Swarovski scope and Manfrotto 700 RC2 (1 Viewer)

Swissboy · Sep 10, 2012

The smallish 700 RC2 head usually needs a quick-change plate that is fitted "lengthwise", i.e. at a 90 degree angle of what most heads require. When I recently bought my new Swarovski STM 65 HD scope, it struck me that the foot of that scope almost fits directly into the 700 RC2 head. Of course, the manufacturers want us to buy one of their own tripods, or else, we need a conversion installation of some sorts. Well, in my case, I was able to get a fine direct fit by grinding a bit off the base of the scope's foot. It can still be fitted with whatever plate to use it on another tripod if necessary.

I'm sure some readers may almost throw up at the thought of "desecrating" such an instrument. But I plan to keep mine for such a long time that I simply don't bother about resale values. It's more important to me to facilitate function.

I'll post pictures when I have them.

Swissboy · Sep 11, 2012

Pictures

Here are the promised pictures.

First, the scope directly attached to the tripod head.

The other pictures show what I had to do to achieve the direct fit. The little indentation on the second picture in the blank part is from the screw that tightens the scope.

The last picture shows that I rounded the corners a bit to make sliding the scope easier. I think I have overdone this a bit. I recommend a somewhat straighter or more rectangular shape. The problem was that I had tried a tighter fit first. And I then thought I could avoid that the thing would stick if there were some sand. So I rounded the foot on all corners. But it turned out I had to give it a bit more play on the sides anyway. In the end, those corners came out a bit more rounded than they need to be. At any rate, there is a safe seat even if the tightening screw should become loose.

johnf3f · Sep 14, 2012

I am surprised at you having to modify the scope foot - I thought they were supposed to duplicate th Manfrotto PL210 QR plate dimensions.

rockfowl · Sep 14, 2012

johnf3f said:
I am surprised at you having to modify the scope foot - I thought they were supposed to duplicate th Manfrotto PL210 QR plate dimensions.

No sadly they don't... have been thinking of doing the same to mine for some time as I have the same problem with the 701RC head.

John Russell · Sep 14, 2012

I'm sorry but I just don't understand why one should want to mutilate a 1st rate scope to fit a 2nd rate head.
The tripod foot of the 65 mm Swaros is badly positioned for balance anyway, so it would be better to use something like a Manfrotto 701HDV or, better still, a Berlebach 552 or Gitzo 2720.

John

GYRob · Sep 14, 2012

I dont know much about scopes but if i was doing a mod i would fit a new arca swiss QR clamp on the tripod head itself -then you can fit any lenth arca type plate to the foot of the scope.

Rob

Swissboy · Sep 14, 2012

John Russell said:
I'm sorry but I just don't understand why one should want to mutilate a 1st rate scope to fit a 2nd rate head.
The tripod foot of the 65 mm Swaros is badly positioned for balance anyway, so it would be better to use something like a Manfrotto 701HDV or, better still, a Berlebach 552 or Gitzo 2720.

John

It's all a matter of how much weight you are willing to carry around. I go for the lightest possible combination that still fits my needs. I have no qualms about "mutilating" something if I can achieve an improvement in functionality as far as I'm concerned.
I agree about the lousy balance however. But I'll just tighten the screw a bit more if necessary. My brother's 701HDV does not give that balance by the way. And it weighs 300 grams more. And the other heads you mentioned are even heavier, if I remember correctly. I had them all checked for their specs and features.

I also try to scratch my name and the purchase date on any of my tools. Was a bit hard on this new scope, so I had to abbreviate. It's clear, if I planned to sell within the next two or three years, I would not do any of this. But my Leica APO77 that I now replace dates from 1995, and the Nikon EDIII that may have to go as well dates from 1999. Selling such instruments goes along with a low price anyway. Meanwhile, I might solve possible disputes if someone thought my instrument was his. And should it be stolen, at least it could not be sold for as much. That in itself would give me some satisfaction

.

hinnark · Sep 17, 2012

Swissboy said:
My brother's 701HDV does not give that balance by the way.

Robert,

while I'm glad that you're satisfied with your new head I still don't get the statement above. Due to the moveable headplate included with this head, the 701HDV should allow some weight balance. Don't know how much, though. Perhaps it's not enough to counterbalance the displaced center of gravity towards the rear end of the Swaro 65 scope. But AFAIK there are longer QR-plates availbale at Manfrotto as accessories.

BTW, I think the unchanged Swaro foot does fit directly into the 700 RC - but only crosswise

Steve

Swissboy · Sep 17, 2012

hinnark said:
.......Perhaps it's not enough to counterbalance the displaced center of gravity towards the rear end of the Swaro 65 scope. .......BTW, I think the unchanged Swaro foot does fit directly into the 700 RC - but only crosswise

Steve

Steve, it's exactly so that there is of course some counterbalance, but not enough. My brother also has a Swaro 80, and there is no problem in that case.

As for fitting my scope crosswise, that would be possible, but not practical. I had considered that option.

hinnark · Sep 18, 2012

Swissboy said:
Steve, it's exactly so that there is of course some counterbalance, but not enough. My brother also has a Swaro 80, and there is no problem in that case.

As for fitting my scope crosswise, that would be possible, but not practical. I had considered that option.

Yes, the Swaro 80 has the bigger and heavier objective lens, while everything else - EP, prism and focussing section and position of the tripod foot - is exactly the same with the 65-version of this scope. The helical focusser makes it impossible for Swarovski to put the foot closer to the rear end for a better balance. BTW, the new Leica scopes and I think also the new Kowa scopes do fit directly into the 700 and the old 701 heads aiming to the right direction.

Steve

bcskr · Oct 28, 2012

Swissboy, I did the exact same filing job on my Swaro 80, perfect fit, and I'm glad I did it. Mutilate or custom fit, guess it all depends on the eye of the beholder. I also cut down the length of the handle on the 700 head.

Swissboy · Oct 29, 2012

bcskr said:
....... I also cut down the length of the handle on the 700 head.

I have completely removed that handle, as can be seen on the first picture of post #2. It just weighs another 100 grams that I can do without. The added benefit is that the set-up is a bit less "tail"-heavy. Still not well balanced though.

Swarovski scope and Manfrotto 700 RC2 (1 Viewer)

More options

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

Attachments

johnf3f

johnf3f

rockfowl

Mark Andrews

John Russell

Well-known member

GYRob

Well-known member

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

hinnark

Well-known member

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

hinnark

Well-known member

bcskr

Well-known member

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread