A camera with some serious zoom

[Tea]

Well, Tannin's red-it cred-it card is finally working for its living. I talked the old bugger into lashing out for a digiscoping setup, and ... about six grand later ... it's taking shape.

The idea is that you use a fairly cheap, plain-jane digital camera to store the images on, but, in order not to get a great big picture of a tree with a tiny little brown dot somewhere that you assure everyone is really a juvenile Pink Robin and not a spec on the lens, you point it through a spotting scope. Err ... let me see if I can find a picture of one to hijack.

You need a good qualty tripod, a really smooth and firm head (tripod heads designed for video work are the best), the biggest, meanest bit of high-tech optics you can lay your hands on - I went for a Swarovski ATS 80 HD - and a diital camera with internal (i.e., non-moving) optical zoom, good low-light performance, and a small lens (because you need an objective lens small enough to fit onto the eyepeice of the telescope).

Hence the Coolpix 4500. The experts tell me that these are far and away the best thing for digiscoping.

The result is that, for about $US3000, you have a rig that can take nice sharp pictures of very small things a very long way away. The theoretical maximum magnification is 60 (scope) * 4 (camera) = 240. In practice, most people seem to get the best results with around 30 to 150X magnification - which is still a hell of a lot! I'll post some pictures of the complete rig when the scope arrives in about a week.

 

[Jake the Dog]

how cool! I can't wait to see some pics

 

[Tea]

Well, I could take a picture of the Coolpix with the Sony, or a picture of the Sony with the Coolpix, or a picture of the tripod and the head with either, but I don't think that's really the thing you had in mind, Jake. Scope should arrive next week - Friday f I'm really lucky.

But, just in case there is a technofreak around who is into these things, it's a Manfrotto 190NAT tripod (I was advised that their carbon fibre ones are better, but this thing was $250-odd - the carbon fibre Manfrottos are over a grand!) and a Manfrotto 501 head. It's a fairly great lump to carry around - the head, I mean, the tripod is only about 3 kilos - but it lets you control the scope pretty exactly, or so I am told by the experts. Time will tell.

 

[Buck]

Wow, we all look forward to some sample pictures.

 

[Pradeep]

Nice choice on the Swarovski Tony, brilliant optics. They make great hunting scopes.

 

[Pradeep]

Did you get the 20-60x eyepiece?

 

[Handruin]

That looks awesome, I can't wait to see some pics too.

 

[Tea]

Ha! I knew you guys would be interested. Face it, you are all hopeless technoheads. If itz expensive and technical, you are suckerz for it. (And ... er ... you know what they say about "takes one to know one".)

Yes, Pradeep. ATS 80 HD. You pay ~$1000 extra for the HD with the you-beaut lens coating to reduce chromatic aberration. Different wavelengths get bent different amounts by the optics of any lens (refracting or reflecting) but the very best lenses can almost eliminate this. Alas, it involves coating them with some very fancy chemicals in a deep vacum chamber at some incedibly low temperature, which costs lots, and then paying extra to the scope manufacturer just because it's the top model and they charge more just because they can.

And yes, the 20 - 60 zoom eyepeice. People used to say that the Swarovski 20 - 60 zoom was the only zoom eyepeice as good as a fixed-focus one, but Zeiss and Leica are making some nice ones too these days, I'm told. Not knowing anything much about it, I just went with the market leader. But I must say I'm expecting it to be a wonderful bit of gear. I can't wait.

 

[Platform]

...internal (i.e., non-moving) optical zoom, ...

Actually, it does move, but "internally."


I have a couple of expensive (hideously expensive, nowadays) Nikkor telephoto lenses which I use with my Nikon F and F-3 camera bodies that are internally focusing (called "ED/IF"). The lens elements move about on the inside of the lens casing and nothing moves on the outside except the focusing ring which you turn by hand.


The chief benefit of Internally Focusing telephoto lenses is that as you focus in or out, the balance of the camera and telephoto lens is not adversely affected.

 

[Platform]

...You pay ~$1000 extra for the HD with the you-beaut lens coating to reduce chromatic aberration...

