Birdingonthe.Net Recent Postings from Digi-Scoping > Home > Mail > Alerts Updated on Sunday, May 11 at 08:10 PM ET The most recently received Mail is at the top.	White-fronted Goose,©David Sibley

12 May Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 [neilfif11 ] 11 May Re: adapters ["Ambrose Liao" ] 11 May Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 ["Jerry Eisner" ] 11 May Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 ["Anand Arya - GMail" ] 9 May Re: adapters ["Rick Phillips" ] 11 May Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 [neilfif11 ] 11 May Digiscoping with the D3 - 1 [neilfif11 ] 9 May Re: adapters ["Ambrose Liao" ] 09 May adapters ["bonniville650" ] 06 May Re: Re: New scope [bom ] 6 May Re: Re: New scope ["Ambrose Liao" ] 5 May Re: Re: New scope [Roy Halpin ] 6 May Re: Re: New scope ["Anand Arya - GMail" ] 05 May Re: New scope ["Karen" ] 03 May Re: Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? [Stephen Ingraham ] 3 May Re: Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? ["Scott Walker" ] 03 May Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? ["Jamie Chavez" ] 1 May Green Heron [] 30 Apr Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups [Larry VanWagoner ] 30 Apr Re: Canon A650 digital zoom test [Roy Halpin ] 30 Apr Canon A650 digital zoom test [Neil Fifer ] 30 Apr Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups ["Clay Taylor" ] 30 Apr Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups ["Ambrose Liao" ] 30 Apr Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups [Neil Fifer ] 30 Apr Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups ["namitzr" ] 29 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Chuck B ] 29 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["Scott Walker" ] 29 Apr Re: Sony DSC-W120 vs. Nikon Coolpix 5100 ["Clay Taylor" ] 29 Apr Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations [Neil Fifer ] 29 Apr Sony DSC-W120 vs. Nikon Coolpix 5100 ["Scott Olmstead" ] 29 Apr Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations ["Clay Taylor" ] 29 Apr Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations [Neil Fifer ] 29 Apr A570 IS with Nikon Action 10x50 Binocular for Beginner? ["CJ" ] 28 Apr Re: New Member ["Clay Taylor" ] 29 Apr Re: PF-CA35 + Barlow ["Stephen Lindquist" ] 28 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Tony Jeffree ] 28 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Rick ] 28 Apr New Member ["lehautdelarue" ] 28 Apr Re: PF-CA35 + Barlow ["rmelbourne66" ] 28 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Steve Sosensky ] 28 Apr Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups [Steve Sosensky ] 28 Apr Mama American Robin on Nest ["A.J. Morales" ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Roy Halpin ] 28 Apr Hummingbird ID Request ["Dick Wood" ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["Scott Walker" ] 28 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes [Chuck B ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["bstevent" ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["ovsiovitch" ] 28 Apr Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["Clay Taylor" ] 28 Apr Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups ["Clay Taylor" ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["Greg" ] 28 Apr Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes ["Cary Salter" ] Subject: Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 From: neilfif11 <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:10:31 +0800 Jerry, I used the Swarovski TLS - 800 eyepiece/adapter. http://www.opticsplanet.net/swtls80035ca.html This replaces the scope eyepiece and the camera lens so makes the whole setup more robust. It doesn't give the magnification though as with the D3 it's only an 800 mm/f11 lens. If you have a 1.5x crop in the camera then you would have a 1200 mm lens. I have the old version which is not as good as the new model so I'll have to save up for it. If anyone knows a cheaper deal on them let me know. The setup would work better with a lighter DSLR , like the Canon 400D, Pentax 10D or new Olympus E-420. Neil. >Excellent shots. >What camera lens and what eyepiece did you use? >Jerry Eisner > >On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Anand Arya - GMail ><anandswarooparya AT gmail.com> >wrote: > >Beautiful Neil. >Regards. > >Anand Arya > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: neilfif11 >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:35 AM >Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 > >Here is one of the photos taken with the new support bracket. >I used the LiveView function a lot this morning and it was very >useful. Only problem is that you can't use the Self-timer with it. >Neil. > >Nikon D3 plus Swarovski STS80HD scope and Swarovski TLS800 eyepiece adapter >Hong Kong, >China. >May 2008 > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550 AT N03/ > > > > > > Subject: Re: adapters From: "Ambrose Liao" <ambroseliao AT gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 10:10:02 -0400 Thanks Rick, I didn't know that. Ambrose On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Rick Phillips wrote: > Ambrose, > > The Discoverer has a built-in eyepiece. > > Rick > > > On 5/9/08, Ambrose Liao wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> You don't mention what eyepiece you have with your B&L? >> >> Ambrose >> >> >> On 5/9/08, bonniville650 wrote: >>> >>> hi >>> >>> i have a baush & lomb discoverer scope and would like to attach >>> either a nikon 995 or canon 300D camera can anyone recommend an >>> adapter please. >>> >>> thankls >>> >>> david >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> Please post bird photos to our other group >>> birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > Subject: Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 From: "Jerry Eisner" <jerry AT buckbay.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 07:09:51 -0700 Excellent shots.What camera lens and what eyepiece did you use?Jerry Eisner On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Anand Arya - GMail < anandswarooparya AT gmail.com> wrote: > Beautiful Neil. > Regards. > > Anand Arya > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* neilfif11 > *To:* digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:35 AM > *Subject:* [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 > > Here is one of the photos taken with the new support bracket. > I used the LiveView function a lot this morning and it was very > useful. Only problem is that you can't use the Self-timer with it. > Neil. > > Nikon D3 plus Swarovski STS80HD scope and Swarovski TLS800 eyepiece adapter > Hong Kong, > China. > May 2008 > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550 AT N03/ > > > Subject: Re: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 From: "Anand Arya - GMail" <anandswarooparya AT gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 17:44:05 +0530 Beautiful Neil. Regards. Anand Arya ----- Original Message ----- From: neilfif11 To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 Here is one of the photos taken with the new support bracket. I used the LiveView function a lot this morning and it was very useful. Only problem is that you can't use the Self-timer with it. Neil. Nikon D3 plus Swarovski STS80HD scope and Swarovski TLS800 eyepiece adapter Hong Kong, China. May 2008 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550 AT N03/ Subject: Re: adapters From: "Rick Phillips" <sunfish0501 AT gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 14:44:33 -0400 Ambrose, The Discoverer has a built-in eyepiece. Rick On 5/9/08, Ambrose Liao wrote: > > Hi David, > > You don't mention what eyepiece you have with your B&L? > > Ambrose > > > On 5/9/08, bonniville650 wrote: >> >> hi >> >> i have a baush & lomb discoverer scope and would like to attach >> either a nikon 995 or canon 300D camera can anyone recommend an >> adapter please. >> >> thankls >> >> david >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! >> Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > Subject: Digiscoping with the D3 - 2 From: neilfif11 <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 14:05:36 +0800 Here is one of the photos taken with the new support bracket. I used the LiveView function a lot this morning and it was very useful. Only problem is that you can't use the Self-timer with it. Neil. Nikon D3 plus Swarovski STS80HD scope and Swarovski TLS800 eyepiece adapter Hong Kong, China. May 2008 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550 AT N03/ Subject: Digiscoping with the D3 - 1 From: neilfif11 <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 14:02:55 +0800 I finally got my new support bracket from "my old photographer mate" in Sydney and with some adjustments ( Manfrotto sliding plate at the back ) I set out for the local park this morning in misty rain. I was using the Swarovski TLS800 (old version ) to connect the camera to the scope. Due to the low light levels the D3 was useful as I tested up to iso 25000 but was mostly shooting around iso 1600. The whole setup was very firm. Neil. Nikon D3 plus Swarovski STS80HD scope and Swarovski TLS800 eyepiece adapter Hong Kong, China. May 2008 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550 AT N03/ Subject: Re: adapters From: "Ambrose Liao" <ambroseliao AT gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 08:52:59 -0400 Hi David, You don't mention what eyepiece you have with your B&L? Ambrose On 5/9/08, bonniville650 wrote: > > hi > > i have a baush & lomb discoverer scope and would like to attach > either a nikon 995 or canon 300D camera can anyone recommend an > adapter please. > > thankls > > david > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! > Groups Links > > > > Subject: adapters From: "bonniville650" <bonniville650 AT yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 08:11:37 -0000 hi i have a baush & lomb discoverer scope and would like to attach either a nikon 995 or canon 300D camera can anyone recommend an adapter please. thankls david Subject: Re: Re: New scope From: bom <bomah AT eircom.net> Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 10:02:29 +0100 Anand No, nothing is missing. Carl's original message was posted March 17th. Karen just took a while to respond! bom Anand Arya - GMail wrote: > Didnot see any messages from Carl either in my mail box or on the group > on yahoo. > > Is anything missing ? > > Cheers. > > Anand Arya > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Karen > *To:* digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > > *Sent:* Monday, May 05, 2008 10:55 PM > *Subject:* [digiscopingbirds] Re: New scope > > Carl, I too recently purchased the Kowa 883 scope and LOVE it! I'm so > glad you posted what camera you use and also the attachments as this > answers the question that I was going to ask. > When I'm out birding I like to let people look through the scope and > one guy's reaction says it all..."Holy ****! This looks better than in > real life!!!" I still smile about that one and totally agree. > Karen > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 05/05/2008 17:11 Subject: Re: Re: New scope From: "Ambrose Liao" <ambroseliao AT gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 00:34:24 -0400 Gorgeous photos, Roy. Either with the Pentax K10 or the Nikon 8400. Beautiful, contrasty, saturated colors, and very sharp. Ambrose On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Roy Halpin wrote: > It is wonderful. What eyepiece do you like the best? My favorite is the > 25X LER. I just started trying the Pentax K10 DSLR with my Kowa gear. I am > a custom to my CP8400 so I have a bit of a learning curve. I have posted > some photos using that combo on my flickr site. If you are interested > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/7887345 AT N07/ > > Roy Halpin > Orlando Florida > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Karen > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 1:25:45 PM > Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: New scope > > Carl, I too recently purchased the Kowa 883 scope and LOVE it! I'm so > glad you posted what camera you use and also the attachments as this > answers the question that I was going to ask. > When I'm out birding I like to let people look through the scope and > one guy's reaction says it all..."Holy ****! This looks