27.07.20 Kowa TSN-884 as a prime telephoto/macro lens?

~~

Following my failure to reach infinity focus with the original camera adapter I had ordered a much shorter example from Baader.

The new ring is 19mm long compared to 35mm. The ring arrived in the post and I hastened to fit it between the telescope and the camera.

Sadly it still would not reach infinity focus by a long way. 10 yards was the maximum target distance which could obtain sharp focus. 

With the Kowa 1.6 Extender fitted I could just reach focus on a tree at 100 yards but no more. See image below left.

By the way, the image was upside down. Easily corrected in image handling software but difficult to find targets in the live viewfinder.

The next test was the macro capability. Without the Extender the nearest focus was about 3-4 yards. A bright and sharp image but with a very shallow depth of field. With the extender it was worse. Finding an object, like a flower or butterfly was very difficult with the image upside down.

Well, I now have a range of options for fitting 1.25" and T2 threaded equipment directly to the Lumix camera body. I could have gone on experimenting and tried my range of GPCs but decided against it.

There is a gap of a couple of millimetres visible between the adapters. Closing that down would require the end of the 1.25" adapter be shortened. A few minutes work in the lathe. How much extra distance reach that would provide is an unknown. Though it must all help.

It did, but only a little. Removing 3mm from the 1.25" nosepiece meant I could reach focus at about 105 yards, with the 1.6x Extender, but things still went soft beyond that. Without the extender I was limited to about 8 yards.

As a macro, or telephoto lens, the results were very mixed. Having the image inverted is a real nuisance and completely spoils the fun. Having such a high power, with the 1.6x extender in place, makes it even more difficult to find anything. Not to mention keeping everything still with such a long focal length! Probably 800mm equivalent in Micro 4/3 terms. 1600mm in 35mm? Crackers!

So it's back to using a camera lens with the Kowa zoom eyepiece and DA-10 adapter. Or without the camera lens and using the Kowa PA7 adapter over the zoom. In both cases I still have much to learn about camera settings to get the exposures short enough to freeze any motion. I know what I should be doing but getting the camera to obey is quite another matter.

As a final test of reaching focus I tried my specialist ZWO astro cameras. These are T2-1.25" mounted and failed similarly to the Lumix G9 to reach focus at any great distance. Fitting the 1.6x extender allowed me to reach a 100 yard distant tree but it was right on the limit. Anything beyond that was out of focus. The image scale was huge due to the tiny sensor size. Since the image scale was already completely impractical I found that fitting any of the GPCs was hardly worth the effort.

~

2107.2020 More testing.

~~

Tuesday 21st  Bright earlier periods but becoming overcast. Set up the Manfrotto 500 head with the Kowa 884 telescope mounted.

I went back to the larger PA7 camera adapter which doesn't use the pancake lens. My intended target was the hedge at 95 yards. Then a helpful pony moved into view. Bringing fine texture and a mane for examining the finest detail.

I have cropped the centre of the picture to show how digital enlargement softens the image. Yet still a lot of detail is present. I am quite pleased with this result. 1200mm equivalent F/L, ISO1600, 1/500. [f/12]

As an experiment, I have just discovered that the G9 camera body cannot reach inward focus without an eyepiece in the Kowa 884. 

I had the PA7's camera adapter with a T2 thread fitted into the camera body. For which I had a matching T2 to 1.25" adapter and a Kowa 1.25" adapter in the telescope. 

This basically means that only subjects within a few yards of the system can be focused. It would need a much shorter camera adapter if it was desired to use the telescope as an externally focusable, telephoto lens. i.e. Single power, without an eyepiece or camera lens. 

I even tried the 1.6x Kowa extender but it was still limited in its distance focus before the 884 failed to focus in the camera. No doubt shorter 4/3 Lumix to T2 camera adapters are available.

They are! I have just ordered a Baader T2 - Micro 4/3 adapter with 19mm detachable extender. That should get me into distant /infinity focus. From memory, the Kowa has a native focal length of 500mm. 500/88 = f5.6. Rather than Kowa's own figure of f/12 at 25x with the zoom eyepiece fitted.

