>While we're on the photo topic, do you, Don, or anyone have tips or warnings
>when taking pictures through a scope?

>Peggi

Don has already covered the main problems with shooting through a spotting
scope but if you are not inclined to put a lot of money into a long photo
lens, it is possible. I just tried this myself and got a few keepers. One
of the most objectionable things was the fact that the corners of the
pictures were cut off (vignetting) due to the fact that the spotting scope
was not designed to fill the full 35mm frame. This is a problem with the
diameter of the eyepiece holder tube, not the lens itself. To get around
this problem each photo will need to be enlarged and cropped. This
problem will also vary depending on the scope design. The scope I used had
a removable eyepiece and erector prism and the tube diameter was 1.25"
which is standard astronomy diameter. If the scope you want to use has a
built-in erector prism then the image you get in your camera viewfinder
will be upside down and backwards. The main scope lens focuses an image
on the film plane the same way a camera lens does, the prism in the
viewfinder on your camera inverts the image so you can compose without
losing your mind. It is also possible to use the eyepiece to project an
image onto the film, however this usually results in an image that is so
dark and hard to focus that it isn't used in terrestrial photography.
Astronomers use both methods and long exposures. They also don't care
about inverted images and stars don't flit around.

The quality of the image is probably not going to be as good as what you
would get with a lens designed for photograpic use. I've enlarged mine to
10 x 12 and the print is still sharp but it wouldn't go much larger. Also
you do not have any aperture control so the only exposure control is with
the shutter speed. If your camera has fixed shutter speeds, you may not
get enough selectability if you are using slide film which has narrower
exposure latitude. However, you would probably be shooting "wide open"
anyway because of the dark image.

As you can see there are a lot of things working against you. The
consensus amoung the astronomy folks, who have the most experience taking
photos through optical devices that were not designed with photography in
mind, is to get a photography lens for something like bird or terrestrial
photography.

The only thing going for you is cost and perhaps weight. The camera adapter
for my scope cost about $30. Photo long lenses make spotting scopes look
like cheap. However, after experimenting around for a while shooting through
a spotting scope, I decided to go for a lens.

On the other hand once you get a big lens and a tripod sturdy enough to
hold it, you gotta leave the spotting scope at home (unless you have an
"assistant").

Ed Schulz
Everett, WA
eschulz at eldec.com