Especially compared to a spotting scope?
I run 15x56 Swaro's. For extended sessions with a tripod. They are much much easier on the eyes compared to single eye spotting scope use.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I run 15x56 Swaro's. For extended sessions with a tripod. They are much much easier on the eyes compared to single eye spotting scope use.
If one is going to share an instrument, than an angled 'scope on a tripod makes more sense.
Wonder how the Canon 15x50 IS would fare in this decision tree.
It seems to offer a way around the tripod requirement at very low cost.
When you need a spotting scope, you need a spotting scope! I've used a 12x50 a LOT....not even close to what 30-40X will do in bird ID. You can cover WAY more area with a scope. I can't imagine 3X more making a bit of difference when I'm all ready at 12X. If you are into shore birds/waterfowl at ALL....I really can't imagine one doing without a decent spotting scope if at ALL serious about birding.
The Meopta Meostar 15x HD is very close optically to the vaunted Swaro SLC HD. So close in fact that you'll have to have them side by side to see any difference at all, and even then you will have to search for it.
The gain of 40% using a binocular instead of a scope assumes the observer has two equally good eyes and has no prism problems.
Another point to consider:
A commonly expressed impression when comparing quality optics is that, for a binocular of a given magnification, the visible detail is ‘about equal’ to that of a telescope of 50% greater magnification
Although I couldn't find the reference (perhaps either Yoder or Vukobratovich?), by scientific testing the difference is 40%
- so multiply the binocular magnification by 1.4, which for a 15x binocular would be 21x equivalent
Or to flip things around: for a given magnification, a telescope reveals only around 70% of the detail of a binocular.
It would not be at all replaceable by a 15x binocular.