Er... actually, the lens coating eliminates the air-to-glass contact, thus vastly reducing contrast-robbing reflection on the glass surface.

The basic refractor lens design is where the various types of aberrations are tackled -- coated or not.

 

[Tea]

Rule One: Never disagree with an expert.

Rule Two: Break Rule One az often as possible.

According to my reading, Mr Platform, there are two different classes of lens coating. The reflection-reduction coatings first came along quite some time ago, in the early Sixties, I think it was. At that time (according to my father, who has been a keen photographer since about the time that the earth was void and without form, which was in 4004 BC as I recall) the newfangled coated lenses gained you the equivalent of a full F stop because of the improved efficiency. (Or was it half an F stop? I forget already.)

The opttics gurus have been tinkering away at the task of improving the anti-refllection coatings ever since then, gaining (if we are to believe their PR departments) a few percent here and a few percent there ever since.

Then there is a second type of coating which I'll have to go away and look up in more detail in a moment, but it involves the application of flouride to the lens surface at very low temperatures. This is the one that reduces chromatic aberation. Why a coating and not a different physical design? Beats me, but all the top scope makers do it, and it costs heaps.

Apparently it makes a significant difference. Keen birdwatchers who have used both say that the (APO, HD, or insert other trade-name as appropriate) coating makes the difference between a highly magnified image with a blue fringe and an image without a blue fringe. For just watching, it's a little difficult to justify (they say) but for photography, where every tiny flaw is there to inspect at leisure, it's the way to go.

I'll go and look it up again. And if I learn anything useful I'll pop back and say so.

 

[LunarMist]

Tea:

Anti-reflection coatings have been around for many decades, perhaps a century. The first practical multicoatings (multiple layers of coatings with progressively different refractive indexes) were first widely utilized in the late 60s. Lateral chroma cannot be corrected with coatings. It is a property of not only the optical design (elements of different shape) and positioning (e.g., telephoto ratio), but the refractive properties of the glasses used. The optical design can somewhat compensate for CA at shorter focal lengths, but special glasses are necessary for telephoto lenses of practical design. Many different materials may be added to glasses in order to reduce lateral chroma, such as rare earths from the lanthanide series. Canon developed a particulary different approach by the late 60s(?), the use of calcium fluorite in lens elements. At the time it offered superior correction to other apochromatic glasses, but was difficult to manufacture and work. In general apochromatic glasses are rather more expensive to manufacture than other glasses, and some are more apochromatic than others. The overall imaging capability of a lens depends on a huge number of variables including design, materials, and quality control, so there is still a significant "art" component to the development process even with the powerful computers used to optimize the actual designs.

Dare I ask multiple-personality Gary which lenses were so hideously expensive? I am thinking 300/2 amongst others.

 

[Splash]

According to my reading, Mr Platform, there are two different classes of lens coating. The reflection-reduction coatings first came along quite some time ago, in the early Sixties, I think it was. .

Well, I’m pretty sure Leica was selling photo kit back in the 50s with coated lenses, and if I’m not mistaken, Zeiss had enough success with the performance of coated lenses back in the late 30s that it got classified as a war secret (WW II).

…At that time (according to my father, who has been a keen photographer since about the time that the earth was void and without form, which was in 4004 BC as I recall) the newfangled coated lenses gained you the equivalent of a full F stop because of the improved efficiency. (Or was it half an F stop? I forget already.)

Probably a WAY more than just 1 F-stop, because if you have a modern lens its optics will be constructed with many optical elements which may have several surfaces that touch air, meaning flare and loss of light at each one of these surfaces. Without optical coating in these multi-element lenses, most of the light will not even make it through the lens.

The opttics gurus have been tinkering away at the task of improving the anti-refllection coatings ever since then, gaining (if we are to believe their PR departments) a few percent here and a few percent there ever since.

Then there is a second type of coating which I'll have to go away and look up in more detail in a moment, but it involves the application of flouride to the lens surface at very low temperatures. This is the one that reduces chromatic aberation. Why a coating and not a different physical design? Beats me, but all the top scope makers do it, and it costs heaps .

