That was the first thing I did. Just like when you were heavily promoting the Nest gimbal, I asked for a site that had detail and/or reviews. I got nada in return.

As I said, there is no detail. Given that these are not widely distributed, I can't go anywhere to read about the customer experience of owning one, or see specs other than height and load capacity.

I did find this on a different model though:

"At first this was a great product. As full time wild life photographer, based on the reviews and description, I purchased this product. In the beginning, it was a fine product, in the sense that it worked w/o any complications. You its just a tripod, right? Well the more I used this product, 3-5 day a week, the more I started having problems; mainly with the extension of the segmented legs. The 1/2 turn unlock, 1/2 turn lock compression locks, began to fail. The releasing of the compression lock didn't always release as needed to extend the leg segments. When pulling the legs out, they will stick and then just pull completely out of the above leg segments. This has happened numerous tes and I am not capable to makes the repairs in the field. Also the white plastic internal compression shims crack and split. I have since in the past replaced this product. There is a design flaw that needs correcting. It may work for you w/o problems. I use larger and heavier cameras and lens setups most of the time.the main reason I purchased was its lightweight vs load capabilities. I've had this tripod less than one year and have had it repaired, three times. Good luck if you buy one as they seemed ok for an enthusis, not more advanced usage, as a semi, or full time professional. They are not, in
In My opinion, this product is not built for constant use, where one would be constantly extending and retracting the legs."

Based on that user review, I would avoid Nest as a brand - it doesn't look too good from here. I generally dismiss many reviews as being a confirmation of their purchase - very seldom do I find a truly critical review that evaluates a products strengths and weaknesses, and often has a broader perspective, such as comparing it to other products.

There are better alternatives to the Nest at the same price point. I wouldn't want to spend even $20, let alone several hundred dollars, on something that may fail at the most inopportune moment. I am a fan of lesser-known and less expensive products that offer good value and functionality. Hell, Feisol is hardly a household word, right? But long before I made the decision to purchase one, I read reviews, visited the website, http://www.feisol.com/0823product.html, and got a great understanding of what I was getting myself into. I moved and pre-ordered the CT3472 that had not yet been released, on the strength of it's design similarilty to, and the quality of it's baby brother, the CT3442 which I had handled in person at Adorama. I wish I could do that with Nest, but sadly, distribution continues to be an issue, and without a proper product description, I don't ever see this happening. I get at least 4-6 requests for tripods from students and mentorees every month. I steer them towards Benro, Feisol, Sirui, RRS and Gitzo, depending on their budget. I will also dissuade people from buying one "just to have, just in case." I never recommend anything unless I have a full understanding of al the criteria - current and future, and budget.

f

The fact that the moon will be the closest since 1948 really doesn't have too much of an affect on photography. A 2000 mm lens will pretty much fill the frame regardless of the moons celestial address. But it should appear bigger to those visually admiring it. This probably has been addressed in prior posts on this thread - apologies if that is the case - but getting a sharp focus is your biggest challenge. Focus manually - do not focus at "infinity". Also if you are on a tripod - expect the moon to move out of your frame, quickly if you are at 600mm. Personally wide angle moon shots often leave the moon looking like a bright star. Use your 600 at 600. The moon is bright - reflecting the sun. Also, a full moon does not render a very dynamic moon shot ..there is zero drama to those photos IMHO. I would prefer to shoot the moon in a waxing or waning 1/4 phase.....then you have the sun casting shadows over the craters which can add some drama and dynamic range to the shot.

But all of that being said....the fun is in the "getting out" looking up and figuring it out. Always shoot manual for both exposure and focus, ALWAYS! I would choose a low ISO - my guess is your 600mm lens will be a F/5.6 lens at that focal length. Even then I would "Stop Down" the lens to F/11. Shoot raw and underexpose your photo. Keep dialing down the shutter until your histogram is spiking on the extreme left side. (if shooting raw you can always add 3 stops of light in post) It is EASY to "blow out" parts of the moon's surface.

Take a bunch and move the focus slightly with each photo.....take several hundred - hopefully one of them will have tack sharp focus. This, I might add, is the bane of all astro imagers - FOCUS.

Well that is my two cents!

I would suggest starting low, then crank up to 600 mm as you find your focus and aim.
Have fun! It seems that most here like under exposed. Grey Moons seem to get the most nods.
I tried a couple of pokes the other night at 1 second, and they were too bright.
You'll find it, just have fun getting there!

PS: I have a wired remote release. But I also have a wireless Intervalometer that does everything. Highly recommended for your kit.
The fun is to be inside, warm, with a cup of Hot Chocolate, looking out at your camera snapping away images.