Jeff,

Whenever someone that I work with comes in with a new point and shoot, I 
always show them how the cameras may have the ability to do digiscoping. 
I then try to demonstrate this by propping up a pair of binoculars aimed 
at a distant aircraft and take a few pictures/videos. In recent times, I 
have had decent luck with all of the cameras that I've seen in the last 
couple of years.

I have an old Olympus point and shoot that had a fairly large diameter 
lens compared to the newer models. Then lens was of the retractable type 
and is an inch and a half in diameter. Due to this wider opening and the 
optics engineered for it, I guess, I usually had trouble getting decent 
result in trying to digiscope with it. I managed to sometimes get some 
decent results but this was always with a stationary bird that allowed 
plenty of time to adjust the camera's position to get the position just 
right. The newer cameras that I've seen have smaller optics on the front 
of the camera, generally about an inch or smaller, and getting them 
positioned well doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.

I'd recommend grabbing your binoculars and heading to a local Best Buy 
with some SD and micro SD cards if you have them, since most of them use 
these, and try out their display models. Try digiscoping something at 
the far end of the store and compare the results. You might have to 
format the cards for each camera, so if you have several, you can take 
shots from each and then compare them at home on your computer.

My impression from what I've seen is this; you're not going to get the 
same results as someone using a digital 35 mm with a quality lens, but 
the cameras that I've played with at work have been consistent in giving 
decent results. I do tend to like the lenses that extend from the camera 
because I find it easier to position them more easily, but someone had 
an ultra compact camera that didn't extend that took images equal in 
quality to the others that did. I just found that feeling the 
positioning was more difficult with the flush lenses.

Hope that this helps.

Ed Boyd
Westminster, MD

Jeff Shenot wrote:
> This RFI is not directly bird-specific, but it relates to gear used for documenting bird sightings.
>
> I am looking to buy a point and shoot digital camera that is ideal for digiscoping birds.  Now that I have read (I think!) most of the online reviews about it, I am looking for info from the MDOsprey community with experience using point and shoots.  See last paragraph.
>
> To start, I'll say what I have learned that is important to consider for digiscoping.  From what I read the ideal (= clearest image quality and color) for digiscoping is somewhere between 4-6MP for best resolution, based on best combination of pixel count used for the size of image sensors typically found on point and shoots (1/2.7" - 1/1.8"), and with an optical zoom no more than about 4.5-5x.  A high ISO capability is nice for low light, but is limited by the optimization, which is at a low pixel count for the least amount of "noise".   You balance between low-noise = high ISO with small pixel count, and higher noise, from slower ISO with large pixel count.
>
> All that said, my specific question is not about brands, pixels, ISO, zoom, upload/reload speed, etc.:
>
> Is there any difference in 1. quality or 2. convenience between the following two lens types?  When you turn on the camera, the lens is exposed.  Most digicams have a lens that telescopes and sticks out past the front plane of the camera body, but on some point and shoots the lens is somehow located entirely within the body and does not extend beyond the plane of the camera's front, regardless of the optical zoom setting.
>
> Pros and Cons for digiscoping - The latter type has a cover of some type (plastic?) over the lens element, which may further reduce sensor reading or image quality after image travels through the scope.  This cover may also be prone to get scratched.  Compare to the former, with no material covering the exposed lens.  Additionally, in theory it should be easier to steady the latter type on a telescope eyepiece (= hold camera by hand, without using a scope attachment), since it is simply resting a flat plane on the scope eyepiece, compared to a resting a telescoping series of lens sections from the former type.  And lastly, it may also easier to focus the latter type after while it is steadied on the scope eyepiece.  Some of this may be moot if you buy a fancy bracket made specifically for digiscoping, but I don't intend to buy one of these.
>
> I would like to hear from anyone with experience or knowledge of this (offline, unless it is pertinent for readers).
>
> Thank you!
> Jeff Shenot
> 
> Croom Md
>
>