Sterrekunde

Tunnelvisie terwyl u deur 'n weerkaatser kyk

Tunnelvisie terwyl u deur 'n weerkaatser kyk


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Ek het 'n Celestron-astromaster130-gelykstelling. Terwyl u deur sy okular kyk of 'n slimfoonkamera gebruik vir fotografiese doeleindes, is daar altyd 'n duidelike streek sonder lig (dit is sirkelvormig in kromming). Ek sorg dat ek direk na die okularis kyk, maar hierdie tonnelwerk maak dit soms moeilik om dinge te sien. Ek het dit ge-google, maar is nie seker wat hierdie effek genoem word nie. Is dit 'n algemene probleem, of is dit nodig om die fout in die teleskoop self reg te stel? Indien nie, wat is die maniere waarop dit effektief kan verminder? Dankie. Wysigings is baie welkom.


Dit is heeltemal normale gedrag. Wat u sien, is die rand van die projeksiehoek vir die lens. Dit is waarskynlik iets wat u sien? :

Gewoonlik is dit meer opvallend by goedkoper okulare, aangesien die individuele elemente kleiner is en 'n kleiner gesigsveld het.


In 'n teleskoop (eintlik in enige optiese stelsel) skep die laaste optiese element 'n sirkelvormige gebied genaamd die "uitgangspupil", hierdie gebied moet in lyn wees met die pupil in u oog (die "toegangspupil" vir die optiese stelsel genaamd u oog). As die twee leerlinge nie in 'n ry staan ​​nie, sien u niks van die lig wat die teleskoop optel nie.


XL-okulare is die & # 8220Secret-sous & # 8221

Die meeste verkykers het 'n beskrywende modelnaam, soos & # 822010 & # 21550 Deluxe & # 8221 of & # 822020 & # 21580 LW & # 8220, die eerste getal is die vergroting, die tweede is die objektiewe deursnee in millimeter. Maar 'n verkyker-teleskoop, soos & # 8220BT-100XL-ED & # 8220, verklaar slegs die objektiewe grootte, want die vergroting word heeltemal bepaal deur die brandpuntlengte van die oogstukke wat daarin geprop word. Vir die BT-100XL-ED is 'n okulêre brandpuntlengte van 22mm = 25x, 14mm = 40x en 7mm = 80x.

Die primêre funksie van die okularis is dus die vergroting van die gekonsentreerde lig wat deur die objektiewe lense versamel word en deur die prisma gekorrigeer word. Maar daar is 'n aantal ander okulêre eienskappe en eienskappe wat 'n groot invloed het op alle aspekte van die beeld wat gesien word deur die persoon wat deur die verkyker kyk. Dit sluit in AFOV (oënskynlike gesigsveld), die mate van skerpte oor die hele gesigsveld, kontras en oogverligting. Die menslike oog het 'n FOV van ongeveer 120 grade (uit 'n 360 grade sirkel), en met twee oë kan ons ongeveer 180 grade horisontaal sien. Oogstuk AFOV word op dieselfde manier gemeet as die menslike oog, en hoe wyer die okularis AFOV, hoe meeslepend is die kykervaring. Oogstukke met 'n smal AFOV (50 grade of minder) gee 'n gevoel van & # 8220tunnel vision & # 8221, terwyl 'n wye AFOV meer 'n & # 8220prentvenster & # 8221 is.

Maar wyer AFOV & # 8217's kan problematies wees, veral met die handhawing van skerpte as u die rand van die veld nader. Die doel met die ontwerp van 'n oogstuk is om 'n so groot moontlik AFOV te verkry, maar tog die skerp fokus oor die hele gesigsveld te behou, met 'n hoë kontras (& # 8220blacker & # 8221 swartes), en hopelik genoeg oogverligting te hê wat u gemaklik kan sien. die hele FOV sonder dat u die oë op die lense hoef te rig, selfs beter as diegene wat 'n bril dra, die hele FOV kan sien.

Die afgelope paar jaar het okulare radikaal verbeter, met toenemend ingewikkelde ontwerpe wat meer (en dikwels veel groter) lenselemente gebruik om die doelwitte te bereik. Al drie die nuwe XL-oculare van Oberwerk het 'n wye en meesleurende AFOV met 70 grade, met 'n ongelooflike skerpte oor die hele FOV. Kontras is uitstekend - en daar is genoeg oogverligting om 'n bril te gebruik. Kyk na die afsnyding aan die regterkant wat die agt lense wat in hierdie ooglede gebruik word. Vergelyk dit met die 25x en 40x (3 of 4 element) oculare wat gratis by 'n mededingende verkyker ingesluit is (links bo). Wat dink jy bied die beste uitsig? Al hierdie verbetering in die prestasie van die okularis het natuurlik 'n hoër prys, maar okulariste is 'n kritiek-belangrike komponent van enige verkyker-teleskoop. Vergelyk die koste van Oberwerk XL-ooglede met die hoog aangeskrewe teleskoopoogstaak van Baader en Teleview regs bo (wat terloops ook werk goed in die XL-reeks) en u kan sien dat Oberwerk-ooglede baie mededingend geprys is. Terwyl die XL-verkyker-teleskope onklopbare prestasies en waarde bied, is dit die XL-okulêre wat die & # 8220secret-sous is & # 8221.


Geniet God se skepping deur middel van sterrekunde

Hugh Ross het sy loopbaan op sewejarige ouderdom van stapel gestuur toe hy na die biblioteek gegaan het om te ondersoek waarom sterre warm is. Fisika en sterrekunde het sy nuuskierigheid aangegryp, en hulle het nooit laat gaan nie. Op sewentienjarige ouderdom was hy die jongste persoon ooit wat as direkteur van waarnemings vir die Royal Astronomical Society in Vancouver gedien het.

Doen jy 'n ontluikende sterrekundige in die huis het? Die belegging van 'n teleskoop is iets wat die hele gesin kan geniet. Nuwe tegnologie het die afgelope paar jaar daartoe bygedra dat koste aansienlik daal, maar hoe weet u watter een om te koop? Hier is 'n paar algemene riglyne.

1. Die bruikbaarheid van 'n omvang is direk gekoppel aan die kwaliteit van die optika. Vir die beste resultate wil u 'n "reflektor" -teleskoop hê (nie 'n 'refractor' nie).

2. Die belangrikste statistiek van 'n teleskoop is nie die vergroting nie, maar die opening. U sal dus die teleskoop met die wydste opening (nie vergroting nie) wat u kan bekostig. Die meeste voorwerpe het nie soveel nodig as om dit te verhelder nie. Teleskope met groter opening versamel meer lig en vertoon dus dowwer voorwerpe.

Vir 'n goeie eerste teleskoop beveel dr. Ross 'n Dobsonian aan met ten minste 'n opening van 6 ". Nog 'n uitstekende opsie (en gemakliker om te gebruik) is 'n Schmidt-Cassegrain.

3. Die waarde van 'n teleskoop word ook beïnvloed deur 'n tweede faktor: die atmosfeer. Sterrekyk sal uiters beperk wees as u in 'n groot metropolitaanse gebied woon. Ideaal gesproke wil u u teleskoop ver van ligte "besoedeling" gebruik. Dit sal u vermoë om ruimtelywe in die verte te sien aansienlik verbeter.

4. Dr. Ross moedig beginners sterk aan om die ekstra investering van 'n teleskoop met 'n outomatiese stervinder (GPS) te oorweeg. Hierdie bykomstigheid sal die sterrekyk-ervaring lonender maak omdat u spesifieke ruimtevoorwerpe baie vinniger kan vind.

5. Bykomende gehalte okulêrs is nog 'n goeie belegging. 'N Groot deel van die frustrasie van goedkoop omvang is afkomstig van hul oogkuns in die tonnelvisie.

