«

I had asked if it would be possible to get an adapter that
would allow the attachment of a DSLR to a spotting scope, and he noted
that there are some that allow the lens of the spotting scope to be
removed, and the camera to be mounted directly to it.
Obviously, any shots taken with this set up would be from a
tripod unless an extremely fast shutter speed is used, but wouldn't
the magnification mean the sensor would be getting a limited amount of
light except in extremely bright daylight?
I also saw a nice set of 15x binoculars there for about 119...
but I don't need those...
So anyway, all this got me thinking; would it be possible to
adapt half of a binocular using an adapter ring to an SLR, etc?
Binoculars are rather cheap (and so are spotting scopes) in
comparison to higher end zoom lenses.
Any thoughts on this?

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:01:53 -0400, Scotius <> wrote:

> I had asked if it would be possible to get an adapter that
>would allow the attachment of a DSLR to a spotting scope, and he noted
>that there are some that allow the lens of the spotting scope to be
>removed, and the camera to be mounted directly to it.
> Obviously, any shots taken with this set up would be from a
>tripod unless an extremely fast shutter speed is used, but wouldn't
>the magnification mean the sensor would be getting a limited amount of
>light except in extremely bright daylight?
> I also saw a nice set of 15x binoculars there for about 119...
>but I don't need those...
> So anyway, all this got me thinking; would it be possible to
>adapt half of a binocular using an adapter ring to an SLR, etc?
> Binoculars are rather cheap (and so are spotting scopes) in
>comparison to higher end zoom lenses.
> Any thoughts on this?

Can be done, but you have to still think "aperture". Divide the
focal-length of the main objective lens by its diameter. You'll find you're
using really small apertures.

Research "digi-scoping" or "digiscoping".

I found that any superzoom camera with a high-quality telextender on it, or
even stacked telextenders, to provide 3-5 more stops aperture with much
less effort and hassle (adapters, tripod, cumbersome optics tube, etc.)
while providing just as good if not much better image quality.

Take for example this image someone posted once, using two stacked 1.7x
telextenders on a handheld (no tripod used) older superzoom camera.
Shooting with a 35mm equivalent focal-length (EFL) of 1248mm at f3.5.

<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg>

The OP explaining another 1.7x digital-zoom was used to take advantage of
the little extra resolution you can get from upsampling direct from the
sensor in-camera. Giving the image, and real world performance, of a
2,122mm EFL lens at f/3.5. You'd be hard pressed to even find any telescope
optics that could accomplish that, let alone a spotting scope or
binoculars.

Many newer superzoom cameras with their even greater focal-lengths, when
used along with high-quality telextenders, could go far beyond that. A
combination that can all fit in one windbreaker pocket.

"Allen" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> rwalker wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:01:53 -0400, Scotius <> wrote:
>>
>>> So anyway, all this got me thinking; would it be possible to
>>> adapt half of a binocular using an adapter ring to an SLR, etc?
>>> Binoculars are rather cheap (and so are spotting scopes) in
>>> comparison to higher end zoom lenses. Any thoughts on this?
>>
>>
>> I don't see why not. I do a lot of photomicrography, and one of my
>> adapters is simply the appropriate T-ring at one end (Canon EOS in my
>> case). The rest is a simple aluminum barrel, with two sets of three
>> nylon screws each, which attach the adapter to the microscope
>> eyepiece. I attach the adapter instead of a lens and use the
>> microscope as the lens. This adapter has no glass in it, but simply
>> uses the microscope's glass. Once attached, I focus through the
>> camera's viewfinder. I have other more expensive adapters that
>> include their own lenses, but you get a more restricted field of view
>> with them. If you had a similar adapter that could fit the ocular
>> lens of one side of a binocular, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
> As I recall, the lamented Spiratone had lots of adapters for that sort of
> thing--but that was then and this is now. I miss some of those old mail
> order places like Spiratone and Edmund Scientific.
> Allen

Maybe you'll find this of interest?
http://www.srb-griturn.com/

Richard

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:44:28 -0500, Allen <>
wrote:

>rwalker wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:01:53 -0400, Scotius <> wrote:
>>
>>> So anyway, all this got me thinking; would it be possible to
>>> adapt half of a binocular using an adapter ring to an SLR, etc?
>>> Binoculars are rather cheap (and so are spotting scopes) in
>>> comparison to higher end zoom lenses.
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>>
>> I don't see why not. I do a lot of photomicrography, and one of my
>> adapters is simply the appropriate T-ring at one end (Canon EOS in my
>> case). The rest is a simple aluminum barrel, with two sets of three
>> nylon screws each, which attach the adapter to the microscope
>> eyepiece. I attach the adapter instead of a lens and use the
>> microscope as the lens. This adapter has no glass in it, but simply
>> uses the microscope's glass. Once attached, I focus through the
>> camera's viewfinder. I have other more expensive adapters that
>> include their own lenses, but you get a more restricted field of view
>> with them. If you had a similar adapter that could fit the ocular
>> lens of one side of a binocular, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
>As I recall, the lamented Spiratone had lots of adapters for that sort
>of thing--but that was then and this is now. I miss some of those old
>mail order places like Spiratone and Edmund Scientific.
>Allen

Edmund Scientific is still in business, as is Edmund
Industrial Optics.
I remember reading about Edmund's
"Binocular-110-camera-combo". It was cheap too, and it worked.