But that's the thing, right? The magnification is not equal. It is 15 power compared with 40 power...
-
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.
15x56 in stead of spotting scope? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ReinierB
- Start date
has530
Well-known member
Yes it's the same amount of shake but that doesn't mean the same amount of information makes it to your brain. With more magnification that same shake corresponds to moving a further angular distance at a higher speed so you are limited by your eyes tracking and brains processing (visual grouping is highly specially corrolated more info here for those interested: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705618104). There have been various threads on cloudynights.com and maybe here with in depth looks at resolving power vs magnification in hand held optics and while there may be some individual variation, more magnification past a certain point in hand held optics actually shows less discernible detail.
To answer the original question in my experience 15x binoculars are a good in between. For shorebirds near me if I go at the proper tide where the birds are 20-200 yards from me with my Canon 15x50 IS it is wonderful. Like a small spotter but no need for a tripod or one eyed viewing. However if the tide is lower and the birds are further out... there is no substitute for a spotter. Maybe a binocular telescope but something like a 40x100 is fairly impractical to carry around and the mount needed for such a device only make the problem worse.
This gives the reach and the portability and can be tripod mounted...
kenkoglobal.com
This must be the most truly terrible optic I have found so far!
Kenko Global - SG-Z 20-100x30N FMC
kenkoglobal.com
This must be the most truly terrible optic I have found so far!
But it's not just about IDs. Aesthetics play a role too. Otherwise there would be little motivation for acquiring expensive optics.
One of my most vivid memories is of Red-capped plovers on a beach in Oz at 30x through my scope at a mere 15 m.
John
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Absolutely…and when people dismiss the importance of close focus, I’m reminded of frame filling views of creatures like Variegated Meadowhawk and Hoary Elfin, right down to the wing veins and underwing scaling.
tenex
reality-based
Satisfaction depends entirely on your intended use. I suppose we can assume that you seldom really need much more magnification for distant birds, as for many years I didn't, or you wouldn't be asking this question... so in this case yes, you may very well enjoy a 15x binocular more because it's easier to carry and more pleasant to use. I've had a 15x60/56 for decades (a scope only recently) and still use my own 15x56 more overall... but now when I do expect to need 20-70x for shorebirds etc, I bring the scope. Generally around ponds or meadows I find 15x enough, even for birding. It would do still better on a tripod, though I don't normally do that except for astronomy; if I want to carry a tripod around, I'll put the scope on it. I'd still rather live without the scope than the 15x, but that says something about me and the sort of birding I tend to do. The ATC does sound intriguing though...
What too seldom gets mentioned is that some brains may initially struggle more than others, and (I believe) any brain can learn to do better with practice, so generalizations about 8x (or even 10x) being the "maximum useful handheld magnification" aren't worth much. It's quite obvious to me (and confirmed by studies occasionally cited here and in Holger Merlitz's book) that I can see more detail at 15x than I can at 10. Perhaps some who can't have simply never given themselves the chance.
Last edited:
Amen. Identifying a bird is fun, especially a new one. But it’s not what keeps me coming back. In this our in between migration season birding is a hike, getting out, hoping, looking for signs of the next season. But then something like this week happens - a pair of adult Cali Quail with no less than 9 young ones edges out of the brush onto the trail and makes the day.
Then there’s this thread:
Why is buying and collecting binoculars so addictive..
How many of us look at rather than through our binos? Then come here and discuss….. that?
Why is buying and collecting binoculars so addictive..
How many of us look at rather than through our binos? Then come here and discuss….. that?
It greatly depends on what you are using it for. If you are scanning/searching at long distance, for long periods of time (the uber-example of this being seawatching - the very example given by Mono in post 5), two eyes are always better than one. But if you want a close up view into say a peregrine nest at 200 yards, nothing beats the brute magnification of a scope at 40/45x.
