[mou] Digiscoping comment

[Chuck Cole]

  -----Original Message-----
  From: mou-net-bounces at moumn.org [mailto:mou-net-bounces at moumn.org]On Behalf Of John Mikes
  Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:44 AM
  Cc: mou-net at moumn.org
  Subject: Re: [mou] Digiscoping comment


  One area where digiscoping can hold a big advantage over photo equipment is weight. Modern, fast telephotos are beasts. A Canon
500 f4 is over eight pounds and a Canon f4 600 is 11 pounds. And they are just as big as they sound. So, if you are planning on
doing any serious hiking with your equipment, a digiscoping rig can suddenly become an attractive thought.

I mostly agree with you, but not entirely...

My 750mm f6 Celestron with a Minolta Maxxum 5 film-type camera weighs under 5lb and is diffraction-limited which means it is
optically as perfect and color aberration free as theoretical physics of light allows.  The Maxxum 5 is lighter and much better than
any rangefinder camera.  I paid under $300 for this combo used, but am a very careful shopper.  I have some heavier camera gear and
a digital P&S also.  No Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc  has lenses that good, and few digiscoping combos with
similar range are that light.  I can sometimes hand-hold this in good light, but also use a tripod or monopod for "serious shots".

FWIW, I use Davis and Sanford box-section aluminum pro tripods as were sold for use with Questar telescopes and are still available.
No Bogen or Linhof, etc, is as as stiff as these and their weight is the same or less than Bogen's pro types.  FYI, Wal-Mart has a
nice and very good monopod that they sometimes sell for $9.95 just to turn over old stock.. gotta watch for those sales.

I got a good buy on film so only paid about $0.15 per 35mm roll, and only pay Wal-Mart's $2.84 process a roll and make CD (no
prints) if doing "ID quality" or proofing stuff.  The Wal-Mart processing uses the excellent Fuji processing machines that have good
quality control so it's as good as National Camera's routine processing and lots cheaper.  I can scan those negatives myself when I
decide something should be a large or fine print.

I have the results of the finest photo gear and a very modest investment.  I'll probably move to a digital SLR when Sony/Minolta's
new full-frame DSLR comes out, but I'm happy enough not spending the extra few thousand dollars to get results that aren't any
better that what I have now.


Chuck


A final thought on quality: although some digiscopers are great and perform miracles with their equipment, they will never compete
with a photographer and his high level equipment when it comes to sustained quality captures. They may outshoot the shooter in
isolated circumstances, but the inadequacies of their equipment will always tell in the long run.



<a href="mailto:johnmikes at comcast.net">John Mikes</a>
<a href="http://www.weekendshooter.com">Weekend Shooter </a>



  James Mattsson wrote:

    My two cents worth. My sole reason for digiscoping is to document birds, something I've not seen mentioned in this discussion
thus far.  To me, there are two situations in which digiscoping is prefered over conventional long-lens photography:

    1) you wish to adequately document the subject (e.g. a rarity) but it is very far away (e.g. 150 m+), and
    2) you don't want to unduly disturb the subject and are willing to settle for a bit less in image quality.

    A review of the web will show that some digiscopers produce amazing photos that are equal to and sometimes superior to many
conventional long-lens photographers. But they are exceptions and digiscoping is very difficult to master. Like everything, it all
depends on what your goals are.

    There have been many excellent suggestions and opinions expressed in this discussion.

    James Mattsson
    mattjim at earthlink.net
    EarthLink Revolves Around You.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080220/6248d7e9/attachment.html