Straight or Angled (1 Viewer)

roel · Mar 9, 2005

Hi Birders!

Is there anything known about the difference in image quality, regarding sharpness, lightness, contrast etc (when using digiscopy as a photographing method), between a straight scope model or an angled scope model? Please let me know! (I am looking for a Swarovki right now, and have to decide on this)

greetings

Roel

RAH · Mar 9, 2005

From what I've read elsewhere, there is no difference. If anything, I have read that theoretically ANGLED might be somewhat sharper because of the configuration of the lenses (I think I read it on this forum, so you might find it with a search).

As far as usefulness, I find angled to be MUCH more convenient.

Jeff Bouton · Mar 9, 2005

RAH said:
From what I've read elsewhere, there is no difference. If anything, I have read that theoretically ANGLED might be somewhat sharper because of the configuration of the lenses (I think I read it on this forum, so you might find it with a search).

As far as usefulness, I find angled to be MUCH more convenient.

Agreed! Angled is the only way to go, from a standpoint of versatility, ergonomics, the group dynamic, etc. The only possible drawback is for those who use the piece in a vehicle with a window mount. That becomes a bit tricky!

Best,

Jeff Bouton
Port Charlotte, FL
[email protected]

Nutcracker · Mar 9, 2005

Angled scopes get puddles on the eyepiece in rain . . .

jurek · Mar 9, 2005

Jeff Bouton said:
The only possible drawback is for those who use the piece in a vehicle with a window mount.

Angled is better.

Most scopes can be easily rotated on the support - you can make the eyepiece stick to the side.

henry link · Mar 9, 2005

The Swarovski scopes use a Porro prism in the straight version and a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism in the angled. I haven't compared them side by side, but the Porro ought to have visibly higher light transmission and contrast, though probably not enough to matter in digiscoping.

barry robson · Mar 9, 2005

Go for angled. You don't have the tripod central post raised as high in order to view the subject you are photographing, making the whole set up more stable all round
Cheers
B

Tero · Mar 9, 2005

If you use your scopes for groups, the angled one works well people of different heights to have a look.

Richard D · Mar 9, 2005

In terms of ease of use - angled for outside of hides, straight for sitting inside hides - so basically you want one of each ;-)

Brian Stone · Mar 9, 2005

barry robson said:
Go for angled. You don't have the tripod central post raised as high in order to view the subject you are photographing, making the whole set up more stable all round
Cheers
B

A straight scope is OK with the swivel design Coolpix cameras as you can drop the central column and just adjust the camera's viewfinder angle.

rogerscoth · Mar 9, 2005

Nutcracker said:
Angled scopes get puddles on the eyepiece in rain . . .

Unless you are careful, quick with the eye-piece cover, wear a large hat, or a cap with a long peak! The possibilities are endless.
Hope I don't sound too flippant - just pointing out some alternative ideas.
All my recent 'scopes have been angled, after my very old brass draw-tube type
that I still have from my younger days, but not for bird watching use.
Roger

Jane Turner · Mar 9, 2005

Its a simple choice....depending on whether you habitually use a scope by sitting/standing and scanning for birds... or whether you tend to bird more actively, eg walking a lot, or on a monopod/shoulderpod.

Personally I hate angled scopes... I never take a scope out unless its on a shoulder pod and then I need a straight through scope to quickly get onto disappearing flying objects.... and I don't fret about the height issue, since if I am ever going to be using a scope for a long period of time I always get low.... sitting ideally.

MikeDale · Mar 9, 2005

With a straight scope it is sometimes easier to get an object in view than with an angled scope.

stevo · Mar 9, 2005

Hi Roel

I have in the past used a straight & angled scope for digiscoping take it from me the angled is the way to go both for digiscoping & birding particularly things like raptor watching.

Cheers Steve.

Swissboy · Mar 9, 2005

Tero said:
If you use your scopes for groups, the angled one works well people of different heights to have a look.

I strongly disagree on this argument. It keeps coming up constantly, but my own experience is otherwise. It may be true for younger people without glasses. But when I (being 168cm) look through an angled scope I usually get the view through the near focus part of my trifocals. So everything it out of focus for me.

I also hate angled scopes because of the unnatural way of going about it. One basically stares to the ground with the other eye when scanning horizontally. And it's a real hassle to catch a flying object.

So the only argument left is the shorter tripod one. And that may well be an issue for taller people because it also allows to use a lighter tripod. There is also some benefit if you look up into close treetops a lot, or for raptor watching if you can handle the flying problem.

Nutcracker · Mar 9, 2005

I've known plenty of times when a straight scope can see a bird clear over a high hedge, but someone with an angled scope is having to look through lots of twigs.

Edward woodwood · Mar 9, 2005

Jane Turner said:
Its a simple choice....depending on whether you habitually use a scope by sitting/standing and scanning for birds... or whether you tend to bird more actively, eg walking a lot, or on a monopod/shoulderpod.

Personally I hate angled scopes... I never take a scope out unless its on a shoulder pod and then I need a straight through scope to quickly get onto disappearing flying objects.... and I don't fret about the height issue, since if I am ever going to be using a scope for a long period of time I always get low.... sitting ideally.

ditto

Tim

Grousemore · Mar 9, 2005

Jane Turner said:
Its a simple choice....depending on whether you habitually use a scope by sitting/standing and scanning for birds... or whether you tend to bird more actively, eg walking a lot, or on a monopod/shoulderpod.

Not that simple; it is perfectly possible to 'actively' bird with an angled scope (lightweight) and a carbon fibre tripod. This set-up is probably more versatile than a mono/shoulderpod.

Edward woodwood · Mar 9, 2005

in many instances true Trevor

depends where you are of course...

in many rainforests/closed environments you can't actively bird with a tripod of any sort. And you'd need the tripod up at all times which encumbers movement in tight situations. You can get onto stuff with a shoulder pod much much quicker than plonking a tripod down and then having to locate the bird...

I do see people miss stuff/not look at stuff every weekend in Norfolk because they are carrying a fully extended tripod and it's 'not worth' putting it down...

Tim

BarbaraM · Mar 9, 2005

As a rather short person (4'11") who does not carry a scope myself, I really appreciate when I find myself in group viewing situations and there are those who have angled scopes. A straight scope set up for most people's viewing is way too high for me. So it depends on your circunstances - will you be birding on your own or with a partner? If with a partner, what's the height difference? If alone, do you tend to find yourself in groups where you would want to share your scope, or not? Barbara

Straight or Angled (1 Viewer)

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Stop Brexit!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Retired

what was that...

A Stone chatting

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sempach, Switzerland

Stop Brexit!

Member

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread