discussions regarding mounting issues with large aperture binoculars. The consensus
amongst the group appears to be that giant binoculars in the 70mm-100mm range require
a HEAVY DUTY tripod. There is a small measure of disagreement when it comes to
defining a "heavy duty tripod", but conventional wisdom states that a binocular should
weigh no more than the tripod/head combo is rated to support. This would also appear
to mesh with what common sense should dictate. The tripods of choice, at least here on
Cloudy Nights, for heavy binoculars are of the Bogen/Manfrotto line. Bogen has a long
history of manufacturing quality tripods that are built to withstand the increased weight
of large-aperture binoculars. Bogen tripods are rock solid and Bogen tripod-heads are
equally secure and capable. It appears to be a "no-brainer" that any person who plans
on using a giant, heavyweight binocular should mount said bino on a Bogen tripod/head combo.
While this is the answer for many, and for some the argument ends here, there is a
not-insignifigant segment of the binocular-astronomy crowd who simply cannot afford the
substantial cost of a Bogen setup. A typical Bogen setup can cost in excess of $350-400 US.
For some, spending ~$400 in a good tripod setup does not present any financial difficulty,
but others (like myself) cannot afford to spend ~$400 to mount a ~$200 pair of binoculars.
So what alternatives exist for those with big-budget tastes on a low-budget checkbook?
Obviously, anyone spending ~$1000 on a quality, large binocular, will likely have
the financial wherewithal to purchase a decent Bogen setup. For such persons, there is
no logical reason to save money on a mount and try to pinch pennies with a cheaper tripod.
If however, one's budget is limited to ~$100 US for a mount/tripod, there are two possible
solutions.
1) For smaller "large" binos, like the 70mm class, a simple photo tripod may work. I own a
pair of Celestron Skymaster 15x70mm binoculars. This pair was my first entry into binocular
astronomy and I had virtually no funds to spend on a mount. The binos were a Christmas gift,
and I had erroneously assumed that I could use these 70mm by hand-holding them. After discovering
that handheld 15x bino-astronomy is next to impossible, a tripod was in order.
The 15x70mm Skymasters are stated to weigh exactly 3 pounds by the manufacturer. I need a
tripod for a 3# binocular, and I needed one fast. I didn't have the time or patience to order
a tripod online and sit around for a week or two waiting for it to arrive in the mail. I
wanted a tripod immediately, so I set out for the only place in my town that sold tripods - Walmart.
At the time, Walmart stocked two tripods in their photo department. One was a "lightweight" tripod
rated to hold 2# (retail $24.99), and the other tripod was exactly the same but had a taller
center post adjustment (56" versus 48" for the smaller model). The taller model retailed for ($29.99).
Both had the same 3-way pan head, L-shaped sectional legs, center spreader with accessory hook,
built-in compass-level, and quick-detach camera adapter with 1/4" standard thread. I opted for the
cheaper $24.99 model. So I bought one and took it home for use with my 15x70mm Skymasters.
Ok, red flag goes up : The 15x70mm Skymasters weigh 3 pounds, the tripod is only rated for 2 pounds.
Another factor to consider is that photo tripods are designed to be used with cameras, not binoculars.
A camera is a very compact object with a low center of gravity. In comparison, a large-aperture binocular
that is sitting atop a L-bracket or similar tripod-adapter is quite bulky with a higher center of gravity.
One can assume that the inherent issues of using a binocular on a camera tripod will place extra stress on
the head assembly. Taking this into account, it may be safe to "error on the side of caution" and
factor this increased stress-load into the rated load for the tripod/head combo. So I have heard some
experienced bino-astronomers suggested using a photo tripod that is rated for DOUBLE the weight of the
binocular in question. This will help ensure that the presumably under-engineered camera head will not
fail under the increased stresses of supporting a heavy binocular it was not designed to support.
Again this seems logical and common-sense, but the retail cost of "heavy duty" tripods rapidly increases
in relation to maximum-load capacity. Most "cheap" tripods are only rated to support 1 to 3 pounds.
As the load capacity of a given tripod approaches the 10 pound threshhold, the retail cost of that tripod
approaches $100 and can quickly escalate to ~$200. Thus, following the common-sense "rule" of
doubling camera-tripod load to safely approximate binocular weight, can quickly lead back to the original
problem of financial budgetary restraints. So let's throw common sense out the window and see what
actual use and first-hand experience can teach us...
The flimsy, plastic tripod adapter that came with my 15x70mm Skymasters was too flimsy and shaky for
serious use. I quickly discarded it and went to eBay and purchased a solid, metal, Pentax-style, tripod
adapter for ~$15. This combined with my tripod purchase of $25, put my end mounting cost at ~$40.
