Scope/Camera Combination

[Dave]

Hello all,

I would like to purchase a scope/camera combination and am looking for tips on what to purchase.

Where do you buy this kind of thing?
What is the price range?
Are there less expensive alternatives?
What do you use to photograph birds?

I already own a scope and would like to know if you have tried making adapters for a simple digital camera.

All comments are welcome!

DB

[Gord]

DB

I think most scopes now come with the option to purchase a camera mount for an SLR camera. You can buy them where ever you buy scopes. The scope I have does the option, but I doubt Id use the feature enough to make it worthwhile; especially since there is a cheap (not sure if it's cheaper than the camera mount though) and quick alternative.

When I want to take a pic of something in my scope I just hold up a small digital camera to it. Several of the shots I took in my post about the cackling geese ( www.bcbirding.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=identification&action=display&n=1&thread=860 ) were taken this way. Since I handheld it, the quality wasnt hot, but good enough for the purpose. Ive looked into this (it's called 'digiscoping') and found these fancy homemade mounts made of metal. It lines up the camera to the scope (essentially how the SLR camera would go). The quality of images taken in this method is nothing short of astonishing considering the small depth of field (basically 0) you get. I am experimenting with a medicine bottle to achieve similar results, although I would still have to hold the camera but at least I can press the camera firmly against the scope and remove a lot of motion. Will post my findings.

Myself, I use a SLR camera for photography, and use my scope for mostly observing birds. But, when a rarity is out of reach of the SLR, it's nice to have an option to get a picture, even if it isnt that hot. So maybe it would be worthwhile to buy the camera adaptor for your scope, especially if you dont have a point and shoot digital camera. Might come down to how much each costs, how easy it is to make your own mount, and the quality you are hoping for.

Jason will probably have more insight then I on this especially on prices and what's available.

[kastern]

Re Scopes and Cameras. I have, in the past used a Bushnell Scope with a camera adapter for my Pentex SLR camera. You can certainly get closer but not the quality I would like. I haven't touched the SLR camera since going digital. I am currently on my second digital and shopping around for a third. The camera I am using at the moment is a Konica Minolta Dimage Z3 with 12 times optical zoom and 4 megapixels. This model came out about a year ago and the newer model is 5 megapixels. I've been really happy with this camera and intend to keep it but also want a more serious camera with a lot more zoom. Am currently investigating Digital SLR's ....am also interested in the new Samsung Digimax Pro 815 with 15X optical and 8 megapixels and the Panasonic DMC-FX30S with 8 megapixels. Am trying to find the balance between enough zoom to get as close as I want as clearly as I want, and the flexibility of not always having to use a tripod as I do a lot of photography from a canoe and a tripod is out of the question. If you want to check out what sort of photos I get with the current camera, a lot of my photos are posted on the website www.fraservalleybaldeaglefestival.ca under 'Kathy's Korner'.

[Gord]

Kastern, I too am looking at digital. I was hardcore with film SLR but have played with digital SLR (Canon Rebel) and have been pretty impressed. I still am biased towards the quality and more vibrant colours I feel film does better, but being able to blast away 50 shots of one subject without worry about film developing is awesome. Digital is also nice to double check on the tricky exposures out there to make sure you got it right.


Nice shots there Kathy! I love the one of the pygmy owl! What a cutie (and what a little terror for the little birds!!).

I messed around with digiscoping today. I cut a tylenol bottle to slip over my scope's eyepiece to position my digital on it. I was very pleased that it worked!!! It made lining things up very easy, and if you held your breath, you could even leave it on there on timer to remove handshake. Since the weather was so brutal, I could not try it out very well outside. I tried a little bit inside the house for fun. Right away I can see this next to free accessory is going to be very handy. With it, you just slap the digital over it and it's ready to go. Before, it was a touchy and annoying process trying to line it up well enough to get something. I took two shots. The first one with the tylenol bottle, the second handheld...it took a good 20 excruciating seconds to get the second one. As we all know, a great deal can happen in a bird's life in 20 seconds, most often moving perches or flying away. The quality of the handheld is also brutal, although low light inside the house needed a slower shutter speed.

