Digiscoping (1 Viewer)

[Bill Durden]

I have a EOS 40D W/100-400L IS. I`m finding that I don`t have the reach I need.

Been checking all the threads I could find. Still at a lost.

Want too use my EOS 40D. Now where to go from here. Don`t have $7 grand for a canon long len. Seen on another Forum a Skywatcher ED 80 pro. that will fit my 40D with attachmens. Any advice?

 

[Paul Corfield]

Hi Bill,

I'm using the Skywatcher Pro 80ED and just yesterday I posted a selection of images on my website for someone else and you can view them here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulcorfield/canon.htm

They were all taken with the Skywatcher scope apart from the 2 macros at the end.

Below I've also posted a photo showing an exploded view of all the parts I use. To get started all you would need is the scope, the Canon T-mount with 2" scope adapter and the 50mm long extension tube in 2" dia tube size.

Paul.

 

[Bill Durden]

Thanks so much Paul. That is a big help.

Can I buy this skywatcher ED 80 pro here in the States. If so , where?

Seen your photos, They are great. This is what I want to do.

Thanks again.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Thanks so much Paul. That is a big help.

Can I buy this skywatcher ED 80 pro here in the States. If so , where?

Seen your photos, They are great. This is what I want to do.

Thanks again.

Here in the UK it's still known as the Sky-Watcher Evostar Pro 80ED. In the USA it's just been revamped and given a new paint job and is now known as the Sky-Watcher 80ED Black Diamond. Best to google for the best price. It can also be found as the Orion 80ED or the Celestron Ultima 80ED or C80ED as it's sometimes written. All three are made by the exact same company which is Synta Optics.

Paul.

 

[Bill Durden]

Thanks Paul for the info. Will do a Google.

 

[kshea]

Bill,

I'm not sure if you're set on the Skywatcher but you may want to take a look at a Zeiss setup for your 40D. I use the 85mm Zeiss Diascope and their branded fotoadapter which connects directly to my Nikon D70 (not an adapter around my lens, but directly to the body of my camera).

Here is the photostream from someone who uses the setup I'm proposing with your camera.

http://flickr.com/photos/machadoromao/

~K

 

[Paul Corfield]

Bill,

I'm not sure if you're set on the Skywatcher but you may want to take a look at a Zeiss setup for your 40D. I use the 85mm Zeiss Diascope and their branded fotoadapter which connects directly to my Nikon D70 (not an adapter around my lens, but directly to the body of my camera).

Here is the photostream from someone who uses the setup I'm proposing with your camera.

http://flickr.com/photos/machadoromao/

~K

Why tie yourself down to one focal length (just 1000mm max on the Zeiss) when with an astro scope you easily reach 3X that and more. Optically the scopes are similar in performance for looking through and for photography and the Skywatcher is a fraction of the price. Edit - Actually, having looked at the images on Flickr at the biggest size I'd say the Skywatcher is easily superior. If you were spending big money then something like the TeleVue 85 would be a better bet, optically superior to the Zeiss and more versatile for photography.

Obviously if you already had the Zeiss then the photo adapter would be an option to consider but dslr photography is more suited to astro style scopes.

Paul.

 

[Bill Durden]

Thanks you guys. I`m leaning too the Skywatcher.

 

[stanacko]

Hi Paul,
Been following your thread with great interest, is that the Skywatcher advertised at Sherwoods for around £250, can,t believe the results it gets. what settings do you use on the Canon. Many thanks in advance.
Stan.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Hi Paul,
Been following your thread with great interest, is that the Skywatcher advertised at Sherwoods for around £250, can,t believe the results it gets. what settings do you use on the Canon. Many thanks in advance.
Stan.

