-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Do you use a spotting scope alongside your bins? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Popeye32
- Start date
It all depends. If I am at a reserve, specifically "going birding" I will carry a scope and tripod alongside my bins. If I am going for a longer walk I will often carry a drawscope without a tripod as well as the bins. If I'm just going for a quiet stroll in the woods I will just take bins. I will even take some pocket bins if I'm popping down to the shops.
When I had a scope...it was usually for shore birds etc and I would use it in combination with my bins. Useful for many reasons. Otherwise, I didn't use my scope as for walking around forested, jungles...open range etc, I found little reason for a scope. But surely on the coastal / water areas a scope needed. The scope is great to pan and just hone in on close-up. One cannot beat a quality scope. In fact I would say I used the scope more in that case than the bins but always had the bins around my neck. Best of luck now
Jeff Hopkins
Just another...observer
If I'm walking on a trail, no. If I'm looking at birds on mud flats or out on a lake, yes.
I’m going to be really honest I’ve had my telescope for years and I have only ever taken them out with me once when I went Birding down at Cramond it was great but also was a bit annoying to carry around so nowadays my telescope is based sitting in my lounge so I use that to watch the birds on the feeders or trees in the garden.
earlytorise
Well-known member
Well this I can't vote on,
because sometimes I bring one when it isn't needed,
and sometimes I am too lazy to bring it when I do in fact need it (especially if it is a hot and humid day)
Tai Po Kau is the main forest birding spot in Hong Kong. I always find it quite funny when I see someone brandish a scope there - even, I noticed, the guide for the birding society's regular outings. At one point I asked them, they were able to get a Brown Shrike on a wire thanks to it. For most of the hike it would surely be useless. The forest is very dense. What you are banking on is for a roving flock to get really close.
There is that one forest bird for which I wish I'd had a scope: a Chestnut-bellied Rock Thrush in another forest called Tai Lam. It was perched - upon enquiring, it liked that perch at dawn - on a bare tree far away. But it's quite a difficult walk, I wouldn't heave a scope there all the time just for that eventuality.
P.S. I glanced through your posts and read that in you are in SE England. In that case you will find a scope very useful, much more so. If you want a good view of gull roosts, foraging geese, seabirds or a Richard's Pipit that you can't approach because there's a fence, a scope will help. When I was in England, on some walks I would use the scope for proper views, and binoculars would serve to check if the bird is interesting enough to scope - setting up the scope for each one would take too long.
because sometimes I bring one when it isn't needed,
and sometimes I am too lazy to bring it when I do in fact need it (especially if it is a hot and humid day)
Tai Po Kau is the main forest birding spot in Hong Kong. I always find it quite funny when I see someone brandish a scope there - even, I noticed, the guide for the birding society's regular outings. At one point I asked them, they were able to get a Brown Shrike on a wire thanks to it. For most of the hike it would surely be useless. The forest is very dense. What you are banking on is for a roving flock to get really close.
There is that one forest bird for which I wish I'd had a scope: a Chestnut-bellied Rock Thrush in another forest called Tai Lam. It was perched - upon enquiring, it liked that perch at dawn - on a bare tree far away. But it's quite a difficult walk, I wouldn't heave a scope there all the time just for that eventuality.
P.S. I glanced through your posts and read that in you are in SE England. In that case you will find a scope very useful, much more so. If you want a good view of gull roosts, foraging geese, seabirds or a Richard's Pipit that you can't approach because there's a fence, a scope will help. When I was in England, on some walks I would use the scope for proper views, and binoculars would serve to check if the bird is interesting enough to scope - setting up the scope for each one would take too long.
Last edited:
JTweedie
Well-known member
My binoculars are with me on every trip and are my primary means to birding.
As I go birding using public transport, I only carry my big scope if I'm going to a particular reserve where I know I'll not have to carry it about for ages - it's so easy to underestimate just how heavy and awkward carrying a big scope and a tripod around can be. In my case it's not just about carrying it around reserves, but I have to lug it about on buses and trains, so it's only used for trips where I feel it'll be really needed.
I have a smaller scope that fits in my bag (along with a monopod) and I find it helpful to use for identification of birds that are just a bit beyond what my binoculars can reach. If I'm not carrying my big scope, then this is always in my bag as a secondary set of optics to use.
As I go birding using public transport, I only carry my big scope if I'm going to a particular reserve where I know I'll not have to carry it about for ages - it's so easy to underestimate just how heavy and awkward carrying a big scope and a tripod around can be. In my case it's not just about carrying it around reserves, but I have to lug it about on buses and trains, so it's only used for trips where I feel it'll be really needed.
I have a smaller scope that fits in my bag (along with a monopod) and I find it helpful to use for identification of birds that are just a bit beyond what my binoculars can reach. If I'm not carrying my big scope, then this is always in my bag as a secondary set of optics to use.