6. Sommige bestek het ook aanhangsels vir digitale kameras, wat u in staat stel om foto's van u ontdekkings vas te lê. 'N Goeie stel filters kan ook 'n nuttige hulpmiddel wees. Filters kan flou voorwerpe, soos planete, sterrestelsels en newels, makliker sien.

Die meeste groot stede het amateursterrekundige klubs wat sterpartytjies aanbied, dikwels gratis. Entoesiastiese veterane help graag nuwe mense om betrokke te raak by hul geliefde stokperdjie.

Wees ten slotte bewus daarvan dat die ruimtebeelde wat u gewoond is gewoonlik van die Hubble-ruimteteleskoop kom. Voorwerpe lyk nie heeltemal so lewendig deur 'n huisteleskoop nie. Nietemin kan 'n beskeie belegging u tuiste maak die plek om op helder nagte te wees terwyl jy 'n nader beskouing van God se skepping deel.


Spieëlgehalte vir weerkaatserteleskope

1. Om die waarheid te sê, ek dink dit is interessant dat u geen coma corrector gebruik wat amper goed is om te hoor nie. Ek stel belang om 'n f / 3 of so te probeer, maar het nog nie 'n spieël so vinnig gemaal nie. Ek het (een keer) gelees oor iemand wat oor die nuwe wye-okulare wonder, en gesê het dat u na 'n punt in elk geval regtig nie alles kan inneem nie. die periferie van ons visie is nie net vir 'detail' so groot soos die middelpunt van ons visie nie; dus moet daar ook 'n limiet 'wees met okulêrs en voorkeure. Ek was verward deur u 'soos' van die f / 8 en die 'a huevo' en het gedink dat u sê dat dit nie 'n werklike probleem was nie. Dat u dit erken, maar dit nie so aanstootlik vind as ander nie, is vir my 'n ander begrip en duidelik.

2. Ja, ek het 'n bietjie van die 'ladder'-dinge gedoen en stem saam. Ek hou aan dink aan Clyde Tombaugh, wat, as ek reg onthou, 'n 16 "f / 10 gehad het. Dit is 'n ander idee wat ek graag wil hê en sal moet wag om te probeer. Hy het om die leer gekom deur 'n steier te bou wat hy kon aanpas, en het aangehou die buisstelsel naby die meridiaan, as ek reg onthou. maar die OP was ongeveer 6-10 "Scopes en dit is besig om weg te kom van die OP (behalwe dat mense soms relatief lang f / verhoudings gehad het, selfs met groot bestek).

Wat my gepla het, was my poging om by te dra tot die idee hoe koma in verskillende f / verhoudings optree, as dit net iets is waarmee u in 'n Newtonier moet saamleef. Ek vermoed die boodskap wat die moontlikheid van 'n koma in 'n vinnige omvang 'geïmpliseer' het, was daar vir iemand om aan te byt ('Shhh'). Miskien rol Mark van die lag, ja, ek 'beet'. Dit het vir my gelyk of vinnige omvang aanbeveel word, en impliseer dat daar geen ernstige probleme was nie. Ek is 'n refraktormoer en dit het gelyk asof die behandeling wat 'reflektor-neute' in die refractor-forum gekry het toe hulle kommentaar gelewer het oor chromatiese afwyking in reaksie op iemand wat 'n 6 "f / 5-refractor aanbeveel. BEIDE chromatiese aberrasie en koma is ernstige afwykings en vir 'n beginner om te vertel dat dit nie ernstige dinge in 'vinnige' omvang is nie, sou dit misleidend wees. Iemand het waarskynlik hierdie draad gelees, net om te wag dat dit sou gebeur, dit is algemeen genoeg, maar ek het gevoel dat ek 'ontslaan' is en wou seker maak dat MIcwerwerx koma verstaan. Was deel van 'n vinnige parabool. Ja, miskien sou 'n amateur met 'n 10 "f / 3 kon begin, miskien sou hy / sy die gelukkigste wees, maar ek het die kans gevoel om 'n redelik goedkoop spieël te kry, was beter met 'n langer brandpuntverhouding.

# 127 merk cowan

A voltooi wanvoorstelling van fisiese optika - ja, dit laat my net 'n bietjie op die vloer rol.

Daar is geen "ernstige" probleme met vinnige omvang wat 'n koma-regstelling en behoorlike struktuur nie kan hanteer nie. OTOH die idee dat u 'n f / 3-omvang kan implementeer sonder dat dit grens aan die belaglike, maar uiteraard YMMV. Moet ook nie die probleme met die vervaardiging van die vinnige spieëls onderskat nie.

Geredigeer deur mark cowan, 06 April 2016 - 16:16.

# 128 Jeff Morgan

Ek is nou regtig verward.

ml69737.

'A huevo' (leef daarmee saam, maak nie saak nie?)

maar u hou van Starman 1 se stelling dat hy 'n koma-regter by f / 8 sou gebruik.

?

Shhh !!

dit is dus die reflektorforum, en weerkaatsers het nie koma nie. ??

Op hierdie stadium, as daar vinnige duisend dollar-spieëls voorgestel word vir 'n man wat begin en wil leer (en daardie duisend-dollar-spieël sal waarskynlik beter werk met 'n fokusfokus van 500 dollar en $ 400-oogstuk [u wou in elk geval net een oogstuk hê, reg ?], en 'n ekwatoriale platform, sodat u nie die hele nag moet druk om Pluto sentraal te hou nie), wil ek eerder 'n 6 "F / 12-achromat voorstel. Achromatte het geen kleur van gevolg nie en dit sou 'n goeie alledaagse omvang wees, en BAIE minder 'fiddly' as 'n Screamin 'senuweeagtige Newton.

Refraktore het baie sterk punte, en die suiwerheid van die beeld is een van die eerste. 'N Goeie refractor werk oor die algemeen nie baie hard teen 50x per duim van die diafragma nie - geen termiese probleme, geen kollimasieprobleme, geen koma, geen "fiddly" nie. Eerlikwaar, ons moet almal erken dat as refraktore net so goedkoop was as weerkaatsers, sou geen gebruik spieëlgebaseerde omvang besit nie.

Maar die koste is nie dieselfde nie. Dit skaal nie goed nie. En dit is nie so draagbaar nie. En laat ons nie vergeet dat die kompromie 'n taamlik bewerkte metaalbeslag is nie. Meer gewig, meer koste, minder draagbaarheid.

Die man wat die refractor-beeld wil hê sonder duisende dollars aan spieëls, koma-korrigeerders en premium-okulariste (of 'n duur houer), hoef net 'n weerkaatser van 6-8 "te kry rondom f / 9 of so. Op 'n alt-az Die hoë dollar-goed kan later kom.

Geredigeer deur Jeff Morgan, 06 April 2016 - 16:49.

# 129 Jeff Morgan

2. Vinnige omvang, veral in die groter openinge is dit amper 'n noodsaaklikheid. U kan nie redelik 'n 24 "f / 6 gebruik nie! Die lang leer-ding in die nag word 'n koninklike pyn. Nou, met moderne, hoëkrag-oculairontwerpe, begin deur Al Nagler, wat goed werk tot f / 3 , dit is nie meer waar nie, u moet lank fokus vir planetêre opvoering. Vra net vir Mike Lockwood oor sy f / 3 by WSP

John Dobson het blykbaar 'n groot deel van sy 24 "f / 7 gekry. En hy was destyds nie juis 'n springhoender nie. Dalk was die skaal van die leer die geheim van sy lang lewe?

Met alle respek vir mnr. Lockwood, is hy 'n verkoper spesialiseer in sulke optika. Te verstane dat hy sou wees. entoesiasties oor so 'n toepassing.

Of so 'n omvang 'n goeie keuse is of nie betroubaar planetêre prestasie, sou ek my nie na 'n verkoper wend vir onbevooroordeelde mening nie. As die ALPO-ouens nou f / 3 Newtonians begin gebruik het, sou dit 'n redelike aanbeveling wees.

