After reading the article about the Big Eyes, I really am starting to mull this one over, it seems that the "Big Eyes" set up is much better for the hunter and it seems that a spotter is more geared toward rifle range work. So if you had to choose one, would you but a spotter or the Big Eyes?

24 views and nothing, come on some has to have an opinion

If I HAD tio choose one, assuming I was hunting wide-open country, make mine the Big Eyes, no doubt.

Rick

I beleieve that the big eyes or the way to go for long peoriods of view.My only question is for back country hunts are they more a of problem to pack in?

I am heading out the door for a afternoon of bruin hunting but will give you my thoughts on this as I use both.

Running

Mark D

Mark what was the consensus?

I've got em both and use em both quite a bit, have had a spotter of some sort for eons and the 15x56 Swaro's for about 6 years or so.

For micro mgt of horns and skulls the spotter is the way to go. By this I mean if you're under the gun to give a best guess as to what a G1 is or H is or whatever to a client and or if you really want to know for yourself then the spotter is the way to go. The big eyes can be used for this kind of thing if the critter is within fairly close range. But, once you get out there it won't hang with a good spotter even with the help of a doubler.

Now for extended periods of glassing and for finding and glassing up game there is no way a spotter can come close to competing with a set of big binos on a tripod! The big glass is tons more user friendly in terms of ease on the eyes and also in terms of being able to stay behind it for long periods of time.

For me, one the keys to finding game is to be able to stay behind glass for extended periods of time, by this I mean up to 3-4 hours (and many days up to 10 hours or so) at a time from one place glued to the glass. No way can one do this with sub par glass.

I use a doubler and some times two of them, so when I go to set up to glass I just lay it out beside me and I can get it put on very quickly if I need to.

The spotter and tripod will be lighter and hence easier to port over hill and dale.

Bottom line, I use a pair of 7x42 Swaro's no stop and then will have either my big Swaro's or a spotter with me and or both. It just depends on what my mission is for the day. And yes some times my pack does get a bit heavy via glass...grins

On spotters I have 2 of them both are Leupold and I will be adding a Leica to the pile this next year. One of my Leo's is the old hard body fixed 20 and it is one super piece of glass and if you could find one I would say latch onto it. The other spotter I have is the big Leo variable, it is nice but not the living end for me.

Glass is no place to scrimp, if one needs to I suggest they sell a rifle or two or three to own the best, whatever it takes.

Thoughts comments and or questions?

Does this make sense?

Thx

Mark D

Me too. Spotters are for looking at something you've already found. Binoculars are for finding game. In other words, scanning with a spotter will eat you up in a hurry.
For what it's worth, I've found that magnification is highly over rated. A sharper 8X, for instance, will more easily show you stuff than a 10X.
If you don't really want to carry a tripod, check out the better 12X50 class stuff. Unlike the 15X binos, the 12X class are usable w/o a tripod. E

E-I've used my 7x42 Swaro's for years, and during guiding from time to time I would for a bit catch a bit of flak from a client about the guide using underpowered glass. It was always a very short amount of time...grins!

I do agree that the 12's can be hand held and the 15's really can't for the most part.

However IME a tripod is the only way to go for solid systematic glassing.

I know it costs me weight to go with a tripod, but for me and at the level I hunt and or guide I will gladly carry the extra 3 or 4 lbs that the tripod will give my pack.

For me it is a need and not a want.

Mark D

Sorry for the ignorance, but what is a doubler?

Jordan no igonorance at all, just not informed about them is all.

The doubler is basically screwed into the threads that go around the outside of the eyepiece.

Essentially it makes a 15 into a 30, it works pretty well under some light conditions but you do loose some clarity with it. Swaro sets it up to use the doubler on one eye or the other.

I've used one doubler on one eye piece and then another one the other eyepiece. It is still a 30 then but both eyes can be used as such, even though they say it isn't supposed to work.

It does for me.

Mark D

Rick / Mark - what light weight tripods would you recommend to go along with the "Big Eye" glass? In your opinion, are the Swaro's worth the extra $'s over the Minox's? I see the Minox demos are priced at $749.00 Thanks

TiLug:Forgive me for throwing my two cents in,and I can't comment on the Minox, but those 15X Swaros are flat awesome. In wyoming and Alberta, bucks we knew were just bucks through 10X's leaped out in detail through the 15's so you could tell what they REALLY were.They're fantastic and well worth the price of admission, even if it hurts to pay for them.I look at it this way;every $750 you pay for less glass adds $750 to the top-end glass you will eventually buy anyway....

