• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Straight or angled scope (1 Viewer)

Hi,



Well, I do like your approach to use pictures.

One of a NPA practitioner viewing a bird through a tripod would be quite interesting ... full shot, preferrably.

Regards,

Henning


I wouldn’t be surprised the next time you use your scope, your going to try some of the things I talked about.....I also wouldn’t be surprised if you had a thought saying, “that son of a biscuit might be right”
 
Hi,

I wouldn’t be surprised the next time you use your scope, your going to try some of the things I talked about.....I also wouldn’t be surprised if you had a thought saying, “that son of a biscuit might be right”

That would require you to decribe the technique precisely enough to understand it - which you quite persistently refused to do.

I appreciate your optimism, but it's not me bottle-necking information here ...

Regards,

Henning
 
Hi,



That would require you to decribe the technique precisely enough to understand it - which you quite persistently refused to do.

I appreciate your optimism, but it's not me bottle-necking information here ...

Regards,

Henning

I gave you the basics, I think you just want me to dance.

I’m sure your curiosity will have you learning the rest
 
Hi ,

I gave you the basics, I think you just want me to dance.

You mean your "synopsis"?

Not in the sense the OED understands synopsis: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/synopsis

From where I was standing, it looked more like a lame teaser combined with a bold claim.

With regard to dancing ... I've had quite enough of you performing the Evasive Hop.

You still owe me #2 to #6, and your resolve to defend your stance on #1 seems to have fizzled out after my first response on that. Or did I change your mind and we're in agreement now?

Regards,

Henning
 
I really don't have a dog in this race but I can't help but notice you being a little disingenuous with some of your examples and comments.

This quote below ignores sharing a scope between multiple people. Where a taller person stoops to set up a scope for a shorter person. And an even shorter person does a tippy toe to see through the EP. One tends to strike a compromise in height rather than constantly adjusting the tripod. Especially true with less patient critters you may be trying to see.

Also looking through ANYTHING for "hours" will get to most people.

Depends on your viewing, if your looking up all the time, then possibly yes

But if your looking straight ahead. Glassing for hours with an angled scope can cause a strain too, since you are looking in a unnatural position


In the photo example you posted with the following, the guy has the tripod set too low and is stooped to look through it. Now it may have been set up for a shorter person and that would explain the stoop, but...
For those interested, who is using more muscles when glassing
Angled

In the example you show that accompanies this quote the guy has the tripod adjusted so he can stand erect. ...in this example the shorter person wouldn't be able to see through the EP without adjusting the tripod.
Or straight

I can post a photo of a guy using a pair of Zeiss binoculars backwards but I wouldn't claim they don't work as well as Leicas pointed in the right direction.

Back to the OPs question, he's 6'2" tall. He's going to need a pretty tall tripod looking up in that canopy with a straight scope. Taller tripods tends to be heavier and more expensive and really require a lot of adjustments when the angles get steep, up or down. This is all based on my experience with them and you may have a theoretical example that shows I'm wrong but like Bob Dylan once wrote: "I don't need a weather man to show me when the wind blows"
 
Last edited:
I really don't have a dog in this race but I can't help but notice you being a little disingenuous with some of your examples and comments.

This quote below ignores sharing a scope between multiple people. Where a taller person stoops to set up a scope for a shorter person. And an even shorter person does a tippy toe to see through the EP. One tends to strike a compromise in height rather than constantly adjusting the tripod. Especially true with less patient critters you may be trying to see.

Also looking through ANYTHING for "hours" will get to most people.


In the photo example you posted with the following, the guy has the tripod set too low and is stooped to look through it.


In the example you show that accompanies this quote the guy has the tripod adjusted so he can stand erect.


I can post a photo of a guy using a pair of Zeiss binoculars backwards but I wouldn't claim they don't work as well as Leicas pointed in the right direction.


I agree, straight scopes require more adjustments for sharing. But if your looking for the best scope for you as an individual and you agree with the concept. Then “straight” might be a better fit

Yes one eyed, all day glassing does get to most people, that’s why many are using more powerful 12x/15x Alpha binoculars these days when glassing large canyons and reserve the scope to zoom in once that object is identified. Including me. Many of these same sportsman prefer straight scope, so they can switch back and forth regularly with less adjustment. Matter of fact they are having the same discussion in their forums.that we are having here currently.

The point I was trying to make with the pictures, is that the eyesight isn’t in alignment with the scope or object being looked at. In addition it requires more muscles to be used when utilizing a angled scope. When muscles are used, the amount of time you can glass comfortably is much shorter. Because just like lifting weights your body can only hold time under tension for so long before you shake, get tired, or become weak. NPA focuses on your internal bone structure and you can hold on to that position for a very long time.

