Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Ive read all the posts on tripods, but based on these quotes im still confused.
777Guy Quote: Reference to the Bogen 3011N Tripod and Bogen 3130 Head
"In fact, ATWBS had a 25x100 Burgess Giant binocular mounted on the same head and tripod and seemed quite stable."
Bluewaterobserva Quote:
"On Oberwerks site, or maybe BigBinoculars their sister site, is a $200 setup,(Bogen 3011N, Bogen 3130 Head) that some feel under mount them, but I have been extremely pleased with it for me 25x100 binos"
Edz quote:
"Bogen tripods are excellent. A medium weight combe like the 3211 legs with a 3130 head is very stable and tall. Could probably hold 8# with ease."
Erik D quote; "Your Oberwerk 20X90 weighs 8.6 lbs and is about 17 in long. You will NOT be happy with the 3130 head."
and
"The Bogen 3221WN/501 combo is the minimum set-up I'd recommend for anyone thinking of getting 22/25X100mm super giant binos."
I dont doubt all these gentlemen know what they are talking about.
The 3130 specs call for a max weight of 9 lbs. The Oberwerk 20x90 is listed at 8.6 lbs and the 22x100 and 8.8lbs respectively. (I could not find a published weight for the Burgess 25x100 referred to above..but it must be close to the Oberwerks)
It seems these big binos are "right on the edge" of the capabilities of the 3130, what does this mean in the real world? Up to the task or no? I know (its been said over and over) that the 501 is perfect...its also more expensive, so for now its the 3130.
Any clarification greatly appreciated,
Tyler
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Get some clarification from Erik about his noted problem with the 313o head if possible. The weight of the 22x100 binos is right on the edge on the weight spec. I would go for the 501 head....at least then you would know for sure that weight will not be an issue.
|
BluewaterObserva
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 4763
Loc: Zuni Mtns, NM
|
|
I will qualify my statement some, and say I am not so picky at all. Even on a telescope, I can accept up to about 9 seconds of dampening time before I call it poor.
I'd rate my setup as highly functional, it could be better, it could be worse, much worse. lol
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
If you acquire a mount too robust for its intended application, all you have done is overspend. Your optic will be stable and no mounting issues will arise to spoil the viewing. Undermounted optics will frustrate observing sessions rapidly. I have a large (13lb) binocular and opted for the Manfrotto 516 head. No regrets.
Good luck.
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Just as a data point, I bought the Burgess magnesium tripod and head because I was dissatisfied with the stability of my Bogen 3221WN with 3130 head when used with larger binos and spotting scopes. It's a far more stable platform, though it can't accept any heads other than the rather unique one it comes with. The competing Bogen tripod is a pro video tripod in the $400-$500 range.
The joint where the standard Bogen photo tripods extendable columns join the tripod is one major wobble source. Another, are the lever lock leg joints. This is true of all of the 3000, 3100 and 3200 series that feature those items. By contrast, the weak spot in the Burgess Mag tripod is the flimsy and useless leg spreader that it ships with. Fortunately, that's easier for the end user to fix, than are the problems inherent in the most popular Bogens. If considering a Bogen tripod for large binos, and weight isn't of paramount importance, I'd consider one of the ones with a geared crank center column, dual tube leg uppers and folding leg spreaders. But, there again you're moving up into the range of pro video tripods, and that gets expensive, quickly.
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2554
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
I have two Bogen 3128 fluid heads.( same as 3130 without the QR plate). The 8-9 lb spec for the 3130 head is mis-leading... The head may be able to hold 8 lbs for still photo if you tighten the altitude knob all the way and your camera is horizional. The head can NOT pan smoothly if you tighten the knob to hold a 8 lb load at +60 deg.
I found the Bogen 3130 marginal for my 5.5 lb Orion 20X80. It's much better with the Bogen 501 head. There is no way I would put my 8.5lb 25X100 binos on the Bogen 3130.
The Bogen 501 is available form NYC mail order for $135. Yes it cost more but to me it's well worth the extra $$. You will get bigger and better optics later if you stick with bino astronomy but get the right mount/tripod and you are set forever.
