Digital Level

> Are digital levels more accurate than a standard automatic level?
Very much so. Loop closures under 0.01' are normal. If you get closures greater than that it is because your turning points aren't stable.

> Do you need special software to download the data, or can you get direct readings from the level and book it like a standard level?
You aim, press a button, and get the rod read out. Book as normal. Super simple to use. Some models will carry the elevation. At lot will record to SD cards or some such which most laptops can accept. All depends on what you want.

I've seen millimeters reasonably attainable with right equipment and procedures, and seen it repeated. I'm a believer based on limited experience, but not an expert.

Be sure you have a DC with software to support it, or test drive the onboard software.

I've seen guys resort back to hand field notes because the "included" software was so user un-friendly after they got into it. You still get better results easier, but part of the bonus is also the efficiency. You may still need field notes for detailed point descriptions.

Been a while since I ran one, but it seems like Trimble's DiNi would store shots and even run closures and adjust for you all in the level. It's kind of funny seeing 0.002' "adjusted" out of points in a run for most purposes, but technically it is correct to adjust first, and round off to your desired accuracy at the end.

> You aim, press a button, and get the rod read out. Book as normal. Super simple to use. Some models will carry the elevation. At lot will record to SD cards or some such which most laptops can accept. All depends on what you want.

With the Leicas you'll probably want to use software if you choose not to book the data. The Leica output is ASCII, but it's pretty cryptic. If you're handy with programming it's not too hard to write your own, but you'll spend a fair amount of time with the GSI manual before you get anywhere.

Yes, a digital level is much more accurate than an equivalent standard level. With decent turning points expect typical closures of 1-3 thousandths without much effort.

For most loops I just write down the data in the notebook, but it's much faster because all the math is already done for you. You will also know instantly if your closure is off, and it will give you the rod distance as well. I would only bother with downloading the data if I was spending all day doing levels. The newer models use flash or SD cards and probably have more than enough space to save decades worth of data if you ever need to look it up.

I haven't used a data collector with the level before but the Surveypro level module is for digital levels. I imagine it's pretty simple to run, there isn't a whole lot to leveling unless you're doing specialized adjustments.

If you do levels with any regularity a digital level is a very good investment. The elimination of reading and calculation errors is the main benefit, and the better accuracy and quicker operation is just icing on the cake.

I have ran 12 mile check levels with a leica digital level. With a hundreth difference. Used the LGO software to download and excel to adjust.

ITS THE WAY TO GO! 😉

Generally you should be able to use a data collector which is nice because it records the data. My 1998 HP-48 with Survey Pro even operates our Topcon DL-102C. Expect to get closures in the thousands using good procedures.

We have been using Leica Digital levels since back in the 90's. We currently use a DNA 10, and get second order closures using fiberglass rods. We had to Blue Book a project last year. Since we did not have the equipment to do the Blue Booking, Invar Rods and the 1st order level, we had one of our survey contractors who wanted to get into that type work do the leveling and Blue Booking. We had a recent run between 2 benchmarks with our DNA 10 and fiberglass rods. Our numbers were very close to what they got with a DNA 01, Invar Rods and turning turtles. We just turn on a big screw driver driven in the ground. We store the data, but usually book it too, and depend on the book unless there is a problem. I have adjusted a few networks with Star Lev.

I have used a Leica digital level some, and like others have said it can be a pain to learn.

I was always lucky enough to avoid being the guy to run the long level loops.
Our crews that did run the long 10-20 mile level loops always closed within a hundy or two. They are faster than three wire even with a good I-man and dead nuts accurate.

Ran a level loop with a Nikon 520 side by side with a high-end trimble digital level. Through a river valley 2 miles in length 200' vertical. Tied within .01 same as Trimble. My one turn covered three of their turns.

get a digital level with accuracy specification of 1st order. then get a pair of those level rod base stabilizers. use them even on hard surfaces and your closures will be less than 0.003 mm for 1km loops.

If you have never used one you should try renting one for a day before committing. The closures are crazy good and it is nice not having to book all the data but using one is a bit more finicky than a auto level. The level needs to be able to see a pretty big swath of the bar-code so it is not like a Philly rod where you just need a little hole and can raise for red to pick the foot up, also light conditions are a bigger constraint especially in areas where the light will be speckled like with sun falling through tree canopy.

To my mind the digital is the way to go, if it has specs tighter than can be measured with a total station I would go straight to digital, but in some applications a regular level can't be beat.

Too bad they all look ugly now a days, I like the look of the old wild ones better. I have only used Wild/Leica models but found the Leica one to be pretty hip, you can print the raw out so it is pretty much the same as a field book which makes it easy to follow.

I don't remember what model we had at the State, but they were Leica/ Wild. In 1995 I ran 18 miles from Alva, OK to Cherokee, OK on SH14; and then turned back.

36 miles of levels checked 19mm before any adjustment. It will make a believer out of the harshest critic. I can only assume they make them a little better nowadays.

I totally agree with all said above regarding accuracy. I also agree with Party Chef that visibility on the rod is important. If you are running in the woods or on steep slopes where you can't see a lot of the rod you will get tired of it very quickly. But where you have good rod visibility there is nothing better. The first time I checked closure using one on an 8-mile loop, I did not believe it was that accurate-but it was.

LSU has two Zeiss/Trimble units. One is used for optical tooling metrology, one for geodetic levelling. Good stuff & reliable. We use second-party software for geodetic applications that we purchased years ago from Charles Whalen; don't know if it's still available.

Difficulties concerning visibility with the Leica units I think has been corrected.

> Difficulties concerning visibility with the Leica units I think has been corrected.

Corrected when, and is the fix via firmware update? I've run into it a few times with my DNA03. It was serviced last year, but I don't recall if they updated the firmware.

> Corrected when ...
I've used the Leica NA2002, which needed a nearly unobstructed field of view of the rod to read, and a Leica DNA03, which is much more forgiving but still needs a good sized hole.

I haven't used a digital level for eleven or twelve years.

My last run was with a Leica NA3000. It was a 26km run through NGS first order mons (3), through 2 second order mons, to close on a first order mon. Closure in 26 km was 1.2mm.

That's about the worst result I had with it. I ran a rod and the crew, not the level.

Even then Leica had field book format software which I used. I don't understand the issue about that.

Although I have good memories about my 1970's i-man Ralph, the digital level never read the wrong foot on Monday mornings.

DNA Series spits it out in excel format if you tell it too. Nicely formatted, booked and reduced.
The Sprinters require you to use the 'Sprinter Dataloader' program, which is (as you said) required if you want to be able to read the data.

i don't understand the problem about rod visibility. You are doing a level run not a topography survey where you need to measure the exact point feature on the ground. If you can't sse the rod then move it to a visible area. So you add another set of BS FS to the total observation data.