Does a good telescope really make a difference? (2 Viewers)

[bonxie birder]

I’m asking this question on the back of a trip to see the white-billed diver off Gullane point. Through my scope I wasn’t able to locate it, but fortunately someone else was there and I was able to see it incredibly distantly through his scope. To be honest, without him pointing out where it was and which bird it was, I would have struggled to have identified it myself. Looking back through my scope, I was able to locate the bird but it was no more than a diver.
So was this particular bird identifiable because of superior bird knowledge or by virtue of a superior telescopic lens? I’m expecting both to be the answer. So I really just want to know if a top grade scope actually makes a difference.

 

[DMW]

I would say that the optical difference between top end and mid-level scopes is much smaller than the price differential, but it does exist and this may occasionally be the difference between being able to identify a distant bird, and not. However, in real world conditions, wind vibration, eye-watering, tripod stability, heat haze etc are often a bit of a leveller.

In your specific example, only you can really judge the extent to which optics and experience affected the situation.

 

[Montereyman]

Many scopes have zoom or adjustable eyepieces that go beyond the capabilities of the scope optics. With less expensive scopes 30x is about the maximum and with better scopes on can use higher magnification. But with the wide range of scope prices one cannot generalize.

I like the BH Photo website with its many customers' reviews. A good source for information on less expensive scopes that produce good results for their owners.

 

[Jinac]

What is your current scope ?

 

[Farnboro John]

A few years ago I was seawatching at Porthgwarra with a substantial crowd of other birders. With my ageing Kowa I was unable even to see distant shearwaters that the Swarovski-toting brigade were identifying to species. I have since upgraded and the difference is astonishing.

John

 

[Vespobuteo]

I’m asking this question on the back of a trip to see the white-billed diver off Gullane point. Through my scope I wasn’t able to locate it, but fortunately someone else was there and I was able to see it incredibly distantly through his scope. To be honest, without him pointing out where it was and which bird it was, I would have struggled to have identified it myself. Looking back through my scope, I was able to locate the bird but it was no more than a diver.
So was this particular bird identifiable because of superior bird knowledge or by virtue of a superior telescopic lens? I’m expecting both to be the answer. So I really just want to know if a top grade scope actually makes a difference.

More important is that a top grade scope gives a more pleasant an aberration free view in general.

The extreme ID cases is probably more about larger objective size/brightness and max magnification.

But it depends on what level of scope we are talking about, compared to a Chinese Walmart spotting scope, definitely yes...

 

[Borjam]

It depends on what you want.

I know very skilled people that can identify birds even from a poor view. If you are just "twitching" and you just want to tick marks on a list probably you don't need a top of the line scope.

If, however, you are going to spend time observing through it, like watching behaviors or interactions, etc, a better quality view will prove much more relaxing.

A high quality view would be better in any case, I think, but its impact is much more important if you are actually observing imho.

 

[WalterRayle]

I’m asking this question on the back of a trip to see the white-billed diver off Gullane point. Through my scope I wasn’t able to locate it, but fortunately someone else was there and I was able to see it incredibly distantly through his scope. To be honest, without him pointing out where it was and which bird it was, I would have struggled to have identified it myself. Looking back through my scope, I was able to locate the bird but it was no more than a diver.
So was this particular bird identifiable because of superior bird knowledge or by virtue of a superior telescopic lens? I’m expecting both to be the answer. So I really just want to know if a top grade scope actually makes a difference.

Maybe just the 'power of suggestion'

 

[Bubbs]

This is worth watching.

 

[Steve Babbs]

A few years ago I was seawatching at Porthgwarra with a substantial crowd of other birders. With my ageing Kowa I was unable even to see distant shearwaters that the Swarovski-toting brigade were identifying to species. I have since upgraded and the difference is astonishing.

John

Hopefully we'll get chance to compare my mid-range Nikon Monarch against your Swarvoski while watching snow leopards soon!

 

[bonxie birder]

What is your current scope ?

I actually have two. An opticron mm4. It’s incredibly lightweight, but really struggles under distance or poor light. I also have an ageing Nikon edge, which weighs a ton and I’m not convinced is up to grade

 

[Vespobuteo]

I actually have two. An opticron mm4. It’s incredibly lightweight, but really struggles under distance or poor light. I also have an ageing Nikon edge, which weighs a ton and I’m not convinced is up to grade

The EDG scopes are still very good optically.

