jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Kin Wah Lee) (08/25/89)
Well, about two weeks ago, I posted a request for opinions on birding
scopes, since I am planning to purchase one in the near future. A
number of people were kind enough to reply, either by e-mail or on
the net and I have managed to put together a brief synopsis of their
views.
Many thanks to the following people for sharing their thoughts. If
I have forgotten anybody, my apologies - but I never received your
mail!
Gordon Hester (gh0t+@andrew.cmu.edu)
John Shipman (john@jupiter.nmt.edu)
Shun Cheung (shun@hou2d.att.com)
Mike Burger (mikeb@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu)
Marvin Rubenstein (marv@ism780.UUCP)
Jim Rising (rising@utzoo.utoronto.bitnet)
Greg Pasquariello (dune@cbnewsl.att.com)
Here is the poop:
(A) Binoculars vs. Scopes
A few mentioned not to totally rule out 10x binocs before buying a
scope. They are apparently worth checking out, and I certainly will.
Binoculars that are 10x may be difficult to use depending on the
person, so one should "try before you buy". One should also beware
of cheap 10x models which may display serious image distortion and
chromatic aberration. By far, the names Zeiss
and Leitz came up the most (for 10 x 40's), but they are on the
expensive side (around $700.00). Even the 7x Leitz's have such
excellent optics that it pursuaded one person to get those in lieu
of continuing to use Bushnell 10x binoculars. A good compromise in
cost may be the Leitz or Zeiss minis. One person cautioned against
the Nikon 12x36 compacts (don't focus close enough).
(B) Scopes
Here are the following brands that were recommended:
APPROX. COST
Kowa scopes ?
Questar Field Model $2000 (!!)
Nikon Fieldscope $200-$250
new Nikon spotting scope (same as above?)
Bushnell Spotting Scope (Trophy Model) $250
Celestron C90 $380
It seems that there is a variety of opinions here. Some persons
cautioned against using Bushnell or Bausch and Lomb products,
while others were skeptical about getting a scope that was too heavy
or too powerful (see also "Magnification" below). The bottom line
was that everyone was happy with what they owned, so there is no
definitive opinion here. See for yourself! (minor pun intended)
(C) Magnification
I got the feeling that 20x was the bare minimum. Many scopes had
interchangeable eyepieces which may also be worth getting (e.g.
40x and 60x). The Questar and Celestron could go up to 200-240x.
(D) To zoom or not to zoom?
The jury is still out on this one. Some persons said they had never
seen a zoom that was "worth a fig", while others said that zooms
were the only way to go. One disadvantage of a zoom could be
chromatic aberration and lack of quality optics. I suspect this
may also be a function of the brand name and price range. One
advantage of the zoom is the ability to scan at low power (greater
field-of-view) and then zoom in on a particular subject. The
one zoom that I was given specs for went from 15x-36x.
(E) Use with Cameras
There are a lot of problems using scopes as ultra-telephotos.
The big limiting factor seems to be the very small fixed f-stop
(e.g. f/8 or f/11). Moreover, some scopes cannot simply not be
used with a camera, while with others you will have to go hunting
around for an adaptor. Focussing may also be difficult and if
the optics in the scope are not of high-quality, it may be
impossible. If you do manage to overcome all of these problems,
however, it is possible to take some really good photos.
(F) Tripods and Shoulder Mounts
There wasn't much info here. Only one tripod was mentioned and that
was a Slik camera tripod to which a camera strap was fastened to
form a sling. Two people mentioned the interesting concept of using
a shoulder mount for raptors or tree-dwellers. It was also pointed out
that these would NOT be good for flighty (i.e. flitty) birds.
Their cost seemed to be around $70 and could be found in camera stores.
One recommended model was called a "Bushhawk".
(G) Other Considerations
And finally, here are some other factors that you may want to consider
besides the obvious ones (like cost, etc.):
portability
lack of colour fringes and other distortions
field-of-view
distance of closest focus
quality of optics
armoured models (e.g. rubber-coated, etc.)
objective size (for low-light conditions, the larger the better)
That's about it. As for myself, I still haven't made a decision.
I want to go out and try different models with all of these things
in mind. In addition, I'm going to check out a session being
held by NJ Audubon on Sept. 16 entitled "Optimum Optics", in
which they propose to review a variety of different models and
assess the advantages and disadvantages of each. The session (which
costs nothing) is being held from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
Scherman-Hoffman Sanctuaries in Bernardsville, NJ. Some of you
out there who live in the area might also be interested. I don't
know if you have to be a member of NJ Audubon to attend (I am),
but you can always give them a call at (201) 766-5787 to find out.
Once again, thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion,
and if anyone still has some thoughts, I'd sure like to hear them!
JIM
P.S. Does anybody out there have directions to get to Hawk Mountain?
Surprisingly enough, nobody has been able to tell me exactly how
to get there. Is it a myth? A legend?? A birder's Shangri-La???
An enquiring mind really wants to know! :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lee (jklee@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dept. of Geol. & Geophys. Sci. * THERE ARE STRANGE THINGS DONE *
Princeton University * IN THE MIDNIGHT SUN ..... *
Princeton, NJ 08544 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------