Birdingonthe.Net

Recent Postings from
Digi-Scoping

> Home > Mail
> Alerts

Updated on Thursday, September 2 at 11:30 AM ET
The most recently received Mail is at the top.
Black-throated Blue Warblers,©Barry Kent Mackay

2 Sep RE: New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope [Clay Taylor ]
2 Sep Re: New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope [Neil Fifer ]
02 Sep New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope ["paulhdigicam" ]
2 Sep Re: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started! [Jeff Bouton ]
30 Aug Re: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started! [Dave Smith ]
30 Aug RE: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started! [Clay Taylor ]
30 Aug Newbie Needs Help Getting Started! [Dave Smith ]
30 Aug Update on Advice Received ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
28 Aug Re: Canon [Kevin Bolton ]
28 Aug Canon ["paulhdigicam" ]
28 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
28 Aug RE: Re: Some help please ["Tara T" ]
27 Aug New in digiscoping.. [Presley Ng ]
28 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
28 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
28 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
28 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
27 Aug RE: Re: Some help please [Clay Taylor ]
26 Aug Re: Some help please [John Top ]
27 Aug RE: Re: Some help please ["Tara T" ]
27 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
27 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
27 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
27 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
27 Aug Re: Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["smithgene69" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["John Blackburn" ]
26 Aug Re: Some help please ["wturber" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["wturber" ]
26 Aug Re: Re: Some help please [Lehmen Keyes ]
26 Aug Re: Some help please ["smithgene69" ]
26 Aug Re: Some help please [joseph ]
26 Aug Re: Some help please [Stephen Ingraham ]
26 Aug Some help please ["gerry.brett AT ymail.com" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests [Neil Fifer ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["wturber" ]
26 Aug Re: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie ["Lou & Wes" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["wturber" ]
26 Aug Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie ["smithgene69" ]
26 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["smithgene69" ]
25 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["smithgene69" ]
25 Aug RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Clay Taylor ]
25 Aug Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Paul Berndt ]
25 Aug RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Clay Taylor ]
25 Aug Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Neil Fifer ]
24 Aug Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! ["wturber" ]
24 Aug RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Clay Taylor ]
24 Aug Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Robin McLeod ]
24 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Clay Taylor ]
24 Aug New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL! [Clay Taylor ]
24 Aug Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["wturber" ]
24 Aug Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests ["smithgene69" ]
23 Aug Re: kruger malheur scope [Francis Smith ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["wturber" ]
23 Aug kruger malheur scope [Lehmen Keyes ]
23 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Clay Taylor ]
23 Aug Re: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Len Jellicoe ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Len Jellicoe ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["gliphi" ]
23 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Francis Smith ]
23 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Clay Taylor ]
23 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Clay Taylor ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["smithgene69" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["wturber" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Len Jellicoe ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["gliphi" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Len Jellicoe ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["wturber" ]
23 Aug RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Clay Taylor ]
23 Aug Re: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie ["Lou & Wes" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Neil Fifer ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["wturber" ]
22 Aug Re: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR [Len Jellicoe ]
23 Aug Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie ["smithgene69" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["smithgene69" ]
23 Aug Re: Digiscoping with DSLR ["smithgene69" ]

Subject: RE: New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:29:50 -0400
While Paul and Kenji wouldn't let me take it out and shoot through it (gee, I 
wonder why?), I was very impressed with the build quality and design. With a 
fluorite lens and two ED lenses, I would expect the optical quality to be 
outstanding. 


Their hardest challenge will be in selling a Manual Focusing telephoto lens to 
an industry that has come to expect Auto Focus capability in everything. 
Personally, I am definitely an Old School photographer and a big fan of manual 
focusing (or at least NOT an AF fan for shooting birds and wildlife), but I 
think that my boss would frown upon my using one at a bird festival. ;-) 


I personally hope it is well -received in the Photo Market.


Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us



From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil Fifer 

Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:24 AM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope



Paul,
Looks like a very neat tele package. Any idea of price?
Neil

>For those of you who didnt make it to Birdfair in the UK in August,
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK0bwXZViBg
>
>Regards
>
>Paul
>
Subject: Re: New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope
From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:24:05 +0800
Paul,
          Looks like a very neat tele package.  Any idea of price?
Neil

>For those of you who didnt make it to Birdfair in the UK in August,
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK0bwXZViBg
>
>Regards
>
>Paul
>
Subject: New Kowa Prototype Telephoto Lens /scope
From: "paulhdigicam" <Paulhdigicam AT aol.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:35:07 -0000
For those of you who didnt make it to Birdfair in the UK in August, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK0bwXZViBg

Regards

Paul
Subject: Re: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
From: Jeff Bouton <jbouton2 AT yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
just want to add one thing to Clay's excellent suggestions. Depending on how 
much eye relief your eyepiece offers at times you may have to actually back the 
camera lens away from the eyepiece to get the proper distance between the two 
lenses. (e.g. it isn't ALWAYS having to get closer as he suggests below - 
although the latter is a more common problem). Fortunately, you can tell from 
what you see on your screen if you are too close or too far away. The view on 
the back of the screen will mirror what your eyes see when they are too close 
or too far from an eyepiece. 

As an example, when your eye is too close to an eyepiece you often see uneven 
blackened or shadowed arcs, similar to crescent moons that sweep through the 
center of the field unevenly. When your eye is too far away the field collapses 
and you see a shadowed ring 

similar to familiar vignetted dark ring we all know and love. 
At any rate, while Clay is likely correct here it is good to remember that you 
can also have lenses too close together. This is something many old school 
digiscopers haven't encountered because they still use old cameras with 
internal lenses with adapters and often reducing rings stacked between camera 
lens and eyepiece so they were never able to get the lenses too close 
together.  

Best,
Jeff BoutonFlorida
--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Dave Smith  wrote:

From: Dave Smith 
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 9:40 PM















 
 



  


    
      
      
      Hi Clay,
 
Thanks for the setup tips.  I will try them out in the next couple of days and 
will let you know what works for me.  I've also ordered a universal camera 
adapter to help get the camera lens closer to the eyepiece.  Hopefully this 
will help. 

 
Thanks again.





From: Clay Taylor 
To: "digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com" 
Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 9:18:36 PM
Subject: RE: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!


  



Hi Dave – 
 
In reality, you have to mess with the setup to see what combination gives 
optimal performance.   Every scope eyepiece is different, so a setting that 
works for a Swarovski or Kowa scope might not work as well for the Vortex. 

 
In general, when setting up the camera behind the scope eyepiece, the first 
order of business is to get the camera perpendicular to the eyepiece, and 
centered.   Have the camera’s lens on wide-angle, so the vignetting is 
severe, adjust the side-to-side and up-and-down settings to get the image 
circle centered on the LCD screen.   Now move the camera closer to the 
eyepiece if and until the black vignetting gets a sharp edge.   If you cannot 
get a sharp edge, get it as best you can. 

 
Now zoom the camera to eliminate the vignetting, checking the lens-to-eyepiece 
distance to make sure that you are not going to hit the eyepiece.    Now try 
auto focusing the camera, to make sure that the additional lens extension does 
not hit the eyepiece.   If either of these two actions causes 
lens-to-eyepiece contact, move the camera back until it does not hit.    
There should be sufficient zoom in the camera lens to eliminate the vignetting. 

 
Also try zooming the scope eyepiece at see how that affects the vignetting – 
sometimes a slight bit of eyepiece zoom gives you more Apparent Field of View 
(a bigger image circle) and you can run a slightly lower camera zoom setting. 

 
Then go out in the backyard, set up a target with good details, and shoot LOTS 
of images, keeping track of what you did for camera zoom, scope zoom, focus 
settings, etc.   When you review the pictures on your computer, learn from 
the bad ones what NOT to do as well as what worked right for the good ones.   
It’s digital photography – shooting 50 or 500 pictures costs you nothing 
but time, but those results will ultimately save you precious seconds in 
shooting routine while in the field.   Plus you will then have the confidence 
that your settings will be the right ones. 

 
Feel free to keep us updated as to your progress,
 
 
Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 


From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Smith 

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:02 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
 
  





Hi, 

 

I'm new into digiscoping as I just got my first scope (Vortex Razor HD) and 
camera (Canon S90).  I'm also using the Vortex DCA with 37mm adapter and a JJC 
RN-9 lens adapter to couple the camera to the scope.  While the scope provides 
sensational detail of both near and far subjects, I cannot get it to 
work with the Canon S90 to provide the same level of detail.  I'm not 
getting a sharp vignetting border when at 1x zoom.  Is this important?  


 

My lens to eyepiece distance is measured at 12-13mm at 1x.  Zooming in to 
eliminate vignetting will reduce that by 4.5mm.  Is this too much distance 
between the lens and eyepiece?  Will it affect the sharpness of focus and 
detail that I get with my camera? 


 

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.  
 
Subject: Re: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
From: Dave Smith <davefromfenton2188 AT yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Clay,

Thanks for the setup tips.  I will try them out in the next couple of days and 

will let you know what works for me.  I've also ordered a universal camera 
adapter to help get the camera lens closer to the eyepiece.  Hopefully this 
will 

help.

Thanks again.




________________________________
From: Clay Taylor 
To: "digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com" 
Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 9:18:36 PM
Subject: RE: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!

  
Hi Dave – 
 
In reality, you have to mess with the setup to see what combination gives 
optimal performance.   Every scope eyepiece is different, so a setting that 
works for a Swarovski or Kowa scope might not work as well for the Vortex.
 
In general, when setting up the camera behind the scope eyepiece, the first 
order of business is to get the camera perpendicular to the eyepiece, and 
centered.   Have the camera’s lens on wide-angle, so the vignetting is 
severe, 

adjust the side-to-side and up-and-down settings to get the image circle 
centered on the LCD screen.   Now move the camera closer to the eyepiece if 
and 

until the black vignetting gets a sharp edge.   If you cannot get a sharp 
edge, 

get it as best you can.
 
Now zoom the camera to eliminate the vignetting, checking the lens-to-eyepiece 
distance to make sure that you are not going to hit the eyepiece.    Now try 

auto focusing the camera, to make sure that the additional lens extension does 
not hit the eyepiece.   If either of these two actions causes 
lens-to-eyepiece 

contact, move the camera back until it does not hit.    There should be 
sufficient zoom in the camera lens to eliminate the vignetting.
 
Also try zooming the scope eyepiece at see how that affects the vignetting – 
sometimes a slight bit of eyepiece zoom gives you more Apparent Field of View 
(a 

bigger image circle) and you can run a slightly lower camera zoom setting.
 
Then go out in the backyard, set up a target with good details, and shoot LOTS 
of images, keeping track of what you did for camera zoom, scope zoom, focus 
settings, etc.   When you review the pictures on your computer, learn from 
the 

bad ones what NOT to do as well as what worked right for the good ones.   
It’s 

digital photography – shooting 50 or 500 pictures costs you nothing but time, 

but those results will ultimately save you precious seconds in shooting routine 

while in the field.   Plus you will then have the confidence that your 
settings 

will be the right ones.
 
Feel free to keep us updated as to your progress,
 
 
Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
From:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] 

On Behalf Of Dave Smith
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:02 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
 
  
Hi, 
 
I'm new into digiscoping as I just got my first scope (Vortex Razor HD) and 
camera (Canon S90).  I'm also using the Vortex DCA with 37mm adapter and a JJC 

RN-9 lens adapter to couple the camera to the scope.  While the scope provides 

sensational detail of both near and far subjects, I cannot get it to 
work with 

the Canon S90 to provide the same level of detail.  I'm not getting a 
sharp vignetting border when at 1x zoom.  Is this important?  

 
My lens to eyepiece distance is measured at 12-13mm at 1x.  Zooming in to 
eliminate vignetting will reduce that by 4.5mm.  Is this too much distance 
between the lens and eyepiece?  Will it affect the sharpness of focus and 
detail 

that I get with my camera?
 
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.  
 
Subject: RE: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:18:36 -0400
Hi Dave -

In reality, you have to mess with the setup to see what combination gives 
optimal performance. Every scope eyepiece is different, so a setting that works 
for a Swarovski or Kowa scope might not work as well for the Vortex. 


In general, when setting up the camera behind the scope eyepiece, the first 
order of business is to get the camera perpendicular to the eyepiece, and 
centered. Have the camera's lens on wide-angle, so the vignetting is severe, 
adjust the side-to-side and up-and-down settings to get the image circle 
centered on the LCD screen. Now move the camera closer to the eyepiece if and 
until the black vignetting gets a sharp edge. If you cannot get a sharp edge, 
get it as best you can. 


Now zoom the camera to eliminate the vignetting, checking the lens-to-eyepiece 
distance to make sure that you are not going to hit the eyepiece. Now try auto 
focusing the camera, to make sure that the additional lens extension does not 
hit the eyepiece. If either of these two actions causes lens-to-eyepiece 
contact, move the camera back until it does not hit. There should be sufficient 
zoom in the camera lens to eliminate the vignetting. 


Also try zooming the scope eyepiece at see how that affects the vignetting - 
sometimes a slight bit of eyepiece zoom gives you more Apparent Field of View 
(a bigger image circle) and you can run a slightly lower camera zoom setting. 


Then go out in the backyard, set up a target with good details, and shoot LOTS 
of images, keeping track of what you did for camera zoom, scope zoom, focus 
settings, etc. When you review the pictures on your computer, learn from the 
bad ones what NOT to do as well as what worked right for the good ones. It's 
digital photography - shooting 50 or 500 pictures costs you nothing but time, 
but those results will ultimately save you precious seconds in shooting routine 
while in the field. Plus you will then have the confidence that your settings 
will be the right ones. 


Feel free to keep us updated as to your progress,


Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us







From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Smith 

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:02 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!


Hi,

I'm new into digiscoping as I just got my first scope (Vortex Razor HD) and 
camera (Canon S90). I'm also using the Vortex DCA with 37mm adapter and a JJC 
RN-9 lens adapter to couple the camera to the scope. While the scope provides 
sensational detail of both near and far subjects, I cannot get it to work with 
the Canon S90 to provide the same level of detail. I'm not getting a sharp 
vignetting border when at 1x zoom. Is this important? 


My lens to eyepiece distance is measured at 12-13mm at 1x. Zooming in to 
eliminate vignetting will reduce that by 4.5mm. Is this too much distance 
between the lens and eyepiece? Will it affect the sharpness of focus and detail 
that I get with my camera? 


Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.
Subject: Newbie Needs Help Getting Started!
From: Dave Smith <davefromfenton2188 AT yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Hi, 

I'm new into digiscoping as I just got my first scope (Vortex Razor HD) and 
camera (Canon S90).  I'm also using the Vortex DCA with 37mm adapter and a JJC 
RN-9 lens adapter to couple the camera to the scope.  While the scope provides 
sensational detail of both near and far subjects, I cannot get it to work with 
the Canon S90 to provide the same level of detail.  I'm not getting a 
sharp vignetting border when at 1x zoom.  Is this important?  


