Digiscoping set-ups

[Brian S]

For those interested in getting really sharp digiscoped images, go to the link below to see what set-ups are being used in Hong Kong, and the amazing images they are producing.

http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/viewthread.php?tid=8275&extra=page%3D1

-you will need to scroll down to see the set-ups.

Brian S

[michael23]

hi brian, thanks for the link. Is that scope the hong kong version of the kowa 883/4?

[Colin Key]

Some (not all) of those shots are very good Brian, but who on earth wants to be bothered with all those adapters, thumb screws, and various "household items" necessary to put together these very "Heath Robinson" looking assemblies. I have been there, done that, and it is a pain in the @rse. Also, you only get these sort of results under ideal conditions - I note that there are no "bird in flight" shots included in that thread.

As I have posted in another thread recently about digiscoping, for the cost of a top-end 'scope, quality P&S camera, and all the peripherals, you can now buy a very good second-hand DSLR and a "proper" long lens (such as the Canon 400mm f/5.6). No contest, in my opinion.

I would also add my long-held contention that you cannot easily combine "birding" with "bird photography" - it has to be one or the other. I admit that there is a place for "record shots" which is why I still carry my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX9 (far better than the Nikon CP 4500) with me and simply hold the camera against my Swarovski 80 eyepiece - but, photography it is NOT.

Colin :beer:

[Brian S]

Colin

I would agree that a set up like these would be inappropriate for many, who simply want a quick fitment for taking record shots - such as myself. I just thought I would point them out for those interested in such things.

Brian S

[john c]

Some (not all) of those shots are very good Brian, but who on earth wants to be bothered with all those adapters, thumb screws, and various "household items" necessary to put together these very "Heath Robinson" looking assemblies. I have been there, done that, and it is a pain in the @rse. Also, you only get these sort of results under ideal conditions - I note that there are no "bird in flight" shots included in that thread.

As I have posted in another thread recently about digiscoping, for the cost of a top-end 'scope, quality P&S camera, and all the peripherals, you can now buy a very good second-hand DSLR and a "proper" long lens (such as the Canon 400mm f/5.6). No contest, in my opinion.

Colin :beer:

To my entirely untutored eye most of these shots look very good.

I'm sure Colin's maths is right and that you can get a DSLR with a long lens for the same price as a top-end scope, camera, etc. However, since many (all?) of us will already have the scope, the additional cost for a decent camera and peripherals (Heath Robinson or otherwise) will be far less than a DSLR setup. Whilst it would be nice to have both, some of us can't afford, economically or, more to the point I suspect, domestically, to have both. As for me I've been dithering so long about a digiscoping setup that I'll probably never get one. Meanwhile, my Panasonic FZ30 will have to stand in for the DSLR I'd like!

John

[paul hackett]

Brian

Thanks for the link, it does show what can be done now with Digiscoping and having taught it now for over 11 years, i have to rasie a few points with Colin.

Colin, i have to say that you really dont have a clue what your talking about in regard to digiscoping, i always find failed digiscopers always blame the tools and not them selves, others can use the same set up and get acceptable or even excellent shots so is it eyesight? focusing issues? not understanding camera settings? or patience? or something else? at least be honest about it

I see from previous threads on this forum at every opportunity you rant on about DSLR and its virtues over digiscoping, my digiscoping buddy Jeff Bouton from Leica USA recently started a thread on here and you dived in with your usual comment, BIG MISTAKE, they are not the same so why compare it against each other? digiscoping has limitations thats the name of the game.

I still digiscope, i still teach digiscoping, i have had many pictures published in mags, had videoscoped footage on national TV, and had a front page pic on one of the main newspapers so in short, i do know what i am talking about and more.

There will be people who will look at those pictures on the link and be inspired to go further or better themselves, or to ask questions, thats why Brian posted it and frankly what this forum is about.

Yes you are pointing out your opinion, but are all your facts really correct? costs? distance a 400 Lens will cover ? most birders already have scope, compact cameras, you can get them really cheap, adapters again reasonable prices

Brian was polite with his reply i know him personally, i helped him in the early years with his digiscoping, people who know me well, will just say i told a few home truths in this reply, you live on your digiscoping time as a bad experience, fine thats your feeling about it, things have moved on and improved in the digiscoping world IMHO, its just the users ability or not to make it work


Attached is a picture of a Nightjar, equipment? taken with my mobile phone hand held to my spotting scope, levels and sharpen in PSP7. Nuff said


Paul

[Colin Key]

Paul,

First of all, let me say that I have seen a lot of your published work and that I admire your skill.