The only coatings that I know of, both of which have been around for a pretty long time, are Calcium Fluoride and Magnesium Fluoride. Both perform the same task as anti-reflective coatings. They are applied in a vacuum to the optical glass surface. Multiple coatings, however, are only used to “fine tune” chromatic aberration. The different elements in lenses are multi-coated differently to fine tune light transmission characteristics at different wavelengths. Still, lens design has a lot more sway over chromatic aberration than lens coating -- so does the variety of glass used (fluorite versus optical silicate glass). You have to wade through all the hubris -- and a bit of humus -- these corporations spew out about their coating processes.

Apparently it makes a significant difference. Keen birdwatchers who have used both say that the (APO, HD, or insert other trade-name as appropriate) coating makes the difference between a highly magnified image with a blue fringe and an image without a blue fringe.

Yes, I know it does make a difference, as I’ve seen this personally (white bird, blue halo).


........................................

Dare I ask multiple-personality Gary which lenses were so hideously expensive? I am thinking 300/2 amongst others.

In my case, I have a Nikkor 200mm/F2.0 and a 300mm/F4.5 – both ED-IF lenses that mount to a tripod, where the camera body hangs off the lens. I also have a 105mm/F1.8 which I believe is ED (Extralow Dispersion glass). I bought these and several other lenses back in the mid-1980s when the US Dollar was at a historic high against the Japanese Yen. I’m not sure if they make any of these lenses nowadays, what with the shift to autofocus. All of my “old” Nikkor lenses are AI, with a couple being AI-S. I also have a big ol’ Sigma 300mm~600mm (F5.6~F8 ) zoom lens that also does 600mm~1200mm with its matched 2X tele-convertor (my only zoom lens).

As far as the 300mm/F2.0 Nikkor goes, I have used one once! A huge lens. I also saw in person once a very rare Nikkor 400mm/F2.0. Yes, F2.0! It dwarfed the 300mm/F2.0! The front element of this damned thing was so ridiculously large it seemed like a strange sci-fi / engineering joke just looking at it. Also present was the rare and outrageous Nikkor 6mm fisheye lens, which has a 220 degree field of view!

 

[Tea]

Gaaahhh... I'm ztupid. It wasn't the coating I was thinking of Mr Many-Names, it was the actual lens material itself, I see. (Now that I've been re-reading and letting some of it actually sink in.) Which - I presume - is why the top models are so much more expensive. For example (just taking some published prices from a local shop)

Swarovski ATS80: $2200. ATS80 HD: $3190
Leica Televid 77: $1900. Televid 77 APO: $2680
Kowa TSN821M: $1173. TSN 823M: $2274.
Zeiss only make the flourite lens, and their 85mm scope is $2750.

(All of the above are without eyepiece: add anything between $357 and $745 for a 20 to 60 zoom.)

Mine should arrive tomorrow. Whoopee!

 

[Buck]

Mine should arrive tomorrow. Whoopee!

Er...do you mean today, as in Thursday, or tomorrow as in Friday? You're always up so late posting, one never knows which day you're talking about.

 

[Tannin]

Steady on there, my friend. You're expecting Tea to know which day it is?

Perhaps I should add that she wrote that at lunchtime on Thursday, meaning "tommorow" to indicate about lunchtime Friday. And I can't wait either!

 

[Buck]

Don't expect to hear from Tannin or Tea Friday afternoon whilst they play with their new toys, I mean camera equipment.

 

[Tea]

If you ain't the postie, don't bother knocking and don't bother ringing up neither! Kristi might answer if you call, but I think she will be playing with the new toy too. As for the Soup Nazi (who works on Fridays), he is a techno-freak from way back. No use expecting him to do any work.

Mind you, it will take us a while to figure out how to hook all the gear up and make it work right, so don't expect perfect pictures of some rare bird species by Monday. We will figure it out eventually, though.

 

[Buck]

You know Tea and Tannin won't be able to sleep tonight with all of the excitement of their new purchase arriving on Friday.

