The Nikon 990 is several generations old. We used to use a 995, pretty much identical though more megapixels and more software options. It was replaced by the 8400, I believe then Nikon discontinued it for some inexplicable reason. It was an excellent camera for digiscoping at the time. However, there have been advances in point and shoot cameras since then, mostly that the megapixels have increased significantly and the prices dropped accordingly. They also tend to have much shorter shutter lag. The big advantage of the 990/995/8400 was the swivel body.
There are several universal digiscoping mounts that work with most P&S cameras. Just make sure that the lens is centrally located within the body of the camera as lenses skewed to the corners won't work.
Tyler Bell
California, Maryland
----- Original Message ----
From: Frank Marenghi <>
To:
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:18:24 PM
Subject: [MDOSPREY] FW: RFI re: digiscoping with point and shoots
Thought others may be interested in this as well:
Hi Jeff,
I strongly favor the non-telescoping lens for digiscoping. I use a Nikon CoolPix 990, which, although an older model, gets excellent reviews from the digiscoping community, as I'm sure you've discovered. I am sure there are other brands that perform equally as well. Right now I am limited by my scope which is an entry-level Bushnell. Photos I have taken with other peoples high-end scopes with my camera came out very well. With mine, they are good for id purposes but almost never good enough for display. Again, scope is limiting factor. I can also photograph well through microscopes with this camera.
To your question, I really do not like the telescoping lens cameras for digiscoping. It makes it hard to get the camera lens very close to the scope lens, which you need to do to get good images. They usually produce more of a black circle (vignetting?) on the pic than the fixed type. Also, focusing can be more difficult when trying to use the telscoping type. Even on manual focus it is harder to steady the scope and camera together. It can also be tougher to get a tight seal between the two lenses, keeping excess light out. The fixed lens Coolpix fits inside the rubber eye cup on my scope. Auto focus is pretty much out on the telescoping types since the lens keeps moving in and out without warning (for me anyway). I use the auto focus on the fixed-lens Coolpix with good results.
Obviously, I am not a professsional photographer, but, that's my two cents, hope it helps.
Regards,
Frank
> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:30:54 -0500
> From:
> Subject: [MDOSPREY] RFI re: digiscoping with point and shoots
> To:
>
> 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
Windows LiveT Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever. Learn more.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009
|