[Hildalill]

Hi,

I'm thinking about digiscoping with my K-1. I have no experience of digiscoping and only little experience of spottingscopes. Has anyone tried it with the lovely but heavy K-1. I think the set has to be very stable for the weight and for the amount of pixels. The glass needs to be good too I believe, if the pictures are to going to do the camera justice. Advices please!

[Pentax Syntax]

Will you be using the spotting scopes eyepiece i.e. afocally or a T-mount? I often shoot afocally with a mounted binocular or spotting scope. You can use two tripods. One for the scope and a second for the camera. Weight is not an issue unless you use a T-mount. FWIW the limited DA 40 or one of the manual 40 mm pancakes are ideal for afocal.

[Na Horuk]

Can you tell more about what exactly you want to achieve?
I've seen people reversing lenses, using cardboard tubes as extensions, mounting a lens on top of another lens.. all kinds of things to get that sweet, sweet magnification. If you are planning on using an actual microscope, it comes down to what kind of microscope you have access to.
If you are planning on using regular lenses and stacking or extending or reversing them, then it depends on which lenses you have.

First collect gear. After getting or making accessories that let you connect your gear, lights will be the next problem. The plan will depend on what you want to achieve, how much oyu want to spend, and what gear you already have
For example, you can get pretty high magnification by mounting a Helios 44 on the end of a DFA 100mm macro. If you have both of those lenses, you save lots of money by just making some sort of connection between them.

Edit: I assumed macro. I guess digiscoping can also mean telephoto for birding or astrophotography. Still, comes down to goal, gear, planning.

[Hildalill]

Can you tell more about what exactly you want to achieve?


Edit: I assumed macro. I guess digiscoping can also mean telephoto for birding or astrophotography. Still, comes down to goal, gear, planning.

Sorry, I didn't realise the possibility of mixing macro ang telephoto. I want to photo birds with a spottingscope.

[marcusBMG]

The main point of digiscoping is to get a lot of reach. Normally, using eyepiece projection, the image circle will be pretty small. That's why most of the recommended cameras for digi are ones with small sensors. Even with apsc or M4/3, strong vignetting is pretty typical.
Most of my digi attempts have been with a panasonic lumix LX5. The other advantages of small light cameras are easy attachment and the scope + camera isn't way out of balance.
Remote shutter release is a must.

[pete-tarmigan]

Sorry, I didn't realise the possibility of mixing macro ang telephoto. I want to photo birds with a spottingscope.

I've used the K-3 with battery grip and the Pentax spotting scope adapter PF-CA35 on the Pentax PF-80ED spotting scope. I've yet to try the K-1 on this set-up, but I'm sure it can handle the weight, since the K-3, battery grip and two batteries weigh a fair amount. The PF-CA35 has a T-mount on the part that fits into the mount where the scope's eyepiece sits, a K-mount on the other end, and glass in between that makes it a 2X tele-converter. The result is a 1000mm f/12.5 lens (for the PF-80ED). The scope has no diaphragm lever, lens data contacts, or auto-focus contacts, so exposure is accomplished with Manual exposure mode and the Green Button, and focus is manual. To minimize camera movement you need to put it on a tripod and release the shutter with a remote control, cable release, or self-timer, in combination with keeping the mirror up for a few seconds to prevent the shutter shock from being magnified by the focal length.

The images can't stand any cropping because the magnified crop is rather soft. It can't compete with a true camera lens in sharpness, but it's good for documentation.

See my cropped jpeg below. I used the Remote Control F to trip the shutter but didn't use the mirror-up option.

[Mikesul]

I've used the K-3 with battery grip and the Pentax spotting scope adapter PF-CA35 on the Pentax PF-80ED spotting scope. I've yet to try the K-1 on this set-up, but I'm sure it can handle the weight, since the K-3, battery grip and two batteries weigh a fair amount. The PF-CA35 has a T-mount on the part that fits into the mount where the scope's eyepiece sits, a K-mount on the other end, and glass in between that makes it a 2X tele-converter. The result is a 1000mm f/12.5 lens (for the PF-80ED). The scope has no diaphragm lever, lens data contacts, or auto-focus contacts, so exposure is accomplished with Manual exposure mode and the Green Button, and focus is manual. To minimize camera movement you need to put it on a tripod and release the shutter with a remote control, cable release, or self-timer, in combination with keeping the mirror up for a few seconds to prevent the shutter shock from being magnified by the focal length.

The images can't stand any cropping because the magnified crop is rather soft. It can't compete with a true camera lens in sharpness, but it's good for documentation.

See my cropped jpeg below. I used the Remote Control F to trip the shutter but didn't use the mirror-up option.

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.

[marcusBMG]

a digiscope setup would be better than telephoto.

No, my experience is that a scope is inferior to good lenses. I have in the end been underwhelmed with the results using a best HDF eyepiece that gives 20x mag by eye, and this adapter with a decent Opticron HR66 (old model) - soft, lots of fringing when subject to the scrutiny of 16MPx (K5)/20MPx (NX20). This is one of my better ones with the samsung NX20. Just some basic PP in faststone from RAW, mainly a big boost to contrast, crop to 3015px from 5528px , resized, sharpen a bit.
I can suggest most of the good results you see online are with scopes that cost x thousand - Swarovskis, Leicas etc...