Should be the same one, it's gold and white and advertised as SKYWATCHER EVOSTAR-80 ED PRO TELESCOPE OTA. I think it's even cheaper now, around £235 for the scope on its own which is a great price. The thing with the Sky-Watcher is that overall build quality is lower in return for excellent optics. Saying that, the build quality is pefectly adequate, it's functional and does it's job. You can spend more on better names for maybe double the price but generally it's the build quality that's greatly improved at the sacrifice of the optics. That was my opinion from owning a William Optics scope before getting the Sky-Watcher. The next step after the Sky-Watcher would be to make the jump to the £1000+ bracket or build your own with a true apo triple lens assembly.

The settings I use on the Canon are basically full manual mode and usually spot metering.

To see photos from another photographer using this scope see
http://fernandobatista.smugmug.com/gallery/3540865_6D86H#211104996_SETUP

Paul.

 

[Paul Hackett]

"Why tie yourself down to one focal length (just 1000mm max on the Zeiss) when with an astro scope you easily reach 3X that and more"

As we all know Paul, having great distance only gives rise to less detail and more chance of heat and haze inbetween you and the subject

"Optically the scopes are similar in performance for looking through and for photography"

Are you seriously saying that opticallly they are similar? have you used a Zeiss scope? this sounds a little generalised to me, could you possibly tell me the points that you feel they are optically similar on? i am intrigued based on like for like eyepieces with similar magnifications.

"and the Skywatcher is a fraction of the price"

Totally agree but is the skywatcher waterproof and can stand knocks in real situations plus does it have the points mentioned above?

"Edit - Actually, having looked at the images on Flickr at the biggest size I'd say the Skywatcher is easily superior"

You need to look further afield in Flickr Paul, there are a number of Digscopers in our community using a DSLR, T mount, photo adapter with a bird spotting scope, OR ,a DSLR, 50mm lens attached to a zoom eyepiece to a spotting scope, Roy Halpin from Florida, our own Neil Fifer, Stephen Ingraham from Zeiss USA, Sparky Fascia from Portugal, Adolpho Marpeth from Spain, all these people including myself are using one of the above, i feel that our level of quality matches the pictures that you are producing with your astro scope.

See my Kingfisher pics attached, full size no cropping, distance under 10 yards, Zeiss 85 Diascope, Zeiss photo adapter, Sony ALpha A350 DSLR, one is unenhanced and one enhanced, with some levels and some sharpening. I am also including some flight shots taken in Spain with a Pentax K10D DSLR, Pentax 40mm pancake lens, Zeiss 85 scope and Zeiss zoom eyepiece, at around 80 - 120 yards distance, they have been cropped and enhanced.

"Obviously if you already had the Zeiss then the photo adapter would be an option to consider but dslr photography is more suited to astro style scopes"

Again i tend not to agree with you, i think all three styles are suitable, its purely down to your preference, the person taking the pics, the cost you are prepared to pay, and the most important one for me, the ability to focus.

Paul, my point is that other methods do work and work well, and to show that there are other alternatives to astro scopes.

Paul

 

[Paul Corfield]

Are you seriously saying that opticallly they are similar? have you used a Zeiss scope? this sounds a little generalised to me, could you possibly tell me the points that you feel they are optically similar on? i am intrigued based on like for like eyepieces with similar magnifications.

"and the Skywatcher is a fraction of the price"

Totally agree but is the skywatcher waterproof and can stand knocks in real situations plus does it have the points mentioned above?

How can you say that optically they aren't similar. I have read quotes from people who have looked through both side by side and said the difference was virtually nothing, certainly not to justify the price difference. Spotting scopes are vastly over priced (paying for the name) compared to astro scopes that perform just as well. I personally haven't looked through the Zeiss but I have looked through spotting scopes costing more than 3X the price of mine and they haven't performed better and that's the truth. Plus you can see from the quality of the photos that the optics are good in the astro scope. I'm not biased one way or the other and I'm not loyal to one brand or the other, my only quest with digiscoping is to get the best performance for the least outlay. There is no need to spend well over £1000 when you can do it for £250 and get the same or better results, that's all I'm trying to get across.

I have dropped my scope off the top of the tripod before so I know it will take a knock but it's not something I plan to do all the time. The scope isn't waterproof but could easily be weather sealed with a bit of ingenuity.

