Wild T2 vs T3000

> Two very different beasts but both priced similarly on ebay these days. I've got an upcoming monitoring job which would just about justify buying one or other. The T2 has the attraction of being opto mechanical - no batteries, and servicing and calibration is still available. The T3000 has a lot of onboard electronics which could fail and batteries which might or might not continue to be available, but it is a 0.5 second theodolite.
> Anyone using and maintaining the T3000 or any one of that family of electronic theodolites?

I would go with the 3000, just to eliminate any reading errors with the micrometers and such.

Ralph

Ralph, I assume you meant eliminate blunders, not errors. But if the primary use is monitoring, most blunders would be quite obvious since you are measuring almost the same angles over and over.

Ralph, I assume you meant eliminate blunders, not errors. But if the primary use is monitoring, most blunders would be quite obvious since you are measuring almost the same angles over and over.

If you're monitoring something at the half second level, any blunders would be quite obvious. If you are lining up coincidence knobs, micrometers and interpolating, it can get tedious. Among the many things that start to happen is that the observers eye will start to wear.
What I'm describing are not gross errors (blunders) and they are not systematic since there will be no discernible bias.

According to Chrzanowski (1977)/Nickerson UNB

theodolites with optical micrometers and with smallest division of d of

The reason for [tex]?r[/tex] being 2.5d for optical micrometers is because of inherent inaccuracies in operation of the optical micrometer. Cooper [1971] quotes and investigation reading differences of up to 10" over the 10' range of the micrometer of a 1" theodolite.

By using the Electronic theodolite you eliminate this from any apriori estimates you may have to formulate.

I can't figure out how to insert HTML code in here so, the question marks above are the greek symbol sigma.

Ralph

I like the data collector method of note keeping by using the T3000.

It is faster and there are less chances for misreading the numbers or miswriting the numbers or misinputting the numbers. Just better quality control and faster.

The whole digital work program is better for everyone connected with the project.

I have a T2 and a T3000 so I guess my comments count for 4 cents?

Thanks everyone for sharing the real knowledge, based on experience and theory.

Next step is to check with Leica Geosystems in the UK on spares and support for the T3000. It's a long time now since it was in production.

Buying a T2 now is like buying a classic car, nice to have but not for practical reasons when newer technology is available.

They are immensely practical when bucking in on a line and for prolonging said line.

Stephen

> They are immensely practical when bucking in on a line and for prolonging said line.

Yes, but as soon as you encounter a tree on line, the only thing more useful than a total station is a chainsaw.

> > They are immensely practical when bucking in on a line and for prolonging said line.
>
> Yes, but as soon as you encounter a tree on line, the only thing more useful than a total station is a chainsaw.

:good:

I am sure the T3000 is a great instrument, as long as it runs. Have you heard this before "that old instrument", "we can't get parts for those old guns"?

You will never hear that about a T-2.

T.W.

The Wild T3 has the simular optics to a T3000 and it can read direct to 0.2", so it would be a better match up for comparison.