My lens to eyepiece distance is measured at 12-13mm at 1x.  Zooming in to 
eliminate vignetting will reduce that by 4.5mm.  Is this too much distance 
between the lens and eyepiece?  Will it affect the sharpness of focus and 
detail 

that I get with my camera?

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.  
Subject: Update on Advice Received
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:56:49 -0000
Just to say the real issue appears to have been the focus and on Tara's
advice I have started using manual focus and the results are great. Out
today and able to get a couple of decent shots of a major rarity in
these parts, a great thick knee. Guess what.......even with good focus
there was lots of wind and bad light. So the other advice I have
received from members was also spot on. So many thanks. I am up and
running so to speak.
Gerry
botab.blogspot.com
Subject: Re: Canon
From: Kevin Bolton <kakebolton AT optonline.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:30:32 -0400
Yes that's what were talking about.



http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_s95 



Kev Bolton

www.jerseydigiscoping.blogspot.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulhdigicam 
  To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 10:33 AM
  Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Canon


    
  See this Link

 BUT ! you need to download Google translate FIRST to allow the programme to 
translate from Japanese to english OR your chosen language,unless it is already 
installed on your computer 


  http://www.digisco.jp/

 A really good thing i like about this Japanese Digiscoping blog is that the 
author shows the original image, then his processed picture, not too many 
people do this eh? 


 The birds were around 10 yards and the Kowa 884 is used with the 30X eyepiece, 
the Canon S95 is certainly capable of detail 


 This site belongs to Yoshiharu Ishimaru, a well respected digiscoper in Japan 
who has been on the scene there since 1998. He also makes some amazing 
adapters, but certainly not cheap. 


 PS if you cant download the google translate, then click on the japanese 
writing at the bottom left of the picture to see the difference between 
original and processed pics 


  i was very impressed with the results of the S95

  Paul
Subject: Canon
From: "paulhdigicam" <Paulhdigicam AT aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:33:31 -0000
See this Link

BUT ! you need to download Google translate FIRST to allow the programme to 
translate from Japanese to english OR your chosen language,unless it is already 
installed on your computer 


http://www.digisco.jp/

A really good thing i like about this Japanese Digiscoping blog is that the 
author shows the original image, then his processed picture, not too many 
people do this eh? 


The birds were around 10 yards and the Kowa 884 is used with the 30X eyepiece, 
the Canon S95 is certainly capable of detail 


This site belongs to Yoshiharu Ishimaru, a well respected digiscoper in Japan 
who has been on the scene there since 1998. He also makes some amazing 
adapters, but certainly not cheap. 


PS if you cant download the google translate, then click on the japanese 
writing at the bottom left of the picture to see the difference between 
original and processed pics 


i was very impressed with the results of the S95

Paul
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:33:02 -0000
Tara you can see some of my best beginner's efforts here. There's enough
there for me to get excited about possibilities  and want to get
better.... but quite a lot of frustration too!  However I am enjoying it
so far.
botab.blogspot.com 
Gerry
--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Tara T"  wrote:
>
> Thank you Gerry!
>
> I'm not aware of a remote for the P5100, however I have one for my
P6000 and
> used it once and it went in the drawer.  I find the cable release so
much
> more usable.  You can use it in continuous mode and by the 2nd or 3rd
shot,
> any movement from pressing the plunger should be gone.   The 20"
length
> seems to be about right-any shorter and I think it introduces movement
if
> you move your hand.
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing some of your photos.
>
> Tara
>
>  http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gerry.brett AT ...
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:39 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Tara I think this cable release will be my next purchase. Is
there a
> remote for the 5100? I love your pics. That cattle egret looks quite
> different from our version of it here in Thailand, where it is very
common.
> Great pic. I'll try to post some shots after the weekend. Many thanks
G
>
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
>  , "Tara T" h2otara AT  wrote:
> >
> > Gerry,
> >
> > Nikon makes a bracket that holds a shutter release cable for the
P5100,
> not
> > sure about the P5000. You can also get third-party shutter release
cable
> > holders such as the Vixen and one that I use on my P6000 (which also
fits
> > the P5000):
> >
>
http://www.srb-griturn.com/cable-release-bracket-for-nikon-coolpix-p5000\
-p51
> > 00-and-p6000-1372-p.asp It works well and is out of the way of the
battery
> > and memory card compartments, unlike the more sturdy Vixen.
> >
> > You're on the right track reducing as much movement as possible.
Good
> luck!
> >
> > Tara
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> 
> > [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
>  ] On Behalf Of
gerry.brett AT 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:00 PM
> > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for being so positive Gene. Lot there to consider. As I have
said I
> > think I am being generous with calling it vibration, it is more like
> > movement. I'll do as you suggest give the rig a gentle thump with my
fist
> > and see what happens. My camera has a 3 second self timer and that
is the
> > target I am working to for getting the rig settled. Alternatively if
there
> > is a remote device I'd be interested in that. I'll take a closer
look at
> the
> > pod too. WIll be out this weekend and see what I can do and get back
to
> you.
> > Thanks again for this much appreciated. G
> > --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> 
> >  , "smithgene69"

> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good
discussion
> on
> > dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on
> dampening,
> > except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or
prime
> > eyepieces are better and give more eye relief.
> > >
> > > Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am
not
> > advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to
look
> at
> > for that can have major improvements. You can test your system by
thumping
> > it gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image
settle
> down.
> > More decisive than taking pictures.
> > >
> > > By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a
scope
> > on the pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock
pendulum.
> We
> > are interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of
movement,
> the
> > the settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these:
> > >
> > > The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational
moment of
> > inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long
scope
> > increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera,
mounting
> > bracket, and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the
desirable
> > stiffness, but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO
flexing
> in
> > a pod mounting pad.
> > >
> > > The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon
the
> > rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches
the end
> of
> > its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not
act
> like
> > a spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely
culprit is
> a
> > rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork
pad,
> and
> > of course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy.
> > >
> > > Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment
to
> the
> > pod mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should
be
> > replaced with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt.
> > >
> > > One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid.
That
> is
> > the type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could
take you
> > several minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main
component
> of
> > fluid tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed
joint,
> if
> > you can figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce
for
> > rotational or linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my
pod
> helps
> > more if it is not locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some
energy.
> > Silicone rubber and RTV silicone are not of this type and of little
use
> for
> > dampening. There are energy dampening pads sold by Orion and
Celestron
> that
> > can be put under pod legs.
> > >
> > > So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get
in
> > dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests
are
> in
> > vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched
so
> that
> > a 2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it
> increased
> > the cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber
pods,
> > which is supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my
camera on
> a
> > diagonal, which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod,
which
> > causes a major increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what
works for
> > you. Gene Smith
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> 
> >  , "gerry.brett AT "
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping
experience
> > forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect
in of
> > reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head,
> > changing adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece,
Nikon
> > p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Subject: RE: Re: Some help please
From: "Tara T" <h2otara AT comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:50:21 -0400
Thank you Gerry!

I'm not aware of a remote for the P5100, however I have one for my P6000 and
used it once and it went in the drawer.  I find the cable release so much
more usable.  You can use it in continuous mode and by the 2nd or 3rd shot,
any movement from pressing the plunger should be gone.   The 20" length
seems to be about right-any shorter and I think it introduces movement if
you move your hand.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of your photos.  

Tara

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds

 

  _____  

From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gerry.brett AT ymail.com
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:39 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please

 

  

Thanks Tara I think this cable release will be my next purchase. Is there a
remote for the 5100? I love your pics. That cattle egret looks quite
different from our version of it here in Thailand, where it is very common.
Great pic. I'll try to post some shots after the weekend. Many thanks G

--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 , "Tara T"  wrote:
>
> Gerry,
> 
> Nikon makes a bracket that holds a shutter release cable for the P5100,
not
> sure about the P5000. You can also get third-party shutter release cable
> holders such as the Vixen and one that I use on my P6000 (which also fits
> the P5000):
>
http://www.srb-griturn.com/cable-release-bracket-for-nikon-coolpix-p5000-p51
> 00-and-p6000-1372-p.asp It works well and is out of the way of the battery
> and memory card compartments, unlike the more sturdy Vixen. 
> 
> You're on the right track reducing as much movement as possible. Good
luck!
> 
> Tara
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 
> [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of gerry.brett AT ...
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:00 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for being so positive Gene. Lot there to consider. As I have said I
> think I am being generous with calling it vibration, it is more like
> movement. I'll do as you suggest give the rig a gentle thump with my fist
> and see what happens. My camera has a 3 second self timer and that is the
> target I am working to for getting the rig settled. Alternatively if there
> is a remote device I'd be interested in that. I'll take a closer look at
the
> pod too. WIll be out this weekend and see what I can do and get back to
you.
> Thanks again for this much appreciated. G
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 
>  , "smithgene69" 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good discussion
on
> dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on
dampening,
> except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or prime
> eyepieces are better and give more eye relief. 
> > 
> > Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am not
> advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to look
at
> for that can have major improvements. You can test your system by thumping
> it gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image settle
down.
> More decisive than taking pictures. 
> > 
> > By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a scope
> on the pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock pendulum.
We
> are interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of movement,
the
> the settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these:
> > 
> > The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational moment of
> inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long scope
> increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera, mounting
> bracket, and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the desirable
> stiffness, but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO flexing
in
> a pod mounting pad. 
> > 
> > The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon the
> rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches the end
of
> its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not act
like
> a spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely culprit is
a
> rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork pad,
and
> of course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy. 
> > 
> > Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment to
the
> pod mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should be
> replaced with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt. 
> > 
> > One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid. That
is
> the type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could take you
> several minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main component
of
> fluid tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed joint,
if
> you can figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce for
> rotational or linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my pod
helps
> more if it is not locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some energy.
> Silicone rubber and RTV silicone are not of this type and of little use
for
> dampening. There are energy dampening pads sold by Orion and Celestron
that
> can be put under pod legs. 
> > 
> > So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get in
> dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests are
in
> vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched so
that
> a 2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it
increased
> the cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber pods,
> which is supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my camera on
a
> diagonal, which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod, which
> causes a major increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what works for
> you. Gene Smith 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 
>  , "gerry.brett AT "
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience
> forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of
> reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head,
> changing adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon
> p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry
> > >
> >
>
Subject: New in digiscoping..
From: Presley Ng <presleyng AT yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hi, I am new in this digiscoping. Due to my budget i can only start with the 
mid 

range scope.
I was wonder anyone can give me some advice on the Bushnell elite 80 ED scope, 
how sharp
is this scope can be and what about image contrast ? As i am using olympus 4/3 
E-30 model. 

camera. Thanks.   
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:38:47 -0000
Thanks Tara I think this cable release will be my next purchase. Is there a 
remote for the 5100? I love your pics. That cattle egret looks quite different 
from our version of it here in Thailand, where it is very common. Great pic. 
I'll try to post some shots after the weekend. Many thanks G 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Tara T"  wrote:
>
> Gerry,
> 
> Nikon makes a bracket that holds a shutter release cable for the P5100, not
> sure about the P5000.  You can also get third-party shutter release cable
> holders such as the Vixen and one that I use on my P6000 (which also fits
> the P5000):
> http://www.srb-griturn.com/cable-release-bracket-for-nikon-coolpix-p5000-p51
> 00-and-p6000-1372-p.asp  It works well and is out of the way of the battery
> and memory card compartments, unlike the more sturdy Vixen.  
> 
> You're on the right track reducing as much movement as possible.  Good luck!
> 
> Tara
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds 
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gerry.brett AT ...
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:00 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Thanks for being so positive Gene. Lot there to consider. As I have said I
> think I am being generous with calling it vibration, it is more like
> movement. I'll do as you suggest give the rig a gentle thump with my fist
> and see what happens. My camera has a 3 second self timer and that is the
> target I am working to for getting the rig settled. Alternatively if there
> is a remote device I'd be interested in that. I'll take a closer look at the
> pod too. WIll be out this weekend and see what I can do and get back to you.
> Thanks again for this much appreciated. G
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
>  , "smithgene69" 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good discussion on
> dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on dampening,
> except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or prime
> eyepieces are better and give more eye relief. 
> > 
> > Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am not
> advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to look at
> for that can have major improvements. You can test your system by thumping
> it gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image settle down.
> More decisive than taking pictures. 
> > 
> > By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a scope
> on the pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock pendulum. We
> are interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of movement, the
> the settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these:
> > 
> > The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational moment of
> inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long scope
> increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera, mounting
> bracket, and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the desirable
> stiffness, but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO flexing in
> a pod mounting pad. 
> > 
> > The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon the
> rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches the end of
> its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not act like
> a spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely culprit is a
> rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork pad, and
> of course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy. 
> > 
> > Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment to the
> pod mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should be
> replaced with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt. 
> > 
> > One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid. That is
> the type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could take you
> several minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main component of
> fluid tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed joint, if
> you can figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce for
> rotational or linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my pod helps
> more if it is not locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some energy.
> Silicone rubber and RTV silicone are not of this type and of little use for
> dampening. There are energy dampening pads sold by Orion and Celestron that
> can be put under pod legs. 
> > 
> > So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get in
> dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests are in
> vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched so that
> a 2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it increased
> the cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber pods,
> which is supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my camera on a
> diagonal, which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod, which
> causes a major increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what works for
> you. Gene Smith 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
>  , "gerry.brett AT "
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience
> forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of
> reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head,
> changing adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon
> p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry
> > >
> >
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:40:20 -0000
Yeah John I have a hook and I am thinking of taking a bag of rice out next time 
to see how it goes. Thanks 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, John Top  wrote:
>
> >  In 
> >digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, 

> >"gerry.brett AT "  wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping 
> >experience forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the 
> >most effect in of reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom 
> >eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor or what? Currently using 
> >Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks 
> >Gerry
> 
> One other thing will help if you have a light  weight  set-up.
> 
> Some tripods - like my Benro have a hook at the bottom of the center 
> post (if yours does not you can probably easily add one)
> 
> Suspending some weight - like your camera bag or even a water bottle 
> from that hook will stabilize your set-up
> -- 
> 
> John
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:43:04 -0000
Thanks Clay ...another option. Is there a thread to making your own rail? I am 
getting some sharp images, I just want more and better! Thx 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, Clay Taylor  wrote:
>
> A balance rail of some sort is the single biggest help in the battle to quell 
vibrations. You can make your own or look to manufactured ones. 

