Advice please for a newbie

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:28:47 GMT, HEMI-Powered wrote:

>> What is the best camera currently available to buy today that
>> would be most suitable for digiscoping. I dont want a second
>> hand one only new. I believe that my current camera is
>> unsuitable because of the zoom (10x is apparently too powerful
>> for this purpose). I would appreciate any thought\opinions
>> that anyone has.
>
> What in the dickens is "digiscoping"?

It's the subject that you'll be authoritatively lecturing us about
in future messages as soon as one or more of rpd's several
digiscopers clue you in. There were a couple of recent, moderately
long threads on it while you slept. Hint: Are you a birder?
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:28:47 GMT, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote:

>Today, Golden Oldie made this profound pronouncement
>
>> What is the best camera currently available to buy today that
>> would be most suitable for digiscoping. I dont want a second
>> hand one only new. I believe that my current camera is
>> unsuitable because of the zoom (10x is apparently too powerful
>> for this purpose). I would appreciate any thought\opinions
>> that anyone has.
>>
>What in the dickens is "digiscoping"?

What in the dickens is Google?

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

Today, ASAAR made this profound pronouncement

> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:28:47 GMT, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>>> What is the best camera currently available to buy today
>>> that would be most suitable for digiscoping. I dont want a
>>> second hand one only new. I believe that my current camera
>>> is unsuitable because of the zoom (10x is apparently too
>>> powerful for this purpose). I would appreciate any
>>> thought\opinions that anyone has.
>>
>> What in the dickens is "digiscoping"?
>
> It's the subject that you'll be authoritatively lecturing us
> about
> in future messages as soon as one or more of rpd's several
> digiscopers clue you in. There were a couple of recent,
> moderately long threads on it while you slept. Hint: Are you
> a birder?
>
a) I see no need to Google for your brand of photography, b) no, I
am not a birder, whatever that is, but most importantly, c) if you
are too lazy to provide more than a generic but rediculous
description of what you want to do, fail to describe it yet want to
get "thought\opinions" on that, you may find yourself being
rediculed as a newbie who has no clue as to what is out there, what
his true needs vs wants are, or any other relevant criteria such as
size, complexity, technology and price point. But, if you want to
make sport of my apparent ignorance, than you should not be at all
surprise that you get no help from me, and will likely get some
verbal abuse if you're also ignorant of people skills and attempt
to start a flame war. EOT.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

"HEMI-Powered" wrote:

> you get no help from me, and will likely get some
> verbal abuse if you're also ignorant of people skills and attempt
> to start a flame war. EOT.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

To newbies unfamiliar with HP aka Jerry, his "EOT" stands for "Ever
Obnoxious Twit" or an "Equal Opportunity Terrorist" who wages scorched-
earth flame wars whenever he feels his great intelligence and experience
has been doubted His chief expertise is in verbal abuse.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

Never mind. I will find somewhere more willing to help with my question. I
thought the purpose of groups like this was to help people!
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:24:02 GMT, Golden Oldie wrote:

> Never mind. I will find somewhere more willing to help with my question.
> I thought the purpose of groups like this was to help people!

It is and it will. I hope you'll stick around at least a little
bit longer. But there are only a few people that have the
experience to accurately answer your question. It may take several
days before they visit this newsgroup and have a chance to see your
question. The title of this thread also minimizes the chance that
they'll see your question, since "digiscoping" wasn't mentioned
anywhere in the Subject/Title of the thread. For what it's worth,
one of the experienced digiscopers is Mike Myers. Unfortunately, he
was last seen in these parts about 3 weeks ago. He has posted many
links to photos taken with Nikon's 82mm Fieldscope, and whose
messages may be identified thusly (i.j.) :

> From: M-M

You can get some more information by retrieving old messages in
this newsgroup. Below are a few quotes from some of the older
messages I've archived. Again, I have no digiscoping experience, so
wait for the 'experts' to answer any specific questions. You may
want to ask your question again, starting a new thread using a more
'attractive' title.

===============================================

> From: omcdaniel.abcd RemoveThis @mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel)
> Subject: Re: Is 12x optical zoom ona 10 mp digital camera good enough
> for shooting surfers from the beach? Thanks!
> Message-ID:
> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:51:30 GMT
> . . .
> Not saying that the several different viewpoints discussed here are
> wrong, just that they are based on different criteria. My older Nikon
> CoolPix 995 claims to have a 4X optical zoom. And the actual range of
> focal lengths is from 8 to 32 mm, which they say is equivalent in 35mm
> camera terms to 38 to 152 mm. So as others have pointed out, if the
> 50mm point is considered the reference or starting point, this lens
> really has an EFFECTIVE telephoto multiplier of just over 3X. More
> important, to me at least, when I attach it to my Swarovski spotting
> scope having an additional 20X to 60X, and set the camera at max.,
> zoom which itself is equiv. to 152 mm, then the combo is effectively a
> 3040 mm to 9120 mm telephoto lens - again based on 35mm film camera
> lenses.
>
> From a practical standpoint, I've learned that anything over about 30X
> on the spotting scope is not very useful, due to reduced sharpness.
> But from 20 to 30X, this digiscoping technique works extremely well
> for me in my wildlife photography efforts. And is much lighter and
> less expensive than a standalone 3000 mm telephoto lens.
>
> Olin McDaniel

