Typical Power for Digiscoping? (1 Viewer)

[Passakorn]

Hello there,

I am interested in digiscoping, especially for 4k video. Now I am using the sony a7iv with 200-600mm zoom. With 2 x extender I get about equivalent 1800mm with 4k 60p video (it has 1.5x crop factor). At many times I still feel the bird is too far as I cannot move closer and image quality starts to degrade greatly, as much as when I put M4/3 camera on a reflector telescope like a Celestron C6.

I ran across this youtube and I think image quality is very good for digiscoping video.

of course the image quality is far from super telephoto at close range. But is is very neat to get about eqv. 3500mm video rig which there is no telephoto can reach this distance.

I am wonderif what is a typical power the digiscoping is done, or what is an optimum power? I think 3500mm at 70x is for the extreme case. Let’s presume the atmospheric condition is good for doing this and do not pay a big factor for image quality for now.

I am trying to compare and choose the digiscope setup to the available portable regular camera/setup. Now the potential portable one is the new Fuji XH2 with 150-600mm lens. With 8K video it can reach about eqv. 1800mm or about 2560mm (50x) with 1.4x extender when cropping down from 8k to 4k. The setup will be less than 2.5kg which is very good for the reach.

I am mainly interested in long range 4k video for interesting bird beheavior at very far distance as I think the image quality for still photo doesn’t cut it compared to super telephoto.

Also do we gain extra reach (xx power) if we use smaller sensor such as m4/3 compared to a full frame camera? I am thinking about Swarovski digiscoping system.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Passakorn

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hello there,

I am interested in digiscoping, especially for 4k video. Now I am using the sony a7iv with 200-600mm zoom. With 2 x extender I get about equivalent 1800mm with 4k 60p video (it has 1.5x crop factor). At many times I still feel the bird is too far as I cannot move closer and image quality starts to degrade greatly, as much as when I put M4/3 camera on a reflector telescope like a Celestron C6.

I ran across this youtube and I think image quality is very good for digiscoping video.

of course the image quality is far from super telephoto at close range. But is is very neat to get about eqv. 3500mm video rig which there is no telephoto can reach this distance.

I am wonderif what is a typical power the digiscoping is done, or what is an optimum power? I think 3500mm at 70x is for the extreme case. Let’s presume the atmospheric condition is good for doing this and do not pay a big factor for image quality for now.

I am trying to compare and choose the digiscope setup to the available portable regular camera/setup. Now the potential portable one is the new Fuji XH2 with 150-600mm lens. With 8K video it can reach about eqv. 1800mm or about 2560mm (50x) with 1.4x extender when cropping down from 8k to 4k. The setup will be less than 2.5kg which is very good for the reach.

I am mainly interested in long range 4k video for interesting bird beheavior at very far distance as I think the image quality for still photo doesn’t cut it compared to super telephoto.

Also do we gain extra reach (xx power) if we use smaller sensor such as m4/3 compared to a full frame camera? I am thinking about Swarovski digiscoping system.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Passakorn

I will test soon the Sony A7IV with the Swarovski setup and let you know soon

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I tested this morning the Swarovski Optik STX95 + TLS APO 30 + Sony A7IV, need to used the crop mode to removed the vignetting. Focus peaking helps a lot! Excellent combo by the way

You need the T2 ring for Sony to used the TLS APO adapter

 

[Passakorn]

Thank you so much for testing this. Very nice setup! look forward to seeing the photos from this setup.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Thank you so much for testing this. Very nice setup! look forward to seeing the photos from this setup.

 

[Jefrs]

Hmm, thinks, I've shot a lot of movie. If you want the finest detail then use the biggest format for video, 4K or higher. But if you are "publishing" it online or you want more close-up then drop down to FHD which crops in on the sensor. At FHD, AVCHD MP4 is best for detail and can be upscaled to 4K. High definition video can give video editors kittens.
Using a faster shutter speed with a slower frame rate can improve clarity, don't always stick it on 60fps. It may also improve the continuous focus function.
The read noise on the Sony A7M4 is a little noisier than my Lumix G9 (see Photons to Photos website) by about one stop, which will effectively limit you to under ISO 3200 when we are struggling for light down a digiscope. They are closest match at around ISO 400.
To get the sharpest possible image the sensor has to be at exactly the right distance from the "lens" to within a fraction of a millimetre, and that is not always easy to arrange. It may require getting a special T2 adapter As with putting the MFT on the Celestron 130 f/5 Newtonian, it required the thinnest T2-MFT available to get the sensor close enough to the secondary. Same applied with my digiscope, the standard 35mm thick T2-MFT is too thick and required the thinnest adapter available, a special astrophotography job. (If the C6 is not tack sharp with MFT it may need re-collimating, but these astro-telescopes are not close-focus jobs). With the scope focused, move the camera in and out by hand to find the sharpest image position, then find a camera flange adapter that will place it there.
Your best camera (my G9) may not be the best on the digiscope, my old E-PL7 seems better. It still has less read noise than the Sony, fact of life - the larger the sensor, the more heat and electronic noise is generated. Plus the LMOS sweeps stray electrons off the sensor which a CMOS doesn't. With a smaller sensor heat is more uniform and the heat sink more efficient.
The default NR on most cameras is a bit everyman and too aggressive and can be turned down a notch to reduce speckling. You may be able to adjust the highlight and shadow gain to compress the dynamic range, either there on in the video range setting.

