[Lewis]

Am in San Francisco, CA. Getting a scope has been on my mind for too long. FINALLY decided on Nikon Fieldsope III angled with a 20x60 eyepiece. FINALLY decided on this NY e-store called Adorama. And only just now, at whateveritis am in the morning, found all these bad reviews of that store on some silly photo-store reviewing website, and...and...ended up here. What to do. Am now deep in doubt about everything. Okay, prolly just tired.

Does anyone have experience with the mail order stores in the US? And does anyone have experience with the Nikon Fieldscope III non-ED (can't afford it). Suprisingly, that scope is pretty absent from mentions in the forums on this site. The equivalent Kowa would surely be just as good; I am just a little leery of the plastic body (Nikon has metal body). And I like the idea of the focusing ring on the Nikon.

I just want to see the phalaropes I've been missing!!

[KCFoggin]

First of all Lewis, on behalf of the Admin/Moderators of Bird Forum, welcome.

There are two exceptional places of business in the U.S. that I would not hesitate to recommend. One is Eagle Optics and the other is B & H Photo. I am not familiar with the one you mentioned but I would highly recommend either of the two I just listed. There are others, I am sure and I am equally certain a few of our more knowledgeable members will list them for you. Again, Welcome!

[Leif]

I've bought several quite expensive (~500-1000) items from B&H Photovideo and found them excellent to deal with. One item was ordered from the UK.

I presume the review site you refer to is on Photo Net?

[Lewis]

Thanks for the replies & the welcome. Yes, in that same photo shop review thingy B&H generally received a lot of good reviews. Will go compare the costs at B&H and Eagle momentarily (now that I've slept some :).

Any idea why Nikon Fieldscope IIIs don't seem to be the subject of many discussions here? Does everyone just hate them? Are they made of pepsi bottle glass and chicken wire? I understand why people with money go for the Leicas and Swarovskis, but Kowa makes (what I've been thinking are) comparable scopes to Nikons Fieldscopes and everyone's all about Kowa.

Okay, okay, I have big purchase anxiety. I'll go take a pill or something.

[Colin]

Lewis,
Firstly, welcome to Bird Forum.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the Nikon Fieldscope. I happen to have a Kowa 824 (not the 824M) but the Nikon ran it very close when I was choosing a scope. The only reason I did not go for the Nikon was the focussing wheel but that is just my preference as optically it was excellent. My eyes just don't get on with the Swaros and Leica are very good with the optics but mechanically the engineering is poor but that is just my opinion. Anyway, as you gather I am a fan of Kowa and Nikon. I have Nikon binnies, the HG version.


Colin

[CJW]

Colin, I know it's just your opinion but come on, are you really suggesting that Leica and Swarovski telescopes are poorly engineered? I'm a great fan of Kowa optics myself (I have only just upgraded my TS-1 scope to a Swarovski after 20+ years). I can accept that you have problems visa-vi your eyes not getting on with certain brands (we're all different!), but there's several reasons that Leica and Swarovski are generally considered the best brands in the world for 'birding scopes' - not least because of the quality of engineering.

[Colin]

CJW,
No, I have no comments on the engineering of the Swaros (perhaps I missed out a comma in my post), I just don't get on with them but they are very good optics. However, the Leica moving bits, especially on the binnies are not very good in my opinion. For example, and I have said this before in other threads, the focussing wheel on all Leica binnies that I have tried has an amount of slack in it when fine focussing which I think is poor. Maybe it is meant to be like that but I prefer to find that when I need to turn the focussing wheel back, there is an instant movement of the mechanism. Indeed, many £99 binnies have a smoother, no slack feel to the mechanism ( but of course the optics are not so good). The Leica optics are fine.

Having said all that, my Nikon HG 10x42 at £600 odd pounds compared to the equivalent Swaros at about double that - I asked my self the question, are the Swaros twice as good as the Nikons and I have to say that although they are excellent, the answer is no.

Colin

[CJW]

Hmmm.

[Leif]

Aren't the Swarovski 8.5x42 and the Nikon 8x42 HG binoculars about the same price?

[Lewis]

Well, I did buy the Fieldscope with the 20x60 zoom (from B&H in NY). Three-five days for delivery. I will be happy to bore everyone with the minute details of their operation. My partner and I do not have many friends that birdwatch, so we have not been able to compare and contrast a variety of scopes. This fall we are vounteering for the first time with the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory counting raptors as they pass over the GG Bridge on their way south. At that time, we'll probably get to compare our scope with other scopes. Lord, I'm just glad to be done with it. Now the waiting...it's like a draaaaaaaaan out Christmas eve.

[Colin]

Lewis,
You and your partner have a very good buy there and you should get many happy hours of observation with it. Good luck with the birding.


Leif,
My mistake, had a complete brain fade, was thinking more in the line of Nikon/Swaro scopes. Yes the Swaros (10x42) are about £870 (lowest price with a quick look is £820) and the Nikons similar but I managed to get my Nikon 10x42 HGs for £665 in December 2001. They seem to have gone up since then.


