From: jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (Jeff Higgott)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Request for spotting scope info
Date: 28 Jan 92 12:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom Labs

>From article <14563@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by quezon@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Antonio Quezon):
> 
> 
> I am in the market for a spotting scope and would appreciate
> any advice, experiences, comments, recommendations, etc. regarding
> the following models.
> 
> Bushnell Spacemaster II w/ 15x-45x zoom

 A decent scope, cheaper than the other two.  I think that I would choose a
fixed mag eyepiece if I was going for this scope.

> Nikon Fieldscope ED II w/ 15x-45x zoom

 Excellent scope (light gathering/colour/clarity) and light weight.
 Not available with an angled eyepiece.

> Kowa TSN-4 w/ 20x-60x zoom

 Excellent scope - to my eyes a similar quality image to the Nikon.  But
scope is a lot heavier.

I've not seen the Nikon zoom, but the Kowa one is very high quality.  You do
tend to get a far narrower image with a zoom eyepiece however.


Jeff...


 "Imagine there were no hypothetical situations"


***********************************************************************************


>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Tue Jan 28 11:04:13 1992
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 07:35:35 -0800
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: A Transdimensional Speeder <tbrownell@INTEL9.INTEL.COM>
Subject:      RE: Spottingfscope advice requested
X-To: 
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

  I have been using a Nikon EDII since mid-1990. Accessory-wise I have
 the 15x, 20x, 40x and 60x objectives. It is typically mounted on a
 SLIT tripod.

  Optically, there is no comparison between the Nikon and the 10 year
 old Spacemaster I own. The superiority of the Nikon is especially noteworthy
 at >20x and under low light. The Nikon brings in a truer color and much
 finer resolution which I suspect is due to the Fluorite coating on the
 lenses. In terms of objectives, I use the 20x most of the time, followed by
 the 40x. 60x is pretty useless for long shots due to the interference caused
 by heat (especially on water). It is good for detailed study at short
 distances, ie- Hummingbirds on feeders. 15x is nice for scoping waterfowl
 at medium distances.

  In terms of construction, the Nikon is very solid. The objective mount
 (screw-in) is nicely machined and very smooth. The tripod mount is lined with
 a steel thread instead of the usual tapped aluminum. Focus is accomplished
 via a focus ring that girds the center of the lens barrel. It appears to
 be water tight, having not had problems with fogging. I've dropped it a
 couple of times with no ill effects (see current issue of BIRDING for review
 of the KOWA and it's breakability).

  In summary, I haven't used the KOWA so I cannot give a direct comaprison.
 I like the NIKON a lot and would certainly recommend it.

 Tb
 Corrales,NM


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Tue Jan 28 14:47:20 1992
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 14:43:03 EST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: DHAINES@BAT.BATES.EDU
Subject:      TRIPODS
X-To:         birdchat%arizvm1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

I have had a Gitzo tripod for years.  It was expensive, but absolutely
indestructible.  I regularly set it up in salt water, have hauled
it through Costa Rica, Trinidad, Newfoundland, and have really abused
it.  It doesn't rust (I think it's aluminum, or some magnesium alloy),
doesn't have "thingies" sticking out to hook on stuff, is strong
enough to support all of my weight (I regularly use it for vaulting
over small streams), and folds up to fit inside a suitcase.

The only problem is cost--I bought it twenty years ago for $80 because
it was a special buy.  I have no idea what it would cost today, but
I'm sure glad I have it.  I do know you can buy various heads for it.
I believe mine is a No. 2, whatever than means.

If you can find a used one, buy it!

david haines
maine


***********************************************************************************

From: jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (Jeff Higgott)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Request for spotting scope info
Date: 28 Jan 92 12:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom Labs

>From article <14563@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by quezon@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Antonio Quezon):
> 
> 
> I am in the market for a spotting scope and would appreciate
> any advice, experiences, comments, recommendations, etc. regarding
> the following models.
> 
> Bushnell Spacemaster II w/ 15x-45x zoom

 A decent scope, cheaper than the other two.  I think that I would choose a
fixed mag eyepiece if I was going for this scope.

> Nikon Fieldscope ED II w/ 15x-45x zoom

 Excellent scope (light gathering/colour/clarity) and light weight.
 Not available with an angled eyepiece.

> Kowa TSN-4 w/ 20x-60x zoom

 Excellent scope - to my eyes a similar quality image to the Nikon.  But
scope is a lot heavier.

I've not seen the Nikon zoom, but the Kowa one is very high quality.  You do
tend to get a far narrower image with a zoom eyepiece however.


Jeff...


***********************************************************************************

From: Joe.Morlan@f501.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Joe Morlan)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Request for spotting scop
Date: 28 Jan 92 16:20:00 GMT


      ***** On 01-27-1992, Antonio Quezon wrote to All *****

AQ> I am in the market for a spotting scope and would appreciate
AQ> any advice, experiences, comments, recommendations, etc.
AQ> regarding the following models.

AQ> Bushnell Spacemaster II w/ 15x-45x zoom

Still one of the best bargains, although quality may have
deteriorated recently.  Be sure to get the round gray one and not
the black square one which was terrible.  Both scopes were
marketed under the same name.  If you get this, I strongly
suggest you forget the zoom and just buy the 22X wide-angle
eyepiece.

AQ> Nikon Fieldscope ED II w/ 15x-45x zoom

Very good, but a bit pricy for what it offers.

AQ> Kowa TSN-4 w/ 20x-60x zoom

Unquestionably the best of the three and arguably the best
telescope available for birding.  The zoom works great without
any evident distortion or loss at high power like other zoom
eye-pieces giving astonishing clarity and resolution.  It is
comparable to a QUESTAR but at 1/4 the cost and much easier to
handle.  I wish I could afford one.


 * Origin: SeaHunt BBS, PCBoard / HST-DS 1-415-431-0227  (8:914/501)


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Wed Jan 29 14:36:34 1992
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 1992 13:51:00 EST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: "V5160::DACOL" <dacol%v5160.decnet@CCF4.NRL.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:      Re: Spotting scopes as telephoto
X-To:         "birdchat" <birdchat%arizvm1.bitnet@vm.usc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

	 I think that the photo-adapter for the Kowa scopes is quite good,
although it probably is not good enough for professional quality pictures.
	 My main complaints are:
1) No close focus, closest is about 20 ft. Since the adapter transforms the
scope into a 800 mm telephoto lens, for certain subjects one would like to get
much closer.
2) Once one mounts the camera, the whole ensemble gets quite long and somewhat
cumbersome to carry.


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Wed Jan 29 19:33:10 1992
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 1992 16:28:36 -0800
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: A Transdimensional Speeder <tbrownell@INTEL9.INTEL.COM>
Subject:      RE: Best prices on optics
X-To: 
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

 not mentioned were the gray-market stores in New York. 47th Street Photo
is my favorite, I bought Leitz 10x40 trinovids there for about 100- less than
any of the places mentioned above. My Nikon EDII was about 75- less than any
places I comparison shopped as well. a good place to hunt for bargains is
the back of magazines like POPULAR_PHOTOGRAPHY and MODERN_PHOTOGRAPHY. Binos
and scopes are sometimes hard to find but most of the bigger stores have
excellant prices. In addition to 47th Street, Executive Photo is another
I have used.

Tb
Corrales,NM


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Thu Jan 30 07:32:39 1992
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 1992 07:40:40 -0500
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: Sharon Dombeck <sdombeck@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Spottingfscope advice requested
X-To:         BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

After getting lot's of helpful advice on this list, we came to the conclusion
that  the Kowa is the way to go if you have a strong back and fat wallet.
The Nikon EDII is the way to go if you don't have the back but do the wallet.
We bought a Band L elite Zoom which we were VERY disappointed in so we
returned it and bought the Nikon fieldscope II but without the coated lense and
have been very happy with it.  I would advise anyone to TRY the scopes on a
birding trip with others who have other scopes for comparison (and lots of
constructive criticism).  We ended up with Nikon classic eagle binocs too which
are quite amazing glasses.

After shopping around, Adorama a NYCity camera store had the best price and
let us return the Elite and get the Nikon without any hassle.  They do
mailorder but we zoomed in and out (7 hr round trip) on a sunday morning
to get our hands on it.

Stephen Baker and Sharon Dombeck


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Sun Feb  2 16:08:22 1992
Date:         Sun, 2 Feb 1992 14:06:00 MST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: CWILLIAMSON@PIMACC.PIMA.EDU
Subject:      Celestron c90
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

From:    Joe Morlan
To:      All                                      Msg #484, 31-Jan-92 12:54pm
Subject: Celestron c90

> While enjoying Common and Hooded Mergansers at Dugger
> Wildlife Area in Indiana, I was joined by a fellow with a
> squat, little scope that was a joy to look through.  He said
> it was a Celstron C90.  Anyone use one? Know anything good or
> bad about them? Or tohers of their ilk?