I stand by what I say about an astro scope being the best choice for photography with a dslr and the reason being that you are putting the least amount of glass possible between the subject and the camera sensor which to me seems the most logical. That is the only reason. I have nothing against spotting scopes but they are better designed for looking through rather than for photographing though, not that you can't do both if you wish. If you have to start from scratch with a dslr then an astro scope will give you the best results for the least outlay.

As a comparison to yours, here's a photo I took today while I was testing a linear polarizer on the scope. Whole image resized to 1024 wide and then a full size crop showing detail. Minimum sharpening (no sharpening artefacts) and levels, colours, everything else etc are not altered, they are as shot. Range was 12m (40feet). Second set of photos shows a couple of Swans photographed at the weekend from 25m approx. Also posted the full size crop. Scope had been stopped down from f7.5 to f12 for this shot and taken at ISO800 in fairly low light.

Paul.

 

[RJM]

I agree with Paul that the current crop of 80mm ED astro scopes will give superior images and photos with a dSLR to the best fieldscope.

HOWEVER, there are tradeoffs including weight, length of the imaging train, and to a lesser extent weatherproofing. Really depends on what kind nature photographer you want to be. If you prefer to shoot from your car and across long distances, the astro scope is probably the best choice. But if you prefer to stalk and shoot under 30m from concealment then the fieldscope or traditional camera lens is probably the best choice.

my 2 cents,
Rick

 

[Paul Hackett]

How can you say that optically they aren't similar. "I have read quotes from people who have looked through both side by side and said the difference was virtually nothing"

Well if that isnt a general statement i dont know what is, then it must be true right? anybody we know? Paul i ask again, what about specifics, what similarities do you see personally between a zeiss scope and skywatcher scope, including eyepieces, but seeing as you havent used one or looked through one, how can you make a sweeping statement?

"certainly not to justify the price difference. Spotting scopes are vastly over priced (paying for the name) compared to astro scopes that perform just as well"

Again a general statement, and you are aware of the raw material and labour costs of both skywatcher and zeiss scopes to make that statement? this beggars belief


Plus you can see from the quality of the photos that the optics are good in the astro scope.

This is not in dispute Paul, but i dont see any other digiscopers getting the same out of their astroscopes like you do, ( thats a compliment by the way!)

"I'm not biased one way or the other and I'm not loyal to one brand or the other, my only quest with digiscoping is to get the best performance for the least outlay"

Again your choice,

"There is no need to spend well over £1000 when you can do it for £250 and get the same or better results, that's all I'm trying to get across"

Only if you want to birdwatch at dawn and dusk and take pictures with a quality scope, again freedom of choice

"The scope isn't waterproof but could easily be weather sealed with a bit of ingenuity"

That i would like to see

"I stand by what I say about an astro scope being the best choice for photography with a dslr and the reason being that you are putting the least amount of glass possible between the subject and the camera sensor which to me seems the most logical"

With just the use of a photo adapter there is a minimum use of glass, and it produces the results that it does IMHO

"That is the only reason. I have nothing against spotting scopes but they are better designed for looking through rather than for photographing though, not that you can't do both if you wish"

Well the pictures i attached kind of break down that statement dont you think?

"If you have to start from scratch with a dslr then an astro scope will give you the best results for the least outlay"

It will give you a level of quality agreed, but not the best results, again, see my pictures

"As a comparison to yours, here's a photo I took today while I was testing a linear polarizer on the scope. Whole image resized to 1024 wide and then a full size crop showing detail. Minimum sharpening (no sharpening artefacts) and levels, colours, everything else etc are not altered, they are as shot. Range was 12m (40feet). Second set of photos shows a couple of Swans photographed at the weekend from 25m approx. Also posted the full size crop. Scope had been stopped down from f7.5 to f12 for this shot and taken at ISO800 in fairly low light

Would have liked to have seen the woodpigeon just resized and no sharpening?