Regarding the canopy. Yes, the angled scope can potentially be more comfortable depending on the angle, but they will loose out on the function to “point shoot” the same way you would with a pair of binoculars. Sportsman often use small light weight tripods over their body to eliminate muscle movement while sitting to achieve high angles. For astronomy I lay flat while my spotting scope is pointed at zenith. Keep in mind this is more comfortable then using a 45 degree angle spotting scope looking at zenith in addition to being able to view much longer. The 45 degree angle spotting scope has little to no fans in astronomy forums. But then again all spotting scopes are mostly despised by astronomers
 
Last edited:
To add to Henning's list of issues with straight scopes I would add that once the tripod is extended in order that a straight scope can be used it is far more susceptible to wind shake. When I use a scope it is mainly in the west of Scotland on the coasts and islands and there is always wind so this point is very important for me.

Angled scopes have their issues too (use from a car for example, and discomfort for the tallest observer in a group using a tripod set up for the shortest so that everyone can see what the scope is aimed at) but taken over all it seems to me that angled is more effective in the field.

I used to use straights but angled works better for me and aiming along the side of the tube hasn't been hard to learn. I can appreciate the ease of aim of a straight scope but Henning's list sums up the various other problems and I can't find one that is at all 'false' or exaggerated.

Lee
Moderator
 
Hi,

I agree, straight scopes require more adjustments for sharing. But if your looking for the best scope for you as an individual and you agree with the concept. Then “straight” might be a better fit

Even for a single user, a straight scope requires more adjustments as soon as you pan or tilt the scope.

On my tiny straight Nikon ED50, the eyepiece extends ca. 140 mm behind the tripod screw, which depending on what adapter plate you use is on the pivot point or very close to it.

That means if you pan the scope, the eyepiece travels in a wide arc, and you need to position your head quite accurately behind a straight scope to get a good picture.

On the angled ED50A, not only is the eyepiece displacement smaller by about 30 mm, reducing the sweep of the arc, it's also much easier to place your eye in the best position by slightly varying seating angle, head inclination etc.

The same applies in tilt, where raising the line of sight by 10 degree inclination lowers the eye position by ca. 24 mm on the straight ED50, requiring an immediate adjustment in tripod extension to keep the same viewing position.

Again, it's much easier to adjust your body position to keep viewing with the same sight line raise on an angled scope as you're not committed to an upright body and head stance. The various back, neck, and eyeball angles give you several degrees of freedom with an angled scope, which is the reason pretty much everyone else here is in agreement that overall, observing with an angled scope is ergonomically more favourable.

(The arc in which the eyepiece sweeps is typcially greater for most straight scope than for my small Nikon ED50 ... as pointed out before, my girlfriend's straight Televid 77 is a lot longer than the Nikon, though I don't have it at hand to check the exact dimensions. A wider arc obviously requires greater adjustments and increases the disadvantage of the straight scope.)

Many of these same sportsman prefer straight scope, so they can switch back and forth regularly with less adjustment.

Most birders prefer angled scopes, for all the reasons already lined out in this thread and probably some more. I don't see any need to emphasize the experience of hunters, who pursue a quite different "sport" than birders, and from what I can tell from reading a limited sample of hunting-centric optics reviews, have quite their own ideas of what's important in optics.

When muscles are used, the amount of time you can glass comfortably is much shorter.

If you are staring at one spot for a prolonged period of time and don't pan or tilt, the straight scope might conceivably be (slightly) superior. However, I don't think that's a very common scenario for birders.

As soon as you start panning and tilting, you're moving, and you generate changing loads on a variety of muscles, allowing those that are momentarily relaxed to recover from the strain. That's different from your "weight lifting" model where the muscles are stressed continuously, which in fact doesn't really suit them well.

Due to the greater ease of adjustment of the body position to the viewing position with an angled scope, that's where the angled scope wins. Quite a few people here pointed out repeatedly that angles scopes are more convenient to use, and I think that's completely justified.

Regards,

Henning
 
From our point of view as a supplier predominantly to wildlife watchers rather than to those glassing for hunting, our sales are 9:1 angled vs straight.

I was once told that "no one in Sweden buys a straight scope for birding" - if you check the website of Gunnar Olssons Foto or of Naturbokhandeln, you'll see only three straight scopes offered for sale and all are Swarovski models (STS, STX and STR MRAD).

Cheers, Pete
 
From our point of view as a supplier predominantly to wildlife watchers rather than to those glassing for hunting, our sales are 9:1 angled vs straight.

Yes, this was similarely confirmed by other retailers catering to birders, here in this forum and elsewhere. Zeiss recent decision to make their new top line scope only as a angled version is certainly based on similar considerations.

Whatever hunters, astronomers, "sportsmen", etc. may prefer for their particular type of use, for birding the larger majority of birders perfer angled. All the reasons why angled is better (in most cases) for birding have been mentionned above.

And the only real disadvantage of an angled scope, less intuitive aiming, is easily remediated at no cost with a zip tie ;)
 
Most popular cars and trucks are Toyota Camry and Ford F-150. Sports car production is minuscule in comparison

Does that mean the Camry and F150 offer better performance on a racetrack? No, not at all.
 
Hi,



Even for a single user, a straight scope requires more adjustments as soon as you pan or tilt the scope.

On my tiny straight Nikon ED50, the eyepiece extends ca. 140 mm behind the tripod screw, which depending on what adapter plate you use is on the pivot point or very close to it.

That means if you pan the scope, the eyepiece travels in a wide arc, and you need to position your head quite accurately behind a straight scope to get a good picture.

