In message , Tim Streater
writes
On 28 Feb 2021 at 09:53:24 GMT, Tim Lamb wrote:

Speaking from a Brownie box camera expert POV. Is there a marketing
opportunity here?
What would be the practical difficulty of fitting a digital camera
sensor to binoculars and leading the output to a socket feeding a
storage device?
I understand high magnification, camera shake and exposure time issues
but can also see the originators point about the convenience of
recording something only seen/found through using binoculars.

It's not for no reason that all those newspaper sports cameramen you see at
matches have ****ing great lenses. If your binnies are 10 x 40, say, that's
like having a 350mm lens on a digital camera (a proper sized one, I mean). The
f-number of this will be very bad, meaning you have to operate it wide open
(poor depth of field), or you have to crank up the sensor's ISO number
(basically, turning the gain up) to an extent that, to avoid a blurry image
due to camera shake, the image is noisy as **** (coloured speckles all over
it).
Yebbut. My ancient Olympus digital camera has a lens around 6mm
diameter, and smaller still on i-phones etc. They still manage pin sharp
images.
The message seems to be that reducing the field of view, limits the
light input and increases the necessary exposure time. ( I am not a
photographer:-)
Nevertheless, this doesn't seem to match the apparent performance of
relatively cheap digital stuff.

Remember that the eye+brain combo is very good at image processing, and
binnies are very well suited for use with the human eye. In astronomy they
have much larger optics for light-gathering and can, of course, track the
target and keep the shutter open for long periods of time.

Hand held binnies for snapping with *demand* a very short shutter exposure
(without a tripod, anyway), and that would put huge constraints on the other
things you can vary. I'm sure it's doable but not cheap.


--
Tim Lamb