Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

I've only been serious about birding for about a year, and for most of that time I've enjoyed simply walking through woods and fields with a friend. As with astronomy, I've been primary happy to view this as a solitary or private activity. However, recently I've started going on scheduled field trips with local birding groups. I cannot overstate the value of going afield with trained naturalists who can easily identify birds by sound alone and can identify enough of the flora to understand intimately just where and when the birds will likely be. The other huge advantage of going on these group field trips is that it's the best way to learn of new places to try later at your leisure.

Yesterday I went on an all day field trip with the local Audubon Society and it was the most sucessful single day of birding and nature observing that I've ever had. In addition to birding and botany experts, there were also 3 dragonfly and insect experts. At first I really didn't completely understand the importance of identifying the various plants and insects along the way. But towards the end of the day it finally dawned on me that the only real way to understand birds is to fully understand their habitat and complete eccosystem. (It sounds so obvious, doesn't it?)

By the end of the day we'd identified 77 different species of birds and 19 species of dragonflies and no telling how many plants and other insects. That's 77 SPECIES, not 77 birds. The actual bird count would've easily been in the mid hundreds. That's about double the number of bird species I'd previously seen in a single day. I was particularly thrilled to briefly see a yellow-billed cuckoo, and many Mississippi Kites. It also helped me to see both male and female Blue Grosbeaks and numerous Indigo Buntings of both sexes and differing maturity levels within the same day so as to better appreciate the differences between those species and the differences between adolescent males and females.

Anyway, the point of this post is just to encourage anybody that's been hesitant about these group outings to take advantage of any that are offered in your area. It's definitely not just a bunch of gray-hairs. Yesterday's group ranged in age from 7 to over 70 and interest levels ranged from casual to rabid. It was a great time and I learned a lot that I can now put to use on my more usual walks.

Mike Swaim

For a few years I've had this idea of making jumbo binoculars from paired MCTs. (Hey, it's less crazy than the several folks that've made them from paired Dobs!) The ones I have in mind are 1000mm compact, barrel focusing MCTs'. I'd like to pick this group's collective brains for potential downsides, pitfalls and project killers.

How much light and image quality would be lost from using two diagonals per scope (ie. 4 total) hooked together like plumbing fittings? I'm thinking of using either (2) 90*'s per scope or (1) 90* and (1) 45* prism per scope to act like elbows and to bring the eyepieces together in bino fashion. This seems like such an obvious idea that I'm sure there are some fundamental flaws in it that I'm blind to. Help me see what's wrong with this idea. I'd appreciate feedback on this.

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

Did folks on this forum notice the news in the TeleVue forum that they are going to become a US distributor for Vixen? This has the potential to substantially change the US large binocular market somewhat. I'm hoping that they'll carry the entire Vixen line of binoculars, spotters and telescopes.

My current nominee for best bang for the buck in astro and general use binos would have to go to the Pentax PCF V WP series being offered by http://www.swfa.com
They're offering $25 rebates on their already low prices for this line of waterproof porros.

I've owned two of the non-waterproof Pentax PCF series; the 16x60 and the 12x50's. The 16x60's compared favorably to the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70's and the 12x50's hold their own against Nikon SE 12x50's. In fact, in terrestial resolution tests, the Pentax 12x50's only gave up a couple mm's of resolution at 50yds. (I posted a detailed comparison in the birding forum some time ago.)

The fact that Pentax is now offering the series in a waterproof version, and almost the entire line (7x50, 8x40, 10x50, 12x50, 16x60) can be had for $125- ~$200 is darned amazing. The 20x60's are only a little more.

The optics on the two sizes I've tested have been very good, and are enough to just about negate my earlier concerns about their somewhat odd geometry and hard eyecups. Stars are clear almost to the very edge of the rather narrow fields. The hard part for me, now, is figuring out which of the lower power ones I want to add to the stable. Complicating the issue is the fact that they're offering $100 rebate on the roof prism DCF WP series. That would bring the price of a highly regarded phase coated roof prism bino under $300. I'm not sure, but that may be a first. That probably wouldn't be the first choice for astronomers, but it is noteworthy.

Regards,
Mike Swaim

I've tried repeatedly to post a full review of these binoculars, but it seems that no amount of editing will get the full review under the 3000 character max. So here it is in a nutshell. These binos currently have a $100 Pentax rebate, and that coupled with careful internet shopping means that they are available in the $250US range.