> 
> After that, the next step is use a cable release, and then raise ISO to give 
you higher shutter speeds. After a few shots at high ISO, confirm that you have 
at least a few sharp images in the memory and then you can drop the ISO for 
less noisy images. 

> 
> Clay Taylor TX
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John Top 
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
> 
> 
> 
> In 
digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, 
"gerry.brett AT "  wrote: 

> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

> 
> One other thing will help if you have a light  weight  set-up.
> 
> Some tripods - like my Benro have a hook at the bottom of the center post (if 
yours does not you can probably easily add one) 

> 
> Suspending some weight - like your camera bag or even a water bottle from 
that hook will stabilize your set-up 

> 
> --
> 
> 
> John
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:48:25 -0000
Just a note to say thank you for the input. I will hopefully get out in next 
coople of days to try some of the things recommended. As a newbie can I ask 
what is the protocol here for posting pics? A link? Or what? On the basis of 
the excellent advice offered I'd be more than willing to have you look at my 
pics to see where I am at. Many thanks and happy digiscoping. 


Gerry



--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, Clay Taylor  wrote:
>
> A balance rail of some sort is the single biggest help in the battle to quell 
vibrations. You can make your own or look to manufactured ones. 

> 
> After that, the next step is use a cable release, and then raise ISO to give 
you higher shutter speeds. After a few shots at high ISO, confirm that you have 
at least a few sharp images in the memory and then you can drop the ISO for 
less noisy images. 

> 
> Clay Taylor TX
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John Top 
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please
> 
> 
> 
> In 
digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, 
"gerry.brett AT "  wrote: 

> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

> 
> One other thing will help if you have a light  weight  set-up.
> 
> Some tripods - like my Benro have a hook at the bottom of the center post (if 
yours does not you can probably easily add one) 

> 
> Suspending some weight - like your camera bag or even a water bottle from 
that hook will stabilize your set-up 

> 
> --
> 
> 
> John
>
Subject: RE: Re: Some help please
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:30:22 -0400
A balance rail of some sort is the single biggest help in the battle to quell 
vibrations. You can make your own or look to manufactured ones. 


After that, the next step is use a cable release, and then raise ISO to give 
you higher shutter speeds. After a few shots at high ISO, confirm that you have 
at least a few sharp images in the memory and then you can drop the ISO for 
less noisy images. 


Clay Taylor TX

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

________________________________
From: John Top 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:55 AM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please



 In 
digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, 
"gerry.brett AT ..."  wrote: 

>
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 


One other thing will help if you have a light  weight  set-up.

Some tripods - like my Benro have a hook at the bottom of the center post (if 
yours does not you can probably easily add one) 


Suspending some weight - like your camera bag or even a water bottle from that 
hook will stabilize your set-up 


--


John
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: John Top <jjtop AT fastmail.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:09:37 -0700
>  In 
>digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, 
>"gerry.brett AT ..."  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping 
>experience forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the 
>most effect in of reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom 
>eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor or what? Currently using 
>Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks 
>Gerry

One other thing will help if you have a light  weight  set-up.

Some tripods - like my Benro have a hook at the bottom of the center 
post (if yours does not you can probably easily add one)

Suspending some weight - like your camera bag or even a water bottle 
from that hook will stabilize your set-up
-- 

John
Subject: RE: Re: Some help please
From: "Tara T" <h2otara AT comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:06:17 -0400
Gerry,

Nikon makes a bracket that holds a shutter release cable for the P5100, not
sure about the P5000.  You can also get third-party shutter release cable
holders such as the Vixen and one that I use on my P6000 (which also fits
the P5000):
http://www.srb-griturn.com/cable-release-bracket-for-nikon-coolpix-p5000-p51
00-and-p6000-1372-p.asp  It works well and is out of the way of the battery
and memory card compartments, unlike the more sturdy Vixen.  

You're on the right track reducing as much movement as possible.  Good luck!

Tara

http://www.flickr.com/photos/focused-on-birds 

 

  _____  

From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gerry.brett AT ymail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:00 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Some help please

 

  


Thanks for being so positive Gene. Lot there to consider. As I have said I
think I am being generous with calling it vibration, it is more like
movement. I'll do as you suggest give the rig a gentle thump with my fist
and see what happens. My camera has a 3 second self timer and that is the
target I am working to for getting the rig settled. Alternatively if there
is a remote device I'd be interested in that. I'll take a closer look at the
pod too. WIll be out this weekend and see what I can do and get back to you.
Thanks again for this much appreciated. G
--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 , "smithgene69" 
wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good discussion on
dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on dampening,
except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or prime
eyepieces are better and give more eye relief. 
> 
> Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am not
advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to look at
for that can have major improvements. You can test your system by thumping
it gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image settle down.
More decisive than taking pictures. 
> 
> By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a scope
on the pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock pendulum. We
are interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of movement, the
the settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these:
> 
> The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational moment of
inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long scope
increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera, mounting
bracket, and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the desirable
stiffness, but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO flexing in
a pod mounting pad. 
> 
> The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon the
rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches the end of
its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not act like
a spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely culprit is a
rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork pad, and
of course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy. 
> 
> Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment to the
pod mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should be
replaced with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt. 
> 
> One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid. That is
the type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could take you
several minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main component of
fluid tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed joint, if
you can figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce for
rotational or linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my pod helps
more if it is not locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some energy.
Silicone rubber and RTV silicone are not of this type and of little use for
dampening. There are energy dampening pads sold by Orion and Celestron that
can be put under pod legs. 
> 
> So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get in
dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests are in
vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched so that
a 2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it increased
the cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber pods,
which is supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my camera on a
diagonal, which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod, which
causes a major increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what works for
you. Gene Smith 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
 , "gerry.brett AT "
 wrote:
> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head,
changing adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon
p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry
> >
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:01:12 -0000
Thanks Lee I was thinking about suspending something like this and as I live in 
Thailand the rice bag is a good option. Many thanks! 

--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, Lehmen Keyes  wrote:
>
> I used to take pictures from my porch (wooden floor) using a wooden tripod 
with 

> metal spiked feet. My four pound mini Pinscher could cause noticable 
vibration 

> when he trotted by. My grandkids would cause earthquake-like tremors from 20 

> feet away.
> 
> I recently bought a new tripod with rubber feet with a fluid head (won't 
mention 

> name and model) and now I can ignore my dog and the g-kids don't cause 
problems 

> unless they are within five feet. Vibration from thumping the tripod dampens 

> within 2-3 seconds.
> 
> I don't have the best scope so I limit the distance/magnification curtailing 
> vibration effects even further.
> 
> A cheap, really crude vibration reducer is a three pound sack of rice or 
small 

> beans draped over the scope at its midpoint.  Not pretty but effective.
> 
> OR, if you've got the money, buy the best (???) equipment on the market (but 
> keep the beans in your equipment bag).
> 
> Best of luck,
> Lee in WV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT "  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. 

> >In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of reducing 
> >vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor 
or 

> >what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. 
Many 

> >thanks Gerry
> >
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:59:43 -0000
Thanks for being so positive Gene. Lot there to consider. As I have said I 
think I am being generous with calling it vibration, it is more like movement. 
I'll do as you suggest give the rig a gentle thump with my fist and see what 
happens. My camera has a 3 second self timer and that is the target I am 
working to for getting the rig settled. Alternatively if there is a remote 
device I'd be interested in that. I'll take a closer look at the pod too. WIll 
be out this weekend and see what I can do and get back to you. Thanks again for 
this much appreciated. G 

--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "smithgene69"  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good discussion on 
dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on dampening, 
except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or prime 
eyepieces are better and give more eye relief. 

> 
> Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am not 
advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to look at for 
that can have major improvements. You can test your system by thumping it 
gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image settle down. More 
decisive than taking pictures. 

> 
> By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a scope on 
the pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock pendulum. We are 
interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of movement, the the 
settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these: 

> 
> The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational moment of 
inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long scope 
increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera, mounting bracket, 
and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the desirable stiffness, 
but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO flexing in a pod mounting 
pad. 

> 
> The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon the 
rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches the end of 
its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not act like a 
spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely culprit is a 
rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork pad, and of 
course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy. 

> 
> Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment to the pod 
mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should be replaced 
with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt. 

> 
> One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid. That is 
the type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could take you 
several minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main component of 
fluid tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed joint, if 
you can figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce for 
rotational or linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my pod helps 
more if it is not locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some energy. 
Silicone rubber and RTV silicone are not of this type and of little use for 
dampening. There are energy dampening pads sold by Orion and Celestron that can 
be put under pod legs. 

> 
> So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get in 
dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests are in 
vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched so that a 
2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it increased the 
cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber pods, which is 
supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my camera on a diagonal, 
which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod, which causes a major 
increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what works for you. Gene Smith 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT "  
wrote: 

> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

> >
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:03:23 -0000
Thanks Jay you make what are obvious points about the centre column but not so 
obvious to a rookie like me. And also sitting with minimal extension is in the 
same category. Much appreciated thanks. 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "wturber"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT "  
wrote: 

> >
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

> >
> 
> Some rules of thumb.
> 
> Wood, carbon fiber, and graphite tripods damp vibration better than aluminum. 

> 
> Extending the center column reduces rigidity and tends to make vibration more 
of a problem. Extend the legs first to gain height. Extend the center column 
only as little as possible. But better yet, keep both extended as little as 
possible. I often shoot seated with the scope only about three feet above the 
ground. 

> 
> If you don't induce vibration to begin with, you don't need to worry about 
damping it. Use a cable or electrical remote release. Compacts have shutters 
that create almost zero vibration. EVIL cameras like the m4/3s line are next 
best since they don't have moving reflex mirrors. But they have a focal plane 
shutter which adds more vibration than the small shutter in the compact camera. 
DSLRs have both the flipping mirrors and focal plane shutters and are the 
worst. 

> 
> Make sure everything is tightly clamped or screwed down. Loose items promote 
motion. 

> 
> Don't let camera straps hand and flap in the breeze. Wind can induce 
vibration and camera straps can catch a lot of wind. 

> 
> Jay Turberville
> www.jayandwanda.com
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:47:43 -0000
Thanks Joseph I think I have been a bit generous to myself ; what I am 
experience is perhaps best described as movement as opposed to vibration! 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, joseph  wrote:
>
> There are 2 others possibilities to reduce sources of vibrations : a  
> heavy soid tripod to reduce the wind vibrations and a remote trigger  
> to reduce the manual trigger vibrations
> 
> Best regards
> Joseph
> 
> 
> 
> Le 26-août-10 à 16:41, gerry.brett AT ... a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping  
> experience forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the  
> most effect in of reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom  
> eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor or what? Currently using  
> Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry
> 
> 
> 
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:45:14 -0000
Hi Stephen thanks for getting back to me. I am using a Manfrotto head 700RC2 
and 055CX3 legs. Not using a remote....under the impression can't use one with 
the P5100....please put me right! Many thanks 


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, Stephen Ingraham  
wrote: 

>
> Hi Gerry,
> 
> You don't mention which tripod and head you are using. Are you using a
> remote release?
> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM, gerry.brett AT ...
>  wrote:
> > Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

> >
> 
> -- 
> Steve Ingraham
> lightshedder: www.lightshedder.com
> Point and Shoot Landscape:
> Pic of the Day
> Cloudy Days and Netbook Nights:
>
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:28:19 -0000
Thank you Jon for your comments.  

On the downside, the zoom range of the LX3 is a bit limited, and you have to 
work with the lens extension. When it turns on the lens extends quite a bit. I 
then zoom to about 20% and position the eyepiece. It can be turned off, but not 
turned on again until the eyepiece is moved back or it will snub into the piece 
and cause a fault. Later revisions to the software solve part of this problem I 
am told. For use with the threaded Baader Hyperion eyepiece I had to shorten 
the standard LX3 45/46mm adapter tube by 8mm. Use a 43/46 adapter ring. 


Yes, I have the Pany 20mm/1.7 and it is an ok lens, but a bit short on one end 
for digiscoping. Other people have and suggested the manual Pentax M 3.5/28mm. 
I got the lens on e-bay for about $80. USD for my EPL1. A bit better. For 
digiscopiing I do not like to lay my eyeball on the camera and cause more 
vibration, but that is my opinion. Who knows what the LX5 will bring. If 
nothing else it will bring down the price of the LX3. 


I must give part of the credit to the Baader Hyperion 17mm threaded top eye 
piece. Can be used as either 1 1/4 or 2 inch mount. For some reason I get 
sharper shots from the 17mm than the 8, 13, or 24mm pieces. It has a 33mm 
diameter eye lens and 20mm of eye relief. Will perhaps get the 21mm, only $119 
from OPT. 


So, get tack to me if you have other questions. Thanks for your interest. Gene 






--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "John Blackburn"  
wrote: 

>
 
> I've been toying with the idea of getting a Nikon 28mm f2.8 but feel myself 
leaning towards the new LX5. I like the G1 viewfinder & cable release which the 
LX5 does not have, decisions, decisions! 

> 
> Jon
>
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "John Blackburn" <jandsblackburn AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:13:19 -0000
Hi

I think it is great that you are doing all this testing and sharing the 
results. I only have a very basic knowledge of digiscoping but I was quite 
impressed with your LX3 photo. To my (unskilled) eyes I thought that the detail 
and sharpness were good. I appreciate that there maybe additional in-camera 
sharpening and noise reduction. Your LX3 photos seem to be better than I am 
achieving with my G1 with a 20mm f1.7 at ISO400. However, this may be down to 
my inexperience. 


I've been toying with the idea of getting a Nikon 28mm f2.8 but feel myself 
leaning towards the new LX5. I like the G1 viewfinder & cable release which the 
LX5 does not have, decisions, decisions! 


Jon
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:36:34 -0000

--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT ..."  
wrote: 

>
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

>

Some rules of thumb.

Wood, carbon fiber, and graphite tripods damp vibration better than aluminum. 

Extending the center column reduces rigidity and tends to make vibration more 
of a problem. Extend the legs first to gain height. Extend the center column 
only as little as possible. But better yet, keep both extended as little as 
possible. I often shoot seated with the scope only about three feet above the 
ground. 


If you don't induce vibration to begin with, you don't need to worry about 
damping it. Use a cable or electrical remote release. Compacts have shutters 
that create almost zero vibration. EVIL cameras like the m4/3s line are next 
best since they don't have moving reflex mirrors. But they have a focal plane 
shutter which adds more vibration than the small shutter in the compact camera. 
DSLRs have both the flipping mirrors and focal plane shutters and are the 
worst. 


Make sure everything is tightly clamped or screwed down. Loose items promote 
motion. 


