I have been experimenting with taking photographs though my scope with a
camera just held up to the eyepiece. I realize it would be a lot better to
buy an adaptor and camera and do it right but that seems too costly and
complicated. I don't really want to take magazine-quality photos, I just
want to document rare or unusual sightings.

My first try at it was with my wife's Pentax Zoom 105R point-and-shoot
camera. I rolled the eyecap down (like you would use it with eyeglasses)
and the results were quite poor. I then tried it with the eyecap extended
and that was terrible. Unfortunately, that time my scope was aimed at the
Arctic Loon at Priest Rapids.

Today I bought an $8.00 Kodak disposal 35-mm camera without a flash. The
results were really quite good. By the way, I have a Nikon 60mm Fieldscope
II with a 20-45 power zoom eyepiece.

I stood on my porch and searched the school yard across the street for a
target. Lodged high in a maple tree 120 yards away (I later paced off the
distance) was a 12-inch yellow playground ball. The label, with letters
between 1 and 1 1/4-inches high, was in view. I took a series of photos:
two each at 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 power first with the eyecap extended
(like for use without glasses) and then with it rolled down.

While there are photos in each sequence (eyecap up and down) that did not
turn out, many produces a quite decent photo. Those taken with the eyecap
extended turned out best. Both sequences produced a photo with a round
circle of picture, that looks like the view through the scope, and black
around it. When the camera was not well-aimed through the scope it produced
a smudgy photo or one with a very darkened area on the photo.

It is surprising how good the image in the photo is when taken in this
manner. In many of the photos I can read the letters on the label of the
ball with a magifying glass. Also visible are good detailing on the tree
limbs and the few brown leaves near the ball. The image did darken slightly
as the magnification increased but even at 40 power the photo is quite good.
Both of the photos taken at 45 power did not produce a viewable image.

It is easier to get the camera pointed correctly with the eyecap extended.
With the eyecap down the photo quality was good but the image blacked out
quite a bit obscuring usually between 40-60 percent of the photo image.
This was caused by difficulty of correctly aligning the camera with the scope.

I think there are good possibilities for this type of photography in the
field. The quality of the photo is definately not good enough for any type
of publication but it does produce a photo that could be used to document a
rare sighting. Actually, I have seen many photos in "Field Notes" and the
"American Birds" CBC issue that were quite poor but in which the bird is
still identifiable.

One definate drawback with a disposal camera is not being able to look
through the scope while taking the photograph. This eliminates birds that
are moving. You have to be quick and steady. The advantage is its cheap.

I suggest you all try this with your scope. With a little practice, we
might all be taking decent photos of the birds we see. We might also be
entering a period in which a new state record will not be accepted without a
photograph.

Denny Granstrand

* * * * * * * * * * *
* Denny Granstrand *
* Yakima, WA *
* osprey at nwinfo.net *
* * * * * * * * * * *