• 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.

Are scopes essential? (1 Viewer)

ColinD

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Recent discussions elsewhere about which scope to buy got me thinking about how rarely I use mine these days. I have a Bushnell Spacemaster, which when I bought it over 20 years ago, seemed a good scope, but I accept has now been overtaken many times.

However, I just can't justify buying a new scope. The only time I take it with me, is if I am specifically going to see a bird which I know will be some distance away, or if it's a rarity that I want a good view of. Since I very rarely twitch these days, I bet I haven't used my scope more than twice this year (Black Lark on Anglesey was the last time).

I can't be bothered to carry it when I'm out locally, and when I go abroad it's just a pain (literally) to carry it with light clothes on and in that heat. Birding is much more pleasurable without a scope, even if it means missing a few bits and pieces.

I'm at the stage where if I can't id the bird through bins, I'm not interested what it was. My attitude is, even with a scope, there will always be birds which are just too far away.

I could easily live without a scope, and my advice to new birders would be, if you have a limited budget, spend the money on a good pair of binoculars, rather than compromise with both scope and bins in order to get both,

Colin
 
Sorry you haven't been putting your scope to good use, Colin. If you don't want it, then you don't need it. I don't own a bicycle, a house, a stereo, or a cellular phone.

It's those few 'bits and pieces' that make birding challenging for me, beyond the simple pleasure of wandering in the wilds, and I take the scope, not always, but whenever I anticipate it may be useful.

I suppose some birdwatchers can live without binoculars too. Why not just walk up till you can see the bird with the naked eye?-- as someone else commented awhile ago. On the other hand, someone else at BF, I recall, birds only with a scope-- why piddle around with 10x bins when you can 60x the suckers in the first place?
 
I would agree that on a limited budget getting a good pair of bins is always the best option.

That said I would not be without a scope - I got my first one about 15 years ago and it opened up so much to me that I had been missing before. Not only does a scope allow you to ID birds that are much further away it also allows you to see so much more detail. Yesterday I was watching snipe at about 5m away and the details through the scope was amazing.

Yes, a scope is extra to carry around with you but in my mind it's well worth it. If the extra weight is an issue it's worth looking at some of the travel scopes that are now available - they're very light and optically sound.
 
I would have thought scopes were only of frequent use for waterbirds, waders and seabirds. At least that's all I use mine for - birds that don't move that quickly relative to my position. They're absolutely useless for bush birding (which is 80%+ of my watching), so I get by with a Kowa TS 501 for the times when I need a scope. I prefer to piddle around generally with 8x bins with an 8 deg. field of view to 20x or 40x scope with less than half that field of view, and less light-gathering ability.

I agree, binoculars are far more useful for general or beginning birdwatching than a scope, but they are fun things to have, and essential for certain environments.
 
Charles Harper said:

It's those few 'bits and pieces' that make birding challenging for me, beyond the simple pleasure of wandering in the wilds, and I take the scope, not always, but whenever I anticipate it may be useful.

But Charles, the challenge for me is to identify as much as possible without a scope.

The point is, even with a scope, there will be almost as many birds which are too far away for you.

And I would rather have bins than a scope, because they are easier to carry. Simple as that.

Colin
 
Hi Colin,
Depends on the individual:battered though my old Kowa TSN-1 is,I NEED a scope(seawatching is a bit tough without one,and waders can be distant enough,not to mention passerines or raptors....).
If you feel that you don't get enough use from yours,then you're probably as well off not getting one.
Now,if anyone would start a fund so that I can get a new scope....;-)
Harry H
 
I'd agree with MikeMules: a scope is useless for birding in dense woodland. But with that being a fairly scarce habitat here, I'd say that's only 20% of my birding, not 80% (Britain is only about 12% woodland, and not all of that dense). As soon as you get into open habitats with long views, a scope is all but essential.

Michael
 
I guess it's a case of each to his own. Personally I always carry both. Even with close up birds to see the details of plumage etc. through a scope is one of the delights of birding.

Of course there will always be birds that are too distant even with a scope but I don't believe that is an argument for not carrying a scope anymore than it is an argument for not carrying bins either.

If budget means that you have to choose then I would agree a good pair of bins is essential, but I believe that most birders will get more from there hobby if they have a scope.
 
There certainly is a case for over-use or "scope blindness". People who immediately start avidly scanning a site with their scope before even glancing around or scanning with bins.

Sure you might pick up that Kingfisher sitting two miles away which nobody else can see, but did you see the three Harriers fly close by meanwhile or that odd Crake which just strutted out in front of you......get my drift.

I see the scope (unless sea-watching) as a "final" aid, once I have found something with the naked eye or bins first.