 

[LunarMist]

In my case, I have a Nikkor 200mm/F2.0 and a 300mm/F4.5 – both ED-IF lenses that mount to a tripod, where the camera body hangs off the lens. I also have a 105mm/F1.8 which I believe is ED (Extralow Dispersion glass). I bought these and several other lenses back in the mid-1980s when the US Dollar was at a historic high against the Japanese Yen. I’m not sure if they make any of these lenses nowadays, what with the shift to autofocus. All of my “old” Nikkor lenses are AI, with a couple being AI-S. I also have a big ol’ Sigma 300mm~600mm (F5.6~F8 ) zoom lens that also does 600mm~1200mm with its matched 2X tele-convertor (my only zoom lens).

As far as the 300mm/F2.0 Nikkor goes, I have used one once! A huge lens. I also saw in person once a very rare Nikkor 400mm/F2.0. Yes, F2.0! It dwarfed the 300mm/F2.0! The front element of this damned thing was so ridiculously large it seemed like a strange sci-fi / engineering joke just looking at it. Also present was the rare and outrageous Nikkor 6mm fisheye lens, which has a 220 degree field of view!

Oh, I thought you had some large lenses. Both of those teles can be handheld if necessary. I also had the 300/4.5 ED-IF around 1987, not having the money for anything bigger/faster. Frankly, I did not care much for the optics at the larger apertures and the lens was too large and heavy for its speed. They are not very popular on the used market. OTOH, some people still use the 200/2. I did not know that there was a 400/2. It must have been a prototype. Of course many of the old, fast lenses were not particularly sharp wide open, but image quality of fast films was poor back in the day.

 

[Onomatopoeic]

Oh, I thought you had some large lenses. Both of those teles can be handheld if necessary.

Well, don't laugh, but I have on occasion with the 200mm, using a simple Nikon pistol grip that has an electronic shutter trigger button -- of course I was shooting at 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a second with the F3 body.

For handheld work, the 300mm really needs a gunstock mount like this for good images:

I also had the 300/4.5 ED-IF around 1987, not having the money for anything bigger/faster.

I didn't particularly NEED the 300mm/F2.0, as I wasn't a professional sports photographer nor was I out shooting wildlife photos for National Geo ($$$). The Nikkor 300mm/F4.5 is undeniably a damn good lens -- even wide open it is tack sharp, it just isn't ultra fast. The F4.5 was also something like US$3500 less than the F2.0 at the time I bought mine. There was also the 300mm/F2.8, but it too was quite large and just too damned expensive. (I've also test driven a 300mm/F2.8 in the past.)

Frankly, I did not care much for the optics at the larger apertures and the lens was too large and heavy for its speed.

I'll disagree with you on this. The 300mm/F2.0 was quite good at F2.8 to F5.6 and all the half stops in between. F2.0 was there when you needed it and it was still quite good --even wide open -- in the MTF department (sharpness, colour accuracy, etc).

They are not very popular on the used market. OTOH, some people still use the 200/2.

<cough> I'm surprised! Well, I realise they (Nikkor 300mm/F2) are going to be expensive, and this will greatly limit their appeal to "common" folk, but I can't see the professionals going elsewhere for a Nikon-compatible lens. But, then again, I suspect all these cash-rich photo mofos are probably busy flocking to Auto-Focus these days (dweebs!).

I did not know that there was a 400/2. It must have been a prototype.

You will likely never see it mentioned in a catalogue, only because they built some for show and demonstration purposes, then practically nobody bought any over the year or so that they were "available." I was told several years ago by a Nikon saleperson that they sold a grand total of... 3 ...of these super-lenses. After about a year, they retired it permanently. If I recall correctly, the 400mm/F2.0 had a pricetag of something like US$7000 or $8000. It proved that there was only an extreme niche market for such a behemoth of a lens -- no matter the pricetag. On a heavy-duty tripod the 400mm/F2.0 was usable, but even on the most husky of Gitzo monopods, it was cumbersome whereas the 300mm/F2.0 worked out fine. I suspect some nature magazine photogs bought the 3 lenses, not any sports photogs.