I hate carrying a tripod, very very seldom do so, and fully understand why many birders use superzoom cameras to get IDs on distant birds. But certain kinds of views are just not achievable without a scope. And if you're using a 15x binocular you're almost certainly going to need a tripod anyway (or image-stabilized binoculars).
I hate carrying a tripod, very very seldom do so, and fully understand why many birders use superzoom cameras to get IDs on distant birds. But certain kinds of views are just not achievable without a scope. And if you're using a 15x binocular you're almost certainly going to need a tripod anyway (or image-stabilized binoculars).
I've got the 15x56 SLC and use them more than scopes, but they have limitations.
I find the SLCs well balanced enough to be able to hold fairly steady for brief periods - fine for identifying non-cryptic species at a slightly greater distance than 10s allow, but unsupported I wouldn't want to use them for a long observation. Not all 15s are as well balanced for me.
They're at their best tripod mounted, but once you carry a tripod and then tripod mount I do think I might have well as used a small scope.
Where there's a handy bridge or fence that I can rest my elbows on they're superb.
The FoV is good for the magnification, but for very close range birding I'd opt for something with lower magnification, and they can take a while to find birds in flight.
For birding over open marshland (something I do a lot) they're very handy and saves me carrying a scope as well as bins, but if I'm going to spending much time scanning a scrape or shore I prefer a scope.
I find the SLCs well balanced enough to be able to hold fairly steady for brief periods - fine for identifying non-cryptic species at a slightly greater distance than 10s allow, but unsupported I wouldn't want to use them for a long observation. Not all 15s are as well balanced for me.
They're at their best tripod mounted, but once you carry a tripod and then tripod mount I do think I might have well as used a small scope.
Where there's a handy bridge or fence that I can rest my elbows on they're superb.
The FoV is good for the magnification, but for very close range birding I'd opt for something with lower magnification, and they can take a while to find birds in flight.
For birding over open marshland (something I do a lot) they're very handy and saves me carrying a scope as well as bins, but if I'm going to spending much time scanning a scrape or shore I prefer a scope.
Will K
Too well-known member
That's absolutely what I do.
norway
🔻FP🔻
True, but that entails over double the weight, bulk and cost — plus alignment gets increasingly difficult at the same time that any imperfection is multiplied as magnification increases.
Binoculars become impractical after a certain point; it's for good reason that there are very few on the market above the 15-20X range, which is not-coincidentally the multiplier where most spotting scopes start. It's nice to have different tools available for different applications.
So the ones who have a 15x56 have a scope too. I wonder how often I would use the scope when I have a 15x56... But selling the scope and replace it with a 15x56 is not a good idea when I read your comments.
When you are out with the 15x56, do you carry a smaller binoculars like a 8x32 or pocket binwith you? Or do you use it as your only binoculars? I get it that the idea of having a 15x56 is that you can take this one as "in between" and leave the scope and other binoculars at home. But I can imagine that I would carry it in my backpack or simply accompany it with a 8x25/30/32.
When you are out with the 15x56, do you carry a smaller binoculars like a 8x32 or pocket binwith you? Or do you use it as your only binoculars? I get it that the idea of having a 15x56 is that you can take this one as "in between" and leave the scope and other binoculars at home. But I can imagine that I would carry it in my backpack or simply accompany it with a 8x25/30/32.
For me it depends where I'm birding - if it's nearly all open countryside I'll just take the 15s, but if I'm going on a walk with more mixed habitat I'll take 8s as well and swap as needed.
When I tried to make the high magnification binocular work for me I found:
1. I always had to have the 7X/8X binoculars on me REGARDLESS.
2. I always had to have a tripod be it high powered binocular/spotting scope for best results with either.
3. Why not carry a scope/tripod that gives the best results for the job at hand?
Redneckbmxer24
Well-known member
If you want the best of both world get some NL 12's.
Indeed.
As good as those NL 12s are and they sure are wonderful, they do not replace a scope and tripod, when conditions warrant.
Redneckbmxer24
Well-known member
Not saying they do, but they absolutely can replace a pair of 8x and 15x binos.
