Straight or Angled? (1 Viewer)

I'd appreciate thoughts from the hive mind about something that I've often wondered - which is best: a straight eyepiece or an angled eyepiece?

The overwhelming majority seem to use an angled eyepiece. That's got to mean something. But my instincts tell me that a straight one would be better - easier to target and, most importantly of all, more comfortable to use (no crooked neck!).
What am I missing about the pros of an angled eyepiece? Like I say, they are clearly far and away the most popular.

I'm looking at getting a new scope and I want to spend a reasonable amount on it, so would rather get it right. Of course, I will be trying before buying, but 5 minutes in a shop comparing a straight eyepiece with an angled one is not really the same as living with one.

So I would appreciate thoughts and advice from you all - users of both styles. What are the pros and cons of each?
If you've used both styles and settled on one over the other then why was that?
You get the idea.
Cheers.

Hi,

humakt said:

But my instincts tell me that a straight one would be better - easier to target and, most importantly of all, more comfortable to use (no crooked neck!).

Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer angled scopes.

They are actually more comfortable than one might think, as it's easier to adjust your stance to match a slightly different viewing angle than with a straight scope, which tends to require minute re-adjustments if your looking a bit more up and down, if you want to stay comfortable.

I'm not sure straight scopes have that much of an advantage when it comes to targeting. The higher the magnification, the more accurate you need to be, and the bulky body of a scope is not a good aiming aid regardless of type. Personally, I've tried a red dot sight on my scope and am pretty much thrilled with the results. Mounting it was a bit of a challenge, though.

Another big advantage of angled scopes is that you can work with a lower and thus stiffer and lighter tripod than with a straight scope. If you're birding in a windy environment, like the North Sea coast, that's a real plus.

However, straight scopes have their advantages, too. Other observers have told me they prefer it for observations from an elevated position, such as a spotting tower, where an angled scope is no longer convenient. They are usually better for spotting from hides, which often are designed with view ports at eye height, and it can be a pain to set up an angled scope to match these if conditions are just *not* right.

A big field of application of straight scopes seems to be "spotting from inside the car". I talked to the guys who do regular shorebird counts, and they all prefer straight scopes for that job, which they mount on the rolled-down side panes with a bean bag or even specialized pane mount.

I do actually have a straight Nikon ED50, too, but I really use this more as a hand held monocular at the lowest zoom level, sometimes zooming in on interesting birds and trying to have the most steady hand I can manage It would probably work even better with a monopod, but that's something I have yet to try.

So it really depends on what you intend to do with your scope ... both angled and straight scopes have their advantages, and in moth situations you can actually use either type equally well.

Regards,

Henning

That's a fair point - how am I going to use it.
I should say that I do have a scope already. An angled one.
But I want to get a new one (the one I have was bough second hand, and I want to buy something a bit better).

I tend to mostly be on the move. That's why I'll be getting a smaller scope. And it'll be fitted to a monopod, which I find SOOOOOO much better than a tripod - quick to set up and easier to move around if following a moving target. I'm sold on the monopod and not looking to use a tripod. A monopod is also lighter and more convenient (I attached a bit of paracord to it with a carabiner on the end and that clips on to the shoulder strap of my rucksack, which means it won't fall and hit the ground and I can also let go of it if I want to use my bins or camera). Yeah, there is a compromise in steadiness, but it's all about compromises and for me and the kind of viewing I do, that's OK since I rarely stay on a target for long.
So that's how I use a scope, and how the new one will be used.
I rarely stay in one spot for much more than 10 minutes or so. A brew stop, perhaps, or some lunch. So weight is important to me (actually, most of the time I just take bins, but do take a scope for 'occasions').
Why I think it will be better for targetting is a bit like how you find a target with bins - you look at the object and then raise the glasses to your eyes. So with a straight eyepiece I get the feeling that it will be much more natural because you are 'pointing' the scope along your eyesight. That's how it seems to me (I may be wrong, having never used a scope with a straight eyepiece).
Anyway.
So that's how it will be used.

Straight may be a little easier to aim and target, but (possibly counter-intuitively) it's tougher on the neck. Looking downwards into an angled scope eases pressure on neck-muscles etc. (not fully supporting the weight of your noggin as you pan, search etc.) I used to use straight travel-scopes on light tripods or monopods, but gave up. I find angled easier. The only situations in which a straight might be better is from a car-window or a hide-window.

Hello Humakt,

I would like to add to Sancho's thoughts. Angled is much better for sharing the view and for looking at targets well above the horizon. The latter is more important for astronomy than for bird watching, but it is still a consideration.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Hi,

normally I would recommend an angled scope due to lower tripod needed and easier view sharing. But since the o.p. is going to use a monopod, both of this is irrelevant and a straight example is going to be fine.

Joachim

jring said:

Hi,

normally I would recommend an angled scope due to lower tripod needed and easier view sharing. But since the o.p. is going to use a monopod, both of this is irrelevant and a straight example is going to be fine.

Joachim

Click to expand...

Cullmann used to offer a shoulder stock for scopes, which would work much better with a straight scope than with an angled one.
I have a straight Nikon 60ED for service on a big Brunton tripod, but am still looking for the right shoulder stock.
Imho, a straight scope is much the best option for hand held observation.

etudiant said:

Cullmann used to offer a shoulder stock for scopes, which would work much better with a straight scope than with an angled one.
I have a straight Nikon 60ED for service on a big Brunton tripod, but am still looking for the right shoulder stock.
Imho, a straight scope is much the best option for hand held observation.

Click to expand...