[gaweidert]

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.

Here is an image I took in :June 2016. Pentax K3, D FA 140-450 lens. Tamron 1.4x stacked with a Vivitar 2x Macro teleconverter. Total equivalent focal length of 1890mm. The Grizzly and her three cubs were a bit over a mile away as I later measured it on Google Earth. I took a few shots that I know were not going to be National Geographic quality but I figured I would probably never see a Grizzly sow with three cubs again so I went for it. Mainly I just let a lot of people take a peek. They actually turned out a bit better than I though they would.

[Mikesul]

No, my experience is that a scope is inferior to good lenses. I have in the end been disappointed with my efforts with a decent Opticron HR66 (old model) - soft, lots of fringing when subject to the scrutiny of 16MPx (K5).

Thanks for sharing your experience. Your quotation from my inquiry makes it appear I stated that digiscoping is superior. I have no knowledge about this and am seeking experienced advice such as your. My quotation referred to the material I have been looking at such as this B&H video http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/index.php?lang=0.

There seem to be quite a few birders who are very enthusiastic about photography with spotting scopes. I am just curious. As I stated in my original message I wonder if our current Pentax options with Q7 and 150-450 might yield surperior results. The photos in the link above, taken with Swarovski spotting scopes and mainly Pentax cameras are very impressive.

---------- Post added 02-04-18 at 08:58 AM ----------

Here is an image I took in :June 2016. Pentax K3, D FA 140-450 lens. Tamron 1.4x stacked with a Vivitar 2x Macro teleconverter. Total equivalent focal length of 1890mm. The Grizzly and her three cubs were a bit over a mile away as I later measured it on Google Earth. I took a few shots that I know were not going to be National Geographic quality but I figured I would probably never see a Grizzly sow with three cubs again so I went for it. Mainly I just let a lot of people take a peek. They actually turned out a bit better than I though they would.

Gawidert: Thanks for your photo. At that distance that is impressive. I imagine air turbulance would be the main problem. I also assume you were using a tripod

[gaweidert]

Gawidert: Thanks for your photo. At that distance that is impressive. I imagine air turbulance would be the main problem. I also assume you were using a tripod

Vanguard Auctus Plus 323CT tripod with a Nest gimbal head and a Vello remote release cable. Magnification was about 37x. The only reason I spotted the bears was because there was a small patch of snow in the distance with a tiny brown spot on it. I checked it out with my binoculars to confirm my suspicions. I was just sitting a a roadside pullout looking around for anything interesting. That's one of the things I like about Yellowstone. You have to sit and let it unfold before you. It is never the same place twice.

[acoufap]

SInce I saw some amazing images in the german Fine Art Printer 04/2015 I was interested in digiscoping some time ago. I read a lot about the topic. In the end I decided not to try practically.

Some points I remember:

+ As someone already said, you get extreme reach
+ You don't disturb animals if you stay far away
+ Less weight compared to a lens with same focal length

o You have to work manually, depending on what method the digiscope and adapters offer. By example two way focusing
o You need a lot of practice to get good results

- Long distance to your subject also means there's a lot of air in between. Heat and dust can be a problem.
- If you attach the digiscope via adapters directly to the camera you don't have an aperture, so very specialized usage.
- You need good light.
- The larger the sensor the more diameter you need. Very bulky and heavy for large sensors like FF if you want to use the full image diameter of 43mm
(if interestet you can get a small overview here - unfortunately german language, but even Pentax cameras are mentioned and shown )
- it will cost a lot to get good quality on an FF camera like the K-1 (examples of images and some interesting basic infos you by example find at the swarovsky's hompage here). They offer top notch digiscopes.

[Mikesul]

SInce I saw some amazing images in the german Fine Art Printer 04/2015 I was interested in digiscoping some time ago. I read a lot about the topic. In the end I decided not to try practically.

Some points I remember:

+ As someone already said, you get extreme reach
+ You don't disturb animals if you stay far away
+ Less weight compared to a lens with same focal length

o You have to work manually, depending on what method the digiscope and adapters offer. By example two way focusing
o You need a lot of practice to get good results

- Long distance to your subject also means there's a lot of air in between. Heat and dust can be a problem.
- If you attach the digiscope via adapters directly to the camera you don't have an aperture, so very specialized usage.
- You need good light.
- The larger the sensor the more diameter you need. Very bulky and heavy for large sensors like FF if you want to use the full image diameter of 43mm
(if interestet you can get a small overview here - unfortunately german language, but even Pentax cameras are mentioned and shown )
- it will cost a lot to get good quality on an FF camera like the K-1 (examples of images and some interesting basic infos you by example find at the swarovsky's hompage here). They offer top notch digiscopes.

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

[marcusBMG]

Thats a good page by Thomas Gade - heres a google translated link:

Google Translate

Interesting that he says basic eyepiece projection is the worst image quality. I should try interposing eg my smc-a 50mm - should be able to diy st to connect. I did try some images with a panasonic LX5 - that's a quality p&s with a leica branded optic, 24-90mm equiv FoV. At 90mm I usually avoided vignetting. Interestingly I don't get vignetting with eyepiece projection on either of my apsc cameras using the adapter mentioned.

[clackers]

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.