Nikon had about 3 or 4 or maybe 5 lenses listed in their catalogues that were actually special order items, meaning that you ordered it first then they built it. The aforementioned 6mm Fisheye lens was one of those. I was told (by that same Nikon salesperson) that the outrageous 6mm Fisheye lens had sold close to 100-each, with many going to weather services around the world for taking time-delayed pictures of cloud formations and whatnot. The baseball-bat-like 1200mm telephoto lens (refractor) was also special order. I believe the big white rainbarrel-like 2000mm telephoto lens (reflector) was another one of these. I believe the large and expensive Nikkor 13mm non-fisheye extreme wide angle was yet another one of these "special order" lenses. I've also seen all these lenses as well, though I have not taken any out for a test drive. I didn't mention last night, in my semi-conscious state, *where* I saw them, though! It was at a PMA (Photo Marketing Association) convention show in... er... 1986... Las Vegas or Chicago (I've been to a dozen+ so it's a bit of a blur now).

Of course many of the old, fast lenses were not particularly sharp wide open, but image quality of fast films was poor back in the day.

How old are we talking? Those Nikkors from the 1980s were and still are excellent. I know there were stabs at "fast" F1.2 50mm lenses by a number of manufacturers in the 1970s that left a bit (if not a lot) to be desired in picture quality; Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and even Nikon would be some of those culprits. Those F1.2 lenses all got re-designed once or twice by the md-80s, fortunately.

 

[Tea]

Cool!

It arrived!

Here is the drill - some really quick and dirty shots out my front door before the light disappeared completely. Excuse crappy framing and so on - I was in a hurry.

Because I only got the flash cards today and to start with I just had the stupid little 16MB card that Nikon give you, when I was practicing taking pictures of my loungeroom wall I dropped the resolution down to 1024 x 768 and chose the most aggressive JPEG compression to save having to empty the card out all the time. At zero compression and max res, you get precisely one picture per 16MB card! In reality, you'd never use that setting, but you would use the one that gives you about 6 or 10 pictures per 16MB. Anyway, I forgot to switch it up to a decent resolution and it's nearly dark now, so I can't re-shoot. I don't think it will matter too much anyway, not for this job.

This is the plain, vanilla view, shot with the Coolpix 4500 at 1X zoom (i.e., a perfectly ordinary snap). Can you see Mt Warrenheip on the horizon?

Let's take a closer look at it. Here it iz with the Coolpix maxed out at 4X zoom.

Now, we switch to the scope. The minimum zoom is 20X in theory but in practice it's more like 30 or 40X (otherwise you get a circular picture with black edges). This is on about 60X or 80X zoom - 20 or 30 from the scope and maybe 2X from the camera.

And finally, here we have the full monte: 60X on the scope, 4X on the camera.

I'm impressed.

 

[Tea]

Oh, I forgot to say that I re-sized the 1024 x 768 originals to 640 x 480 with PMView.

 

[Pradeep]

Very impressive Tea. Imagine what a peeping tom could do with such a setup. :mrgrn:

BTW, the uncompressed TIFF setting that must be taking the full 16MB is pretty hardcore, I find that JPEG-Fine delivers excellent results without taking extreme amounts of storage space.

 

[Tea]

Yup. I cant imagine what you would use that 16MB TIFF setting for, actually. If you are that serious bout the last 0.001% of image quality, shouldn't you be using a 35mm? Or do they still have those really big format film cameras, like Hallelblad (sp?) used to make?

BTW, Gary & Lunar Mist, thanks for your posts here. I'm reading them with interest. Don't know half as much about this stuff as I would like to.

PS: As for peeping toms, it's a non-issue. I'm too young, Tannin is too old, and Ekaf would be too embarrased. Maybe the Grammar Police would be interested, if he ever gets a day off.

 

[mangyDOG]

Wow Tea!

That zoom is unbelievable!, You will have to zoom out to fit the bird sitting on the twig 500m away into the frame...

It will be great to see some shots once you have time and some decent weather...

 

[iGary]

Yup. I cant imagine what you would use that 16MB TIFF setting for, actually...

Take a picture of something with a fine repeating pattern in it -- something like a fence or a screen -- in any JPEG mode and then in the "full res" verbatim TIFF mode. Compare.