They are mirror lens scopes which give you a mirror image of the bird and are
hard to get used to.  My experience with the C90 field model, is that it
produces a dull dark image, often with a maddening fuzzy spot in the center.
It has a focusing knurl around the entire outside that is way too sensitive
and the depth of field is about nil.

I do not recommend this scope to anybody.


--- TosScan 1.00
 * Origin: Coconino County BBS *415-861-8290* San Francisco, CA (1:125/28)


***********************************************************************************


>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Mon Feb  3 18:15:10 1992
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 1992 12:50:29 -0500
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: Sharon Dombeck <sdombeck@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  Celestron c90
X-To:         BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

A while ago I sought info on scopes on this list, several people commented on
the Celestron and Meade "fat-cat" scopes. Among those commenting on the
one owner loved his and a couple had used them and thought they were awful.
My wife borrowed a Mead 90 over a weekend and I was amazed at the brightness
and clarity of the image.  It was exceptionally easy to aim and focus, though
you aimed it first with it's own little spotting scope on the side.  With
the target in the cross hairs, look through the main objective and there it
was!  We ended up with a Nikon but someday we'll get a Meade for really long
distance viewing.  The Meade was a little heavy and bulky for schlepping
day to day.



Stephen P. Baker                                phone:  (508) 856-2625
Lecturer in Biostatistics                               (508) 856-2440 fax
Department of Academic Computing                        (413) 253-3923 home
University of Massachusetts Medical School      e-mail: sbaker@umassmed.bitnet
55 Lake Avenue North                                    _. .____ __. _ __._
Worcester, MA 01655


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Mon Feb  3 21:18:39 1992
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 1992 19:23:52 EST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS%NIHCU.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  Celestron c90
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

I was the one singing the praises of the Meade scope on
here a few months back.  I have owned the 97er for about
four years now and would not consider replacing it with *any*
other scope.  My wife just bought a Kowa TSN-1 and I find
the image clarity and brightness to be better at 40x on the
Meade than at 25x on the Kowa.

A few years ago we attended the Seabirds course at the Institute
for Field Ornithology in Machias, ME.  Part of all of Charlie
Duncan's courses is an optics workshop where he lets people
check out the state of their own binoculars and scopes and
compare them with the really expensive models.  His eyes
lit up when he say my Meade--he had been wanting to put one
head to head with a Questar for quite some time and this was the
first opportunity he had had.

The Q was undeniably superior in terms of image resolution.  We
use a standard resolution chart with progressively smaller and
smaller line and text images, viewed indoors in standard
room lighting from about 40 feet away.  With the Q we were able to
resolve ONE step lower on the scale than with the Meade.  In terms
of brightness of the image, which admittedly were subjective
judgments, no one in the class was able to see any difference between the
Q and the Meade.

The Meade comes with two interchangeable eyepieces--40x and 80x.
I wear glasses and find the 40x eyepiece a pleasure to use.  A
correcting mirror in the eyepiece barrel ensures that the image is
rightside up and the right way around.  If one were willing to
put up with the inconvenience of left-to-right reversal (as you
do with the Q), the resulting Meade image would doubtless be even
brighter.

The Meade is indeed heavy, but is not in the same heavyweight class
with the Questar.  The small size though, I find, makes it far
easier to tote over your shoulder than a comparable refracting
scope like the Kowa.

Aiming the scope is no problem at all with a very short period of
experience.  I never use the finder scope previously mentioned.

In short, I wouldn't have any other scope right now, with the possible
exception of the Questar.  Since the Q, with the recommended
tripod, tips out at a couple of hundred dollars over the $3000
mark and the Meade is available mail-order for about $380 or
so (throw in $70 for a tripod), the decision would still be easy!

Cheers,
Norm Saunders

>---------------------------------------------------------<
> Note:  Norm Saunders has since bought a Questar Birder. <
>                                                         <
>        A.J. Quezon                                      <
>---------------------------------------------------------<


***********************************************************************************

>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Tue Feb  4 13:46:12 1992
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 1992 12:49:30 EST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS%NIHCU.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
Subject:      More on Meade 97er & Davis& Sanford tripod
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

Following are reviews posted about four years ago on The Osprey's
Nest bulletin board regarding the Meade spotting scope and the
Davis & Sanford Tripod.  Now that I've owned and used the scope/
tripod combination for almost five years, I wouldn't change any
of my comments below.