What is the verdict? The Walmart tripod was more than capable of supporting the 15x70mm Skymasters through
all the rigors of stargazing. Although the head was a suspect-looking affair of 90% plastic, it admirably
and flawlessly held my binoculars in a secure fashion. One slight modification was in order : the tripod
head has a "flip up" function to faciliate "vertical" photography where the camera is turned on it's side.
Such functionality was totally useless for stargazing applications, and the hinge/catch for this part of
the head was a potential failure point. So with a liberal application of strong glue, I forever sealed this
portion of the head and in the process shored up a weak point and source of vibration. The tripod itself
is a typical example of low-end, mass-manufactured product with dubious overall quality. As a result,
the legs are hollow and very light, and the center spreader is very flimsy. The center height post has a
crank adjuster that suitably handled the weight of the head and binoculars. One cautionary note : when
the center post was fully elevated to maximum height, the tripod did become rather top-heavy. While not
entirely unstable, it is not recommended by anyone (including myself) to use a tripod in this manner.
Instead, I recommend never approaching the maximum extension height. My tripod was rated for 48" inches,
so I never extended it more than 42" inches. Observing this cautionary rule not only prevents the tripod
from becoming dangerously top-heavy, but it also helps to minimize vibration by making the center post
more secure. As a further enhancement, I hung a heavy counterweight from the accessory hook on the bottom
of the center spreader. This helped anchor the tripod securely to the ground to prevent tip-over, and it
also served to dampen vibrations by rendering the entire tripod more stable. I used this tripod-binocular
set up over the course of dozens of extended stargazing sessions and I never once had a problem. The tripod
never tipped over or failed in any way. Of course, the inherent limitations of the tripod were evident.
Viewing the sky near the zenith required a little creative positioning for someone of my height - approx. 6 feet
3 inches. But the limitations of the setup were not prohibitive - vibration dampening times were acceptable,
and the head smoothly and securely handled the binoculars in almost any position. All in all, I consider it
not only possible to mount a 70mm binocular on a light-weight camera tripod, but I would recommend such a
setup to those who require a minimal financial investment for their choice of mount. In summation, I would like
to add that using an under-rated tripod for one's binoculars always involves a certain amount of risk and
increased care should be taken when using such a setup. One should be keenly aware of the tolerances of one's
equipment, and remain fully aware of such factors as "center of gravity" while using an lightweight tripod
to stargaze. Having said that, with some consideration and care, this method works.
Ok, so I contracted aperture fever and ordered myself a pair of 25x100mm Skymasters. 100mm binoculars are truly
GIANTS in every sense of the word. They dwarf smaller binos like the 70mm model it terms of scale and weight.
The body of 100mm binos is roughly double the size of a 70mm binocular and the 100mm model weighs in at a beefy
~10 pounds (9.8 to be exact, according to Celestron). Obviously, a 10-pound binocular is entirely too heavy
to mount on a lightweight photo tripod that is rated for 1-3 pounds. Attempting to do so would be pure folly.
Well, when my big 100mm guns showed up in the mail, I realized I had overlooked the tripod issue. Now I had
a giant pair of 25x100 binos and nothing to mount them on. Throwing all caution and common sense to the wind,
I attempted to mount these big dogs on the same Walmart tripod I had used with my 70mm binos. This did not work.
No amount of custom-rigging or careful attentiveness will permit the use of these mammoth binoculars on such a
lightweight tripod. The aluminum legs of the tripod groaned and bowed outward somewhat under the strain of
supporting 10 pounds of binocular. The head was entirely overloaded and incapable of holding the binos in a given
position without much play. One could find the Pleiades for example and "shoot high" to aim the binoculars on it.
Then tighten the pan-handle VERY tight, and the binos would slowly sink downward until they arrived at the
intended target. Careful holding and coddling allowed some limited use, but the entire setup was entirely too
unstable. Seeing those big 100mm binos perched precariously on top of that $25 tripod was downright frightening
and an accident waiting to happen. So while a 70mm binocular is possible on such a tripod, a 100mm bino was
WAY out of the question. A bigger, heavier, tripod was in order.
A 10-pound binocular is nothing to scoff at in terms of mounting. Your standard lightweight, camera tripod will
NOT suffice - regardless of manufacturer or retail asking price. If one has custom-dewshields (like me) and
a finder-scope attached, the weight of a 100mm bino can exceed 11 pounds. Not only is this a lot of weight, it
also places a great deal of stress on the head-assembly when viewing in positions that stray from the horizontal.
