Hi, I'm seeking guidance about some optics choices for viewing birds. My wife and I are debating whether to purchase a higher-end 10x42mm binocular or a smaller spotting scope.
Presently, we have decent lightweight 8x24mm binoculars, but desire more incoming light and better resolution of objects.We enjoy viewing songbirds and raptors as well as waterfowl. I have doubts about us shlepping a 80mm scope out on a 2-3 mile hike (I'd be carrying DSLR+long lens+tripod in a pack).
But the Nikon Fieldscope ED50 looks intriguing. But I was wondering how shaky it is to use and how beneficial vs. 10x42mm binocular in viewing say an osprey atop a tall tree. It would seem that the binoculars would be easier to handle when viewing songbirds from 50-100 feet away.
Using a scope is an entirely different experience from using binocs.. I would base your decision on whether you want to setup with a tripod and scope birds, or walk around with binocs. If you're really into birding eventually you'll get a scope, but binocs are much more versatile. If you own and carry big glass.. IMO a scope is kind of redundant (big glass + live view zoomed in is pretty darn good).
Binoculars are much more versatile. Your going to need a tripod for the scope so that means hauling two.
Posted by Bill Leggett on April 19, 2010 at 6:49 PM
Michael, have you considered getting image stabilized binocs? I have a pair of Canon 10x30 which I got recently from B&H, and have to say that it was a very wise purchase. Once you've looked through these you'll never want to go back to conventional optics. And they're even quite good optically without the IS feature. They are a bargain at around $350, and light enoungh to hang around your neck while carrying your camera gear.
As a guy who spends as much time as possible birding, binoculars are something you use every hour of every day you bird, and a scope is something you use when (a) the bird is far away and you need more optical oomph, or (b) someone in your group is having trouble getting on a bird, and you use the scope to let them see it. A decent scope and a decent tripod are a serious PITA to lug around, while you can wear bins in a shoulder harness all day and barely notice them. And you can carry bins and a camera with a big lens on a tripod, but you can't carry a scope and a camera with a big lens.
Seriously, a scope is a wonderful tool for a specific set of purposes, while bins are much more versatile. I use Leica Ultravids 10 x 32; my birder spouse uses 8 x 32. We have an excellent scope, a Kowa 42mm with a 20 - 40X zoom. But it doesn't get a quarter of the use the bins do.
You've already gotten good advice here. Eagle Optics is good, they have a wide offering, and they are reasonably priced. I have a friend with a very nice Kowa scope, but I know that I would never carry both it and my camera/long lens so I stick with binoculars that I am comfortable carrying and holding. My husband has his own binoculars. Each person is different when it comes to optics so it's best if you can go somewhere and trying out a variety of binoculars before making your decision.
High-end binoculars would be nice but I tend to stay in the $200-300 range for binos and put more of my spare money into camera gear. Just my thought for whatever it's worth to you. .
Thank you all for your well-reasoned comments. You've given me a lot to ponder. Portability is a serious requirement. A fine 10X binocular is a growing option for me. Still lots of thinking to do.
ME
Posted by Jeff Loomis on April 21, 2010 at 1:11 PM
I second Jim's comments. I'm a birder, who later got into photography. I have a very nice pair of Leica Ultravid 8x42 bins and a Pentax scope. Before photography, I would always always always carry the bins, and sometimes the scope. Now that I've gotten into photography, I still always carry the bins and now a camera too (with optional tripod). The scope only comes out when I'm scanning the lake for waterfowl or shorebirds.
If you decided to get new bins, I would apply the same rule often mentioned for camera lenses - get the best you can afford. Top notch bins are expensive, but they'll last a lifetime. Most have a 25yr or more waranty to back it up. Just my two cents.
Posted by Richard Ditch on April 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM
More of the same from me. I'm a birder and a bird photographer. My binoculars (Swarovski 8x30) always are with me for both; the scope on its own tripod instead of the D200 plus 300/2.8 plus 2x on its own tripod as required but never at the same time. Binoculars are quick to use and required for small active birds at close to medium distance; the scope (an old 77mm Kowa with a 20x wide field eyepiece) for shorebirds, gulls, distant raptors, and those times when a rarity can't/shouldn't be approached any closer.
I've performed some hands-on testing of the NIkon Fieldscop 50 ED as well as high-level 10x42 bins, and our own 8x24mm bins for comparison. Most likely I'll purchase the NIkon Fieldscope 50 ED. It's lighter than the 10x bins and the optics are just as good, very bright and color accurate and sharp edge-to-edge. I'm finding that I can use it quite effectively with a portable tabletop-like UltraPod II tripod that can be chest supported. The scope carrying case can be belt mounted because the whole thing is really small.
This was a bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one. So I'm thinking that we can do quite OK with our existing bins and get very close to most objects with this scope while still allowing me to pack camera, big lens, CF tripod and pack.
Discussion
9 repliesPresently, we have decent lightweight 8x24mm binoculars, but desire more incoming light and better resolution of objects.We enjoy viewing songbirds and raptors as well as waterfowl. I have doubts about us shlepping a 80mm scope out on a 2-3 mile hike (I'd be carrying DSLR+long lens+tripod in a pack).
But the Nikon Fieldscope ED50 looks intriguing. But I was wondering how shaky it is to use and how beneficial vs. 10x42mm binocular in viewing say an osprey atop a tall tree. It would seem that the binoculars would be easier to handle when viewing songbirds from 50-100 feet away.
But these are just assumptions.
Any opinions are welcome.
Thanks,
ME
Seriously, a scope is a wonderful tool for a specific set of purposes, while bins are much more versatile. I use Leica Ultravids 10 x 32; my birder spouse uses 8 x 32. We have an excellent scope, a Kowa 42mm with a 20 - 40X zoom. But it doesn't get a quarter of the use the bins do.
High-end binoculars would be nice but I tend to stay in the $200-300 range for binos and put more of my spare money into camera gear. Just my thought for whatever it's worth to you. .
ME
If you decided to get new bins, I would apply the same rule often mentioned for camera lenses - get the best you can afford. Top notch bins are expensive, but they'll last a lifetime. Most have a 25yr or more waranty to back it up. Just my two cents.
I've performed some hands-on testing of the NIkon Fieldscop 50 ED as well as high-level 10x42 bins, and our own 8x24mm bins for comparison. Most likely I'll purchase the NIkon Fieldscope 50 ED. It's lighter than the 10x bins and the optics are just as good, very bright and color accurate and sharp edge-to-edge. I'm finding that I can use it quite effectively with a portable tabletop-like UltraPod II tripod that can be chest supported. The scope carrying case can be belt mounted because the whole thing is really small.
This was a bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one. So I'm thinking that we can do quite OK with our existing bins and get very close to most objects with this scope while still allowing me to pack camera, big lens, CF tripod and pack.
Thanks again,
ME