Hi,

do you know these?

http://stedistock.com/products/

But they look too much like a gun for my taste...

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

jring said:

do you know these?

http://stedistock.com/products/

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link! Interesting idea, I wonder how well it works in practice.

Looks like the vendor is closing shop, though.

Regards,

Henning

Each to their own but for me angled is just so much more versatile whether on a monopod, tripod, hide clamp of bean bag especially with the rotateable collar on many scopes which enables you to 'look round corners' when seated with straining neck and back. One of the home made cabke tie sighting devices certainly helps if 'sky watching'. Also much easier for sharing with other people of different heights and as mentioned above can be operated lower on tripod or monopod for better stability.
Just my two penneth.
Russ
PS im guessing that if money is no object one of the new small Kowas would seem ideal

I solved the problem by buying an Avian Multiview 80 Spotting Scope with 20-60x Eyepiece. The eye piece angles from straight to angled and you can also rotate the body 360' so all angles / viewing situations are covered.

I'd be careful of gun stock type mounts.

I got some serious attention in the 1970s using one with an ancient Sun zoom lens.
Nowadays, it might not be wise at all to use one.
Kilfitt used to make them.

Over the years of obsession I tried Stedistcock, Cullman Shoulder Pod, Monopod, Monopod with foot-brace, chest-pod. None of them provided me with a 'steady' view, but I suppose it depends on the person. I found I could breathe out and hold without breathing in (as in target-shooting), but my heartbeat/pulse would still make the image wobble. The most portable, mobile set-up I could find was an angled ED50 with a light tripod (Slik Video-Sprint). Very light, pops in a shoulder-bag, sets up in seconds, steadier and lower than a straight version. But best of luck with whatever option you choose!
Of course there's always the new Opticron hand-scope with Image Stabilisation!

jring said:

Hi,

do you know these?

http://stedistock.com/products/

But they look too much like a gun for my taste...

Joachim

Click to expand...

I tried that, but found it too flimsy and difficult to adjust to a comfortable fit.

Sancho said:

Over the years of obsession I tried Stedistcock, Cullman Shoulder Pod, Monopod, Monopod with foot-brace, chest-pod. None of them provided me with a 'steady' view, but I suppose it depends on the person. I found I could breathe out and hold without breathing in (as in target-shooting), but my heartbeat/pulse would still make the image wobble. The most portable, mobile set-up I could find was an angled ED50 with a light tripod (Slik Video-Sprint). Very light, pops in a shoulder-bag, sets up in seconds, steadier and lower than a straight version. But best of luck with whatever option you choose!
Of course there's always the new Opticron hand-scope with Image Stabilisation!

Click to expand...

Entirely agree, tripods have their drawbacks, but they allow the best view.
I too use an angled ED50, with a Velbon Ultra8 monopod. Light enough to sling carry, plus quick to set up and easy to hand hold.
Stable enough to see the target, but not good enough to really examine it.
A stabilized scope to tame the wobbles would be ideal, but is not currently offered afaik.

Hi,

etudiant said:

I tried that, but found it too flimsy and difficult to adjust to a comfortable fit.

Click to expand...

As I 'm intrigued by the idea of adding a shoulder stock to my Nikon ED50 and toying with the idea of 3D-printing the components, I'd be interested in your thoughts on required adjustability and stiffness.

Spontaneously, I thought I might need one angular adjustment at the scope attachment point, and a length adjustment of sorts. I'm thinking of skipping the latter, as I figure it might not be needed with a single type of scope and a single user...

Does that make sense from the perspective of an experienced user?

Regards,

Henning

I have a vague memory of someone on BF, many years ago, posting photos of a wooden stock he made himself for his ED50. It would be a relatively simple bit of woodwork, with a threaded bit from a camera-shop to screw into the base of the scope.

Hauksen said:

Hi,



As I 'm intrigued by the idea of adding a shoulder stock to my Nikon ED50 and toying with the idea of 3D-printing the components, I'd be interested in your thoughts on required adjustability and stiffness.

Spontaneously, I thought I might need one angular adjustment at the scope attachment point, and a length adjustment of sorts. I'm thinking of skipping the latter, as I figure it might not be needed with a single type of scope and a single user...

Does that make sense from the perspective of an experienced user?

Regards,

Henning

Click to expand...

What is needed is an adjustable holder, so the proper length and height of the fitting can be set. An angled glass is more challenging to shoulder mount, because one has to look down into the eyepiece. If the scope is not positioned just right, one has to crane the neck to see. That hurts stability, which largely defeats the purpose of having the mount.
Bespoke shotgun makers use a try gun, essentially a very adjustable stock, to determine the dimensions required to fit the individual client. The Cullmann stock did have an adjustable shoulder plate iirc, but nothing for up and down. Both are needed to get a proper fit imho.
If the fit is good, stability should not be a problem. It is when one has to contort oneself into knots to see that problems arise.

Hi,

etudiant said:

The Cullmann stock did have an adjustable shoulder plate iirc, but nothing for up and down. Both are needed to get a proper fit imho.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, I'll try to include both adjustments! I actually have both an angled and a straight Nikon ED50 body (but only one eyepiece), which will be handy for testing.

Regards,

Henning

I went from straight to angled. I started with a borrowed angles Swaro, which I did not like a lot, so I bought a straight scope. That had some pros and some cons, and I had the opportunity to borrow a second angled Swaro. To my surprise I was now pretty happy, happier in fact, with the angled scope compared to my own straight one. So I sold the straight scope and I am now happy with an angled scope. If your tripod is high enough you should not need to do anything funny with your neck, and I never had neck issues.