Pros:
Price
Phase coating
Long Eye relief (20mm)
Waterproof

Cons:
Coatings not up to standards set by Minox & Kahles
Flare and ghost easily
Some noticeable aberations
Flat colors

Bottom line: Good B+ roof prism binos in a price range previously unheard of for phase coated waterproof roofies. I recomend them for what they are.

Mike Swaim

I tried briefly to use an older, used store brand 60mm spotting scope. It was dim and hard to see much in.

Coming at birding from an am. astro bent, I thought that I had a better idea. I started out with a Celestron 100mm Mak-cass that has variously been marketed by Celestron and Orion. The trouble was that at low magnification the C.O. was visible as a black spot and the views always had a slight blur to them like the lens was lightly coated with fog or something.

Figuring that the concept was sound, but the optics needed improvement, I again tried to outfox the experts by getting an Astro Rubinar 100mm Mak Cass. Aside from numerous problems with the mounting ring that the US distributor flatly refused to correct, this thing was reasonably large and clunky and harder to put into quick action in the field than proper birding scopes. Trying to quickly put together an erect image diagonal and fit the right eyepiece meant that I was futzing with gear while the shorebirds were flying away, and I always worried about water, salt and sand. Images were pretty good once I settled on Meade super plossls, (after trying and rejecting numerous TV plossls for land use). But comparing images in this scope to dedicated birding scopes by Swarovski, Leica and Kowa really highlighted the fact that even a 100mm mirror scope is no real match for a high quality ED scope in the 77-82mm range. I was very surprised by this, and would've done well to learn from that lesson.

But I'm hard headed and really wanted something much lighter. So I got a lightly used straight 60mm Nikon Fieldscope III from a fellow Astromarter. It's a darn good scope, but the 20-45x zoom eyepiece doesn't do it justice. It's really at it's best at around 30x. This is in marked contrast to a friend's 77mm Leica which routinely handles 60x.

Summary: If you're going to get a spotting scope for birds and wildlife, do it right from the very beginning. Get a waterproof, lightweight, medium large aperature, high quality ED or APO dedicated spotting scope such as those by Kowa, Swarovski or Leica. If I would've done that, I could've saved a ton of money, lots of time and aggravation and would've spent more time looking at the birds than goofing with the equipment.

Mike Swaim

Like my forays into binoculars and scopes, my search for a really good spotting scope and photo tripod has led me to some definite dead ends and some possible solutions.

I started with a Bogen 3001 w/3D head. Despite whatever various review sites say about this tripod, I'd seriously suggest skipping it unless you're only about 5' tall. Having to rely on extending the center post to get necessary height is bad for both photography and for spotting.

Next came the Tiltalls. I've had two; one old and one new. They're darn good tripods for the money, but sand eventually makes screwing the locking collars tight very difficult. Still, I'd not rule this out as a lightweight, suitable tripod for scopes up to about 70mm and for 35mm photo work, IF the newest version with the quick release head has solved the problems of trying to screw the scope/camera onto the threaded post. The old cork washer head top meant that repeatability was more of an idea than a reality.

A briefly misguided Ebay mistake led to a Davis & Sanford Traveler. Barely worth throwing in the trash. Utter garbage.
I then experimented with monopods and shoulder pods. Neither is worth much discussion in a spotting scope thread. Shoulder pods can be used to some good effect with spotting scopes in the 60-65mm range, but the length of the viewing is really limited and quite frustrating.

Then I got "smart" and got the highly recommended Bogen Wilderness 3221WN w/3030 quick release head. This was my first experience with a quick release head, and I would consider that feature mandatory for any serious birding tripod. This is a relatively heavy tripod, and while it's steady enough for any 80-100mm spotter, it's just too much to lug 5 miles in the summer sun when loaded with optics, photo junk and water.

Finally, I got even smarter and got a Velbon Chaser EL 3A with pan head and quick release. This is a good, inexpensive, lightweight tripod for scopes up to about 70mm (maybe light 77mm??) I don't expect it to last forever, but it's a good lightweight tripod. It's my current favorite of the non-graphite, non-super expensive tripods.

Conclusion: Lightweight, full height, quick release/lock legs, quick release, full range head should all be considered minimums for a spotting scope tripod. I'd have done lots better, and come out lots cheaper to simply buy the top of the line carbon fiber version of the Velbon or Gitzo right from the start. But who wants to spend that kind of money on a tripod, until they've actually learned why it makes sense? ;-)

Mike Swaim

Does anybody have any first hand experience with Burgess Optics binoculars as compared to other astro binos? As a long time bino enthusiast, I wasn't expecting much from yet another Chinese bino importer, but have to admit that I was quite impressed with what I could see of Bill Burgess's most recent offerings at M.A.S.P. based on simply looking through a table full of glass during the day. I wound up buying a set of birding binos from him that impress me a lot, but am really, really, really curious about his 25x100's and other dedicated astro binos. Is there anybody out there really keeping up with the various and ever-improving field of Chinese import binoculars? Got any thoughts on Burgess vs. Oberwerk vs. the world?