better than in > real life!!!" I still smile about that one and totally agree. > Karen > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! > Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------------ > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it > now. > > Subject: Re: Re: New scope From: Roy Halpin <royhalpin AT yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 19:31:33 -0700 (PDT) It is wonderful. What eyepiece do you like the best? My favorite is the 25X LER. I just started trying the Pentax K10 DSLR with my Kowa gear. I am a custom to my CP8400 so I have a bit of a learning curve. I have posted some photos using that combo on my flickr site. If you are interested http://www.flickr.com/photos/7887345 AT N07/ Roy Halpin Orlando Florida ----- Original Message ---- From: Karen To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 1:25:45 PM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: New scope Carl, I too recently purchased the Kowa 883 scope and LOVE it! I'm so glad you posted what camera you use and also the attachments as this answers the question that I was going to ask. When I'm out birding I like to let people look through the scope and one guy's reaction says it all..."Holy ****! This looks better than in real life!!!" I still smile about that one and totally agree. Karen ------------------------------------ Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Subject: Re: Re: New scope From: "Anand Arya - GMail" <anandswarooparya AT gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 05:47:02 +0530 Didnot see any messages from Carl either in my mail box or on the group on yahoo. Is anything missing ? Cheers. Anand Arya ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:55 PM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: New scope Carl, I too recently purchased the Kowa 883 scope and LOVE it! I'm so glad you posted what camera you use and also the attachments as this answers the question that I was going to ask. When I'm out birding I like to let people look through the scope and one guy's reaction says it all..."Holy ****! This looks better than in real life!!!" I still smile about that one and totally agree. Karen Subject: Re: New scope From: "Karen" <katschi1960 AT yahoo.ca> Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:25:45 -0000 Carl, I too recently purchased the Kowa 883 scope and LOVE it! I'm so glad you posted what camera you use and also the attachments as this answers the question that I was going to ask. When I'm out birding I like to let people look through the scope and one guy's reaction says it all..."Holy ****! This looks better than in real life!!!" I still smile about that one and totally agree. Karen Subject: Re: Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? From: Stephen Ingraham <sing AT zbirding.info> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 14:18:50 -0400 the official response from Zeiss on this is a tiny bit of vasoline. Steve Ingraham www.zbirding.info Scott Walker wrote: > Jamie > > The threads should have had a surface treatment like anodizing to prevent > this problem. You may want to return your system under warrantee. It is > possible that you have abused the scope with dirt in the threads that has > damaged the threads. You are the best judge. To answer your question I would > recommend using "Super Lube" on the threads. This is a synthetic based > grease with PTFE (Teflon like additive). It does not migrate like > silicone.DO NOT USE SILICONE!!!!!!!! For your application you would just > slightly "wet" the threads. Put a little on the threads and wipe most of it > off. Before you do this try to clear all of the dust out of the threads and > the area. I have used this lube on a set of aluminum threads that were > grinding themselves to pieces. It worked great, and only a slight "wetting" > was required. The "Super Lube" is said to be non-toxic, but may cause eye > and skin irritation. The website is super-lube.com. I am able to buy the > lube locally. The manufacture has told me that it has been used in optical > assemblies. Of course use at your own risk, but this is what I would do. > > Scott Walker > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jamie Chavez" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:35 AM > Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? > > > >> Maybe someone here can answer my question. I couldn't elicit a >> response from Zeiss directly. Here was my message to Zeiss: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> I have a question regarding my Zeiss Diascope 85T FL. Some time ago I >> purchased a Zeiss DSLR digiscoping adapter for my Canon DSLR camera. >> It works reasonably well. My question has to do with the thread on >> the scope body for screwing the adapter in place. I notice since the >> thread is very fine and it takes several turns to seat the adapter in >> place that there is a fine powder or dust that is emitted due to >> friction. I can see this as I screw the adapter on and off. Over time >> this dust accumulates on the inner glass surfaces- both on the >> adapter, and the exit pupil glass inside the scope. The thread >> appears very dry and no doubt contributes to the dust. Is there a >> particular type or approved lubricant that can be applied to the >> thread to prevent this dust from becoming airborne? I don't want to >> use something that is harmful to the glass surfaces by vapor or >> gassing over time. I appreciate your response. >> >> -------------------- >> >> Thanks for any suggestions, >> >> Jamie Chavez >> Santa Maria, CA >> www.sbcobirding.com >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Please post bird photos to our other group >> birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Subject: Re: Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? From: "Scott Walker" <sdwalker AT cox.net> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:01:16 -0700 Jamie The threads should have had a surface treatment like anodizing to prevent this problem. You may want to return your system under warrantee. It is possible that you have abused the scope with dirt in the threads that has damaged the threads. You are the best judge. To answer your question I would recommend using "Super Lube" on the threads. This is a synthetic based grease with PTFE (Teflon like additive). It does not migrate like silicone.DO NOT USE SILICONE!!!!!!!! For your application you would just slightly "wet" the threads. Put a little on the threads and wipe most of it off. Before you do this try to clear all of the dust out of the threads and the area. I have used this lube on a set of aluminum threads that were grinding themselves to pieces. It worked great, and only a slight "wetting" was required. The "Super Lube" is said to be non-toxic, but may cause eye and skin irritation. The website is super-lube.com. I am able to buy the lube locally. The manufacture has told me that it has been used in optical assemblies. Of course use at your own risk, but this is what I would do. Scott Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Chavez" To: Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:35 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? > Maybe someone here can answer my question. I couldn't elicit a > response from Zeiss directly. Here was my message to Zeiss: > > > Hello, > > I have a question regarding my Zeiss Diascope 85T FL. Some time ago I > purchased a Zeiss DSLR digiscoping adapter for my Canon DSLR camera. > It works reasonably well. My question has to do with the thread on > the scope body for screwing the adapter in place. I notice since the > thread is very fine and it takes several turns to seat the adapter in > place that there is a fine powder or dust that is emitted due to > friction. I can see this as I screw the adapter on and off. Over time > this dust accumulates on the inner glass surfaces- both on the > adapter, and the exit pupil glass inside the scope. The thread > appears very dry and no doubt contributes to the dust. Is there a > particular type or approved lubricant that can be applied to the > thread to prevent this dust from becoming airborne? I don't want to > use something that is harmful to the glass surfaces by vapor or > gassing over time. I appreciate your response. > > -------------------- > > Thanks for any suggestions, > > Jamie Chavez > Santa Maria, CA > www.sbcobirding.com > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group > birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Subject: Approved Thread Lubricant for Zeiss Diascope? From: "Jamie Chavez" <almiyi AT verizon.net> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 13:35:47 -0000 Maybe someone here can answer my question. I couldn't elicit a response from Zeiss directly. Here was my message to Zeiss: Hello, I have a question regarding my Zeiss Diascope 85T FL. Some time ago I purchased a Zeiss DSLR digiscoping adapter for my Canon DSLR camera. It works reasonably well. My question has to do with the thread on the scope body for screwing the adapter in place. I notice since the thread is very fine and it takes several turns to seat the adapter in place that there is a fine powder or dust that is emitted due to friction. I can see this as I screw the adapter on and off. Over time this dust accumulates on the inner glass surfaces- both on the adapter, and the exit pupil glass inside the scope. The thread appears very dry and no doubt contributes to the dust. Is there a particular type or approved lubricant that can be applied to the thread to prevent this dust from becoming airborne? I don't want to use something that is harmful to the glass surfaces by vapor or gassing over time. I appreciate your response. -------------------- Thanks for any suggestions, Jamie Chavez Santa Maria, CA www.sbcobirding.com Subject: Green Heron From: guido2007 AT sbcglobal.net Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:46:28 -0700 (PDT) You're invited to view my online photos at the Gallery. Enjoy! These were taken at the Little Eagle Creek, in Indianapolis Indiana, on May 1st 2008. This is my first attempt in the field with the Nikon ED 50 Field Scope, and a Coolpix P4. You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=4s4lfguo.65safyo0&x=0&h=1&y=-azktmb&localeid=en_US If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=4s4lfguo.65safyo0&x=0&h=1&y=-azktmb&localeid=en_US Subject: Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: Larry VanWagoner <lvanwago AT charter.net> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:13 -0400 Hello Russ: I have experience with a Leica APO Televid 77, 20-60x zoom eyepiece , Digital Adapter 2 and a Panasonic DMC-FX30k. The Leica C-Lux 2 and the Panasonic DMC-FX30 appear to be the same camera except for a small exterior design 'detail'. Both have Leica optics, and similar specs. The FX-30 is less expensive. $220 v.s. $499? Included software is different for each camera. The FX-30 fits in the Digital Adapter 2. The FX-30 does have a case design feature near the lens that causes it to raise up ~ 1/16" from fitting the adapter flush. This can be easily adjusted so as to be not a concern. This seems not to effect my photos. The extension of the camera lens upon turning the camera on, is easily accommodated by the adapter. The camera lens never touches the scope eyepiece. Vignetting can be completely eliminated by using the zoom feature. Please see attached photo of Trumpeter swans taken from ~200'. Focusing is my biggest concern. Keeping the LCD in shade while focusing seems to have the greatest positive effect on my photos. FX-30 does have boxes to tell you what are of the photo are in focus and three shot groups with one touch of the shutter release button. The FX-30 has a battery saving auto turn off feature that I haven't found a way to disable. This feature can be defeated by a touch to the shutter release button. Just annoying when you're trying to focus, and keep the bird in the frame. Every 10sec you have to touch the shutter release, whether you're ready to 'shot' or not. Larry VanWagoner Tawas Area High School Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Retired National City, MI  On Apr 30, 2008, at 12:45 AM, namitzr wrote: > Steve, Clay & Neil~ > > Thank you for your suggestions. I have a Leica APO Televid 77 scope > with a 20x-60x zoom eyepiece. With my old Nikon coolpix 4300, I had > a short metal tube attachment that screwed into the camera and fit > somewhat snugly inside