Spotter for backpacking
- Thread starter Wyodog
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
akaodie
Member
I love to cut weight, but I also love to enjoy the scenery. So I have learned to find what I like, and then train to pack that weight. In my opinion, just take it as that, I want to be able to enjoy the views that I work so hard to see. I am also the guy who packs a nikon dslr camera into the mountains so I can enjoy the views later. Just sayin. My dad always said if your going to be stupid you better be strong.
I also pack in my DLSR. Wouldn't have it any other way. My best photos are from hunting, and I several framed and hung up on the walls in my house.
novaman64
Well-Known Member
Ever tried a phone skope with the spotter? I was thinking about getting one to use my iphone with my spotter.
moombaskier
Well-Known Member
The Phone Skope works great
Wedgy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 3,276
I just switched to the Nikon ED50 but with the 13-40x eyepiece which is a big upgrade from the 30x. Super lightweight and compact, and way better than my Leupold 15-30x50 gold ring. You might have to buy the body and eyepiece separately
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=nikon+ed50
I use the Snapzoom cellphone adapter as it is universal and can fit any phone or eyepiece, even binoculars. I have shot some video that was decent, you can see the bullet trails thru the spotting scope and on the video. I've been thinking about getting an adapter for the DLSR but I probably wouldn't carry it on a solo hunt.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=snapzoom
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=nikon+ed50
I use the Snapzoom cellphone adapter as it is universal and can fit any phone or eyepiece, even binoculars. I have shot some video that was decent, you can see the bullet trails thru the spotting scope and on the video. I've been thinking about getting an adapter for the DLSR but I probably wouldn't carry it on a solo hunt.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=snapzoom
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
86alaskan
Well-Known Member
I carry the Swaro STS 20-60x80. yep its heavier than most, but when it comes to seeing everything you want to see, or have to see, it never lets you down. I find that I can always trim a little more weight somewhere else. I also try to train for the eventual heavy pack out, so that the light pack in can be more loaded with good gear. I'd rather have the better scope that saves me stalking time and energy over the lighter scope. I also use the phone scope setup on 20-30 power to scan large areas, makes it so there is no fatigue from staring through binos for hours on end.
moombaskier
Well-Known Member
I guess my questions for you are what is your fitness level, how deep are you going and for how long are you living in the back country? I hiked the Appalachian Train and much of it 3-4 times making a television documentary back in the 80's. Ultra lightweight anything wasn't much of a thought back then. It was common on the first 100 miles of the AT to find piles of "thought they needed that" items at trail heads. The average AT pack back in the day started at 55 lbs and up and by the time hikers got to the end over 2000 miles later the packs were down into the 40's. Today a 40 pound AT thru hiker pack would be considered overweight.
The points I'm getting to are most folks take a lot of creature comforts but only after a lot of back country miles and living and maybe suffering do they really thin their load for efficiency and light weight.
If you're worried about the 11.5 oz difference between the swaro 65 and 85mm objectives can you honestly say to yourself that 11.5 oz, with your current fitness, pack items and personal weight is as thin and trim as it could be? Can you find 11.5 oz to trim out of your pack or off your personal weight?
Now, with all that said, I own the Swaro STX with the 65mm objective but I covet the 85mm objective all the time! There is a difference in light gathering of the 85mm and now I'm speaking as a 37 year veteran in the film and television industry and someone who owns and rents out cinema lenses that cost of $20k-$85k. I can see the difference but that is in no way to slight the 65mm. It's a matter of need to have versus nice to have.
Then there is that matter of the slight bulk of the 85mm and room in your pack.
For me I've yet to convince myself that I really need that 85mm out in the field. It's just not worth giving up those two Oreo cookies I eat after dinner every night.
Something I do with my buddies is hand them my trail ready pack and ask them to go through it and challenge everything I have inside for need, duplication and weight.
Let me know what you end up doing because I sure as hell can't figure it out for myself!
Robert
The points I'm getting to are most folks take a lot of creature comforts but only after a lot of back country miles and living and maybe suffering do they really thin their load for efficiency and light weight.
If you're worried about the 11.5 oz difference between the swaro 65 and 85mm objectives can you honestly say to yourself that 11.5 oz, with your current fitness, pack items and personal weight is as thin and trim as it could be? Can you find 11.5 oz to trim out of your pack or off your personal weight?