If I can attach the G9 firmly to the '884, without the eyepiece, then I can use the telescope's focusing knobs. I should then have much brighter images but at a lower, single magnification. Obviously I can't remove the prisms from the telescope's optical path. Nor would I want to, of course. So it isn't exactly a simple optical train. But then [prime] telephoto lenses often have a large number of optical elements. Over a dozen. The zoom telephotos sometimes up to double that number!

~~

19.07.2020 Back to the lake.

~~

Sunday 19th 70F, warm but rather overcast with brighter periods. I cycled back to the lake to practice getting it all wrong again. There was no sign of the Great Crested Grebes but there were over one hundred mixed gulls on the water. So I practised focusing on them.

Most of today's images were captured using Program, Manual focusing and with the Lumix 20mm pancake lens fitted. Most of these images were far too bright.

Until later, when I changed tack and set the camera to Shutter priority. Then the images were far too dark!

Next time I shall remember to review my results regularly before capturing three hundred largely wasted shots! I was able to darken these bright images but they became unnatural. See "before and after" examples above.

Eventually the Grebes appeared from within the tangle of lakeside trees. The larger adult carried the four chicks on its back. While the other fished underwater for most of the hour and a half I was there.

Yet again the patient bird [male?] hovered close to the far shore at 120-130 yards.  This made it impossible to separate the bird from the "busy" background. It also meant using 60x zoom on the telescope to make them less than insignificant.

At 25x they were tiny. Equivalent to 1200mm focal length. 60x meant my images were not sharp enough. Particularly after cropping and resizing. It does make you think how a telephoto lens would cope at these distances.

Much later on the two adult Grebes rejoined and moved far enough forward to put some water behind them. Until then most of my images were pointlessly confusing. With the waiting bird completely lost against the background tangle of twigs and foliage.

At all times the G9 camera was telling me that the focus was sharp by painting it bright blue. It was lying! See images above.

At one point the female[?] popped up about 50 yards away. I kept taking images as it paddled parallel with my position. Only when it turned away did I finally capture a sharper image. The female is supposed to have smaller crests. So I have allotted identification purely from this viewpoint.

I keep reading that I should be using a shutter speed equivalent to my effective focal length. How that is possible without setting ISO to ridiculous figures is anybody's guess. Today's exposures ran from 1/80th to 1/500th second.

With a minimum effective focal length of 1200mm and on up in whole multiples I'd need very bright sunlight. Perhaps it is time to push ISO into the stratosphere to get some really sharp images? More experimentation required. I keep hearing that raising ISO will lead to increased noise. Though without any concrete figures being given.

I have discovered yet another wildlife photographer's YouTube channel. For the first time I am seeing a serious effort to teach the craft. Rather than entertain for views, subscriptions and product promotion. Despite my decades of experience at all kinds of photography I am not using a high enough ISO.

My use of an automatic P&S camera with image stabilisation has made me lazy when it comes to settings. I can almost guarantee sharp images with incredibly few failures. When digiscoping I should be using aperture priority to push to much shorter exposures while using such extreme focal lengths. My few sharper images just reflect the complete lottery of my relying on IS and Program settings. I really must check my captured images frequently. To seriously monitor my progress and the results of making any changes.

~~

16.07.2020 Shaprness testing continued.

~~

Friday 16th. It was a little brighter today. After an hour's fruitless searching I finally found the NON-CAPTIVE panning lock, thumbscrew for the Manfrotto 500 head. It had fallen on the floor unnoticed and rolled under a chair.

Then it was back to my raised viewpoint so that testing could continue. Again I had the Lumix 20mm F/1.7 "pancake" lens and the Kowa DA-10 camera adapter fitted. 

I tried Program, Shutter priority and aperture priority at the same distances as yesterday. I adjusted the telescope zoom lens from to 25-60 in the marked steps at each target distance. Taking a picture at each setting. I set the camera's image stabilization both on and off for a run of all the telescope powers.

Program had a struggle to focus through the telescope at 95 yards. The 20mm lens was visibly hunting [breathing] back and forth. After I reset the focus with the telescope controls knobs things settled down gain.

More distant [200+ yards] images still seem to do better than half that distance. Could it be the pancake lens focus setting? There is a clear sharpness advantage to having the lens in place. Rather than the "naked" PA7 adapter. The question is where in its focus range does the 20mm lens want to be? Manual focus throws up a scale in the viewfinder from infinity to macro. This responds to turning the focus ring on the lens itself.