the rubber cup of the eyepiece. Nothing was > physically attached. The snugness of the metal tube prevented the > camera from moving off-center of the field of view. The optical zoom > of 3X eliminated vignetting. I would like something similar. > > The bracket mounts sound like a hassle. The Leica (Digital Adapter > 2) looks pretty good as one can attach it to the camera, have it in > the pocket/bag and bring it out when needed. The price is a bit much > as I need to replace the camera as well. I like the Leica C-Lux 2 as > one does not have to adjust the adapter once it is on the scope > because the zoomed lens doesn't touch the glass. However, it sounds > like this is for Leica "purists" as there are other cameras that have > similar features for 1/2 the price. > > A friend of mine recently came back from a Field Guides tour where > the guide was using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1 with no adapter. I > haven't seen this camera, but would worry about touching the glass > with the camera lens. > > How is the Canon PowerShot S3 IS for digiscoping. It has > good "general" reviews. > > All comments welcome, > Russ Namitz > Coos Bay, OR > > PS: If I was giving a Secretive Marsh Bird Training this weekend, I > might drive up to Washington, Clay. :) > > > Subject: Re: Canon A650 digital zoom test From: Roy Halpin <royhalpin AT yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:13:50 -0700 (PDT) This is dynamic and very interesting. The thought of being able to use a 6X optical camera is exciting. Waiting for your results. Roy Halpin ----- Original Message ---- From: Neil Fifer To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:38:11 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Canon A650 digital zoom test As it's raining outside I thought I would explore the use of digital zoom in my Canon A650. As a test I shot a series of images using optical zoom only, 1.5x digital zoom, 2x digital zoom and full digital zoom. Here is a comparison image of the full optical zoom (6x or 210 mm ) and a full digital zoom (24x or 840 mm ). The optical zoom (6x) was cropped to be the same size as the digital zoom image. I ran Auto Levels and a mild Unsharp Mask over both images. I will do some real life testing next week using different eyepieces on birds. The reason for pursuing this line of questioning is the use of digital zoom to eliminate vignetting with a large range of eyepieces and the use of longer zoomed digicams for digiscoping. Neil. Paris, France, April 2008 ------------------------------------ Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Subject: Canon A650 digital zoom test From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:38:11 +0200 As it's raining outside I thought I would explore the use of digital zoom in my Canon A650. As a test I shot a series of images using optical zoom only, 1.5x digital zoom, 2x digital zoom and full digital zoom. Here is a comparison image of the full optical zoom (6x or 210 mm ) and a full digital zoom (24x or 840 mm ). The optical zoom (6x) was cropped to be the same size as the digital zoom image. I ran Auto Levels and a mild Unsharp Mask over both images. I will do some real life testing next week using different eyepieces on birds. The reason for pursuing this line of questioning is the use of digital zoom to eliminate vignetting with a large range of eyepieces and the use of longer zoomed digicams for digiscoping. Neil. Paris, France, April 2008 Subject: Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:59:42 -0400 Russ - The H3 has a big zoom. 'Nuff said. What was the tube you used with the 4300 - the Nikon UR-E4, or something you made up? In theory you could do the same with either the Canon A590 IS, the Nikon P5100, or the Sony DSC-W130. Do yourself a money favor - Panasonic makes the Leica cameras and Leica makes the lenses for the Panasonic cameras. You can figure it out. The Sony N-series cameras are excellent, and personally I love the touch screen feature, but the adapter is problematic. Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: namitzr To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:45 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups Steve, Clay & Neil~ Thank you for your suggestions. I have a Leica APO Televid 77 scope with a 20x-60x zoom eyepiece. With my old Nikon coolpix 4300, I had a short metal tube attachment that screwed into the camera and fit somewhat snugly inside the rubber cup of the eyepiece. Nothing was physically attached. The snugness of the metal tube prevented the camera from moving off-center of the field of view. The optical zoom of 3X eliminated vignetting. I would like something similar. The bracket mounts sound like a hassle. The Leica (Digital Adapter 2) looks pretty good as one can attach it to the camera, have it in the pocket/bag and bring it out when needed. The price is a bit much as I need to replace the camera as well. I like the Leica C-Lux 2 as one does not have to adjust the adapter once it is on the scope because the zoomed lens doesn't touch the glass. However, it sounds like this is for Leica "purists" as there are other cameras that have similar features for 1/2 the price. A friend of mine recently came back from a Field Guides tour where the guide was using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1 with no adapter. I haven't seen this camera, but would worry about touching the glass with the camera lens. How is the Canon PowerShot S3 IS for digiscoping. It has good "general" reviews. All comments welcome, Russ Namitz Coos Bay, OR PS: If I was giving a Secretive Marsh Bird Training this weekend, I might drive up to Washington, Clay. :) Subject: Re: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: "Ambrose Liao" <ambroseliao AT gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:32:43 -0400 Hi Russ, The S3 IS is not a good camera for digiscoping because of the 12x zoom. It will vignette very badly with most scope/eyepiece combinations. It's best to stay with lower zoom (3x-4x) zoom digicams for digiscoping. Ambrose On 4/30/08, namitzr wrote: > Steve, Clay & Neil~ > > Thank you for your suggestions. I have a Leica APO Televid 77 scope > with a 20x-60x zoom eyepiece. With my old Nikon coolpix 4300, I had > a short metal tube attachment that screwed into the camera and fit > somewhat snugly inside the rubber cup of the eyepiece. Nothing was > physically attached. The snugness of the metal tube prevented the > camera from moving off-center of the field of view. The optical zoom > of 3X eliminated vignetting. I would like something similar. > > The bracket mounts sound like a hassle. The Leica (Digital Adapter > 2) looks pretty good as one can attach it to the camera, have it in > the pocket/bag and bring it out when needed. The price is a bit much > as I need to replace the camera as well. I like the Leica C-Lux 2 as > one does not have to adjust the adapter once it is on the scope > because the zoomed lens doesn't touch the glass. However, it sounds > like this is for Leica "purists" as there are other cameras that have > similar features for 1/2 the price. > > A friend of mine recently came back from a Field Guides tour where > the guide was using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1 with no adapter. I > haven't seen this camera, but would worry about touching the glass > with the camera lens. > > How is the Canon PowerShot S3 IS for digiscoping. It has > good "general" reviews. > > All comments welcome, > Russ Namitz > Coos Bay, OR > > PS: If I was giving a Secretive Marsh Bird Training this weekend, I > might drive up to Washington, Clay. :) > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Subject: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:07:59 +0200 Russ, You could use your tube solution on the Nikon P5100, although the thread could be different. Have a look at the Canon A570/590IS . The 12x zoom of the S3 IS is too much for digiscoping with a normal 20x plus scope eyepiece. Neil. >Steve, Clay & Neil~ > >Thank you for your suggestions. I have a Leica APO Televid 77 scope >with a 20x-60x zoom eyepiece. With my old Nikon coolpix 4300, I had >a short metal tube attachment that screwed into the camera and fit >somewhat snugly inside the rubber cup of the eyepiece. Nothing was >physically attached. The snugness of the metal tube prevented the >camera from moving off-center of the field of view. The optical zoom >of 3X eliminated vignetting. I would like something similar. > >The bracket mounts sound like a hassle. The Leica (Digital Adapter >2) looks pretty good as one can attach it to the camera, have it in >the pocket/bag and bring it out when needed. The price is a bit much >as I need to replace the camera as well. I like the Leica C-Lux 2 as >one does not have to adjust the adapter once it is on the scope >because the zoomed lens doesn't touch the glass. However, it sounds >like this is for Leica "purists" as there are other cameras that have >similar features for 1/2 the price. > >A friend of mine recently came back from a Field Guides tour where >the guide was using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1 with no adapter. I >haven't seen this camera, but would worry about touching the glass >with the camera lens. > >How is the Canon PowerShot S3 IS for digiscoping. It has >good "general" reviews. > >All comments welcome, >Russ Namitz >Coos Bay, OR > >PS: If I was giving a Secretive Marsh Bird Training this weekend, I >might drive up to Washington, Clay. :) > Subject: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: "namitzr" <namitzr AT hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:45:38 -0000 Steve, Clay & Neil~ Thank you for your suggestions. I have a Leica APO Televid 77 scope with a 20x-60x zoom eyepiece. With my old Nikon coolpix 4300, I had a short metal tube attachment that screwed into the camera and fit somewhat snugly inside the rubber cup of the eyepiece. Nothing was physically attached. The snugness of the metal tube prevented the camera from moving off-center of the field of view. The optical zoom of 3X eliminated vignetting. I would like something similar. The bracket mounts sound like a hassle. The Leica (Digital Adapter 2) looks pretty good as one can attach it to the camera, have it in the pocket/bag and bring it out when needed. The price is a bit much as I need to replace the camera as well. I like the Leica C-Lux 2 as one does not have to adjust the adapter once it is on the scope because the zoomed lens doesn't touch the glass. However, it sounds like this is for Leica "purists" as there are other cameras that have similar features for 1/2 the price. A friend of mine recently came back from a Field Guides tour where the guide was using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1 with no adapter. I haven't seen this camera, but would worry about touching the glass with the camera lens. How is the Canon PowerShot S3 IS for digiscoping. It has good "general" reviews. All comments welcome, Russ Namitz Coos Bay, OR PS: If I was giving a Secretive Marsh Bird Training this weekend, I might drive up to Washington, Clay. :) Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Chuck B <braggjr02 AT verizon.net> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:32:31 -0700 Scott Walker wrote: > Resolution charts are often used to test scopes and are often thought to > provide a quantifiable measurement. They do, but one should not heavily > weight this measurement. For scopes of reasonably good quality the limiting > resolution will be determined by the magnification and the aperture of the > scope. Two scopes can have the same score on the resolution test but one > could have much better color correction and contrast. These parameters can > be quantified but not simply. > True. And in a *good* test, they would be. If scopes were tested like lenses are at places like www.photozon.de and www.photodo.com, we could lower the noise level from Cornell quite a bit. ======== Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA Membership, Newsletter, Web manager Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society www.smbas.org ======== Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "Scott Walker" <sdwalker AT cox.net> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:15:01 -0700 Resolution charts are often used to test scopes and are often thought to provide a quantifiable measurement. They do, but one should not heavily weight this measurement. For scopes of