the ones I've seen the glass tends to be quite well recessed down in the lens so maybe not all that good for digiscoping.
Another make I'd like to try is the Fuji Fujinon EBC range in M42 mount. The EBC coatings are supposed to be really good and so these lenses also command a good price on ebay.
The tiny little Russian lens I have coming (hopefully today) is the Industar 50-2. Because the lens itself is so small the glass only looks to be about 10mm across which could make it useful for digiscoping. The glass arrangement is a copy of the Zeiss Tessar and it's supposed to be a sharp little lens. There's a good example of it here. http://www.dc543.net/viewtopic-39331-0-asc-0.html
Paul.
ostling41
registered user
This got my attention. I have the 35mm f2.8 Flektogon, which I bought several years ago for use on an Asahi Pentax Copipod. It's an earlier version than the MC, and focuses to 0.18 m. The only other M42 lens I have kept is an 85mm f1.9 Super-Takumar.
I had the 50mm Pancolar, and thought it was very fine. Another gem is the Meyer 30mm Lydith.
I no longer have any M42 bodies. And since I recently sold my Sony A100, I no longer have a DSLR. Since I have the luxury of starting from scratch, what would be your first choice DSLR body for mounting the Flektogon?
Last edited:
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
What would be your limit price wise for a dslr body?
Paul.
Paul.
ostling41
registered user
I'd say $700. I'd probably use a DSLR only for digiscoping. I found the A100 was too heavy for overseas trips, for which I used my Canon G7.
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
I think if I was going to buy a new camera today then I'd give the Canon 450D (Digital Rebel XSi) a try. It's around $800 or just under for the body only.
Paul.
Paul.
I agree Paul. I've seen lot's of great results from the 350D and the 450D looks like a big step up. I'm tempted myself. Neil.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Allan,
IS is not really useful for digiscoping and IMO you don't really need a LCD screen if the camera has a good viewfinder. Given the choice, I will choose a viewfinder over a LCD anytime. If you base your choice on those features, you will end up with a camera that is noisy at high ISO values, which is extremely important for digiscoping. Your choice of course.
IS is not really useful for digiscoping and IMO you don't really need a LCD screen if the camera has a good viewfinder. Given the choice, I will choose a viewfinder over a LCD anytime. If you base your choice on those features, you will end up with a camera that is noisy at high ISO values, which is extremely important for digiscoping. Your choice of course.
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
Having digiscoped with a dslr for a long time now I can't see why you would want those features. To me the 450D is the ideal camera. I came from a camera that had a swivel screen and not once have I missed it. Looking through the dslr viewfinder is very natural and I wouldn't use the screen even if I could. There's really no need for image stabilization when a camera can work really well at high iso. I hardly ever use mirror lock up or a shutter remote so IS isn't something I would look for in a camera where as getting fast shutter speeds with low noise at high iso would be the priority.
Paul.
ostling41
registered user
Yes, I agree that image stabilization is of little importance for digiscoping. And now that you mention it, I can appreciate that a DSLR viewfinder is the best route to accurate focus, rather than the screen.
When is is convenient I like to use the scope while sitting in my portable three-legged stool, with tripod unextended. It is a very light tripod, but set up for its minimum height it is satisfactorily rigid. In this posture I look down on the camera. I thought a flip-up screen (as on the Canon A650) would assist in this, but I have an angled scope, so perhaps this is not important.
When is is convenient I like to use the scope while sitting in my portable three-legged stool, with tripod unextended. It is a very light tripod, but set up for its minimum height it is satisfactorily rigid. In this posture I look down on the camera. I thought a flip-up screen (as on the Canon A650) would assist in this, but I have an angled scope, so perhaps this is not important.
Allan,
You have the advantage with a DSLR on an angled scope as the balance is better and looking down can be more comfortable over a long period of time. I would have trouble following a Little Ringed Plover on the sand with magnification of 2500 mm with an angled scope but I guess you get used to it.
As the others have mentioned the high iso/low noise combo and bright viewfinder are the most important things to be looking for when DSLR scoping.
