[Mikesul]

I went on a twitching day trip and the guide would carry for us and set up his Swarovski scope.

It was incredible. But it cost him a fortune.

"Twitching". Had to look it up. Fun.

Did you do any digiscoping?

[clackers]

"Twitching". Had to look it up. Fun.

Did you do any digiscoping?

Just looked through it on the day but he does have mounts including for phones.

I bought a Vanguard clone last year and the reach is incredible - you can't match it with a lens. But the quality's not there.

[Mikesul]

Just looked through it on the day but he does have mounts including for phones.

I bought a Vanguard clone last year and the reach is incredible - you can't match it with a lens. But the quality's not there.

So, good as a spotting scope but lacking for photography seems to be your assessment, clackers?

[clackers]

So, good as a spotting scope but lacking for photography seems to be your assessment, clackers?

A superb spotting scope, I'd say. I bought the K to T mount and phone attachments but didn't like any of the test images ... bit low contrast, bit purple tinged.

We get good use out of it when hiking, though. Compact, waterproof, rugged, etc.

[acoufap]

Vielen dank acoufap! Interesting observations. I will check out the German link since I read German well although I speak it like John Wayne

... hope you can get some helpful info out of it. May I ask where did you learn German?!

[Mikesul]

I was stationed at Mcgraw Kaserne (68-71) as a linguist. Met my Bavarian wife in Munich. Then much use of German for graduate work in early medieval history. So I developed a strange mixture of Hochdeutsch and Bairische from long conversations with my inlaws and longer hours in the university library.

[pete-tarmigan]

How would your set up compare to using a DFA 150-450 + 1.4 TC on a K-3 (or a Q7)? Just looking at digiscoping material I had the impression that a digiscope setup would be better than telephoto. I am interest in the same digiscoping equipment you are using so I would be very interested in your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

I haven't used the DFA 150-450mm. However, I have the FA* 400mm f/5.6 on the K-3, and the resulting photos are much sharper than the scope with the PF-CA35, even after cropping and viewing the enlarged result. I used to have the Sigma non-APO 400mm f/5.6, and its results were comparable the scope-adapter combo. I have used the A* 600mm f/5.6 with the Rear Converter-A 1.4x-L, and it gives sharper results than the scope-adapter combo. From what I have read on these forums, the DFA 150-450mm gives very sharp results. Someone on the forums wrote that spotting scopes are not designed to give results as sharp as telephotos because the eye cannot detect the improvements in sharpness that a photography-grade lens would provide when viewing through a scope. I don't understand the physics or biophysics underlying those phenomena.

I think the scope with the PF-CA35 is ideal for a birder who is not interested in photography in its own right. By "birder" I mean someone who uses binoculars and spotting scope to pursue birds to add to the number of species he/she has seen in his/her lifetime, year, winter, country, state/province, backyard, etc.. That is, someone who is already using a scope frequently to ID birds and who incidentally wants to get material evidence of rarities (species out-of-range), but isn't interested in bird photography in general and therefore can't justify sinking a few thousand dollars into a good telephoto prime or telephoto zoom.

[clackers]

A birder can just put their phone to the eyepiece adapter and get a good ID shot.

[acoufap]

I was stationed at Mcgraw Kaserne (68-71) as a linguist. Met my Bavarian wife in Munich. Then much use of German for graduate work in early medieval history. So I developed a strange mixture of Hochdeutsch and Bairische from long conversations with my inlaws and longer hours in the university library.

Nice story - thanks for sharing! - In addition Wikipedia told me a little bit about the Mc Graw Kaserne.