Visually the Kowa is delightfully sharp at all power settings and all distances. Bringing the camera into play is reducing sharpness but I still don't now why. 

My original Lumix G9 images are 17MB nominal, Fine, 8.7MP, 3:2 format, 5184x3456 pixels.

Short range at 18m or 20 yards cropped image at 25x.

The images look excellent taken at 200 yards at full screen on my AOC 27" monitor. The tall pale grasses at 220 yards look detailed and nuanced. While the hedge at 95 yards is not quite as crisp as I would like. This suggests a focusing issue with nearer targets.

~~

15.07.2020 Testing-testing!

~~

Thursday 15th July. Overcast in the afternoon after some earlier sunny periods.

I fixed the Manfrotto 500 head to a raised base allow a much greater distance for testing image sharpness.

After measuring the distances on Google Earth, I have labelled the image alongside. I think you will agree that the detail is very reasonable. The cool conditions are not raising thermal "mirages." Though brighter conditions would allow faster shutter speeds.

The most distant shores of my usual water birding lake are nearer than this. I have IS set. The video of this scene was even sharper. So why am I not getting sharper plumage on the water birds? Let us try a closer target more representative of the birds out on the water.

The second image [Right] is of a hedge at 95 yards. Resized from 5000 pixels to 1000 pixels in PhotoFiltre7. Note the much shallower depth of field with a nearer target. The fence wires are actually quite close to the hedge. Shutter priority.

Next image [Left] is cropped from 5000 pixels to 2350. Then resized to 1000 pixels for the blog. The blue cloth was placed to provide fine texture at the target distance. I'd say that this image is larger and softer despite taking great care with focusing and using wireless shutter release. Cropping increases the image scale. The focal point with the cameras is not the same as visual through the eyepiece.

Next image [Right] I have fitted the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens and reverted to the DA-10 filter thread adapter. This image is also resized from 5200 to 1000 pixels. Interesting that the image scale is much smaller but sharper. It seems the PA7 isn't the magical adapter after all. I wonder why?

Visually the view is crystal clear with all the detail easily visible in the cloth at 25x. It would be very easy to see an ant or small fly on the cloth at this distance. Not so using the camera. The 220 yard distant grass actually looks sharper than the much nearer hedge to my eyes. Something is amiss with nearer targets.

The last image [Left] is again with the pancake lens, Program mode and DA-10 adapter. Now the telescope has been zoomed to 60x. Wireless shutter release again. Pretty good, I'd say. The detail in the cloth is really quite good. So, I must be doing something wrong with the lens-less PA7 adapter at mid-range, target distances. But what? Is it the processing?

~~

14.7.2020 Beast of burden?

~~

The view of the kit required for digiscoping laid out on the picnic table. All of this has to be carried to the intended site by bicycle or on foot. I still don't feel very relaxed about the process of preparing for a digiscoping outing.

The sheer quantity of items is almost bewildering but vital to success. They may not all be stored in the same place at home. Not if the telescope or camera are used for other purposes between trips to the water. Just losing a single component in the long grass would be an expensive disaster!

Apart from the telescope and camera body there are all the different adapters and lens caps. The tripod and gimbal head travel assembled. They are carried in the Viking Optical bag as a rucksack frame. The extended and [now reinforced] dovetail plate is fixed to the telescope. Though there is no room for the zoom eyepiece when fitted. So I have adopted a tiny, racing cyclist's "saddle bag" for carrying that safely and compactly.

Several other bags and boxes are required to provide separate storage and protection for fragile items. These containers can double up for storage of removed items once their primary storage purpose is completed. For example, the box which contains the wireless shutter release is freed up to hold the camera and telescope lens caps. The binoculars travel in their own Nikon bag to avoid damage in transit in the big, saddle bag. The camera bag fits inside another padded bag for the journey to the lake.

Being able to instantly identify everything at a glance is a large part of efficiency at the water side. Wasting time or arriving without something vital is just foolish. Particularly when the presence of possibly interesting subjects is often temporary.

Standing about while assembling all the kit may well drive a rare visitor away. I always sit to set up the equipment behind the tripod and its carrier bag. Anything to avoid attracting attention out on the lake.

