mooreorless
Well-known member
What is so silly about using zip ties on angled spotting scope if that works good???8-P You can use a angled spotter to look at the night sky some as well, not the best but works.
Last edited:
-
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.
Straight or angled scope (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter bgm145
- Start date
What is so silly about using zip ties on angled spotting scope if that works good???8-P You can use a angled spotter to look at the night sky some as well, not the best but works.
Blue72
Well-known member
If it works for you, great! Just giving a different perspective on straight scopes because they have benefits as well.
As an astronomer straight scopes can be used just like binoculars at the night sky
Giving different perspectives is fine - unless those perspectives include gun barrels - then they're strictly off topic here!
Yes, japanese style - although I would insist on a parallelogram mount and a reclining chair in that case. Then it's super comfy - otherwise your neck will not like it.
Joachim
Hi,
So which of the numerous disadvantages of straight scopes listed in this thread do you actually disagree with?
Here's an incomplete list of some of the points made in this thread, by me and others:
1) You'll need a longer, heavier tripod with a straight scope.
2) Sitting inside the tent door and looking upward into the trees with a straight scope will result in a quite cramped neck position...
3) If sharing the scope with others that aren't your height, the angled scope will require far less tripod adjustment.
4) I think it would be much more convenient to use an angled scope when sitting in front of a tripod. Not only does the angle help you to look up more easily, but it's also much easier to adjust one's head position to a new viewing angle than with a straight scope, where you'd have to re-adjust extension height with each change.
5) So I'd think that for your primary application of using the scope from a tripod, angled probably would be better. For the secondary application, using it hand-held, straight might seem like a good idea, but in my opinion it only makes sense with a shoulder-stock, and then angled is as good or better.
6) The main reason to pick a straight scope is usually if you're birding out of a car window. I've also heard one birder saying that he likes it better when looking down from observation towers, which makes sense too.
None of these have anything to do with aiming difficulties, so I don't think improved aiming technique can do anything to ameliorate these drawbacks.
Regards,
Henning
So which of the numerous disadvantages of straight scopes listed in this thread do you actually disagree with?
Here's an incomplete list of some of the points made in this thread, by me and others:
1) You'll need a longer, heavier tripod with a straight scope.
2) Sitting inside the tent door and looking upward into the trees with a straight scope will result in a quite cramped neck position...
3) If sharing the scope with others that aren't your height, the angled scope will require far less tripod adjustment.
4) I think it would be much more convenient to use an angled scope when sitting in front of a tripod. Not only does the angle help you to look up more easily, but it's also much easier to adjust one's head position to a new viewing angle than with a straight scope, where you'd have to re-adjust extension height with each change.
5) So I'd think that for your primary application of using the scope from a tripod, angled probably would be better. For the secondary application, using it hand-held, straight might seem like a good idea, but in my opinion it only makes sense with a shoulder-stock, and then angled is as good or better.
6) The main reason to pick a straight scope is usually if you're birding out of a car window. I've also heard one birder saying that he likes it better when looking down from observation towers, which makes sense too.
None of these have anything to do with aiming difficulties, so I don't think improved aiming technique can do anything to ameliorate these drawbacks.
Regards,
Henning
Blue72
Well-known member
If you don’t understand NPA you won’t get it, as shown in what you wrote so far. Plus many of those points are completely false. But that’s ok enjoy your angled scope.
There is a angled vs straight debate in another optic forum with people who do understand NPA and agree straight is the way to go. Even the guys who have angle scopes admit the angle take longer to get on target and you have to take your eyes off target when looking down into the scope. Which is a big no no. Especially in fast moving situations, your just not going to keep up. They also admit that angled requires more adjustments when glassing several miles of terrain
There is a reason why cameras and binoculars are straight. Do you know how frustrated people would get using angled versions of those tools in high action situations
Bottom line use what’s best for your application
.
Last edited:
Hi,
Oh, so you don't need any arguments because you're enlightened, and I'm not?
Charming ... maybe if I were just as arrogant, I'd be just as convincing.
For starters, I'd like to hear how NPA eliminates the need for a longer and heavier tripod with a straight scope, just to quote my #1.
Unsupported claims on an internet forum ... sure, they have their place, but there comes a point where it's time to demand "butter by the fried fish".
And if you don't get that, take lessons in German ... why should I take five minutes to explain something I perfectly understand when there are so many people selling fine language courses?
Regards,
Henning
Oh, so you don't need any arguments because you're enlightened, and I'm not?
Charming ... maybe if I were just as arrogant, I'd be just as convincing.
For starters, I'd like to hear how NPA eliminates the need for a longer and heavier tripod with a straight scope, just to quote my #1.
Unsupported claims on an internet forum ... sure, they have their place, but there comes a point where it's time to demand "butter by the fried fish".
And if you don't get that, take lessons in German ... why should I take five minutes to explain something I perfectly understand when there are so many people selling fine language courses?
