Angled or straight... (1 Viewer)

...which do you prefer and why? What about for digiscoping??

I prefer angled because I sometimes use my 'scope for astronomy. It is also easier to share a view with an angled 'scope. Those who like to pan seem to prefer a straight 'scope.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

imaxfli said:

...which do you prefer and why? What about for digiscoping??

Click to expand...

Thrashed to death already but....
I initially bought straight as I often view from cliffs and over hedges and in hides, worked out OK but I started getting neck pain from the viewing angle which really became a problem last winter when I was scoping a lot.
Recently bought a new scope and went angled - found this much better for my neck, not really a problem viewing from cliffs, better for digiscoping.
For hide viewing the scope can be rotated to get the eyepiece horizontal, targeting can be more difficult until you get used to approximating where the cope is actually pointing - this soon becomes easy.
High power scopes (angled or straight) are always a bit difficult to line up on targets - you need to give yourself visual clues i.e. markers on the scope and 'what's near what I'm looking for.
Angled for me - my neck tells me that's best.

imaxfli said:

...which do you prefer and why? What about for digiscoping??

Click to expand...

Hiya. Is this so you can make a future choice, or just wondering what others prefer??!!

Me- (assuming we're talking about scopes!), I 've had a straight Nikon Spotting Scope (2nd hand) for the last 12 years or so. But I'm going to get a new scope asap, and I'm going for an angled this time. I think there are some advantages/disadvantages to both. I'm going for angled so I don't have to raise the tripod centre stem up so high to look through, better for stability in windy conditions eg seawatching. Should be more comfortable on the neck when sitting down and using. Easier to view high up birds in the sky (conversely harder to view birds below your own level eg at the bottom of a cliff), although apparently it's harder to track birds moving across the sky.

I assume for digiscoping that you'd put less strain on it when you affix your camera, although you'd possibly have more difficulty seeing the viewscreen when taking pics than with a scope. Actually on that last point, i'll keep an open mind and check out both types when I go to buy!

Over here at least, angled outsell straights 5 to 1 , if not even greater than that.

I'm sure there are more reasons why one type is better than the other for different purposes. Others may enlighten us. . .

I switched from straight to angled a couple of years back and much prefer it. You don't need to raise the tripod so high (in fact you don't even need to raise the centre column depending on which tripod you have) and this makes a huge difference ie more stability.

Gravity helps keep the camera in place for digiscoping and doesn't harm the eyepiece. It's also more comfortable if you're above average height (it's difficult to carry and expensive to buy a tripod that needs to be stable at 170cm+).

As a second Scope I use a straight compact Kowa 504 when I want to travel light and every time I use it I yearn for an angled one (Kowa don't make a 50mm ED scope in an angled version-only a straight one alas).

Straight may be ok if you're fairly short and/or do most of your birding from hides or using a car window clamp.

I used a straight scope for many years, but about five years ago switched to an angled one... initially I was concerned that it would be harder to find and track birds, but within a couple of weeks it seemed natural. I now far prefer an angled scope, I find it much more confortable for prolonged viewing. I also prefer it for digiscoping, an angled scope is set at a lower height, so it's easier to keep it stable.

Your decision depends a lot on how you operate. I used to have angled for digiscoping and now I have straight, and I much prefer the straight. I find it much faster to get on the bird . For a test try and find warblers in a tree or a raptor at 1 km in the sky. I do a lot of digiscoping sitting on the ground or seated ( I like to be comfortable if I'm going to be doing it for hours at a time ). I have a a rotable screen on my camera so going up or down is not a problem. Using an angled in a hide or from a car is a pain although you can get used to anything. I hear a lot about tripod height but the secret to stable digiscoping is not the tripod, but the head. I have used the center column at full height to digiscope up into trees with no problem ( I use a solid ballhead and the Manfrotto balance bar ). In wind just apply a little weight in a downward direction, either with you hands or your camera bag ( you can also use an elastic strap long enough to put your foot through. If you have a non-rotatable screen digicam then, as others have said, the angled would be better, although it will slow you down a bit. If I use my F30/W100 on my tripod at full height then I get a sore neck too trying to see the screen which would be at chest height.
Hope this helps, Neil.
ps or get a proper tripod - a surveyor,s tripod.

I much prefer the straight scope,firstly because my digiscoping setup would'nt work on an angled scope and secondly most of my viewing is either done sitting in the reeds on the marsh or sat out on scrub/hillside so height is'nt a problem because my tripod is very rarely extended to it's maximum.

Chris Oates said:

Thrashed to death already but....

Click to expand...

Indeed.
Just look at the bottom of this page imaxfli, there's lots of links to other threads to help you.

Regards. :hi:
Jaff

Sorry...I'm just getting the hang of site....what is a "hide" by the way.

Sorry, a hide is a blind. Neil.