Birds are absolute masters at monitoring for danger. They have had countless millennia of attacks from humans and other predators to go by. A whole series of birds is responsible for providing warnings. Blackbirds are only the most obvious and loudest alarm systems. Many other birds have alarm calls which can pass unnoticed by the average person.

The picnic table is sloping but it is not my place to move it. Even if I could lift its considerable weight without injury. The lake owner described how some visitors drop litter. Which is not only appalling, antisocial behaviour but could easily hurt the wildlife. They might easily starve to death if they have a plastic bag, jar or bottle stuck over their heads! Or stuck down their throats! So take your litter home!

~~

13.07.2020 More laketime digiscoping practice.

~~

Monday 13th bright overcast with a few brighter periods. Cycled to the lake again.

Set up beside the [private] picnic table so that I could sit down behind the telescope and camera. I had left my new stool behind but still didn't want to present a standing profile on the bank. I am almost sure that the birds keep their distance. Few ever come within 50 yards while I am there.

I was quite pleased with this action shot despite it not being very sharp. One gull bullied another off the nesting box. It makes for quite a dramatic image.

The Grebes were sulking around the far shore at 125 yards or more. One of the birds had at least three young snuggled into its back. While the other fished almost constantly underwater. The background was far too dark and busy without any chance to put it out of focus at that distance. The image below was taken when the "fishing" bird popped up accidentally at about 60 yards away. It dived again almost immediately.

Unexpectedly, there were a few gulls present for the first time. The nearest at about 100 yards and spread out beyond that to probably about 140 yards or more. With lots more gulls arriving steadily and only a few leaving in the hour and half I was there. I decided to practice focusing on the gulls since they were so bright and provided excellent contrast to their edges in the viewfinder.

Sadly most of these images, which I saw as razor sharp in the G9 viewfinder, were slightly out of focus. Or just plain soft. I was using the 2-step wireless shutter release. So assumed that it was a focusing problem rather than camera shake. Naturally this was very disappointing and needs much more thought.

If it really was a focus problem then a whole bunch of birds, scattered over so many yards of water, should have at least some of them in sharp focus. If it was a depth of field problem then the same rule applies. I could see the [camera applied] blue rims as a guide around the birds while using manual focus.

Sudden resurfacing of fishing grebe at 60 yards.

In the viewfinder I could easily see the finest detail. I just didn't capture it despite being very careful about touching the telescope or camera. The G9 was adjusted to shutter priority and 1000 ISO to achieve 1/500 exposures. The problem is that the camera can't read the telescope's focal length or F number in manual focus. There are no contacts so manual focus is the only option.

The test of image sharpness is usually seeing fine detail in the bird's plumage. A bird's eyes are also a good test. They give the bird its identity and character. I could see all of this clearly in the viewfinder but not in my images. The obvious question is: Why?

I had the set-up nicely balanced. The Sirui gimbal head was too free moving for my taste. Easily adjusted in tilt but not in panning. Though my repeated "exercising" of the internal and highly eccentric gearwheel had resulted in a much softer lock with more useful friction. Sadly it was still not ideal with such a long focal length.

Yet again I was delighted by the brightness and sharpness of the view through the Kowa '884 telescope visually. If only I could capture what it presents to the camera. This is something I can research further and practice at home. If I can arrange a long enough, clear line of sight. At present I can only manage about 50-60 yards. Whereas the birds on the lake are often twice that distance.

EDIT: I have just had a thought. Some photographers suggest that IS [image stabilisation] be switched off when using a tripod. The theory being that IS is designed for handheld situations. Which means only certain low frequencies need be neutralized. Some users claim that IS spoils the images from tripod mounted cameras by adding unwanted vibration. This needs further testing if I am to progress.  

Another safe landing chalked up to nature's autopilot. Probably just over 100 yards away.

It is all too easy to forget exactly how far the birds are away from my fixed position. There being no obvious reference points out on the water. Nor alternative sites on the bank with such a clear view of most of the water. I use Google Earth to measure distances across the lake.