The Slick 444 Sport 2 is what I use along with a Jim White adapter, it is one top notch rig!

As far as the Minox goes agin the Swaro. I look at this way if one is big serious about this (as I am, some years I've spent close to 180 days afield) then slam dunk no contest go the way of Swaro! Now if one is gonna play around with them a bit and are not really what I would call serious then the less expensive Minox brand could warrant a look see.

I'd say compare the 2 and see what your eyes tell you, then go home and sell a couple of guns if you have to to get yourself into a set of Swaro's.

Do it right the first time is my motto.

Mark D

Thanks Mark, agree with ya on doing it right the first time... Guess the little Missss and kids can pitch in for fathers day:)

The Minox are a spectacular value in my opinion. I mean spectacular. They really are, optically, 98% the glass the Swaro is ... or at least the ones I've compared have been. They are quite a bit heavier, bigger, and bulky, however. But at that $749 price .... Man that's a smokin' deal!

However, I went with the Swaros, and would again, for all the reasons mentioned above. The optics are better, and lots of $$ for incremental improvements in quality is nothing new to me in optics. Also, they are lighter, smaller, and the quality is apparent all around. I am not a rich man; I can only afford to buy things once. I went Swaro.

Smart move there Rick.

Mark D

It's not my first rodeo, Mark, and I know myself well enough to know that I was going to end up with the Swaros anyway, so why fight it?

I tried them all, including the 12x, and Swaro got the blue ribbon ... and my money.

rb

Man I tell you I had to come about my education the hard way as well. There is no free education is there.

By the way PM me if you would like some help as to where to apply for special elk/deer tags being as you've draw the Montana tags.

Mark D

ok so here is what I gathered and by the way I appreciate all the insight, for really seeking out game, "big eyes" are the way to go.

Spotters are great, but really only great for looking at things once they have been found.

Minox is a great bargain, but the Swaro is best in class.

If you can afford both, it is worth owning both, but having to choose one or the other, the Big Eyes win.

Am I right or wrong?

That all depends on how much I was into glassing, if not tons then I would go with a spotter if tons then a lot of it would have to do with at what distances.

And yes no doubt if you can afford both then by all means do it.

A man can have too many rifles but never too much good glass!

Make sense?

Mark D

Mark I agree

I am somewhat of a glass snob if you will. I own Leica binos and have high quality glass on all my rifles - Swaro, Kahles, etc.

I am thinking long and hard about a Zeiss spotter, but also wanted to make sure that I am not making a mistake by buying a spotter and forgoing the Big Eyes. I may end up with both, yet, but certainly want to make a good decision if I only end up with one or the other.

Make sense?

Yes it does, and I would encourage you to consider this.

Get to a shop where you can line up a Zeiss a Swaro and a Leica b4 you choose which spotter that fits your eyes.

Ok?

Personally I would encourage you to buy a good spotter first and then the big bino's. The only was I would consider the opposite is if you lived in the west or the southwest and did a ton load of glassing.

I am off to the hill to looky lou for bruins.

Chao Po Ahora

Mark D
Mark D

Top notch advice there Dober...

To some degree, it depends what one is hunting. A spotter will save literally miles of walking critiqueing a sheep or goat, or a moose in an antler-restricted area.

I've played around with both the big Swaro and the spotter. The big Swaros are awesome for spotting game, and really the only way to pick apart a hillside. However-they are heavy to tote around. My usual spotter lately is the new 50 mm Nikon (also have a 62 mm Leica), and carrying that thing around is an afterthought. The Swaros, not so much. Went on a Coues deer hunt this past January that involved a lot of walking and climbing. The Swaros were nonpareil for spotting gane, but after a couple of days I found myself leaving them in camp and carrying the Nikon. Also had the same experience on a sheep hunt. I guess I'm a bit of a wimp-your mileage may vary (but then again, maybe not...).

Excellent point ironbender; appreciate the very helpful responses... looks like Swaro's get the nod. I wonder if the wife will believe they had 'em on close out at Wally World? Thanks guys!

Mark, you have given sage advice and I agree 100%. When I originaly ask my question I was not thinking of 15 power binoculars,I wqas thinking of the set that Darrel Cassel makes and sells. They are a bracket that holds 2 spoting scopes and mounts on a tri pod as such you look thri=ough then like binoculars
My bad....................