Paul i think we will beg to differ on this one but i think the pictures i attached speak for them selves

Paul

 

[kshea]

Bill,

I'm a birder and have had the Zeiss scope for about 4-5 years. I bought it for ~$1200 new. If you're starting digiscoping fresh maybe one of the scopes Paul Corfield suggested is more appropriate (I'm not familiar with them, but that isn't saying much).

I do love my Zeiss though, with or without the camera

Also, I think the Romão Machado link I posted has great photos.

~K

 

[Bill Durden]

Sorry to have started a HATFELD & McCOY.
I asked about the Skywatcher scope. Got some good replys. Then it started....Why bicker over Which scope is the best.

Why can`t we stick to the Skywatcher and help a newbe learn. Please.

 

[Neil]

Hi Bill,

I'm using the Skywatcher Pro 80ED and just yesterday I posted a selection of images on my website for someone else and you can view them here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulcorfield/canon.htm

They were all taken with the Skywatcher scope apart from the 2 macros at the end.

Below I've also posted a photo showing an exploded view of all the parts I use. To get started all you would need is the scope, the Canon T-mount with 2" scope adapter and the 50mm long extension tube in 2" dia tube size.

Paul.

Paul,
Very good images . The flight ones are very impressive. I'd been looking at a Williams " Ferrari" telescope or a Televue for my "Observation Room" at home in Sydney (my son's old bedroom" . Looks like I'll have to consider the Skywatcher. What's the best eyepiece for distance and digiscoping? Neil.

 

[Paul Corfield]

This is not in dispute Paul, but i dont see any other digiscopers getting the same out of their astroscopes like you do, ( thats a compliment by the way!)

Another photographer for you who uses the Skywatcher and very kindly help me with my setup. http://fernandobatista.smugmug.com/gallery/3540865_6D86H#211104996_SETUP

Only if you want to birdwatch at dawn and dusk and take pictures with a quality scope, again freedom of choice

I regularly photograph at dawn an dusk to get the best light. Quality of the scope doesn't bother me, quality of the photo does. My first scopes were home made from cardboard tubes with my own sourced optics. For digiscoping it would beat scopes costing £500 or more. That's why I'm not bothered by the name on the scope, it means nothing to me.

Well the pictures i attached kind of break down that statement dont you think?

It will give you a level of quality agreed, but not the best results, again, see my pictures

You keep saying about your pictures but they don't really offer up much to the table. The Kingfisher and the dark vulture were the only 2 of the 4 really worth posting as a comparison to compare details. To my eyes the reworked Kingfisher looked very over sharpened at the size posted which was quite small. None of them however show any increase in level of image quality at all to justify spending more than 4 times that of the Skywatcher. The best birding scopes are astro scopes, they just aren't built with birders in mind. That was apparent at the 2008 spotting scope review when they said "TeleVue 85mm Evergreen scope, which continues to offer the most breathtaking optical image available anywhere on this planet."

Would have liked to have seen the woodpigeon just resized and no sharpening?

See both images below, this time both are un-sharpened.

Paul.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Paul,
Very good images . The flight ones are very impressive. I'd been looking at a Williams " Ferrari" telescope or a Televue for my "Observation Room" at home in Sydney (my son's old bedroom" . Looks like I'll have to consider the Skywatcher. What's the best eyepiece for distance and digiscoping? Neil.

For eyepieces I've only used the Baader Hyperions and the William Optics DCL28. The DCL-28 is soft at the edges but then it is just a basic plossl design. The Baader eyepieces are nice and they offer a 68° field of view. I compared mine to a Pentax XW-20 eyepiece not long ago and the Baader was just as good. Not sure what other eyepieces are threaded like the Baader for attaching cameras to.

Paul.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Sorry to have started a HATFELD & McCOY.
I asked about the Skywatcher scope. Got some good replys. Then it started....Why bicker over Which scope is the best.

Why can`t we stick to the Skywatcher and help a newbe learn. Please.

Agreed Bill, shall keep it on track from now on.

Paul.