> I just paid R 155 000 south african rand ex 14 % vat , which i can claim back.
>
> This special has been running for about a year here.
>
> Its a good deal. I think our exchange rate is 10 to 1
That sounds as if it would pay for a trip to South Africa to buy an R3. :>
Great comments by everyone! I used Wild / Lieca my whole career and they really held up almost all of the time. Interesting to hear what others are going through!
Just buy the Leica. If seeing the display in the Texas sun concerns you, get an older 1203 or 1205 with the black and white LCD display. Might even trade you mine for some of those T-0s.
.
> Just buy the Leica.
That's what the Leica salesperson said, but they couldn't do any better than some half-assed Star*Net converter that wasn't ready for prime time. I'd rather have something good that actually works. At this point, Trimble's S3 is looking pretty good.
Kent,
if the starnet file is an ASCII file (rather than binary) then you can write a custom export file to export exactly that. i have written custom files to export NEU files to civilcad, KML files to google earth, simple CSV export, one for export in the file format that my least squares adjustment package uses, and a general pegging report that shows all the staked delta E, N & H for each point. it even exports what prism type was used, no. of shots, tilt compensator level at each shot, and face I and II differences.
the KML export to google earth is useful for the GPS as anybody in the office can immediately see the work georeferenced that afternoon. if you wanted to you could connect the instrument to the internet at any time of the day and export it there and then back to the office to somebody waiting.
> if the starnet file is an ASCII file (rather than binary) then you can write a custom export file to export exactly that.
Conrad, the typical Star*Net export file that I expect a total station to produce contains the actual measurements, not some coordinates ginned up by unknown means. The problem with Leica has been that they've been so secretive about their proprietary binary format that many third-party software developers, such as Star*Net gave up and focused on other things. So Star*Net has converters from virtually ever other widely used format, but not Leica. There's and SDR > Star*Net converter, a RAW > Star*Net converter, and so on, but no Leica Proprietary Format > Star*Net converter. It's a symptom of a pervasive philosophy at Leica, I'd think, that I won't regret avoiding.
> > if the starnet file is an ASCII file (rather than binary) then you can write a custom export file to export exactly that.
>
> Conrad, the typical Star*Net export file that I expect a total station to produce contains the actual measurements, not some coordinates ginned up by unknown means. The problem with Leica has been that they've been so secretive about their proprietary binary format that many third-party software developers, such as Star*Net gave up and focused on other things. So Star*Net has converters from virtually ever other widely used format, but not Leica. There's and SDR > Star*Net converter, a RAW > Star*Net converter, and so on, but no Leica Proprietary Format > Star*Net converter. It's a symptom of a pervasive philosophy at Leica, I'd think, that I won't regret avoiding.
Kent, it sounds like you have a bent against leica that may have been built on faulty information and assumptions.
the microsurvey star*net website lists 'STAR*Leica DBX' as one of the conversion utilities available. DBX is leica's native storage format. it would appear microsurvey supports the latest leica format, no?
the leica US website also has a 4mb download for a star*net converter. converts DBX to DAT file ready to run through star*net. tried it myself, seems to work pretty good. the DAT file looks just like the one on the microsurvey website.
i have no idea what you mean by 'coordinates ginned up by unknown means'. you can output every observation you store on your leica. yes, the 'actual measurements'.
starting from scratch, no converters, i could make a leica instrument output a DAT file ready to run through star*net tonight if i wanted to. it is not hard.
i have seen other survey software that will freely read and create leica's proprietary binary DBX format. i see no reason to believe leica is secretive about its format. where do you get this from?
> the microsurvey star*net website lists 'STAR*Leica DBX' as one of the conversion utilities available. DBX is leica's native storage format. it would appear microsurvey supports the latest leica format, no?
If Microsurvey is offering a functional Leica conversion utility, that's a first. It seems to me that the original developer of Star*Net, Ron Sawyer, told me he never offered one because Leica was unwilling to share information about its proprietary data format.
> the leica US website also has a 4mb download for a star*net converter. converts DBX to DAT file ready to run through star*net. tried it myself, seems to work pretty good. the DAT file looks just like the one on the microsurvey website.
If that's the same Star*Net converter I've tried, i.e. Ver. 1.0.1 09/10/2007, it's not actually a functional conversion. I tried it and was underwhelmed. I forget what the issues were, but it was Mickey Mouseware.
if you're running an external data collector, Leica's format shouldn't make any difference. The raw data will be stored in the format of the data collector.
> if you're running an external data collector, Leica's format shouldn't make any difference. The raw data will be stored in the format of the data collector.
As I recall, the main workaround was to get the Leica data collector to output the observation file in RAW format as Star*Net did have a RAW > Star*Net converter. I would have preferred a direct conversion so that the chances of all the data being converted were improved.
I think you've misunderstood me. If you are using a Spectra Data Collector, the measurements made by the instrument will be sent to the DC and stored in the format of the DC (.job, I think) or Carlson which uses their own rw5 format or Microsurvey which uses the TDS RAW format. Regardless, the raw data is not converted at the DC level, it's natively stored in one of these formats, so the Leica raw data format is irrelevant. The measurements sent from the gun to the handheld are stored in the data collector's native format directly.
I don't use Star Net so haven't tried this, BUT the Leica DBX format stores everything and I mean everything, Leica has the ability to output any and ALL data through the use of format files that can be written by the end user. If there isn't a converter available, I am pretty confident one could write a format file to output whatever file Star Net needs directly from the instrument.
I would think Leica would at least be in the running for someone evaluating where to send their hard earned cash in exchange for a state of the art instrument, no?
