After reading many on-line digiscoping articles, and corresponding with a variety of digiscoping practitioners, I got a rather inexpensive digital camera for Christmas 2003 to try this photographic outlet. I've done film photography for 3 decades with some success as an amateur, but I've never attempted to reach professional levels in either equipment or results. I have, however, been very impressed by the near professional results of some digiscopers in the last couple of years. This page is created within a week of trying out this concept, to present some things that had to be worked out early in the game and as a way to look back later on just how naive I was.....

In my research I found that there were essentially two types of current digiscoping:

• type 1: Handholding the camera to the scope to take advantage of the 20-30X power of the scope, and using the digiscoping primarily as a means of documenting interesting birds. The advantages are that one just goes birding with the scope, and can photograph something interesting quickly but pulling the camera out of one's pocket. The emphasis remains on birding. Most any type of digital camera can work for this type of digiscoping, but a lighter weight camera makes handheld photos easier. Disadvantages include the inevitable camera shake when handholding, which means images will not be as crisp as professional photographers require.
• type 2: Connecting the camera to the scope and using digiscoping primarily as a means of photography. This turns the scope into a powerful telephoto lens. The advantages over "type 1" include the fact that the images are crisper and sharper because there is no shake (handheld shots always have some hand shake); one can compose shots better; and one can make shots even crisper yet by using a shutter release. The disadvantage is that one is basically engaging in photography rather than birding, or, if one is out birding with their scope and finds something to photograph, it takes a lot longer to set up the shot because you has to connect the camera first. The bird is more likely to fly away than in "type 1" digiscoping.

It is my opinion at this stage that one must choose which "type" of digiscoping you want to do. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, but you have to decide whether (a) you want the ability for quick bird shots through the scope while birding or (b) you want to get good bird photography, including the ability to print out good quality photos from your printer, from your digiscoping. I decided that, for the moment, I'd like to try "type 1" digiscoping. In this shot (right; by Rita Carratello) I'm holding the camera up to the scope as its wedged in some rocks out in Death Valley.

For one thing, "type 1" digiscoping was a lot less expensive. Looking at prices on Amazon.com and on a variety of "compare price" sites, it looked like a new Coolpix would cost about $400, and the various connectors perhaps $150, not to mention batteries and storage media cards. It appeared to me that starting "type 2" digiscoping would cost a minimum of $600. In contrast, I could pick up a "type 1" digital camera for about $250 at local stores (e.g., Circuit City, Office Depo) without waiting for something to arrive by mail. In the end, I bought an Olympus Camedia D-560, 3.2 megapixel camera, with 3X optical zoom for $220, plus $80 for rechargeable batteries and storage cards, for a total outlay ($300) of half of what just starting "type 2" digiscoping would have cost. [Some lower prices are available through E-Bay, or by buying used equipment, if one accepts those risks.]

As it turns out, the Camedia D-560 has a smaller diameter lens than the Camedia D-550 that has been successfully used by some (e.g., Joe Morlan). This means that vignetting is a greater problem. My 20-60x zoom lens on my scope also produces much more vignetting than would a standard 30x wide-angle lens. So my new camera is not ideally suited to my scope. Of major importance, though, is the basic rule to use the scope on its lowest power (20x in my case) but the camera's optical zoom at its highest power.

My initial efforts with the camera were very frustrating. But I worked out some of my problems with Graham Catley's fine article on the Lincolnshire Bird Club site. Joe Morlan then supplied a very helpful hint from an Ontario Field Ornithologists' site that showed how to make a "centering" device from a spice jar lid. I made one just like shown in that link and found most of my major problems solved. I can now quickly "center" the camera over the lens (without touching the scope lens) and see an image quickly. It takes a bit longer to size the image as desired and to work with the optical zoom and auto focusing, and then there is a slight delay (half-a-second, maybe) between snapping the shutter and taking the photo, but the process is not too onerous. I can still actively use the scope while the "centering" device is on, or, if I don't want it, it comes on and goes on very, very quickly.