I will post some pictures once I get a decent day to try it out in the field.

www.digiscoping.co.uk/ is a site that talks about digiscoping and shows the kind of metal apparatuses you can get that works better than a medicine bottle. They show some not bad images done via digiscoping.

More links.

www.shortcourses.com/how/digiscoping/digiscoping.htm
www.digiscoped.com/Digiscopingindex.html

Myself, I would stick to cheap digiscoping for identification purposes and use my SLR for when wishing to obtain the 'beauty' shots.

[Gord]

Ok, did a test run in the rain of a flock of mew gulls about 100 yds out. I was very pleased with the results considering the low light level, the rain and a high ISO setting needed to get enough shutter speed. The image is grainy thanks to an ISO of 400 when I usually shoot at 50 or 100 ISO for sharpness.





The results, such as they are, would not have been possible without my little device. If I needed to document an interesting bird, it would be done very nicely. Im keen to try this out in better conditions should the sun show up and see what kind of quality levels can be achieved with this.

Here are some pictures of the homemade rig.

[Gord]

Ok, been doing some work on this contraption to create something to rest the camera on so it can be hands-free to eliminate hand shake and obtain sharper images such as the ones seen on the fancy digiscoping sites.

I found a piece of 1/8" thick aluminum they use for signs. I traced the outline of the camera and snipped it with tin snips about a half inch wider then the tracing. I then went to the duct tape and, to the wide-grinned delight of my wife (she's been closely following this project; probably, and understandably, for amusement purposes) taped the piece of aluminum to the tylenol bottle.



The result is mickey mouse in apperance, but it seems to work ok. Since the weather has been so brutal, I havnt had a chance to try it out beyond shots out the backyard of the neighbor's planters and some shots of the moon which Im pretty impressed with! They look pretty sharp. I used the 2 sec delay timer on the camera so my hands wouldnt be touching the camera when it took the picture. A remote would be most handy here!



As of now with the results of the moon shot, Im thinking pictures of stationary birds and wildlife such as a perched bald eagle would turn out nicely. So far, at the cost of one tylenol bottle, 10 feet of duct tape and the gentle teasing of my wife, this has been the most cheap and easy way to duplicate the professional setups that look fairly complicated to make with the need of welding tools that most people dont have easy access to (which is probably a good thing!).

Im excited to try it more. Will post my results as I get them. Too bad today was so nice but I was so busy.

[kastern]

When you use this combination, what setting are you using on your camera? I dug out the camera adapter I had for my SLR camera and thought I would give it a try just hand holding my camera against the adapter but I can't get my camera to take a picture. I tried manual setting, auto setting etc. and it just won't do anything.

[Gord]

Interesting problem! I use the automatic setting and, most often, the manual setting too. It fires without a problem.
At the moment, I can't see why your camera won't take a picture! Your camera looks higher end then mine even and shouldnt be fussy. I think some cameras wont take a picture unless the exposure is at least somewhat correct (but even in manual mode it still didnt work for you) so I dont know. My camera takes pictures of everything, even when in my pocket or with a finger over the lens.
Keep trying and Ill keep the issue in mind incase I think or hear of something. What kind of camera is it again?

[Gord]

Ok, some shots of birds finally.

Took these at Eagle Point. The lighting was dim, but worked out ok. The distance was about 50+ yds.








Finally in good light I went after the long-tailed duck. But, there was a challenge not found when taking pictures of stationary objects such as perched kingfishers and moons. The duck wasnt up more than 10 or so seconds at a time and was always diving and popping up in suprise locations. I had a very short time to get on target before the duck dove again (remember, I have my camera on 2 second timer so there is no shake from my hands when the picture is taken, a remote would be so handy!) How many shots do I have of half a duck or just ripples? Tons!! Also, since digiscoping has a very little depth-of-field, focus was very unforgiving and I just didnt have time to get the focus perfect. Out of about 30 shots, I got just this one. The rest were either out of focus or of water. The distance here was about 75 yds.



