Berlebach Report 112

[Ags]

Max load is 18kg. Luggage length is 58cm. Vibration damping is Very Good. Height is Ok for seated observing. 2.1kg weight. It's their second cheapest tripod. I get to pick the color. It's perfect!

Am I missing anything?

https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=267&sprache=english

[Piero]

Will you do imaging or just observing with it?  

[scarp15]

Perhaps consider the version that comes supplied with the tray / spread stopper. This model ought to be fine if you are fine for seated only observing. I have a Report 372, complete with 37cm tray and spread stopper. Extends to a height of 141cm / 56", which is excellent for standing and of course seated observing. I also purchased the bag for travel and carrying. Very happy with this, I use it with a porta 2 mount, Berlebach porta mount adapter, with a TV 76mm or very recently 85mm refractor.

[Ags]

Piero, I'm hoping to image galaxies with my 12" Newt. 

I suppose what I am wondering is if they quote 18kg load, how much of that is usable for visual?

[Chris]

Looks good for the little Mak. Are you going for the camouflage option 

[Paul73]

Can't fault the Berlebach tripods. I've got one of their 28 series and love it. You need a metal tripod made with scaffold poles to get close to the damping from one of these babies!

Enjoy.

Paul

 

[Ags]

I think I would need the camo version to get closer to the more elusive DSOs! Actually the boring Naturel finish looks best in my opinion.

Iain was referring to this variant: https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=173&sprache=english

This astro version give a load capacity of up to 25kgs which sounds rather a lot. I certainly wouldn't want to load it that high! But it should be able to cope with a C8 or similar I think.

One nice option, given I am a "price sensitive" customer is that I can get the non-astro 112 and upgrade it to the astro version down the line. 

[Ags]

Actually Berlebach say the spread stopper is not compatible with the photo 112. So I will have to save my pennies for the Astro version (70 Euros more).

[Piero]

On 05/12/2017 at 23:02, scarp15 said:

Perhaps consider the version that comes supplied with the tray / spread stopper. This model ought to be fine if you are fine for seated only observing. I have a Report 372, complete with 37cm tray and spread stopper. Extends to a height of 141cm / 56", which is excellent for standing and of course seated observing. I also purchased the bag for travel and carrying. Very happy with this, I use it with a porta 2 mount, Berlebach porta mount adapter, with a TV 76mm or very recently 85mm refractor.

Hi Iain, how sturdy is your report with your two refractors (76mm, 85mm)? Vibrations at high mags? 

p.s. I've been thinking about a Berlebach for my Tak for months....

[scarp15]

14 hours ago, Piero said:

Hi Iain, how sturdy is your report with your two refractors (76mm, 85mm)? Vibrations at high mags? 

p.s. I've been thinking about a Berlebach for my Tak for months....

Hi Piero, I have used the TV 76mm at high power observing, earlier in this year upon Jupiter, 4mm Delite, x120, very stable no issues with vibration damping. The quality of the Berlebach tripod, as others equally have expressed, is excellent. The TV85 is a quite recent purchase through ABS, only really used briefly at low power so far, I feel confident that there would be no concerns. As you will be aware, the TeleVue short tube refractors are a bit hefty or the common used phrase tank like, for their aperture, I would consider that the fairly light weight build of your Tak would be fine on this or similar.

[Piero]

10 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Hi Piero, I have used the TV 76mm at high power observing, earlier in this year upon Jupiter, 4mm Delite, x120, very stable no issues with vibration damping. The quality of the Berlebach tripod, as others equally have expressed, is excellent. The TV85 is a quite recent purchase through ABS, only really used briefly at low power so far, I feel confident that there would be no concerns. As you will be aware, the TeleVue short tube refractors are a bit hefty or the common used phrase tank like, for their aperture, I would consider that the fairly light weight build of your Tak would be fine on this or similar.

Thanks Iain. Food for thought as they say!  

I would not load this tripod with more than: AYOII (3.1kg), Tak100+clamp (4kg), BBHS (0.4kg), 35Pan (0.8kg), and maybe sometimes with the TV60+diag+24Pan(2kg) on the other arm..  [<11kg].   . So far I have the 1.75" SW steel tripod. At 5.7kg it attenuates vibrations in less than 1s. 