Neil.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Paul
I had a look at the Sky-Watcher 80ED and tried it with my 20D through an open window in the store. Pictures were sharp but the closest focusing distance was about 25-30 meters. Adding 68mm of extension rings improved it a little, but it is still very long. Is yours behaving like that ?
I also found that the focuser is very cheap - cheap construction, single speed and no brass compression rings - pretty bad for the accessories... Of course, one should not expect everyting to be perfect at that price !
Searching on the Net, I found the Stellarvue 80ED Nighthawk Next Generation Standard at about the same price. The reviews I have read are quite favorable.
There is also the Williams Megrez 90 that has good reviews but it is double the money.
Finally, I met a photographer who was using a Tele Vue 85. Fine scope and he is getting nice pictures out of it. Much more expensive however.
What do you think ???
I had a look at the Sky-Watcher 80ED and tried it with my 20D through an open window in the store. Pictures were sharp but the closest focusing distance was about 25-30 meters. Adding 68mm of extension rings improved it a little, but it is still very long. Is yours behaving like that ?
I also found that the focuser is very cheap - cheap construction, single speed and no brass compression rings - pretty bad for the accessories... Of course, one should not expect everyting to be perfect at that price !
Searching on the Net, I found the Stellarvue 80ED Nighthawk Next Generation Standard at about the same price. The reviews I have read are quite favorable.
There is also the Williams Megrez 90 that has good reviews but it is double the money.
Finally, I met a photographer who was using a Tele Vue 85. Fine scope and he is getting nice pictures out of it. Much more expensive however.
What do you think ???
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
Jules,
I'd check that the focuser was winding back to it's full travel. When they are new they sometimes stick even though the thumbwheels still turn. I measured mine and it travels back 3". That measurement is just the length of the shiny part and not including the black bit where the eyepiece goes.
On my scope I use a 60mm extension tube and I can focus down to 5m. For that reason I would say the focuser on the scope you tried may have been a bit sticky. There's an adjustment screw underneath it that can be adjusted to get it moving just right. I know a guy that uses the same scope for birding on a Nikon dslr without any problems so it should work on the Canon.
The focuser on the scope is of cheap construction as you noticed and I think this is how they keep the price of the scope down. William Optics make something called a Synta Focuser which is made for the Skywatcher scope and it's clones. Synta make Skywatcher, Celestron and Orion as far as I'm aware. The William Optics focuser is good quality and I had the same focuser on my old William Optics scope. A company called Moonlight also make a nice focuser for this scope at http://www.focuser.com/
As far as other scope go I'd check the type of glass used. The skywatcher has the FPL-53 ED Fluorite Element which gives it virtually zero CA and it's got a great track record with astronomers.
Paul.
I'd check that the focuser was winding back to it's full travel. When they are new they sometimes stick even though the thumbwheels still turn. I measured mine and it travels back 3". That measurement is just the length of the shiny part and not including the black bit where the eyepiece goes.
On my scope I use a 60mm extension tube and I can focus down to 5m. For that reason I would say the focuser on the scope you tried may have been a bit sticky. There's an adjustment screw underneath it that can be adjusted to get it moving just right. I know a guy that uses the same scope for birding on a Nikon dslr without any problems so it should work on the Canon.
The focuser on the scope is of cheap construction as you noticed and I think this is how they keep the price of the scope down. William Optics make something called a Synta Focuser which is made for the Skywatcher scope and it's clones. Synta make Skywatcher, Celestron and Orion as far as I'm aware. The William Optics focuser is good quality and I had the same focuser on my old William Optics scope. A company called Moonlight also make a nice focuser for this scope at http://www.focuser.com/
As far as other scope go I'd check the type of glass used. The skywatcher has the FPL-53 ED Fluorite Element which gives it virtually zero CA and it's got a great track record with astronomers.
Paul.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Thanks for the info Paul.
The focuser must be stuck because it had about 3" travel, including the eyepiece holder.
That must explain why I was unable to focus close even with 68mm of extenders.