Erik D
|
BluewaterObserva
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 4763
Loc: Zuni Mtns, NM
|
|
Interesting how picky people can be, and how not picky others can be.
As I said, I'd rate it as highly functional, it could be better, it could also be much worse. Having so many levels of personal preference on what is acceptable and what is not, has got to be tough on people new to the hobby.
I actually love my $200 Bogen tripod / head combo with the 25x100's on them. If ultra smooth panning is what your expectations are, then you should definetly spend more money. It seems obvious enough to me, that just looking at the weight specs, that the setup will just pull it off for functionality.
I mean I have also seen many posts that a 4 second dampening time is unacceptable to some on here in a telescope. And I would rate 4 seconds as very good to excellent myself. So it just goes to show you. lol
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I wish the 3221WN tripod had an elevator gear crank. It is not terribly inconvenient as it is, but a smooth gear system to raise and lower the head would have been nice. I think the Bogen 475 tripod has that feature.
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2554
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
NW,
I have the Bogen 3221WN as well as the Bogen 3246 tripod. Both are topped with 501 heads with dual pan hangles. I use them with binos ranging from the 3.6lb Burgess 20X80 LW to the 8.5 lb 25X100 ProOptics. The 3046/3246 tripod has a long gear center column with non-rollback gearing and is nice for heavy loads. However, in practice I found the "rapid column" of the Bogen 3221 works just fine. The 3221WN is a few pounds lighter than the 3246 so I usually pack the 3221WN if I am traveling.
Even though the geared center column of the 3246 will not roll back under load it must be locked to prevent it from rocking/roating. The center column must be unlocked to make make height adjusment.... making the height adjustments a two-step process. By comparsion, the Qucik-Set Sampson tripod center column is very secure without having to be locked down. You do not have to unlock the center column knob each time to make height ajustments. It's also rated or a 40 lb load! The price of the Sampson tripod legs alone is ~$700. You get what you pay for.
Erik D
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Wow. The Sampson tripod does not have to be locked down even at 40 lbs? That's a very very nice feature. BUT, at that price (ouch), I think I'll stick with the 3221WN.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Erik, your thoughts are just what I considered. That it will "work", and hold the 8+ lb load but do it poorly. Panning smoothly is something thats important to me, so im glad to hear your experience with this head.
Bluewaterobserva, you hit the nail on the head, it is VERY tough on someone new to the hobby trying to decipher all the options. I currently use a VERY cheap tripod with my 11x70s that couldnt have cost more the 20 dollars, with a little tuning ive managed to get it to pan smooth and work for me.(Dupont Aerosol Graphite spray on all the head joints) Im ok with it for now. Could it be better? Sure......but it gets the job done.
Thanks for the input.
|
BluewaterObserva
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 4763
Loc: Zuni Mtns, NM
|
|
I tend to just star hop with the 25x100's, I tend to still pan around hand held with my 11x80's. Probbaly why the not so smooth panning doesn't bother me all to much. I use the 25x100's much more like a telescope than traditional binocular use.
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2554
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Tyler,
In addition to two Bogen 3001 tripods with 3128 fluid heads I must have more than a dozen tripods in the house purchased for $15-$150 each. These were bought used from flea markets or camera stores. Among them are 4 non-Bogens but are tall enough for standing observation. I found that after I purchased the Bogen 3246 and 3221 WN tripod 3 years ago I just don't use them anymore. With all the money I spend on that many used "heavy duty" tripods I could have saved the money and a lot of cluter in the house if I just bought a tall Bogen tripod in the first place.
The great thing about having a CN forum is that we get to share information with those have done the research and pay the $$$ to learn. I'd say if you can get by with the tripod you have now that't fine but do consider something like a Bogen 3221, 3046 or 475 tripod with a 501 head if you want to upgrade later.
Erik D
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Erik, point well taken, I think your right....in the long run the little extra cash will be well spent.
For my intended purchase the tripod I have now is nowhere near adequate, it just cuts it with the 11x70s. But it is little hard to swallow close to $700 for a big bino setup, (OB 22x100 and Bogen tripod/head) which is why I had the question I did on the 3130....its somewhat cheaper than the 501.
