Am I the Only One... (1 Viewer)

[GrampaTom]

......who sees it this way?

I bought a scope back in September. I was a reluctant purchaser, as I'd a well laid down, preferred way of birding. Fanny pack on hook, binos in pouch, grab and go wherever the mood on a given day. Birding is always fundamentally about a hike, always getting out and doing something. The birds are joy. Binos provide wonder. As the places we bird always involve longer views out over water, it was clear we were walking by things, beyond the reach of the binos. Reading here helped. Thanks to John, Hermann, Henry, Chuck Hill and a spread sheet of specs, I was hoping to get eyes and hands on 4 or 5 scopes in order to decide. The harder task was finding a place to compare the views, controls, etc. of all.

Surprisingly I found a shop, 3 hours up the coast in Mendocino. After a bit of emailing back and forth to make sure they had most of the scopes of interest in stock, I made the schlepp. They set up a Kowa 77, Nikon 82, Opticron 77 and 60 on tripods out on the sidewalk each looking at an old weathering wooden water tank that provided lots of intricate surfaces, details to study. Looking through each, noticing controls, eye relief, I was puzzled. All were great! I had my fav EL1042s in tow. The views through these scopes, near as I could tell were essentially equal, spectacular and bested the binos at distance. The shop owner, not given to kibbutzing, said "Yes, I hear that a lot."

Thinking about the choice, I stepped back and looked at the array. As I had a limited expectation to the scope's utility and was happy to save the dollars, the 60 and 77 Opticrons were calling. Looking at the scopes and tripods, (as distinct from through them), the differences between 60 and 70 sized scopes, the paper weight differences seemed not so important. The issue with carrying, seemed about the combination of scope and tripod. Add the tripod and the whole magilla seemed to promise a major alteration to my preferred way of birding. To paraphrase one of our past presidents "Its about the tripod, stupid."

6 months into it, that impression has been confirmed. I now with tongue in cheek refer to the blasted scope and tripod when describing it. I do find hauling it around, getting it set up and trying to avoid tripping over the thing or having it blow over in the wind a distraction. It is tongue in cheek though, as the views provided are gorgeous. Im seeing stuff never before possible. Ive taken to standing in one place while my birding buddy has long ago moved on, while I study whats lurking within the larger collection of birds several hundred yards out.

Point?

Is it possible? Am I nuts? Are the conversations here discussing ounces or bulk of this or that model/size scope kind of missing the point? When you add tripod to scope, even being careful on the weight of the latter, doesn't the whole become the issue and the scopes relative size sort of immaterial?

 

[wllmspd]

I pop a 60mm Opticron on an aluminium
Befree manfrotto. Not stable enough if there’s wind, I fold the legs together and sling it over my shoulder and walk round the place. I can deploy in seconds as it’s OK still with the legs all folded together. Some people use heavier tripods and have those backpack things, but slower to deploy. Also I like carrying a backpack with stuff in (food, water, book), which the tripod backpack might be less suitable for.

Peter

 

[Hermann]

Are the conversations here discussing ounces or bulk of this or that model/size scope kind of missing the point? When you add tripod to scope, even being careful on the weight of the latter, doesn't the whole become the issue and the scopes relative size sort of immaterial?

Yes and no. Yes, because the tripod+head combo will always be heavier than the scope, and no, because the size and weight of the scope determines which tripod you can use. (The reason I emphasize the size of the scope as well as the weight is that in windy conditions bigger scopes tend to shake/vibrate more than smaller scopes for obvious reasons.)

Of course you can put a big scope on a lightweight tripod, but it often won't work very well, especially not when you're in a windy place at the coast. My big scope (82mm, 1670 gr.) works best on reasonably heavy tripod. I still use an old aluminium Gitzo (Reporter II, 2300 gr.) or, in really difficult conditions, a heavy wooden tripod (3900 gr.), both in combination with the Manfrotto 500AH (870gr.). So the weight of a typical combination I use with a big scope (82+Reporter II+500AH) is ~5000gr. without the eyepiece of the scope.

You can of course put a lightweight scope on a big and heavy tripod. That may even make a lot of sense on a seawatch in a howling gale. However, a lighter and smaller scope works well on a lighter tripod with a lighter head. With my 60mm scope (1190 gr.) I use either an old Gitzo Mountaineer GT2541 (1440 gr.) or a Gitzo GT1545T (1080 gr.), both with an old Gitzo 2180 head (470 gr.). Typical weight (60mm+GT2541+2180) is ~3100 gr. without the eyepiece, or, with the GT1545T, ~2740 gr. With a tiny 50mm scope (470 gr.) the weight is of course a lot lower (~2380 gr./~2020 gr.)

And if you really need to keep the weight down you can use a smaller and lighter scope on a monopod, e.g. when you're hiking in the mountains. You won't get the stability of a tripod, but provided you use a good monopod with a decent foot (!) you can easily use it up to ~30x magnification, when you can sit down up to ~40x. IME this doesn't work well with a big scope, the whole combo isn't well balanced. But it works quite well with the 60mm and especially with the very light 50mm scopes.