===============================================

> From: "professorpaul"
> Subject: Re: Question about digiscoping.
> Date: 11 Feb 2007 09:04:30 -0800
> Message-ID:
> . . .
>> I am considering getting a Nikon Coolpix L5 camera to use for digiscoping.
>> Does anyone have any opinions about this camera for this activity?
>
> Check out this link... The adapter seems to be the issue.
>
> I have a Olympus C-5000 which has a threaded lens, so might look into
> the idea
>
> http://www.shortcourses.com/how/digiscoping/digiscoping.htm

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: Saturn at 9000mm
> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:15:34 -0400
> Message-ID:
> . . .
> I just received my Nikon 82mm Fieldscope and attaching my Coolpix 990
> gives an effective focal length of 9000mm. Here is a 50% crop of Saturn
> last night.
>
> Through the eyepiece I was able to see the Cassini division as a solid
> black line, like it was drawn with a fine felt tip marker. The photo
> though is not as clear
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN3405w.jpg

and from another of his messages in this thread :

>> Personally, I find these home-made images just as interesting as the
>> high-res ones...on a different level. There's something fun about feeling
>> as they these celestial objects are "within reach" of even basic photography
>> techniques...even if the clarity isn't the greatest.
>
>
> Yes, that was me with the little picture. And you're right how
> satisfying it is to be able to stretch what we have into the next level.
>
> You should see what I had to do to get the camera attached to the
> Fieldscope: oak, silicone tubing, velcro. And the homemade shutter
> release works better than Nikon's electronic wired one:
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/camera/DSC_0897.jpg

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: Re: Is a UV filter still needed on a digital lens?
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:31:51 -0500
> Message-ID:
> . . .
> I am using Nikon's 18-135mm and a 70-300mm VR on a D80.
>
> I'm moving from digiscoping with a Coolpix 990. See www.mhmyers.com

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: "That's a REALLY nice 1500mm lens you have there"
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:23:03 -0400
> Message-ID:
> That's what this cardinal looks to be saying.
>
> Nikon Fieldscope 82mm + D80 = 1500mm (equiv) of exquisite optics and
> rendition.
>
> Full frame, no post-camera processing except to reduce in size to 18% of
> original.
>
> Check it out:
>
> <http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_1516w.jpg>

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: Re: "That's a REALLY nice 1500mm lens you have there"
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:09:49 -0400
> Message-ID:
> . . .
> Nikon makes an connector specifically for their DSLR's that replaces the
> eyepiece of the scope. It meters and displays all EXIF data accurately.
>
> Here's a photo of the setup, except today I used my Bogen fluid-head:
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/camera/DSCN3280.jpg
>
> I set it to Aperture priority (it's fixed at f/13), minimum shutter
> 1/125 and the camera bumped the ISO to 900 to achieve that. (Try
> THAT with your Canon

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: Re: "That's a REALLY nice 1500mm lens you have there"
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:23:33 -0400
> Message-ID:
>
> I'll tell you this from experience:
>
> An 82mm Spotting Scope is way better than a 60mm one. The images are
> much brighter.
>
> A $1500 scope is way better than a $300 scope. It's like the difference
> between looking through a clean window or looking through a dirty foggy
> one, not to mention the CA you will see all over in the cheaper scope.
>
> I used a 60mm Swift Telemaster for 25 years and I used to think I got
> good photos through it. Not.
>
> Here is one of my best shots with that $300 Swift Scope:
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg
>
> Note the lack of definition and the extreme CA.
>
> m-m

===============================================

> From: M-M
> Subject: Re: Saturn's Rings Handheld at 300mm
> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:11:51 -0500
> Message-ID:
> . . .
> Thank you for redeeming me, Roger. Your images are quite impressive, as
> are your mathematical calculations.
>
> I just ordered a Nikon 82mm Fieldscope with a SLR adapter for my D80
> which will give me 1500mm equiv at f13.3. The beauty of it is the glass
> is completely color corrected and it is a fine instrument even if half
> of what I read about it is true.
>
> I can also connect my Coolpix 4500 to a 75X eyepiece which should enable
> me to capture the Cassini division in Saturn's rings.
>
> The rings are becoming more edge-on every year so by 2011 they will be
> only a thin line and they will not be this open again until 2015.

