Post by: trackemup on January 23, 2016, 11:09:20 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2016, 11:14:22 AM
If you step up to 60mm you increase weight but add almost 50% more light gathering ability than a 50mm.
Post by: M_ray on January 23, 2016, 11:39:29 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-6892-Spotter-Spotting-Outfit/dp/B0001HKUYS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453577327&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+spotter
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/nikon.pl?page=nikon8320
Post by: jackelope on January 23, 2016, 11:44:30 AM
Post by: M_ray on January 23, 2016, 11:53:19 AM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I did the Nikon spotter for that reason because it had the largest eye piece of all the compacts that I could find at the time. But I'm with ya I am leaning toward a pair of Swarovski 15x50's and ditching the xl :tup: put those on a tripod with adapter and you'll never want a compact spotter again ;)
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2016, 11:57:07 AM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.I don't think you're in the minority. A 50mm saves a few ounces and size, but has significantly less light gathering ability than a 60mm.
Post by: deerslyr on January 23, 2016, 12:12:05 PM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I'm with you.
Post by: jjhunter on January 23, 2016, 12:13:23 PM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I did the Nikon spotter for that reason because it had the largest eye piece of all the compacts that I could find at the time. But I'm with ya I am leaning toward a pair of Swarovski 15x50's and ditching the xl :tup: put those on a tripod with adapter and you'll never want a compact spotter again ;)
15x56
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2016, 12:17:38 PM
If you're on a tighter budget you might look at Kowa. Several years ago I bought a 60mm Kowa and the 25x extended eye relief eye piece. I'm only in it about $600. But I'd definitely recommend the Leupold if it's not over your budget.
http://www.eagleoptics.com/spotting-scopes/kowa/kowa-tsn-602-straight-60mm-spotting-scope
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362277299/leupold-golden-ring-hd-spotting-scope-12-40x-60mm-shadow-gray
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2016, 12:24:41 PM
Binoculars are easier to look through for extended periods of time. For locating game at relatively close distances of a mile or two, they are arguably better than a spotting scope. The advantage of a spotting scope is being able to take a very close look at something, and in some instances it will locate game at longer distances better. 30x is twice the magnification of 15x. If you plan to sit and glass, binoculars are nice. In other instances, I have not been able to see enough detail at 15x, while at 30x or 40x I can. I consider them different tools.I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I'm with you.
Post by: M_ray on January 23, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I did the Nikon spotter for that reason because it had the largest eye piece of all the compacts that I could find at the time. But I'm with ya I am leaning toward a pair of Swarovski 15x50's and ditching the xl :tup: put those on a tripod with adapter and you'll never want a compact spotter again ;)
15x56
yep that's right
Post by: 7mag. on January 23, 2016, 03:52:08 PM
Post by: Twang on January 23, 2016, 11:49:32 PM
I know the trouble packing big glass but if you are thinking spotter then that argument goes away
I rarely glass freehand except for a quick peak while on the move, big or little binos
Simplify your backpack. Multitask makes sense to me in most of the areas I hunt
Spotters are good for show and tell or sizing up every point. Sometimes, truth often, I leave the spotter out of the pack to make room for water bottles
Post by: Branden on January 27, 2016, 09:47:17 PM
I also have a pair of 15X56 Swarovski and they are not the same at all as the spotter. I would not go hunting without the spotter but I would without the 15's.
My 2 cents
Post by: Reidus on January 27, 2016, 10:44:44 PM
I recently got 50mm and 85mm razor hd's. (Thanks to elknut) I'm thinking the 50mm will be great for those times when I don't feel like/need the 85mm but still would like something with more magnification. At 25oz it's approx. 20 oz lighter and considerably smaller than most 60mm spotters.
Post by: M_ray on January 27, 2016, 11:19:21 PM
Depending on what your hunting I would go with the big spotter. We used a small Nikon one year and a 20-60X80 Swarovski side by side. I spotted some deer a little over 4 miles away with my binos. With the Nikon is all you could tell is they were deer. With the Swarovski you could tell they were bucks. Same hunt I spotted 3 bucks a couple miles away. With the Swarovski I could tell one was a nice buck worth going after. With the Nikon we could just tell they were bucks. It was six miles to hike around and get on top of them. From my experience I would go with the biggest best you can afford and save weight somewhere else.
I also have a pair of 15X56 Swarovski and they are not the same at all as the spotter. I would not go hunting without the spotter but I would without the 15's.
