Bob Taylor writes:

(snip)
>In working on distant birds nothing beats a half-way decent scope. A
>better scope is a joy.

Roger both. Spend the most you can on a scope.

>But a really important part of the equation is the
>tripod. I use a relatively heavy Bogen (have a dent in my shoulder to
>prove it!

I saw Ken Klimko out there with a *tall* Bogen (Manfrotto they call 'em here
in Canada) that seemed pretty light for its size. What's the model of your
tripod, Ken?

>Yes, Christine I had it with me in Anchorage and used it to
>scope the waterfowl on Otter Lake.) tripod with an unconventional Slik
>pistol grip head. If you can point your finger at a bird you can usually
>point your scope pretty close with it.

But an animal to scan with aren't they, those pistol-grips?

>(Another sidelight after looking at
>any bird always return the scope to the lowest power if you get a zoom. It
>will make finding the next bird miles easier).

Definitely!

>I like the pistol grip
>because I usually share the scope with the kids in other countries and they
>can intuitively use the pistol grip.

That sound you don't hear is the sound of me biting my tongue on the obvious
next line as loud as I can. '-)

>For little kids I usually aim it at a
>sleeping dog, cow, goat, member of the Family, etc because they don't bop
>around so much as birds. You'll know when they can actually see something
>through the scope because you may not understand the language but the
>excitement is immediately evident. Kind of like 'enthuse a new birder' or
>'value the environment' and you'll be amazed at what they take you to see!

Wonder all round.

>Would others please add what they consider most important or helpful? I
>know that I'm overlooking much.

A scope with a bigger objective (75mm-80mm) grabs more light than a smaller
one (40mm-60mm): the field at low mag is usually brighter and the scope can
support higher mags at the top end before the image clarity goes to hell.
Whether to get fixed mag eyepieces or a zoom is a matter of taste; there is
no right answer. Some makers build a better zoom lens than others, though;
the Kowa 20X-60X does a pretty good job. One thing to consider if you get a
scope with a variety of eyepieces, is getting one with a sealed-off
interior, so that when you change eyepieces, you don't introduce moisture
and crud into the innards.

Another helpful hint: when you use your bins to scan, turn your scope 90
degrees to the direction you're looking and use it as a bins support--the
stability will effectively remove tremor and add fine-point detail clarity
about another 100 meters out. You'll be able to scan the tide-flat, settling
pond, mountain ridge etc. without your arms tiring out and process what you
see in stereoscopic rather than monocular vision. Much more efficient.

>>Bushnell Spacemaster spotting scopes are one of the best values on the
>>market. I a rubber armored Spacemaster with the zoom lens (15x-45x) and I
>>like it very much. For $300 +/- it is just fine.

The ol' Spacemaster is like the Volkwagen Beetle of scopes; it's the one
that most birders cut their teeth on, then trade up to bigger and brighter.
As an intro scope, I'll echo Tom to say it's just fine. There's two
reservations I had with it though: one, the image is duller--almost
sepia-toned in some that I tested--than most other more recently designed
scopes in that range--important because sometimes color tint is important to
fully appreciating a bird's plumage or establishing a fine-point ID where
precise description of hue is necessary; second, the relatively small (60mm)
objective reaches its Dawes Limit of resolution just below the 45X level
with the zoom so the image fuzzes at the the highest end--practically, I
found that just over 40X was the highest I could go with the Spacemaster
zoom and still retain finest-point detail.

Michael Price We aren't flying...we're falling with style!
Vancouver BC Canada -Buzz Lightyear, Toy Story
mprice at mindlink.net