 

[Passakorn]

Thank you very much for suggestions. I have limited experience with digiscoping, actually almost none except holding a phone behind eyepiece of a telescope or spotting scope. My understanding is that to do a digicoping we will need a short focus lens attach to a camera before attaching it to the eyepiece.

I use the EM1iii and connect it directly to the C6 with an adapter and the result is less than impressive, worse than 200-600 with 2X teleconverter. I should try to use the sony camera for both setups. I also have canon rp and old nikon d7100 and pana gx9 that I could try as well but they have much lower video spec than newer cameras.

If the condition and camera is the same, which one provides a better image quality, the supertelephoto zoom lens zoom such as 150-600 or 200-600mm with 2x teleconverter with a smaller sensor camera and/or some crop factor, i.e from 8K/6K to 4K (roughly equivalent focal lenght of 2500-3000mm) and digicoping from very good setup like Swarovski ATX95/115 or Kowa 883/99A at about 60X? I really would like to do a movie for long distance birds as now I have shotgun mic setup ready for this. I know that the price of ATX/Kowa is probably in the range of used 600mm telephoto but I can use spotting scope alone for birding too.

Thank you again for all of suggestions. What a great community we have here.

Passakorn

 

[Jefrs]

I've just shot Jupiter and moons with the E-PL7 "prime" on adapter behind the Praktica Hydan 20-60x77 on a tripod and the result whilst visible with a short exposure were less than impressive. I've taken photos of Jupiter before using the Star Adventurer and Bigma on MFT (forgotten which camera, GH4?) with far better result. And with the Nextar 130 with MFT on prime. The Nexstar 130 is now mounted on an AVX. I mount MFT on prime (I can slip a Barlow in). That is wider angle than the C6 i.e. 650mmm f/5. That mount is heavy and takes a while to set up. That tube gives good result but there is a trick with MFT to use a shallow T2 adapter to get the back focus just right and sharpest. I have a choice of G9, GH4, PEN-F, E-M5ii, E-PL7, G7, G5 to play with. And STC Astro-NS Clip filters, which cut city lights and protect the open sensor. Although older, the G5 and E-PL7 take surprisingly good photos, with the advantage of being the lightest. The old SLT goto mount is now reconfigured to take a camera 1/4-20 and runs a StarSense to auto-align, which is quick and easy to use. It does track but a bit jerky so only short exposures. On the AVX the wifi dongle is playing dumb insolence and making computer control naughty. I shall wait until the new hone network gets installed before having another go at it, or I can use cables (they don't drop out). The StarSense will work on the AVX, it can support several mounts.

 

[Tommek]

Hi @Passakorn and everyone else,
very good question of yours. I've tried out so many different variations to optimize results in digiscoping. And now that i saw the youtube video you posted i am again surprised. The spotting scope is top while the camera is - i would say - below average. Still the results are amazing and I would love to achieve similar videos and photography.
For me - i am done with a connection of spotting scope and DSLR - where I tried different mounts but all solutions lacked either handling or results - in most cases both.
For know I am a phone-scoper. My current setup is a Zeiss Conquest Gavia + this Lens 2 Scope Adapter and a Samsung Galaxy S20 - but to be honest - I won't recommend any smartphone adapter to anyone - except for one that I had build myself with thick paper, a smartphone case and power-tape (yes, it looks like it's selfmade, but the results are compensating the look).

However, I would like to take the next step in digiscoping but don't know where to go. If anyone in the forum can provide advice on a solution that delivers better results than the images attached - please share info on the gear.

Just one last thought on the ideal results: I have the strong guess, that it's not all about the equipment but about reducing the distance to the motive. So I am trying to be quieter and more invisible when digiscoping...

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hi @Passakorn and everyone else,
very good question of yours. I've tried out so many different variations to optimize results in digiscoping. And now that i saw the youtube video you posted i am again surprised. The spotting scope is top while the camera is - i would say - below average. Still the results are amazing and I would love to achieve similar videos and photography.
For me - i am done with a connection of spotting scope and DSLR - where I tried different mounts but all solutions lacked either handling or results - in most cases both.
For know I am a phone-scoper. My current setup is a Zeiss Conquest Gavia + this Lens 2 Scope Adapter and a Samsung Galaxy S20 - but to be honest - I won't recommend any smartphone adapter to anyone - except for one that I had build myself with thick paper, a smartphone case and power-tape (yes, it looks like it's selfmade, but the results are compensating the look).

However, I would like to take the next step in digiscoping but don't know where to go. If anyone in the forum can provide advice on a solution that delivers better results than the images attached - please share info on the gear.

Just one last thought on the ideal results: I have the strong guess, that it's not all about the equipment but about reducing the distance to the motive. So I am trying to be quieter and more invisible when digiscoping...

Great shots and I normally shoot at 30x on the eyepiece and zoom around 1.6x to 2x for the pics and videos on the smartphone. I rarely zoomed the eyepiece etc and tried to get closer to the subject to eliminate heat haze and other factors that causes the pics to be blur or not sharp

Western Tarsier taken less than 10m and I zoomed in around 1.6x to eliminate the vignetting