reasonably good quality the limiting resolution will be determined by the magnification and the aperture of the scope. Two scopes can have the same score on the resolution test but one could have much better color correction and contrast. These parameters can be quantified but not simply. Scott Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Sosensky" To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes > In 2005 at the Western Field Ornithologist Conference in Ashland > Oregon, we did a massive scope comparison. Clay (or was it Roy, who > worked for Swarovski then) put up a Swarovski resolution chart. We > aimed all the scopes at the chart and cranked the zooms up to 60x. > Scopes at the time included the Swarovski ATS/STS80 HD, the Kowa > TSN-824 with the old eyepiece, Zeiss Diascope FL 85, Leica Televid 77 > APO, the Nikon Fieldscope 82 ED, the Pentax PF80 ED, and several others. > > We did not collect data there either, only used our visual > impressions. Our test consisted of seeing how far down the resolution > chart each scope could go without the lines starting to merge. The > Swarovski was the winner, with the Kowa and Zeiss close behind. Leica > was next, and then there was a significant gap to the Nikon. Having > used the Fieldscopes for about a month I had been impressed with its > overall image quality in general use, so I was surprised at how far > behind it was when viewing the resolution chart. Yes, I know that the > zoom is 25-75x, and we tested both at 75x and 60x. The Fieldscope > just didn't measure up to the others. > > > > At 07:52 AM 4/28/2008, ovsiovitch wrote: >>When reading the review we do need to keep in mind that the rankings >>are based on the subjective opinions of the participants. Each >>reader's interpretation of the results will then be based on their >>own subjective views towards each individual scope. This is the >>same with any other product review. It may stand out more with this >>review because we are dealing with products that are on the market >>and owned by many of us. Thus, if you're happy with your Nikon >>Fieldscope, you may question why it ranked so low amongst the top of >>the line scopes (as an aside, I've noticed on another forum that >>there is a very loyal following amongst users of the Nikon Fieldscopes). > > > Good Viewing, > Steve Sosensky > Vice President > > www.Optics4Birding.com > 19 Hammond Suite 506 N 33.65926 > Irvine CA 92618 W 117.70305 > 877.OP4.BIRD (877.674.2473) Toll Free 818.522.5261 Cell > 949.360.OPTX (949.360.6789) Local > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please post bird photos to our other group > birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Subject: Re: Sony DSC-W120 vs. Nikon Coolpix 5100 From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:31:54 -0400 Hi Scott - The prospect of China for 7 weeks sounds fun! I would add in the Canon A590 IS into the mix, along with the Canon LA-DC52G accessory adapter. The DCA will screw right on with the 52mm ring. The A590 IS is the successor to the A570 IS, which got a great review on DP Review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/ - far better than other similar cameras scored. However, to me the BIG plus of this camera is that it takes AA batteries - either alkaline, lithium, or rechargeable NiMh. The Nikon and Sony cameras both take proprietary rechargeable batteries, and if you do not take backups, or lose them, lose the recharger, or can't get access to a power source during the trip, you are screwed. You can find AA batteries in all corners of the globe. The A590 IS should be available everywhere - I just saw it at Best Buy here in the States for $179! Unbelievable - the A570 IS was $269 when it came out. Good Luck, and have a great trip, Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Olmstead To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Sony DSC-W120 vs. Nikon Coolpix 5100 Hi all, My beloved Samsung Digimax V70 has finally frozen after over a year in the South American humidity. It's quite possible that I can get it repaired, but I am in a bit of a jam because I am leaving for a 7-week birding trip to China on Tuesday! So it appears I need to get a new camera ASAP. I'd pick up another V70 in a heartbeat, but only for the right price. (I'm currently bidding on one used on ebay.) I'm also not opposed to getting a different camera - the V70 did not last me very long in the super-humid conditions I regularly use it in and perhaps I could find something more robust. I will be in the US over this weekend so in theory anything sold there is in bounds. After the photo marketing show in February, Clay mentioned that the Sony DSC-W120 works "fine" with an adapter, and I'm interested in knowing more about how well this camera digiscopes. Can anyone give more information? I would love to see some results if anyone has anything to show. The price and weight of this camera are attractive to me. It sounds like the Nikon Coolpix 5100 is a good option as well - can anyone give info and/or show results for this camera too? It sounds like a whole lot of (too many?) megapixels! Any other options I should be aware of? I'm shooting through a Swarovski ATS65HD with 20-60x zoom eyepiece and DCA. I have about a day to figure this out because I will probably need to buy the related camera-specific adapter online and get it shipped. Thanks for any help you can provide me in this dilemma. Scott Olmstead Quito, Ecuador Subject: Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:41:55 +0200 Clay, Sounds like a good idea. I'll have a look at plumbers supplies and see if I can find something as the tape compresses after a while. Have a look at this guys images http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinooorita/ Neil. >Neil - > >I'm leaning toward making up an Adapter Sleeve like we have for the >old-style zoom eyepiece. It will probably be shaped PVC tubing >with a slit cut down the length so it will compress like the adapter >sleeve does. That would give the DCA total contact across the >entire barrel of the eyepiece. > >Now all I need is the time.... > >Clay Taylor >Moodus, CT >ctaylor AT att.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Neil Fifer >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:18 AM >Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations > >Clay, > Roy's got two extra screws tapped into his DCA collar which >makes it much firmer. I'm going to do the same with mine. The 20x >really needs it. >Neil. > > >>Hmmm....good point about the grip tape. Can it hold the camera >>firmly enough without allowing the DCA Base to wiggle? I might >>experiment with it next weekend in WA (my fixed eyepieces are right >>now on their way out there via UPS). >> > > >Yeah, herons and egrets are easy - too far away and heat shimmer >will kill the image quality, so heron shots taken at +50 yd / m are >usually for ID purposes only, so 1000mm works fine with them at < >100 ft. However, we both like to play with passerines in the >woods, and having 1600 - 1800mm makes things more interesting and a >lot more fun when photographing 6" long birds at 20 - 60 feet away. > > > >Clay Taylor >Moodus, CT >ctaylor AT att.net > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: neilfif11 > >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > >Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 8:59 AM > >Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations > > >Clay, > > You don't need more than 1000 mm when photographing >egrets/herons/ibis at places like Vierra.I shoot the 8400 on the >30x at 1100mm most of the time. It's nice to have more light too. I >think I would use the 20x and the 45x with the D3. My support >bracket should arrive this week so I will give it a go next weekend. > >All you need for the DCA Zoom is some tennis racket grip and just >wrap it around the eyepiece until the DCA collar will just slip over >it. > >Neil. > > > >>No. Honestly, I don't want to have to mess with the DCA-Fixed to >>get it to work right. I am contemplating fabricating an Adapter >>Sleeve to allow the DCA-Zoom to work on a fixed eyepiece, but >>haven't made the time to do so. >> > > > >Actually, if I were to try out using a fixed eyepiece with the >Pentax, the 30xSW would give me a final 36x, which might be more >useful. The 20xSW would give 24x, which is the same as using the >TLS 800. > > > > >Understanding the Math - > >Full Frame Sensor magnification: 50mm lens = 1x, thus 40mm Pentax = 0.8x > >Pentax D-SLR body sensor = 1.5x crop factor when compared to Full-Frame Sensor > >20x eyepiece = 1000mm > >30x eyepiece = 1500mm > > > > >Pentax body + TLS 800 = 1.5 x 800mm = 1200mm = 24x > >Pentax + 40mm lens + 20xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 20x = 24x > >Pentax + 40mm lens + 30xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 30x = 36x > > > > >Clay Taylor >Moodus, CT >ctaylor AT att.net > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: neilfif11 > >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > >Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:44 AM > >Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations > > >Clay, >Have you tried the 20x W with the DSLR? >Neil. > > > > Subject: Sony DSC-W120 vs. Nikon Coolpix 5100 From: "Scott Olmstead" <sparverius81 AT hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:04:59 -0000 Hi all, My beloved Samsung Digimax V70 has finally frozen after over a year in the South American humidity. It's quite possible that I can get it repaired, but I am in a bit of a jam because I am leaving for a 7-week birding trip to China on Tuesday! So it appears I need to get a new camera ASAP. I'd pick up another V70 in a heartbeat, but only for the right price. (I'm currently bidding on one used on ebay.) I'm also not opposed to getting a different camera - the V70 did not last me very long in the super-humid conditions I regularly use it in and perhaps I could find something more robust. I will be in the US over this weekend so in theory anything sold there is in bounds. After the photo marketing show in February, Clay mentioned that the Sony DSC-W120 works "fine" with an adapter, and I'm interested in knowing more about how well this camera digiscopes. Can anyone give more information? I would love to see some results if anyone has anything to show. The price and weight of this camera are attractive to me. It sounds like the Nikon Coolpix 5100 is a good option as well - can anyone give info and/or show results for this camera too? It sounds like a whole lot of (too many?) megapixels! Any other options I should be aware of? I'm shooting through a Swarovski ATS65HD with 20-60x zoom eyepiece and DCA. I have about a day to figure this out because I will probably need to buy the related camera-specific adapter online and get it shipped. Thanks for any help you can provide me in this dilemma. Scott Olmstead Quito, Ecuador Subject: Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:25:10 -0400 Neil - I'm leaning toward making up an Adapter Sleeve like we have for the old-style zoom eyepiece. It will probably be shaped PVC tubing with a slit cut down the length so it will compress like the adapter sleeve does. That would give the DCA total contact across the entire barrel of the eyepiece. Now all I need is the time.... Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Fifer To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations Clay, Roy's got two extra screws tapped into his DCA collar which makes it much firmer. I'm going to do the same with mine. The 20x really needs it. Neil. Hmmm....good point about the grip tape. Can it hold the camera firmly enough without allowing the DCA Base to wiggle? I might experiment with it next weekend in WA (my fixed eyepieces are right now on their way out there via UPS). Yeah, herons and egrets are easy - too far away and heat shimmer will kill the image quality, so heron shots taken at +50 yd / m are usually for ID purposes only, so 1000mm works fine with them at < 100 ft. However, we both like to play with passerines in the woods, and having 1600 - 1800mm makes things more interesting and a lot more fun when photographing 6" long birds at 20 - 60 feet away. Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: neilfif11 To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations Clay, You don't need more than 1000 mm when photographing egrets/herons/ibis at places like Vierra.I shoot the 8400 on the 30x at 1100mm most of the time. It's nice to have more light too. I think I would use the 20x and the 45x with the D3. My support bracket should arrive this week so I will give it a go next weekend. All you need for the DCA Zoom is some tennis racket grip and just wrap it around the eyepiece until the DCA collar will just slip over it. Neil. No. Honestly, I don't want to have to mess with the DCA-Fixed to get it to work right. I am contemplating fabricating an Adapter Sleeve to allow the DCA-Zoom to work on a fixed eyepiece, but haven't made the time to do so. Actually, if I were to try out using a fixed eyepiece with the Pentax, the 30xSW would give me a final 36x, which might be more useful. The 20xSW would give 24x, which is the same as using the TLS 800. Understanding the Math - Full Frame Sensor magnification: 50mm lens = 1x, thus 40mm Pentax = 0.8x Pentax D-SLR body sensor = 1.5x crop factor when compared to Full-Frame Sensor 20x eyepiece = 1000mm 30x eyepiece = 1500mm Pentax body + TLS 800 = 1.5 x 800mm = 1200mm = 24x Pentax + 40mm lens + 20xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 20x = 24x Pentax + 40mm lens + 30xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 30x = 36x Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: neilfif11 To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations Clay, Have you tried the 20x W with the DSLR? Neil. Subject: Re: Re: DSLR Recommendations From: Neil Fifer <neilfif11 AT yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:18:17 +0200 Clay, Roy's got two extra screws tapped into his DCA collar which makes it much firmer. I'm going to do the same with mine. The 20x really needs it. Neil. >Hmmm....good point about the grip tape. Can it hold the camera >firmly enough without allowing the DCA Base to wiggle? I might >experiment with it next weekend in WA (my fixed eyepieces are right >now on their way out there via UPS). > >Yeah, herons and egrets are easy - too far away and heat shimmer >will kill the image quality, so heron shots taken at +50 yd / m are >usually for ID purposes only, so 1000mm works fine with them at < >100 ft. However, we both like to play with passerines in the >woods, and having 1600 - 1800mm makes things more interesting and a >lot more fun when photographing 6" long birds at 20 - 60 feet away. > >Clay Taylor >Moodus, CT >ctaylor AT att.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: neilfif11 >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com >Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 8:59 AM >Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations > >Clay, > You don't need more than 1000 mm when photographing >egrets/herons/ibis at places like Vierra.I shoot the 8400 on the >30x at 1100mm most of the time. It's nice to have more light too. I >think I would use the 20x and the 45x with the D3. My support >bracket should arrive this week so I will give it a go next weekend. >All you need for the DCA Zoom is some tennis racket grip and just >wrap it around the eyepiece until the DCA collar will just slip over >it. >Neil. > > >>No. Honestly, I don't want to have to mess with the DCA-Fixed to >>get it to work right. I am contemplating fabricating an Adapter >>Sleeve to allow the DCA-Zoom to work on a fixed eyepiece, but >>haven't made the time to do so. >> > > >Actually, if I were to try out using a fixed eyepiece with the >Pentax, the 30xSW would give me a final 36x, which might be more >useful. The 20xSW would give 24x, which is the same as using the >TLS 800. > > > >Understanding the Math - > >Full Frame Sensor magnification: 50mm lens = 1x, thus 40mm Pentax = 0.8x > >Pentax D-SLR body sensor = 1.5x crop factor when compared to Full-Frame Sensor > >20x eyepiece = 1000mm > >30x eyepiece = 1500mm > > > >Pentax body + TLS 800 = 1.5 x 800mm = 1200mm = 24x > >Pentax + 40mm lens + 20xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 20x = 24x > >Pentax + 40mm lens + 30xSW = 1.5 x 0.8 x 30x = 36x > > > >Clay Taylor >Moodus, CT >ctaylor AT att.net > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: neilfif11 > >To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > >Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:44 AM > >Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Re: DSLR Recommendations > > >Clay, >Have you tried the 20x W with the DSLR? >Neil. > > > Subject: A570 IS with Nikon Action 10x50 Binocular for Beginner? From: "CJ" <cja2001 AT yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:43:15 -0000 As a bird lover and long-time amateur photographer, I'm interested in getting started with what one member called hand-held and "minimalist" digiscoping. That's not only for cost reasons, but also because I'm looking for something fun and easy… not professional. The Canon A570 IS was recommended to that member, but the thread did not go further to suggest what was next. I was already considering the Canon A570 IS and I need a set of binoculars, so, this is the direction I'm going: I have the A570 IS ordered and am looking at the Nikon Action 10x50 Binoculars. Is that a combination that can work?… and if so, what else do I need? Thanks so much for your advice. CJ Subject: Re: New Member From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:45:44 -0400 Hello New Member - Your DSC-H9 is a wonderful camera, but the 15x optical zoom makes it unsuitable for digiscoping. You can probably find an adapter that will attach it to a spotting scope, but the image will be severely vignetted, and the effort it takes to do that (both time and money) would be better spent in buying a second Sony like the DSC-W130 and Sony VAD-WE accessory adapter. That can be your "digiscoping camera", and the H9 can do all the other photographic jobs You can view the archives here for more information. You did not specify the spotting scope you are planning on using - that choice will determine your options for adapters that can attach the camera to the scope, as well as the overall picture quality you can attain with the setup. How much can you budget for the scope and adapter purchase? Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: lehautdelarue To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] New Member I have a Sony DSCH9 digital camera and am interested in adding a spotting scope to the camera. As this is my first venture into digiscoping (I am particularly keen on the photographic side) I have lookled at various options for a scope but would appreciate some independant advice as to which may be the most suitable with my camera, also how do I attach it to the scope. Many regards Subject: Re: PF-CA35 + Barlow From: "Stephen Lindquist" <stephen_lindquist AT newenglandbirdphotography.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:19:45 -0000 Hi Carl, I tried to use a Televue 2x barlow with my Swarovski 80mm but the way the scope is weather sealed prevents being able to place the barlow forward enough. The infinity focus was reduced to about 22 feet. The PF-CA35 is an eyepiece projection adapter. You can place a Pentax teleconverter (basically a barlow) between the PF-CA35 and the camera. I have tried this with my Swarovski eyepiece projection device and it works. This may cause some loss of image sharpness when compared with the PF-CA35 alone, and you may have better luck with a 1.4x teleconverter than with a 2x teleconverter. Stephen Lindquist --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Carl Clifford" wrote: > > Hi, > > I am thinking of trying a 2X Barlow lens with the pentax PF-CA35 > adaptor. The 'scopes I will be using are Pentax PF80 ED, Pentax > PF65EDII and Televue 60 mm. I would appreciate any comments from > anyone who has tried this type of combination. > > Also, has anyone tried using astronomical Field Flattener/Focal > Reducers in digiscoping. The focal reducers sound intersting with > their ability to reduce the f ratio. > > Cheers, > > Carl Clifford > Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Tony Jeffree <tony AT jeffree.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:09:23 +0100 To me, it just underlines the fact that you should never go just on the basis of reviews, however respected the reviewer. If you are going to find the right scope, then there's no substitute for handling the goods and peering through the eyepiece before buying, and preferably in an environment where you can compare side by side with other candidate scopes. I'm lucky in having a nearby 'scope/binocular dealer that is happy to let you compare whatever combinations he has to hand and take as much time as you need. Consequently, I have always come away from his establishment with something that actually fitted the need I had at the time. Regards, Tony At 15:59 28/04/2008, bstevent wrote: >I had a similar concern about the way Nikon scopes (and, presumably >the others) were >handled. > >It would appear that the ratings were based on a single combination >of scope and eyepiece >for each model tested. I use two eyepieces with my Fieldscope 82A ED >and I do leave my >glasses on. I almost always use a wide DS 30x eyepiece -- the eye >relief is fine and the view >is bright and clear. The 25-75x zoom is another matter -- it does >not provide good eyerelief >or nearly as bright an image. I'd criticize that eyepiece, not the scope. > >"orv lehman" wrote: > > > I wasn't impressed with the review. They also didn't include > how easy it is to focus. The >Nikon Fieldscopes would be way up there on that. Plus who wears >glasses while scoping? >They really slammed Nikon for eye relief but didn't include any specs. > > Orv Lehman > > > > >------------------------------------ > >Please post bird photos to our other group >birds-pix AT yahoogroups.com.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Rick <FHolbrook AT cableone.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:14:03 -0500 Chuck B wrote: > ovsiovitch wrote: > >> When reading the review we do need to keep in mind that the rankings >> are based on the subjective opinions of the participants. Each >> reader's interpretation of the results will then be based on their >> own subjective views towards each individual scope. This is the same >> with any other product review. >> > Sadly, no. A proper review would include objective criteria as well > as opinion and interpretation. Automobile reviews include wheelbase > numbers, tire sizes, acceleration measurements, etc., etc. Camera lens > reviews include resolution figures. Washing machine reviews include > water and energy consumption numbers. But this "review" is both narrow > in scope [g] and 100% opinion, and because it is published under the > banner of Cornell University it is going to be given an exalted status > way beyond its modest accomplishments. > Others have pointed out shortcomings even in the opinions. All of us > could get better information by going on one birding trip and asking > questions. The more I think about this review, the less I like it. > > > ======== > Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA > Membership, Newsletter, Web manager > Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society > www.smbas.org > ======== > > > I might add to you list (which is very good) check other review sites. Like: Alula -- Rick Fargo, ND N 46°53'251" W 096°48'279" Remember the USS Liberty http://www.ussliberty.org/ Subject: New Member From: "lehautdelarue" <john.layton AT wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:41:06 -0000 I have a Sony DSCH9 digital camera and am interested in adding a spotting scope to the camera. As this is my first venture into digiscoping (I am particularly keen on the photographic side) I have lookled at various options for a scope but would appreciate some independant advice as to which may be the most suitable with my camera, also how do I attach it to the scope. Many regards Subject: Re: PF-CA35 + Barlow From: "rmelbourne66" <rmelbourne66 AT yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:33:45 -0000 I tried using a eyepiece screw-in field flattener once, with my LOMO Astele 60 mak scope and 40mm eyepiece. The effect was like looking through a pinhole (wasn't used thereafter). Bear in mind as well that the field flattener may reduce eye relief, depending on where it is used. Rmel66 --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "Carl Clifford" wrote: > > Hi, > > I am thinking of trying a 2X Barlow lens with the pentax PF-CA35 > adaptor. The 'scopes I will be using are Pentax PF80 ED, Pentax > PF65EDII and Televue 60 mm. I would appreciate any comments from > anyone who has tried this type of combination. > > Also, has anyone tried using astronomical Field Flattener/Focal > Reducers in digiscoping. The focal reducers sound intersting with > their ability to reduce the f ratio. > > Cheers, > > Carl Clifford > Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Steve Sosensky <steve AT optics4birding.