15x56 in stead of spotting scope? (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

I wonder, who has a 15x56 and skipped having a scope and is fully satisfied?
I bought a scope (ATC 17-40x56) and already knew: I am not really a spotting scope type. I don't like carrying too much stuff. I prefer watching with both eyes as well. Now I sometimes think: wouldn't a 15x56 be a better optiond for me? I know it is hard to hold it steady, but I think it would be easier holding it steady than the ATC. For longer views I can always use a tripod. I can also sit down and put my elbows on my knees ore lend my elbows on a fence or something. I think the 15x56 is better suitable as well, because of the bigger EP and the higher transmission.
I will lose magnification, that's right... but the idea of having the SLC 15x56 won't let me go. (I would prefer the SLC because of the ergonomics and the weight)

So, happy 15x56 users on this forum who do not miss a scope? Or users who have them both but use the 15x56 more?

 

[Hermann]

I wonder, who has a 15x56 and skipped having a scope and is fully satisfied? [snip]

I will lose magnification, that's right... but the idea of having the SLC 15x56 won't let me go. (I would prefer the SLC because of the ergonomics and the weight)

So, happy 15x56 users on this forum who do not miss a scope? Or users who have them both but use the 15x56 more?

If you want to buy a 15x56 because you want to have one buy it. But it won't replace a scope, never ever. The magnification is just too low. Even a stabilised 20x (Zeiss 20x60S) won't replace a scope.

In addition the efficiency of an unstabilised, handheld 15x binocular is a bit more than 40%, perhaps 45%. So basically you're at about 6-7x effective magnification unless you put the 15x56 on a tripod. Or at least a monopod. Or lean against a wall or tree or something.

And don't believe what some people say, that they have got "steady hands" and can handhold 15x binoculars no problem. Handshake (or "tremor") is a well-researched, natural phenomenon. Its frequency (8-12Hz) is well known. It's always there, and if it isn't you're most likely dead.

Hermann

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

A bit different, but competitive long range shooters (PRS and NRL) have been replacing spotting scopes with 12-15x binos for years and use it to spot trace and impact on steel targets and misses up to a mile or more. 15x allows you to see a lot in detail, and you don’t get the eye fatigue with great binos that you do with a spotting scope. The spotters at matches are on glass all day for two days so it takes its toll.

There’s a huge misconception about image shake, like higher magnification somehow causes it which is simply not true. Image shake is present no matter what binocular you’re using, you just don’t see it as much because you’re not as zoomed in on what you’re viewing. You are still shaking just as much with lower magnification, and it’s still causing just as much distortion, you just don’t see it as much. Furthermore, you are still going to see MORE with higher magnification than you will with lower even seeing the distortion from image shake.

Now that we’re beyond that, where 15’s really shine is when tripod mounted. High end 15’s like the SLC HD’s (the absolute gold standard that nothing matches and few come close) are just insane what you can see when tripod mounted, but any and every binocular will benefit from being tripod mounted and the more you shake the more you will benefit.

Spotting scopes are much more difficult to hand hold than binos and they just simply are not designed for that whereas binos are.

I personally use NL 12’s for nature viewing and at the range and they’re used offhand 95% of the time or more. SLC’s give you 3x more mag. If you have higher mag and badass view, and both eyes get a swaro 115mm and BTX eyepiece. You’re not going to hand hold it though.

 

[Popeyethesailor]

For me since getting the NL 12x42 I don’t really use my scope tbh, I mainly use the 12’s on a tripod and I love the view it gives me, I did suffer a bit with eye fatigue using a scope

 

[Mono]

When birding I don't sit and stare through a spotting scope at one spot. I largely find birds with my naked eye, I might use binoculars to scan along the waters edge. I then use binoculars to get a better view for id purposes or just for pleasure. If I can't get sufficient view with my bins I use my spotting scope, often right up to the maximum 60x. In my use case a 15x binocular adds nothing to the mix, to small a FOV for searching and too low a magnification for long range ids. I can understand the use case laid out above for target shooting, but it is horses for courses. In all my time birding I have never seen anyone using a pair of large tripod mounted binoculars for anything other than sea-watching from a car-park.