**************************************
*  Meade Spotting Scope, model 97ER  *
*  40x and 80x, weight: about 5 lbs. *
*  price: approx $400-500            *
**************************************

The second  time around, having been burned so badly on the HalleyScope,
I took my time, read a lot of articles, talked to a few experts (notably
Robert Manns  & Associates  of Atlanta,  GA, (404) 352-3679 and the fine
people at  Redlich Optical in Arlington, 703-527-5151), and spoke with a
lot of birders who already owned scopes that they were happy with.

My criteria  for the  new scope  were fairly  straightforward:  I wanted
crisp, distortion-free  optics that  admitted a lot of light; I wanted a
fairly high-powered  scope that  was USABLE  at the  higher powers; and,
most importantly,  I wanted a scope that offered as wide a field of view
as possible  to eyeglass  wearers.   Secondarily, I  wanted a scope that
could be  adapted for photography and, if possible, I wanted to keep the
price under $500.

All of these 'wants' were more than satisfied by the beautifully put-to-
gether Meade  spotting scope.  The Meade people have been in the optical
business for  a long time making highly regarded astronomical telescopes
(so named because of their price, I believe).

The 97ER is a 'folded' telescope, using internal mirrors to lengthen the
path light  rays travel before converging at the eyepiece, thus allowing
much more light to be gathered at the focal point of the eyepiece.  As a
result, the  scope is  very compact,  about eight  inches long  and  six
inches in diameter.

It is  supplied with  a 45 degree eyepiece mount and two eyepieces, 25mm
and 12mm.  The first eyepiece delivers an effective magnification of 40x
and the  second, 80x.   A camera mount adapter is available as a $30 op-
tion which converts the 97ER to a 1000mm, f16 telephoto lens.

The scope  and all  of its  accessories come  in a  custom, foam-fitted,
steel carrying case which would easily fit under an airline seat (I'd be
awfully hesitant to trust this baby to an airline luggage crew!).

The scope  itself is  rubber-armored, an  option (about  $80-90), and is
equipped with a 5x finder scope mounted on the top, lefthand side of the
main scope body.  The rubber covering does not make the scope completely
waterproof (a fact which Meade warns you about) but it serves to protect
it on  damp, drizzly  days and  affords some  shock-absorbent protection
against the  inevitable banging  around getting  in and  out of cars.  I
find that  the finder  scope is  virtually useless for me.  I'm left-eye
dominant and  the placement of the finder on the left makes it virtually
impossible for  me to  look through  it.   Fran uses it with no problems
since she's  the more  common right-eye type.  I don't find this a draw-
back.   After just  a little time working with the scope I'm able to lo-
cate distant objects very quickly by crude 'eyeball' aiming.

The scope is heavy enough to demand a solid tripod.  The new ultra-light
jobs (from Slik, eg.) might make the whole rig too tippy for my peace of
mind.   We've taken  some excellent photographs with the scope and a Mi-
nolta camera body.  We've also gotten some really lousy ones.  Since the
scope is effectively a fixed aperture (f16) lens, you can't 'open it up'
for focusing,  making it  very difficult  to get  crisp photos on cloudy
days or in dim-light situations.

This is  an excellent  spotting scope that should serve my needs for the
rest of  my life!   I  have no qualms about recommending this instrument
whole-heartedly.

[Norm Saunders]






Davis & Sanford Model "RTS" Tripod.
List price $112.00
Net price $75-80.
Comes in "silver" or black anodized finish.

One see  lots of reviews on binoculars and spotting scopes, but not much
is said  about tripods.   Lets  face it,  even the best scope is only as
good  as   its  support  system.    All  tripods  are  really  made  for
photography, not  scopes and  so they  usually have  a lot of frills you
don't need.   The "RTS" is a no frills model. It's even made here in the
USA, a rare find these days.

Specs are as follows: folds to 28", opens to 65".  Center extension 20".
Weight 4.75  lbs.   Single handle  pan and  tilt control.  There are two
handles but the other one is for adjusting the camera platform from ver-
tical to  horizontal.  On both there is a set screw so you can lock that
section and  if you  turn the  wrong handle  the assembly will not move.
Speaking of  not moving,  the legs  are made  from 1.25" tubing and have
heavy duty  rubber tips and a wide foot print, making this a very stable
tripod.   The legs are two sections, not three. This too I find a conve-
nient feature:  three less  joints to  open and  close dozens of times a
day.

A very nice feature is their "QC Screw."  This means quick change and it
is. The camera screw, unlike other camera screws, is removable. The base
of it  is shaped  like an hour glass. You mount the screw to your scope.
When you  want to use it you drop the base through the platform hole and
tighten the  set-screw.  The set-screw has a point.  This point rides up
the slope  of the base, till the whole assembly is really clamped tight.
A simple, ingenious quick release system.