Perhaps the latest scopes will give you a tad higher transmission (mostly useful in low light) and slightly more neutral color bias.

Modern top-of-the-line zoom eyepieces also have slightly wider AFOV (more immersive view) and wider FOV relative to the magnification.

Other than that, you will save some weight, at least for comparable <88mm scopes.

To get something clearly brighter and more capable for long distance viewing, you would have to look at Swaro ATX95 or Kowa TSN99A but I suspect that they are both about the same weight as your EDG.

The Kowa TSN99A is very nice, pure fluorite glass makes a difference, 2185g inc. zoom eye piece, and the coatings are more neutral than their previous generation of scopes, which had a slight yellow tint.

The ATX95 is optically good, but CA isn't perfect, and it might feel a bit over-engineered, if you don't going to swap between objective modules regularly, if you will, it can be handy.

Both scopes starts at 30x which I sometimes find a bit annoying as the DOF is shorter and the FOV narrower than a scope that starts at 25x.

With that in mind, the smaller Kowa TSN88A + 25-60x would be my recommendation
and the best lightweight alternative would be the more compact TSN66A, which possibly could replace both your scopes.

Swaro ATX85 isn't a bad choice either, if you prefer a helical focuser and zoom.

 

[bonxie birder]

Thank you.

The EDG scopes are still very good optically.

Perhaps the latest scopes will give you a tad higher transmission (mostly useful in low light) and slightly more neutral color bias.

Modern top-of-the-line zoom eyepieces also have slightly wider AFOV (more immersive view) and wider FOV relative to the magnification.

Other than that, you will save some weight, at least for comparable <88mm scopes.

To get something clearly brighter and more capable for long distance viewing, you would have to look at Swaro ATX95 or Kowa TSN99A but I suspect that they are both about the same weight as your EDG.

The Kowa TSN99A is very nice, pure fluorite glass makes a difference, 2185g inc. zoom eye piece, and the coatings are more neutral than their previous generation of scopes, which had a slight yellow tint.

The ATX95 is optically good, but CA isn't perfect, and it might feel a bit over-engineered, if you don't going to swap between objective modules regularly, if you will, it can be handy.

Both scopes starts at 30x which I sometimes find a bit annoying as the DOF is shorter and the FOV narrower.

So the lighter Kowa TSN88A would probably be my recommendation from an optical quality perspective.
Swaro ATX85 isn't a bad choice either, if you prefer a helical focuser and zoom.

 

[kb57]

I've had similar experiences to the OP, and concluded it's a mixture of both suboptimal hardware, and sadly ageing software behind the eyepiece.

I was at Fife Ness a few years ago with onshore winds during a strong sooty shearwater passage - I missed multiple birds relative to the numbers seen by other observers, who were mostly using Swarovski scopes. I had my Opticron HR66 GA ED with a zoom eyepiece, which I feel suffers a bit with CA - but part of the problem is just I'm not as good at seawatching as I was as a youth, when I had little difficulty picking out distant sootys off the South Tyneside coast with a Broadhurst & Clarkson draw scope balanced either on my knee or the hide window. Until my incipient cataracts get bad enough to justify new lenses in my eyes, there's a limit to how much a change of hardware will improve things. However, whenever I've had a look through a top of the range Kowa, like the TSN883, I'm amazed by the quality of image, and wonder if it might make sufficient difference to be worth the not inconsiderable investment. I don't know if it's just me, but looking through Swarovskis has never given me the same 'wow factor'.

My travel scope is an Opticron MM3, which I swap the zoom eyepiece onto (something not possible with the fixed eyepiece on a Kowa travel scope). For the purposes I use this for - scanning saltpans in Portugal, wetland birding / canopy scanning when travelling - I feel it actually performs better than the larger scope, particularly due to the presence of a fine focus wheel. The main constraint is my carbon fibre Manfrotto BeFree tripod with ball head is awkward to use, although really compact and light to transport and quick to put up, compared to the heavy but stable Velbon with a Gitzo video head I use with the bigger scope. I guess the MM4 is going to perform better, but I think the trick with these scopes is to accept their inherent physical limitations and just use them in locations where a travel scope is much better than no scope at all.