# 130 Starman1

Hallo Mike,

1. Om die waarheid te sê, ek dink dit is interessant dat u geen coma corrector gebruik wat amper goed is om te hoor nie. Ek stel belang om 'n f / 3 of so te probeer, maar het nog nie 'n spieël so vinnig gemaal nie. Ek het (een keer) gelees oor iemand wat oor die nuwe wye-okulare wonder, en gesê het dat u na 'n punt in elk geval regtig nie alles kan inneem nie. die periferie van ons visie is nie net vir 'detail' so groot soos die middelpunt van ons visie nie; dus moet daar ook 'n limiet 'wees met okulêrs en voorkeure. Ek was verward deur u 'soos' van die f / 8 en die 'a huevo', en dink dat u sê dat dit nie 'n werklike probleem was nie. Dat u dit erken, maar dit nie so aanstootlik vind as ander nie, is vir my 'n ander begrip en duidelik.

2. Ja, ek het 'n bietjie van die 'ladder'-dinge gedoen en stem saam. Ek hou aan dink aan Clyde Tombaugh, wat, as ek reg onthou, 'n 16 "f / 10 gehad het. Dit is 'n ander idee wat ek graag wil hê en sal moet wag om te probeer. Hy het om die leer gekom deur 'n steier te bou wat hy kon aanpas, en het aangehou die buisstelsel naby die meridiaan, as ek reg onthou. maar die OP was ongeveer 6-10 "Scopes en dit is besig om weg te kom van die OP (behalwe dat mense soms relatief lang f / verhoudings gehad het, selfs met groot bestek).

Wat my gepla het, was my poging om by te dra tot die idee hoe koma in verskillende f / verhoudings optree, as dit net iets is waarmee u in 'n Newtonier moet saamleef. Ek vermoed die boodskap wat die moontlikheid van 'n koma in 'n vinnige omvang 'geïmpliseer' het, was daar vir iemand om aan te byt ('Shhh'). Miskien rol Mark van die lag, ja, ek 'beet'. Dit het vir my gelyk of vinnige omvang aanbeveel word, en impliseer dat daar geen ernstige probleme was nie. Ek is 'n refraktormoer en dit het gelyk of die behandeling wat 'reflektorneute' in die refractor-forum gekry het toe hulle kommentaar gelewer het oor chromatiese afwyking in reaksie op iemand wat 'n 6 "f / 5-refractor aanbeveel. ernstige afwykings en vir 'n beginner om te vertel dat dit nie ernstige dinge in 'vinnige' omvang is nie, sou dit misleidend wees. Iemand het waarskynlik hierdie draad gelees, net om te wag dat dit sou gebeur, dit is algemeen genoeg, maar ek het gevoel dat ek 'ontslaan' is en wou seker maak dat MIcorwerx koma verstaan. Was deel van 'n vinnige parabool. Ja, miskien sou 'n amateur met 'n 10 "f / 3 kon begin, miskien sou hy / sy die gelukkigste wees, maar ek het die kans gevoel om 'n redelik goedkoop spieël te kry, was beter met 'n langer brandpuntverhouding.

Let daarop dat die koma-vrye sone van 'n reflektor-fokusvlak uitgedruk word as 0,01778 mm x die f / verhouding³.

Komavry is 'n verkeerde benaming, aangesien daar slegs 'n koma op as is. Maar as die koma in die Airy-skyf vervat is, is dit eenvoudig onsigbaar, en dit is die sone wat ek beskryf.

By f / 3 is die komavrye sone 0,48 mm breed. Dit is reg, minder as 'n halwe millimeter.

In 'n 16,5 "f / 3-omvang is die skaal van die fokusvlak 2,73 'per mm.

Dit maak die koma-vrye sone 2,73 x 0,48 = 1,31 'breed.

Jupiter is minder as 'n minuut breed en pas dus binne die komavrye sone.

Solank die omvang dophou en Jupiter doodsentrum gehou word.

Maar as Jupiter selfs 1 planeet-deursnee van die middelpunt dryf, begin sommige van die skyf deur koma geraak word.

Dit is 'n byna onmoontlike taak.

En omtrent alles anders is groter as Jupiter, so die meeste voorwerpe sal die meeste van hul beelde deur koma verander, ALS HULLE IN DIE SENTRUM GEHOU WORD.

'N F / 3-omvang sonder 'n koma-regstelling gee eenvoudig nie die beeldkwaliteit wat dit kan gee nie - amper oral in die veld.

Wat ooglede betref, moet u die gesigsveld met maksimum skerpte en aandag in ag neem, en ons sien alles in die beeld skerp en alles op een is ongeveer 5 ° breed. Ons visie dwaal en daar word gesê dat ons meer as 'n sekonde of twee 'n 30 ° veld relatief skerp kan inneem.

Wat sê dit van die gewilde 68 ° oculare? Dit sê dat ons ons blik verander om na die rand te kyk - ons kyk doelbewus sywaarts om die rand te sien.

Op 'n sekere punt in die verbreding van die oënskynlike veld van die okulêre kan ons nie meer net sywaarts kyk om na die rand te kyk nie. Die okularis het immers 'n uitgangspupiel wat vasgehou moet word om die beeld vanaf die okulêr te sien. En om na die kant te kyk sonder om die kop te beweeg en bloot die oog te beweeg, kan net so ver plaasvind voordat die pupil van die oog die uitgangspupil van die okular onderskep en u 'n afsny van die rand van die veld kry, omdat sommige van die uitgangspupil slaan die iris van die oog.

Hoeveel grade aan die kant nodig is om dit te laat gebeur, hang natuurlik saam met die grootte van die uitgangspupil en die pupil-deursnee van die oog van die waarnemer, maar dit lyk asof konsensus aandui dat 'n 65-68 ° veld ongeveer die maksimum is om die oog af te weer om na die rand te kyk.

Maar op 'n stadium in die uitbreiding van die veld, moet almal sy kop na die kant toe rol om direk na die rand van die veld te kyk.

76- tot 120 °-okulare benodig dit almal.

En as dit u nie daaraan steur nie, is daar geen beperking op die grootte van die veld wat u kan gebruik nie. Ja, u randvisie sien die rand as u na die middelpunt kyk, maar u kyk nie regtig so na die rand nie.

Die opinies wat u hier op CN sal raakloop, dui op 'n soort van die ultra- en hiperwye veldooglede, of dat u nie daarvan hou nie.

Dit verg net 'n bietjie ervaring met hulle om daaroor te besluit.


MJV AQUATICS WETLIKE VRYWARING

Met veelvuldige bydraers sal u soms poste ontdek met 'n bietjie verskillende perspektiewe rakende sekere aspekte van vishou. Daar is dikwels baie verskillende weë na sukses en ons is almal onderhewig aan 'n sekere mate van tonnelvisie terwyl ons ons opinies formuleer op grond van ons persoonlike ervarings.

Alhoewel ons in die akkuraatheid van die verstrekte inligting glo, kan daar foute wees en behou ons die reg voor om enige dokumente te eniger tyd te verander.

Op geen manier is MJV Aquatics of die outeurs aanspreeklik vir enige indirekte, spesiale of gevolglike skade, hoegenaamd weens die gebruik van inligting, beelde of grafieke wat op hierdie webwerf verskaf word nie.


Sport ED- 8 & # 21542 of 10 & # 21542?

