Digiscoping

[Puck]

This past weekend I volunteered at a Hawkwatch festival. There was a rep from Swarovski with a booth for digiscoping. (combining a telescope with a DSLR) Most birders have a scope ~20-60x ranging from 40-82mm. This takes the place of a telephoto. It is a technique used by many birders and nature photographers.

Does anyone have experience with this?

 

[nartreb]

I'm not a birder, but I sometimes do the opposite: use my camera as a spotting scope (see avatar).

As it happens, my 62mm-diameter Tamron zoom at 300mm is similar to the first 80mm-diameter spotting scope I googled (focal length 480mm, same as my zoom + sensor crop). But my lens is a lot lighter: 420g vs 3.6 lbs.

Glass is glass, good scopes and good lenses are both expensive. I'd never carry the weight of glass without the camera, so I'll stick with glass that's designed to mount on the camera body.

 

[BorealChickadee]

My scope is an old Bushnell about thirty years old so I get better quality with my newer binoculars. Same idea as digiscoping but I put my digital camera up to my binocular eyepiece. My old Kodak fit perfectly, but my Kodak ahs some wiggle room. I live close to the Laboratory of Ornithology and digiscoping is pretty standard around here. It's used for pleasure, identification and documentation. Some of the pictures are much better than you'd expect. One common technique to go from the camera lens to the scope is a spice jar lid. The guys cut a hole in it to exactly fit the lens and the lid then goes over the scope eyepiece. Someone recently said the caps to Simply Limeade work well also.

I've also used digibinoing to later identify something far off. Use the setup and then zoom in on the computer. I'll take my binoculars with me hiking but there's no way I'm going to take the scope.

There's an entire forum devoted to digiscoping. I found it a couple of years ago by googling.

 

[NewHampshire]

Swarovski eh? Lemme guess....one of their Digiscopes probably was over $3000, huh!?

No personal experience with them, but I have seen some cases on the internet where the results looked decent. But at that high a magnification I would think an EXTREMELY stable tripod/platform would be an absolute must.

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

No personal experience with them, but I have seen some cases on the internet where the results looked decent. But at that high a magnification I would think an EXTREMELY stable tripod/platform would be an absolute must.

I shot an eclipse with a 3 inch (dia) 1000mm lens (2000mm with 2x extender). The rig was a refracting telescope with the camera mounted at the focal plane held up by a simple inexpensive telescope mount. It was a little breezy and the shake shows on some of the frames...

A sturdier mount would have been a big help.

Doug

 

[Puck]

I also have an old Bushnell poro prism scope. Swarovski is a dream. It is nice to see how the other half lives. An 80mm scope is about $2800.00 then I need a camera.

The DSLR cameras seem to be all the rage for naturalists. Snap off a bunch of photos then sit at home with your field guides. I wonder if this trend may impair field observation and ID skills.

 

[Grumpy]

... The DSLR cameras seem to be all the rage for naturalists. Snap off a bunch of photos then sit at home with your field guides. I wonder if this trend may impair field observation and ID skills.

That is a very interesting and provocative (in a good sense) observation and rumination. I don't have an answer, but suspect you may be onto something.

As for "digiscoping," I know nothing and pretend to know nothing.

BTW, I have handled and looked through some Swarovski compact (palm-sized) binoculars, and one day, when I am very flush, will own a set. The very best is just about good enough for yours truly ...

G.

 

[NewHampshire]

The DSLR cameras seem to be all the rage for naturalists. Snap off a bunch of photos then sit at home with your field guides. I wonder if this trend may impair field observation and ID skills.

Seems only natural (no pun intended). Small targets at moderate distances that potentially move fast (or at least tend not to stay still for too long) just does not make for ease of use from your consumer digital cameras.

But then again, hauling around a 400mm lens, DSLR and tripod may just keep the naturalists using binoculars a bit longer .

Brian

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Is there any guidance on how to focus both the camera and the binoculars if you are using them in tandem?

I did a test while on Cannon with my Canon (but never saw the cannon) last week. While the binoculars were clearly in focus for my eyes, they were not for the camera. It may be that the auto-focus was confused. I also learned you cannot zoom the camera as you get a little round blurry circle. This was a quick experiment, and everything was hand-held. The 'best' shot is this:



I know from just the binoculars that some of the spots here are actually people traversing the tip-top of Lafayette.

Thx,
Tim

 

[NewHampshire]

Is there any guidance on how to focus both the camera and the binoculars if you are using them in tandem?

With the "Digiscope" concept an adapter is used to make the camera and spotting scope "one unit". If you could make some kind of set-up for rigidity for a camera/binocular combo you could probably get some decent clarity. I would think using the side with the dipoter adjustment is your best bet since this might help in getting the clarity you want, and then of course is your adjustment range on the binocs.

Don't know if that helps any, but let us know if it does!

Brian

 

[bikehikeskifish]

With the "Digiscope" concept an adapter is used to make the camera and spotting scope "one unit". If you could make some kind of set-up for rigidity for a camera/binocular combo you could probably get some decent clarity. I would think using the side with the dipoter adjustment is your best bet since this might help in getting the clarity you want, and then of course is your adjustment range on the binocs.

Don't know if that helps any, but let us know if it does!

Brian

Given the binocs have a rubber eye cup, I'm not so sure that 'rigid' fits here. It is, coincidentally, exactly the same diameter as the lens of the A570IS. It's not likely to be very useful in practice, I'm guessing. It's pretty awkward. Maybe to get a bird, or something (I had a woodpecker high in a tree in my front yard this summer and it was feeding it's young--I really wanted to get a shot of them, but it was nearly impossible to find the whole in the tree on full 3X optical zoom...)