 

[jring]

There’s a huge misconception about image shake, like higher magnification somehow causes it which is simply not true. Image shake is present no matter what binocular you’re using, you just don’t see it as much because you’re not as zoomed in on what you’re viewing. You are still shaking just as much with lower magnification, and it’s still causing just as much distortion, you just don’t see it as much. Furthermore, you are still going to see MORE with higher magnification than you will with lower even seeing the distortion from image shake.

Hi,

I agree that the amount of shaking is the same regardless of magnification. But with higher magnification, the same amount makes your object move a lot more inside the apparent field of view and that makes it hard to see any detail. Especially so, if the object leaves the apparent field of view due to shaking...

Joachim, who has tried 12x non-stabilised bins and it was not useful at all. I'll take a pair of stabilised 12x or more bins, but prefer 8x30 and scope as I have a wider tfov with the 8x for searching stuff and then all the magnification I want with the scope - and I can easily share the view in the scope...

 

[William Lewis]

Hi ReinierB

I had the same thoughts, it depends where you go birding to be honest. If your using it by the sea, larger lakes or estuaries you'll miss birds without a decent scope. I've had a few scopes over the years and tried various high magnification bins (image stabilised is worth a look) and settled on my usual 8x mag for binoculars most of the time and a 20-60x scope.

Having said that you shouldn't miss much with your current scope and a decent monopod if portability is an issue.

Will

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Hi,

I agree that the amount of shaking is the same regardless of magnification. But with higher magnification, the same amount makes your object move a lot more inside the apparent field of view and that makes it hard to see any detail. Especially so, if the object leaves the apparent field of view due to shaking...

Joachim, who has tried 12x non-stabilised bins and it was not useful at all. I'll take a pair of stabilised 12x or more bins, but prefer 8x30 and scope as I have a wider tfov with the 8x for searching stuff and then all the magnification I want with the scope - and I can easily share the view in the scope...

The key word there being "apparent"

The image is not moving or distorting any more, period. It's not possible, only that you are seeing it more. That's how magnification works.

 

[chill6x6]

I wish it were possible but no.

I've tried to make this work over and over. I'm not a spotting scope guy either. I appreciate what they will do but they are a PITA to transport and set up. But when you need a scope, you NEED a scope. Most of the time I'm at 40-45X with the scope and that's usually what it takes.

If you are looking at waterfowl and shorebirds a scope is indispensable.

 

[james holdsworth]

I do a ton of lake watching where I live and went with 15x56 on a tripod…even with a half dozen others beside me on scopes, I get on things quicker with greater field of view and more ease of eye movement. It’s rare that someone can actually see, or identify, something I can’t as greater mag. magnifies small movements and compresses atmospherics..which is a big factor in lake watching.

if you know your birds, know their GISS, it will go a long way to being able to get by with less mag. For me though, a scope is just too cumbersome and fatiguing to use for an entire day, as our lakewatches go dawn to dusk some days.

 

[GrampaTom]

Well...
Last fall I traveled to a lovely, friendly, well equipped, optics shop in Mendocino to buy a scope. After looking through 4 different models all nicely arrayed in a row on tripods, I stepped back, looked at the group and thought, "its the friggin tripod." It was not so much 80 vs 60, but the combo of scope and tripod that was going to change how I birded.... in some places.

Having decided on which, I then went in the shop and grabbed an NL 1242. Looking at the same old weathering wooden water tank up the hill a hundred yards or so away, with lots of texture and detail to judge optical performance, it was obvious no bino was going to do what a decent scope and tripod could. That's the day I decided to eventually get an 832... The scope has been exactly what that day suggested. No going back. For me, no second guessing the decision.
T

 

[jring]

The key word there being "apparent"

The image is not moving or distorting any more, period. It's not possible, only that you are seeing it more. That's how magnification works.

Hi,

I don't care whether it is possible or not, I just tend to notice that the object I was observing has left my field of view. And that is not acceptable - so I either get a pair with stabilisation, a tripod or my scope.

Joachim

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Hi,

I don't care whether it is possible or not, I just tend to notice that the object I was observing has left my field of view. And that is not acceptable - so I either get a pair with stabilisation, a tripod or my scope.