Die Oberwerk 8 & # 21542 en 10 & # 21542 Sport ED & # 8217s is ons topverkoper verkyker. Daarom het ons een vraag meer gevra as enige ander- & # 8220Wat beveel u aan, die 8 & # 21542 of 10 & # 21542? & # 8221 Dit is wat u moet weet om die keuse te maak-

1) Die 8 & # 21542 en 10 & # 21542 is presies dieselfde verkyker - dieselfde grootte, dieselfde gewig, dieselfde prys. Die enigste manier om hulle te onderskei, is deur die & # 82208 & # 21542 & # 8221 of & # 822010 & # 21542 & # 8221 gegraveerde aluminiumplaat wat in die fokusstuk ingebed is. Wat bepaal of dit 8x of 10x werk, is die kombinasie van lense wat binne die okularis gemonteer is. Laat u wonder waarom die meeste mededingers ekstra vra vir hul model met 'n groter vergroting?

2) Vergroting is omgekeerd eweredig aan FOV (View of View), wat bloot die hoeveelheid van die toneel voor u is wat deur die verkyker sigbaar is. Die 8 & # 21542 maak dit waarna u 8 keer kyk groter, met 'n wye 8,1 ° FOV. Die 10 & # 21542 maak waarna u 10 keer groter kyk (25% groter as die 8 & # 21542), met 'n 6,5 ° FOV- wat 'n 25% kleiner area is as wat deur die 8 & # 21542 getoon word.

3) Albei modelle het dieselfde AFOV (oënskynlike gesigsveld), wat 65 ° is. AFOV verwys na hoeveel van u perifere visie gebruik word in die uitsig deur die okularis. 'N Wye AFOV (60 ° of groter) het meer 'n & # 8220foto-venster & # 8221-aansig, terwyl 'n smal AFOV (50 ° of minder) 'n beperkte & # 8220tunnelvisie-agtige & # 8221-aansig het. Of u nou 8x of 10x kies, u sal dieselfde 65 ° & # 8220prentvenster & # 8221 uitsig hê.

4) Die belangrikste oorweging is dus wat u verkies om in 'n groter deel van die toneel voor u te neem, of op 'n kleiner gebied te konsentreer, maar 'n bietjie nader gebring?

5) Daar is nog een ding om te oorweeg. 'N Verkyker wat met die hand gehou word, vergroot enige skudding of bewing in u hande in dieselfde mate as wat u die toneel voor u vergroot. Alhoewel dit verskil met die individu, sal sommige mense die vergroting van 10x ietwat moeilik vind om stil te hou om 'n bestendige uitsig te kry. 8x is die bestendige keuse vir die meeste mense.


Die uiteindelike gryp & # 39n go :)

Ons het gisteraand 'n paar uur helder weer gehad, die eerste in byna twee maande. Dit het eers tot vóór sononder gereël, en ek het dus nie vooruit beplan nie en niks gehad nie. Dit het koud, klam en winderig geword, en ek het net nie die energie gehad om my toerusting uit te kry nie, maar ek wou iets doen, want dit was soooo lekker om die winterhemel te sien. Nadat ek 'n bietjie op my agterste patio gestaan ​​het, gryp ek net 'n stoel, gaan sit, leun agteroor en kyk. Dit was so lekker om net daar te sit, my oë donker te laat aanpas en net te kyk. Die lug tussen Taurus, Auriga, oor na Tweeling, Canis Minor en Major, en oor Orion is so ryk aan helder sterre dat dit is soos om na 'n fyn oop tros met 'n monster wye veldoogstuk te kyk.

'N Wyse fotograaf het eenkeer vir my gesê "moenie vergeet om te kyk nie", en dit het my regtig bygebly. Soms is dit lekker om net te sit en kyk. Geen toerusting benodig nie, behalwe 'n gemaklike stoel en 'n warm hoed.

# 2 NEOhio

+1, verkieslik met 'n swaartekragstoel as die "gemakstoel" (en miskien 'n verkyker met 'n lae kragverbruik).

Ek het eintlik gisteraand na dieselfde lug gekyk, ons het 'n halfuur onderbreek in die wolke van 8 tot 8:30, terwyl ons met die honde gekyk het. Nie so aangenaam soos om te sit nie, veral nie met twee honde onder die voete nie, maar ek kon sweer dat ek die Orion-newel met blinde oog kon optel, maar miskien was dit net die sterretros in die algemene omgewing.

# 3 MalVeauX

Ek was nog altyd meer 'n beeldhouer as visuele waarnemer. Maar hoe meer ek snags beeld, hoe meer sit ek agteroor en kyk op terwyl ek daar buite is en kyk net met my oë en neem my donker aan. Dit lei my tot meer visuele waarneming en my primêre manier om waar te neem, is met 'n klein groot diafragma (relatiewe) kort brandpuntafstand met 'n wye gesigsveld, aangesien u baie meer lig kry en dieper sien met 'n mooi ryk veldomvang. Geniet dit 'n ton. Gryp & amp gaan en sit regtig en geniet dit net. Maar dit is ook belangrik om net agteroor te leun en op te kyk. Dit is groot.

# 4 aeajr

+1, verkieslik met 'n swaartekragstoel as die "gemakstoel" (en miskien 'n verkyker met 'n lae kragverbruik).

snip.

Vanaand moet ons vir die eerste keer in weke helder lug en 40 grade hê. Maar die wind gaan opskop tot 15-20 km / h

Ongeag, ek sal waarskynlik nog 15-20 minute uittrek om op te kyk, te bewonder, my voor te stel en te wonder. My betroubare 10X50's sal by my wees.

# 5 Arthur L.

Een voordeel om vroegtydig te begin werk, is die kans om die lug te sien.

Ek verlaat die huis voor sonop, en wens gereeld dat ek kan instel in plaas daarvan om uit te gaan.

Die afgelope tyd was dit alles wolke.

# 6 Jim4321

Met ligbesoedeling tuis is ek altyd in 'mobiele sterrekunde'-modus. 'N Onderdeel van my toerusting is 'n sakstoel om my' scope-tas 'op te sit tydens die uitpak en verpakking, my tablet aan te sit terwyl ek op die EP is en my rug te rus tydens waarneming.

Ek gebruik dit ook as 'n sitplek as ek my driepoot aan die einde van 'n sessie vou. Die ander aand, amper gevries, het ek dit net gedoen toe ek opkyk, en kyk! Daar was al my ou wintervriende van kleins af, uitgelê oor die hoë oostelike lug. Orion, Taurus, die Pleiades en die res van die rolverdeling. So mooi! Ek het my koue voete en hande, my seer rug en my stywe knieë heeltemal vergeet en net daar gesit en my oë en brein en siel die wonder van alles laat drink.

Teleskope is wonderlike dinge. Maar ons moet oppas vir die tonnelvisie van die okular.

# 7 oldtimer

+2 omdat jy geklee is vir die koue

+4 vir miskien 'n klein (60-80mm) RFT op 'n liggewig Alt-Az-berg

Dit is wat ek 'Grab & amp GO' noem.

# 8 Gen

Tot wat, in die 1600's, voor teleskope, was die enigste besigtiging op 1X.

# 9 Gen

Tot wat, in die 1600's, voor teleskope, was die enigste besigtiging op 1X.

# 10 OPNAME

Ons het gisteraand 'n paar uur helder weer gehad, die eerste in byna twee maande. Dit het eers tot ver na sononder verdwyn, so ek het nie vooruit beplan nie en niks gehad nie. Dit het koud, klam en winderig geword, en ek het net nie die energie gehad om my toerusting uit te kry nie, maar ek wou iets doen, want dit was soooo lekker om die winterhemel te sien. Nadat ek 'n bietjie op my agterste patio gestaan ​​het, gryp ek net 'n stoel, gaan sit, leun agteroor en kyk. Dit was so lekker om net daar te sit, my oë donker te laat aanpas en net te kyk. Die lug tussen Taurus, Auriga, tot Tweeling, Canis Minor en Major, en regoor Orion is so ryk aan helder sterre dat dit is soos om na 'n fyn oop tros met 'n monster wye veldoogstuk te kyk.

