math0065@waikato.ac.nz (05/06/91)
In article <1991May3.130407.9279@verdix.com> edm@verdix.com (Ed Matthews) asks several questions about scopes and tripods. I bought a Kowa 602 and Bogen tripod last year, after wanting a scope for some time. Here are my answers, for what they are worth. My overall advice is to go to a well-known birding spot and look through as many different people's scopes as possible, getting them to tell you why they like their particular one. (My experience was that everyone likes to talk about their scope, and they all like their particular brand.) Then get the best scope you can possibly afford, not neglecting your tripod. > What power range is most useful for birding? > What are the upper limits on power before heat waves and shimmer obliterate > the image? I have a wide angle 20x lens, which is suitable for looking over flocks, and, because of the wide angle, good for finding birds you have first seen through binoculars. I also have a 40x lens, which is good for looking at one stationary or slow moving bird (shorebird, usually). It is a simple matter to swap lenses, but I usually find the 20x more than adequate for my purposes. The 40x has a few problems with shimmer on hot days, and is hopeless for locating a bird. Much of this depends one how close you are to the birds you're looking at. > What are pros and cons of fixed power versus interchangeable power? Well, from the above you'll see that I have fixed power, and am quite happy. There is a disadvantage in the time taken to swap lenses, but in practice this does not seem to be important. Given that high power is only useful if the bird is (relatively) still, then the 3 seconds required to change lenses is not much of a handicap. Fixed power is allegedly clearer, but I reckon that clean lenses are more important. If you want to start an argument, ask a zoom-lens owner to show you something that a fixed-lens owner can't see, and vice-versa. > What makes a tripod worth having? > What makes a tripod cumbersome? A tripod is in my opinion essential, and, moreover, it is an important investment. Stability is the name of the game: you can see nothing if the scope if not steady. In New Zealand, things can be pretty windy, and the point of having a scope disappears as the wind comes up and disintegrates your view into a rapid series of vibrations. Thus I went somewhat overboard, and bought a really heavy tripod, but I can still see things in a pretty stiff breeze when others have given up. The downside is that I am restricted to taking my scope to places within reasonable distance from the car: I certainly wouldn't take it on an overnight or even day-long hike. Again, ask around. Most people seem to love their scopes, but are ambivalent about their tripods. > Can reasonable quality optics be had affordably? I'd love to have Kowa, > but it's not in my budget. Well, I have a cheap pair of binoculars, and quite frequently regret it. Of course, I don't look after them the way I look after my scope! I am glad I bust my budget over the scope. (If you think it is expensive in $U.S., try it in $N.Z.). I found that shops were ready to bargain over price (especially if you had a mail-order catalogue in hand). Hamish Spencer, (h.spencer@waikato.ac.nz) Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Waikato, New Zealand.