Regards,
Henning
Rotherbirder
Well-known member
FWIW, I started birding with a straight scope more years ago than I care to remember, but once I saw sense, took the plunge and changed to an angled scope, I found it infinitely superior for all the reasons Henning mentions. I also agree that angled beats straight in a 'hand-held' situation as its possible to steady the scope more effectively by applying downward pressure via the eyepiece against the face and bracing the scope with the upper arm pressed against the torso instead of waving around in space, especially in windy conditions; YMM - of course - V! Incidentally, I thought this forum discussed issues relating primarily to birding? A self-professed 'shooter's' needs will be different - and not necessarily compatible, if you get my drift?
RB
RB
Last edited:
Blue72
Well-known member
Your projecting and putting words in my mouth
I clearly did not dismiss angled spotting scopes. I made a case for straight scopes in SOME applications. Yet you wanted make an argument against it when you are not even familiar with it. That’s not fair to newcomers who ARE familiar with it and would take it seriously into consideration.
As far as number 1, many hunters are ultra lighters and count grams and ounces in their tripod selection. There are several lightweight tripods available for straight scopes. Unlike most birders, many hike for days with these lightweight tripods
Let go of trying to be right and allow readers to make decisions objectively in their purchase by having the information on the benefits of each design. Instead of dismissing concepts you admittedly have no experience in.
Blue72
Well-known member
It is regarding birding, it’s adapting a skill set from another sport that could potentially benefit this community greatly. The same way it benefited me when picking up the birding hobby
While many may find firearms offensive. It doesn’t change the fact in how our body and eyesight works when looking at a bird. You can increase your birding experience by understanding these concepts.
Hi,
I'll give you some highlights in direct quotes:
Re-iterated in re-phrased form as:
If that doesn't light up your arrogance-o-meter all over the scale, you might want to have it checked by customer support as surely, something must be wrong with it.
Especially as all the while you were evading to actually deal with the contents of my arguments, other than dismissing them summarily.
If you're ready for a factual discussion on a content level, points #2 to #6 still remain to be answered by you.
B1) So why exactly do you think I'm not familiar with straight scopes?
Not that it should matter what you think I'm familiar with or not, but you're taking the ad hominem road there, so I'm asking you to explain yourself. (Ad hominem typically is a big no-no in online forums, for good reasons.)
With regards to "arguments against" straight scopes (actually, it's a factual list of disadvantages), they are up there, numbered for easy reference, so go ahead and make proper ad rerum arguments. I do actually invite disagreement, as long as it's rational and factual.
1) That's a good ad rerum argument, thanks. After considering it thoroughly, I'd say I disagree with it: Whatever lightweight technology you use for a tripod, you still need a smaller tripod for an angled scope than for a straight one, and everything else being equal, a smaller tripod is going to be lighter than a bigger tripod.
What you are describing is hunters weighing their options and accepting the disadvantage that comes from the use of an angled scope. That's a valid strategy, and the existence of light-weight tripods (which are not necessarily suited for all birding applications) might reduce the negative impact of the straight scope's disadvantage to a neglegible measure.
I'm not dismissing the concept, I'm asking you to explain it. If you can't, it's really your turn to let go of being right.
Abandoning perfectly good factual statements in the absence of ad-rerum arguments would be irrational, so I stand by the statements I made in this thread. I'm quite confident they are clear enough to allow beginners to reach their own conclusions, diligent reading assumed.
Regards,
Henning
I'll give you some highlights in direct quotes:
Re-iterated in re-phrased form as:
If that doesn't light up your arrogance-o-meter all over the scale, you might want to have it checked by customer support as surely, something must be wrong with it.
Especially as all the while you were evading to actually deal with the contents of my arguments, other than dismissing them summarily.
If you're ready for a factual discussion on a content level, points #2 to #6 still remain to be answered by you.
B1) So why exactly do you think I'm not familiar with straight scopes?
Not that it should matter what you think I'm familiar with or not, but you're taking the ad hominem road there, so I'm asking you to explain yourself. (Ad hominem typically is a big no-no in online forums, for good reasons.)
With regards to "arguments against" straight scopes (actually, it's a factual list of disadvantages), they are up there, numbered for easy reference, so go ahead and make proper ad rerum arguments. I do actually invite disagreement, as long as it's rational and factual.
1) That's a good ad rerum argument, thanks. After considering it thoroughly, I'd say I disagree with it: Whatever lightweight technology you use for a tripod, you still need a smaller tripod for an angled scope than for a straight one, and everything else being equal, a smaller tripod is going to be lighter than a bigger tripod.
What you are describing is hunters weighing their options and accepting the disadvantage that comes from the use of an angled scope. That's a valid strategy, and the existence of light-weight tripods (which are not necessarily suited for all birding applications) might reduce the negative impact of the straight scope's disadvantage to a neglegible measure.