Mark

I have been to Cabelas and have looked at all the spotters - Leica, Zeiss, Swaro. I couldn't tell much difference if any of the 3, the Zeiss with the FL glass is by far the best deal out there, imo.

Then Powder River let er buck and get after them.

Mark D

You want to make sure you get the higher grade Minox if you buy one. The base model 15X58 Minox I checked out last spring would not quite show me as much as my 8X42 Leica unless the range exceeded 800 yds.
I hear lots of good words about the 12X50 Pentax SP as well. E

Mark's advice has been spot-on. If it is an either/or situation for open country deer, I would use 15x binos on a tripod over the spotter. Sitting hours behind a spotter is tiring to me when using just one eye, even with an eye patch on the off eye.

Jim White has made a tripler that attaches to most binos by easily clamping to the eyepice. It is said to be brighter than the Swaro doubler.


Doug~RR

I'm using a set of the BIG Big Eyes that Darryll is putting together, and for stationary viewing i really love them. This rig is a set of the older model Bushnell Spacemaster II's 22X WA oculars. Excellent glass really for it's price tag-- about $800 or so. Way too big to haul arond tho IMO.

I also have a pair of the 20X50 Weaver's he put together for me for $600 +/-, and i've hauled it attached to the Leupold Compact tripod in my pack in the CO mtns. more than a few miles just last season, and i'll do it again this yr. as well.

I can't compare them to the models these guys speak of tho.

I just read Rick's very interesting article, I haven't read the entire thread here so what I say may have already been covered. This is my experience and opinion.
I hunt archery Elk. The equipment weight that I carried on the first trip to the last has steadily decreased. 3 years ago I bought a pair of 12x Ziess binocs, retiring my 10x Ziess. Any more power and you can't hold them steady enough to see anything. As for the tripod, it would be a great assistance however the weight and bulkyness become a problem when you are walking in 2 to 3 miles of backcountry.
If you are close to a vehicle use the tripod, if your on foot and everything you carry in you have to carry out then the tripod may be too much. You as I get the choose.

The big problem with doublers, etc. is they rob you of resolution due to the use of a much smaller exit pupil.
That's another thing to consider. Along with the extra magnification, you need sufficient exit pupil size. That's one reason why the 12X50 and the 15X60 class binos work so well. The other of course, is the use of two eyes which greatly increases depth perception and, therfore, the ability to see detail.
So, if you go with a spotter, instead of the 50-60mm binoculars, you should consider one with at least a 60mm objective to make full use of that increased magnification. E

BTW, I suspect that for the open country hunter who both needs to find and evaluate game, the Duovid in 10+15X50 has some real possibilitys. You scan with it on 10X and then rest it on something like a pack and then switch to 15X to better evaluate the critter. Alot lighter and more compact than any binocular/spotter combination. You would give up some small degree of resolution due to the smaller objectives over a 60mm class bino and some degree of low light performance at 15X. However, when it got really darker, the 5mm exit pupil of that Duovid would outlast the smaller exit pupiled 15X60. E

This is the review I wrote up regarding the tripler. I did notice a loss of sharpness with the tripler. Jim White is making a spacer to correct the offset from center noted in the review.
I would like to see how sharp the lightweight Nikon 50ED is when turned to 30x. At 16 oz, it would be a good alternative to a doubler or tripler if the resolution is much better.

The Review:
The Jim White Tripler comes in an unpadded camo cordura case with a flap fastened with velcro. There is no belt loop on the case. The flap has a plastic cap in which a lens cloth is stuffed. The cap fits into the clamp when the flap is closed, but is sized large enough that it rests against the end of the lens tube and will not fit down into the recess of the lens tube and rub against the lens. In the case, it weighs 7 oz on my digital fish scale.


I tested the tripler using a pair of Leica Duovid 10+15x50 binoculars, and a Cabelas 20-60x60mm spotter which I purchased in the late 1980's and believe them to be Redfield Regal IVs with the Cabelas badge.


The optics were tested on a homemade resolution chart of the letters aaeeoocc and 111 of various sizes. This was stapled to a cardboard box and set out down the street at a distance of 65 yards. Temp was cool and no mirage was detected.