I deliberately set up well back from the water's edge to minimize my intrusion. My presence is merely a hobby. Their lives and natural behaviour should not be interrupted or altered just for the sake of a few [often fuzzy] photographs Some of the lake's inhabitants are rearing young. Sometimes their second or third brood of the season. I often see grebes chasing their last offspring away with considerable ferocity! They cannot afford to continue feeding juveniles which should be independent.

I am counting down the hours before I unpick [or cut] the tape which holds the lens cover to the stay-on "body bag." The round, black, dangling lens cover doubles the frontal area of the telescope!

For a scale comparison: Maximum zoom of my 12x Lumix TZ7. Gulls at about 130 yards.

Well, I finally took a pair of sharp nail scissors to the tape and severed the hold on the cap. All it would take now is to fit an open style zip instead of a closed one. I don't have the sewing machine skills for that. I shall hold the "cloth cap" in place on the telescope with a sock stretched over the stay-on case. It works an absolute treat. My wife tells me that I'm not risking contacting a local seamstress until the pandemic is sorted.

I am now thinking of taking some green, shade netting to act as camouflage by hanging it off the tripod. Camouflage "capes" are quite affordable but too inconvenient at my present level of commitment.

~~

6.07.2020 Disorganisation in complexity.

~~

I have hit a snag on organising the camera, telescope and digiscoping accessories. Each can be used alone or in combination. Which means that safe storage is required for each eventuality. It also means lots [and lots] of lens caps! I now have two sets of digiscoping adapters. One needs a camera lens and the other not. Which means safe storage for umpteen more bits and pieces. Mobile or not, depending on the circumstances. I need lots of containers which allow instant identification of the contents!

Using the much bulkier and much heavier camera [than my trusty, Lumix TZ7, pocket camera] on my morning walks is confused by the need for binoculars. I'd need a 400mm telephoto to match the binoculars for distant reach. Even then, the experience would not be remotely the same. 

The camera viewfinder is a very poor relative of binoculars. Which are compact, lightweight, are instantly accessible and have a wide field of view. It has become second nature to home-in on any subject at any distance on the ground, in the trees or in the air. Adding a bulky camera to the mix adds very serious clumsiness. Crossing straps between the camera and binoculars would soon become extremely tiresome.

There are Q/R clips for cameras to fit on a variety of straps. Though it would add highly asymmetric loading onto the strap of a pair of lightweight binoculars. I can't see that being very practical. Better suited to heavy, rucksack-style, camera bags Or I would have thought.

The pairing of camera and binoculars can work well in a fixed location when digiscoping. Simply because the telescope/camera unit is self-supporting on a tripod. No need for a camera strap. The binoculars can be arranged nearby to be quickly grabbed when required. Which saves moving the telescope onto another target and refocusing quite unnecessarily. There is no need to wear the binoculars continuously. If I did, they would swing about as I rock forwards, on my stool, to look through the viewfinder.

Which is a far more useful means of framing and focusing without glasses. Whereas the "tiny" screen on the G9 needs my strongest reading glasses and a close approach. Much like the Canon Ixus 117HS. These screens must also compete with bright daylight. Making image legibility and reading such tiny digits largely a waste of time and space.

Much the same can be said for the LCD information panel on top of the G9. It is strictly a young person's device for those with good, close vision. Septuagenarians, like myself, will usually suffer from age-related lack of visual accommodation. [The ability to instantly refocus the eyes is lost due to hardening of the eye lens.] Though in my case I was extremely fortunate to have developed fine distance vision in old age. Despite wearing spectacles for most of my adult life. Just to be able to read the clock on the office wall. Or, in particular, for driving.

Conversely, I find the camera viewfinder does not work with glasses. So I have learnt to prop my glasses on top of my head when digiscoping. [Hollywood style.] Otherwise I can't see the lake's inhabitants through my reading glasses when I look up.

You never know when an interesting arrival might make an entrance onto the stage provided by the lake. Particularly when completely engrossed in capturing a subject through the viewfinder. Water birds are often highly mobile for no obvious reason. A tour up and down the lake is perfectly commonplace. As are new birds flying in. Or moving out of cover after a nap. The camera largely blocks one's view of all this unless they cross the very narrow field of view seen through the viewfinder.