I appreciate all your input/advice, now hopefully Ill avoid the dozens of un-used tripods just to end up with a quality setup... 
Tyler
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Tyler,
A wise decision which I'm sure you will not regret.
Regards -- Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
Tpalmer,
I recently purchased a Miyauchi 20x77 Exceed binocular that weighs 6.2 pounds. I bought a new Manfrotto 475 tripod and a Bogen 3130 head. It is a very stable platform that dampens any vibrations to 1 or 2 seconds. I like the vertical crank adjustment on the 475, the image stays on target as you adjust up or down. With the 45* Occulars I can now scan the zenith with a lot more comfort. In my opinion, this setup would be adequate for any binocular under 11 pounds. The only thing I am not sure of is that some giant binos such as my Fujinon have long arms and most of the weight seems to be distributed towards the objective end, this might overtax the 3130 and make panning uncomfortable. The Miyauchi doesn't have a long arm and is balanced fairly well.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Jim,
Just as a I had it all figured out! Seriously, thanks for the input, I really do wonder if it would suffice for me. So you say it works nice huh? Its sounded like from others that yes it will hold the weight but has to be tightened so much to do it that it wont pan smooth.
Its a very subjective thing, I dont have stores or access to any of this equipement, if I could put my hands on it I think the decision would be much easier.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
The Bogen 475 tripod, I have read and have heard from testimonials, is quite nice. The 501 head can handle the big binos with the heavy objectives. I would suggest to anyone to get the 501 (or its equivalent) if there is even the slightest chance of going in the big bino direction. And to match that with the 475 tripod (or its equivalent) is an nice, life long, dependable setup.
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
NW,
I think that you are probably correct in your recommendation for a 501 head and 475 tripod for giant binoculars. If the Miyauchi had a longer arm, the 3130 would be overtaxed and you would have to overtighten the vertical adjustment to prevent the binocular from taking a nose dive. It is weird though because I did try out a Burgess 25x100 on a 3130 head and it seemed to be adequate. I don't recall any problems panning in the vertical. I did have my Burgess 15x70s on a 3130 head and if you weren't careful, the binos would take a nose dive toward the objective end IF the vertical wasn't tightened enough. However, using it was fine and it was smooth and would stay on target without much effort. But, if I were to obtain a 25x100 I would probably opt for the 501 head. Now if that isn't confusing! 
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
777Guy wrote:
>I think that you are probably correct in your recommendation for a 501
>head and 475 tripod for giant binoculars.
I'm not so sure. It's acceptable for objects of altitudes up to about 60 deg (although you may wish to adjust the position of the mounting plate for various altitude ranges within this), but is very difficult to use at high altitudes because of the turning moment on the altitude bearing of the 501 head. This is exacerbated by the need to reverse the handle in order to get altitudes above about 60 deg.
See about halfway down:
http://astunit.com/tonkinsastro/binoculars/binomount.htm
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
sftonkin,
I was thinking only in terms of mass. I am not an expert on all the various head and tripod combinations for mounting giant binoculars, I was trying to keep it simple and as inexpensive as necessary. My 3130 head is adequate for my Miyauchi 20x77 because it is has better balance than a 25x100 that is 17" long and weighs a few pounds more. I have never used a 501 but understand it is a little beefier for handling heavier video equipment. With regards to high altitudes, I am able view perhaps 90% of the zenith with my 3130 head and 45* occulars. Thank you for your input Stephen and your attachment. What would be your recommendation for someone new to binocular astronomy that wants to mount a 25x100 but not spend more than necessary.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
>What would be your recommendation for someone new to binocular
>astronomy that wants to mount a 25x100 but not spend more than
>necessary.
I guess this all comes down to individual interpretations of the word "necessary". My Miyauchis came with the Manfrotto 475 tripod and 501 head for free,so I used that for several monthsuntil I got the P-mount. Observing was possible with the 501, so I guess the P-mount wasn't strictly necessary, but it was awkward to use for astronomy (although I still use it with the bins for terrestrial purposes).