Don't let camera straps hand and flap in the breeze. Wind can induce vibration 
and camera straps can catch a lot of wind. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:24:30 -0000
> I'm sure Jay will cover the necessary technical issues.
> As I've said in previous posts I find it difficult to get better 
> images with Micro Four Thirds or DSLRs cameras than the Nikon P6000.
> Neil

But, if I recall correctly, you find that the differences in most cases are 
pretty narrow. I seem to recall that the P6000 is your camera of choice for 
lower light shooting. 


And that's my main point. Fundamentally the big sensor or small sensor choice 
is nearly a non-factor. It is only the specifics of some particular sensor as 
implemented in a particular camera that really matters. That, and how the 
digiscoping rig works as a whole. And that can only really be determined by 
trial and testing. 


Jay
Subject: Re: Re: Some help please
From: Lehmen Keyes <leekeyes AT yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
I used to take pictures from my porch (wooden floor) using a wooden tripod with 

metal spiked feet. My four pound mini Pinscher could cause noticable vibration 

when he trotted by.  My grandkids would cause earthquake-like tremors from 20 
feet away.

I recently bought a new tripod with rubber feet with a fluid head (won't 
mention 

name and model) and now I can ignore my dog and the g-kids don't cause problems 

unless they are within five feet.  Vibration from thumping the tripod dampens 
within 2-3 seconds.

I don't have the best scope so I limit the distance/magnification curtailing 
vibration effects even further.

A cheap, really crude vibration reducer is a three pound sack of rice or small 
beans draped over the scope at its midpoint.  Not pretty but effective.

OR, if you've got the money, buy the best (???) equipment on the market (but 
keep the beans in your equipment bag).

Best of luck,
Lee in WV




--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT ..."  

wrote:
>
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. 

>In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of reducing 
>vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor 
or 

>what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. 
Many 

>thanks Gerry
>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:24:08 -0000
Thanks a lot for the question, Gerry. We are needing a good discussion on 
dampening. No, the type of eyepiece would not have any effect on dampening, 
except by its weight contribution. Most people agree that fixed or prime 
eyepieces are better and give more eye relief. 


Scope vibration is always a concern for digiscopers. Although I am not 
advocating a complete technical analysis, there are a few things to look at for 
that can have major improvements. You can test your system by thumping it 
gently with your knuckles and watching the view-finder image settle down. More 
decisive than taking pictures. 


By far the dominate vibration mode is the rotational movement of a scope on the 
pod. Sort of like the movement of the anniversary clock pendulum. We are 
interested in decreasing the time period, the amplitude of movement, the the 
settling time when vibrations cease. Lets look at each of these: 


The time period of oscillation is determined by the rotational moment of 
inertia plus the stiffness of the mount. Of course a heavy, long scope 
increases the inertia, as well as the use of a heavy camera, mounting bracket, 
and the use of a balance bar. A heavy pod increases the desirable stiffness, 
but be sure all joints are tight and that there is NO flexing in a pod mounting 
pad. 


The settling time before vibration stops is highly dependent upon the 
rotational spring like action of the system. As the scope reaches the end of 
its rotation displacement the energy needs to be absorbed, and not act like a 
spring propelling it back in the opposite direction. A likely culprit is a 
rubber pad on top of the pod. Never allow this, replace with a cork pad, and of 
course do not attach with rubber cement, use hard epoxy. 


Some scopes, such as my OTA, have a small 1/4 inch bolt attachment to the pod 
mount. Although it may not fall off, the attachment bolt should be replaced 
with a 5/16 or 3/8 bolt. 


One great energy absorber is ultra high viscosity silicone liquid. That is the 
type that is much stiffer than honey, for example, and could take you several 
minutes to pour from a jar. I suspect this is the main component of fluid 
tripod heads. Of course it needs to be contained in a sealed joint, if you can 
figure out how to use it. It is the master of zero bounce for rotational or 
linear movement. I notice that the fluid head of my pod helps more if it is not 
locked up tight, but is allowed to absorb some energy. Silicone rubber and RTV 
silicone are not of this type and of little use for dampening. There are energy 
dampening pads sold by Orion and Celestron that can be put under pod legs. 


So, since we are not being highly scientific, you get what you get in 
dampening, but these suggestions should be helpful. My own interests are in 
vibration stopping in less than 2 seconds after the scope is touched so that a 
2 second time delay can be used. I did try a balance bar, but it increased the 
cycling time to about 8 seconds. Some people like carbon fiber pods, which is 
supposed to increase dampening. I also like to mount my camera on a diagonal, 
which both shortens the assembly and allows a lower pod, which causes a major 
increase in stiffness. Good luck, and report what works for you. Gene Smith 








--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "gerry.brett AT ..."  
wrote: 

>
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

>
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: joseph <joseph.bozzer AT skynet.be>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:52:32 +0200
There are 2 others possibilities to reduce sources of vibrations : a  
heavy soid tripod to reduce the wind vibrations and a remote trigger  
to reduce the manual trigger vibrations

Best regards
Joseph



Le 26-août-10 à 16:41, gerry.brett AT ymail.com a écrit :


Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping  
experience forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the  
most effect in of reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom  
eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor or what? Currently using  
Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. Many thanks Gerry






------------------------------------

Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! 
Groups Links 


<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digiscopingbirds/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digiscopingbirds/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    digiscopingbirds-digest AT yahoogroups.com 
    digiscopingbirds-fullfeatured AT yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    digiscopingbirds-unsubscribe AT yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Subject: Re: Some help please
From: Stephen Ingraham <lightshedder AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:48:19 -0400
Hi Gerry,

You don't mention which tripod and head you are using. Are you using a
remote release?

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM, gerry.brett AT ymail.com
 wrote:
> Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience 
forward. In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of 
reducing vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing 
adaptor or what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 
adaptor. Many thanks Gerry 

>

-- 
Steve Ingraham
lightshedder: www.lightshedder.com
Point and Shoot Landscape:
Pic of the Day
Cloudy Days and Netbook Nights:
Subject: Some help please
From: "gerry.brett AT ymail.com" <gerard.brett58@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:41:28 -0000
Hi I wonder of you could assist me in taking my digiscoping experience forward. 
In summary what in your opinion would have the most effect in of reducing 
vibration: switching to a non-zoom eyepiece, changing head, changing adaptor or 
what? Currently using Kowa 883, 20-60 eyepiece, Nikon p5000, DA-10 adaptor. 
Many thanks Gerry
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:28:27 +0800
Gene,
            Nice testing and great food for discussion.  As I'm on the 
road for these few weeks with only my laptop I can't see the samples 
as I would like, I won't jump in but will follow the discussion with 
interest.
I'm sure Jay will cover the necessary technical issues.
As I've said in previous posts I find it difficult to get better 
images with Micro Four Thirds or DSLRs cameras than the Nikon P6000.
Neil


>I did some more testing this afternoon to better define the quality 
>and compare digiscoped shots under the same conditions with the 
>Lumix LX3, Oly micro 4/3 EPL1, and the Lumix LH1.  
>Equal darkness frames were selected and are presented in the above 
>order.   The target was 78 feet away, in shade, and late afternoon 
>light.   Since I tested the Oly with the Pentax lens yesterday, I 
>used the 20mm Pany 1.7 lens today.   14X manual focusing was used on 
>the OLY, auto focus on the other cameras.  Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, 
>80ED x 600mm scope, pod.
>
>Please compare the image quality of the posted shots.   No 
>adjustments were made at all, just out of the box.   1/22 frame area 
>is presented for each.  These images would be HUGE full frame, about 
>30 inches across on my screen.
>
>

>http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspLX38-230012601.jpg 

>

>http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspEpl8-230081265.jpg 

>

>http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspFH18-230093244.jpg 

>
>OK have you examined them?  Surprise, Surprise.  I see the best 
>image as that taken by the $119. FH1, next by the LX3 and the Oly 
>seems last.    In the speed evaluation the LX3 showed exactly 5 
>times the speed of the ELP1, and the FH1 about mid way between. 
>So, if these were taken under actual field conditions the LX3 would 
>likely have better preserved the image quality since it has a 5 to 1 
>speed advantage over the OLY and would be less subject to heat 
>waves, subject and scope movement.  
>
>Tomorrow I will try to re-do the same experiment with the Pentax 
>lens on the EPL1 Oly.   I did not expect the image quality results 
>of today.           Gene
>
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:05:24 -0000
 
> I judge the image quality to be the order in which they are presented, LX3 
first, EPL1 second, and the amazing little FH1 last. Compared with the prior 
test, the 800 ISO may have degraded the EPL1 a bit. 


While each camera was set at their middle settings for noise reduction, 
sharpness and contrast, that does not mean that the same degree of noise 
reduction, sharpness and contrast are being applied by each camera. Zero does 
not typically equal zero when comparing these settings between cameras. 

 
> Although high ISOs are claimed for some cameras, there is a definite limit 
before there is significant degradation. I say the limit for Micro 4/3 cameras 
is about ISO 800. 


DXOMark says that it is more like about 2 2/3s stops or ISO 1250 for the EPL1. 
I will assure you that the GH1 does better than the EPL1 or any other 4/3s or 
m4/3s camera when it comes to image noise. With the GH1, the gap is more like 
about 3 1/3 stops according to DxOmark. 


> The calculated (and Proven) speed loss of the micro 4/3 cameras compared with 
the LX3 is a factor of 5. 


There is a factor of about 5 for the optical speed differences. But the sensor 
speed differences as objectively measured range from about a factor of 6 to a 
factor of more than 8. 


> So, from all of this I conclude that the Nikon P6000 and the LX3 are the 
sweet spot cameras that best utilize the light cone presented by the typical 
spotting scope for the highest digiscoping efficiency. 


4x = two stops
8x = three stops

You are saying that the LX3 has a 5x optical advantage and that the EPL1 only 
offsets that by 4x. That "1X" advantage is less than a third of a stop. And 
frankly, I disagree that the LX3 even has that advantage. 


Small sensor cameras typically apply more in-camera sharpness than DSLRs and 
larger sensor cameras. While I agree that the LX3 delivers more optical 
resolution, its advantage isn't as great as a comparison of the out-of-camera 
samples implies. When the EPL1 image is sharpened further, the detail gap 
diminishes rapidly - and it does so with minimal increase in visible image 
noise. The LX3 image can't stand much more sharpening before noise becomes 
objectionable or before the image simply looks over sharpened. 


Here are the two images after being matched for color balance and optimally (my 
opinion) sharpened. As I said, the LX3 still wins - just not nearly as 
dramatically. If a better lens is used on the EPL1 it might edge out the LX3. 


http://www.jayandwanda.com/dscbirds/gene/

I downloaded the resolution charts from DPReview.com for both the LX3 and EPL1 
and analyzed them with Imatest. These images were shot with sharpness and other 
settings at the middle or "neutral" settings just like Gene's test images. 
Imatest says that the LX3 image is 32.4% oversharpened while the EPL1 is 12.4% 
oversharpened. This is also clearly visible by noticing the much more 
pronounced white halo on bordering the black areas of the resolution chart 
image from the LX3. This jibes with my observation of Gene's images. The LX3 
image is sharper partially because it has received more sharpening from the 
camera processing of the image. 


So my conclusion from your test is a bit different. I agree that the LX3 is 
doing better optically. Though I differ on how much better. I see the 
difference as being fairly marginal. I also disagree that the LX3 has any 
exposure efficiency advantage over the EPL1. If anything, I think the EPL1 has 
a slight edge. But the edge is so slight that I don't consider it really 
relevant. As a practical matter, its a wash IMO. 


As I've been saying for some time. Formats don't matter much when it comes to 
image quality issues. You can do great with the right compact and you can do 
great with the right DSLR/EVIL. It is the other factors that really matter. 
Ergonomics, size, weight, features, frame rate, viewfinder quality, price and 
so forth. For instance, I don't find the LX3 appealing because of its lack of 
eye level viewfinder and no articulating LCD. OTOH, it is relatively 
inexpensive and compact and someone else may put a high value on that. 


From an optics and image quality standpoint, the scope is the limiting factor. 
Sensor size advantages and disadvantages tend to balance out. If efficiency is 
you priority, then the important thing to do is to try cameras that have newer 
sensors with more advanced technology. 


> The little FH1 is a fantastic buy but is a bit too small to swallow the 
entire light cone. In addition to the high optical efficiency the optics of the 
P6000 and LX3 are sharper than the normal kit lenses supplied with 
interchangeable lens cameras. 


Well, you wouldn't want to digiscope with a normal kit lens anyway. To me, the 
advantage of the compacts is typically their lighter weight and the possibility 
of using the camera zoom lens and the camera's AF. With larger sensor cameras, 
if you want to zoom, you probably need to use a zoom eyepiece and you often 
need to use manual focus. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Subject: Re: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie
From: "Lou & Wes" <martay6 AT bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:05:56 -0400
Very cool, Gene- Are you aware of the long f/l Carton lenses (Japanese) that 
Sheldon Faworski is selling on Cloudy Nights??? These long f/l anchro lenses 
are superb. I have a 60mm f/20, an 80mm f/15 and a 100mm f/13.5 scope built 
with them. All give superb images. Fun builds, too! There is a Crawford Machine 
Company in North Carolina- Dan makes beautiful focusers quite inexpensively... 
I have his focusers on the 60mm (1.25") and the 100mm (2"). Also rings made to 
order. 

Best~
Wes 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: smithgene69 
  To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:19 PM
 Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - 
newbie 



    

 Thanks for your interest Wes. The 74mm X 592mm Mil Spec achromat I used for 
the bluebird pic was Shed # SKU L3405, but that was 4 years ago and it is gone 
from stock. Those doublet lenses had an edge separation problem. I separated 
and re-cemented them. The center resolution and false color was good, but the 
entire frame was not. My understanding is that this was a coma problem always 
present in a cemented doublet. So I laid it aside for my present 80ED scope. 


 I currently am working on mounting a pristine, f-9 , coated, air separated 
Jaeger's doublet. Air spaced doublets are indeed corrected for coma and give 
very good images. You may recall that the Jaeger's company was a prestigious 
manufacturer of astronomy lenses back about 30 years ago until their factory 
burned down. Their lenses are now seldom sold, but they show up now and then. 


 These higher f number lenses do show good image quality, and the longer focal 
length will be folded in a compact box to make a real digiscoping machine, I 
hope. An achromat cannot compete with the smaller f-6 range of typical spotting 
scopes, the false color is a problem. 


 
http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EScopeachro0058427_S.jpg 


  --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Lou & Wes"  wrote:
  >
  > Nice picture!
 > Surplus Shed lenses are quite popular in the astronomy community... which 
lens was it? Any chance you can post a picture of your scope and your setup??? 
Nice to see someone making their own... having built several telescopes myself. 