My 2 cents
The OP asked for thoughts on a compact ... Once one looks through a full size Swaro of coarse theres no contest
Post by: JDHasty on January 28, 2016, 05:32:16 AM
I'm probably in the minority here but I did the compact spotter thing for a while and didn't like it. I went back to a 20-60x60 and find it a lot more effective than the little tiny ones, and they're not that much heavier. There are other things I'd rather save weight on, especially with a pack that has a designated pocket for a full sized spotting scope. I'd almost just run a pair of 15x bino's than one of the little spotters.
I did the Nikon spotter for that reason because it had the largest eye piece of all the compacts that I could find at the time. But I'm with ya I am leaning toward a pair of Swarovski 15x50's and ditching the xl :tup: put those on a tripod with adapter and you'll never want a compact spotter again ;)
15x56
We have had our Swaro 15x56 for a couple years now and they are a game changer. I looked at the Vortex and it was a pretty darn good binocular too, my buddy has one.
Post by: Okanagan on January 28, 2016, 07:32:09 AM
At my age I will backpack hunt less but am seriously considering taking a good zoom camera in place of the spotting scope. I seldom glass a long time with the spotter. If you do, get high quality optics. My style is to find things with binos and examine them with a higher power glass. The camera often does a better job of examining detail. Zoom in, take the pic and then you can examine it as long as you want whether the critter turns its head, steps behind a bush etc. Cameras amplify light which is a help at sundown.
Examples: Grandson and I were using our carry binoculars to glass a herd of elk on an early summer evening about ¾ mile away when I said that the one on the left looked like a small bull, could not be sure. My grandson casually and confidently told me that it was a 3x4 and another was a 4x4 bull. My binos were better than his so I turned and asked how he knew. He showed me a zoom picture he had taken. Tips and shape of velvet antlers showed in detail. He could zoom in for the pic, then enlarge any part of the pic he wanted to examine. Ditto on some deer, including bucks in velvet a mile away across an alpine basin, and enough detail to ID a peregrine falcon perched on a snag a quarter mile away.
FWIW I got blasted as an idiot last time I mentioned a zoom camera in place of spotting scope for some hunting uses. :chuckle:
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 28, 2016, 08:07:33 AM
I'd go for the mid size spotter though. I just dont think the small ones are good enough in big country, now maybe if the basins aren't too large it might work or if you arent concerned about.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on January 28, 2016, 08:17:48 AM
I'm seriously thinking of adding the 15x56 to the arsenal this year.
I'd go for the mid size spotter though. I just dont think the small ones are good enough in big country, now maybe if the basins aren't too large it might work or if you arent concerned about.
You have seen the light! :chuckle:
Agreed on the spotters, I've used a couple of the different sized compact Leupold Gold Rings and they aren't in the same ballpark as the high end mid-sized spotters. Yes, they take up more space and are a little heavier, but they are way more useful.
Post by: James on January 28, 2016, 08:23:37 AM
Post by: theleo on January 28, 2016, 09:33:38 AM
Post by: Eric M on January 28, 2016, 10:03:44 AM
Consider a zoom camera. I own and have backpacked 8, 10 and 15 power binos, plus several 50 mm spotting scopes and two 60 mm spotters. You can seldom use magnification above 40 power in the field due to mirage and light gathering limits. Higher magnification is all but useless except in cold weather at midday.What kind of camera was it? I've had this discussion before I was thinking of going that route. `
At my age I will backpack hunt less but am seriously considering taking a good zoom camera in place of the spotting scope. I seldom glass a long time with the spotter. If you do, get high quality optics. My style is to find things with binos and examine them with a higher power glass. The camera often does a better job of examining detail. Zoom in, take the pic and then you can examine it as long as you want whether the critter turns its head, steps behind a bush etc. Cameras amplify light which is a help at sundown.
Examples: Grandson and I were using our carry binoculars to glass a herd of elk on an early summer evening about ¾ mile away when I said that the one on the left looked like a small bull, could not be sure. My grandson casually and confidently told me that it was a 3x4 and another was a 4x4 bull. My binos were better than his so I turned and asked how he knew. He showed me a zoom picture he had taken. Tips and shape of velvet antlers showed in detail. He could zoom in for the pic, then enlarge any part of the pic he wanted to examine. Ditto on some deer, including bucks in velvet a mile away across an alpine basin, and enough detail to ID a peregrine falcon perched on a snag a quarter mile away.
