If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
Perhaps this should be posted in a "Digiscoping" news group, but I
don't believe there is any such. Anyway, for several years I've been using my CoolPix-995 successfully with a Swarovski AT-80-HD spotting scope, and would like to upgrade the camera to something with more resolution and a larger sensor. Specifically, a good DSLR with an Image Stabilized lens. Unfortunately, I keep hearing both (1) DSLRs are not suited for Digiscoping and (2) if you insist, you must remove the camera's lens and shoot without it, using a special adapter and a T-Mount. But it's almost impossible to find an explanation as to why these two statements are correct. Can anyone give a good technically sound and logical explanation as to why the CoolPix series and others like it CAN be coupled up close to the scope's eyepiece, and the DSLR types cannot without the above modification and loss of use of its lenses? It is these Image Stabilized lenses that make a workable arrangement using them so desirable for this application. Thanks for any explanation (preferably based on factual knowledge, not opinion). Olin McDaniel |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
The eyepiece of the spotting scope is designed for something
about eye-sized, and I could bang on about entrace and exit pupil sizes, but instead... Look at the diameter of the front of your Coolpix's lens. Look at the diameter of the frony of the dSLR lens tou want to use. Compare and contrast. Which is more like the size of the eye that it's about to replace behind the scope? -- John Bean |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
"John Bean" wrote in message
... The eyepiece of the spotting scope is designed for something about eye-sized, and I could bang on about entrace and exit pupil sizes, but instead... Look at the diameter of the front of your Coolpix's lens. Look at the diameter of the frony of the dSLR lens tou want to use. Compare and contrast. Which is more like the size of the eye that it's about to replace behind the scope? Good explanation. Not to worry, though, the DSLR / T-mount solution is also very good, and will probably give superior results. Since the eyepiece and camera lens are absent, there will be fewer pieces of glass in the optical path. -- Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:06:59 GMT, "Mike Russell"
-MOVE wrote: "John Bean" wrote in message .. . The eyepiece of the spotting scope is designed for something about eye-sized, and I could bang on about entrace and exit pupil sizes, but instead... Look at the diameter of the front of your Coolpix's lens. Look at the diameter of the frony of the dSLR lens tou want to use. Compare and contrast. Which is more like the size of the eye that it's about to replace behind the scope? Good explanation. Not to worry, though, the DSLR / T-mount solution is also very good, and will probably give superior results. Since the eyepiece and camera lens are absent, there will be fewer pieces of glass in the optical path. -- Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com OK John, so the diameters are the cause of the incompatibility. But, Mike, if I've got to use the T-Mount and maybe the Swarovski's adapter - my real question is why don't they add a correction lens in that adapter tube? Why throw away the magnification the lenses, such as the Swarovski's eyepiece provides? These give 20X to 60x magnification, all within the eyepiece itself. (You did say "since the eyepiece and camera lens are absent". Check what you said.) My further question is - do these adapters really work without both such lenses? I thought they only required removal of the camera lens, and fitted onto the eyepiece which was left in place. Now, what I really suspect, but cannot confirm it since it's tough to get in touch with them directly, even via a web site, perhaps Swarovski may actually include such a corrective lens in their ~$280 and $460 adapters. Can anyone on here tell me if that's true or not? That's essentially what my original post was all about. Now, back to you John. There are items being sold to make such a combo compatitible. The problem is - they fail to explain how they are solving the diameter difference problem, and how removing one or both lenses manages this. That's precisely what I'm looking for an understanding of. And perhaps I shouldn't expect the 3000mm focal length (35mm equivalent) I get with the CP-995 and the 20X eyepiece on the scope, but that's what I'd like to match. Simply that!!! What are the other options? $8000 lens plus $300 2X tele-extender? That gives me about half what I get now, but now I'm working at only 3 MP resolution. I want the best of both worlds, 8 to 10 MP resolution plus the 3000mm equivalent focal length. Don't we all? An adapter designed for DSLR cameras (like the 30D) and a good lens is the desired goal. Let's pursue this as if price was not the major obstacle. Can it be done? Or is it just not worth it? Olin McDaniel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