  > Best~
  > Wes
  > 

  >
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:30:59 -0000
> Oh, a special thanks Jay for the detail in which you reviewed my prior post. 
Thanks. Sent you a message yesterday but looks like it got lost. Gene 

>

No problem. I have no idea how the posting got lost. Your posts are not 
moderated, so the post couldn't have gotten lost there. 


Jay
Subject: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:19:49 -0000
Thanks for your interest Wes. The 74mm X 592mm Mil Spec achromat I used for the 
bluebird pic was Shed # SKU L3405, but that was 4 years ago and it is gone from 
stock. Those doublet lenses had an edge separation problem. I separated and 
re-cemented them. The center resolution and false color was good, but the 
entire frame was not. My understanding is that this was a coma problem always 
present in a cemented doublet. So I laid it aside for my present 80ED scope. 


I currently am working on mounting a pristine, f-9 , coated, air separated 
Jaeger's doublet. Air spaced doublets are indeed corrected for coma and give 
very good images. You may recall that the Jaeger's company was a prestigious 
manufacturer of astronomy lenses back about 30 years ago until their factory 
burned down. Their lenses are now seldom sold, but they show up now and then. 


These higher f number lenses do show good image quality, and the longer focal 
length will be folded in a compact box to make a real digiscoping machine, I 
hope. An achromat cannot compete with the smaller f-6 range of typical spotting 
scopes, the false color is a problem. 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EScopeachro0058427_S.jpg 





--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Lou & Wes"  wrote:
>
> Nice picture!
> Surplus Shed lenses are quite popular in the astronomy community... which 
lens was it? Any chance you can post a picture of your scope and your setup??? 
Nice to see someone making their own... having built several telescopes myself. 

> Best~
> Wes
> 
 
>
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:57 -0000

 Oh, a special thanks Jay for the detail in which you reviewed my prior post. 
Thanks. Sent you a message yesterday but looks like it got lost. Gene
Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:57:26 -0000
Did some more digiscope testing with the EPL1 ISO elevated to 800 and the LX3 
at ISO 200 so that they were somewhat equal in speed. The speed advantage from 
this test was a factor of 4.4 for the LX3 compared with the EPL1. Frames were 
filled, and the same size crop was used from each frame. If these crops were 
full frame they would be 30 inches tall. As you can see in the URL the order is 
the LX3, the Oly EPL1 with Pentax, and the $119 Lumix FH1. 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspLX38-240062213.jpg 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspEPL18-240141257.jpg 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspFH18-240071455.jpg 


I judge the image quality to be the order in which they are presented, LX3 
first, EPL1 second, and the amazing little FH1 last. Compared with the prior 
test, the 800 ISO may have degraded the EPL1 a bit. 


Although high ISOs are claimed for some cameras, there is a definite limit 
before there is significant degradation. I say the limit for Micro 4/3 cameras 
is about ISO 800. The Nex 5 is a bit better seems to handle ISO 1600, but 
certainly not 3200. The Lumix LX3 is best left at ISO 200. So, most larger 
sensors will allow an ISO speed gain of 4X over the LX3. 


The calculated (and Proven) speed loss of the micro 4/3 cameras compared with 
the LX3 is a factor of 5. The Nex 5 calculated speed loss is a factor of 7, and 
the speed loss factor for a full frame camera compared with the LX3 is a huge 
19X. The APS is some where between the last two. 


So, from all of this I conclude that the Nikon P6000 and the LX3 are the sweet 
spot cameras that best utilize the light cone presented by the typical spotting 
scope for the highest digiscoping efficiency. The little FH1 is a fantastic buy 
but is a bit too small to swallow the entire light cone. In addition to the 
high optical efficiency the optics of the P6000 and LX3 are sharper than the 
normal kit lenses supplied with interchangeable lens cameras. 

                    Gene




--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "wturber"  wrote:
>
> IMO, the EPL-1 camera should have been set at around ISO 1000 if the LX3 is 
going to be set to ISO 200. That should yield approximately equivalent shutter 
speeds and similar noise levels. > Jay Turberville 

> www.jayandwanda.com
> 
> 
>  > > 
> > Tomorrow I will try to re-do the same experiment with the Pentax lens on 
the EPL1 Oly. I did not expect the image quality results of today. Gene 

> >
>
Subject: RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:01:31 -0400
The SLT A55 will use the Minolta Maxxum / Konica Minolta AF / Sony A mount, so 
all those 35mm Minolta AF / Konica-Minolta digital lenses, etc, will work on 
it. 


Actually, the Olympus Pen / Panasonic GF / Sony NEX cameras are more like 
modern CP 8400s both in size and handling. I guess the SLT A55 is the steroid 
version. I really don’t care about articulated LCD screens, as to me the 
important part when shooting through the scope is the EVF, not the LCD. 


BTW, I received my Minolta MD – to Micro 4/3 adapter, and the 45mm f/2 Rokkor 
and 50mm f/1.7 Rokkor lens both seem really good on the E-P2. I probably will 
not have the opportunity to do any serious shooting until Sunday, after we take 
Grace to college and Debbie gets on a plane for CT. 


I just trolled through the B&H and Adorama Photo Used departments, looking at 
manual-focus wide-angle and telephoto lenses, with an eye towards using them on 
the E-P2 – the WAs for digiscoping, and the telephotos for stuff – birds, 
butterflies, race cars, etc.. Geez, a 105 Micro-Nikkor in good shape for $175. 
At effectively 200mm, that would be a GREAT butterfly lens. Of course, there is 
a 180mm f/2.8 for $249 – the Pen makes that a 360mm f/2.8. Ooohhh…. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us



From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Berndt 

Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:03 AM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix 
QL! 



Hi Neil & Clay,

From the photos of the Alph 500 it appears that they will be using the same 
lens system on the 55. From the review, the 55 reminds me of the CP8400 brought 
up to date. 


Paul
Ohio, USA

From: Neil Fifer 
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 2:00:42 AM
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix 
QL! 



Clay,
 I saw this yesterday and was confused. Having just bought into the Nex concept 
I don't understand why Sony think it needs another format? Are they going to be 
bringing lenses out for 3 systems? 

Anyway I'm happy with the Nex 5 and don't plan to change any time soon.
Neil
ps We've left Route 66 for a while to visit Grand Canyon and Page, AZ. Not many 
birds in this part of the world. 




Hi all -

In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony / Minolta 
Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting. 


Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount body and the 
"traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
Subject: Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Paul Berndt <pwberndt AT yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Neil & Clay,

From the photos of the Alph 500 it appears that they will be using the same 
lens 

system on the 55.  From the review, the 55 reminds me of the CP8400 brought 
up 

to date.  


Paul
Ohio, USA


>
>From: Neil Fifer 
>To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 2:00:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon 
Pellix 

>QL!
>
>  
>Clay,
>         I saw this yesterday and was confused.  Having just bought 
into the Nex 

>concept I don't understand why Sony think it needs another format? Are they 
>going to be bringing lenses out for 3 systems?
>Anyway I'm happy with the Nex 5 and don't plan to change any time soon.
>Neil
>ps  We've left Route 66 for a while to visit Grand Canyon and Page, AZ.  Not 

>many birds in this part of the world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi all -
 
In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera
 
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/
 
Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony / Minolta 
Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting.
 
Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount body and the 
"traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV.
 
 
Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
 
 

>
>
>
Subject: RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:04:06 -0400
Hi Neil -

I, too, am confused as to what their motives are. Driving the stake into the 
heart of the mirror-system cameras for sure. 


Enjoy the West,

CT

From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil Fifer 

Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:01 AM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix 
QL! 



Clay,
 I saw this yesterday and was confused. Having just bought into the Nex concept 
I don't understand why Sony think it needs another format? Are they going to be 
bringing lenses out for 3 systems? 

Anyway I'm happy with the Nex 5 and don't plan to change any time soon.
Neil
ps We've left Route 66 for a while to visit Grand Canyon and Page, AZ. Not many 
birds in this part of the world. 




Hi all -

In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony / Minolta 
Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting. 


Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount body and the 
"traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
Subject: Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:00:42 +0800
Clay,
          I saw this yesterday and was confused.  Having just bought 
into the Nex concept I don't understand why Sony think it needs 
another format? Are they going to be bringing lenses out for 3 
systems?
Anyway I'm happy with the Nex 5 and don't plan to change any time soon.
Neil
ps  We've left Route 66 for a while to visit Grand Canyon and Page, 
AZ.  Not many birds in this part of the world.



>Hi all -
>
>In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera
>

>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/ 

>
>Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony 
>/ Minolta Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting.
>
>Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount 
>body and the "traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV.
>
>
>Clay Taylor
>TOS Life Member
>Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
>clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
>
>
>
>
Subject: Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:22:19 -0000
In all likelihood, it will have the same AF system. Phase detect is all about 
triangulation. The AF sensors "look" out through the exit pupil of the lens at 
positions that correspond to the diameter of the exit pupil at particular 
f-numbers. The smaller the f-number (bigger aperture), the larger the triangle 
base and the greater the potential accuracy. The larger the f-number, the 
smaller the base and the smaller the potential accuracy. 


Most phase detects systems are set for f/4 to f/5.6 sensitivity which matches 
the maximum aperture of most common lenses. A few advanced and pro models 
include f/2.8 sensitivity and even fewer include a single f/8 sensitive sensor. 
There is very little need for anything past f/8 since few lenses are that slow 
wide open. And even then, that need is pretty limited. 


So it seems unlikely to me that Sony would put any effort into making an f/16 
based phase detect sensor. It seems much more likely that they would simlply 
use existing AF components and technology. That means f/4 -f/5.6 sensors for 
sure. A possibility of f/2.8 sensors and a very remote possibility for an f/8 
sensor. Something like an f/16 sensor is almost surely not going to happen. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Subject: RE: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:34:53 -0400
An excellent point, and one that might not be completely answered until they 
hit the camera stores and we can mess with them. I'm guessing that phase detect 
AF will continue to be a problem through a spotting scope, but I eagerly await 
the chance to test it out. 


As for camera choices, the type of subject, activity level of the subject, 
distance and lighting conditions are all a part of the puzzle. Then it simply 
takes practice and repetition to master the fine points. This IS, after all, 
more like an art form than an assembly line. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us



From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robin McLeod 

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:23 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix 
QL! 




Clay,

Will this form of phase-detect AF work with the small apertures forced upon us 
with digiscoping? (I am new to the game and am still struggling to decide which 
camera to get. For the time being I am experimenting with an old Canon P&S and 
a Nikon D3000) 


Cheers,

Robin


At 04:54 AM 8/24/2010, you wrote:


Hi all -



In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/



Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony / Minolta 
Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting. 




Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount body and the 
"traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV. 






Clay Taylor

TOS Life Member

Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX

clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
Subject: Re: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Robin McLeod <robinm AT hevanet.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:22:31 -0700




Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:32:25 -0400


Gene -

Would you like a mini copy of the USAF Resolution chart? Send me your mailing 
address, and I'll send you a couple. 


Clay

From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of smithgene69 

Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 10:09 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR



There are a couple of problems digiscoping with such a big camera, both major. 
First of all the weight. The D7 weighs 850 ounces, which means it must be 
support by a separate support, which is more weight and cost, plus adjustments. 
The lens speed is of no importance in digiscoping. The effective f number is 
the scope. A normal 80mm X 500mm scope is f 6.2. That is all you get. 


My new favorite digiscoping camera is the Lumix LX3. It weighs 265 grams and 
can hang on a scope support. That is 1/3rd the weight of the 7D. Image quality. 
Quite good. Look at the attached: 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EDigtLX21st0058750_L.jpg 


The second major problem with the large, full size sensor is that it would be 
very slow in comparison with a small sensor, like in the P6000. In digiscoping, 
the SAME bundle of light goes onto a small optical system as goes into a large, 
providing the aperture in the small system is big enough to accept the entire 
light cone.* Since the smaller system is more brightly lite, the camera 
responds accordingly. This is purely a matter of sensor size. Sensor 
efficiency, pixel placement, etc., etc, etc, does NOT have anything to do with 
it. Sure a large sensor may allow you an extra stop for a given grain size, but 
that is all. 


The difference in sensor size, and thus the speed difference is dramatic. Here 
is a small listing: 


Sensor Area Speed Difference
Full Frame (7D) 9.7 cm sq. 1.0 Normalized for FF
Nex 5 3.6 2.7 X
Micro 4/3 2.4 4.0 X
LX 3 and P6000 .51 19. X
FH1 .25 No major speed advantage

*In the chart I found that the FH1 aperture was apparently not big enough to 
accept all the light and thus did not show a major speed advantage even though 
the sensor is small. 


So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 4/3rds. 
I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to be about 
5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting conditions. 
My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I suspect 
there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. But, 
the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller sensors. 


The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 or 
20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the larger 
sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large sensor 
will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting conditions 
and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 


Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and the 
cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith 







Subject: New Sony camera - ghost of the old Canon Pellix QL!
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:54:44 -0400


Hi all -

In case you missed it, check out the newest Sony camera

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

Now, this is VERY interesting - fast AF, Electronic Viewfinder, Sony / Minolta 
Maxxum lenses, APS-C sensor, WICKED fast shooting. 


Curious that they now have both the NEX-5 short-focus lens mount body and the 
"traditional" style lens mount body, both with EV. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us






Subject: Re: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:25:45 -0000


IMO, the EPL-1 camera should have been set at around ISO 1000 if the LX3 is 
going to be set to ISO 200. That should yield approximately equivalent shutter 
speeds and similar noise levels. As it sits, the EPL-1 image may suffer do to 
camera vibration when there is no good reason for the lower shutter speeds to 
be used. 


The LX3 image is clearly noisier than the EPL-1 image. This would be even more 
obvious if there were a nice smooth blue sky in the background and some 
sharpening was applied. You can also see it in the stray fiber on the lower 
right. On the LX3 image, the fiber is breaking up a bit. But on the EPL- it is 
quite smooth and holds its integrity. This probably wouldn't be the case if you 
had equalized the ISOs appropriately. 


Secondly, based on your numbers, you shot the EPL-1 at a 1412mm equivalent 
focal length, but shot the LX3 at an 1194 equivalent focal length. Now maybe 
the actual focal images are framed nearly identically and the problem is that 
the indicate focal lengths are not accurate. When overlayed, we can see that 
the images are not quite equal in size. 


All that said, there is obvious chromatic aberration showing in the EPL-1 
image. That would seem to be a fault of either the 20mm lens, or due to a poor 
alignment of the eyepiece to the camera. If it is the lens, then the solution 
is theoretically simple. Get a better lens. Also, is this crop from the center 
of the image or is it from the sides? I don't see that kind of CA with my 
Konica 40mm. 


Assuming the EPl-1 rig had good alignment, what your test demonstrates is that 
the LX3 has a sharper lens at this relatively low digiscoping equivalent focal 
length. 