I've had the camera for one week now. I wanted to create this page while still in the learning stages. I expect to get better at technique and in understanding the camera. Here are also some points that were very helpful to me so far:

• Ask focused questions. Starting out is quite frustrating but the information is out there. I joined two digiscoping chat lines [digiscoping and digi-birds] and found answers by using the "search" feature of archives;
• Read other Internet resources; Anne Spence provided a very useful list that is reproduced at the end of this page;
• Expect difficulties. For example, I followed all the directions provided to install the software to download my images to my Macintosh, but I couldn't get the machine to "read" my camera. I finally called the Olympus 800 customer support number and spent almost an hour on the phone with them (this service is an advantage of buying a new camera with a warranty). It turned out that (a) I had to activate several software programs in my machine that were not automatically "turned on" and that I would have never learned about from anything in the materials that came with the camera. In addition, my camera has to be "on" to download images although all the material says it is supposed to be "off" to download. Without customer support, I would have never have figured it out, and I would not have been comfortable downloading from the "on" position of the camera [customer support said this was okay].
• Practice, practice, practice. One does get better with practice. And you simply delete the ones that don't work at no cost!
• Batteries can be used up quickly, so rechargeables are almost a necessity. Learn to turn the camera off when not immediately using it, to save batteries.
• Finally, and this was critical for me, use the scope at low power (e.g., 20X or 30X) rather than high power (e.g., 60X). I found that all my shots at 60X or other high power in my scope came out very soft-focused, whether or not I used the optical zoom in the camera. High power on the scope intensifies the inevitable hand shake when handholding the camera, so much so that in my case, I cannot compensate for it. All my acceptable photos so far have been at low power with the scope, and then using the optical zoom feature of the camera (up to 3X; this can translate into an effective 60X photo) to increase the magnification and reduce vignetting.

	This Long-billed Curlew is taken handheld at 1x power (no optical zoom); there is complete vignetting but a crisp image in center of scope.
	The same curlew handheld at 2x optical zoom; vignetting is reduced to corners only.
	The same curlew handheld at 3X optical zoom (maximum zoom); no black vignetting but optical vignetting at upper left and probably lower left corners (darkening of the image).

In addition to showing these comparisons of different levels of optical zoom on the overall quality of the photographs, I have already noted that the optical zooms produce slightly different colors. I believe this is a function of the built-in light meter and how much of the image it is measuring to produce the automatic light balance. Consider these three shots, taken moments apart. These have been cropped and sharpened, but no color balancing was performed:

	This sleeping Willet was taken at 1x (no zoom) and then was cropped significantly in PhotoShop®: the overall color is on the warm, brownish side.
	In this 2x shot (about mid-level optical zoom), cropping was still necessary to delete vignetting, but the color is cooler and probably truer.
	In this 3x (maximum zoom) shot, the color is much cooler and grayer (possibly too much?) but the depth of field is smaller and the rock is quickly out-of-focus. It is possible the background of the sea (upper left) is white and not blue because of the foam from a crashing wave.

Finally, I also tried some landbirds at my feeder at much closer range than these waders. The bird's image almost fills the frame of the scope, so I found that I had to use some degree of optical zoom to keep the whole image within the non-vignetted part of the frame. Here is an example of a Golden-crowned Sparrow. It appears to my eye that this is about as crisp as one could hope for from my set-up with a hand-held camera. I am impressed with the depth of field that even allows the tail to be somewhat in-focus:

Anne Spence provided this list of web sites with digiscoping information:

http://www.digibird.com/whatisdir/whatis.htm
http://www.md.ucl.ac.be/peca/test/a.html
http://www.laurencepoh.com/
http://www.shortcourses.com/how/digiscoping/digiscoping.htm

All photos & text © 2004 Don Roberson; all rights reserved.

TOP