Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

I'm very curious if a 2" focuser and eyepieces would be substantially more enjoyable than 1.25" kit. I notice that William Optics is now marketing an Amici 2" erect image prism. Are any of you Megrez or Pronto owners taking advantage of this for terrestial use? What exact eyepieces are you using? My hesitation at the moment, stems from the fact that it looks like most 2" ep's are designed for very low power with a 480mm scope. I'm interested to know if going the 2" route is really practical for terrestial observing in the 40x-100x range.

Thoughts, comments and experiences appreciated.
Mike Swaim

I've spent nearly the past year birding with various NC groups. In that time I've been priveledged to try a pretty good variety of the equipment out there. As a result of several conversations I've had with long-time, hard-core birders, I thought I'd post some general observations.

Tripods:
*Generally aren't given as much attention either in purchasing decision, or in minor maintenace as they should be.
*Bogen is the most popular brand, but many longtime Bogen users have complaints ranging from too-sharp edges for comfortable carry, to leg-locks that don't, to excessive weight for somewhat limited stability etc.
*The plastic column stop/reversible head on my 3221WN broke in the cold for no apparent reason. Since the leg locks are the same type of plastic, I've been wondering when they'll go.
*There's excessive play between the column and tripod on a good number of non-geared column extending tripods including the Bogen 3000-3200 series.

Tripod heads:
*The Bogen 3130 is by far the most popular spotting scope head, but I've met several birders who share my complaint that there is way too much slop in the horizontal head swivel which allows the scope to rock up and down.
*The Bogen wrench supplied with most of their tripods is usually the first thing that gets lost. Next are the head handles.

Spotting scopes:
*30-40 power seems to be best for 95% of viewing. 20 power isn't nearly enough. 60x often yields worse images than 30x.
*Swarovski AT scopes are great but they tint everything yellow. Also, the Swaro zoom constricts the FOV between 40-50x but then opens it back up again at 60x.
*Personally, I'd rather have a wide occular than a super wide FOV. I really like the "picture window" look that some of the best eyepieces give. The current Swaros are very good in that regard.
*There doesn't appear to be all that much truly relevant extra light grasp when going from 70mm to 80mm or from 80mm to 100mm. There is usually a tremdous extra boost when going from 60mm to 70mm.
*There is a phenomenal difference between $500-$600 scopes and $100-$200 scopes, but not as much between $600 scopes and those costing over a grand.
*Eyepiece selection is perhaps more critical than is generally realized.

Binoculars:
*I seriously question whether more folks wouldn't see more, and be happier with 10x50 porros as opposed to the more popular 8-40 roofs.
*I've now met 2 people with Leica BN's with stuck or malfunctioning diopter adjustments.
*I've never met a dissatified Swarovski EL owner.
*I've met extremely experienced birders with seemingly incredible life lists, that use nothing but very cheap or very small binoculars. Ditto for scopes.

So it just goes to show that gear isn't everything, but I'll take all the help I can in terms of using the best optics I can.

Mike Swaim

I was wondering what folks would suggest as an alternative to the popular Bogen 3130 "micro fluid" head for spotting scope usage.

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

This thread appeared just as I was about to ask this group some similar questions.

Here's my situation. I just got a TV Ranger for use as a terrestrial spotting scope. (I've got other, larger scopes for astronomy.)

I'm interested in getting the widest, clearest, "picture window" view out of the Ranger that I can at 40-75x. With a focal length of only 480mm, it seems like the best way to do this is to use a suitable barlow and suitable plossl. (I'm really not terribly interested in expensive eyepieces that essentially include their own barlow, etc. since I've already got a collection of "Super Plossls". (Besides, my other Maks seem to do best with simpler e.p.s like plossls.)

So, the question boils down to: Does it make a difference which barlow or Powermate I use? (Assuming that we're talking about same power factors.) Is the Powermate still the preferred choice for this application?
Also, are there any barlows that don't "stop down" the light path?

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

When I first got into this hobby, I thought I wanted the "best" plossls at a reasonable price. So I shopped Astromart and wound up with a collection of TV plossls. After much frustration, I tried a Meade Series 4000 "Super Plossl" and was an instant convert. Over time, I sold off all the TV plossls in favor of the Meade's S4000 line. What I found most striking was the increased eye relief in focal lengths below 15mm. Another striking factor was how much brighter the image seemed in the Meade 26mm and 32mm. There wasn't as much difference in the 17-20mm ones, but I was actually glad to be rid of the very short focal length TVs and the ridiculous 40mm TV. At the shortest focal lengths, I found that I had to practically press my cornea against the lens of the TVs, and at the longest length, the eye relief was so huge that blackout was a real problem.

Has anyone else noticed this and made a similar move?
Are there other not-so-obvious ways of improving one's eyepiece collection? Anybody have any experiences with the Orion Epic ED line?

Mike Swaim

I've now tried both the Meade and Televue 45* erect image prisms and am totally unimpressed with either one. Actually, I wonder if they're not the same thing.