However, since using the P-mount, the awkwardness of the 501 has been made more noticeable -- for astronomy it only wins on portability; it's not even that much quicker to set up than the P-mount.
If you want a pan-and-tilt-type head, then something like the Manfrotto 516 head ( http://manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=79&itemid=1737 ), which has been mentioned previously in this thread, would be better suited to heavy n×100 binocs, although the 501 is probably OK for those weighing less than about 10 lbs. Don't get me wrong; it can be used, but the 501 altitude tension can't be tightened sufficiently to hold 13.5 lb bins at high altitude, but to be even marginally usable it is so tight that the usual difficulties associated with getting close to the zenith are magnified. I also found that I would have to lock just below my target so that the weight of the binoc would shift it on target when I let go.
The bottom line for me is that I observe much more now I have the P-mount. From decision to observation is only about 6 minutes, which is short-enough set-up time for me under changeable UK skies.
Is this the sort of detail/opinion that you wanted?
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
Yes, thank you for elaborating. I really enjoy this forum as I am always learning things from folks like you that have the experience and knowledge that keep folks like me from making poor decisions about equipment. I have been considering a P-Mount for my stargazing sessions. Your comment that you observe more because of a P-mount is interesting and I am now more serious about adding a P-mount to my equipment. I find that my current set-up is adequate but perhaps not ideal with regards to observing near the zenith and tracking satellites which I like to do.
Thanks for the info and dialog.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
777Guy wrote:
[...]
>I really enjoy this forum as I am always learning things from folks like you
>that have the experience and knowledge that keep folks like me from
>making poor decisions about equipment.
This forum is certainly great for that -- it was only a few months ago that I
was asking similar questions about mounting my big binocs, and the
opinions of folk here were invaluable in informing my eventual decision.
However, one thing to remember is that once we get into the realm of
"best", "necessary", "adequate", etc., we are into the realm of personal
opinion.
> I have been considering a P-Mount for my stargazing sessions. Your
>comment that you observe more because of a P-mount is interesting and
>I am now more serious about adding a P-mount to my equipment.
One thing that you need to be aware of about P-mounts is that, because of
the tremendous moment on the tripod head, vibrations take significantly
longer to settle down. If you are considering getting one, one opinion you
should actively solicit is that of Barry Simon, who prefers not to use them.
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
Stephen,
Thanks again for your comments. The only opinion worth having is a personal opinion. P-mounts are definately something I need to investigate further.
Cheers,
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Stephen,
Thanks for the advice on the damping issue of the P-mount. I was looking at a long mount which would make the problem worse than the short mount. I may reconsider a mirror mount now and a geared tripod like the 475.
I find my Taks at 22x take some time to settle and are still sensitive to pressure on the eps when viewing. Part of the problem is the rubber washer on the hinge and I need to use some other more stable method of fixing. I was also thinking of fabricating a very heavy duty L-adapter.
Regards, Craig.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
Hi Craig,
IIRC, the S&T reviewer of the 22×60 Taks had them on a UA HD Unimount and found it a good combo. I have the 20/37×100 Miyas on a UA T-mount and, whilst the damping time is greater than I'd ever accept in a telescope mount (but then, I found a Vixen GP to be marginal for my Celestron C5 ), it is such a small fraction of the FoV that it is not nearly as obtrusive and it doesn't bother me any more.
As regards a long-arm P-mount, I take it you wish to be able to observe reclining and standing (and sitting) without having to adjust the 'pod? If not, would not a shorter arm be generally preferable? (Or, as usual, am I mising something?)
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
G'day Stephen,
More likely me missing something. I am still getting up to speed on the most suitable mount for star gazing.
I was looking at a P-mount which would enable viewing whilst seated or reclined as well as standing.
I'll have to log my viewing habits and work out whether the trade off between damping is better than having to adjust the height of the pod.
The binocular helmet is looking better all the time. 
Cheers, Craig.
--------------------
Takahashi FS-102
Fujinon FMT-SX2 7x50
Takahashi Astronomer 22x60
Edited by craig_oz_land (07/06/04 02:38 AM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 