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:00:02 -0700 In 2005 at the Western Field Ornithologist Conference in Ashland Oregon, we did a massive scope comparison. Clay (or was it Roy, who worked for Swarovski then) put up a Swarovski resolution chart. We aimed all the scopes at the chart and cranked the zooms up to 60x. Scopes at the time included the Swarovski ATS/STS80 HD, the Kowa TSN-824 with the old eyepiece, Zeiss Diascope FL 85, Leica Televid 77 APO, the Nikon Fieldscope 82 ED, the Pentax PF80 ED, and several others. We did not collect data there either, only used our visual impressions. Our test consisted of seeing how far down the resolution chart each scope could go without the lines starting to merge. The Swarovski was the winner, with the Kowa and Zeiss close behind. Leica was next, and then there was a significant gap to the Nikon. Having used the Fieldscopes for about a month I had been impressed with its overall image quality in general use, so I was surprised at how far behind it was when viewing the resolution chart. Yes, I know that the zoom is 25-75x, and we tested both at 75x and 60x. The Fieldscope just didn't measure up to the others. At 07:52 AM 4/28/2008, ovsiovitch wrote: >When reading the review we do need to keep in mind that the rankings >are based on the subjective opinions of the participants. Each >reader's interpretation of the results will then be based on their >own subjective views towards each individual scope. This is the >same with any other product review. It may stand out more with this >review because we are dealing with products that are on the market >and owned by many of us. Thus, if you're happy with your Nikon >Fieldscope, you may question why it ranked so low amongst the top of >the line scopes (as an aside, I've noticed on another forum that >there is a very loyal following amongst users of the Nikon Fieldscopes). Good Viewing, Steve Sosensky Vice President www.Optics4Birding.com 19 Hammond Suite 506 N 33.65926 Irvine CA 92618 W 117.70305 877.OP4.BIRD (877.674.2473) Toll Free 818.522.5261 Cell 949.360.OPTX (949.360.6789) Local Subject: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: Steve Sosensky <steve AT optics4birding.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:07:18 -0700 Russ, It looks to me as if you are misstating your request and people are misinterpreting it. The way I read your request is that you want a camera with an adapter that does not replace the scope's eyepiece, and where you can attach the camera to the scope quickly. There are several ways to do this now, depending on what type of camera you want to use. For dSLRs, your options are Kowa TSN-DA1 (for older scopes) or TSN-DA10 (for the new 770s and 880s) and Swarovski DCA. Each of these brands have an adapter where part stays on the scope but does not impede the use of the eyepiece (even for zooms), and the other part stays on the camera. To use these, you simply slide part B over part A, turn a thumb screw, and start shooting. This method also applies to point-and-shoot cameras that can accept filter threads. For other point-and-shoot cameras, there are adapters from Alpen, Kowa, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Swarovski, and Zeiss that allow most p'n's cameras to adapt. The Leica works like the filter thread style adapters above except it clamps around the camera, and some cameras are too large to fit. The Kowa TSN-DA4, Pentax UA-1, and Swarovski DCB (-A for angled scopes, -S for straight) adapters attach to the scope and let the camera swing out of the way when not in use. Finally, there are adapters from Alpen, Kowa, Nikon, and Zeiss (most of these are called universal adapters) that attach between the scope and the tripod. Of these, the Alpen and Zeiss swing the camera out of the way, while the Kowa and Nikon brackets require you to move a bunch of parts, and are not very fast. The drawback of all the bracket style adapters, whether they swing away or not, is that whenever you have to change the battery or memory card in the camera, you have to realign the camera when you put it back on. For the optimum in speed and alignment accuracy, go with the Kowa or Swarovski filter thread adapters or the Leica clamp-type adapter (Digital Adapter 2). Of course, these only fit the scopes of the respective manufacturers. At 03:25 PM 4/27/2008, namitzr wrote: >I am looking for recommendations for a digital camera & adapter that >doesn't attach to the scope. I like the option of birding first and >digiscoping second with the option of switching quickly between the two. > >If you use a set-up like this, I would really appreciate your input. Good Viewing, Steve Sosensky Vice President www.Optics4Birding.com 19 Hammond Suite 506 N 33.65926 Irvine CA 92618 W 117.70305 877.OP4.BIRD (877.674.2473) Toll Free 818.522.5261 Cell 949.360.OPTX (949.360.6789) Local Subject: Mama American Robin on Nest From: "A.J. Morales" <ajmorales AT rocketmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Looks like we will have a family upbringing photo op this season! AJ Orion 127 Mak w/26mm 2" plossl eyepiece + Canon A610 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Roy Halpin <royhalpin AT yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:53:48 -0700 (PDT) After reading the posted comments about Ken Rosenberg article I have to say that Cornell blew a great opportunity. Where is the data? Without the data there is no science. There were no consistent testing data just opinion. Consistency is so important. What was the control? Our old Digiscope polls were more scientific that this. Cornell should not have published this with their name attached, it hurts the credibility of a wonderful scientific organization. Properly done Mr Rosenberg almost could have published a masters thesis with the gear he had assembled. If the data was too much for a 4 page article just do one thing well. Shot gun approaches do not appeal to me, they lead to just opinions. Opinions are like anal sphincters, everyone has one. Just my thoughts. Roy Halpin Orlando, Florida USA ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Subject: Hummingbird ID Request From: "Dick Wood" <rwood238 AT comcast.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:07:58 -0700 Good Tucson afternoon all. Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at my hummingbird photos. Cheers Dick Wood 4902 West Placita de los Vientos Tucson, AZ 85745 rwood238 AT comcast.net http://www.pbase.com/dickw0335 When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for -Helen Keller Searching for my ancestors: BIGSBY (BIXBY), BROPHY, CAVANAUGH, COLE, CONKLIN, COVENHAVEN, CRAMER, CUMMINGS, DAN(N), EVANS, GASTON, HIER (HYER), KEENAN, LITTLE, NILES, POTTER, SAUNDERS, SKINNER, SMITH, VAN HORN, VINCENT, WOOD Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "Scott Walker" <sdwalker AT cox.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:11:28 -0700 After a little more research I would expect that Cornell had both the 45 degree prism and the 60 degree mirror diagonal at there location. Which one they used for which scope is not clear. I would like to thank everyone that commented on the review. It is always good to hear a variety of opinions. Scott Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Walker To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes Clay here are a few comments: Thanks for pointing out that Swarovski uses Porro prisms. It looks like we both have made over statements about the type of prisms that are used in scoping scopes. A roof prism is being used in the Zeiss spotting scopes accounting to the website. Leica did use Porro prisms but in the soon to be released scopes are using a Schmidt (roof ) prism. Are you sure that Kowa uses Porro prisms? It is not clear from the cross section and is not stated from what I can see. The straight version does have an angle that looks like a Porro. I wonder if the 45degree could use a roof and the straight Porros. Pentax uses Porro prisms at least for the straight version. A 45 degree roof prism does not require a mirrored surface, so total internal reflection still is the case for it. Some designs use a mirrored surface but that is only to make the path become straight like in binoculars. I will check will Al of Televue this week about the type of diagonal sent, but since picture 14 on the Cornell website shows the 60 degree mirror diagonal on the Televue scope, I am fairly sure that the mirror diagonal was used. This diagonal does have a dielectric coating so has very little light lose. I agree with you that not having a correct left to right image is a disadvantage. Scott Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: Clay Taylor To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes Hello all - A few quick points - 1) Cornell has reviewed the Pentax 80mm scope in previous years, but I don't have the older reviews handy to see if their methodology is comparable. 2) I think that there needs to be some clarification about spotting scope prisms vs. astro scope prism diagonals - There is a decent article at http://sctscopes.net/SCT_Tips/Eyepieces/Diagonals/diagonals.html All the major spotting scopes (Swarovski, Kowa, etc.) use porro prisms in their optical designs. Porros feature 100% light transmission due to total internal reflection off all reflecting surfaces. Therefore, there is no need for phase correction coatings, enhanced silver mirrors, or interference reflection (dielectric) coatings as are needed in roof prisms. Porros are larger, heavier, and do not fold the light as much as a roof prism does, but that is less of a problem with a spotting scope as it is in a binocular. Astronomy telescopes in their basic form have no prisms whatsoever, and deliver an image that is both inverted (upside down) and reversed (writing is backwards). That's fine for stars and galaxies, not so good for following a flying gull. You then need a "diagonal" accessory to manipulate the image orientation. A 45-degree diagonal will give an image that is erect and correct. The Tele-Vue 60-degree diagonal gives an image that is erect but reversed, which is still annoying for birding (the Tele-Vue website includes a reference to a review by a pre-Zeiss Stephen Ingraham). Scott's comments about the diagonal choices are correct, but it remains to be seen which type the Cornell reviewers actually used. Whether the diagonal uses a single reflective surface or a roof prism, there will always be the need for one reflection using a mirrored surface. A basic sliver mirror reflects somewhere around 90% of the light that hits it, while "enhanced silver" mirrors give about 95 to 96% reflectivity. William Optics is evidently claiming an enhanced mirror that achieves 97%. The diagonals that offer a "dielectric coating" will reflect 99% of the incident light - this is similar to what Swarovski first introduced in the EL binoculars as "Swarobright" coatings. Also, the silver mirrors do not reflect the entire light spectrum with the same efficiency - the blue end of the spectrum suffers, while the dielectrics give very consistent performance across the spectrum. Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Walker To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes Though Chuck has some valid points, I was not turn-off as much as he was by the review. I would hope that others will read the article and decide its usefulness for themselves. I too was disappointed that the Pentax 80ED scope was not reviewed. I have this scope so it would be nice to know how it compared to others. I think Chuck was surprised at the low rating of the Pentax 65mm. In other reviews this scope has scored high mark. I have test two of these Pentax 65 scope, both were rather soft. One was test side by side to a Leica APO scope of similar aperture. The Leica was noticable better; therefore I see the Cornell rating of the 65 to be about right. One should also keep in mind that this and all other reviews I have seen are with respect to the visual performance of the scopes. When digiscoping the chromatic aberration of the scope is often more noticable, so scopes that perform about the same visually may produce different quality digiscoping images. There is likely a mistake in the Cornell article with respect to the Televue diagonal. Cornell stated this was a 45 degree prism diagonal. I believe Televue would have provided a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The performance with the standard Televue 45 degree diagonal would likely be poor because it is not phase coated and not color corrected. Figure 14 shows a Televue scope with a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The 60 degree diagonal produces nearly perfect image quality but presents an image that is flipped left-to-right. Most spotting scopes are now using phase coated roof prisms. These prism have improve greatly over the years, but still likely provide some image degrading compared to a single surface mirrored surface. The simpler diagonal is one likely reason for the slightly better image performance of the Televue 85 in the review. Scott Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck B To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes Scott Walker wrote: Here is a review of many spotting scopes that the group might find interesting. http://www.livingbird.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=272 Verrrry interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say. I find this review both mystifying and inadequate, in several ways. First, about Questar, which I own. They talk about technology passing it by, but let's face it, there is very little technology to be passed by in a mirror lens. The effect of HD glass is minimal in a mirror design. Therefore, one of things they should have done is test it (and the others) with different eyepieces. That's where the technology would make a difference. In addition, the ratings for the Q are at 20x and 60x, like all the others. There is no 20x. That would require an eyepiece of 64mm. No way they had one (does one even exist?). Therefore I assume they meant 40x which would be the native magnification with a the Brandon 32mm eyepiece. (BTW, having tested the Brandon eyepiece against the Maxview 40, and having found that the Maxview is much better in photography, and that the opinion here is that the Maxview is an indifferent quality eyepiece, confirms my feeling that eyepiece trouble is the main factor.) Finally, the image quality at "20x" (40x) and 60x is, respectively, 4.5 and 4.3. I call Bull. Whatever the quality at normal mag, it goes waaay down when you use the flip-up 1.5X teleconverter. Basically, it sucks so bad I never use it. (Of course, they might have changed eyepieces instead of using the teleconverter, but I doubt it and they don't say.) So, in conclusion, I would have to mistrust this report on any scope, based on what I know about one scope. Secondly, it is mystifying that only one Pentax even made the list, and didn't do so well at that. Other reviews have been much more kind. Perhaps it is, again, the eyepiece used. One very important missing item in this test is a description of the eyepieces used. Another is that only zooms were used (which the authors admit, but still, it reduces the value of this test to limit the choice of eyepieces). Thirdly, and most importantly, this is essentially a test of popularity, like a presidential election. There are no scientifically objective criteria at all. There are no resolution charts and there was no blind (let alone double-blind) testing. This I find absolutely incredible when a university puts its name behind it. Observer prejudice (hey, it's expensive so it must be better) is just one biasing factor that they did not eliminate. I also notice that the "Feel" category pretty much followed the overall ratings; the possibility exists that a 'harder-to-use' scope received lower image quality scores simply because it was harder to use. I have no objection to ergonomic ratings, but they must be separated from image quality, and without resolution charts, we just don't know if this separation was maintained. Overall, the worst effect of this review seems to me to be eliminating some scopes from consideration by buyers. I know a careful buyer will check out the top scopes and make a personal decision, but the Pentax line in particular has been slighted by this review. I wonder who else has been declared a non-starter by this article. Feh. Someone call Keith Olberman. -- Chuck ======== Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA Membership, Newsletter, Web manager Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society www.smbas.org ======== Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: Chuck B <braggjr02 AT verizon.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:33:17 -0700 ovsiovitch wrote: > When reading the review we do need to keep in mind that the rankings > are based on the subjective opinions of the participants. Each > reader's interpretation of the results will then be based on their > own subjective views towards each individual scope. This is the same > with any other product review. Sadly, no. A proper review would include objective criteria as well as opinion and interpretation. Automobile reviews include wheelbase numbers, tire sizes, acceleration measurements, etc., etc. Camera lens reviews include resolution figures. Washing machine reviews include water and energy consumption numbers. But this "review" is both narrow in scope [g] and 100% opinion, and because it is published under the banner of Cornell University it is going to be given an exalted status way beyond its modest accomplishments. Others have pointed out shortcomings even in the opinions. All of us could get better information by going on one birding trip and asking questions. The more I think about this review, the less I like it. ======== Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA Membership, Newsletter, Web manager Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society www.smbas.org ======== Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "bstevent" <bstevent AT mac.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:59:07 -0000 I had a similar concern about the way Nikon scopes (and, presumably the others) were handled. It would appear that the ratings were based on a single combination of scope and eyepiece for each model tested. I use two eyepieces with my Fieldscope 82A ED and I do leave my glasses on. I almost always use a wide DS 30x eyepiece -- the eye relief is fine and the view is bright and clear. The 25-75x zoom is another matter -- it does not provide good eyerelief or nearly as bright an image. I'd criticize that eyepiece, not the scope. "orv lehman" wrote: > I wasn't impressed with the review. They also didn't include how easy it is to focus. The Nikon Fieldscopes would be way up there on that. Plus who wears glasses while scoping? They really slammed Nikon for eye relief but didn't include any specs. > Orv Lehman Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "ovsiovitch" <ovsiovitch AT yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:52:36 -0000 Scott, You're correct that it is an interesting review, though some members of this forum seem highly critical. When reading the review we do need to keep in mind that the rankings are based on the subjective opinions of the participants. Each reader's interpretation of the results will then be based on their own subjective views towards each individual scope. This is the same with any other product review. It may stand out more with this review because we are dealing with products that are on the market and owned by many of us. Thus, if you're happy with your Nikon Fieldscope, you may question why it ranked so low amongst the top of the line scopes (as an aside, I've noticed on another forum that there is a very loyal following amongst users of the Nikon Fieldscopes). Some of the forum members were also disappointed that certain scopes were not included in the survey. Ken Rosenberg's article may provide an answer. The article mentions that they survey "models sent to us by scope manufacturers." The accompanying table also mentions that Wild Birds Unlimited at Sapsucker Woods also supplied some of the scopes. So, it's possible that the scopes that were reviewed was a product of manufacturer's choice (not also the reference to Leica in the article: "Leica was hesitant to send us their recently discontinued 77mm APO scope, because they are introducing a completely redesigned line of scopes next spring that promises to be very exciting, but they were not yet available for testing."). Maybe some of the members of this forum who are affiliated with one of the optics companies (or if there is a member of the forum affiliated with Living Bird) can provide greater insight. My apologies for my first post on this forum to be so long. It is an intersting review, and it does seem to provoke a reaction from a lot of people. Given the variety of scopes in one place, I would have found it more interesting if they also ranked the scopes on digiscoping capabilities. However, given that they were reviewing over 30 scopes, that was probably unrealistic. Jay Subject: Re: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:29:32 -0400 If you have an astigmatism, then you NEED to use the glasses while scoping. Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes Not sure why wearing glasses while scoping is unusual, I wear my glasses all the time. --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "orv lehman" wrote: > > I wasn't impressed with the review. They also didn't include how easy it is to focus. The Nikon Fieldscopes would be way up there on that. Plus who wears glasses while scoping? They really slammed Nikon for eye relief but didn't include any specs. > Orv Lehman > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jerry Eisner > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes > > > I have the TeleVue 76 -19% smaller than the 85 but a heck of a lot lighter. > This is the one I use for digiscoping. > A bird biologist friend has a Questar and we kid each other about which is better. > The combination of the the excellent quality lens on the TV, plus the availability of extremely high quality TV eyepieces, makes this the one he turns to when he wants a better view than the Questar can provide. > Disclosure - some of my digiscoped pix are on the TV website, without remuneration. www.birdscope.com > Jerry Eisner > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Scott Walker wrote: > > > Though Chuck has some valid points, I was not turn-off as much as he was by the review. I would hope that others will read the article and decide its usefulness for themselves. > > I too was disappointed that the Pentax 80ED scope was not reviewed. I have this scope so it would be nice to know how it compared to others. I think Chuck was surprised at the low rating of the Pentax 65mm. In other reviews this scope has scored high mark. I have test two of these Pentax 65 scope, both were rather soft. One was test side by side to a Leica APO scope of similar aperture. The Leica was noticable better; therefore I see the Cornell rating of the 65 to be about right. > > One should also keep in mind that this and all other reviews I have seen are with respect to the visual performance of the scopes. When digiscoping the chromatic aberration of the scope is often more noticable, so scopes that perform about the same visually may produce different quality digiscoping images. > > There is likely a mistake in the Cornell article with respect to the Televue diagonal. Cornell stated this was a 45 degree prism diagonal. I believe Televue would have provided a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The performance with the standard Televue 45 degree diagonal would likely be poor because it is not phase coated and not color corrected. Figure 14 shows a Televue scope with a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The 60 degree diagonal produces nearly perfect image quality but presents an image that is flipped left-to-right. Most spotting scopes are now using phase coated roof prisms. These prism have improve greatly over the years, but still likely provide some image degrading compared to a single surface mirrored surface. The simpler diagonal is one likely reason for the slightly better image performance of the Televue 85 in the review. > > Scott Walker > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chuck B > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:26 AM > Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes > > > Scott Walker wrote: > Here is a review of many spotting scopes that the group might find interesting. > > http://www.livingbird.