Underrated or Overlooked Spotters?

[Bwana]

Great !!! we're in full agreement

I don't build the class divisions, but low/mid/high are price oriented categories...I remember when gas was $1 a gallon, a can of soda was 35 cents, and a new quality bow was $250...so what ?, those days are long gone. The old adage "you get what you pay for" hasn't changed in time, it's generally still true.

 

[WRM]

Come on Coues hunters, help me out here. I know at least one of you is using Kowa Prominar High Landers. Tell me binoculars can't be a spotting scope.

HIGHLANDER Series｜BINOCULARS | KOWA PROMINAR OFFICIAL WEB SITE

You are correct, and if you happen to be a smart shopper you can find a bargain that fits in your "budget" and works about as good as what didn't!
Are you getting a lot higher MPG with that gas you are buying now? Why not buy the budget gas--it doesn't exist! Of course class division exists, it just used to MEAN a lot more.

 

[R_burg]

I'm flattered big guy, but that is the pic that is underneath the lid in their box.

When your in the field behind the glass daily, hours on end, there is without a doubt a difference in quality glass. Eye fatigue plays a huge role at staying behind the glass longer with out feeling fatigued. The more your behind it the greater your chances are at spotting game.

To reply to this and your post earlier, I think having photography as a hobby lends itself to picking good glass, and especially being able to spot issues with CA, astigmatism, distortion, clarity, edge to edge sharpness, color issues, etc which create fatigue in the field.

I am not saying the Alphas arent better or dont deserve their place. I would buy Alpha glass, although I wouldnt spend the money for their top-end product (at this point). What I am saying is there are other companies that can source quality glass and implement the necessary QC to bring it to market that might not be quite as good, but carries with it price discount. The same can be said for alpha glass that isnt their top of the line model. However, if you are defining "quality" as top of the line Alpha-only, then yes, we would disagree.


I have no issues with high end glass, I hope they continue to improve and drive the market to better places.

 

[Bwana]

I'm flattered big guy, but that is the pic that is underneath the lid in their box.

Yea but, yea but.... I'm still right

 

[WRM]

Hallelujah, R-burg! If not for the makers of Alpha glass and its apparent voracious consumption there would have been no driver for companies to get in and COMPETE for us underlings with GREAT products.

And I will freely admit I DO NOT have any specialty in picking great glass. I do have horrible eyesight, so if something works pretty well for me, it should suit most people ok--as long as they can get over what it does or doesn't say on their box.


You are right that someone at/for Zeiss digiscoped a duck? Yah think?

 

[Bwana]

If not for the makers of Alpha glass and its apparent voracious consumption there would have been no driver for companies to get in and COMPETE for us underlings with GREAT products.

And I will freely admit I DO NOT have any specialty in picking great glass. I do have horrible eyesight, so if something works pretty well for me, it should suit most people ok--as long as they can get over what it does or doesn't say on their box.

1) You mean GOOD products, maybe great bang for the buck...but not GREAT products
2) Actually no... if your eye sight isn't excellent, than others can see optical distortions etc. that you can't see.

Either way, the answer is still Celestron Regal M2

 

[WRM]

If you truly think that the only way to get a GREAT product today is to spend the most money PLEASE let me list some stuff in the forum at exorbitant prices.

Well tell that to the reviewer who checked out the Meoptas here (or any number of others who have). They didn't seem to find the problems you seem hell bent to prove MUST exist.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but the CURRENT Regal model actually is a very good glass for the price.

 

[Matt Cashell]

How does a thread like this get testy?

Winter.

PS: 1 fact is clear(no pun intended), the quality of any optic is solely reliant on the quality of your vision...if your vision isn't good/excellent, the ability to critique it's nuisances is limited at best.

This isn't really true on two points.

1. The quality of the optic is totally independent of the quality of the viewers vision.

2. If your vision is simply a nearsighted or farsighted issue, you should be able to use the focus system and get just as sharp an image as a 20/20 viewer, even without your corrective lenses.

If you have astigmatism, you still can even the field with your corrective lenses, as long as they work with the optic's eye relief.

People not lucky enough to have perfect vision can certainly evaluate optical performance.

 

[WRM]

How does any thread on here get testy? Human beings post on them.

And, quite often, an exchange of testy responses reveals a lot!


By the way, my distance is around -10 my reading is about +2.50, and I have a butt load of floaters. Even with this I can get a razor image with the Meoptas, with or without correction. I have not been able to do as well un-corrected with other binos and most spotters, so that was a big issue in my decision. I prefer not to wear glasses while glassing and I don't always have contacts in.

 

[Bwana]

This isn't really true on two points.