Hermann

NB: The weights I gave differ from the weights you'll find on the manufacturers' pages somewhat. That's because I don't use any handle on any of my tripod heads, and all my tripods have a strap for carrying over the shoulder. I don't like these modern "mulepacks" and "scopepacks", they're too slow for my liking. I also left out the weight of the eyepieces simply because I use a number of different eyepieces with my scopes.

 

[GrampaTom]

NB: The weights I gave differ from the weights you'll find on the manufacturers' pages somewhat. That's because I don't use any handle on any of my tripod heads, and all my tripods have a strap for carrying over the shoulder. I don't like these modern "mulepacks" and "scopepacks", they're too slow for my liking. I also left out the weight of the eyepieces simply because I use a number of different eyepieces with my scopes.

Thanks Hermann, re the straps you are using, these something you made or bought?

 

[Hermann]

Thanks Hermann, re the straps you are using, these something you made or bought?

Depends. With most tripods I use fairly heavy leather straps with a cloth backing. These are traditionally used for hunting guns over here. They are stiffer than the usual nylon tripod straps and work better IMO. They don't tangle as easily as more flexible straps.

I can post a photo when I'm back home if you like.

Hermann

 

[GrampaTom]

Depends. With most tripods I use fairly heavy leather straps with a cloth backing. These are traditionally used for hunting guns over here. They are stiffer than the usual nylon tripod straps and work better IMO. They don't tangle as easily as more flexible straps.

I can post a photo when I'm back home if you like.

Hermann

Please!

 

[CMB]

Please!

We use an Op/Tech tripod strap when needed...

You can get them at Amazon, B&H Photo, etc.

Here is a link to the product at the manufacturer's site. (no affiliation to them)

Tripod Strap

MSRP $39.99 - $44.99 Offered in two styles to fit most tripods Swivel Hook version accommodates tripods with an eyelet on the center post Easy to attach and remove with quick disconnects Very strong, durable and washable The Tripod Strap incorporates all the weight reduction qualities of...

www.optechusa.com

 

[Hermann]

Here's a photo of one of my tripods (Gitzo GT2541 with Gitzo 2180 head) with its leather strap. That leather strap is over 25 years old and still going strong. Only needs some leather dressing every two years or so. The inner side is covered with some cloth that has got a rough surface with some rubber woven into the material in the middle so it doesn't slide off your shoulder. That's a big advantage over most modern nylon straps in my opinion.

Hunters in Germany normally carry their guns over the shoulder, and many of them use such leather straps. The straps are almost indestructible, there are no plastic buckles and so on that may break, especially after years of exposure to the sun. (Yes, this does happen, saw it once in the field, and the result wasn't pretty. Killed a brandnew scope.)

BTW, I don't always carry my tripod+scope on the strap, I often switch between carrying it in the hand (especially when I expect to set up the scope all the time) or on the shoulder. When I carry it on the strap I also vary the way I carry it - with the legs extended legs in front or at the back, with the legs not extended scope up or down. When I expect to walk longer distances where I won't need the scope I attach the tripod to my backpack and put the scope into the backpack.

Hermann

 

[GrampaTom]

Here's a photo of one of my tripods (Gitzo GT2541 with Gitzo 2180 head) with its leather strap. That leather strap is over 25 years old and still going strong. Only needs some leather dressing every two years or so. The inner side is covered with some cloth that has got a rough surface with some rubber woven into the material in the middle so it doesn't slide off your shoulder. That's a big advantage over most modern nylon straps in my opinion.

Hunters in Germany normally carry their guns over the shoulder, and many of them use such leather straps. The straps are almost indestructible, there are no plastic buckles and so on that may break, especially after years of exposure to the sun. (Yes, this does happen, saw it once in the field, and the result wasn't pretty. Killed a brandnew scope.)

BTW, I don't always carry my tripod+scope on the strap, I often switch between carrying it in the hand (especially when I expect to set up the scope all the time) or on the shoulder. When I carry it on the strap I also vary the way I carry it - with the legs extended legs in front or at the back, with the legs not extended scope up or down. When I expect to walk longer distances where I won't need the scope I attach the tripod to my backpack and put the scope into the backpack.

Hermann

Got it, thanks. Recognize that one...
My carrying techniques are evolving. Have learned the different places we go require different approaches. Some places scope is better off at home. But I guessed that going in. One place, I now carry scope in a skinny back pack and tripod collapsed and shortened till we get to the first viewing site. More pleasant. At others, I to pick up the whole thing by the neck, sorta out forward and just walk when views are close together. Then others tripod collapsed over shoulder for longer stretches. As with binos, we need to figure it out. To Ive adapted an attitude about it. Following last summer's surgery then breaking ankle, Ive been back on the trail as soon as possible each time, but have learned the relative inactivity of back to back recoveries, have left other parts of my body out of shape. So I now see the tripod and scope as a way to bring some upper body strength into birding.