Turning the binocular straight up to the zenith requires the head to hold such massive binos in a nearly vertical
position, which obviously places much more strain on a tripod head than a camera of similar weight. Using the
common-sense rule I cited above (doubling the rated weight of the tripod to handle a binocular instead of camera),
one would ostensibly need a tripod rated for 20 pounds or more to securely hold a 100mm bino. When it comes
to tripods in this category, Bogen rules the roost, and retail prices in the range of ~$500 US are the norm.
Many binoculars in the 100mm+ aperture range retail for ~$10000(!), so dropping another thousand dollars to
mount a five-grand binocular is another no-brainer. But chances are, if you are still reading this article
with interest, then you likely don't own a pair Fujinon cannons or have a hundreds of dollars for a truly
"heavy-duty" tripod. And that is another thing, many tripods that claim to be "heavy duty" simply cannot
support a 10-12 pound binocular, especially when said binocular is moved into position to view the near-zenith.
Here is where the options become somewhat limited for pinching pennies. With a 100mm bino, no amount of wishful
thinking will make a Walmart tripod suffice. One MUST purchase an expensive, quality tripod. But does this mean
one must spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars? No.
This is where the used market comes in. While purchasing optics, sight unseen, through the mail may involve a
great deal of risk, purchasing a used tripod is comparitively safer. A tripod is a simple piece of mechanical
engineering, and purchasing a used one is simply a matter of finding a candidate in the right price range.
I looked extensively at various online retailers for used deals, open box/demo deals, and clearance sales, but
I could not find a suitable, new, tripod for less than $100. So then I went onto eBay and started searching
the auctions for a used tripod. The majority of used Bogen tripod/head combos were selling for $175 to $250.
This was too much money for me, so I did some further searching. A stroke of luck lead to a great deal.
I found a Sanford & Davis, Tiffen Magnum tripod bidding for $30.00. This model tripod is quite large. It has
thick, tubular aluminum legs that have "screw-in-out" type leg adjustments. It has no center spreader, but due
to it's bulk and workmanship, it doesn't need one. The center post is adjustable for height, but it does not
have a center crank. The head is a two-way, fluid "F-10 type" head, that is as smooth as butter and has very
good mobility. This particular Tiffen Magnum tripod is black and is adjustable to ~72 inches in height. I
bookmarked the auction, came back later with about 20 seconds to auction closing and "sniped" the tripod for
$32 plus $15 shipping for a total cost of $47.00. A little digging on Google revealed that this tripod sold
for ~$149 brand new, and that it was rated to support approx. 5-7 pounds. (I forget the actual load rating,
since I have been unable to locate those specifications recently). This particular Tiffen tripod is billed
as both "heavy duty" and "professional" grade equipment. When it arrived in the mail a few days later, I
inspected my new acquisition and decided that the tripod was indeed "heavy duty". It had a nice, heavy feel
to it, and the legs are very thick and stable. The head has really fluid motion that allows precise aiming
that will hold on target without drift or sink. I mounted the big 100mm guns on this tripod and proceeded
to do some serious observing. Vibration is minimal, dampening time is minimal, and the overall mobility and
functionality of the tripod is excellent. While only rated for a fraction of my bino's 11+ pounds, the tripod
and head appeared to have no problems supporting the weight of giant binoculars. I had to mount the binos
"backwards" on the head, with the pan-handle pointing out in the same direction as the objectives, to
facilitate vertical-zenith viewing. Even with the binos pointing almost straight up to the zenith, the head holds
the position securely. When the center post height is kept within 66-68", the entire setup is very stable
and tip-over is not a worry. When the center post is fully extended to ~72", the setup becomes a little top
heavy, and some increased care and awareness is called for while observing in this configuration. It is
doable, but not recommended as a regular practice.
I have used my 25x100mm Skymasters on dozens of occasions for extended viewing sessions and I have never
encountered any sort of negative issue. Which leads me to believe that perhaps some of these tripods are
intentionally under-rated in terms of "maximum load supported". Perhaps the manufacturers would rather
error on the side of caution, than risk consumers damaging their gear and seeking reimbursement for tripod failure?
At any rate, it is my position that mounting and using large aperture binoculars on seemingly under-rated
tripods is not only possible, it is entirely workable for those with budget constraints.
In summary, I would like to clearly state that I am not advocating the use of under-rated tripods over
more capable models for those with the financial ability to purchase a rock-solid setup. Using an under-rated
tripod may violate your warranty if the binos fall over and break and the warranty-service catches wind of
the fact that your broken binos are the product of intentional use of an under-rated mount. And let me
also state that the use of the mounting techniques I mentioned above requires an increased measure of care
and awareness of one's equipment while using it. But with proper precautions and careful use, an under-rated
tripod can be a serviceable alternative to a high-dollar setup.
MikeG