The camera viewfinder is a comparative revelation in ease of use compared with the screen. Though it greatly increases the chance of shaking the camera. The wireless shutter release works wonders in this sense. I can withdraw my head slightly, after the half click for the camera to work its computing magic. Then release the shutter only when the subject "poses" nicely for the camera. Which can be easily monitored without directly resting one's head against the camera.

Head turning, for avoiding potential threats, is a very common behaviour in birds. A photograph of the back of a bird's head is not usually considered of general interest. Birds tend to preen and groom themselves at lightning speed too. Meaning that one has to hone one's ability to anticipate a pleasing aspect before actual shutter release.

Multiple [burst] exposures are  now a common feature of digital cameras. Sadly, abuse of this handy feature will often lead to huge files. Not to mention ending up with far too many images to easily cope with. I am still waiting for AI software to manage the vast number of images I have accumulated over the years since "going digital!" None of the present, storage and cataloguing softwares, pretends to be useful in that respect. Some of them don't even have an ignore duplicates when downloading button! What idiocy!

~~

2.07.20 Back to the lake.

~~

Thursday 2nd July. Armed with the telescope, the G9 camera and the PA7 adapter I cycled to the lake.

Only a solitary Grebe was present within my field of view. So I snapped away for an hour as the bird drifted around near the far shore. I doubt it ever came any closer than 100 yards. Though mostly it floated at 110-120 yards measured on Google Earth. Practice in anticipating the bird's movements is all good.

I soon became used to manual focusing on the telescope. Using the [very] subtle blue wash in the viewfinder as a guide to my focusing accuracy.  It eventually dawned on me that the camera was not on optimum settings. I had left it at +2/3 EV and sunny conditions from last time. Whereas it was moderately bright overcast, today and needed no EV boost.

The excessive brightness immediately dropped to a more sensible level. The water took on a much more appealing, deep green. Aperture priority dropped the exposure down to 1/125. So I set the G9 to shutter priority instead and it jumped to 1/500. I have just realised it is decades since I used a manual camera. My old OM1n film SLR.

The Pixel Opillas wireless, shutter remote is superb! I was often holding the shutter on half press as I waited for the best "moment" in the bird's behaviour. The actual brightness and sharpness of the scene was nicely displayed at half press and surprisingly dark. Which, they say, is better than too bright. You can alway brighten an image but you can't kill overblown highlights.

As I feared, the Sirui PH-20 gimbal is far too free in panning and needs much more friction. Though not the roughness of the "cogging" when it locks up without warning! I keep wondering whether mine is broken. Shouldn't there be a gradual increase in braking as a normal user would expect? I might fit a stick on the Sirui gimbal to take back the missing control. Or fit a friction damper of my own.[?]

At least the digiscoping set-up was balanced this time. I have been struggling with the silly little camera plate on the Manfrotto 500 head for too long! The altitude [tilt] friction of the PH-20 was nicely nuanced in adjustment. You'd think Sirui would have learned from that success?

None of my images were razor sharp but the vast majority were acceptable given the considerable distances involved. This is a remarkable improvement on my earlier efforts. When most of my more distant stills were poor to very poor. The Grebe images are rather soft and almost like paintings. Quite unlike the unbelievably sharp imagery you see from the digiscoping experts.

There was considerable cropping to increase the scale of the bird. Also to remove distracting blobs of foam. I had deliberately chosen 18Mb image capture to leave me room to make adjustments. I am still serially watching YouTube videos on photography. Though not all of it directly relates to digiscoping there is still much to learn about the complexities of DSLRs.

Video is easier to capture but requires far more friction in panning than the PH-20 is providing at present. My short videos were actually unpleasant to view. So I may have been using too fast a frame rate. I made no conscious choice amongst the many options and just went with something which sounded familiar.

I have decided to try and "break in" the Sirui gimbal horizontal [panning] axis by repeated rotation as I tightened and loosened the locking knob. The totally ridiculous eccentricity seems to be reducing. Meanwhile the locking is much less abrupt and noticeably smoother. Even a hint of graduated friction braking towards the tightest spot now.

The very much cheaper, Neewar gimbal has quite a following on YT. With several videos on repair and mods. The major problem with that seems to be sticky lubricant. Whereas the Sirui is much too free moving. Without being able to heat the CF of the housing I can't dismantle it. Without taking it apart I can't see where the faults lie. Very few own gimbal heads and even fewer this particular example. Whom do I consult for advice on obvious faults? 