'N Wyse fotograaf het my eenkeer gesê' moenie vergeet om te kyk nie ', en dit het my regtig vasgesteek. Soms is dit lekker om net te sit en kyk. Geen toerusting benodig nie, behalwe 'n gemaklike stoel en 'n warm hoed.

Geniet dit!

Soortgelyke verhaal hier in NC gisteraand. maar koud. Tussen my oë en 'n verkyker is daardie deel van die lug my gunsteling!

# 11 jgraham

Een van die wonderlikste oomblikke in my lewe was om een ​​oggend voor dagbreek na buite te stap en die komeet-Wes in die suidooste te sien hang. Dit moet die mooiste ding wees wat ek nog ooit gesien het.

Dit is lekker om na te dink oor die dekades wat ek daaraan bestee het om dieper, wyer, flouer, skerper te sien, en dan agteroor te sit en die 'nabye lug' op te neem sonder die grense van 'n okular of om met die fokus te hoef te om die berg te stamp. Ek het my daaglikse dosis Star Date geniet (van die McDonald Observatory) en gelees Draai links by Orion en my betroubare ou Burnham's Celestial Handbook, en dit is baie ontspannend om buite te sit en net na die sterre en streke te kyk beskryf. Ek het baie van die afgelope 14 jaar ook aan moderne beeldvorming geskenk (met 40 jaar film voor dit) en dit is lekker om na die lug te kyk en al die voorwerpe wat ek gesien het met my kameras af te merk. Ek kan hulle miskien nie met my blote oog sien nie, maar ek weet waar hulle skuil.

# 12 thomasr

Een voordeel om vroegtydig te begin werk, is die kans om die lug te sien.

Ek verlaat die huis voor sonop, en wens gereeld dat ek kan instel in plaas daarvan om uit te gaan.

Die afgelope tyd was dit alles wolke.
.

Toe ek vandag om 06:45 op my pendeltrein gewag het toe die sonsopkoms die oostelike lug begin ophelder het, sien ek die somerdriehoek opkom. Daardie 'uurwerk'-aspek van die naghemel plaas altyd 'n glimlag op my een of ander manier.

Gestuur vanaf my LG-H915 met Tapatalk

# 13 vroeë opkoms

+1, verkieslik met 'n swaartekragstoel as die "gemakstoel" (en miskien 'n verkyker met 'n lae kragverbruik).

Ek het eintlik gisteraand na dieselfde lug gekyk, ons het 'n halfuur onderbreek in die wolke van 8 tot 8:30, terwyl ons met die honde gekyk het. Nie so aangenaam soos om te sit nie, veral nie met twee honde onder die voete nie, maar ek kon sweer dat ek die Orion-newel met 'n afgewende gesig kon optel, maar miskien was dit net die sterretros in die algemene omgewing.

Ek het opgemerk dat die lug donkerder lyk as ek deur gate in die wolke kyk. My teorie is dat die wolke die lug van baie van die grond af skadu.

# 14 thomasr

Ek het opgemerk dat die lug donkerder lyk as ek deur gate in die wolke kyk. My teorie is dat die wolke die lug van baie van die grond af skadu.

Gestuur vanaf my LG-H915 met Tapatalk

# 15 vroeë opkoms

Ek het opgemerk dat die lug donkerder lyk as ek deur gate in die wolke kyk. My teorie is dat die wolke die lug van baie van die grond af skadu.

Gestuur vanaf my LG-H915 met Tapatalk

Dit is nog 'n moontlikheid wat ek oorweeg het. As u deur 'n swart buis kyk, kan dit die optiese effek uitskakel. Ek sal 'n nag nodig hê wat meestal bewolkte en helder lug het, sodat ek die minimum sigbare groottes onder elke toestand kan vergelyk. Kyk deur 'n verkyker kan ook werk.

# 16 MalVeauX

Toe ek gisteraand beeld, het ek my C6 uitgetrek. Ek vergeet altyd hoeveel meer opening dit regtig meer as 80 mm het. Ek gooi haar op die skemer en begin Orion blaai net om die aand aan die gang te kry. Die Telrad op die C6 is so nuttig dat dit nou redelik goed in lyn is en as ek die middelpunt op 'n kompleks of ster plaas en kyk, selfs met 'n 100x-vergroting, is die onderwerp in die gesigsveld. Het nie eers een keer die finder-omvang gebruik nie. Alhoewel ek daaraan dink om dit te verander en 'n regte hoek van 50 mm by te voeg, net vir 'wye aansigte' (minder vinder) as 'n kompliment daarvoor, en 'n laser (want ek hou net van die snelheid van laserster-huppel).

Terwyl ek Orion rondgevaar en die Trapezium met 'n vergroting van 100x met 'n 15 mm-paal gekyk het, het ek beweging gesien en gedink dat dit 'n vliegtuig was, dus het ek dit aangehou en dit gevolg met die slow motion-knoppies. Sucker het egter vinnig beweeg. Ek het dit basies gevolg tot by die horison voordat dit in die onsienbare vervaag het. Besef dat ek waarskynlik 'n satelliet of ISS gevolg het. Dit was baie lekker, interessant en het my lus gemaak om meer te jag. Het my ook laat jeuk vir meer diafragma (ugh!). Maar dit moet draagbaar wees om vir my gebruik te kry.

# 17 Spesiale Ed

Een voordeel om vroegtydig te begin werk, is die kans om die lug te sien.

Ek verlaat die huis voor sonop, en wens gereeld dat ek kan instel in plaas daarvan om uit te gaan.

Die afgelope tyd was dit alles wolke.
.

Toe ek om 06:45 op my pendeltrein gewag het, terwyl die sonsopkoms die oostelike lug begin ophelder, sien ek die somerdriehoek opkom. Daardie 'uurwerk'-aspek van die naghemel plaas altyd 'n glimlag op my een of ander manier.

Gestuur vanaf my LG-H915 met Tapatalk

Ek het die ander oggend vroeg (5:30 plaaslik) uitgeklim om Jupiter te aanskou, maar moes opgee omdat die sien so swak was. Ek het my beeldgestabiliseerde verkyker by die huis gelos, en ek het net 'n bietjie tyd in die lug gekyk terwyl die skemer helderder word. Een van die voordele van 'n afroldak-observatorium is dat u die hele lug kan sien.

Laag in die SE het Antares rooi gegloei, gevolg deur geel Saturnus, gevolg deur die kwynende sekelmaan met aardskyn. Vir die SSW was Jupiter net 'n paar grade bo Spica. Arcturus het die konstellasie Bootes hoog geanker. I spent a little time orienting myself to Bootes in anticipation of locating Comet Johnson another time--no point looking this time with the dawn approaching rapidly. To the NE, Vega was already fairly high with Deneb below it. I could see the Keystone in Hercules a little above Vega. Then an owl started hooting up on the mountain. Perfect.

Edited by Special Ed, 28 January 2017 - 11:40 AM.

#18 Michael Rapp

I have been enjoying my daily dose of Star Date (from the McDonald Observatory) and reading Turn Left at Orion and my trusty old Burnham's Celestial Handbook and it is very relaxing to sit outside and just look at some of the stars and regions that are being described.

It's interesting to me that you mention those things. I've done something similar recently. Like yourself, I've been in the hobby most of my life and, as is normal, one gains experience and does more challenging and intricate things in the hobby. Over time the hobby can become more -- technical is not quite the right word -- perhaps, involved.

It is absolutely refreshing to take a step back and so some simpler things. For me this was recently taking out H.A. Rey's The Stars and reading it and remembering what it was like as a seven-year-old just starting to get acquainted with the night sky (or the little of it I could see from within Houston).

It brings us back to feelings of pure curiosity and unqualified wonder which often are so truncated and elusive in later life in this modern era.