"Olin K. McDaniel" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:06:59 GMT, "Mike Russell" -MOVE wrote: "John Bean" wrote in message . .. The eyepiece of the spotting scope is designed for something about eye-sized, and I could bang on about entrace and exit pupil sizes, but instead... Look at the diameter of the front of your Coolpix's lens. Look at the diameter of the frony of the dSLR lens tou want to use. Compare and contrast. Which is more like the size of the eye that it's about to replace behind the scope? Good explanation. Not to worry, though, the DSLR / T-mount solution is also very good, and will probably give superior results. Since the eyepiece and camera lens are absent, there will be fewer pieces of glass in the optical path. -- Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com OK John, so the diameters are the cause of the incompatibility. But, Mike, if I've got to use the T-Mount and maybe the Swarovski's adapter - my real question is why don't they add a correction lens in that adapter tube? Why throw away the magnification the lenses, such as the Swarovski's eyepiece provides? These give 20X to 60x magnification, all within the eyepiece itself. (You did say "since the eyepiece and camera lens are absent". Check what you said.) My further question is - do these adapters really work without both such lenses? I thought they only required removal of the camera lens, and fitted onto the eyepiece which was left in place. Now, what I really suspect, but cannot confirm it since it's tough to get in touch with them directly, even via a web site, perhaps Swarovski may actually include such a corrective lens in their ~$280 and $460 adapters. Can anyone on here tell me if that's true or not? That's essentially what my original post was all about. Now, back to you John. There are items being sold to make such a combo compatitible. The problem is - they fail to explain how they are solving the diameter difference problem, and how removing one or both lenses manages this. That's precisely what I'm looking for an understanding of. And perhaps I shouldn't expect the 3000mm focal length (35mm equivalent) I get with the CP-995 and the 20X eyepiece on the scope, but that's what I'd like to match. Simply that!!! What are the other options? $8000 lens plus $300 2X tele-extender? That gives me about half what I get now, but now I'm working at only 3 MP resolution. I want the best of both worlds, 8 to 10 MP resolution plus the 3000mm equivalent focal length. Don't we all? An adapter designed for DSLR cameras (like the 30D) and a good lens is the desired goal. Let's pursue this as if price was not the major obstacle. Can it be done? Or is it just not worth it? Olin McDaniel For someone who uses telescopes, I would have thought you would know a little more about Optics. The Eyepiece lenses do not produce a "real" Image, It cannot be brought to focus outside the Telescope. The P & S Camera lens will be able to bring this virtual Image to focus at the sensor. A DSLR with a lens attached would be able to do that also, but the difference in size between the front element glass and the Scope VF glass would make this almost unworkable. Removing the scope VF and the DSLR lens will allow the Scope to bring its image to focus on the Sensor, and the adaptors just ensure that extraneous light is kept out, keep the Camera steady on the scope, and the adjusters allow the scope to focus. You are trying to re-invent the wheel. The magnification is determined by the front element of the scope. That is why they need to build such enormous scopes for professional astronomy. Roy G |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
In article , roy.gibson1
@REMOVE.tesco.net says... You are trying to re-invent the wheel. The magnification is determined by the front element of the scope. That is why they need to build such enormous scopes for professional astronomy. The large aperture is to capture light from faint objects.. Magnification is secondary. T. -- Do Binary Tripods have 11 legs ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
"Tony Gartshore" wrote in message
... In article , roy.gibson1 @REMOVE.tesco.net says... You are trying to re-invent the wheel. The magnification is determined by the front element of the scope. That is why they need to build such enormous scopes for professional astronomy. The large aperture is to capture light from faint objects.. Magnification is secondary. The aperture size determines resolution as well as light intensity. Magnification is an analog equivalent of digital zoom. It does not increase the amount of information available, but it is important because it does affect the number of pixels you can put on a given object. The upshot is that the coolpix 995 is a favorite among digiscopers for a reason - it captures a lot of detail using a conventional eyepiece. A T-mount will theoretically make better use of the telescope objective optics, but may, as the OP points out, not have enough magnification to use the entire width of the sensor. BTW - I recall that a Russian experimenter removed the optics of the cp995, and imaged directly on to the sensor without an eyepiece, basically recreating the T-mount concept, only with a tiny sensor. The person who did this was able to capture a good image of the Orion nebula, even with just a moderately long lens. I don't have a link, unfortunately, but can look around some more if you are interested. -- Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?-Very wrong statement!
