~~
Their Razor 85mm is their top spotting scope model and by no means inexpensive. Mine is the later "improved model" with the large focusing collar around the body.
Yesterday's weather conditions were certainly not ideal due to a lack of sunshine. Longer exposures in [relatively] dull conditions are the enemy of digiscoping because of the very high powers involved.
This can be directly related to very long telephoto lenses. In the 1000s of millimeters range! The slightest vibration can cause softening of the image. Long exposures will amplify any atmospheric effects like mirage and certainly won't freeze subject movement. The birds' feathers and the grass, water and trees were all in constant movement yesterday.
The 85mm Swarovski and Zeiss models are more than twice the price of the Vortex Razor! Is that the price one has to pay for true APO correction? Colour error and softness of the image are not nearly so noticeable when used visually. Even the experienced human eye is far more forgiving than a camera.
Though now I better understand why the "serious" people choose the top names in optics. The very high price is built on a potentially fragile reputation. It should guarantee the highest quality and the most stringent quality control. If it leaked out that there was "variability" the very high prices and advertising claims would begin to look like empty hype. The internet can spread rumours like wildfire!
The general view of the lake from where I was standing yesterday. I
held back behind the nearest shrubbery to avoid startling the distant
birds. As can be seen, a small field lay between the lake and myself. The cloudy sky is obvious too.
That said, there are always unhappy customers who found better optics elsewhere. From makers like Kowa and Pentax and many others. They have returned the big names equipment as unsatisfactory at the very high asking price. I have read a lot of reviews and forum posts recently. Plus all the birding/hunting YT reviews of course. All in my search for affordable [within my own budget] digiscoping [afocal] equipment.
I can rely on my 60 years of astronomical, optical experience and photography to judge the value of personal opinions or commercial reviews. Many of which are just sales hype to move product. They use the same terms for all of the equipment they sell. Many of the terms are borrowed straight from the manufacturer's own [sales] websites. This doesn't help anybody make valid or useful comparisons.
Dimensioned photo of the lake for scale. The nearest point was 125 yards away.I have been taking pictures though my astronomical equipment for many decades. Including birds , animals and landscapes. Digiscoping is not remotely new in that sense. It has always been done by amateur astronomers wanting more power. [Magnification] The technique even had a name: Afocal photography.
The arrival of the digital camera just made it far more popular and affordable for terrestrial subjects. Particularly as Asian optics spread prices for equipment steadily downwards to more affordable levels.
The enormous advantage of digital cameras [over film] is that you can take literally hundreds of trial images at no extra charge. Hopefully you learn more rapidly from your mistakes. With film the cost was so high that it severely limited how many exposures one was ever willing to take.
If you relied on the local chemist or camera shop for processing it could take a week to get your prints back. There was little chance to improve your skills by repetition or trial and error. With digital you can just keep pressing the shutter until you grow old and tired. Hopefully learning what works and what doesn't along the way.
~~
No comments:
Post a Comment