If this is not archived for those who will want to "see up close"
in the future - somebody is missing a bet .... Thanks, Michelle !


>Hi, Tweeters,
>
>My word, but I touched a nerve. I had a small mountain of responses to my
>request for your opinions on spotting scopes. Several people asked me to
>forward the results of my data collection, and I will try..but if I get
your
>address wrong, please forgive me. This is why I'm also putting it on
>Tweeters. I'd like to thank all of you for your advice, comments, opinions
>and help.
>
>Now then. Since my day job is data collection (no, no, no....I'm not the
bozo
>who calls you at dinner time and wants to know your opinion....I collect
>maintenance and operation data on M1A1 Abrams tanks.) I figured I'd tackle
it
>like I do at work. I tallied up all the folks who wrote me with opinions
and
>experiences.
>I also recieved several websites to look through. I'll put them at the end
of
>this report.
>I'm certain I"ll get some more responses, but I'd like to get this done and
>over with!!
>
>I received 18 actual brand name preferences, although I recieved a larger
>number of responses with general information and help.
>I did NOT request information on specific brands, so the data aren't
tainted
>by that. I did not count scopes that were bought ten or twenty years ago
>(i.e. Discoverer).
>
>The last category covered ''second level" scopes, in the lower price
ranges,
>($500 to $800) and are labeled as "Others". I discounted these because, as
so
>many of you pointed out, you get what you pay for. Over and over again I
was
>advised to stretch that budget and spend the money, because it's worth it
in
>the long run.
>I am fully prepared to eat peanut butter sandwiches for a couple months in
>order to afford a high dollar scope. (my husband may not think this is such
a
>hot idea, but he offered to buy it for me...and I didn't give him a chance
to
>change his mind!)
>
>I also did not count data such as "So-and-so has Brand X and his birding
>partner has brand Z." There were comments about other brands that I will
>cover but did not count.
>
>Of those 18, this is the breakdown:
>
>Swavroski (80 series): 6
>Leica Televid 77: 5
>Nikon, all types: 2
>Kowa: 1
>Pentax: 1
>Others: 3
>
>Comments:
>
>Swavroski: "...heavy, need a good, sturdy tripod" "Only Celestron is
better"
>"...heavy tripod, but it's motionless in the wind" "...angled eyepiece is
>easier to use, especially if many people of varying heights are looking
>through the scope. It's also less prone to damage if the scope should be
>knocked over." "...usable throughout its range. Any deterioration in image
is
>due solely to heat wave magnification. Zoom eyepiece has a wierd
>characteristic of presenting a smaller diameter image as you zoom from 20x
to
>about 40x, but then enlarges again. The 80 mm objective lens makes a huge
>difference in light gathering capability." "...outperformed my Kowa,
>particularly under low light conditions. I attribute most of this to the
zoom
>eyepiece which consistently delivers a brighter, sharper image at all
>powers." "(I'm) extremely happy with its performance. However, the total
>weight of this setup is right at 12 pounds, and one doesn't have to schlep
>very far before one starts to wish for a llama or a sherpa to bear it
around
>for one."
>
>Leica: "...make sure you get zoom lenses with top-quality glass" "...scope
>rotates on its longitudinal axis while remaining on target....(I also like)
>the snap up and down eyecups." ""...after eye surgery....I chose the Leica
>after spending over an hour comparing it side by side with Swavroski and
>Kowa. I have never regretted it.""
>"...my dream scope."
>
>Nikon: "more affordable, but I wish it had a larger exit pupil and longer
>eye relief, as I wear glasses."
>
>Kowa: "I love it." ""...the 82mm, non-florite (sic), 20-60 zoom...gave me
>less eyestrain, especially with the angled eyepiece. I have a good tripod
>with a video head... it's (the scope) armored and nitrogen filled, water
>proof and shock proof. Its wide aperture lets in lots of light. I couldn't
>see a difference between it and the Leica. I think the Kowa is the better
>scope.""
>
>Pentax: I had only one voice for Pentax, but the fan is absolutely
ecstatic
>about his, and I admit, it seems to have a lot going for it. He has the
W36X
>and the 72 mm eyepiece, and he says "the eyepiece looks like you could fall
>into the view!"
>
>No votes, but comments:
>
>>From the homework I've been doing, it seems Questar is to scopes what
Rolls
>Royce is to cars, but one person said "...the Questar had a crisp view, but
>the tripod was shaky."
>I may be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that Celestron is a subsidiary
>of Questar. One person looked through a CelestronC90 and had this to say:
>"...not thrilled with the view....fixed length eyepiece did not have great
>eye relief." "one had to be precisely aligned to see" through the scope."
>
>I also received many websites to check out. Here they are, and I apologize
if
>I get the address wrong...
>www.birdingpal.com
>www.betterviewdesired.com
>www.njaudubon.org
>www.buytelescopes.com
>www.cameraworld.com (this one is in Oregon, (no tax) and you get a 5%
>discount as a first time buyer, it says...)
>American Birding Association...I think that is www.aba.org, but I haven't
>done the searching yet,
>and
>Cape May Observatory, ditto.
>I also went to www.cabelas.com. I haven't had the time to check it out, but
>there seems to be a discrepancy in their web price and their catalog price.
I
>bought my Zeiss binos from them.
>
>Thank you, every one of you, who sent comments, advice and opinions to me.
I
>hope this helps those of you who asked me to share my findings with them.
>
>Michelle
>MBlanchrd at aol.com
>Oly, WA
>
>