The tripler attaches easily to one eyepiece of the binoculars by squeezing the two tabs together to enlarge the ring and fit over the eyepiece. Due to the clamp attaching to one side of the tripler tube and the larger size in the binocular eyepiece, the centerline axis of the tripler does not line up with the axis of the bino lens tube/center of the exit pupil. The tripler is slightly off center. This may result in an eclipsed view, but the tripler angle may be adjusted easily by squeezing the clamp so a full field of view is given. I noticed that the tripler is not in the same line as the bino lens tube when so adjusted (i.e. it is clamped on a a slight angle). Different binos may have different eyepiece diameters, so this effect may vary.




I compared the Duovids set at 10x with the tripler attached (30x total) against the spotter set at 30x. With the bino/tripler, I could distinguish the e's distinctly in the 4th smallest set of letters. In particular, I keyed on being able to distinguish the horizontal line of the e. The 3rd smallest set of 1's could be distinguished as separate and can detect the top cap and bottom of the 1 clearly.
With the spotter at 30x, I could see the 2nd smallest set of e's clearly. The 4th set of letters are 4.0mm tall and the 2nd set are 2.8mm tall, or 40% smaller.

With the Douvid set at 15x and the tripler attached (45x total), I could discern the 2nd smallest set of e's and the 1's of the 2nd set. I could see separate 1's in the top, smallest set of letters, but could not tell the top and bottom of the 1 clearly.
With the spotter set at a comparable 45X, I could see both the e's and 1's of the smallest set clearly. The 1st set of letters are 2.3mm tall, or 18% smaller than the 2nd set.

Using just the Duovids set at 15x, no tripler, I could discern the e's of the 7th set of letters, and the 1's of the 6th set. The 1's in the 5th set appeared to run together.

After sunset, I tested how long I could tell the e's on the bottom left, 9th set. Sunset was at 6:58 this evening and the sky was clear. With the Duovids set at 10x and tripler attached, I lost detail of the e's at 7:10pm. At 7:15, I could not distinguish the largest letter on the right side of the chart. The 9th set, bottom left was readable using the spotter set at 30x until 7:15.

I noticed that the spotter appeared brighter during daylight than the tripler assembly. The view through the spotter was also noticably sharper. The tripler setup had about 20% less field of view than my spotter when set at comparable powers. Different binos and spotter mey give a different FOV. Also noticed was that the focusing of the bino with the tripler attached was more critical/touchy to the amount of focus dial rotation, than when just using the bino alone.

I did not notice any tinting of colors different than the Duovids transmitted. Nor did I see any color fringing when looking at pine needle clusters against the sky.

In looking through the spotter and tripler, I held a cupped hand over the off eye rather than squint. I also used a towell draped over my capped head and optics which helped cut ambient light from the side and really helps with seeing more acutely.

Doug~RR

I totally concur with E on the 60 mil spotter thing, unless I was a hard core backpacker there is no way I would go smaller than that.

Mark D

Mark, what would you suggest for an ultralight backpacker scope? I've got a Nikon Fieldscope 82ED with a 25-75x eyepiece that's AWESOME, but 4.25lbs. I want scope#2 to dump as many ounces as possible, but realize scopes smaller than 60mm get dark sooner, and anything I look through will be subconsciously measured against my Nikon. I'd like to cut weight and size both for week+ backpack hunting. My Binos are 10x42ELs, and I've got the tripod mount for them, so they can be my Small Big Eyes in addition to normal duties. The country I intend to hunt is crazy steep and painful-----think Sheep country, so all of my ounces need to be accounted for carefully, and mostly in the form of fuel! BUT, if the scope doesn't cut it, I'll end up not spotting game and hiking more to get close enough for my glass to work. Catch 22......

My list of considerations so far are:
(midweights)
Pentax PF65ED
Nikon Fieldscope III &III ED 60mm
Leupold Goldring 12-40x60HD
Minox 62 or 62ED
Kowa 662 ot 664(ED)

(lightweights but 50mm)
Kowa 502 or 504ED---both under a pound!
Leupy Goldring 15-30x50mm
Nikon Fieldscope ED50mm---right at a pound

(Misc./others)
Nikon Spotter XL 16-48x60
Sightron 20-50x60
Bushnell Elite 15-45x60


One other thought I had, was using my 25-75X eyepiece on the tiny Fieldscope ED50. Not sure what the power ranges would end up, but it could make a great setup for cheaper by swapping my eyepiece back and forth.

Any thoughts?

I found Rick's review and advice on the home page of the Campfire to be both enlightening and inspiring.

I have since bought some Zeiss Victory FL T 10x56 binoculars, Minox BD 15x58 ED BR binoculars, and a Swarovski 65 STS spotting scope.