Im pleased with how this works and am excited to try it more. Maybe on a perched hawk in some nice light.

[tmanson]

I am at the very early stages of investigating the digiscoping scene as well, mostly because, on a couple of occasions, I have found rarities without any way of documenting the find. That's not to say that, if I find another one, I will have my scope and attachments with me!!
Anyway, for your information, there is a Yahoo Group dediated just to digiscoping, which, of course, you can join. More information than you can possibly want on digiscoping, but the solution you are looking for may also be found there, especially if you pose a question. Also, if you find that homemade adapters or eyepieces don't work, there is a company on line called Scopetronix that has a feature called the Wizard. You can type in the name of your scope and camera, and it will provide you with the adapters and eyepieces, ( which they sell of course ), that they guarantee will work with your set up. I apologize for naming a commericial company. I have no connection with them. I am just posting this information as a service to other birders.

Thor Manson
Hope, B.C.

[Gord]

Thor

Good information. None was taken as an advertisment or anything! Thanks for sharing. Might be interesting to see the price on a professionally made adapter.

[JeffOver]

Hi everyone. Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas. I'm thinking about getting a scope and just wondering what would be a good kind to get. Also, what's the cost about, and also the cost of a good camera (probably digital) to go with it (your tylenol bottle idea sounds pretty good)?

[JeffOver]

Hi everyone. Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas. I'm thinking about getting a scope and just wondering what would be a good kind to get. Also, what's the cost about, and also the cost of a good camera (probably digital) to go with it (your tylenol bottle idea sounds pretty good)?

[Gord]

Hey Jeff

I have a Celestron ED 80mm scope and am plenty happy with it. It's the higher end model of the Celestron and I only got it at a bargain or I wouldnt have it. I also have compared it with the 'regular' Celestron in 80mm and feel that the extra $600+ for the ED scope isnt really worth it.

I would try the Celestron scope in 80mm for a good scope for not a whack of money (about $350.00). Of course you can pay over $2000 for scopes. The Celestron also comes in 60mm and 100mm. Price is higher and lower depending on how many mm you are interested in.

If you want to digiscope, the camera doesnt need to go beyond $300. Nikon (CoolPix?) and Canon Sureshots work fine. You dont want a digital with too big (wide) of a lens, and you dont need high optical zoom either. I got a Sureshot for Christmas and it has 4x zoom. I wouldnt want to go more than that. My tylenol bottle will have to be modified for the new digital as the lens is longer when zoomed and it is difficult to zoom it to a specific zoom length less than 4x. It is a bit different every time unless you are lucky and hold down the zoom button the same amount of time each time you zoom it.

I want to find out how much a professional adaptor (tylenol bottle) costs. With this, the camera is more steady and can be swung out of the way for your eye instead of pulling the duct taped bottle contraption off and on all the time.

Will post more as I find it.

Good question and feel free to ask more as you go about your shopping!

[Gord]

Also, dont skimp on the Tripod, or at least get a good heavy one. Many tripods have wimpy legs that look like you can bend just by looking at them wrong. Im not up on what's out there for tripods, but look for one that's sturdy. Remember, it's holding up your scope and sometimes the digital camera as well. You dont want one that's moves around due to wind shake, adjustment knobs that dont tighten enough so the scope lowers or pans without your say so and so forth.

Also, check on the legs and their extension locks. Are they easy to lenghten and shorten? Are they difficult or awkward that taking it in and out of a car a few dozen times a day could end up to be very annoying?

Always easy to advise on what to get when it isnt your money. Get what you're happy with and what's in your means as well. I have dreams of what Id like, but what I have suits the purpose just fine and I can get out and do what I can with what I have.

Good luck and let us know what you're finding out.