Working as a tour guide I have found I rely much more on just standing and scanning with the naked eye, then putting the bins up to get a better look. Sounds common sense, but it does work. Using any optics means you lose 90% of your field of view, and you do miss a hell of a lot!

JP
 
as has already been said it depends where you are. At Welney especially in winter a scope is much more of an essential.

I tend to scan with naked eye/bins and then use the scope for iding that irritating wader.

JP - bit like Bill Oddies Spoonbill story
 
Its took me over four years of birding before I got a scope (which was about two weeks ago). I only anticipate using it when absolutely essential. I will use it at coastal sites i.e St Mary's island for wader identification. I won't use it for viewing my local patches. I am very much a local patch birder(to me it is easily the most pleasurable and satisfying form of birding)so to me binoculars are FAR more important. I could easily survive without a scope, but I just felt buying one might add an extra dimension and enjoyment to coastal birding and in time should top up my life list, especially considering that I've never been seawatching before.
 
Charles Harper said:
Sorry you haven't been putting your scope to good use, Colin. If you don't want it, then you don't need it. I don't own a bicycle, a house, a stereo, or a cellular phone.

I forgot to mention earlier, a bicycle, now there is a piece of equipment which is much more useful for birding than a scope, and much cheaper. Mountain type bikes are the best I find, for those rough tracks.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned using the scope for digi-scoping. This is a complete unknown to me, but I guess if you want to try bird photography (which I don't particularly), then a scope + camera is a good option. Imagine all that equipment though......uggghhh!

Colin
 
I find some of my birding outings are just taking the scope for a walk. You fear you might miss something if you don't have it but you don't always use it. And now that I find myself to go out without my camera in case I miss a good pic or need to get a record shot.

It's refreshing to sometimes just go for a ramble without even bins - you'd be surprised how much you can id without them.
 
Hi Colin,
I was in the same boat as you until a couple of months ago and had got out of the habit of using my ancient, optically inferior, 'scope and relied on just my bins (or a snatched view through a mate's scope!).
That all changed in June when I invested in a Swarovski ATS80HD with a 20-60x zoom. I carry it with me everywhere (using the excellent Optech strap which I got from Warehouse Express I couldn't imagine going birding without it now and to restrict myself to identifying birds at binocular range only just isn't an option (there's those that would say I can't manage that either!).
I think you'll find that, if you took the plunge, you would wonder how you managed without it. I know I have.
Just think what you might find at Newton Lake not to mention Carr Mill Dam!
 
To return to Colin's original question - "are scopes essential?" , it is a very personal view (sorry for the pun!), that is dictated by each individual's requirements and attitude to birdwatching.
I need a 'scope to counteract my mobility problems (plus 62 year-old eyes) that affect my ability and speed in getting near to a subject. Alternatively, it is surprising how many birds that will come to you if you just quietly sit and wait for them. I also dabble in digiscoping.
Whatever you decide to use, just enjoy the birds and any other wild life out and about the countryside!

Roger
 
Personally I enjoy my birding both with and without a scope. I enjoy going for long walks without the scope, just taking along the binoculars. Usually when taking the scope, the car is just a few hundred yards away and more often a lot less than that so I don't need to carry it that far. As regards digiscoping, that is just another aspect of my birdwatching generally reserved for those more sunny days.

For years I managed without a scope but now I have one it's added another dimension to my birdwatching, certainly in respect of all the coastal ponds locally for which binoculars just aren't enough.
 
Good thread, and I have been enjoying the discussion. I am on a scope hiatus at present (old one sold, new one not yet bought...). Enjoying getting back to basics on my local patch with just my eyes, ears and bins....

Question: Most bins are good for general birding, but if you fancy a stroll in more open territory or along the shore without your scope, what one bins would you take along ? There are lots of 10x's out there but I would like a good mix of magnification, excellent resolution, comfortable field of view and good depth of field to avoid eyestrain....
Do these mythical glasses exist ? Swaro 10x42 EL seem like a contender (although I have yet to get my hands on them to see what they are like). Any other suggestions ?

-
Niall
 
Well I think everyone should hold a pair of Nikon 10x32 HGs. They fit and feel perfect, in my largish hands. And the focus is quick and smooth, and the image is bright and crisp. And the price is right!!
 
many new larger ones are too big, too heavy, cumbersome, useless in many overseas birding sites and the major factor in the almost total lack of fieldcraft shown by lots of birders these days
 
Hi Niall

If you want bins that are great for general use but also have higher mag when needed check out the Leica Duovids. I got a pair a few months ago and they're great - I was intending to buy a pair of 8x42s but was so impressed by the Duovids I went for them instead. They are a great combination of 8x for general use and 12x for checking details or distant viewing.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 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