Faults are few and minor.  The castings used on the head have a somewhat
rough finish.   The  set-screws for  the camera  screw  and  the  center
extension could  have been  made a little shorter.  But since using it I
can't find  much else  wrong with it. This is really a good buy. or as a
friend of mine would say a big bang for the buck.

Joe Buday
July 24, 1988


Sysop's note:   We  recently purchased  the same  tripod to use with our
Meade spotting  scope to  replace an aging Vivitar tripod that had begun
to fall apart in the field.  I agree with all of Joe's points.  The tri-
pod is  rock-solid, easy to use, and no frills to start acting up as the
tripod ages.   Fran  has a  smaller Bogen tripod for her scope and we're
thinking of  buying a  second D&S  for her, as well.  Our source for the
tripod was Redlich Optical, in Arlington, VA and the price was $69.

*********************************************************************


Norm Saunders
Message 26:
>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Thu Jan 30 07:43:44 1992
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 1992 07:50:45 -0500
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: Sharon Dombeck <sdombeck@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  TRIPODS
X-To:         BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>

We are now shopping for tripods and still haven't decided on the right one.
One thing we have learned is that a good fluid head is essential.  With one
you set it up and point, otherwise you're loosening, moving then tigntening
back up  again all day long.

We've heard that the Slyk's tend to be a little cheaply built and have seen
broken heads on them in stores.  The Bogen's have the best fluid heads but
their legs are three sections each, have knobs to tighten them (that's 9
I mean six knobs) and do not have any cross supports, though they seem
sturdy enough without them.  The best set-up we've seen is the Fliplock
but it isn't made anymore.  This had a two section leg and a flip-lever
at the top of the leg.  You would let gravity extend the legs and
flip,flip,flip, you were set up!  We would also like a lighter tripod to
go with the relatively light Nikon scope as my wife is the one who is the
more avid birder.  It would be interesting to find out if the Bogen head
fit on any other legs.

Stephen Baker


*********************************************************************


& 
Message  1:
>From <@VM.USC.EDU:BIRDCHAT@ARIZVM1.BITNET> Thu Jan 30 08:04:53 1992
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 1992 08:02:38 EST
Reply-To: "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
From: "Ed Matthews" <edm@VERDIX.COM>
Subject:      Re: TRIPODS
X-To:         "National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line)"
              <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT <BIRDCHAT%ARIZVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
              30 Jan 92 07:50:45 -0500. <9201301242.AA11983@verdix.com>

(Message inbox: 161)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 08:02:38 -0500
From: edm@sarge.hq.Verdix.COM


>We've heard that the Slyk's tend to be a little cheaply built and have seen
>broken heads on them in stores.  The Bogen's have the best fluid heads but
>their legs are three sections each, have knobs to tighten them (that's 9
>I mean six knobs) and do not have any cross supports, though they seem
>sturdy enough without them.  The best set-up we've seen is the Fliplock

I think the new Bogen's are not getting a fair shake here.  I have a
relatively new 3021 (16 months) and it has two levers, not knobs, per
leg.  It is less of a hassle to set up than some tripods, more of a
hassle than some.  I let gravity extend and close the legs by pointing the
tripod the correct direction and flipping the levers.  By closing up only
one of the sections on each of the legs, the tripod with mounted scope
is fairly portable and this is how I generally carry it in the field.
It has the advantage of being ready to go almost instantly, even if I
have to bend way over to use it.

I'm not having any problems with loose or rusting hardware. Nonetheless, I
still check out all the hardware before any trip.

With the microfluid head, it weighs in at a hefty eight pounds without a
scope.  This means you must have a carrying strap.  I really like the
OpTech strap (available from ABA and camera stores everywhere) and have
rigged up a bolt and ring affair like that described in Winging It last
fall.  I don't mind carrying the weight, especially because it lets me
stand up at the light house at Point Reyes in 30 knot winds and tell
if that little guy in the water below is an Ancient or Marbled Murrelet.

All that aside, I bought this tripod for two very specific reasons: 1)
I'm 6'3" and this is one of the few tripods that I can use comfortably,
and 2) replacement parts, if expensive, are readily available.

Ed Matthews                                   Internet: edm@verdix.com
(703) 318-5800 work                          "Have scope, will travel"
Centreville, Virginia  -- near Washington DC

A.J. (Tony) Quezon
Carderock Division
Naval Surface Warfare Center (CDNSWC)
Code 1282
Bethesda, MD  20084-5000
Work: (301)227-1645
Home: (703)435-3965