Colin

[Leif]

Colin: £665! That was a good price. Where did you buy them? I presume they were new?

[Paul Rule]

As an owner of a pair of Leica BN's, I find Collin's comments on the engineering odd. I know that this is a personal thing, but there is absolutely no way these bins can be classed as poorly engineered. To use Collins term there is a tiny bit of "slack" on the focus wheel, but this does not cause any problem with focusing, and until I read one of Collins references to this I did not even know it was there. I did try all the top of the line bins before purchasing these, and went for the Leica's because in my hands (and this is a very personal thing) they had the best balance and handling.

Paul

[Andy Bright]

That is a good price for HG's, espescially when they were well above £1000 when released, which was a deliberate cynical/dumb ploy from Nikon to give the impression they were that much better than anyone elses (they are good!)..... They didn't sell any and put the price down to a realistic level, instead of trying to rip off the public.

[Colin]

Paul,
I tried several Leica models at the Bird Fair in August 2001 (got the Nikons in Dec of that year after lots of trials with other brands) and I thought that the ones on the Leica stand were demo stock which had had lots and lots of focussing from one end of the range to the other by almost everyone who picks them up. (Not a thing which is done everyday by most users in normal birding conditions). I put the slack in the focussing down to this and thought no more of it. Since then I have tried many more friends Leicas and they all seem to have this. It is not massive but it is there. I am absloutely not complaining of the excellence of the glass. As you say, Paul, these are all personal things. I found that I just could not get on with the Swaros whereas many people think that the Nikons are heavy and unbalanced. I happened to like them and like many first impressions, they felt good when I first picked up a pair.


Leif,
Got the Nikons new from In Focus not long after they came out (13th Dec 2001 to be exact). I don't know exactly when they were launched but maybe they were at a promotional price in the very early days. I dug out the receipt to check how old they were. They have done me well and now they are getting very 'polished in looks' as they are used almost everyday. They have survived all sorts of weather, including getting sand blasted in a severe gale at Holkam beach and have accidentally rolled around in the less than clean interiors of several firms Landrovers and they have got accidentally dangled in the remains of dead swans that I have hauled out of water bodies for post mortems (not by me but by a vet) so they have done well.


Colin

[Paul Rule]

Colin

Just who were you rolling around with in the back of Land Rovers, and why did you not take off the bins first??

[Colin]

Well Andy has scotched my thought of a promotional price. (I was slow in typing and his post appeared before mine). I sense a slight disbelief in the price I paid so I have photographed the receipt (with my Nikon camera!!) and here it is. I have zapped the address for obvious reasons.

Colin

[Colin]

Paul,
Back in the spring of 2000, I did a bit of assistant wardening on Handa Island. One morning, the warden, myself and the other assistant were having breakfast at the table, made out of washed up pallets, as usual on a glorious sunny morning when a very dark raptor came over the bothy. I reached for the binnies round my neck but they were not there. They were inside the bothy. The warden said that taught me a lesson not to be without them while 'birding'. I found it quite difficult to wash my hair over a bucket ( life was primitive at the bothy) with the binnies round my neck but they were waterproof (note, pre Nikon days). Anyway, when I am out birding now I always keep the binnies round my neck even when rolling around in the back/front of Landrovers..........

Colin


Oh, for the record we never did postively id the Handa raptor..too brief a glimpse.

[Andy Bright]

Originally posted by Colin
Well Andy has scotched my thought of a promotional price. (I was slow in typing and his post appeared before mine). I sense a slight disbelief in the price I paid so I have photographed the receipt (with my Nikon camera!!) and here it is. I have zapped the address for obvious reasons.
Colin

Sorry the thread has wandered off from scopes.

Colin:
Unfortunately I cleared out all my old birding mags so I can't post an old advert... but the HG's were reduced at the end of 2001 (you got them as they were reduced). Previously, the rrp for the 10x42 was £1499 and the 8x42 £1399 .... they went down to £869 & £779. I think some of their scope prices were similarly slashed. Just think how you would feel if you payed the initial rrp?... not many did, but I'm sure there are a few out there (if they haven't comitted suicide in the meantime?).

[Paul Rule]

I think this overpricing marketing ploy has also be used Swarovski on the new ATS80. The difference in price between the 65HD and 80HD is a huge £450. Bearing in mind the difference manufacturing costs is going to be quite small this is a rip off.

As a comparison there is only £100 difference between the Leica 62 and 77

Paul

[Leif]

Paul: don't you mean the Leica 62 and 77? The 77 is an old product - though none the worse for that. The new Swarovski 80 is brand new and trendy. I expect they cannot keep up with demand even at the high price?

[Paul Rule]

Well done Leif I wondered who would spot my deliberate error 1st. (quickly edits last post)

[Andy Bright]

Yep, Swarovski are definitely trying it on with their new scopes (not quite in the Nikon HG league).... though they are selling very well.
Swarovski products will always be slightly more expensive than their competitors because they are made in-house (well, in Austria)... Other companies have their scopes/binos made in countries with far lower labour costs.
Andy