dbradnum said:Colin,
You may possibly be right that there is a danger of wasting money here; everyone seems to agree that a really cheap scope is a bad move. However, labelling advocates of cheaper scopes as ignorant and so on isn't likely to fuel constructive debate. The £500 threshold you suggest is just as misleading to a beginner as a recommendation to buy bargain-basement optics.
Colin Key said:I agree that Joanne's first post should have given more information and a better idea of her budget. When she stated that she "didn't want to spent hundreds of pounds" I assumed that she was thinking of spending "tens of pounds" on a scope - much better spent on a few bottles of good wine!! I still maintain that £500 or so is the sort of price to pay for a good, second-hand HD/Flourite/ED scope, and I am certainly no fan of the Kowa marque.
dbradnum said:Returning to the topic, what's the performance of the Minox 62ED like? How does it compare to the Leica equivalent?
joannechattaway said:I need some advice on scopes. What are the features to look for on a beginners scope? I know nothing about scopes. I don't want to spend hundreds of pounds on something wonderful, just something fairly basic. My husband likes gadgets and sort of likes bird watching. I am hoping he'll come with me birdwatching more if he has more to do. I am happy with my bins and camera and thought a scope might be a good Christmas present for him. Thanks.
Joanne
Colin Key said:I still maintain that £500 or so is the sort of price to pay for a good, second-hand HD/Flourite/ED scope
There is a possibility that we have been talking about different purposes for the scope. I did recommend an entry-level scope earlier, but I didn't realize, until Duncan pointed it out, that this is a digiscoping forum. If digiscoping is of high priority I would probably have to switch myself into that ">£500 ED"-camp .RAH said:All I can figure is that some folks believe that the horrors of a little chromatic aberation or a 10% less-bright-than ultimately possible view are so terrible, that any user will get totally discouraged and give up. Very bizarre.
Colin Key said:My figure of £500 was chosen somewhat abitrarily but I stand by it as a minimum for getting something "nice" which would enhance someone's enjoyment of observing and which would still have a resale value if it turned out to be a "dead duck".
As far as I can see, plenty of people on this thread have provided responses (to a fairly standard question) which are more than reasonable, and I'm sure that they will be only too happy to help further if need be.Colin Key said:I think (sorry Joanne) that the original post was rather at fault in that it was not in the most appropriate forum and there was not sufficient information given to elicit a reasonable response.
joannechattaway said:Thanks David for bringing this discussion back to base. I didn't realize that, what I thought was a pretty basic question, would provoke such controversy. Thanks to the various opinions expressed and having now done some research Illike the sound of the Mighty Midget 2 and now my mission is to find one to try out. I accidently put this thread in the digiscoping forum and realizes it should have gone elsewhere.