For future tests, I suggest adjusting the ISO on the larger sensor camera to 
get equivalent shutter speeds. That is precisely what a digiscoper should do in 
the field to compensate for the large f-number due to the larger sensor. When 
you do this, the two images should have pretty similar noise levels. The 
differences seen should come down to the optics used. If you had a GH1 instead 
of an EPL-1, the GH1 would probably show lower noise at ISO 1000 than the FX3 
at ISO 200. Also, the Panasonic bodies will correct for lateral chromatic 
aberrations from this lens. The Olympus bodies will not. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com


--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "smithgene69"  wrote:
>
> I did some more testing this afternoon to better define the quality and 
compare digiscoped shots under the same conditions with the Lumix LX3, Oly 
micro 4/3 EPL1, and the Lumix LH1. 

> Equal darkness frames were selected and are presented in the above order. The 
target was 78 feet away, in shade, and late afternoon light. Since I tested the 
Oly with the Pentax lens yesterday, I used the 20mm Pany 1.7 lens today. 14X 
manual focusing was used on the OLY, auto focus on the other cameras. Hyperion 
17mm eyepiece, 80ED x 600mm scope, pod. 

> 
> Please compare the image quality of the posted shots. No adjustments were 
made at all, just out of the box. 1/22 frame area is presented for each. These 
images would be HUGE full frame, about 30 inches across on my screen. 

> 
> 
> 
http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspLX38-230012601.jpg 

> 
> 
http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspEpl8-230081265.jpg 

> 
> 
http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspFH18-230093244.jpg 

> 
> OK have you examined them? Surprise, Surprise. I see the best image as that 
taken by the $119. FH1, next by the LX3 and the Oly seems last. In the speed 
evaluation the LX3 showed exactly 5 times the speed of the ELP1, and the FH1 
about mid way between. So, if these were taken under actual field conditions 
the LX3 would likely have better preserved the image quality since it has a 5 
to 1 speed advantage over the OLY and would be less subject to heat waves, 
subject and scope movement. 

> 
> Tomorrow I will try to re-do the same experiment with the Pentax lens on the 
EPL1 Oly. I did not expect the image quality results of today. Gene 

>






Subject: Digiscoping Image Quality and Speed Tests
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:53:22 -0000


I did some more testing this afternoon to better define the quality and compare 
digiscoped shots under the same conditions with the Lumix LX3, Oly micro 4/3 
EPL1, and the Lumix LH1. 

Equal darkness frames were selected and are presented in the above order. The 
target was 78 feet away, in shade, and late afternoon light. Since I tested the 
Oly with the Pentax lens yesterday, I used the 20mm Pany 1.7 lens today. 14X 
manual focusing was used on the OLY, auto focus on the other cameras. Hyperion 
17mm eyepiece, 80ED x 600mm scope, pod. 


Please compare the image quality of the posted shots. No adjustments were made 
at all, just out of the box. 1/22 frame area is presented for each. These 
images would be HUGE full frame, about 30 inches across on my screen. 




http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspLX38-230012601.jpg 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspEpl8-230081265.jpg 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EOwlspFH18-230093244.jpg 


OK have you examined them? Surprise, Surprise. I see the best image as that 
taken by the $119. FH1, next by the LX3 and the Oly seems last. In the speed 
evaluation the LX3 showed exactly 5 times the speed of the ELP1, and the FH1 
about mid way between. So, if these were taken under actual field conditions 
the LX3 would likely have better preserved the image quality since it has a 5 
to 1 speed advantage over the OLY and would be less subject to heat waves, 
subject and scope movement. 


Tomorrow I will try to re-do the same experiment with the Pentax lens on the 
EPL1 Oly. I did not expect the image quality results of today. Gene 








Subject: Re: kruger malheur scope
From: Francis Smith <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:46:28 -0400


On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Lehmen Keyes  wrote:

>
>
>   Thanks Lee,  The price is now $329. at Optics Planet.  I see the reveiws
> of their Bins is tops.  Does not look like the scope is out yet.  ??   This
> poor world wide economy has to be good for something??  When i was at BXXXX
> air tools we used to laugh at China tools, but not for long.   They soon ate
> everyones lunch in that area.    Gene
>







>    
>




Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:17:36 -0000


> Anybody else want to comment?

I haven't looked at the comparator, but I'll jump in anyway. Maybe I'll look at 
the comparator later tonight. 


1) The three stops in ISO difference is correct. However, the appropriate for 
most digiscoping comparisons should be 200 vs. 1600 or 100 vs. 800 to better 
match ISOs that would be more commonly used for digiscoping. 


2) Image size was larger for the 7D because the sensor has more pixels.

3) I consider it pointless to compare sharpness because I've yet to see any 
digiscoping rig that can match the sharpness of a compact with only its lens or 
a DSLR/EVIL with just a decent lens attached. Suffice to say that most cameras 
can easily outresolve what the the best typical digiscoping rigs can deliver at 
ranges above 1600mm equivalences. 


4) Comparing noise levels is the most legitmate thing you can do sans a 
digiscoping rig. But even here you must be careful because one camera's ISO 800 
might be over or underrated significantly. One think I like about the DxOMark 
test is that they give values at "actual" ISOs. 


5) But comparing noise from JPEGs is further confounded by things like 
different levels of sharpening and more or less aggressive noise reduction 
being applied by the camera. 


Review site tests are decent places to help a person decide which cameras might 
be good digiscoping candidates. But the final decision about what is or is not 
a good camera is decided in the field. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com

--- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, Clay Taylor  wrote:
>
> Hi -
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> OK, I went to the Comparator and looked at the LX3 at 800 ISO and the Canon 
7D (which was Len's original request) at ISO 6400. I clicked on each file at 
its full size image. The magnification of the 7D image is greater on my screen 
- looking at the circular ruler to the right of the beer bottle, the words 
"Proportional Scale" are 3 units wide on the LX3 and 4 units wide with the 7D. 
So, that's a 33% increase. 

> 
> Looking closely at the two images, the 7D shows FAR greater detail in the 
circular ruler's writing and fine lines than in the LX3 image. This is with a 
far higher ISO, and the 7D noise does not look as bad as on the LX3. 

> 
> Anybody else want to comment?
> 
> 
> Clay Taylor
> TOS Life Member
> Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
> clay.taylor AT ...
> 
> 
> 
> From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Francis Smith 

> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:52 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
> 
> 
> OK Clay,
> 
> Here is the Comparator, but I was not able to bring it up with the cameras 
selected. So, you have to select each camera, go to 800 still life, and then 
click on the resulting image to enlarge them. Thanks for your interest. Gene 

> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
>






Subject: kruger malheur scope
From: Lehmen Keyes <leekeyes AT yahoo.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT)


I recently ran across this scope and I've never heard of it before. It is 80mm 

and advertises it has a flourite APO objective(??????). Don't know if that 
means 

what I want it to mean or just is a misleading advertising ploy.  The 
headquarters are in Oregon but I think the manufacturing is in China.

The price is less than $400 which if it is a reasonably good scope, is pretty 
darn good.  I can't find any reviews but the company makes fairly high-rated 
binoculars at a reasonable price.

Any info will be highly appreciated,
Lee in WV



      




Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:12:14 -0400


Hi -

Thanks!

OK, I went to the Comparator and looked at the LX3 at 800 ISO and the Canon 7D 
(which was Len's original request) at ISO 6400. I clicked on each file at its 
full size image. The magnification of the 7D image is greater on my screen - 
looking at the circular ruler to the right of the beer bottle, the words 
"Proportional Scale" are 3 units wide on the LX3 and 4 units wide with the 7D. 
So, that's a 33% increase. 


Looking closely at the two images, the 7D shows FAR greater detail in the 
circular ruler's writing and fine lines than in the LX3 image. This is with a 
far higher ISO, and the 7D noise does not look as bad as on the LX3. 


Anybody else want to comment?


Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us



From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Francis Smith 

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:52 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR


OK Clay,

Here is the Comparator, but I was not able to bring it up with the cameras 
selected. So, you have to select each camera, go to 800 still life, and then 
click on the resulting image to enlarge them. Thanks for your interest. Gene 


http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM







Subject: Re: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Len Jellicoe <jellicoes AT shaw.ca>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:40:10 -0700


Very good advice Clay and Jay.  I will try to get to a camera shop  
next week and try a few lens out.  I will let you know if anything  
comes of it.
See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada



On 23-Aug-10, at 9:33 AM, Clay Taylor wrote:

>
> Len et al –
>
>
>
> Jay is spot-on with his lens recommendations.
>
>
>
> After successfully getting a lens + DCA combination that works well  
> behind the spotting scope eyepiece, the important thing when using  
> a full-sized D-SLR camera body like a Canon 7D or Nikon D300 for  
> digiscoping is getting that combination properly balanced atop the  
> tripod head.   Some sort of a balance rail is the necessary  
> solution, whether it is a commercially made one (the Swarovski  
> Optik Telescope Rail works nicely) or a home-brewed solution.
>
>
>
> Virtually ALL of the image quality difficulties that I see from D- 
> SLR digiscopers stem from image shake and inadequate shutter speeds  
> to combat that problem.   Balancing the scope + camera assembly  
> will give you at least two additional shutter speeds of confidence,  
> and starting your shooting at something like ISO 3200 will usually  
> solve the rest of the problems.   Unless you are a direct  
> descendant of Ansel Adams, I don’t want to hear about your need for  
> shooting every photo at ISO 200 – you have no photographic  
> reputation to maintain.  You really want well-exposed, sharp results.
>
>
>
> After you get a few shots into the camera’s memory, review them on  
> the LCD screen, looking critically at exposure and sharpness and  
> making changes if those are found to be lacking in quality.   Once  
> you have a few “keepers”, you can then choose to either bump UP the  
> magnification, or drop the ISO setting DOWN in order to get less- 
> noisy images.
>
>
>
> While the D-SLR Live-View Manual-Focus function can be very good  
> for accurately focusing on static subjects (birds roosting, on a  
> nest, preening, etc.) it is pretty useless for running, feeding,  
> and flying birds.   That’s where taking the time to practice  
> focusing while looking through the camera’s viewfinder (and thus  
> through the scope) pays off.   Yes, the view is dark, and it can be  
> tricky getting the correct focus.   However, if you practice it a  
> bit, you will suddenly discover that it becomes more routine and  
> less haphazard, and your image quality improves dramatically.
>
>
>
>
>
> Clay Taylor
>
> TOS Life Member
>
> Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
>
> clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com  
> [mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wturber
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:10 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
>
>
>
>
>
> Getting back to your original question, you'll want to look for a  
> high quality lens between 35mm and 50mm in focal length. The optics  
> should not be recessed deeply behind the filter threads. A legacy  
> non-AF is probably preferred for its more robust focusing helicles.  
> A lens where the iris seems to be more forward is generally better  
> than a lens where the iris seems to be more recessed. A 40mm  
> pancake of some sort is probably ideal. The lens does not have to  
> be fast at all. In fact fast lenses often are worse because the  
> larger optics result in the iris being further back. Generally  
> speaking you want a fairly compact lens design.
>
> It may be difficult to view using the optical finder except in very  
> good light since with a 40mm lens and the scope at 20x you will be  
> viewing at f/10 at best. Also, that only gives you a 1280mm  
> equivalent focal length. Most people are looking for 2000mm or  
> better equivalents. You'll be closer to f/16 at that magnification.
>
> So be prepared to use the camera's liveview mode not only in order  
> to get a nice clear view, but also to get accurate focus. The phase  
> detect AF of most DSLRs fail beyond f/5.6 or so. Though some high  
> end Canons can AF at f/8. It's a geometry thing, not a brightness  
> thing. So bright light is no real help.
>
> Jay Turberville
> www.jayandwanda.com
>
> > I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased
> > with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to
> > expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski DCA with various adapters
> > up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the
> > Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm
> > camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping
> > with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I
> > think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's
> > opinion would be appreciated.
> >
> > See you in the field
> > Len Jellicoe
> > Abbotsford, BC
> > Canada
> >
>
>
>
> 





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Len Jellicoe <jellicoes AT shaw.ca>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:37:49 -0700


Thanks again Phillipe.  I am going to keep your recommendations in mind.
See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada



On 23-Aug-10, at 9:57 AM, gliphi wrote:

>
> The adapter is made in a liquid detergent cap, thanks to recycling!
> To remove the vignetting, you can put an extension of 13 mm, but it  
> disappears in x30 zoom
> Here are some other tests
>
> - Homemade adapter
> - WEB4  : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE  
> + EOS 7D   >>> 50 m
> - WEB5  : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE  
> + EOS 7D  >>>13 m
> - WEB6 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE +  
> EOS 7D  >>>30 m
>
> Philippe
>
> From: Len Jellicoe
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:04 PM
> To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR
>
> Thankyou Phillipe- nice to see some examples.  I see there some  
> vignetting with the 50mm but very minimal.  Not sure what adapter  
> you used with the 50mm.
> See you in the field
> Len Jellicoe
> Abbotsford, BC
> Canada
>
>
>
> On 23-Aug-10, at 4:56 AM, gliphi wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Not technical comments, my English is too bad !
>>
>> Test at 50 m and cloudy weather -rough images
>>
>> WEB1 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II + EOS 7D
>> WEB2 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 + T2 + EOS 7D
>> WEB3 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  60 + T2 + EOS 7D
>>
>> Regards
>> Philippe
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Len Jellicoe" 
>> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 7:01 PM
>> To: 
>> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased
>> with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to
>> expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski D CA with various adapters
>> up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the
>> Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm
>> camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping
>> with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I
>> think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's
>> opinion would be appreciated.
>>
>> See you in the field
>> Len Jellicoe
>> Abbotsford, BC
>> Canada
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> <7D_4570.WEB1.JPG><7D_4573.WEB2.JPG><7D_4577.WEB3.JPG>
>
>
> 
> <50D_4588-WEB.JPG><7D_4597-WEB4.JPG><7D_4603-WEB5.JPG><7D_46116- 
> WEB6.JPG>





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "gliphi" <PHILIPPEGLINEL AT ORANGE.FR>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:57:11 +0200


The adapter is made in a liquid detergent cap, thanks to recycling!
To remove the vignetting, you can put an extension of 13 mm, but it disappears 
in x30 zoom 

Here are some other tests

- Homemade adapter
- WEB4 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE + EOS 7D >>> 
50 m 

- WEB5 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE + EOS 7D 
>>>13 m 

- WEB6 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II+ 13 mm TUBE + EOS 7D 
>>>30 m 


Philippe


From: Len Jellicoe 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:04 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR




Thankyou Phillipe- nice to see some examples. I see there some vignetting with 
the 50mm but very minimal. Not sure what adapter you used with the 50mm. 


