Nature photography

[yeimaya]

i am studying Harbor Seals, using a 22X spotting scope to observe a group that haul out on a rock that is 1500 feet away. Does anyone have an opinion whether the Panasonic Lumix Dmc fz20 will do better than my scope and my trusty pencil drawings through the scope? Or does anyone have other suggestions? I can identify individuals by the markings on their bellies but would love to have good photographs rather than just drawings.

[John_Reed]

i am studying Harbor Seals, using a 22X spotting scope to observe a group that haul out on a rock that is 1500 feet away. Does anyone have an opinion whether the Panasonic Lumix Dmc fz20 will do better than my scope and my trusty pencil drawings through the scope? Or does anyone have other suggestions? I can identify individuals by the markings on their bellies but would love to have good photographs rather than just drawings.

500 yards is a long distance away! You're talking about the equivalent of 1100mm lens reach, which may be barely doable by the FZ20, which can reach out to ~950mm equivalent with something like a Raynox 2.2X telextender. I would think you'd be better off to find an adapter for your spotting scope that would allow you to attach a lower-mag digital camera. I've seen people using Nikon 4500s in this way; if you have that setup, your 22X scope can then be magnified by the optical zoom of the 4500, for example, which is another 4X, putting you far beyond the reach of the FZ20.

[judge9847]

500 yards is a long distance away! You're talking about the equivalent of 1100mm lens reach, which may be barely doable by the FZ20, which can reach out to ~950mm equivalent with something like a Raynox 2.2X telextender. I would think you'd be better off to find an adapter for your spotting scope that would allow you to attach a lower-mag digital camera. I've seen people using Nikon 4500s in this way; if you have that setup, your 22X scope can then be magnified by the optical zoom of the 4500, for example, which is another 4X, putting you far beyond the reach of the FZ20.

Absolutely right. I've got the Raynox 2.2 and found that it's at its best at around the maximum optical zoom of the camera plus maybe a tiny bit of digital (to get round a slight vignetting problem.) So it's maybe 14x zoom by 2.2 = ~30x which is the ~950mm equivalent that's mentioned. Beyond that it's really a no-go for good images - mostly!

I've recently had the opportunity to take a close-ish look at what's called digiscoping and if you've got the right combination of equipment, i.e. scope and digital camera plus any other adapters and connectors that are needed. But not every scope is capable of being used for it and there are few really good suitable cameras. And beware of using zoom eyepieces - apparently they're not that good. Fixed seem to produce the best results.

If you want to see some sensational images that have been produced by digiscoping, go to the internationally respected Bird Forum and follow the links to the relevant part of the forum. If you're not seriously impressed by some of it, then I'll be very surprised!

[John_Reed]

Absolutely right. I've got the Raynox 2.2 and found that it's at its best at around the maximum optical zoom of the camera plus maybe a tiny bit of digital (to get round a slight vignetting problem.) So it's maybe 14x zoom by 2.2 = ~30x which is the ~950mm equivalent that's mentioned. Beyond that it's really a no-go for good images - mostly!

I've recently had the opportunity to take a close-ish look at what's called digiscoping and if you've got the right combination of equipment, i.e. scope and digital camera plus any other adapters and connectors that are needed. But not every scope is capable of being used for it and there are few really good suitable cameras. And beware of using zoom eyepieces - apparently they're not that good. Fixed seem to produce the best results.

If you want to see some sensational images that have been produced by digiscoping, go to the internationally respected Bird Forum and follow the links to the relevant part of the forum. If you're not seriously impressed by some of it, then I'll be very surprised!

Bob, I was basing my comparison assuming that the original poster meant "22 X normal size" with a 22X spotting scope. When you take a 12X Panasonic, for example, that isn't "12 X normal size," rather it's 12X the wide-angle focal length. Based on a 50mm "normal" focal length as 1X, the FZ20 would therefore have a lens capable of "8.64 X (432/50) normal size" at full extension. So at that, the Raynox would get it up to ~19X at best, a little less than the original spotting scope reach. Of course, you could push in some digital zoom, but optical results will yield sharper final results, if it's any good resolution you're looking for. Like I say, the combination of a 4500 mated to a spotting scope with the proper adapters would still win the day, in my opinion!

[D70FAN]

Absolutely right. I've got the Raynox 2.2 and found that it's at its best at around the maximum optical zoom of the camera plus maybe a tiny bit of digital (to get round a slight vignetting problem.) So it's maybe 14x zoom by 2.2 = ~30x which is the ~950mm equivalent that's mentioned. Beyond that it's really a no-go for good images - mostly!