Joachim

Yes, you’re noticing it because it’s magnified by how ever much more.

You’re completely dismissing the fact that the same amount of image distortion is still there.

 

[William Lewis]

I agree that the amount of shaking is the same regardless of magnification.

This doesn't seem like a dismissal?

Will, who likes Joachim's matter of fact addendum summations.

 

[henry link]

The key word there being "apparent"

The image is not moving or distorting any more, period. It's not possible, only that you are seeing it more. That's how magnification works.

When a binocular's magnification is increased there is a true physical increase in the angle subtended on the retina by the shaking of an object in the image and therefore there is an increase in the velocity of that object's movement. It's that real increase in the velocity and displacement at the retina that the brain struggles to track. There's nothing "apparent" about it.

 

[Binocollector]

Even free-handedly I can read signs with a 15x56 that I could never read with a 7x35 and not even with a 10x42 (just tested it).
I wouldn't use a 15x free-handedly as a regular use-case but still you can see more detail with a 15x56 than with a 10x42.
If I wanna get really close I'll use my Canon 18x50IS though.
The maximum I'd use without tripod or electronic stabilization is 12x50 and that is not much fun either. So I normally use 8x or 7x.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Even free-handedly I can read signs with a 15x56 that I could never read with a 7x35 and not even with a 10x42 (just tested it).
I wouldn't use a 15x free-handedly as a regular use-case but still you can see more detail with a 15x56 than with a 10x42.
If I wanna get really close I'll use my Canon 18x50IS though.
The maximum I'd use without tripod or electronic stabilization is 12x50 and that is not much fun either. So I normally use 8x or 7x.

Exactly.

12x is my max as well for hand held and I use my NL 12’s for it almost exclusively.

 

[Will K]

Its curious how things change with a bit of time and experience. These days, I spend most of my time with a 12x42, which I use alongside a 27-60x 85mm. Recently, I went back to try a slightly older 20x60 bino which - for a while before I got the 12x and the scope - provided a sort of 'middle ground' (although a rather impractical one) between these two options. Going back to try them, I was pleasantly surprised at how stable they were to look through when held in the hand. Since I last picked them up I'd had a lot of field 'training' to cope with bino wobble, I guess. That said, I don't think I'd ever use the 20x60 on a tripod, since I have a pretty great 12x and 27-60x bino/scope combo now.

 

[LucaPCP]

I wonder, who has a 15x56 and skipped having a scope and is fully satisfied?
I bought a scope (ATC 17-40x56) and already knew: I am not really a spotting scope type. I don't like carrying too much stuff. I prefer watching with both eyes as well. Now I sometimes think: wouldn't a 15x56 be a better optiond for me? I know it is hard to hold it steady, but I think it would be easier holding it steady than the ATC. For longer views I can always use a tripod. I can also sit down and put my elbows on my knees ore lend my elbows on a fence or something. I think the 15x56 is better suitable as well, because of the bigger EP and the higher transmission.
I will lose magnification, that's right... but the idea of having the SLC 15x56 won't let me go. (I would prefer the SLC because of the ergonomics and the weight)

So, happy 15x56 users on this forum who do not miss a scope? Or users who have them both but use the 15x56 more?

A non-stabilized 15x56 still needs a tripod.
I tried to go without a scope with a stabilized Kite 16x42. It gave me decent detail, but going around with two binoculars (I still needed the 8x42) was not particularly fun. Also, the detail of the Kite is quite inferior to my Opticron MM4 60 scope, which can easily go to 45x. With the Opticron, it really opens new horizons in terms of what I am able to see. For coastal species, there is no comparison. And I can easily walk up to 4Km with a scope and tripod slug over a shoulder.
So I tried the high-magnification stabilized binoculars route, but nowadays, I prefer to go with either an 8x binoculars, or also carry scope and tripod. A factor of 2 in magnification/distance is not that much. 45x / 8x = almost a factor of 6, so a scope really makes a difference.

 

[Harrier22]

This is truly a matter of personal preference.
Comparing a spotting scope to a properly mounted binocular of equal magnification & quality, I'd go with the binocular because, for me, two eyes are better than one.
Enjoy your choice!