JerryLogan
Well-known member
Ben,
Can you post a photo or two of your mount for those binoculars? It looks very interesting.
Thanks and best,
Jerry
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
High power bino vs scope (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stiv674
- Start date
Ben,
Can you post a photo or two of your mount for those binoculars? It looks very interesting.
Thanks and best,
Jerry
Hi Jerry, it's just on a standard heavy duty SLIKMASTER japanese tripod. The earlier photo has wood handles on the bins, I made myself, helps to move up, down etc easier.
Here is a photo without handles and a couple of the tripod, which now has a quick release fitting.
Ben
Attachments
JerryLogan
Well-known member
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I have been using larger 15 and 16X binoculars for several years,
and I really like the ease of view, and in many cases this power is
in a nice place for viewing.
2 eyes are much better for ease of view, than a scope.
I often leave mine tripod mounted in my house, and use it from a
window, as I have 1-2 miles of clear viewing, being on the farm.
I started with a Minox 15x58 ED, have had the Docter 15x60 porros,
and currently the Nikon Monarch 5 16x56. These are well priced in
the $600. range, so you will not bread the bank if you want to try these.
Like mentioned earlier, this is what my budget allows, and there are
many reviews on these, just do a search.
The Docters perform very well, and the Nikon is right with them,
and the 16X gives a little extra. The Minox is less sharp, with more
CA.
Jerry
I'm not sure I've seen a 15x+ at any of the birding outlets I visit, and barely a handful at Birdfair where many brands bring most of their hardware. The few that I have tried I found too difficult to manage handheld. Optically, the Conquest HD seemed OK, the Swaro SLC 15x56 was better, (apart from a horrible focus on the sample I tried), but personally I preferred the Meopta Meostar 15x50 HD. I have tried some of the Celestrons as well. Their cheap 15x70 was dreadful, (even when you just used one eye). Their expensive monsters appeared good for effective resolution, but lacked the colour rendition and contrast I would want for birding.
I've found 12x is the most I can use hand held, and it's still usually light enough to hang round the neck, at least for a while. I found the Meopta Meostar 12x50 HD was pretty steady, but a light weight monopod gave me double the effective magnification of a hand held 8x. The Opticron doubler gives 1.8x magnification and the Meostar was more than capable of delivering maximum detail at the full 21.6x. That is not a given for even the most expensive brands, or indeed, some 50mm spotting scopes I've tried recently. The Celestron Granite is relatively light and somewhat cheaper than the others. The centre view performance is actually quite nice (just don't look at the edges
). I strongly suspect the view would look soft boosted though.
Then there is the Canon IS. For reasons that escape me, the IS doesn't seem to work for me, or at least doesn't deliver the level of detail I expect. I'm clearly in the minority and definitely one to consider.
David
I've found 12x is the most I can use hand held, and it's still usually light enough to hang round the neck, at least for a while. I found the Meopta Meostar 12x50 HD was pretty steady, but a light weight monopod gave me double the effective magnification of a hand held 8x. The Opticron doubler gives 1.8x magnification and the Meostar was more than capable of delivering maximum detail at the full 21.6x. That is not a given for even the most expensive brands, or indeed, some 50mm spotting scopes I've tried recently. The Celestron Granite is relatively light and somewhat cheaper than the others. The centre view performance is actually quite nice (just don't look at the edges
). I strongly suspect the view would look soft boosted though.Then there is the Canon IS. For reasons that escape me, the IS doesn't seem to work for me, or at least doesn't deliver the level of detail I expect. I'm clearly in the minority and definitely one to consider.
David
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
David,
You're probably far from alone there - perhaps the minority is larger than you imagine .... :brains:
The way the IS works - frequency and amplitude of movement - will of necessity have to marry in with the users own parameters of frequency and amplitude of shakes and tremors. This may work better for some than others, and/or at different times (fatigue levels, environmental lighting and eyesight characteristics, etc)
I found the 15x50 IS very nice to look through (apart from the unnatural to my eyes 'Flatland' type view), and remarkably steady to hold. When I engaged the IS, I could see distinct artefacts in the view which I found totally distracting. I didn't compare the two modes via chart testing, but looking at woodland scenes etc, I thought the view without the IS on resolved more detail in practice for me. I must reiterate - I could hold this bin unusually steady. I had a distinct preference for the view with IS off on this bin.
When the 12x36 was released with the new MkIII IS system, I found it a different kettle of fish. For starters I can't get along ergonomically with it very well - not enough real estate for my liking. My best grip is still shaking like a mad woman ! :eek!: Whether or not this informs my opinion of the new IS system functioning, or whether the new IS system itself is responsible for the lion's share in noted improvement is difficult to distinguish. All I can report on is how the bin and I as a 'system' worked as a whole. With the IS off I could notice distinct shaking in the view when reading distant signage. With the IS on I could notice an improvement in the ability to read lettering. I could also notice some minor movement of the IS system but this was not objectionable and had no distinct artefacts for me. So all in all an IS system that works better for me.
I would like to compare the two -- 15x (IS off) and 12x (IS on) to see which one resolves the best detail at equivalent distances. I'm only going by memory, but I have a feeling it may be the 15x ..... that's one that deserves more thorough analysis :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Hans Weigum
Well-known member
Walter Schön from München, told me some time ago, that he very successfully installed a specially selected pair of optimally matching teleconverters, originally designed for cameras on his Canon IS binoculars. There were no collimation problems.