The other scopes I mentioned all use ED glass and the reviews are very positive as to CA.
The focuser must be stuck because it had about 3" travel, including the eyepiece holder.
That must explain why I was unable to focus close even with 68mm of extenders.
The other scopes I mentioned all use ED glass and the reviews are very positive as to CA.
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
The Megrez looks like a nice scope and a good focal length at 621mm. The Stellarvue has a shorter focal length at 560mm and the Skywatcher is 600mm. There's probably not much between them optically so I'd tend to go for the longer scope to get the all important magnification. Take into account the crop factor. A 560mm scope would be 840mm and a 600mm scope would be 900mm with a 1.5X crop factor. Add a 2X teleconverter into the equation and difference becomes 120mm. The Megrez would give a little more on top of that.
Only other thing is to think about where you will use the scope. The Skywatcher is cheap and because of that it's quite lightweight for its size. I'm making a quick release clip on strap for mine so that I can just carry it on my back or over my shoulder which just leaves the tripod to carry in my hand. I've covered mine in camo tape and I don't mind too much if it takes a knock. The Megrez is about a pound or two heavier but because of it's high quality construction you tend to wrap it in cotton wool if you see what I mean. I used to have the WO ZS80 and it was a beautiful piece of machining but maybe just a bit too nice for taking out. All depends on your needs.
Paul.
Only other thing is to think about where you will use the scope. The Skywatcher is cheap and because of that it's quite lightweight for its size. I'm making a quick release clip on strap for mine so that I can just carry it on my back or over my shoulder which just leaves the tripod to carry in my hand. I've covered mine in camo tape and I don't mind too much if it takes a knock. The Megrez is about a pound or two heavier but because of it's high quality construction you tend to wrap it in cotton wool if you see what I mean. I used to have the WO ZS80 and it was a beautiful piece of machining but maybe just a bit too nice for taking out. All depends on your needs.
Paul.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Wise words Paul !
Weight is important of course. My actual Pentax scope is 4 pounds with the eyepiece, the Sky-Watcher is 5.4 and the Williams Megrez is 7.1.
You are also right about magnification. For birding, we never have enough. This is why I am not anymore considering the Stellarvue (560mm) and the Williams ZenithStar (545mm) anymore. On my 20D, using a 2X teleconverter, the Williams Megrez would give me 1987mm versus 1920 for the Sky-Watcher.
Cost must also be considered. The Sky-Watcher is 629$CDN + about 225$ for a decent focuser. The Megrez is 1200$CDN. A difference of 346$.
Other factors to consider that explain why the Megrez is more expensive
f/6.9 vs f/7.5
90mm vs 80mm
Better finish and overall quality
360 deg. rotatable
Resale value probably higher
Humm...
Weight is important of course. My actual Pentax scope is 4 pounds with the eyepiece, the Sky-Watcher is 5.4 and the Williams Megrez is 7.1.
You are also right about magnification. For birding, we never have enough. This is why I am not anymore considering the Stellarvue (560mm) and the Williams ZenithStar (545mm) anymore. On my 20D, using a 2X teleconverter, the Williams Megrez would give me 1987mm versus 1920 for the Sky-Watcher.
Cost must also be considered. The Sky-Watcher is 629$CDN + about 225$ for a decent focuser. The Megrez is 1200$CDN. A difference of 346$.
Other factors to consider that explain why the Megrez is more expensive
f/6.9 vs f/7.5
90mm vs 80mm
Better finish and overall quality
360 deg. rotatable
Resale value probably higher
Humm...
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
One other thing with the Megrez is that the lens cell is fully adjustable so you can colimate yourself if needs be.
The William Optics should hold it's price pretty well. I actually sold my old WO Zenithstar 80 for £30 more than I paid for it. It's a shame there's nothing in the 650mm range that doesn't cost a fortune.
Paul.
The William Optics should hold it's price pretty well. I actually sold my old WO Zenithstar 80 for £30 more than I paid for it. It's a shame there's nothing in the 650mm range that doesn't cost a fortune.
Paul.