[Helen]

The other neat thing with the Berlebach report is that you can change the head insert - insert 7 is the HEQ5 etc head.  So I'm getting the 212 astro version to start (for Christmas) and then maybe get the other head if I think it is sturdy enough for eq use   For the moment though the plan is Tak 100 on either the giro-wr, the giro 3, or the AZGTwifi.  Easily transportable

Helen

[Ags]

I keep coming back to the stated max load of these tripods. The 112 Astro version gives a max load of 25kgs. Does that mean that it collapses at 26kgs, or that it remains fully stable up to 25kgs and at 26kgs it gets a little wobbly?

[Piero]

@Helen The Report 212 looks really nice.   Looking forward to reading how it works with your Tak. 

------

Another Berlebach that I find quite interesting for medium size refractors is the UNI 9 (https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=241&sprache=english ) assuming sitting all the time while observing. The adjustable column can be handy for preventing the tube to hit the tripod and regulating the eyepiece height rather than adjusting the chair. 

The idea comes from this: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/254938-which-berlebach-tripod/page-2#entry3244045 . The UNI 19 legs are 26cm legs longer than the UNI 9. Therefore, extending the legs of the UNI 9 for 26cm, allows one to achieve the same eyepiece position as shown in the photo (using a TEC140!). The Tak FC100 is 24 cm shorter than the TEC140, which means that 12cm of leg extension are not needed. Therefore, one could get a similar eyepiece position as in his photo, using the Tak FC100 f7.4, AYOII, and Berlebach UNI 9 with about 14cm of leg extension (=26-12). Plus a normal observing stool.

To me, advantages of the UNI 9 over the UNI 19 are weight and length. The UNI 9 can be taken into a large suitcase. 

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, Piero said:

The adjustable column can be handy for preventing the tube to hit the tripod and regulating the eyepiece height rather than adjusting the chair. 

My thoughts exactly. I enjoy this feature of my carbon tripod. I have ordered a Berlebach UNI 29C for domestic use and car trips.

[iPeace]

2 hours ago, Ags said:

I keep coming back to the stated max load of these tripods. The 112 Astro version gives a max load of 25kgs. Does that mean that it collapses at 26kgs, or that it remains fully stable up to 25kgs and at 26kgs it gets a little wobbly?

There's no way it will collapse at 26 kg.

[Ags]

In my experience when a manufacturer quotes a max load or similar figure, there's always a danger the marketing department "helped" with the calculations! So I would like the manufacturer to define their terms more clearly. But in general they never do.

[iPeace]

4 hours ago, Ags said:

In my experience when a manufacturer quotes a max load or similar figure, there's always a danger the marketing department "helped" with the calculations! So I would like the manufacturer to define their terms more clearly. But in general they never do.

For the record, Berlebach rates the UNI 29C at 20kg load tolerance. Having received mine today, I believe them, without any trace of a shadow of a glimmer of any doubt. 

To my mind, the only possible reason they rate the tolerance as 'low' as 20 kg is the (excellent) geared centre column on the 29C model; the equivalent UNI 28 (without the centre column) is rated at 50 kg - and I'm convinced this tripod will indeed easily hold that much if the centre column does not need to be operated.

[Piero]

@Ags  They have to state a maximum tolerance, It is just a guarantee from their side. Nobody stops you to add more way, it is just at your own risk. I tend to agree with you about the fact that a few mass producing companies can inflate their specs to make their products somehow trendier. I'd really doubt this is the case for Berlebach though. Generally, specialised manufacturers of high-quality items don't fake their specs, as their business is entirely based on the trust with customers searching for that level of quality. It seems to me that Berlebach is one of these companies.  

Anyway, if you want to imaging with 12" newton, I'd rather go for a Planet model.

For general observing with your SkyWatcher 150PDS, I'd go for a UNI model, whereas for general observing with your ST80 and Skymax 102, I would go for a Report model.  The report might hold the 150PDS (OTA 5.59kg if I am not wrong) + acessories + mount, but  I feel it will be very prone to vibrations. 

[Ags]

I have no doubt that 25kgs won't work very well from a stability point of view, but there's the question: what would? 50% of that? Or 25%? It's not useful giving a maximum figure that is not related to the actual usable load, which is what I'm interested in. Otherwise we are just guessing. Is there an accepted rule of thumb?