As has been mentioned, any third party DC is also going to work the same with Leica as any other instrument, although that probably wouldn't be my choice, it is an option. If you are going to use a third party DC and Star Net already supports that DC's output then problem solved.
Topcon instruments had crap optics 30 years ago and apparently they still do, Leica might of had crap firmware / software 30 years ago (depending on who you asked, I suppose), BUT they have changed for the better in the last 30 years apparently unlike Topcon optics, you should at least give Leica a fair trial instead of bashing them based on old information. I DO NOT have the latest Leica instrument, however by all accounts the latest generation of Smart Worx (Leica's own DC firmware) is very powerful and pretty dang easy to use.
FYI, I speak on the old Topcon optics as someone who evaluated Topcon, Sokkia and Nikon TS side by side in about 1984. 1st place Nikon, 2nd place Sokkia and in a distant 3rd place Topcon, the optics were horrible compared to the Nikon, which was up there with the likes of Leica/Zeiss, the firm I worked for at the time was conscious of their budget, so only the three Asian brands were being considered, although we did buy brand new Leica tripods as they were far better than anything else, so we ran a Nikon on top of Leica legs. It would seem based on your evaluation that Topcon optics are about the same as in 1984, which if true would cause one to look elsewhere, cant blame you for that.
SHG
😛 😛 😛 😛
> I don't use Star Net so haven't tried this, BUT the Leica DBX format stores everything and I mean everything, Leica has the ability to output any and ALL data through the use of format files that can be written by the end user. If there isn't a converter available, I am pretty confident one could write a format file to output whatever file Star Net needs directly from the instrument.
I looked at that and decided that the amount of my time that would take had too high a price tag and the chances of ultimate success weren't 100%. Star*Net is so widely used that I thought it would be smarter to wait until a professionally written converter was available.
> I would think Leica would at least be in the running for someone evaluating where to send their hard earned cash in exchange for a state of the art instrument, no?
Well, the ability to transfer measurements into Star*Net is the key. I suppose I can spend a couple hundred bucks on a conversion utility just to demo one of their instruments, but I probably wouldn't bother if I find another adequate instrument that meets the criteria. My expectations may be too high, but I expect to buy an instrument and data collector that aren't fundamentally annoying, things that are logically designed for actual use.
> I think you've misunderstood me. If you are using a Spectra Data Collector, the measurements made by the instrument will be sent to the DC and stored in the format of the DC (.job, I think) or Carlson which uses their own rw5 format or Microsurvey which uses the TDS RAW format. Regardless, the raw data is not converted at the DC level, it's natively stored in one of these formats, so the Leica raw data format is irrelevant. The measurements sent from the gun to the handheld are stored in the data collector's native format directly.
The point I had in mind is that a one-step conversion is significantly more likely to be free of bugs than a two-step conversion.
AFAIK, ALL of the MicroSurvey converters are paid options. Saying you don't want to pay for a Leica converter seems to be a weak argument since ALL other converters cost too. They all look to be priced at $195, it seems to me you have to spend $195 whether you go with Leica, Trimble, Carlson, TDS, etc., etc.
Not sure on the pricing for the one from Leica.
Point here is, unless you buy new hardware for which you already own the correct $195 converter, that will be something you will need, so it is a moot point UNLESS you box yourself into a corner and only consider hardware for which you already own the converter. It seems a bit short sighted to base a large purchasing decision on saving $195 and thereby limiting your choices. It just may be that all the shortcomings you are lamenting about in this thread could be solved if you just accept the fact that for $195 you can have a whole slew of additional choices.
SHG
Shelby,
The convertor from Leica is F-R-E-E... free. Our good friend Peirre Deblois and his staff produced this one for users. It has been a few years since this was updated but I see no reason why it would not work.
> Point here is, unless you buy new hardware for which you already own the correct $195 converter, that will be something you will need, so it is a moot point UNLESS you box yourself into a corner and only consider hardware for which you already own the converter.
The "converter" that Leica offers for free on their website is the same one that I tested a couple of years ago. I didn't think it was ready for prime time and the fact that it was something that Leica had apparently developed themselves was a net minus in my confidence in what the overall quality of other parts of the system I was looking at would turn out to be. I don't know about you, but the way I assess surveying equipment includes easy, obvious stuff that is sloppily executed in the product. If you have too many of those, it seems reasonable to assume there are plenty more.
>It seems a bit short sighted to base a large purchasing decision on saving $195 and thereby limiting your choices.
If the rest of what I saw had impressed me, I probably would have bought a converter if one had been available. It wasn't, though. So, the net effect was that it was questionable whether the Leica unit would be anything that would actually be usable in my practice.
The ability to adjust conventional and GPS data in Star*Net is a make or break issue for me. It's not like Star*Net hasn't been around for about 25 years now, so the fact that there was no really good provision for the dataflow just raised the question as to how many other issues arising out of a similar attitude were yet to be discovered.
My trimble VX robot has Zeiss optics and is a 1" instrument that is reflectorless. I would highly recommend it.
You keep talking in the past, would it not at least be prudent to check out what is available today from Leica and Star Net? Are you looking at Topcon and Sokkia instruments and converters from a few years ago, of course not, so why are you stuck in the past tense with Leica products?
Since you have all but eliminated Topcon, Sokkia and Leica I hope the Trimble products have what you want, they might actually have the most Zeiss in them, optics at least.
If Trimble fails your scrutiny you might be at the end of your choices in mainline brands, I suppose if you want to save some initial cash there are a Chinese brand or two you could look at.
I can tell you that no brand is going to have a case of years gone by...
Yes, I wished I could buy a Leica of the quality that was present in a T2, but what they build is a sign of the times and does work just fine, still a fine instrument by most standards...
SHG