===============================================

One message had a digiscoping link but I haven't checked it out :

http://www.digiscoping.co.uk/
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

Today, Charles Gillen made this profound pronouncement

> "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
>
>> you get no help from me, and will likely get some
>> verbal abuse if you're also ignorant of people skills and
>> attempt to start a flame war. EOT.
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>
> To newbies unfamiliar with HP aka Jerry, his "EOT" stands for
> "Ever Obnoxious Twit" or an "Equal Opportunity Terrorist" who
> wages scorched- earth flame wars whenever he feels his great
> intelligence and experience has been doubted His chief
> expertise is in verbal abuse.
>
try "End Of Transmission", imbecile


--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:22:56 GMT, HEMI-Powered wrote:

>> To newbies unfamiliar with HP aka Jerry, his "EOT" stands for
>> "Ever Obnoxious Twit" or an "Equal Opportunity Terrorist" who
>> wages scorched- earth flame wars whenever he feels his great
>> intelligence and experience has been doubted His chief
>> expertise is in verbal abuse.
>>
> try "End Of Transmission", imbecile

Or more often and/or more accurately, <End Of Text>, Hemi head.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Today, Charles Gillen made this profound pronouncement
>
>> "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
>>
>>> you get no help from me, and will likely get some
>>> verbal abuse if you're also ignorant of people skills and
>>> attempt to start a flame war. EOT.
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry
>> To newbies unfamiliar with HP aka Jerry, his "EOT" stands for
>> "Ever Obnoxious Twit" or an "Equal Opportunity Terrorist" who
>> wages scorched- earth flame wars whenever he feels his great
>> intelligence and experience has been doubted His chief
>> expertise is in verbal abuse.
>>
> try "End Of Transmission", imbecile
>
>
EORYP, Hemi.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:22:56 GMT, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote:

>Today, Charles Gillen made this profound pronouncement
>
>> "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
>>
>>> you get no help from me, and will likely get some
>>> verbal abuse if you're also ignorant of people skills and
>>> attempt to start a flame war. EOT.
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry
>>
>> To newbies unfamiliar with HP aka Jerry, his "EOT" stands for
>> "Ever Obnoxious Twit" or an "Equal Opportunity Terrorist" who
>> wages scorched- earth flame wars whenever he feels his great
>> intelligence and experience has been doubted His chief
>> expertise is in verbal abuse.
>>
>try "End Of Transmission", imbecile

What a shame it wasn't.

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

Today, ASAAR uttered these immortal words, such was the
importance of this profound pronouncement, that is is being
saved for future reference

>> try "End Of Transmission", imbecile
>
> Or more often and/or more accurately, <End Of Text>, Hemi
> head.
>
I just love to death the elitists in this NG who believe that they,
and they alone, have all the stored knowledge of the universe at
they fingertips on any and all aspects of photography from the
early Matthew Brady days to todays 45 MP+ cameras utilizing the
most advance electronic technology barely out of the laboratory.
What makes these people so valuable is that they have a unique
ability to continue to drone on and on and on, digging deeper and
deeper and deeper into the farthest regious of esoteric
developments in photographic equipment and its optimum use. Without
such dedicated people, the ordinary folk coming here for some
simple to understand help in using their new camera, asking for
advice on what to purchase next, or trying to find a solution to a
vexing problem would go away frustrated and helpless. So, my hat is
off to the elitist theoroticians of the world and especially those
that inhabit this NG, you are truly worth your weight in gold.

Now, for some other definitions:

EOR: End Of Record
EOF: End Of File
EOT: End Of Text and End Of Transmission

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie 

On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:27:18 -0000, HEMI-Powered wrote:

> I just love to death the elitists in this NG who believe that they,
> and they alone, have all the stored knowledge of the universe at
> they fingertips on any and all aspects of photography from the
> early Matthew Brady days to todays 45 MP+ cameras utilizing the
> most advance electronic technology barely out of the laboratory.

Displaying your vast knowledge again, my fine feathered elitist?


> What makes these people so valuable is that they have a unique
> ability to continue to drone on and on and on, digging deeper and
> deeper and deeper into the farthest regious of esoteric
> developments in photographic equipment and its optimum use.

Thank you for showing us again how you do drone on . . .


> Now, for some other definitions:
>
> EOR: End Of Record
> EOF: End Of File
> EOT: End Of Text and End Of Transmission

Showing off your elitist knowledge again are you? You've been
describing yourself perfectly and don't even realize it. <g>
 >> Stay informed about: Advice please for a newbie