See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada





On 23-Aug-10, at 4:56 AM, gliphi wrote:


    
  Hi

  Not technical comments, my English is too bad !

  Test at 50 m and cloudy weather -rough images 

  WEB1 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II + EOS 7D
  WEB2 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 + T2 + EOS 7D 
  WEB3 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  60 + T2 + EOS 7D 

  Regards
  Philippe
  --------------------------------------------------
  From: "Len Jellicoe" 
  Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 7:01 PM
  To: 
  Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR

  Hi

  I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased 
  with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to 
  expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski D CA with various adapters 
  up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the 
  Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm 
  camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping 
  with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I 
  think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's 
  opinion would be appreciated.

  See you in the field
  Len Jellicoe
  Abbotsford, BC
  Canada

  ------------------------------------ 

  <7D_4570.WEB1.JPG><7D_4573.WEB2.JPG><7D_4577.WEB3.JPG>








Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Francis Smith <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:52:05 -0400


OK Clay,

Here is the Comparator, but I was not able to bring it up with the cameras
selected.   So, you have to select each camera, go to 800 still life, and
then click on the resulting image to enlarge them.       Thanks for your
interest.    Gene

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM




Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:36:25 -0400


I'm sorry, Gene, but I do not have that link (the IR Comparator). Can you send 
it to me? I possibly did not see it on a previous e-mail. 


Clay

From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of smithgene69 

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:32 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR



Clay,
You mention ISO 800. If you examine the IR Comparitor and pull up the LX3 still 
life side by side to the G1 you will see that the image quality of the LX3 is 
sharper than the G1 at high magnification. Of course the LX3 has more grain, 
but I judge the overall image quality to be better than the G1. Gene 


>
> To my knowledge, the image quality of the typical P&S camera at speeds like 
ISO 800 cannot touch the image quality of a current top D-SLR shooting the same 
scene at ISO 3200 (two full f-stops up the scale). > 

> Clay Taylor
> TOS Life Member
> Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
> clay.taylor AT ...
>
>
>
> > >
> > So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 
4/3rds. I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to 
be about 5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting 
conditions. My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I 
suspect there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. 
But, the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller 
sensors. 

> >
> > The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 
or 20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the 
larger sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large 
sensor will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting 
conditions and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 

> >
> > Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and 
the cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith 

> >
>





Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:33:16 -0400


Len et al -

Jay is spot-on with his lens recommendations.

After successfully getting a lens + DCA combination that works well behind the 
spotting scope eyepiece, the important thing when using a full-sized D-SLR 
camera body like a Canon 7D or Nikon D300 for digiscoping is getting that 
combination properly balanced atop the tripod head. Some sort of a balance rail 
is the necessary solution, whether it is a commercially made one (the Swarovski 
Optik Telescope Rail works nicely) or a home-brewed solution. 


Virtually ALL of the image quality difficulties that I see from D-SLR 
digiscopers stem from image shake and inadequate shutter speeds to combat that 
problem. Balancing the scope + camera assembly will give you at least two 
additional shutter speeds of confidence, and starting your shooting at 
something like ISO 3200 will usually solve the rest of the problems. Unless you 
are a direct descendant of Ansel Adams, I don't want to hear about your need 
for shooting every photo at ISO 200 - you have no photographic reputation to 
maintain. You really want well-exposed, sharp results. 


After you get a few shots into the camera's memory, review them on the LCD 
screen, looking critically at exposure and sharpness and making changes if 
those are found to be lacking in quality. Once you have a few "keepers", you 
can then choose to either bump UP the magnification, or drop the ISO setting 
DOWN in order to get less-noisy images. 


While the D-SLR Live-View Manual-Focus function can be very good for accurately 
focusing on static subjects (birds roosting, on a nest, preening, etc.) it is 
pretty useless for running, feeding, and flying birds. That's where taking the 
time to practice focusing while looking through the camera's viewfinder (and 
thus through the scope) pays off. Yes, the view is dark, and it can be tricky 
getting the correct focus. However, if you practice it a bit, you will suddenly 
discover that it becomes more routine and less haphazard, and your image 
quality improves dramatically. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us







From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wturber 

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:10 PM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR



Getting back to your original question, you'll want to look for a high quality 
lens between 35mm and 50mm in focal length. The optics should not be recessed 
deeply behind the filter threads. A legacy non-AF is probably preferred for its 
more robust focusing helicles. A lens where the iris seems to be more forward 
is generally better than a lens where the iris seems to be more recessed. A 
40mm pancake of some sort is probably ideal. The lens does not have to be fast 
at all. In fact fast lenses often are worse because the larger optics result in 
the iris being further back. Generally speaking you want a fairly compact lens 
design. 


It may be difficult to view using the optical finder except in very good light 
since with a 40mm lens and the scope at 20x you will be viewing at f/10 at 
best. Also, that only gives you a 1280mm equivalent focal length. Most people 
are looking for 2000mm or better equivalents. You'll be closer to f/16 at that 
magnification. 


So be prepared to use the camera's liveview mode not only in order to get a 
nice clear view, but also to get accurate focus. The phase detect AF of most 
DSLRs fail beyond f/5.6 or so. Though some high end Canons can AF at f/8. It's 
a geometry thing, not a brightness thing. So bright light is no real help. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com

> I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased
> with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to
> expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski DCA with various adapters
> up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the
> Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm
> camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping
> with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I
> think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's
> opinion would be appreciated.
>
> See you in the field
> Len Jellicoe
> Abbotsford, BC
> Canada
>





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:31:37 -0000


Clay,
You mention ISO 800. If you examine the IR Comparitor and pull up the LX3 still 
life side by side to the G1 you will see that the image quality of the LX3 is 
sharper than the G1 at high magnification. Of course the LX3 has more grain, 
but I judge the overall image quality to be better than the G1. Gene 




 > 
> To my knowledge, the image quality of the typical P&S camera at speeds like 
ISO 800 cannot touch the image quality of a current top D-SLR shooting the same 
scene at ISO 3200 (two full f-stops up the scale). > 

> Clay Taylor
> TOS Life Member
> Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
> clay.taylor AT ...
> 
> 
> 
>  > >
> > So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 
4/3rds. I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to 
be about 5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting 
conditions. My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I 
suspect there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. 
But, the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller 
sensors. 

> >
> > The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 
or 20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the 
larger sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large 
sensor will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting 
conditions and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 

> >
> > Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and 
the cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith 

> >
>






Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:10:25 -0000


Getting back to your original question, you'll want to look for a high quality 
lens between 35mm and 50mm in focal length. The optics should not be recessed 
deeply behind the filter threads. A legacy non-AF is probably preferred for its 
more robust focusing helicles. A lens where the iris seems to be more forward 
is generally better than a lens where the iris seems to be more recessed. A 
40mm pancake of some sort is probably ideal. The lens does not have to be fast 
at all. In fact fast lenses often are worse because the larger optics result in 
the iris being further back. Generally speaking you want a fairly compact lens 
design. 


It may be difficult to view using the optical finder except in very good light 
since with a 40mm lens and the scope at 20x you will be viewing at f/10 at 
best. Also, that only gives you a 1280mm equivalent focal length. Most people 
are looking for 2000mm or better equivalents. You'll be closer to f/16 at that 
magnification. 


So be prepared to use the camera's liveview mode not only in order to get a 
nice clear view, but also to get accurate focus. The phase detect AF of most 
DSLRs fail beyond f/5.6 or so. Though some high end Canons can AF at f/8. It's 
a geometry thing, not a brightness thing. So bright light is no real help. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com



 
> I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased  
> with it.  I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to  
> expand my repitoire.  I have the Swarovski DCA with various  adapters  
> up to 52mm.  I think I have read here that digiscoping with the  
> Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm  
> camera lens.  Or was it a 20mm lens?  Is anyone out there digiscoping  
> with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend?  I  
> think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's  
> opinion would be appreciated.
> 
> See you in the field
> Len Jellicoe
> Abbotsford, BC
> Canada
>






Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Len Jellicoe <jellicoes AT shaw.ca>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:04:59 -0700


Thankyou Phillipe- nice to see some examples.  I see there some  
vignetting with the 50mm but very minimal.  Not sure what adapter you  
used with the 50mm.
See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada



On 23-Aug-10, at 4:56 AM, gliphi wrote:

> Hi
>
> Not technical comments, my English is too bad !
>
> Test at 50 m and cloudy weather -rough images
>
> WEB1 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II + EOS 7D
> WEB2 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 + T2 + EOS 7D
> WEB3 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  60 + T2 + EOS 7D
>
> Regards
> Philippe
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Len Jellicoe" 
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 7:01 PM
> To: 
> Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR
>
> Hi
>
> I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased
> with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to
> expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski DCA with various adapters
> up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the
> Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm
> camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping
> with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I
> think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's
> opinion would be appreciated.
>
> See you in the field
> Len Jellicoe
> Abbotsford, BC
> Canada
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 
> <7D_4570.WEB1.JPG><7D_4573.WEB2.JPG><7D_4577.WEB3.JPG>





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "gliphi" <PHILIPPEGLINEL AT ORANGE.FR>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:56:24 +0200


Hi

Not technical comments, my English is too bad !

Test at 50 m and cloudy weather -rough images 

WEB1 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 +50 mm 1.8 II + EOS 7D
WEB2 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  20 + T2 + EOS 7D 
WEB3 : LEICA APO 77 + ZOOM 20x60  AT  60 + T2 + EOS 7D 


Regards
Philippe
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Len Jellicoe" 
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 7:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with DSLR


Hi

I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased  
with it.  I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to  
expand my repitoire.  I have the Swarovski DCA with various  adapters  
up to 52mm.  I think I have read here that digiscoping with the  
Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm  
camera lens.  Or was it a 20mm lens?  Is anyone out there digiscoping  
with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend?  I  
think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's  
opinion would be appreciated.

See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada





------------------------------------ 




Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Len Jellicoe <jellicoes AT shaw.ca>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:36:43 -0700


Neil-would the Nikon lens fit on my Canon? I was hoping not to buy  
another adapter (TLS) but use the DCA I have now.
See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada



On 22-Aug-10, at 10:41 PM, Neil Fifer wrote:

> Len,
> I have seen excellent results with the 7D on the Swarovski
> TLS and I have used the Panasonic G1 with good results. I've found a
> 50 mm lens to be a bit much except at around 20x. I wouldn't want
> much more magnfication than 1600 - 2000 mm and 1600 mm is the
> preferred. I like a Nikon 24 or 28 mm lens which would work well
> with the zoom eyepiece .
> Neil.
>
> >Hi
> >
> >I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased
> >with it. I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to
> >expand my repitoire. I have the Swarovski DCA with various adapters
> >up to 52mm. I think I have read here that digiscoping with the
> >Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm
> >camera lens. Or was it a 20mm lens? Is anyone out there digiscoping
> >with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend? I
> >think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's
> >opinion would be appreciated.
> >
> >See you in the field
> >Len Jellicoe
> >Abbotsford, BC
> >Canada
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:59:05 -0000


> To my knowledge, the image quality of the typical P&S camera at speeds like 
ISO 800 cannot touch the image quality of a current top D-SLR shooting the same 
scene at ISO 3200 (two full f-stops up the scale). 


True, but a compact doesn't need to run at ISO 800 because they enjoy a much 
smaller f-number. They have a four or more stop advantage over a "full frame" 
DSLR. So if that camera is operating at ISO 3200, the compact only needs to 
match it at ISO 200. 



> Now, IF the camera companies were to apply the newer sensor properties to P&S 
sensors at "only" 6mp or 8mp in size (abandoning the megapixel-envy marketing 
strategy that has driven camera sales the past few years), that would certainly 
bring P&S cameras back into what I consider "the game". 


I don't have any modern compacts, so I can't test directly. But Neil seems to 
think his best low light camera is a compact. The compacts seem to be pretty 
clearly "in the game" to me. 


The last time I looked into this issue, it seemed like the best compact sensors 
had the highest efficiencies. The makers simply put more effort into the 
compacts because the compacts were more sensitivity challenged to begin with. 


The "pixel envy" game was not a game. It involved very serious R&D and per 
pixel performance often improved while the pixel size was reduced. Many review 
sites were wrongly critical of the trend to add more pixels to small sensors. 
The simple fact is that image quality and overall image quality continued to 
improve as more and more pixels were crammed onto the sensor. All too many 
review sites naively made comparisons on a "per pixel" basis and put forth 
arguments where they used poor techniques in resizing images (Dpreview.com) to 
support their assertions that image scaling didn't correctly compensate as they 
cried for lower pixel density. That said, a current look suggests that the 
optimal stopping point is around 10Mp for the compacts with 1/1.7" sized 
sensors. 


The sensor makers could afford to be less aggressive with the big sensors since 
they already had such obvious advantages. The small sensors also sold in much 
higher quantities. So R&D dollars were easier to amortize over much higher 
sales numbers. 


I thought that maybe that had now changed so I just visited the DxOmark web 
page to check. Optically, the LX3 sensor has just slightly less than a 3 stop 
advantage over the APS-C sized 7D sensor. And on a noise basis, the LX3 is ... 
drum roll please... almost exactly three stops worse than the 7D sensor. So its 
a wash. 


The Canon G11 (or Powershot S90) OTOH is consistently about 2/3s of a stop 
better than the LX3 and it is a slightly smaller sensor to boot. So it should 
be clearly superior for low light with nearly a full stop advantage over the 
Canon 7D when digiscoping at the same equivalent focal length. Of course both 
G11 and the S90 may still be crappy digiscoping cameras for other reasons. I 
don't know. 


So it looks like some small sensor cameras still have the overall technology 
advantage over larger sensors when it comes to ISO/noise performance even 
though the differences often tend to balance out with no advantage on either 
side. 

  
> Unless there is a stunning new sensor technology on the horizon for P&S-sized 
sensors that somehow cannot be applied to D-SLRs (and if so, why not?) it is 
now all about the speed of the processors that is the limiting factor in having 
an APS-C sized sensor that can handle huge chunks of image data at the speeds 
we need to allow stuff like buffer-less RAW files, Electronic Image 
Stabilization, and high-speed sequences at full resolution. 


Like I said, Neil pulls out a compact when the light is bad. Also, for folks 
like me where the light is good, such marginal differences in sensitivity are 
seldom relevant. In good light, the sensors are largely not relevant. And good 
tests tend to confirm the various experiences. 

 
> BTW - I was shocked and pleased to learn from the Instruction Manual of my 
Olympus E-P2 that when in video mode, the M4/3 sensor DOES in fact do 
electronic IS! That is REALLY cool, and I am amazed that Oly does not make more 
of that fact in their publicity. 