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

At the Mid-Atlantic Star Party I chatted with a fellow named Bill Burgess. He's known mainly for providing quality focusers, but is getting a name for himself for his line of jumbo astronomy binos at reasonable prices. He showed me a 7.5x32 roof prism bino that impressed me so very much with it's optical clarity that I wanted to buy it immediately. His assistant said they were $99 and I thought this has to be one heck of a bargain. Then Bill chimed in that they were on sale for $69. Of course, I simply had to have them.

They're black rubber armored, waterproof, (yes, nitrogen filled!), center focus roof prism binoculars that compare very favorably to roofies in the $250-$400 range. They feature captive objective caps, a soft rubber rain guard, (eyepiece cap) and a decent little nylon case. The strap sucks, but at this price, I'm not going to be picky. But I've saved the best for last: the objectives are reported to be broad-band coated triplets. I've looked and looked trying to find false color in these, and it just doesn't appear to be there. They show true colors.

I believe these to be the same Chinese imports that Eagle Optics is marketing as their Denali line. They feature so much eye relief that eyeglass wearers are having to screw out the eyecups just a bit for best viewing. Oh, yeah, they have screw out eyecups rather than the chinsy push-pull eyecups like on the Pentax DCF-WP 8x42's. In fact, speaking of the Pentax DCF-WP's that BetterViewDesired raved about at $500, and I raved about at $250, I think these little Burgess may have them beat on several counts before one even gets to cost.

The only single negative that I've heard when showing these Burgess 7.5x32's around was one woman had trouble getting the images to merge. That's almost to be expected with any binocular given enough of a sample group. The other dozen or so folks I've shown these to has simply loved them. They are the best buy in birding binos today and easily compare to far more expensive roofies. Mind you, they are no substitute for binos in the Minox/Kahles or Leica/Swarovski class, but at this price they don't have to compete with those markets. They make a great second bino; one to have in the car, or one for the spouse, etc. Heck, at this price, they make great gifts. Bill says he'll honor that price through the end of the year. Tell him I sent you. ;-)

Mike Swaim

Recently, I've been reassessing the whole idea of optics to leave in the truck. I started off a few years ago, with a cheap 10x25 binocular that a well meaning relative had given me. I couldn't really find a use for them, so I left them in the glovebox "just in case". They proved to be so dismal, the few times that I used them, that I searched out the best mini-binos that I could find. I settled on the Minox BD 8x24 porros. These were brighter, but still tough to really use for any extended period of time. Gradually, I worked my way up through a series of 8x30's including Optolyth and Steiner, finally settling on the excellent Burgess 7.5x32s.

For some reason, I subconsciously was constraining myself to binoculars that were small and reasonably inexpensive. But then I started really looking at the way that I actually use optics when I'm not set up for an optical adventure, and what I concluded was that larger, more powerful optics were really what was needed.

Typically, I find that when I need optics and haven't pre-planed, it's because I want to ID something fairly far away. Trying to decide if the ducks on the stock pond across the pasture are Mergansers or Buffleheads, or trying to decide if the bird on the wire is a Kestrel or a Merlin, or a hundred other such routine usages, has led me to understand that 10x50's, 12x50's or even 15x70's make better "car" optics than any of the smaller, more typical "birding" binoculars. These days, with the influx of inexpensive, but good Chinese larger binoculars, having a larger set to leave in the truck isn't as spooky as it once was.

Generally, when stopping safely on the shoulder of back country roads, I can rest the bins on the seat or window opening, so holding them steady isn't much of an issue. Often, whether I'm dodging freeway traffic, by taking "the back way" or whether I'm purposely going out checking stock ponds for waterfowl, light conditions are fairly poor and having large aperature and plenty of magnification really makes IDs possible that wouldn't be possible with lesser sizes and powers.

I've become such a fan of high magnification, larger aperatures for quick peeks that I even mounted an older 60mm spotting scope on a shoulder pod. It's far more versitle and easier to use than a "window mount" and affords faster, safer views than dragging out a tripod.

Is anybody else extending their nature watching range in this way?

Mike Swaim