But anyway, does anybody have any input about a really good quality erect image prism or other correct image viewing device? Any actual experiences with the William Optics 1.25" prism?

I can't believe that such a simple thing as a prism, (something that's basic to binoculars and included in all spotting scopes) should be so tough to find for a lowly TV Ranger, but this is literally where the Ranger may fail to live up to it's potential. Got any input?

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

OK, I'm very curious about what the participants in this forum would design into a spotting scope for terrestrial useage. Assume, for a moment, that you have the ear of an optics design firm that wants to make an entry into the terrestrial market.

What, *exactly* do you want, and why? At what REALISTIC price point?

The gap in the market that I see is in the $300-$600 range in terms of a decent 70-75mm low color, high definition scope that is light weight and reasonably versitile. It seems that the market is full of both 60mm spotters below that range and 80mm spotters well above it, but what of a good, waterproof, fogproof, entry into the 70mm field?

My thinking is that 70-75mm will bridge the gap between the heavy, expensive 80+mm scopes and the smaller, easier to carry 60mm scopes while still being fairly easy and inexpensive to produce.

Is an 80mm (or larger) objective important to you?

Is a 2" focuser important to you? (If so, why?? since it adds weight and expense. Should this be an additional cost option?)

How crucial is ED glass? At what additional price?

Is the capability to accept standard 1.25" eyepieces important? (What would you like to see instead?)
Is waterproofing and "armoring" important?

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

I've been spending a snow day reading Gerald North's excellent "Advanced Amatuer Astronomy" as well as James Muirden's most excellent collection of articles by various experts "Sky Watcher's Companion". One of the striking things about both these books is that in the comet hunting sections they explode a misconception that I had about what a good comet hunting rig would be. I'd always thought of some rather wealthy person standing on a private mountaintop with a giant set of binoculars mounted on a pier.

Well, as it turns out, David Levy used a 400mm reflector to find his most famous comet. Likewise, Canadian comet hunter Rolf Meier used a 400mm reflector to find 4 of his comets. Then there's William Bradfield who found 11 of his 13 comets with a 6" short focus refractor and another one with a 10" reflector and still another with a set of 7x35 binoculars.

Still, no matter what equipment works, that has got to take some amazing level of dedication and persistance. I'm usually thrilled just to be able to locate one that has already been well publicized.

Mike Swaim

Bill, I hope you're reading this. You've done a good job exploding into the market. Job well done. When the dust settles, I'd love to see Burgess Optical come up with entrants in the following fields:

1. First and foremost, I'd like to see a series of high quality truss tube DOBs from 8" to 14" in the $400- $1000 category. There's no reason that I can see why a truss tube DOB ought to cost 3-4X more to make and market than a solid metal tube. The savings on shipping across the Pacific alone would be substantial enough to offset slightly more expensive manufacture.

2. An ED 70-80mm birding scope in the 2-3lb. $300-$500 range.

3. 100mm Astro Binoculars that would really and truly show lots more detail, resolution and contrast than the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70's or the Miyauchi Exceeds in a lightweighter weight package than the standard 100mm. (Do you have this one already?) High quality 30x90's might be a way to achieve this.

Mike Swaim

Almost every Sat. morning for the past year, I've been getting together with one of two local NC bird groups for regularly scheduled field trips to locations both local and distant. Now, the interesting thing about these trips is that they attract a very wide range of people of all ages from about 8-80, and from a variety of backgrounds. Rather than being a static crowd of regulars, it's usually comprised of a few of us diehards, and a random selection of people who found out about that week's trip from a variety of sources. We've recently had visitors from Germany, Japan, Taiwan and even Wisconsin. :-) Group size ranges from 2-26, with around a dozen being the norm. But each trip brings new faces, and being curious, I ALWAYS look to see what people are using in terms of optics. When possible, I try to get a look through any that interest me.

To make a long story short, I've seen people bring everything from $20 Tascos to Swarovski ELs and everything in between. That much might be expected. But just as the quality of the optics vary, so do the sizes. The odd thing is that there is no really dominant size. Reading various things about birding optics, one might expect to see a predominance of 8x40 class binoculars. But, really, that's just not the case at all. Sure, the 8x40/42s show up regularly, but they don't dominate the scene or even comprise a majority on any given outing.

Looking just at what 9 fieldtrip leaders and acknowledged experts carry yields the following:
(2) Leica 10x50 BNs roofs
(1) Celestron 8x42 roof
(1) Eagle Optics Ranger 8x32 roof
(1) Canon IS 12x36 (image stabilized)
(2) Swift 8.5x44 Audubon (orig. porros, non-WP)
(1) Leica 8x32 BN roof
(1) Kahles 8x32 roof

The gear of the random, but hardcore birder showing up is even more diverse. Amongst the folks that have logged over 250 species just in NC, I've seen everything from Leica 8x20s to Canon 18x50 IS to Swarovski 7x42 to Nikon Travelites. So what's the birding "standard"? You tell me. I'm totally convinced that binoculars are one of the most individual specific pieces of gear that can be bought. What's right for one, isn't necessarily right for another. So it goes.

Mike Swaim