Digiscoping With MF?

[Tom Taylor]

Anyone digiscoping with medium format film cameras? If so, what camera, film and adapter are you using, and what are the results for your subject?

Thomas

 

[MattKing]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are using film, wouldn't it more accurately be referred to as "filmoscoping"?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

An adapter that uses the camera lens to shoot through the eyepiece of a spotting scope or telescope should mount to the lens threads, so there may be no significant difference between an adapter for a 35mm and a medium format camera for this, except for the thread size, which could be resolved with a step up ring. You might also be wary of whether the eyepiece mount can support the weight of your medium format camera.

Most important, I think, would be the question of coverage. If the image doesn't project to larger than the area of a 35mm image on MF film, then there isn't any advantage to using a MF camera for this. You can test this without adapters, just by positioning the camera to look through the scope and seeing what kind of image you get, and considering whether it's worth the trouble of acquiring the adapters to do it all with good alignment.

 

[paul ron]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are using film, wouldn't it more accurately be referred to as "filmoscoping"?

he may be talking about a prostate exam?

 

[Born2Late]

he may be talking about a prostate exam?

That would be a fingerscopomy.

 

[jvo]

That would be a fingerscopomy.

the correct spelling is fingerscopo'me.

 

[paul ron]

the correct spelling is fingerscopo'me.

depending on who is being scoped.... it can become a finger ECTOMY in some cases.

Im guessing its about adapting a MF camera to a fiber optic scope instead of the traditional 35mm.

.;

 

[Tom Taylor]

Most important, I think, would be the question of coverage. If the image doesn't project to larger than the area of a 35mm image on MF film, then there isn't any advantage to using a MF camera for this. You can test this without adapters, just by positioning the camera to look through the scope and seeing what kind of image you get, and considering whether it's worth the trouble of acquiring the adapters to do it all with good alignment.

Shot through a 100mm scope on 4x5 format film: http://astrocamera.net/2005/0813/

Thomas

 

[pdeeh]

that is fabulous.
(I was thinking more of a spotting 'scope than astro with my answers in your other thread.)

 

[paul ron]

why is it called digiscope? thats astrophotography.

 

[RichardJack]

What the heck is digiscoping? Whether it's with a fiberscope, microscope, or telescope, MF is not the way to go in 2016. To cover medium format film you need a form of projection (eyepiece, barlow, etc.) that means light loss and bulk. In the 1970's it might of made sense, but not anymore. Your best bet is a DSLR with aps-c or DX sized sensor that can shoot at ISO6400 with low noise (like most can).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

People who call it "digiscoping" are using a digital camera with a lens to shoot through something like a spotting scope or telescope with an eyepiece in place. Since this is APUG, that's off topic, but the original poster wants to try using a medium format film camera presumably in this way--with a lens on the camera and an eyepiece on the scope.

Of course one can use a scope with no eyepiece and no other lens on the camera, and that's just normal astro- and telephoto photography, like folks have been doing for decades with T-mount adapters and such, but that doesn't give as much magnification as photography through a camera lens and a scope with an eyepiece.