I do find it significant that anyone who supports digiscoping as a photographic medium always puts forward shots of static birds as an example of how good the technique is - and let us face it, there is nothing more static or approachable as a daytime roosting Nightjar which you depict. I can get to within three metres of these birds before they flush so your attached image (which is "soft") supports nothing.

I do take offence at you describing my postings contra digiscoping as "ranting"; I am speaking not just from my own experience but the views of the large number of birders/photographers I meet every year.

To quote you: There will be people who will look at those pictures on the link and be inspired to go further or better themselves, or to ask questions, thats why Brian posted it and frankly what this forum is about.


This is VERY misleading to a huge number of people who think that they are going to be able to capture images like that; they cannot and will end up extremely disappointed with their results after spending a lot of money.

Digiscoping does "have a place" (normally for long distance, poor quality, "record shots"), but to pretend that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get the sort of results that you do is misleading, to say the least.

The photographers I know in Portugal are getting some excellent results with a DSLR attached to a top end 'scope (you might have seen my links to the work of Faísca, who works for Carl Zeiss).

YOU might think that your digiscoped images are better than DSLR images, but I am afraid that you are deluding yourself about a technique which is now well past its sell by date.

I would invite any former digiscopers turned photographers to comment on this thread.

Colin

[paul hackett]

Paul,

First of all, let me say that I have seen a lot of your published work and that I admire your skill.

I do find it significant that anyone who supports digiscoping as a photographic medium always puts forward shots of static birds as an example of how good the technique is - and let us face it, there is nothing more static or approachable as a daytime roosting Nightjar which you depict. I can get to within three metres of these birds before they flush so your attached image (which is "soft") supports nothing.

So straight away you ignore the fact that I point out you can’t compare the two hobbies, so which part of my reply did you not understand?

Here is a quote from you from this website

“Hello Andy,

I am probably not the best person to comment on your photographic technique since digiscoping (even with a DSLR) is a world apart from photography with a DSLR and telephoto lens. June 14th 2009 11.16am “ hypocritical springs to mind!

You also state about static shots, again you are comparing and you can’t because the hobbies are not on level terms

The nightjar is a soft image? Something wrong with your screen then? your web pics aint that inspiring, some are over sharpened and the use of under exposure would have helped some images I feel, but remember mine is just a mobile phone pic, whats your excuse?

I do take offence at you describing my postings contra digiscoping as "ranting"; I am speaking not just from my own experience but the views of the large number of birders/photographers I meet every year.

A generalisation by you that cant be proven/denied. But you still won’t share that experience with us will you? You avoided the question. I had a shedload of texts and a few emails last night, you aint the most popular person around are you? and why have you been kicked off so many websites? And did Birdforum not “understand” you. You really have p****d a lot of people off in your time, ever once think it could be the way you talk down to people? No obviously not

To quote you: There will be people who will look at those pictures on the link and be inspired to go further or better themselves, or to ask questions, thats why Brian posted it and frankly what this forum is about.


This is VERY misleading to a huge number of people who think that they are going to be able to capture images like that; they cannot and will end up extremely disappointed with their results after spending a lot of money.

Its misleading to generalise on something you dabbled in, failed at, and avoided answering why you failed at it IMHO. In previous years I would agree with you, but so much info is on the net now to better your techniques again you are out of touch with the reality


Digiscoping does "have a place" (normally for long distance, poor quality, "record shots"), but to pretend that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get the sort of results that you do is misleading, to say the least.

Your arrogance is unbelievable! Who says it has a place? You? And if so what on? Your experience? Pretend? Tom Dick or Harry did I say that’s? You are so out of touch with reality on this point it beggars belief.

The photographers I know in Portugal are getting some excellent results with a DSLR attached to a top end 'scope (you might have seen my links to the work of Faísca, who works for Carl Zeiss).

I know Sparky well, I also work for Carl Zeiss in the UK, I have met him and been out on a few outdoor classes in Spain last year, I have been using DSLR and Digiscoping for about 4 years, you aint telling me nothing new, but that method falls short in the UK, we need light to get a decent shutter speed, that’s why digicams come into their own with extremely low shutter speeds.

YOU might think that your digiscoped images are better than DSLR images, but I am afraid that you are deluding yourself about a technique which is now well past its sell by date.

Colin get your facts right at least, I haven’t said that, check my post, you just rant on AGAIN! who is deluding who?