I use them all three extensively even here in the NW Florida Piney Woods and don't know how I'd possibly enjoy hunting or see as much game again wihout them.

They've opened up a whole world that I was missing because I just wasn't SEEING!

I can't figure out which glass I'd leave at home in what situation but I think I'd have to study carefully the terrain I'd be hunting, the amount of weight I could reasonabley bear, distance from the vehicle, and would rather err on the side of extra weight and have "superior vision".

I know one thing for absolutely sure though! It's not possible to see too well and I definitely like the big eyes concept and am not likely to ever be caught without big eyes again for very long.

$bob$

My saying is,"you don't know what you are not seeing until you see it"

Made it to Cabelas today and had enough time to compare some glass. I only looked at some stuff across the store, but tried to keep each scope at the same power level while comparing them. I looked through the Leupy 12-40x60ED and 15-30x50, the new Nikon ED50, and the Nikon 60mm Fieldscope (not ED). With the time I had I'd have to call the Big Leupy and 60mm Nikon a draw under those in store conditions. The little ED50 was great, but just wasn't as bright under any power setting, and really got darker at the top end. So did the 60mm at it's higher (60X) top end. THe Leupy had great eye relief and the weight was about a push with the larger nikon. I had the two Nikons weighted with thier eyepieces on, and they were 20ounces and 40 ounces. That's kind of a big difference IMO. The Little Leupy was a good performer for what it is, but I didn't care for it's focus knob location or fine adjustment ability. Maybe it was just new and stiff. I also found it's eye relief to be inferior to the other three, and there was some image distortion as I moved my eye around within the narrow box. Not sure of the technical term for this condition, but it was much more apparent on that scope.
So anyway, the choice is currently between the ED50 and the two larger,heavier scopes. It's still a weight vs. performance thing....

My gut feeling is go for the larger 60mm scope that you like. I doubt very much that any 50mm will match the 60mm scopes. It isn't a matter of low light performance. It would be a matter of being able to see detail at the highest magnification. And that, assuming glassing/coatings that are close, requires a larger objective. A 60mm scope has an exit pupil of 2.5mm @ 24X. A 50mm has a 2.5 exit pupil at 20X. That's 20% more, however you cut it. E

I cut it to 80 MM objective on my spoter...........

My only spotter now is an 82mm. The pros and cons are pretty obvious.....

I want to go compare scopes some more, but I'm thinking that the lightest 60+/-mm scope w/ or w/o the better ED glass is the way I'll prolly end up going. My other option is to start leaving other gear at home and take just food and my 82ED. Camp like a pauper, but glass like a king! I'm looking at ALL options.

For those that use a set of binos on a tripod a lot try this and see how it works for you.

It works great for me.

When set up and studying a hill side I go in a grid from left to right.

When I do this I can use the bridge of my nose and or the bones right above my eyeballs to rest on the glass and slowly move it.

Make any sense?

Try it and you'll see what I mean.

Mark D

Great suggestion Mark. I've used the same technique which is one reason I hate trying to glass while wearing glasses. I leave the eye cups "out" so I can lean against them.

I always leave the cups in, for me I feel like I get a better field of view that way.

Mark D

I obviously was amazed at what a set of 15X binocs can do on a tripod, such to the point I no longer plan to buy a field spotter. I do have a Leica 77mm angled eye-piece spotter that is an incredible optical instrument with the 27x eyepiece. However, my Minox 15x58s are handier and easier to look through for long periods of time. I can even use them hand held--for a minute or so.

I've spent a lot of hours so far this spring looking thru mine for bruins, veddy veddy user friendly.

So far have seen some neat bruins including a couple of colored ones that were quite tricky looking.

Mark D

Really? I can't run 'em that way at all...

Me neither. I always thought the only reason to run (or fold) the cups down was for eyeglass wearers to get close enough for a full field of view.

Actually, with my ELs I run them out about half way, and on everything else I just lean into the squishy rubber.

BTW, does anyone have experience with the older style Swaro eyecups that block out more side light? They seem like a good idea, but I've never tried them.

Just tried cups in recently, and got it to work for me after a while (have to rest my brow on just right).

It solved an issue I was having with my left lense fogging, due to the increased ventilation.

I know it is a weird thingy but for me it works model perfect and is just a lot easier for me...

Go figure me doing something differently than the rest of the world...grins

Dober

Dave how's the bruin season coming up your way?