The above image looked fine on the camera LCD... but it's not really in focus. I am pretty nearly certain I used the non-diopter side, on purpose, but maybe that was a mistake. It's not an SLR so the viewfinder is of no help in framing or focusing...

Tim

 

[NewHampshire]

I really wanted to get a shot of them, but it was nearly impossible to find the whole in the tree on full 3X optical zoom...)

Tis time to come over to the dark side of the SLR world with their multitude of intercahngeable lenses my fine friend! Muahahahahahahaaaaaaa

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

I did a test while on Cannon with my Canon (but never saw the cannon) last week. While the binoculars were clearly in focus for my eyes, they were not for the camera. It may be that the auto-focus was confused. I also learned you cannot zoom the camera as you get a little round blurry circle. This was a quick experiment, and everything was hand-held. The 'best' shot is this:

That picture was taken at a range of ~2.7mi.

Here is a comparison from "the dark side":
1/500 sec, F8.0, iso 100, eFL 469 mm, IS, (non-L Canon lens), handheld, 1:1 scaling.
(469 mm = ~9.4X magnification)
Taken from the turnout on Rte 302--range ~7mi.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

So what you're saying, Doug, is that it's really not all that bad? I wasn't sure what to expect, actually. And Brian, my dSLR money goes into twin 529 accounts and a 401(k)... so it will be a while. Besides, I have not exceeded the abilities of the A570 yet.

Tim

GO SOX!

 

[forestgnome]

I also have an old Bushnell poro prism scope. Swarovski is a dream. It is nice to see how the other half lives. An 80mm scope is about $2800.00 then I need a camera.

The DSLR cameras seem to be all the rage for naturalists. Snap off a bunch of photos then sit at home with your field guides. I wonder if this trend may impair field observation and ID skills.

That's an interesting point. I don't think naturalists will lose anything in the field, but one hazard might be worrying about the camera settings while something happens.

I have definately learned about things from my images. Often, a wildlife encounter is brief, but then I'll notice things on the image that I just did not see in the field, but next time I do. Strange, but I never noticed the wrinkling of moose eyelids until I saw it on a picture. Now I see it all the time.

happy trails

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Sheesh. Most of us are thrilled to see any part of a moose. You comment on the wrinkling of their eyelids. No sympathy for you!!!!



Tim

GO SOX!

 

[DougPaul]

So what you're saying, Doug, is that it's really not all that bad?

No. Compare them both at 100% scale.

Mine (DSLR, 469mm eFL, magnification X7.4, 7 mi range), 100% scale:

Yours (digiscope, 2.7 mi range) (From the "full size" image on webshots. The "full size" image is 3MP, the A-570IS is 7MP, so this is only ~65% scale. Magnification unknown):

So the best comparison I can make is at slightly different scales, but I think the conclusion is still obvious.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

OK, it's not that good. I wasn't expecting much, hand-held, one in each hand... I had no idea if it was focused from the small LCD anyway.

From the magnification perspective, I took it using the 35mm eFL of the 570 through 7x21 binocs, 1/250th f5.5.

Is this concept even worth pursuing? That's kind of why I asked in the first place... looking for practical advise on how to proceed, independent of my obvious failed first attempt. Not sure if it is out of focus, or this is motion blur. I'd guess the former.

I'm never thrilled with any of my telephoto shots, even with the 3-4X optical zoom. They are always hazy looking, just like your summit shot.

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

OK, it's not that good. I wasn't expecting much, hand-held, one in each hand... I had no idea if it was focused from the small LCD anyway.

The LCDs aren't much good for determining focus.

From the magnification perspective, I took it using the 35mm eFL of the 570 through 7x21 binocs, 1/250th f5.5.

Not sure what this means for total magnification. One way would be to take the same pic with the digiscope and with a regular lens, measure the distance between two objects on both, and compute the ratio. The magnification of the regular lens is eFL/50mm.

BTW, this may work better with the IS turned off. The IS is most likely tuned to the eFL of the camera lens, not the combo.

Is this concept even worth pursuing? That's kind of why I asked in the first place... looking for practical advise on how to proceed, independent of my obvious failed first attempt. Not sure if it is out of focus, or this is motion blur. I'd guess the former.

I have no idea if it is worth pursuing. To do it properly, you would need fittings to hold everything rigid and shielding to keep light out of the junction.

Looks like out of focus to me.

BTW, your image also shows some chromatic aberration (look at the colors along the skyline)--if you are serious about this technique, maybe you will need better binocs...

I'm never thrilled with any of my telephoto shots, even with the 3-4X optical zoom. They are always hazy looking, just like your summit shot.

You have a good quality P&S. While it is capable of fine pics in easier conditions, you cannot expect it to do as well as a decent DSLR in more difficult conditions.

My shot had a range of 7mi on a somewhat hazy day with an overcast background. A polarizing filter might have helped. I might also have been able to improve it a bit with post processing. (My image was from the JPEG created by the camera.) A tripod might have also been worthwhile too. (My image shows the camera to have been pretty steady--look at the specular reflection from a window on one of the summit buildings.)

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As I am sure you will have guessed, I'm not serious enough (or rich enough) to buy anything newer or better than I have right now. Maybe I will try it with IS set to off.

At least I have learned a little more about what the technique is.

Thanks for all the comments.

Tim