Roy G wrote:
The Eyepiece lenses do not produce a "real" Image, It cannot be brought to focus outside the Telescope. Wrong! Completely wrong, unless you are using a Galilean telescope that uses a negative lens for an eyepiece, and there haven't been many of those around in the last 400 years (I believe some really cheap binoculars still use this design). Of course an eyepiece can project a real image. I've projected the image of the sun onto a screen many times. The objective lens or primary mirror forms a real image in front of the eyepiece, and the eyepiece then can form a second, real image of that image somewhere beyond. Just think of the eyepiece as a simple, positive lens, with the telescope primary image on one side and the real image formed by that simple lens on the other side, outside the telescope. Though what this has to to with the subject at hand is another question. There is absolutely no reason a DSLR camera cannot be used in the same way as a small P&S, with the lens remaining in place. The problem isn't with the diamter of the lens, but its long focal length and the subsequent magnification you will get. As others have said, you could be much better off removing the lens (and maybe the telescope eyepiece if it is a long focal-length telescope) from the camera. Sorry to jump on this, but I've been reading a lot of questionable statements in this thread, some clearly wrong. This was going too far for me, especially after saying someone should know better. Joe |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?- Very wrong statement!
In article 466db935@darkstar, Joseph Miller
writes Roy G wrote: The Eyepiece lenses do not produce a "real" Image, It cannot be brought to focus outside the Telescope. Wrong! Completely wrong, unless you are using a Galilean telescope that uses a negative lens for an eyepiece, and there haven't been many of those around in the last 400 years (I believe some really cheap binoculars still use this design). Actually he isn't wrong at all, just describing the situation of the telescope in use as set up for normal viewing. When correctly focussed, the telescope and eyepiece produce parallel rays, (even on a Galilean telescope) with the image focussed at infinity. This allows you to look through the eyepiece and see an image with your eye relaxed, just as you normally would when viewing a distant object, where the rays entering your eye from that object are parallel, to be converged onto your retina by the lens in your eye. Of course an eyepiece can project a real image. I've projected the image of the sun onto a screen many times. Yes, you can but you will notice that the distance to your "screen" is significantly greater than the distance between the camera mount and the sensor. Also, if you then look through the telescope the eyepiece will require adjustment to bring the image into focus for direct view (or at least it will if you have normal or corrected vision). All you are doing to focus on a screen is changing the separation of the primary lens or mirror and the eyepiece so that the rays coming out of the eyepiece converge to a point at a finite distance rather than infinity as parallel rays do. You can do exactly the same thing with a Galilean telescope too! Any telescope can produce convergent, divergent or parallel rays depending on the instrument focus. Sorry to jump on this, but I've been reading a lot of questionable statements in this thread, some clearly wrong. This was going too far for me, especially after saying someone should know better. Pot, meet kettle - you are both black, so you can be buddies. ;-) -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why does older CoolPix-995 work with scopes, and DSLRs will not?
In article , M-M
writes You CAN use a DSLR and an eyepiece on a spotting scope. However everything has to be manual. Not at all, you should be able to use aperture priority auto exposure mode without any problem. Obviously you can't use any other auto mode because the scope only has one aperture and no aperture control link with the camera. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Coolpix 2500, is there a work-alike? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 5th 06 10:12 PM |
Nikon Coolpix S3 v Coolpix 4200 | LurfysMa | Digital Photography | 2 | April 3rd 06 06:02 PM |
focus lock + ETTL doesn't work well on EOS 10D/20D (may apply to all DSLRs) | peter | Digital Photography | 9 | May 4th 05 09:40 PM |
Older Wooden 11 X 14 filmholder -- both sides work | Marco Milazzo | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 16th 04 02:18 AM |
Coolpix 990 No Buttons Work | Steve | Digital Photography | 0 | July 6th 04 03:27 AM |