I quite like the idea of a mini telescope I might ask for one for my birthday.
Virtually never. My focus (excuse the pun) is on observing action; scopes are largely useless for such tasks as watching hobbies catching dragonflies. I have access to one, but use it very infrequently - for eg. checking number of young in a nest.
For more general birding the scope and its attendant devil, the tripod (I've always loved that description) obviously offer better ID capabilities, but at what can be a significant cost in weight and bulk, that can greatly detract from the enjoyment one gets from being outdoors. Before succumbing to the quest for more and more magnification it may be best to work on fully exploiting the capabilities of your binoculars, and figuring out whether your individual style of birding really needs the scope and all it entails.
For more general birding the scope and its attendant devil, the tripod (I've always loved that description) obviously offer better ID capabilities, but at what can be a significant cost in weight and bulk, that can greatly detract from the enjoyment one gets from being outdoors. Before succumbing to the quest for more and more magnification it may be best to work on fully exploiting the capabilities of your binoculars, and figuring out whether your individual style of birding really needs the scope and all it entails.
Good points...the only time I really used my scope was from my car, as I would stop the car....go to the trunk and pull out the scope/tri-pod.... OR I would use the scope from my house/backyard. I never was in favor of carrying the dang thing all around. No....just bins there.
kb57
Well-known member
I've got an Opticron MM4 50 travel scope which I keep here in Portugal, a larger, older Opticron scope (can't remember which model) which I keep in UK, and a 40936 SDL v2 eyepiece which is interchangeable between the two. I've got a small Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod with an annoying ball head to use with the travel scope, and a larger tripod with a video head (can't recall the make / models) in UK for the larger tripod.
I keep the small tripod and 'scope in my rucksack when birding the local saltpans, and walk around with binoculars and camera, getting it out to do wader ID and counts on individual tanks - it's absolutely necessary if you're trying to sort out little stints or curlew sandpipers at the far side of a tank, or check out a godwit on the shoreline. The big tripod /'scope combo would be a real pig to carry round, especially when it's hot.
Back in UK, in usually cooler conditions, in coastal habitats I take the 'scope in my ski backpack, with the tripod strapped to the outside using one of the ski holders. I use it for distant waders on the foreshore, and for scanning the sea for divers and sea duck. Because it is heavy, I sometimes leave it behind, and almost always regret doing so. I do sometimes forget to pack my eyepiece when travelling...
It really depends on habitat - I think anyone birding open wetland or coastal habitats is likely to miss out without a 'scope, not just for confirming ID of distant birds, but also just observing birds from well outside their disturbance threshold. There are obvious disadvantages in terms of weight and bulk though, even for a compact travel scope / tripod.
Another disadvantage is simply having too many choices of tool for observing and recording birds...I've sometimes spent too long looking through a 'scope at a bird, when I should've reached for the camera to be able to substantiate a field ID, making the wrong initial choice in the heat of the moment.
So to the OP, my answer is a 'yes', in the right habitat!
I keep the small tripod and 'scope in my rucksack when birding the local saltpans, and walk around with binoculars and camera, getting it out to do wader ID and counts on individual tanks - it's absolutely necessary if you're trying to sort out little stints or curlew sandpipers at the far side of a tank, or check out a godwit on the shoreline. The big tripod /'scope combo would be a real pig to carry round, especially when it's hot.
Back in UK, in usually cooler conditions, in coastal habitats I take the 'scope in my ski backpack, with the tripod strapped to the outside using one of the ski holders. I use it for distant waders on the foreshore, and for scanning the sea for divers and sea duck. Because it is heavy, I sometimes leave it behind, and almost always regret doing so. I do sometimes forget to pack my eyepiece when travelling...
It really depends on habitat - I think anyone birding open wetland or coastal habitats is likely to miss out without a 'scope, not just for confirming ID of distant birds, but also just observing birds from well outside their disturbance threshold. There are obvious disadvantages in terms of weight and bulk though, even for a compact travel scope / tripod.
Another disadvantage is simply having too many choices of tool for observing and recording birds...I've sometimes spent too long looking through a 'scope at a bird, when I should've reached for the camera to be able to substantiate a field ID, making the wrong initial choice in the heat of the moment.
So to the OP, my answer is a 'yes', in the right habitat!
qwerty5
Controversial opinion generator
As others have said, it all depends on habitat and the birds I'm looking for. In forest or looking for passerines and such small birds, a scope is not helpful. When it comes to waterfowl or shorebirds, a scope is necessary, unless you're birding at very small bodies of water. There are times of the year when I probably use my scope more than my binoculars, and other times when I don't use it for weeks. If you really get into birding and want to find as many birds as possible, you'll need a scope to do that.
Steve Babbs
Well-known member
I suspect that is almost everybody.