BTW, the GH1 has the best sensor noise performance of any of the m/3s or m4/3s 
cameras for any given actual sensitivity. It is nearly a match for the 
significantly larger 7D sensor and consistently underrates its indicated ISO in 
comparison. ISO 800 on the GH1 is actually the same as ISO 1600 on the 7D. The 
E-P2 lags the GH1 by about 2/3 stop in noise performance beyond ISO 800. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com








Subject: RE: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Clay Taylor <clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:38:12 -0400


All -

To further carry Jay's point, the newest D-SLR sensors have considerably 
extended their sensitivity / noise range up into territory that was unthinkable 
just a few years ago. The Nikon D300 / D3 cameras get insanely good image 
quality at ISO 3000+, and my little Pentax K-x ($540 retail with kit zoom) gets 
better results at ISO 3000 than my old K100D does at ISO 400 (only three years 
later in development). 


To my knowledge, the image quality of the typical P&S camera at speeds like ISO 
800 cannot touch the image quality of a current top D-SLR shooting the same 
scene at ISO 3200 (two full f-stops up the scale). Now, IF the camera companies 
were to apply the newer sensor properties to P&S sensors at "only" 6mp or 8mp 
in size (abandoning the megapixel-envy marketing strategy that has driven 
camera sales the past few years), that would certainly bring P&S cameras back 
into what I consider "the game". 


Unless there is a stunning new sensor technology on the horizon for P&S-sized 
sensors that somehow cannot be applied to D-SLRs (and if so, why not?) it is 
now all about the speed of the processors that is the limiting factor in having 
an APS-C sized sensor that can handle huge chunks of image data at the speeds 
we need to allow stuff like buffer-less RAW files, Electronic Image 
Stabilization, and high-speed sequences at full resolution. 


BTW - I was shocked and pleased to learn from the Instruction Manual of my 
Olympus E-P2 that when in video mode, the M4/3 sensor DOES in fact do 
electronic IS! That is REALLY cool, and I am amazed that Oly does not make more 
of that fact in their publicity. 



Clay Taylor
TOS Life Member
Calallen (Corpus Christi) TX
clay.taylor AT swarovskioptik.us



From: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wturber 

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:13 AM
To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Digiscoping with DSLR



The problem with your analysis below is that it is incomplete. Yes, the small 
sensor camera has a bit more than a four stop advantage optically because it 
operates at a shorter focal length to get the same "equivalent" focal length. 
Since the scope aperture does not change, that means the samll camera rig 
operates at a smaller (faster) f-number than a larger sensor based rig. But 
there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 


The smaller sensor has smaller pixels, so each pixel on the smaller camera 
(assuming about the same pixel count) collects photons over a much smaller 
area. It should be no surprise that the area is about 1/19th of the area that 
the larger sensor pixels use. So basically, each sensor pixel gets about the 
same amount of light regardless of the sensor size. That's why a modern full 
frame DSLR at ISO 800 (four stops) has about the same signal to noise ratio as 
a small sensor at ISO 100. What the small sensor gains in aperture, it loses in 
pixel size. 


If one camera is better or worse than another, it is pretty much independent of 
the sensor size. The advantage will be due to either better optics, better 
sensor technology, or better ergonomics/functional options. 


There was a time (especially when DSLRs were becoming less expensive) when some 
people advocated or were excited about the idea of using larger sensor DSLRs 
with the idea of capitalizing on the superior noise advantage of the larger 
sensor due to its larger sensor pixels. Of course, it didn't turn out that way. 
They didn't consider the aperture advantage of the smaller camera. Likewise, if 
you only consider the smaller camera's aperture advantage you make the same 
mistake. You must also consider the larger size sensor pixel that comes with 
the larger sensor. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com

> The second major problem with the large, full size sensor is that it would be 
very slow in comparison with a small sensor, like in the P6000. In digiscoping, 
the SAME bundle of light goes onto a small optical system as goes into a large, 
providing the aperture in the small system is big enough to accept the entire 
light cone.* Since the smaller system is more brightly lite, the camera 
responds accordingly. This is purely a matter of sensor size. Sensor 
efficiency, pixel placement, etc., etc, etc, does NOT have anything to do with 
it. Sure a large sensor may allow you an extra stop for a given grain size, but 
that is all. 

>
> The difference in sensor size, and thus the speed difference is dramatic. 
Here is a small listing: 

>
> Sensor Area Speed Difference
> Full Frame (7D) 9.7 cm sq. 1.0 Normalized for FF
> Nex 5 3.6 2.7 X
> Micro 4/3 2.4 4.0 X
> LX 3 and P6000 .51 19. X
> FH1 .25 No major speed advantage
>
> *In the chart I found that the FH1 aperture was apparently not big enough to 
accept all the light and thus did not show a major speed advantage even though 
the sensor is small. 

>
> So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 
4/3rds. I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to 
be about 5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting 
conditions. My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I 
suspect there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. 
But, the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller 
sensors. 

>
> The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 or 
20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the larger 
sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large sensor 
will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting conditions 
and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 

>
> Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and the 
cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith 

>





Subject: Re: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie
From: "Lou & Wes" <martay6 AT bellsouth.net>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:57:25 -0400


Nice picture!
Surplus Shed lenses are quite popular in the astronomy community... which lens 
was it? Any chance you can post a picture of your scope and your setup??? Nice 
to see someone making their own... having built several telescopes myself. 

Best~
Wes

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: smithgene69 
  To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:01 PM
 Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - 
newbie 



    


 Digiscoping is taking photos through the eyepiece of a telescope. It is not 
the use of a telephoto lens. Although others my differ, I think even an 
inexpensive P&S camera is better for digiscoping that an interchangeable lens 
camera. Sorry I just bought one. See my post today concerning the weight and 
speed advantages of a small sensor camera. Sounds to me like you are spending 
money but not making progress towards digiscoping. 


 If you want to keep costs from escalating, get a Lumix FH1 camera for $119. 
and perhaps an achromatic scope for a few hundred, although an 80mm ED lens 
would be ideal for perhaps $500. minimum. See the attached for a digiscoped 
image I took with my first home fabricated scope with a $10 achromat from 
Surplus Shed, at 30 feet: 

 
http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EMa15B0171543_M.jpg 


  Good Luck Gene 



  




Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:41:31 +0800


Len,
         I have seen excellent results with the 7D on the Swarovski 
TLS and I have used the Panasonic G1 with good results.  I've found a 
50 mm lens to be a bit much except at around 20x.  I wouldn't want 
much more magnfication than 1600 - 2000 mm and 1600 mm is the 
preferred.   I like a Nikon 24  or 28 mm lens which would work well 
with the zoom eyepiece .
Neil.

>Hi
>
>I have had my Canon 7D for a few months now and I am very pleased 
>with it.  I have been using a 300mm lens only and it is time to 
>expand my repitoire.  I have the Swarovski DCA with various  adapters 
>up to 52mm.  I think I have read here that digiscoping with the 
>Swarovski 80mm HD scope with 20-60x eyepiece is possible with a 50mm 
>camera lens.  Or was it a 20mm lens?  Is anyone out there digiscoping 
>with a rig like this and if so what camera lens do you recommend?  I 
>think Clay or Neil may have an answer for this but anyone else's 
>opinion would be appreciated.
>
>See you in the field
>Len Jellicoe
>Abbotsford, BC
>Canada
>
>
>
>





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "wturber" <jay AT studio522.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:12:48 -0000


The problem with your analysis below is that it is incomplete. Yes, the small 
sensor camera has a bit more than a four stop advantage optically because it 
operates at a shorter focal length to get the same "equivalent" focal length. 
Since the scope aperture does not change, that means the samll camera rig 
operates at a smaller (faster) f-number than a larger sensor based rig. But 
there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 


The smaller sensor has smaller pixels, so each pixel on the smaller camera 
(assuming about the same pixel count) collects photons over a much smaller 
area. It should be no surprise that the area is about 1/19th of the area that 
the larger sensor pixels use. So basically, each sensor pixel gets about the 
same amount of light regardless of the sensor size. That's why a modern full 
frame DSLR at ISO 800 (four stops) has about the same signal to noise ratio as 
a small sensor at ISO 100. What the small sensor gains in aperture, it loses in 
pixel size. 


If one camera is better or worse than another, it is pretty much independent of 
the sensor size. The advantage will be due to either better optics, better 
sensor technology, or better ergonomics/functional options. 


There was a time (especially when DSLRs were becoming less expensive) when some 
people advocated or were excited about the idea of using larger sensor DSLRs 
with the idea of capitalizing on the superior noise advantage of the larger 
sensor due to its larger sensor pixels. Of course, it didn't turn out that way. 
They didn't consider the aperture advantage of the smaller camera. Likewise, if 
you only consider the smaller camera's aperture advantage you make the same 
mistake. You must also consider the larger size sensor pixel that comes with 
the larger sensor. 


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com





> The second major problem with the large, full size sensor is that it would be 
very slow in comparison with a small sensor, like in the P6000. In digiscoping, 
the SAME bundle of light goes onto a small optical system as goes into a large, 
providing the aperture in the small system is big enough to accept the entire 
light cone.* Since the smaller system is more brightly lite, the camera 
responds accordingly. This is purely a matter of sensor size. Sensor 
efficiency, pixel placement, etc., etc, etc, does NOT have anything to do with 
it. Sure a large sensor may allow you an extra stop for a given grain size, but 
that is all. 

> 
> The difference in sensor size, and thus the speed difference is dramatic. 
Here is a small listing: 

> 
> 				Sensor Area		Speed Difference 
> 	Full Frame  (7D)	9.7 cm sq.		1.0  Normalized for FF		
> 	Nex 5			3.6			2.7 X
> 	Micro 4/3		2.4			4.0 X
> 	LX 3 and P6000	         .51		       19.  X	
> 	FH1 			  .25		 No major speed advantage
>     
> *In the chart I found that the FH1 aperture was apparently not big enough to 
accept all the light and thus did not show a major speed advantage even though 
the sensor is small. 

> 
> So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 
4/3rds. I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to 
be about 5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting 
conditions. My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I 
suspect there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. 
But, the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller 
sensors. 

> 
> The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 or 
20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the larger 
sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large sensor 
will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting conditions 
and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 

>    
> Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and the 
cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith 

>






Subject: Re: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: Len Jellicoe <jellicoes AT shaw.ca>

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:08:43 -0700


Thanks for your in depth reply Gene.  I still have my Cool-pix 8400  
for digiscoping but I was wondering if a DSRL would work since I have  
to get a new lens anyway..  I never thought of the weight problem.
See you in the field
Len Jellicoe
Abbotsford, BC
Canada



On 22-Aug-10, at 7:17 PM, smithgene69 wrote:

>
>
> Sorry the chart above fell apart. The major points were:
>
> The Micro 4/3 camera should have 4 X the speed of a Full Frame camera.
>
> The LX3 & P6000 should have 19 X speed advantage over the full frame.
>
> Gene
>
> 





Subject: Re: 3.5x telephoto - front lens attachment - newbie
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:01:44 -0000



 Digiscoping is taking photos through the eyepiece of a telescope. It is not 
the use of a telephoto lens. Although others my differ, I think even an 
inexpensive P&S camera is better for digiscoping that an interchangeable lens 
camera. Sorry I just bought one. See my post today concerning the weight and 
speed advantages of a small sensor camera. Sounds to me like you are spending 
money but not making progress towards digiscoping. 


If you want to keep costs from escalating, get a Lumix FH1 camera for $119. and 
perhaps an achromatic scope for a few hundred, although an 80mm ED lens would 
be ideal for perhaps $500. minimum. See the attached for a digiscoped image I 
took with my first home fabricated scope with a $10 achromat from Surplus Shed, 
at 30 feet: 


http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EMa15B0171543_M.jpg 


Good Luck   Gene  





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:17:07 -0000



 Sorry the chart above fell apart.  The major points were:

The Micro 4/3 camera should have 4 X the speed of a Full Frame camera.

The LX3 & P6000 should have 19 X speed advantage over the full frame.

Gene  





Subject: Re: Digiscoping with DSLR
From: "smithgene69" <smithhill1 AT gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:08:55 -0000


There are a couple of problems digiscoping with such a big camera, both major. 
First of all the weight. The D7 weighs 850 ounces, which means it must be 
support by a separate support, which is more weight and cost, plus adjustments. 
The lens speed is of no importance in digiscoping. The effective f number is 
the scope. A normal 80mm X 500mm scope is f 6.2. That is all you get. 


My new favorite digiscoping camera is the Lumix LX3. It weighs 265 grams and 
can hang on a scope support. That is 1/3rd the weight of the 7D. Image quality. 
Quite good. Look at the attached: 



http://www.PhotoShare.co.nz/PhotoShareGallery1/101684/109654/Q-EDigtLX21st0058750_L.jpg 


The second major problem with the large, full size sensor is that it would be 
very slow in comparison with a small sensor, like in the P6000. In digiscoping, 
the SAME bundle of light goes onto a small optical system as goes into a large, 
providing the aperture in the small system is big enough to accept the entire 
light cone.* Since the smaller system is more brightly lite, the camera 
responds accordingly. This is purely a matter of sensor size. Sensor 
efficiency, pixel placement, etc., etc, etc, does NOT have anything to do with 
it. Sure a large sensor may allow you an extra stop for a given grain size, but 
that is all. 


The difference in sensor size, and thus the speed difference is dramatic. Here 
is a small listing: 


				Sensor Area		Speed Difference 
	Full Frame  (7D)	9.7 cm sq.		1.0  Normalized for FF		
	Nex 5			3.6			2.7 X
	Micro 4/3		2.4			4.0 X
	LX 3 and P6000	         .51		       19.  X	
	FH1 			  .25		 No major speed advantage
    
*In the chart I found that the FH1 aperture was apparently not big enough to 
accept all the light and thus did not show a major speed advantage even though 
the sensor is small. 


So, how much is fact or theory? I have the FH1, LX3, and Oly EPL1 micro 4/3rds. 
I did some tests this afternoon. From you chart the LX3 is expected to be about 
5 times faster than the Micro 4/3rds system under the same lighting conditions. 
My tests showed it to be 8 times faster for the same image size. I suspect 
there was some minor mis-alignment in the optics. I will do more tests. But, 
the test does confirm there is a major speed advantage for smaller sensors. 


The smaller sensors are capable of decent images. I believe a speed of 10 or 
20X allows the smaller sensor camera to have a major advantage over the larger 
sensors, and will more than off set any minor image quality the large sensor 
will have under ideal conditions. Certainly under poor lighting conditions 
and/or distorting heat waves, subject or scope movement. 

   
Equipment used: 80mm ED X 600mm scope, Baader Hyperion 17mm eyepiece, and the 
cameras discussed. A 28mm f3.5 Pentax lens was used on the Oly. Gene Smith