#19 thomasr

So while imaging last night, I toted out my C6. I always forget how much more aperture it really has over an 80mm. I tossed her on the Twilight and started browsing Orion just to get the night started. The Telrad on the C6 is so useful, it's aligned fairly well now and when I put the center dot on a complex or star, and look in, even at 100x magnification, the subject is in the field of view. Didn't even use the finder scope once. Though I'm thinking of changing that and adding a 50mm right angle, just for "wide views" (less of a finder)

I find the C6 + 50mm RACI to be a nifty combo. The difference in magnification and aperture is enough to present what (to me at least) is a completely different perspective on the sky. While still being close enough that patterns are recognizable. I'm actually thinking I'd like to swap out the lighted crosshair eyepiece for something with no crosshairs at all, so I can use it more as a pure observing tool.

Sent from my LG-H915 using Tapatalk

#20 MalVeauX

So while imaging last night, I toted out my C6. I always forget how much more aperture it really has over an 80mm. I tossed her on the Twilight and started browsing Orion just to get the night started. The Telrad on the C6 is so useful, it's aligned fairly well now and when I put the center dot on a complex or star, and look in, even at 100x magnification, the subject is in the field of view. Didn't even use the finder scope once. Though I'm thinking of changing that and adding a 50mm right angle, just for "wide views" (less of a finder)

I find the C6 + 50mm RACI to be a nifty combo. The difference in magnification and aperture is enough to present what (to me at least) is a completely different perspective on the sky. While still being close enough that patterns are recognizable. I'm actually thinking I'd like to swap out the lighted crosshair eyepiece for something with no crosshairs at all, so I can use it more as a pure observing tool.

Sent from my LG-H915 using Tapatalk

That's what I'm looking to do as well. I'm thinking of adding a 50mm achromat to it, like my guidescope, with a diagonal and then control what eyepiece I use. Use it as a low power wide field scope to simply observe larger relationships of things with no cross hair. I'll leave the Telrad on there for now. And then be able to swap between the two for really wide views and then high power views with more aperture with the C6. I recently put a RACI on my 80mm APO and I really like being able to take a look at a 5 degree FOV. Having 5 degrees compared to 1 or 0.5 degrees on the C6 is great!


Visual observing: big APO refractor VS. big Dobson

I agree with what you say if this is enjoyable to you. In my 100% digital world spending all of my day working and browsing on a computer screen, observing with my eyes at the eyepiece of my smaller refractors and 20" Dob, old school, gives me the enjoyment of using my eyes and brain the way I used it before the electronic world. Not everything in one's life should be so automatic. Not good for you. The big scope still has valuable uses.

Don't always type text but hand write 'cursively', read a real book in your hands, don't always drive, short distances, but walk. These are some of the things that keep you healthy, feeling better, and longer living.

True, images are available on the Internet. But they are not YOUR images.

If you travel to the Grand Canyon do you not take pictures because there are pictures of the Grand Canyon on the Internet? Would you put Internet images of your trip to the Grand Canyon in a family photo album?

The images that one records of the Canyon or of the sky are not just images they are personal reminders of the experience and the emotional reward/impact of that experience.

In addition, real-time Night Vision observing with an intensifier or very short exposure EAA imaging will surpass the detail that is seen in larger aperture telescopes. And those images/observations will be different than the long exposure images on the Internet and they will be your images and your observations.

Today (it is 2020 not 1985), if one seeks more light gathering and the corresponding detail in deep sky objects that more light gathering delivers there are alternatives to bulky, large mirror telescopes that require dark skies.

PS: It is interesting to note that when Toyota wanted to produce a high-end sports car like the Supra they went to BMW for the engine, drivetrain and most of the internal components right down to the door chimes. Build quality between Toyota and BMW “might” be arguable but performance is not – and the same with refractors. As an owner of both BMW and Toyota and of a few high-end and value-priced refractors that is my experience anyway.

Bob

Edited by Peter Natscher, 14 December 2020 - 07:10 PM.

#227 Kunama

I agree with what you say if this is enjoyable to you. In my 100% digital world spending all of my day working and browsing on a computer screen, observing with my eyes at the eyepiece of my smaller refractors and 20" Dob, old school, gives me the enjoyment of using my eyes and brain the way I used it before the electronic world. Not everything in one's life should be so automatic. Not good for you. The big scope still has valuable uses.

Don't always type text but hand write 'cursively', read a real book in your hands, don't always drive, short distances, but walk. These are some of the things that keep you healthy, feeling better, and longer living.

#228 2112_Mike

Well to me, it gets back to one of the comments near the start of this topic. The view through a refractor is different. If you enjoy the view that a refractor will give you then, like me, you will be very happy.

I had a very memorable view of the Orion nebula the other night through my $400 AT80ED and $150 Meade 20mm eyepiece, with the 10mm Ethos it was even better. I once owned a 4-inch unitron refractor and a 12in Dob. But I would always take the Unitron out I found because it gave me all that it could with its 4 inches of aperture and the images through it to me just looked better even though it was not nearly as bright and I could not see nearly as faint of objects. Not trying to wax nostalgic but there was one night with the Unitron where Saturn looked so good that I wished I could wake up the neighbors. I still remember those nights. I don't remember any nights like that with my 12-inch job and I believe it had a pretty good optics. They were satisfying nights but not the same as looking through a refractor at least to me. And to top it off the Unitron and most refractors sitting on an equatorial mount just have some kind of a magical look to them.

#229 Jon Isaacs

The process of using an intensifier is exactly the same as using an eyepiece. They both are real-time observing. They both have about the same weight and ergonomics. They both can be used with filters. The ONLY difference is what one sees when looking through one or the other.

You don’t use a large telescope because you enjoy it. You use a large telescope because it gathers more light and that extra light gathering allows you to see more and it is the “seeing more” that gives you enjoyment.

There is absolutely NO difference in the emotional impact between using a mirror or using an intensifier to gather more light. The additional light gathering provided by the intensifier allows one to see more and bring the enjoyment of seeing more that added light gathering brings. Same as a large mirror. The one difference is that with an intensifier you will see "a lot" more.

The emotional impact of seeing more is exactly the same “only the tool used is different”.

Bob

You really don't me or why I do things. You make some assumptions that are just wrong. The reason I use large scopes is that I can use large scopes and they provide the views i am interested in. If I had an image intensified eyepiece, I would use it in those same scopes. You might use large scopes if it only took you 5 minutes to set them up.

How does an image intensifier affect your dark adapted vision. What kind of colors do you see. What is the resolution, are you splitting double stars with it? Viewing the planets? It's not the same.

The emotional impact may be exactly the same for you, it isn't for me. You are telling me that if I put a motor on my bicycle, the emotional impact will be exactly the same. It just doesn't work that way.

I have a fair amount of experience with image intensifiers and what they do to the image. I used image intensified ultra high speed cameras in my research work for about 30 years. The red and black piece of gear on the stand, that's a high speed framing camera capable of 5 nano second "Shutter times" and 5 nanosecond inter frame times, when we first got it, it was the fastest camera in the world. Pretty interesting stuff but it was that aesthetically pleasing. But when something happens in a microsecond or so, you can't see it naked eye.

#230 Wildetelescope

I believe Bob lives a hour or so north of me on 95. Bill p is about an hour or so south. Environmental conditions in our area(mid atlantic) are as you describe as you option 2. Jet stream, large temperature gradients, dew(for cats) , convection off rooftops, all conspire to confound backyard observing with large aperture scopes during the early part of the evening. Because of this my refractors generally get more use for visual observation for me. However, when I do pull out my 10 inch dob, and give it enough time to cool, it will exceed the capability of my refractors. Yes, seeing will prevent the dob from achieving its optimal performance, but an additional 4-6 inches of aperture provide a significant performance cushion that is difficult for smaller refractors to overcome. Our clubs 14-20 inch dobs provide amazing views.

Anyway, that is my experience.

quote name="Jon Isaacs" post="10542330" timestamp="1601331453"]

Seeing is not a constant, it varies. The eye can catch moments of good seeing. Alan French who's located north of you points this out. Greg is making this same point.. patience..