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=272 > Verrrry interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say. I find this review both mystifying and inadequate, in several ways. > > First, about Questar, which I own. They talk about technology passing it by, but let's face it, there is very little technology to be passed by in a mirror lens. The effect of HD glass is minimal in a mirror design. Therefore, one of things they should have done is test it (and the others) with different eyepieces. That's where the technology would make a difference. In addition, the ratings for the Q are at 20x and 60x, like all the others. There is no 20x. That would require an eyepiece of 64mm. No way they had one (does one even exist?). Therefore I assume they meant 40x which would be the native magnification with a the Brandon 32mm eyepiece. (BTW, having tested the Brandon eyepiece against the Maxview 40, and having found that the Maxview is much better in photography, and that the opinion here is that the Maxview is an indifferent quality eyepiece, confirms my feeling that eyepiece trouble is the main factor.) Finally, the image quality at "20x" (40x) and 60x is, respectively, 4.5 and 4.3. I call Bull. Whatever the quality at normal mag, it goes waaay down when you use the flip-up 1.5X teleconverter. Basically, it sucks so bad I never use it. (Of course, they might have changed eyepieces instead of using the teleconverter, but I doubt it and they don't say.) > So, in conclusion, I would have to mistrust this report on any scope, based on what I know about one scope. > > Secondly, it is mystifying that only one Pentax even made the list, and didn't do so well at that. Other reviews have been much more kind. Perhaps it is, again, the eyepiece used. One very important missing item in this test is a description of the eyepieces used. Another is that only zooms were used (which the authors admit, but still, it reduces the value of this test to limit the choice of eyepieces). > > Thirdly, and most importantly, this is essentially a test of popularity, like a presidential election. There are no scientifically objective criteria at all. There are no resolution charts and there was no blind (let alone double-blind) testing. This I find absolutely incredible when a university puts its name behind it. Observer prejudice (hey, it's expensive so it must be better) is just one biasing factor that they did not eliminate. I also notice that the "Feel" category pretty much followed the overall ratings; the possibility exists that a 'harder-to-use' scope received lower image quality scores simply because it was harder to use. I have no objection to ergonomic ratings, but they must be separated from image quality, and without resolution charts, we just don't know if this separation was maintained. > > Overall, the worst effect of this review seems to me to be eliminating some scopes from consideration by buyers. I know a careful buyer will check out the top scopes and make a personal decision, but the Pentax line in particular has been slighted by this review. I wonder who else has been declared a non-starter by this article. > > Feh. Someone call Keith Olberman. > > -- Chuck > > ======== > Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA > Membership, Newsletter, Web manager > Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society > www.smbas.org > ======== > Subject: Re: Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups From: "Clay Taylor" <ctaylor AT att.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:28:21 -0400 Hi Russ - What type of scope do you have, with what eyepiece? As Neil said, depending on the camera's lens size and the inside diameter of the scope eyecup, you might have a few good choices available. There are quite a few Pentaxes and Olympuses (Olympi? Olympii?) that have favorable lenses for most zoom scope eyepieces, and each company has a waterproof model. The Canon Elphs (Elves?) are also usually scope-eyepiece-friendly, as are a couple of Sonys. In any case, your old CF cards will be useless for anything but poker chips, since all the current P&S cameras (except Sony) use SD cards. Not to worry, though, since a 1 gig SD card is selling for under $20 now. Amazing. I'll be at the Gray's Harbor Shorebird Festival in Hoquiem, WA this weekend doing digiscope demos. You could pop in and see what cameras / adapters work. Yeah, it's 387 miles from Coos Bay, but what the heck, it's only gas money... ;-) Clay Taylor Moodus, CT ctaylor AT att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: namitzr To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: [digiscopingbirds] Non-attachable camera to scope set-ups I recently had my Nikon Coolpix 4300 stolen so I am in the market to continue digiscoping. I am looking for recommendations for a digital camera & adapter that doesn't attach to the scope. I like the option of birding first and digiscoping second with the option of switching quickly between the two. If you use a set-up like this, I would really appreciate your input. Sincerely, Russ Namitz Coos Bay, OR Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "Greg" <skyman845 AT yahoo.ca> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:05:14 -0000 Not sure why wearing glasses while scoping is unusual, I wear my glasses all the time. --- In digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com, "orv lehman" wrote: > > I wasn't impressed with the review. They also didn't include how easy it is to focus. The Nikon Fieldscopes would be way up there on that. Plus who wears glasses while scoping? They really slammed Nikon for eye relief but didn't include any specs. > Orv Lehman > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jerry Eisner > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes > > > I have the TeleVue 76 -19% smaller than the 85 but a heck of a lot lighter. > This is the one I use for digiscoping. > A bird biologist friend has a Questar and we kid each other about which is better. > The combination of the the excellent quality lens on the TV, plus the availability of extremely high quality TV eyepieces, makes this the one he turns to when he wants a better view than the Questar can provide. > Disclosure - some of my digiscoped pix are on the TV website, without remuneration. www.birdscope.com > Jerry Eisner > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Scott Walker wrote: > > > Though Chuck has some valid points, I was not turn-off as much as he was by the review. I would hope that others will read the article and decide its usefulness for themselves. > > I too was disappointed that the Pentax 80ED scope was not reviewed. I have this scope so it would be nice to know how it compared to others. I think Chuck was surprised at the low rating of the Pentax 65mm. In other reviews this scope has scored high mark. I have test two of these Pentax 65 scope, both were rather soft. One was test side by side to a Leica APO scope of similar aperture. The Leica was noticable better; therefore I see the Cornell rating of the 65 to be about right. > > One should also keep in mind that this and all other reviews I have seen are with respect to the visual performance of the scopes. When digiscoping the chromatic aberration of the scope is often more noticable, so scopes that perform about the same visually may produce different quality digiscoping images. > > There is likely a mistake in the Cornell article with respect to the Televue diagonal. Cornell stated this was a 45 degree prism diagonal. I believe Televue would have provided a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The performance with the standard Televue 45 degree diagonal would likely be poor because it is not phase coated and not color corrected. Figure 14 shows a Televue scope with a 60 degree mirrored diagonal. The 60 degree diagonal produces nearly perfect image quality but presents an image that is flipped left-to-right. Most spotting scopes are now using phase coated roof prisms. These prism have improve greatly over the years, but still likely provide some image degrading compared to a single surface mirrored surface. The simpler diagonal is one likely reason for the slightly better image performance of the Televue 85 in the review. > > Scott Walker > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chuck B > To: digiscopingbirds AT yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:26 AM > Subject: Re: [digiscopingbirds] Cornell Review of spotting scopes > > > Scott Walker wrote: > Here is a review of many spotting scopes that the group might find interesting. > > http://www.livingbird.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=272 > Verrrry interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say. I find this review both mystifying and inadequate, in several ways. > > First, about Questar, which I own. They talk about technology passing it by, but let's face it, there is very little technology to be passed by in a mirror lens. The effect of HD glass is minimal in a mirror design. Therefore, one of things they should have done is test it (and the others) with different eyepieces. That's where the technology would make a difference. In addition, the ratings for the Q are at 20x and 60x, like all the others. There is no 20x. That would require an eyepiece of 64mm. No way they had one (does one even exist?). Therefore I assume they meant 40x which would be the native magnification with a the Brandon 32mm eyepiece. (BTW, having tested the Brandon eyepiece against the Maxview 40, and having found that the Maxview is much better in photography, and that the opinion here is that the Maxview is an indifferent quality eyepiece, confirms my feeling that eyepiece trouble is the main factor.) Finally, the image quality at "20x" (40x) and 60x is, respectively, 4.5 and 4.3. I call Bull. Whatever the quality at normal mag, it goes waaay down when you use the flip-up 1.5X teleconverter. Basically, it sucks so bad I never use it. (Of course, they might have changed eyepieces instead of using the teleconverter, but I doubt it and they don't say.) > So, in conclusion, I would have to mistrust this report on any scope, based on what I know about one scope. > > Secondly, it is mystifying that only one Pentax even made the list, and didn't do so well at that. Other reviews have been much more kind. Perhaps it is, again, the eyepiece used. One very important missing item in this test is a description of the eyepieces used. Another is that only zooms were used (which the authors admit, but still, it reduces the value of this test to limit the choice of eyepieces). > > Thirdly, and most importantly, this is essentially a test of popularity, like a presidential election. There are no scientifically objective criteria at all. There are no resolution charts and there was no blind (let alone double-blind) testing. This I find absolutely incredible when a university puts its name behind it. Observer prejudice (hey, it's expensive so it must be better) is just one biasing factor that they did not eliminate. I also notice that the "Feel" category pretty much followed the overall ratings; the possibility exists that a 'harder-to-use' scope received lower image quality scores simply because it was harder to use. I have no objection to ergonomic ratings, but they must be separated from image quality, and without resolution charts, we just don't know if this separation was maintained. > > Overall, the worst effect of this review seems to me to be eliminating some scopes from consideration by buyers. I know a careful buyer will check out the top scopes and make a personal decision, but the Pentax line in particular has been slighted by this review. I wonder who else has been declared a non-starter by this article. > > Feh. Someone call Keith Olberman. > > -- Chuck > > ======== > Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA > Membership, Newsletter, Web manager > Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society > www.smbas.org > ======== > Subject: Re: Cornell Review of spotting scopes From: "Cary Salter" <carylsalter AT bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:06:35 -0400 I wear glasses while 'scoping. And my TSN 883 works well with both my glasses and my Canon 870IS. Cary Salter