Telescope Reviews: Questar Tristand

I have the older style tri-stand with removable legs stowed in the pier. It has a 0-60 degree wedge, rather than the standard 30-90, old style with all metal knobs.

I really like the tr-stand concept, very in keeping with Braymer's clean functional approach, I think, although he liked his picnic tables

I usually set up indoors and then carry everything outdoors. Carry it back in when I'm done and let it dry out before packing the Q away in it's case. I can't explain exactly why, but it just feels much better than a tripod. This includes set up, take down and observing. In particular, I don't feel like I'm in danger of getting tangled in my tripod legs, as when I use my G1410, although it's more a psychological thing than a real issue with the photo legs.

Some people use old 8" SCT legs and wedges. I have an old set from a brand of ill repute so it will go unmentioned here, and prior to getting the tri-stand I used it. I've never had those old 1960's style heavy duty picnic tables to work from with just the supplied legs. Modern patio furniture just doesn't cut it. Anyway, the problem I had with the SCT wedge is that, when I am facing South in the standard observing position, the wedge is well on the other side. The result is that the little Q is too far forward for comfort. I'm leaning forward when I want to be well balanced. I don't know if this is unique to my legs and wedge, but I suspect it could be an issue with most SCT wedges since they all have more or less the same geometry and were designed for a fork and instrument that hung much further forward at your usual mid-latitudes. Just a point of research before going that path. The tri-stand is also more stable yet smaller and lighter, or at least the perception is that it is lighter because of it's compact geometry. There have been discussions here about the true weight of the tri-stand, which is apparently much higher than the published weight, somewhere around 24LB or so. While it wasn't fun carrying it through the journey to Aruba, for most use and certainly backyard use, it doesn't feel heavy at all, even with a Q on top. It carries quite well and there is no need (or ability) to retract or skinny the leg stance down to get it through the house and doorway. It's part of the reason that I think the overall design is somewhat ingenious in very subtle ways that can only be appreciated with use.

I also have a Gitzo G1410 and Markins M20 ballhead which I have used on occasion. The tripod is mainly for normal photography. I much prefer the tri-stand. I use a cheap old folding card table chair (remember those?); the height is perfect for me and very comfortable.

I find the altitude and azimuth adjustments easy to set precisely without too much creep or droop. I have a peculiar problem with my head where the two altitude tension adjustment screws seem to be too close to the long arcing geared teeth on the wedge. If I screw them in all the way, the metal screws contact the teeth, which is not good. My adjustment screws have white non-metal spring loaded tips. I can get a little tension on the spring before they encroach on the rail teeth. Probably just enough but I would like a little more. It might remove the little bit of droop I get when I set the altitude. I make up for the tension with some finger pressure. Not a huge deal but in such an otherwise exquisitely engineered device, it's an annoyance. I'd be curious to know how others find the adjustment screw spacing in relation to the toothed rail, especially in heads from other eras. Just out of curiosity, I guess. Seems to me that the screws should be 1/16" or so lower in the head to better clear the teeth.

Just for general knowledge, the Tri-stand heads can be problematic when used with a DSLR or other larger camera, and maybe even a P&S (don't recall the clearance with my CP 995 off the top of my head). The problem is the camera running into the "tail" on the wedge. This problem, I suspect, is exacerbated with 0-60 degree wedges because I think the tails are longer (but not sure because I've never seen mine next to a standard 30-90). For example, with a Nikon D200 attached directly to the swivel coupling, I can not get above 12-14 degrees declination when pointing South. I suspect a 30-90 wedge might get me another 10 degrees or so, but not sure. Paradoxically, although Tr-Stands are considered to be more important for photographic use (due to their increased stability compared to all but the most beefy tripods), I have been doing my astro photography from the G1410 just to ensure I have clearance. Something to consider and a point of research if one were to run into a 0-60 wedge used, as I did. In my case I put it to good use down in Aruba for the 1998 Solar Eclipse, but since then would have preferred a 30-90 wedge. Another minor drawback to the 0-60 wedge is that since it cannot be placed for 90 degrees declination, it cannot be set horizontally for easiest and safest mounting of the Q (and as recommended by Questar, I believe). I just have to hold the Q carefully with one hand as I screw in the 1/4-20 with the other, being very careful to make sure it's really screwed in before I let go

I've never dropped the Q (knock on wood) but it's one reason I like to set it up either indoors or before dusk.

One other issue worth mentioning is "stability" because my assessment is different than others, bassed on threads I have read. Some consider the Tri-stand to be "more stable", in the context of more difficult to knock over. I disagree, but only because my reference of comparison is the rather large and heavy G1410. With a smaller tripod, such as a Gitzo Series 2, that may not be the case. The G1410 has a very wide leg stance and I think it's more difficult to knock over a mount with a wide leg stance. if I were setting up in a public area, I would set my G1410 up so that it is at eye level for most adults (anyone 5'0" or taller). Taller = wide leg stance. While I think the tri-stand is surprisingly stable considering it's very narrow leg stance, there are physical limits. This is a double edged sword because the relatively short legs in the pier configuration is what makes it so easy to move about and through the house when fully assembled. I rarely have people around when I observe, so, for me, it is a good trade-off. I also want to point ou thtat htis is my perception, not something I have tested. I am just not fully comfortable with the tri-stand around other people. Having a tripod alternative solution, I just do what makes the most sense at the time.

P.S. I think this is my first post here. Nice forum and made for some entertaining reading this past weekend! I also have Q7 with fork mount, but that is another story for another thread...

Regards,
Neil