1. The quality of the optic is totally independent of the quality of the viewers vision.

2. If your vision is simply a nearsighted or farsighted issue, you should be able to use the focus system and get just as sharp an image as a 20/20 viewer, even without your corrective lenses.

If you have astigmatism, you still can even the field with your corrective lenses, as long as they work with the optic's eye relief.

People not lucky enough to have perfect vision can certainly evaluate optical performance.

I respectfully disagree, along with the optometrist & ophthalmologist of the world. There are many optical science specialists that study the operation of lens/light/eyes. Some of your points are true, but nothing replaces excellent vision.

PS: Celestron Regal is still the answer.

 

[WRM]

So, which are are you: an optometrist, opthalmologist, or optical science specialist? And, which of the points are true? I would like to know which ones are allowing me to get razor images with my budget binos.

And, as I have said, I like the CURRENT Regal as a spotter. So, if you are being sarcastic because its A British or B "budget" or C both, then just come out and say it.

 

[Bwana]

Put the coffee down, move away from the keyboard...if you want a fight, your wife is in the living room listening to Whoopi ranting about Trump on The View

Again: Celestron Regal M2 65ED 16x48

 

[R_burg]

So, which are are you: an optometrist, opthalmologist, or optical science specialist? And, which of the points are true? I would like to know which ones are allowing me to get razor images with my budget binos.

And, as I have said, I like the CURRENT Regal as a spotter. So, if you are being sarcastic because its A British or B "budget" or C both, then just come out and say it.

The original post was looking for reasonably priced overlooked spotting scopes, so Bwana is saying the answer is the Celestron Regal M2 65ED 16x48.

 

[WRM]

She actually is at work and I know for a fact she would not be watching the View if she were here. Maybe you heard that coming from another room in your house.

And, if that is his actual opinion, I do not disagree with that point. Celestron is virtually unknown outside birders or in US for that matter. They make an excellent product in that price range if you want a spotter. I stick with high powered binos with doubler as "overlooked" spotters. I did not see where it had to be "spotting scopes, only spotting scopes, and nothing but spotting scopes". If so, refer back to my Kowa High Lander post. You need a deep pocket for them. For that matter you need a "bwana"--have you seen the weight on those bad boys?

 

[Matt Cashell]

I respectfully disagree, along with the optometrist & ophthalmologist of the world. There are many optical science specialists that study the operation of lens/light/eyes. Some of your points are true, but nothing replaces excellent vision.

Which point is untrue?

I got this information from an optomologist, so I guess at least one in the world agrees with me.

This is confirmed by Howard L. Cohen of the UF Dep. of Astronomy here:

http://astroadventures.net/cohen/articles/Wear or Not to Wear Glasses.pdf

The referenced Dr. Buchroeder did some research on it.

I am sure we can agree to disagree though.

 

[Bwana]

First thing I'd do if I were you, was find out who the hell that woman is in your living room then

 

[WRM]

That's the lady I hired to clean all my hunting gear for me with all the money I saved!!

Dammit BB, now you're trying to get all sciency on us! And see my PM to you of 12/24 I told ya!

 

[Bwana]

Which point is untrue?

I got this information from an optomologist, so I guess at least one in the world agrees with me.

This is confirmed by Howard L. Cohen of the UF Dep. of Astronomy here:

http://astroadventures.net/cohen/articles/Wear or Not to Wear Glasses.pdf

The referenced Dr. Buchroeder did some research on it.

I am sure we can agree to disagree though.

Most of that article is referring to astigmatism issues, most telescope work is done at 150-300 power...and their conclusion is stating that by narrowing the "tunnel" with a very small eye relief, the astigmatism becomes a non-issue for the astrology hobby.

It also say's this:
"Telescopes can not correct for other vision problems, such as astigmatism"

And that was my original point, eye glasses correct vision issues...it attempts to supply 20/20 vision. But remember 20/20 isn't "perfect" vision, it's what's considered "normal". Many have vision far above 20/20 in quality, including myself...including a hawk/eagle. There is no replacing or handicapping for excellent vision, optics help you see FAR better than the naked eye...but with excellent vision your "view" is different than those with lesser eye sight ability. It's just a stated fact, not meant as an insult to anyone.

Similar to genetic advantage, you can be a great athlete...but if your parents are Tiger Woods and Lindsey Vonn, chances are are real good that........oh forget that

 

[WRM]

Ok, now we have taken a turn to Jimmy the Greek. Truly this thread is in danger of being hijacked.


But more on point, they can't even get me back to 20/20 with correction now. But I have no problem resolving detail with the Meoptas. Of course, your mileage may vary. Heck if you're a hawk you don't even NEED a spotting scope, do you?

 

[Bwana]

Even a hawk receives gains from quality optics, why wouldn't he ?....Distance is distance, 20x is 20x, digiscope is digiscope.