It seems to me this is where it’s really at with you – you tried digsicoping, you failed/ didn’t like it and now it’s like a red rag to a bull every time it’s mentioned on here. Each to their own Colin, but don’t keep forcing your opinion down our throats when you are really clueless on the subject.

Paul

[AndyB]

Nightjar shot very impressive Paul! How many megapixels is your phone?

[Colin Key]

Paul,

First of all, let me say that I have seen a lot of your published work and that I admire your skill.

I do find it significant that anyone who supports digiscoping as a photographic medium always puts forward shots of static birds as an example of how good the technique is - and let us face it, there is nothing more static or approachable as a daytime roosting Nightjar which you depict. I can get to within three metres of these birds before they flush so your attached image (which is "soft") supports nothing.

So straight away you ignore the fact that I point out you can’t compare the two hobbies, so which part of my reply did you not understand?

Here is a quote from you from this website

“Hello Andy,

I am probably not the best person to comment on your photographic technique since digiscoping (even with a DSLR) is a world apart from photography with a DSLR and telephoto lens. June 14th 2009 11.16am “ hypocritical springs to mind!

You also state about static shots, again you are comparing and you can’t because the hobbies are not on level terms

The nightjar is a soft image? Something wrong with your screen then? your web pics aint that inspiring, some are over sharpened and the use of under exposure would have helped some images I feel, but remember mine is just a mobile phone pic, whats your excuse?

I do take offence at you describing my postings contra digiscoping as "ranting"; I am speaking not just from my own experience but the views of the large number of birders/photographers I meet every year.

A generalisation by you that cant be proven/denied. But you still won’t share that experience with us will you? You avoided the question. I had a shedload of texts and a few emails last night, you aint the most popular person around are you? and why have you been kicked off so many websites? And did Birdforum not “understand” you. You really have p****d a lot of people off in your time, ever once think it could be the way you talk down to people? No obviously not

To quote you: There will be people who will look at those pictures on the link and be inspired to go further or better themselves, or to ask questions, thats why Brian posted it and frankly what this forum is about.


This is VERY misleading to a huge number of people who think that they are going to be able to capture images like that; they cannot and will end up extremely disappointed with their results after spending a lot of money.

Its misleading to generalise on something you dabbled in, failed at, and avoided answering why you failed at it IMHO. In previous years I would agree with you, but so much info is on the net now to better your techniques again you are out of touch with the reality


Digiscoping does "have a place" (normally for long distance, poor quality, "record shots"), but to pretend that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get the sort of results that you do is misleading, to say the least.

Your arrogance is unbelievable! Who says it has a place? You? And if so what on? Your experience? Pretend? Tom Dick or Harry did I say that’s? You are so out of touch with reality on this point it beggars belief.

The photographers I know in Portugal are getting some excellent results with a DSLR attached to a top end 'scope (you might have seen my links to the work of Faísca, who works for Carl Zeiss).

I know Sparky well, I also work for Carl Zeiss in the UK, I have met him and been out on a few outdoor classes in Spain last year, I have been using DSLR and Digiscoping for about 4 years, you aint telling me nothing new, but that method falls short in the UK, we need light to get a decent shutter speed, that’s why digicams come into their own with extremely low shutter speeds.

YOU might think that your digiscoped images are better than DSLR images, but I am afraid that you are deluding yourself about a technique which is now well past its sell by date.

Colin get your facts right at least, I haven’t said that, check my post, you just rant on AGAIN! who is deluding who?

It seems to me this is where it’s really at with you – you tried digsicoping, you failed/ didn’t like it and now it’s like a red rag to a bull every time it’s mentioned on here. Each to their own Colin, but don’t keep forcing your opinion down our throats when you are really clueless on the subject.

Paul

Errm,

Is there some point that you are attempting to make here? If so, I cannot see it :err:. If not, what is the reason for you spouting out this puerile, irrelevant load of twaddle on this forum?

I suggest that you slither back to Birdforum - you will feel much more comfortable with the "big pink fairy" and other people of your own mindset.

:cool:

[paul hackett]

Colin

You must be the only person that didnt get my point. Didnt answer the questions? too much like home truths?

Stick to what you know best

And what is your opionion on digiscoping?

Yes we got it the first time

And by the way , not one untruth in my post. what about your post?