Now, with all that said, I own the Swaro STX with the 65mm objective but I covet the 85mm objective all the time! There is a difference in light gathering of the 85mm and now I'm speaking as a 37 year veteran in the film and television industry and someone who owns and rents out cinema lenses that cost of $20k-$85k. I can see the difference but that is in no way to slight the 65mm. It's a matter of need to have versus nice to have.
Then there is that matter of the slight bulk of the 85mm and room in your pack.
For me I've yet to convince myself that I really need that 85mm out in the field. It's just not worth giving up those two Oreo cookies I eat after dinner every night.
Something I do with my buddies is hand them my trail ready pack and ask them to go through it and challenge everything I have inside for need, duplication and weight.
Let me know what you end up doing because I sure as hell can't figure it out for myself!
Robert
RobStar,
I think your thoughts are similar to mine. Its not really an issue of whether or not I can carry the bigger scope, the question is... is it worth it? I put in a solid effort to manage my pack contents for effective usefulness which means that I challenge everything I put into my pack. The scope that I have been packing is an 80mm scope. I thing size has been a bigger challenge than the weight. However the nearly 3/4 lb difference is significant in my opinion.
I have used the Swarovski STX with all 3 objective lenses at the same time glossing mule deer at first light, looking east just before being able to see the sun. I could not tell a difference in detail of deer antler at all because the glossing conditions did not allow for clear focus at 60X. So my thinking is that the time when using the benefit of the bigger lens is limited to a small percentage of the time. In fact I cannot distinguish a difference between the STX and the STS scope either when 65 mm objective lenses. I personally don't believe the STX is an improvement that can be utilized by the hunter. Star gazers sure, hunters I don't think so. All that being said there was a definite difference between the 65mm and the 95mm objective lenses.
The other thing I find interesting is that it is common opinion that Swarovski is hands down the scope out there. I am fortunate to get the opportunity to use almost everything out there and there are scopes that rival the Swarovski in every way. It just comes down to what each individual likes. Often times it comes down to the lens coating and color of tint a person likes. To me customer service and warranty are worth while considerations also.
I think your thoughts are similar to mine. Its not really an issue of whether or not I can carry the bigger scope, the question is... is it worth it? I put in a solid effort to manage my pack contents for effective usefulness which means that I challenge everything I put into my pack. The scope that I have been packing is an 80mm scope. I thing size has been a bigger challenge than the weight. However the nearly 3/4 lb difference is significant in my opinion.
I have used the Swarovski STX with all 3 objective lenses at the same time glossing mule deer at first light, looking east just before being able to see the sun. I could not tell a difference in detail of deer antler at all because the glossing conditions did not allow for clear focus at 60X. So my thinking is that the time when using the benefit of the bigger lens is limited to a small percentage of the time. In fact I cannot distinguish a difference between the STX and the STS scope either when 65 mm objective lenses. I personally don't believe the STX is an improvement that can be utilized by the hunter. Star gazers sure, hunters I don't think so. All that being said there was a definite difference between the 65mm and the 95mm objective lenses.
The other thing I find interesting is that it is common opinion that Swarovski is hands down the scope out there. I am fortunate to get the opportunity to use almost everything out there and there are scopes that rival the Swarovski in every way. It just comes down to what each individual likes. Often times it comes down to the lens coating and color of tint a person likes. To me customer service and warranty are worth while considerations also.
Ok so I think I have narrowed things down to 2 scopes. The Kiowa 77mm or the Zeiss diascope 65 mm. The reason I am shying away from the swarovski is because the STX models are heavier than most scopes by quite a bit and the STS model is 60mm scope instead of 65. Do any of you guys have any experience with either of these companies when it comes to customer service or warranty work?
I ordered a scope today. Went with the Zeiss Victory Dias cope with 65mm objective and 15X - 56X eyepiece. I had a hard time getting good info on this scope so I'm thinking abut writing a revel on it after I spend some time using it. I can also do a head to head comparison with the Swarovski STX with the 65mm lens on it. This will be the first Zeiss product I own so I'm a little nervous about my choice but I just didn't want the extra weight of the Swarovski.
Thanks to everyone for all the input.
Thanks to everyone for all the input.
LaHunter
Well-Known Member
The Swaro STS 65 has a 65mm objective lens diameter, just to clarify.