Goodtostargaze.com rated the seeing from my backyard at 0.6" for the last two nights. Tonight they're saying it will be 1.2"-1.3". My 10 inch will still outperform my 120 mm apo.

My guess is your backyard isn't that steady.

I have come to realize there are two types of planetary scopes..

- Those that make the best of a very good situation. These are generally large aperture scopes that can take advantage of excellent seeing. Evidence suggests such a scope would be a good fit for my situation.

- Those that make the best of a less than ideal situation. Thermal issues from harsh climates, jet streams overhead, unstable seeing, clouds and short periods of clear skies. You have to be ready and you don't want to wait for your scope. Refractors of moderate size are very often preferred.

I suspect that Ruben's situation is more like the second than the first.

#231 Astrojensen

Bob, has it not occurred to you, that some of us might enjoy visual observing in more ways than just a way to see celestial objects? That we enjoy the visual observing experience in itself, just like the hiker, who prefers to walk, because it gives him a different experience than riding a car? That we like it, not because it's easy, but precisely because it's sometimes difficult? That because one needs to learn skills that can be difficult to master, we take pride in mastering those skills and feel overjoyed, when we have successfully used them to see something so faint and feeble, almost no one else have ever seen it?

Why is it, that in today's world, "more" is almost always associated with "better"?

#232 Gofr

Well, my light bucket is my C9. Not really that large as far as "light buckets" go, but it's the biggest I have, and probably the biggest I will ever go as I feel the C9 is already enough of a hassle to deal with. I could not imagine dealing with some of those behemoth dobs or larger SCTs. I could maybe be willing to deal with a 10" dob at most, but unless I was looking to switch from a GEM mounted SCT platform to a dob platform, a 10" dob won't be giving me much more than what my C9 already does.

Anyway, my point is that the first first time I looked through my C9, I was completely blown away by what I saw. It really blew my socks off. My C9 was my second scope, after my 90mm achro, so all I knew before it was what my little achro could give me. While I loved (and still do) my little achro, the C9 was just a whole 'nother level. It was quite the huge jump to make in a single leap. For the first time I saw shadow transits on Jupiter, the moons were disks and not points of light, smaller craters on the moon became more visible, more double star pairs for splitting are within reach, and DSOs were more than very faint smudges. they're now more detailed smudges. lol You really don't need to go to a massive dob, a nice 8-10 dob or SCT will already be plenty enough to give some of the most amazing views you'll ever see while actually also being PRACTICAL a majority of the time.

That all being said, I still appreciate a smaller, lighter, easier scope setup. That's why my third scope was a 5" mak. I wanted something that could still perform above my 90mm achro, but I wanted to maintain it on my little EQ2 and not be forced to drag out the heavier Exos 2 all the time. A mak was the perfect solution. Yeah my C9 still kills it, but the mak compared to my achro, is still a quite a big difference. Couple weeks ago I made a comparison between the mak and the achro on the orion nebula and there was definitely more nebular structure visible in the mak. I could actually make out the wings of the nebula on my mak, but my achro showed just the main body with only a hint of the initial wing structure. Fair play to the achro though, being that it's an F10, it still does throw up some amazing (relatively colour-free) views, and does still see some use from time to time, especially when I don't feel like dealing with cooling the mak (and the occasional solar view).

So, yes, aperture wins, but imo only up to a point. The practicality of larger scopes, at least for me, makes them nigh unusable a chunk of the time. I want to get my stuff out quick and easy, get my views in, then bring it all back in quick and easy again. Very large scopes are not quick and certainly not easy but hey, it's different for everyone. I'm a big lazy ****, so while I personally cannot imagine handling larger than my C9 or a 10" dob, there are plenty of folks out there with 16"+ dobs and having no problems, so it really is a personal choice one has to make and decide for themselves how far they are willing, or can, go.

Just be careful not to get suckered in to aperture fever and grabbing more scope that you can deal with. A smaller scope that gets used more often is infinitely more valuable than a larger scope that only comes out a couple nights a year.


12 x Best Choice

having just received the green light for a 12 x mag binocular purchase from my other half (early Christmas gift to be checked and then put away) i now find myself in a quandry
I aim to spend around £100 UK or $190-200 US on a 12 x something
I mainly intend to use this binocular for long range aircraft viewing and a well overdue basic start at nightime viewing
Heres my worries
I know Edz has rated the Nikon Action Extreme quite highly in his recent thorough tests but i have some concern in reading that he found the actual fov to be either 5.1 or 5.2 (i have seen both mentioned in posts)
Considering this binocular is manufacturer listed as actually 5.5 fov i am worried the view could be a bit tunnel ish
The thing is facts and figures are a guide but not always defining so anyone including Edz have any comments please to make
What does that apparent fov actually feel like please regardless of the science measurements ?
I cannot easily test this locally where i live as there are no 12 x Nikons stocked on the shelf
Of course if there is a fantastically wide view brilliant alternative to the Nikon i'd love to know
The SE 12 x is a non starter for over long eye relief and cost reasons
Many thanks for any info in advance

#2 KennyJ

I really hope I'm proved wrong , so wrong , about this , but wouldn't be surprised if you fail to find a 12x binocular for £100 that enhances the type of viewing specified in any way superior to several of the binoculars you already own !

Good luck , nonetheless !
Kenny

#3 viperbob

# 4 halleluja

i have some concern in reading that he found the actual fov to be either 5.1 or 5.2 (i have seen both mentioned in posts)
Considering this binocular is manufacturer listed as actually 5.5 fov i am worried the view could be a bit tunnel ish

When I had the Nikon Action 16x50mm with a FOV of 4.1 I don't recall anything approaching tunnel vision.

One of my favorite grab n go binoculars today is my Orion LG II 15x70mm, with an advertised FOV of 4 degrees. I would not call it tunnel vision either.

#5 hallelujah

I went and looked through my Pentax PCF WP II 12x50mm with an advertised FOV of 4.2 degrees, this binocular has more of what you would refer to as tunnel vision.

Perhaps EdZ wouldn't mind explaining what causes the tunnel vision in the Pentax 12x50mm.

#6 EdZ

More than anything else, people might experience tunnel vision when the AFOV is narrow, especially when that narrow Afov is used in conjunction with a higher power. In the Pentax it's 12x4.2 or only about 50°. That is perceived as narrow by some folks.It's just like the difference between looking thru a WA eyepiece and a plossl. The Nikon AE is 12x5.1 = 61°. 60+° is rarely perceived as narrow. Many 10x50s fall in the range of 60-62°.

Of the 5 different 12x50s I've used, the Nikon AE is the widest by a hair.

All of these others have an Afov from 50-54°
Oberwerk 25x100 IF
Fujinon FMT-SX 10x70
Oberwerk Mariner 10x60
Pentax PCF WP 10x50
Leupold WR Mesa 10x50
Celestron Regal 8x42 Roof
Bushnell Legend 8x42 Roof
Garrett DCF 8x42 ApoRoof
Fujinon BFL 8x42
Swift Ultralite 8x42
Orion Vista 8x42
Captain's Storm King 7x50
William Optic 7x50 ED
Nikon ProStar 7x50
Vixen Foresta 7x50
Captain's Helmsman 7x50

All of these have an Afov smaller than 50°
Pentax PCF WP II 20x60
Pentax PCF WP 16x60
Nikon S&E Kestrel 10x50
Oberwerk 8x42 Roof
Oberwerk 8x56
Pentax PCF WP II 8x40
Pentax PCF WP 8x40
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50
Leupold Yosemite 6x30

#7 richtea

Thanks to everyone for good advice and replies

Kenny you have a fair point about the £100 marker but there is at least one UK retailer offering the 12 x Nikon Action Ex at just under this presently (almost as good as the US prices which is rare)so maybe i can just about do the price thing

Bob thanks for the owner thumbs up from you

Edz and Hallelujah that pretty much convinces me the Action EX should be a reasonably comfortable view
Some of this viewing will be via tripod mount

It may well be this binocular is not quite up to some of my others in the stable but i read Edz's summary very carefully and i doubt i can find much better in a 12 x for this kind of outlay

Thanks again all
Will have a final think on this one

#8 edcannon

Another thing that definitely can cause a tunnel vision effect is using short-eye-relief binoculars while wearing eyeglasses.

