Peter, I've interleaved my comments with yours below...
>> It says it's waterproof, but I wonder if it matches the protection of the
I read "water resistant" rather than waterproof. As with any electronic
equipment, you would want to protect it from moisture of all sorts.
>> It doesn't mention the resolution of the screen itself. My
>> experiences with the electronic viewfinder in my camera show that this
>> is very important. It can be very hard to find or follow a target if
>> the resolution is too low. The fact that you have to remove the normal
>> eyepiece to use this could be a pest with moving, hard to see birds.
I suspect that a 2.4" screen would have a reasonable resolution - but
clearly not the 5Mb that you will get in photos. I have seen another device
like this that has a conventional eyepiece AND a digital camera (I have a
feeling that it was Bushnell, but I can't remember). Nonetheless, you would
have exactly the same problems with this as you would with any non-DSLR
>> It has a light shield around the screen. Hopefully that would allow
>> it to be used in strong sunlight. I guess with a scope you could shield
>> it from stray light with your hand, something that's difficult with a
I think that the light-shield is essential - with a conventional camera, it
is held horizontal - meaning that the sun is usually higher than your eye
when looking at the screen. With this device, the screen is angled upwards
(like an angled scope versus a straight scope). The light-shield will
protect the screen from direct sunlight that would otherwise make it
>> I wonder if this could actually be better than a normal eyepiece in
>> low light.
Maybe, but probably not. It's not a night-vision device. I use a DSLR, so
haven't really looked at electronic viewfinders in low light (except when I
use my mobile phone camera at rock concerts!) In my experience, directly
viewing the subject, whether by eye alone or through glass is better than
electronic viewfinders in low light, with the obvious exception of infra-red
or night-vision devices.
>> It comes with a Kowa mount, but you can get adapters for the other
>> high end scopes. I wonder if it could be made to work on any other
If you're going to invest in a device like this, you would only do so if you
had high-quality glass - so it's not really surprising that they support the
>> I feel that devices like these can never match a proper camera with
>> its own lens, but I also can't help feeling that the camera-less scopes
>> and binoculars we all wander around with are a bit primitive because
>> they can't capture what we see. Hopefully these types of devices,
>> including "digi-binos", will develop to the stage where they're useful
>> and discrete enough that we can all capture what we're seeing without
I've seen some pretty good digiscoping photos. With the right combination of
equipment, a scope attached to the front of a camera can be very, very good.
I guess with this device, the proof will be in the photos. Perhaps once
someone has bought one and published some photos we can make an informed
decision. With a poor combination of camera and scope, you're absolutely
right - the pictures can be pretty average, to say the least.
I must admit, I'm quite interested in this device. I may give it a go...
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1327 - Release Date: 12/03/2008
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)