Good link Brian, i have had a few emails already and have replied to them, thats what its about, keep up the good work, see you at Birdfair

ATB

Paul

[paul hackett]

For those interested in getting really sharp digiscoped images, go to the link below to see what set-ups are being used in Hong Kong, and the amazing images they are producing.

http://www.hkbws.org.hk/BBS/viewthread.php?tid=8275&extra=page%3D1

-you will need to scroll down to see the set-ups.

Brian S

Brian

Forgot to ask, what is your setup now? are you still Videoscoping?

If so, have you looked at using Astro eyepieces with your scope to reduce magnification?

i now have 12.7X on my Zeiss 85 scope and 9.4x on my Zeiss 65 scope using an astro eypiece

Been playing with them for about 4 years now, sharpness of the video footage is definitely there, need to invest in yet another camcorder with HD! so many to choose from, possibly a project for the Autumn for me

ATB

Paul

[Brian S]

Paul

I do both video and still digiscoping, and like both in their own way. My problem with videoscoping is that, as your post suggests, videoing through a normal eyepiece can produce too much magnification when you have to zoom through the vignetting to get optimal quality - this is not so much the case with stills.

I think one of my problems is that my DVC has too large a magnification (25x) and this causes its own problems, with the incompatibility of the camera lens and the 'scope lens. I really need to take my 'scope to a shop and simply check the best one; however, like you I am interested in HD, but cannot make my mind as to which will suit me best.

As to the birdfair, I am off to Switzerland to do some reccying for a trip and to add to my European ringlet, blue and fritillary list (I hope...).

Brian

[paul hackett]

Paul

I do both video and still digiscoping, and like both in their own way. My problem with videoscoping is that, as your post suggests, videoing through a normal eyepiece can produce too much magnification when you have to zoom through the vignetting to get optimal quality - this is not so much the case with stills.

I think one of my problems is that my DVC has too large a magnification (25x) and this causes its own problems, with the incompatibility of the camera lens and the 'scope lens. I really need to take my 'scope to a shop and simply check the best one; however, like you I am interested in HD, but cannot make my mind as to which will suit me best.

As to the birdfair, I am off to Switzerland to do some reccying for a trip and to add to my European ringlet, blue and fritillary list (I hope...).

Brian

OK, first thing, look for a 10X optical zoom, there are not too many but look at Sony and any others, you know my theory, try before you buy, check the optical zoom, at what point does the vignetting dissapear along the optical zoom? is it worth buying? then look at the thread size at the front of the camcorder lens, you need to determine what the diameter is, some of the Sony's are 37mm so will fit with your eagleeye adapter if you still have it? and 30mm, if not, step up/step down rings to connect camcorder to scope eyepiece from SRB - Griturn

Eyepieces - the old Eagleeye 10X eyepiece if you can get it? the one that is favourite with the Spanish digiscopers is a "Williams Optics DCL 4337" they are like hens teeth in the UK, but USA and Canada have them, google to find them, if you struggle let me know

Dont forget to use the remote with the camcorder, stop and start and zoom without any jerky footage

A decent head on tripod and your all set to go !

Dont forget your camera will have video and most cameras have reasonable quality so try it out? again cable relase will allow for a smooth stop and start of the video

Any probs then let me know

Good luck with the Butterflies :ohdear:

Paul

[michael23]

hi paul, what is your opinion on the best format these days, are there any reliability issues with the hdd's? I have a panasonic mx2 which i would like to upgrade, wanting something a little smaller.
Msny thanks in advance,

[paul hackett]

hi paul, what is your opinion on the best format these days, are there any reliability issues with the hdd's? I have a panasonic mx2 which i would like to upgrade, wanting something a little smaller.
Msny thanks in advance,


Micheal

I have Digital tape, Mini CD, and have borrowed a memory stick camcorder acouple of times, not done HDD yet. looking on an oldish TV, Digital tape was the best IMHO, but you have to look for it. Now with LCD and plasma TV's to view your footage they all look remarkably good straight out of the camcorder into the TV, editing does seem to compress a little i think? does this make sense? its my own observations.

Reliablity issues? only had 1 problem occur with digital tape, i kind of used it more than it was meant to be used my old trusty Sony PC100, but not heard of fellow videoscopers having probs with HDD BUT, there could be people on here who may have? i still have an old laptop so cant really edit my bucketloads of tapes and mini cd's, but one day.......... as i said to Brian, take scope and tripod into the shop, if they want your money, then they have to show you it works

Hope this helps?

ATB

Paul

[michael23]

thats great, many thanks for your reply.
:beer: michael