FWIW I got blasted as an idiot last time I mentioned a zoom camera in place of spotting scope for some hunting uses. :chuckle:
Post by: Okanagan on January 28, 2016, 11:23:23 AM
Consider a zoom camera. I own and have backpacked 8, 10 and 15 power binos, plus several 50 mm spotting scopes and two 60 mm spotters. You can seldom use magnification above 40 power in the field due to mirage and light gathering limits. Higher magnification is all but useless except in cold weather at midday.What kind of camera was it? I've had this discussion before I was thinking of going that route. `
At my age I will backpack hunt less but am seriously considering taking a good zoom camera in place of the spotting scope. I seldom glass a long time with the spotter. If you do, get high quality optics. My style is to find things with binos and examine them with a higher power glass. The camera often does a better job of examining detail. Zoom in, take the pic and then you can examine it as long as you want whether the critter turns its head, steps behind a bush etc. Cameras amplify light which is a help at sundown.
Examples: Grandson and I were using our carry binoculars to glass a herd of elk on an early summer evening about ¾ mile away when I said that the one on the left looked like a small bull, could not be sure. My grandson casually and confidently told me that it was a 3x4 and another was a 4x4 bull. My binos were better than his so I turned and asked how he knew. He showed me a zoom picture he had taken. Tips and shape of velvet antlers showed in detail. He could zoom in for the pic, then enlarge any part of the pic he wanted to examine. Ditto on some deer, including bucks in velvet a mile away across an alpine basin, and enough detail to ID a peregrine falcon perched on a snag a quarter mile away.
FWIW I got blasted as an idiot last time I mentioned a zoom camera in place of spotting scope for some hunting uses. :chuckle:
Good question and I'll have to ask him! He goes by blacktailCody on this forum I think. He's a camera buff and knows way more than I do. I have talked with him a bit about getting a higher end zoom for myself but haven't pulled the trigger yet and cameras change so fast nowadays that you want up to the minute info before you buy. I'm thinking at least up to 20 power optical zoom and an image stabilizer to reduce camera hand shake, though I'd want to take pics from a rock solid rest of some sort.
Sorry I'm not more help.
Post by: JDHasty on January 28, 2016, 11:31:27 AM
Post by: Okanagan on January 28, 2016, 12:02:48 PM
I have seen a side by side comparison between a spotting scope and a zoom camera and the zoom camera worked fine until the sun started to go down. Then the camera image fell behind pretty quickly. The other three people who were present thought the same. That was a fairly large SLR digital Nikon or Cannon and the spotter was a 65 MM Kowa
Good info! I had not done a side by side test of camera and spotting scope in fading light, only saw what my old zoom camera does in terms of taking good photos in way dim light, but it is a low powered zoom. Big, old animals often don't show till the light is fading or gone.
Post by: Eric M on January 28, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
No you were. I was looking at a couple. A guy on here named boneaddict gave me some good advice on another thread I started. Low light and image stabilization are things to consider. And you can buy phone adapters for spotting scopes.Consider a zoom camera. I own and have backpacked 8, 10 and 15 power binos, plus several 50 mm spotting scopes and two 60 mm spotters. You can seldom use magnification above 40 power in the field due to mirage and light gathering limits. Higher magnification is all but useless except in cold weather at midday.What kind of camera was it? I've had this discussion before I was thinking of going that route. `
At my age I will backpack hunt less but am seriously considering taking a good zoom camera in place of the spotting scope. I seldom glass a long time with the spotter. If you do, get high quality optics. My style is to find things with binos and examine them with a higher power glass. The camera often does a better job of examining detail. Zoom in, take the pic and then you can examine it as long as you want whether the critter turns its head, steps behind a bush etc. Cameras amplify light which is a help at sundown.
Examples: Grandson and I were using our carry binoculars to glass a herd of elk on an early summer evening about ¾ mile away when I said that the one on the left looked like a small bull, could not be sure. My grandson casually and confidently told me that it was a 3x4 and another was a 4x4 bull. My binos were better than his so I turned and asked how he knew. He showed me a zoom picture he had taken. Tips and shape of velvet antlers showed in detail. He could zoom in for the pic, then enlarge any part of the pic he wanted to examine. Ditto on some deer, including bucks in velvet a mile away across an alpine basin, and enough detail to ID a peregrine falcon perched on a snag a quarter mile away.
FWIW I got blasted as an idiot last time I mentioned a zoom camera in place of spotting scope for some hunting uses. :chuckle:
Good question and I'll have to ask him! He goes by blacktailCody on this forum I think. He's a camera buff and knows way more than I do. I have talked with him a bit about getting a higher end zoom for myself but haven't pulled the trigger yet and cameras change so fast nowadays that you want up to the minute info before you buy. I'm thinking at least up to 20 power optical zoom and an image stabilizer to reduce camera hand shake, though I'd want to take pics from a rock solid rest of some sort.
Sorry I'm not more help.