On the angled ED50A, not only is the eyepiece displacement smaller by about 30 mm, reducing the sweep of the arc, it's also much easier to place your eye in the best position by slightly varying seating angle, head inclination etc.

The same applies in tilt, where raising the line of sight by 10 degree inclination lowers the eye position by ca. 24 mm on the straight ED50, requiring an immediate adjustment in tripod extension to keep the same viewing position.

Again, it's much easier to adjust your body position to keep viewing with the same sight line raise on an angled scope as you're not committed to an upright body and head stance. The various back, neck, and eyeball angles give you several degrees of freedom with an angled scope, which is the reason pretty much everyone else here is in agreement that overall, observing with an angled scope is ergonomically more favourable.

(The arc in which the eyepiece sweeps is typcially greater for most straight scope than for my small Nikon ED50 ... as pointed out before, my girlfriend's straight Televid 77 is a lot longer than the Nikon, though I don't have it at hand to check the exact dimensions. A wider arc obviously requires greater adjustments and increases the disadvantage of the straight scope.)



Most birders prefer angled scopes, for all the reasons already lined out in this thread and probably some more. I don't see any need to emphasize the experience of hunters, who pursue a quite different "sport" than birders, and from what I can tell from reading a limited sample of hunting-centric optics reviews, have quite their own ideas of what's important in optics.



If you are staring at one spot for a prolonged period of time and don't pan or tilt, the straight scope might conceivably be (slightly) superior. However, I don't think that's a very common scenario for birders.

As soon as you start panning and tilting, you're moving, and you generate changing loads on a variety of muscles, allowing those that are momentarily relaxed to recover from the strain. That's different from your "weight lifting" model where the muscles are stressed continuously, which in fact doesn't really suit them well.

Due to the greater ease of adjustment of the body position to the viewing position with an angled scope, that's where the angled scope wins. Quite a few people here pointed out repeatedly that angles scopes are more convenient to use, and I think that's completely justified.

Regards,

Henning

NPA doesn’t mean you stay in one position. You move quite a bit, matter of fact much more so then birding when shooting multiple targets in very fast succession. With no time to adjust your aim with zip ties for each new object your looking at. Otherwise you will loose big time

You simply cannot achieve NPA with a angled scope. Your sight is out of alignment. There is no denying this.

Try using your zip tie trick on a peregrine falcon in full speed, I bet you will fail miserably. But you can use Point shooting techniques easily with your straight spotter.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

NPA doesn’t mean you stay in one position.

You were talking about prolonged observing there. All of my statements apply, whatever magical properties NPA might possess (or not).

Your sight is out of alignment. There is no denying this.

You haven't even defined "alignment". What aligns with what? There's not even enough information in your statement that I could disagree with it.

Try using your zip tie trick on a nearby soaring eagle, I bet you will fail miserably. But you can use Point shooting techniques on a soaring eagle easily with your straight spotter.

You yet again seem to have missed an important bit: I don't use zip ties. I'm the guy with the red dot sight.

I've used my angled ED50A hand-held, on a rig with a reflex sight, to acquire and track Common Snipes in full display flight right overhead. I actually found this quite a bit easier than with straight 8 x 42 binoculars, which have a larger field of view than my ED50A, but no aiming device.

If you think soaring eagles are difficult without your magic technique ... well, maybe they were for you. I'm ROFLing here ...

Regards,

Henning
 
Whatever hunters, astronomers, "sportsmen", etc. may prefer for their particular type of use, for birding the larger majority of birders perfer angled. All the reasons why angled is better (in most cases) for birding have been mentionned above.

There's only ONE situation where a straight scope is better than an angled scope - when you're watching from a car.

And that's it.

Hermann
 
Maybe the guy with the light sweater should elevate his tripod a bit?

A straight scope can have certain advantages, but if those are mostly for hunting and not very applicable for birding, they are actually not in line with the philosophy of this forum.
 
Hi,



You were talking about prolonged observing there. All of my statements apply, whatever magical properties NPA might possess (or not).



You haven't even defined "alignment". What aligns with what? There's not even enough information in your statement that I could disagree with it.



You yet again seem to have missed an important bit: I don't use zip ties. I'm the guy with the red dot sight.

I've used my angled ED50A hand-held, on a rig with a reflex sight, to acquire and track Common Snipes in full display flight right overhead. I actually found this quite a bit easier than with straight 8 x 42 binoculars, which have a larger field of view than my ED50A, but no aiming device.

If you think soaring eagles are difficult without your magic technique ... well, maybe they were for you. I'm ROFLing here ...

Regards,

Henning

Movement of your body and movement towards target are two separate things. You eliminate movement for each target for a natural aligned viewed without shaking. But you still move your body for each target and very quickly.

I defined alignment several posts back, regarding body, eye, optic, and target

Red dot faster then binoculars? Your seriously doing something wrong. Your muscle memory with your red dot is getting in the way of your natural pointing skills. Or you don’t have pointing skills at all. If red dots were that quick they would be adopted by clay bird shooting long ago. But they are not, and that says it all right there.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top