I've recently had the opportunity to take a close-ish look at what's called digiscoping and if you've got the right combination of equipment, i.e. scope and digital camera plus any other adapters and connectors that are needed. But not every scope is capable of being used for it and there are few really good suitable cameras. And beware of using zoom eyepieces - apparently they're not that good. Fixed seem to produce the best results.

If you want to see some sensational images that have been produced by digiscoping, go to the internationally respected Bird Forum and follow the links to the relevant part of the forum. If you're not seriously impressed by some of it, then I'll be very surprised!

Actually, John has posted some great bird shots using just the FZ's, handheld. Guess he knows how to sneak up on em'.

[John_Reed]

Actually, John has posted some great bird shots using just the FZ's, handheld. Guess he knows how to sneak up on em'.

Thanks, George, but they weren't 500 yards away! That may even involve the curvature of the Earth!

[judge9847]

Hi John - firstly, do I take it from George's reply that you've got a gallery at BirdForum? If so, is it under a different name? I'd love to have a look.

Like I say, the combination of a 4500 mated to a spotting scope with the proper adapters would still win the day, in my opinion

Yep, sorry, I didn't make myself at all clear. The power of the scope plus the optical zoom on the camera will be far, far more successful than the FZ plus the extender, image quality-wise and just about everything else as well.

One thing I'm confused about though (One thing? Just about everything confuses me it seems ) and I'd really appreciate an explanation if you can. The spec for the FZ10 appears to say that the normal focal is 35mm so using your formula that gives a multiplier of 12.34: take the converter at 2.2 gets to ~27x at full optical zoom. If a tiny amount of digital zoom is used with the converter, as far as I can see it anyway, that does take it towards the 30x zoom I mentioned.

So what am I not getting? As I say I'd appreciate the heads-up if you've got the time.

[yeimaya]

I appreciate all the thought you have given folks! I could follow most of it though I am by nature more of a point and shoot kind of photographer (getting more elaborate out of necessity). O.K here is what I have and maybe you could help me piece it all together. I have a Bushnell spotting scope (sorry don't remember the model but was pretty mid range price wise) and a 22X wide angle non-zoom lense. The only camera I have is a point and shoot so it is not appropriate.

What kind of digital camera would work best with the scope, since that will be something I have to get anyway. It was suggested that I get a digiscope (adaptor?) I checked it didn't seem that Bushnell scopes could actually use them.

[John_Reed]

Hi John - firstly, do I take it from George's reply that you've got a gallery at BirdForum? If so, is it under a different name? I'd love to have a look.



Yep, sorry, I didn't make myself at all clear. The power of the scope plus the optical zoom on the camera will be far, far more successful than the FZ plus the extender, image quality-wise and just about everything else as well.

One thing I'm confused about though (One thing? Just about everything confuses me it seems ) and I'd really appreciate an explanation if you can. The spec for the FZ10 appears to say that the normal focal is 35mm so using your formula that gives a multiplier of 12.34: take the converter at 2.2 gets to ~27x at full optical zoom. If a tiny amount of digital zoom is used with the converter, as far as I can see it anyway, that does take it towards the 30x zoom I mentioned.

So what am I not getting? As I say I'd appreciate the heads-up if you've got the time.

Bob, the small difference may come from the FZ20's zoom range of 36-432mm, equivalent. And all I was saying was that the "12X" of the FZ20 isn't an appropriate multiplier to compare to the telescope's "22X," since we're talking about "X" in the way it's used in telescopes, that is, magnifying power. "1X" for a telescope would be no magnification, but (assuming "normal" focal length is 50mm for any 35mm equivalent lens) "1X" for the 36-432mm FZ20 lens would be (50/36) X its base focal length, or 1.39X of the FZ20's "X" factor is "used up" just to get to the "normal" 50mm starting point for a telescope or binocular, leaving "8.64X" as its true "magnification" factor. Whew! Now is it as clear as mud? ;-)

[judge9847]

John, yes indeed, thanks for that. I actually do see what you're saying so the mud's quite clear!

What I don't think I realised was that the "X" factor on scopes was a different issue to that on camera lenses - talking strictly about optics that is. What I thought I understood was that the light was collected by the scope's glass and all the magnifying/zooming was done by the eyepiece alone. I didn't think that, acting as a lens, the eyepiece would behave in a different way to that of a camera lens. Just didn't imagine it.

But that's the issue isn't it? The camera lens is working as both collector and zoom whilst the scope breaks it down into two separate stages. I suppose! Or am I still talking b*!!&cks ???