I think I'll try to emphasize Kenny's subtle point somewhat more. Given that you have the excellent Zeiss 10x50 and Nikon SE 10x42, I would suggest that as lesser quality 12x50 is likely to be disappointing. Nominally, the 12x is 20% more magnification than the 10x, but I don't think the actual outcome with the not-as-high quality 12x would be much, if any, different from the two high-quality ones you already have. But that's just my thought, and I could of course be wrong.

#9 richtea

Well you and Kenny have sort of got me pausing on this and it seems the UK offer will be there for a while so no panic
Maybe i will attempt to try any reasonable 12 x i can borrow from the local bird wetlands i often visit (if anyone has a 12 x that is )
I have often swapped binoculars there for an hour or two in the past so just maybe

Anyone on CN knows how the optics disease creeps in though and i'm just intrigued as to whether i can handhold them (probably not for long) and also does that extra 20% reach translate into real benefit in some viewings

Thanks to both of you for caring as to whether i spend money to then have buyer regret but .
One of the evils of partially home working is right next to the laptop is the browser button on my pc
I really must stop looking at on line optics ads
Come to think of it i'm back in Florida in 7 weeks so perhaps i will try and find a Nikon Action EX 12 x to physically try

#10 KennyJ

As you will be aware by reading the posts to this forum , some people would seem to have either a greater capability to hold higher magnification binoculars steady , or different perceptions about what a truly steady image actually is !

While I'm quite happy sometimes looking through 15x binoculars hand - held in the daytime , I know when it comes to looking at the night sky , I can't even hold my 7x binoculars steady enough to see things I can when I have them mounted .

You may well find 12x binoculars fine for tracking high flying aircraft in the daytime , but using them hand - held as a first tool for astronomy may prove more frustrating .

I had loan of some Oberwerk 12 x 60 binoculars for a while and must say I was quite impressed by the views through them , but for star gazing they were definitely better mounted .

Then of course , usually comes the old philosophical thought process of " well , if I'm going to mount them anyway , I may as well get higher magnification binoculars instead " , but I don't necessarily see things that way .

The Oberwerk 12 x 60 has a very generous AFOV ( around 68 degrees ) TFOV in excess of 5.5 degrees , and that was very much part of the reason I enjoyed using them .

Had they , for example , only a 4 degree TFOV I would probably have thought differently , as I once had some 12x binoculars with a 4.6 degree TFOV ( also with short eye - relief ) and the image always felt cramped , to say the least .

Canon make even 8x stabilised binoculars for a reason .

I hope you manage to get hold of some 12x binoculars in your quoted price range to try for yourself before making a decision .

#11 medinabrit

#12 richtea

Fair enough on the hand holding thing in fact i actually had a brief spell last year when i started to favour my 8 x's over the 10's for hand holding
Somehow i've gone back to 10 x and 8.5 x lately but i guess the beauty is being fortunate enough to have the choice of some good bins at various mags
I think i will stall on this short term and do my utmost to look through a 12 x before a decision

Kenny you will have to be scolded for now throwing another wide field 12 x into my path.
I imagine from what you say the Oberwerk's at 12 x 60 may be another way to go

My wife salutes you all in the knowledge her money stays intact and the office cupboard does not inherit another case of binoculars . For Now .

#13 viperbob

#14 richtea

Well i think on balance if i do go for a 12 x it is likely to be the Nikon Action Ex
I have re-read Edz's findings on this binocular yet again and it seems to me its not a million miles off the 12 x SE especially looking at the cost relativity
Before i am committed to burning hell fire by SE owners i do realise the SE is a better instrument generally but i struggle at times with the eye relief/placement on my SE 10 x 42 (wife mainly uses this one) so for me the 12 x SE may well prove a costly compromise
The more i read the review/analysis of the Action Ex the more it seems to be really good value

Will be patient i think and have a try before i buy

#15 viperbob

#16 Lamb0

#17 richtea

Thanks for that and noted the Minolta 12 x 50 WP FP porro which seems almost same specs as Nikon Action EX
I own the 8 x 40 Minolta WP FP porro and that is a very good binocular indeed for the money in my opinion
If the 12 x is anything near then its another option

#18 hallelujah

#19 richtea

Yes thanks i had seen this model but in the clearance section on same site is Nikon Action Ex 12 x 50 for a little less
Still pondering a 12 x !!

#20 brocknroller

I didn't like the 12x50 AE for stargazing, promptly sold them, and bought a 12x50 SE. Unfortunately, sky conditions deteriorated greatly after the 70 acres of woodland near my house were developed into a shopping mall so they didn't get much use except on dark sky trips.

Also, despite the exceptional close focus on my second sample 12x50 SE (same sample that Edz had and Steve M. has now), that 20% step up from the 10x42 SE was not as useful for birding as I had imagined, and was counteracted by the need to use a tripod, which I found too confining.

However, for stargazing, the 12x SE made a very noticeable and pleasing difference. 12x seemed to hit the "sweet spot" for me and the large objectives also made a difference, yielding images that were very bright, very contrasty, and more detailed than the 10x42 SE.

And the 12x50 SE's "sweet spot" is almost to the edge, which was also very pleasant to behold. My 12x50 AE sample's edges fell off at about 60%.

So there was a BIG difference in edge performance. I couldn't tell if there was any difference in on-axis resolution, I'm sure Edz measured this, but the AE's contrast didn't seem to be as good as the SE so the overall "sharpness" (which I use Steve Ingraham's definition as being resolution + contrast) was less in the AE.

Rich, you probably will not feel cramped at all with a 60ish* AFOV of the AE despite the difference in listed specs, as Edz pointed out.

OTOH, for plane spotting, depending on how far away the planes are, a 12x36 IS would probably work better.

I live near an airport and the planes come in close so trying to quickly find them with the 12x50 SE on a tripod before they disappeared behind the trees was frustrating.

This was much easier accomplished with the 10x30 IS, which granted has a degree larger FOV, but I don't think that was as important as my ability to be able to hand hold the binoculars for quick targeting the planes.

If you plan to use the 12x bins at an air show where they do aerial acrobatics, the IS is definitely the better choice.

For stargazing, the 12x50 SE would probably be the better choice if you didn't mind mounting them or become a "human tripod" and brace yourself well in a lawn chair.

I haven't tried the 12x36 IS II, but I've read comments from those who compared it with the 12x50 SE, and also corresponded with one owner, and all agreed that the SE's optics were "superior".

So unless you want to find the plane's ID #s (some plane spotters do, don't ask me why!) you might to need to compromise on one use or the other, or buy two different binoculars, or use a bin in your present stable for plane spotting and buy the 12x for stargazing.

I highly recommend the 12x50 SE. You have the 10x42 SE so you know the quality, but if you haven't used the 12x50 SE, I think you'd be surprised at the extra "oooph" it provides over the 10x42 for stargazing.


Comments

Thanks Calvin. I’m really interested in viewing and photographing birds in my Garden. Have always been interested in photography but this crazy year with shutdowns has given me a real interest in watching birds in my garden. Have used a pretty cheap scope with my phone attached but was drawn to this as it also has an attachment for a DSLR. ! I know you did not review this accessory but would be very interested if you had any thoughts on it or any other equipment I could combine my interest in photography with my new found love of Bird watching !

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.