...Or do they still have those really big format film cameras, like Hallelblad (sp?) used to make?...

Er... that would be Hasselblad. Yes, Hasselblad are still very much alive and kicking around o'er thar in Sweden.

In these days and times, Hasselblad and Kodak both offer digital "film backs" for modern (i.e. -- fully electronic) Hasseblad medium format camera bodies. These digital film backs attach the same way as a normal 120 film backs do, but offer a high quality, high resolution monolithic digital sensor and storage subsystem (PCMCIA, along with a Firewire interface for external storage and control). Similar digital film backs are offered for other popular medium format system cameras such as Mamiya and Rollei.

For large format studio and architecture cameras (4x5 and 8x10 formats), there are scanning backs available as well as digital film backs with monolithic sensors (the same sensors used by the medium format cameras). Scanning camera backs use a very high resolution imaging array element that traverses the entire image across the focal plane very slowly. The result, after a 10 ~ 20 minute scan, is typically a huge 48-bit/64-bit TIFF file. Linhoff and Cruse would be a couple of names associated with large format digital camera systems.

 

[Santilli]

Yawn!!!

What fun is that? I had similar optics, but we had more fun.

Line up the two X's, pull trigger, target goes bye bye, up to 27 miles.

105 mm, 37 pound HEI, at 2900 fps....
s

 

[Jake the Dog]

very nice Tannin now point it to Melbourne and tell me what time to wave so you can take my pic.

 

[Santilli]

"zoom" is NOT WHAT YOU HAVE...
S
:mrgrn:

 

[Piyono]

How does the camera attach to the lens? Thread mount adapter?
Does it even attach?


Piyono

 

[LunarMist]

In these days and times, Hasselblad and Kodak both offer digital "film backs" for modern (i.e. -- fully electronic) Hasseblad medium format camera bodies. These digital film backs attach the same way as a normal 120 film backs do, but offer a high quality, high resolution monolithic digital sensor and storage subsystem (PCMCIA, along with a Firewire interface for external storage and control). Similar digital film backs are offered for other popular medium format system cameras such as Mamiya and Rollei.

Gary:

Of course it really is not a fair comparison between 35 mm digital and MF or LF. You know what I want?... a high-res (non-scanning) digital back for the Fuji GX680. That would be my ultimate.

 

[Pradeep]

Apparently the Canon 1Ds D-SLR compares quite well with MF film.

 

[LunarMist]

Apparently the Canon 1Ds D-SLR compares quite well with MF film.

EOS 1Ds + best lenses ~= 645 in some respects. 6x8 with movement is a whole other story.

 

[Splash]

You know what I want?... a high-res (non-scanning) digital back for the Fuji GX680. That would be my ultimate.

The Lumina digital back has been around for the GX680 series. Of course, you'll need to mortgage the house to buy one.

I've had little contact with the GX680. I've seen them and fiddled around with them, just never have used one.

 

[Tea]

Hoolie Doolie! What a week. I've had my hands so full that I haven't even had time to scratch - and trust me, seeing as I can hold a mouse in one paw, type with another paw, drink tea with the third paw, and hold a telephone under my chin, not having even one spare paw left to scratch with iz zomething of a disaster.

Juzt thought I'd check in for a moment before I hit the sack. I can see that I'll have a lot of reading to look forward to come the weekend.

iGary & assorted camera wizzards: very interesting stuff, thankyou. Santilli - you are not playing the game. I mean, zeriously, would you trust Tannin with one of those things? And you are quite right, my apologies. Zerious Soom it iz.

Pleazant dreamz all, I'm off to bed.

 

[Tea]

OK, now I'm really off to bed.

 

[honold]

my optio s fits in my pocket

 

[blakerwry]

I just bought a Nikon N2000... I think it's a neat little SLR.. Got it for $300 with a little 43-86 Zoom lens.

http://www.anime-jennie.com/~blake/n2000-2.jpg
http://www.anime-jennie.com/~blake/n2000.jpg

 

[LunarMist]

Ouch! My condolences.