[mou] FW: Digiscoping comment

[Chuck Cole]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Brimacombe [mailto:gbrim at integra.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:09 PM
> To: Chuck Cole
> Subject: Re: [mou] Digiscoping comment
>
>
> I am very familiar with Celestron.  I really don't want to
> destroy your illusions, but putting amateur equipment on a level
> with Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon, Leica and Canon professional
> optics, especially in build quality, is really a stretch.

You are mostly wrong in your illusions.   I am not a hobbyist, but an
experienced pro in optics, optical design, and a physicist, engineer, etc.
Laser systems I have contributed to in electro-optic design and telescope
operations flies on stealth aircraft (etc) since the late 1980s and do
precision targeting to 20km ranges in air combat and swamp airstrip
maintenance situations.  Do you have any pro education and experience
qualifications?

What I spoke of is "diffraction limited" optical performance, which no photo
gear attains.  I did not say the Celestron 750mm is more rugged or better
suited for uneducated users and was clear to imply these are fine (but
different) instruments.

I agree on "build features" for the uneducated public, however.  That "pro
gear" is fine and quite rugged... just not at the level of diffraction
limited optical performance.  These things are well-built but for different
users and uses.  Note that I opened my earlier comment with "I mostly
agree..", and was mainly pointing out that the summary was not completely
true, only generally and only by pragmatics.

The Celestron and Meade top line gear is built for knowledgeable users who
truly need diffraction limited optics and can provide the occasional
collimation adjustment in exchange for reduced price.  Few or none of the
things you mentioned are actually built to be used in drenching wet
condensing relative humidity circumstances as is typically the case for the
Celestron and Meade gear in summer when the dew point occurs during usage.

Perhaps you simply are "underinformed" of the differences and may be among
those who must pay for their ignorance and superstitions  :-)

>  And by
> the way, if you haven't heard, film is an item of the distant
> past!  Digital is now far superior to film in every respect.

That simply is not true.  Some films have superior resolution, color, etc.
Digital is good, but not THAT good yet.  Base your comments on real physical
measurements and NOT just advertising BS and innuendo. Film still has better
than a 4:1 edge on actual resolution for what you are ranting about.  Some
of the super-specialized stuff for spy satellites is better, but only by
multi-frame techniques. and can't do "quick snapshots" like film or DSLRs
can.  Note that I did not claim that Wal-Mart film scanning is better than
DSLRs (but it is better than most), and did say that I reserve the option
for hi-res scanning from the film, etc, and FYI, that can get superior
resolution (etc) to any current DSLR from many films by scanning.

> Eastman Kodak, you might be interested in knowing, is tearing
> down most of the buildings where they made their sensitized
> materials.  Enjoy your shooting, but don't try to tell me that
> the amateur equipment you're using is superior or even as good as
> the established benchmarks in professional photo equipment.

That is true (and for other companies), but that is business "for the
hobbyists" (ie, "for the masses" and predominantly "snapshot markets") and
NOT technology, nor for some of the truly professional materials.  Perhaps
you should look into those differences.  Specialized emulsions with truly
high resolution, sensititivities, etc are still being produced, but those
were never available at Wal-Mart or National Camera nor in super-high
production volumes in those factories.

>
> Gerald Brimacombe
> Photographer

.. one somewhat naive of the technology and science in his field, but seems
well-read in marketing brochures and popular summary blurbs.


Thanks for the comments, but you are quite mistaken in most of your views.
Hope my reply helps you some in that regard.  Don't mean to "attack", just
to counter and take a step toward correcting your misinformation.


Chuck

> www.geraldbrimacombe.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Cole
> To: John Mikes ; Mou-Net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [mou] Digiscoping comment
>
>
>
> -----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.
>