I'm not dismissing the concept, I'm asking you to explain it. If you can't, it's really your turn to let go of being right.
Abandoning perfectly good factual statements in the absence of ad-rerum arguments would be irrational, so I stand by the statements I made in this thread. I'm quite confident they are clear enough to allow beginners to reach their own conclusions, diligent reading assumed.
Regards,
Henning
Last edited:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Kinda fun reading the banter between Dd and Henning though I am on Henning's side about this.
I've had both angled and straight, and currently have both an angled and a straight scope.
From my POV the straight scope does acquire a target a bit quicker and is easier to use for digiscoping because of that. I do not use a cable tie on the angled scope however, though I have before, as I find it a bit fussy putting the scope in it's case and not losing the tie, but that's my issue.
For every other reason and use I have for a spotting scope I prefer an angled version. No doubt that if I were to own but one scope it would be angled, for all the reasons previously mentioned in this thread.
As far as Dd's trying to "save" someone from making the mistake of getting a angled scope over a straight one, it seems to me that one could make the opposite argument, easier.
One's age might be a mitigating factor as well. At 63 I don't much enjoy the angles my neck, back, and knees incur (at times) looking through a straight scope.
Carry on!
I've had both angled and straight, and currently have both an angled and a straight scope.
From my POV the straight scope does acquire a target a bit quicker and is easier to use for digiscoping because of that. I do not use a cable tie on the angled scope however, though I have before, as I find it a bit fussy putting the scope in it's case and not losing the tie, but that's my issue.
For every other reason and use I have for a spotting scope I prefer an angled version. No doubt that if I were to own but one scope it would be angled, for all the reasons previously mentioned in this thread.
As far as Dd's trying to "save" someone from making the mistake of getting a angled scope over a straight one, it seems to me that one could make the opposite argument, easier.
One's age might be a mitigating factor as well. At 63 I don't much enjoy the angles my neck, back, and knees incur (at times) looking through a straight scope.
Carry on!
Last edited:
Blue72
Well-known member
I said your not familiar with NPA not straight scopes. Otherwise you have your answer for #2 and #6
I gave you a synopsis of NPA earlier
Peace be with you brother...enjoy your angled scope
Last edited:
Blue72
Well-known member
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
Last edited:
Blue72
Well-known member
Using more muscle will disrupt your sight picture over time, especially at higher magnification
In addition if you noticed with straight, the body/eyes are in alignment with your optic and the object your looking at. You can close your eyes for ten seconds and still be aligned with the object, without concentration. This is not always the case with angled scopes.
This not only helps in image quality overtime but helps you get on target quickly and naturally.
There is more to it then this. You also want to focus on your skeleton rather then muscle. Learn how to shift alignment, breathing, heart rate, pointing, etc...there is plenty of info online if you want to learn
In addition if you noticed with straight, the body/eyes are in alignment with your optic and the object your looking at. You can close your eyes for ten seconds and still be aligned with the object, without concentration. This is not always the case with angled scopes.
This not only helps in image quality overtime but helps you get on target quickly and naturally.
There is more to it then this. You also want to focus on your skeleton rather then muscle. Learn how to shift alignment, breathing, heart rate, pointing, etc...there is plenty of info online if you want to learn
Last edited:
Hi,
I don't think anyone ever asked that question in this thread, but I'm afraid by throwing one guy with an ergonomically really badly chosen tripod into the comparison, you're not achieving much more than proving your own unfair bias.
Regards,
Henning
I don't think anyone ever asked that question in this thread, but I'm afraid by throwing one guy with an ergonomically really badly chosen tripod into the comparison, you're not achieving much more than proving your own unfair bias.
Regards,
Henning
mooreorless
Well-known member
What if that fellow with the angled scope was using a straight scope with that tripod? That would really be rough. 8-P
Last edited:
Hi,
What you said was exactly this:
Nothing in that quote suggests "it" was meant to mean "Natural Point of Aim", and I'm happy to admit that I'm unable to read minds over the internet.
Giving you the benefit of "Oh, if that's what you meant", you still haven't answered #2 to #6 even rudimentarily.
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.
That I pointed out right in this thread that I also have a straight scope didn't register with you, did it?
Regards,
Henning
What you said was exactly this:
Nothing in that quote suggests "it" was meant to mean "Natural Point of Aim", and I'm happy to admit that I'm unable to read minds over the internet.
Giving you the benefit of "Oh, if that's what you meant", you still haven't answered #2 to #6 even rudimentarily.
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.
That I pointed out right in this thread that I also have a straight scope didn't register with you, did it?
Regards,
Henning
Blue72
Well-known member
It’s for reference take it or leave it
Your still using more muscle with angled scopes compared to looking straight ahead, regardless how good your tripod is.
Plus your eye and body is not in alignment with the object
Hundreds if not thousands of people get trained in NPA everyday, many using optics. So my bias can’t be all wrong.
Once again I’ll let any potential reader decide
Similar threads