As these sit in front of the objectives, there is no loss in perceived brightness due to front lenses larger in diameter than those of the binocular. The negative influence on picture quality of prisms necessary with a conventional doubler behind the oculars could so also be avoided.
HW
RobMorane
Well-known member
Hi There,
I have to admit that I'm using less and less my scope since I bought 15x56 Binos.
I walk/climb through Mountains range and I consider the
5-6Kg combo tripod/tripod head/scope on the heavy side.
It's ok in summer, I can easily deal with it, but it's more difficult
in winter with the safety and bivouac gear required, and the weight involved.
The time to set up the tripod and scope is another minus.
As I can't carry tripod and scope "on the shoulder" (because of the type of terrain I'm dealing with),
I only get them out when I'm sure I'm going to stay somewhere for a minimum of 30mn.
But with the Binos, everything is easier.
I use a really confortable Bino pack, and getting the Binos out when needed is a breeze.
Of course, I lose 20-60 magnification but honestly, you're getting used to the magnification you have,
and the distance you can watch a subject (or not).
Using both eyes is more confortable too.
Because of the altitude (and the work out), I can hand held the binos stable for a minute or two,
enough to give me a good picture of what I want to identify.
If I want to watch for a longer period of time, I sit and support the binos by putting my elbows on my knees.
Often I thought that if I had bought the 15x56 Binos first, I wouldn't have bought the scope.
Scope is a really useful tool for birding/birdwatching, but
it really depends the terrain you have to go through, and for how long.
I didn't mind carrying a 25Kg backpack when I was young, I try to avoid it now
(a lighter backpack is easier on the knees and when you have to control your skis going down)
I have to admit that I'm using less and less my scope since I bought 15x56 Binos.
I walk/climb through Mountains range and I consider the
5-6Kg combo tripod/tripod head/scope on the heavy side.
It's ok in summer, I can easily deal with it, but it's more difficult
in winter with the safety and bivouac gear required, and the weight involved.
The time to set up the tripod and scope is another minus.
As I can't carry tripod and scope "on the shoulder" (because of the type of terrain I'm dealing with),
I only get them out when I'm sure I'm going to stay somewhere for a minimum of 30mn.
But with the Binos, everything is easier.
I use a really confortable Bino pack, and getting the Binos out when needed is a breeze.
Of course, I lose 20-60 magnification but honestly, you're getting used to the magnification you have,
and the distance you can watch a subject (or not).
Using both eyes is more confortable too.
Because of the altitude (and the work out), I can hand held the binos stable for a minute or two,
enough to give me a good picture of what I want to identify.
If I want to watch for a longer period of time, I sit and support the binos by putting my elbows on my knees.
Often I thought that if I had bought the 15x56 Binos first, I wouldn't have bought the scope.
Scope is a really useful tool for birding/birdwatching, but
it really depends the terrain you have to go through, and for how long.
I didn't mind carrying a 25Kg backpack when I was young, I try to avoid it now
(a lighter backpack is easier on the knees and when you have to control your skis going down)
I use the Canon 18x50 IS binos when I think long views might be necessary. I use a shoulder sling on thin bungee type straps that were recommended here once and it is much much easier to carry around than a scope.
When I am with a group, people usually offer to let me use their scope for a view. The binoculars typically offer better views with more detail for me. That said, most people have inexpensive scopes. A good scope is better, especially when the distance is very great. I haven't bought a scope yet but have been thinking about it. If I do I would need to pay money for a scope that does well at very long distances for it to be worth it. I do have a 5" Mak telescope I can use for extreme distance but I can't really carry that around much.
Image Stabilization is amazing but takes some getting used to. Especially with the 18x (vs. the 15x) you still need to keep them still. You can discern lots of detail at great distance if you do. You also cannot sweep around looking for a bird with it on. I actually get motion sick if I leave the IS on while moving the binos around. But while still, it is as good as a tripod - and better than those cheap ones that shake around in the wind.
I also have an inexpensive and light monopod that I occasionally use with these binoculars (the AmazonBasics one). If I intend to use them a lot (they are heavy) I will bring it along - such as some ocean viewing I did recently.
When I am with a group, people usually offer to let me use their scope for a view. The binoculars typically offer better views with more detail for me. That said, most people have inexpensive scopes. A good scope is better, especially when the distance is very great. I haven't bought a scope yet but have been thinking about it. If I do I would need to pay money for a scope that does well at very long distances for it to be worth it. I do have a 5" Mak telescope I can use for extreme distance but I can't really carry that around much.
Image Stabilization is amazing but takes some getting used to. Especially with the 18x (vs. the 15x) you still need to keep them still. You can discern lots of detail at great distance if you do. You also cannot sweep around looking for a bird with it on. I actually get motion sick if I leave the IS on while moving the binos around. But while still, it is as good as a tripod - and better than those cheap ones that shake around in the wind.
I also have an inexpensive and light monopod that I occasionally use with these binoculars (the AmazonBasics one). If I intend to use them a lot (they are heavy) I will bring it along - such as some ocean viewing I did recently.
To the original poster: A lot will depend on the distances you are currently using your scope over, and the behaviour you're trying to observe (perched or slow moving birds vs birds moving more quickly). For certain jobs and at certain distances there's no substitute for the brute magnification power of the scope. On the other hand, finding and trying to follow birds that are both distant and moving quickly (ie. racing pigeons) with a scope is a difficult job. A bird flying at say 30 mph will cross the field of view of the eyepiece I'm using in just under 2.5 seconds. I would really like to try a good pair of say 20x binoculars mounted on a tripod set up to let you swing them easily and in all directions/angles.