[scarp15]

For some models you can get additional (double up) leg clamps. I am not sure if the specified load for each model will include a tripod at full extension, although of course this is not generally standard applied practice. Quite agree with Piero, the specification of load will be accurate, with allowance for a little more tolerance. I had calculated the weight of my set up, cannot remember the figure which included TV76, porta mount, 31mm nagler, came comfortably inside the 18kg for a Report 372. Out of interest Berlebach provide a Bicycle rack holder, for their Report carry bags, grab & go and cycle. 

https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=392&sprache=english 

[Piero]

@Ags The issue is that the OTA length can affect the amount of vibrations. The longer an OTA is, the more a mount and mount head should be. Your 150PDS is 5.6kg (OTA only) and I assume it has a f.l. of 750mm. From the way I see an OTA of 750mm can sit on a Report, but this only for portable use. Adding eyepieces, finder, and a mount, you can easily reach 10kg. I believe the Report will cope with this as this weight is within its specs, but you might be limited to low power observations. Let's say that you are observing a planet. Would you enjoy vibrations lasting 2-4 seconds every time you focus? Or small vibrations every time the wind blows a bit? 

Anyway, I think it would be useful for you to contact Berlebach directly and ask whether the Report model you have in mind can cope with your 150PDS. I'm sure they will give you a fair answer.  

 

 

Some answers to your questions.

The way that I do for observing is to calculate the maximum payload (including the mount head) I am going to put on the tripod. Then I discard every tripod with a maximum payload less than twice that weight. After this, I consider other factors such as: 

- Is this tripod meant to be easily portable? (define what easily portable.. by bike? by car? to plane? to be moved around in the garden?...)

- How to observe: standing or sitting? If standing, the legs will likely be extended. This means that a more robust tripod might be needed.

- Central column? If so, this can decrease the sturdiness of the tripod. Therefore, more payload capacity might be necessary.

- is it meant for low power or general observing? For general observing (including high power) a sturdier tripod might be needed.

- how long is the OTA? Longer => sturdier tripod (and mount head)

- I would ask people with your OTA and figure out what sort of tripod do they generally use, what are their experiences, etc. 

 In the end it is a trade off and tends to go as more portable, less sturdy, more vibrations. 

 

Hope this helps

[Ags]

Thanks, I too have been working on 50% max load, but that is not based on experience so your answer is appreciated. I do have a 150PDS but I will be selling it early next year and replacing it with two scopes, probably an ST102 for widefield and a Mak127 for planets. I'm sure the 112 would cope with either of them but I do rather fancy both of them on either side of a giro. That would put me up to 10kgs with accessories but all short tube and balanced.

On the lighter side, "Would you enjoy vibrations lasting 2-4 seconds every time you focus?" - well, my current mount (ES Twilight I) has a damping time of 8 seconds, so I would be delighted with 2-4 seconds! 

I've had a long exchange of emails with Berlebach - I don't know if it is the language gap, but I have not yet had a satisfactory answer.

[iPeace]

28 minutes ago, Ags said:

probably an ST102 for widefield and a Mak127 for planets. I'm sure the 112 would cope with either of them but I do rather fancy both of them on either side of a giro

This is a fun idea - and I suggest that those who have never yet tried it consider the following:

• Using the one scope as a "super finder" for the other won't work as well as you might expect - a giro-type mount does not come that well aligned (what's centered in the view of one scope won't be centered in the other) and is not easily tweakable, certainly not mid-session
• Balancing two scopes of unequal weight - when necessary or desired - mostly involves adding additional weight
• Depending on the type of observing you generally do or plan to do during a single session, you may make far less use of one of the scopes than you expected (yes, I'm guilty as charged)

There's nothing wrong with getting a more sturdy tripod than strictly necessary - in fact, the actual observing will benefit. But if you're thinking of prioritizing choices based on a dual-scope setup, try to get a complete picture of how often you will use two scopes at once on a single mount and how much that's worth to you in search of the inevitable compromise.

 

[Ags]

I don't think the mak would have much light gathering advantage over the refractor (once you factor in edge loss, CO, two extra reflective surfaces...) so it would mostly be for doubles, for which a Startravel would be poor. It would be nice if I can get the "superfinder" working!