~~

1st July Digiscoping system weights and folding stool.

~~

The overall weight of the G9 camera with PA7 adapter, battery grip and wireless receiver is 1270g or 2lbs 13oz. Of which the PA7 adapter with T2 bayonet ring weighs 225g or 8 oz.

The Kowa TSN-884 telescope with PH-180 plate, anti-rotation brace and zoom eyepiece weighs 2069g or 4lbs 9oz.

The Manfrotto 055 tripod, Viking carry bag and PH-20 gimbal head weighs 4kg or 9lbs.

Carrying the assembled bundle of camera, telescope and tripod along the drive, with just one hand gripping the central column, now reminds me of the considerable overall weight! 7.4kg. or 17lbs!

Better add another pound for the stool when I go to the lake. Then there are the 8x42 Monarch 5 binoculars at 720g or 1.9lbs with soft padded case. The Lumix TZ7. Assorted bags and cases. It is lucky I have my touring trike. With its huge carrying capacity in the 40 litre saddle bag on the rear rack.

 My new, Crespo folding stool:  Not intending to be lazy, but rather to provide a lower profile on the side of the lake. I can lower the tripod and sit behind the camera in perfect comfort. The folding stool is light enough to be carried easily and is a proper size in all dimensions. Some of these folding stools are so mean in size that you end up sitting on the frame. With your knees higher than your chin!

This one should fit nicely on the tripod carrier bag as I cycle to the ponds. Note the flat bars which rest on the ground. Rather than small feet which would just sink. The image shows the tripod legs with the first section retracted. Which is the perfect eye height for the camera when pointing close to the horizontal at the lake.

~~

1st July Kowa TSN-PA7 camera adapter.

~~

The PA7 digiscoping adapter has arrived. Along with a T2 - 4/3 bayonet ring.  Triggered by absence of a recognised lens the Lumix G9 camera wanted to know what focal length I was using. I set it to the maximum of 1000mm. I had already set focusing to Manual.

The sky was rather overcast and the images in the viewfinder rather dark but nicely sharp. I snapped away as the tree tops swayed in and out of view in the wind. Just to have a record of the first exposures with the [lenseless] digiscoping system. I may have to raise the ISO. To 3200.

The images above and right show the TSN-PA7 adapter in place over the zoom eyepiece. The tubular adapter is a surprisingly large, but light and sturdy bit of kit. Magnesium alloy?

First a grooved, locating ring screws on in place of the decorative ring at the tail end of the telescope body. Then the zoom eyepiece goes back in. The adapter is slid over the previous two components. The large, captive, chromed thumbscrews on the adapter itself provide a secure hold while allowing easy, camera rotation. It all feels very sturdy and the lack of a relay lens means that the image should be even sharper.

The previous DA10 adapter thumbscrew was not captive and frequently fell out! Not clever for an outdoor accessory likely to be used in the wilds! 

At the camera end of the PA7 a bayonet ring screws to the T2 thread [42x 0.75mm] to hold the camera. A range of these bayonet rings is available for popular camera makes.

There are no lens contacts on the bayonet ring. The large cut-outs in The PA7 allow access to the Kowa zoom ring on the eyepiece. The PA7 contains a small filter glass to seal the camera body when it is attached.

Rain temporarily stopped play as I was about to take some pictures and explore the new camera/adapter set-up. Sunny periods are promised so I can start again later.


I tried a few shots with the new adapter. Mostly the results were too dark. While very distant shots were rather soft.

Somehow the G9 is fixated on 1/2000. Which is too fast for today's overcast conditions. I am using the Pixel wireless, shutter release for its very positive 2-step shutter release and lack of vibration. Now I need to go through the camera menus to see what I've done wrong.

I reset the camera to shutter priority and then took pictures of a coloured, printed, catalogue page from various distances up to 60 yards. An overgrown hedge and a slight curve in the drive made further range impossible. The legibility of the smallest text is easily improved with slight sharpening in image handling software. Enough to make it possible to read. This is at the equivalent focal length of 2,450mm! I could read the small print on both the camera screen and in the viewfinder.

~~