Astronomija

Vid predora med gledanjem skozi reflektor

Vid predora med gledanjem skozi reflektor


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.

Imam Celestron astromaster130 eq. Med gledanjem skozi okular ali uporabo fotoaparata na pametnem telefonu vedno obstaja dokončno območje brez svetlobe (v ukrivljenosti je krožno). Poskrbim, da pogledam neposredno v okular, toda zaradi tuneliranja je včasih res težko videti stvari. To sem poizkušal, vendar nisem prepričan, kako se imenuje ta učinek. Je to splošna težava ali je treba odpraviti kakšno napako v teleskopu samem. Če ne, na kakšne načine je to mogoče učinkovito zmanjšati? Hvala. Popravki so zelo dobrodošli.


To je povsem normalno vedenje. Kar vidite, je rob projekcijskega kota leče. Verjetno je to nekaj, kar vidite? :

Običajno je to bolj opazno pri cenejših okularjih, saj so posamezni elementi manjši in imajo manjše vidno polje.


V teleskopu (pravzaprav v katerem koli optičnem sistemu) zadnji optični element ustvari krožno območje, imenovano "izhodna zenica", to območje se mora poravnati z zenico v vašem očesu ("vhodna zenica" za optični sistem, imenovana vaš oko). Če se učenca ne poravnata, ne boste videli nobene svetlobe, ki jo zbira teleskop.


Očniki serije XL so & # 8220Secret Omaka & # 8221

Večina daljnogleda ima opisno ime modela, na primer & # 822010 & # 21550 Deluxe & # 8221 ali & # 822020 & # 21580 LW & # 8220, prva številka je povečava, druga pa premer objektiva v milimetrih. Toda binokularni teleskop, kot je & # 8220BT-100XL-ED & # 8220, razglasi le objektivno velikost, ker je povečava v celoti določena z goriščno razdaljo katerega koli okularja, ki je vanj priključen. Za BT-100XL-ED je goriščnica okularja 22 mm = 25x, 14 mm = 40x in 7 mm = 80x.

Primarna funkcija okularja je torej povečanje koncentrirane svetlobe, ki jo zbirajo leče objektiva in prizme korigirajo sliko. Obstajajo pa številni drugi atributi in lastnosti okularja, ki močno vplivajo na vse vidike slike, ki jo vidi oseba, ki gleda skozi daljnogled. Sem spadajo AFOV (navidezno vidno polje), stopnja ostrine na celotnem vidnem polju, kontrast in relief oči. Človeško oko ima FOV približno 120 stopinj (iz 360-stopinjskega kroga), z dvema očesoma pa lahko vidimo približno 180 stopinj vodoravno. Okular AFOV se meri na enak način kot človeško oko in širše kot je okular AFOV, bolj poglobljena je izkušnja gledanja. Okularji, ki imajo ozek AFOV (50 stopinj ali manj), dajejo občutek & # 8220tonelnega vida & # 8221, medtem ko je širok AFOV bolj občutek & # 8220slikarstva & # 8221.

Toda širši AFOV & # 8217s so lahko problematični, zlasti pri ohranjanju ostrine, ko se približujete robu polja. Cilj zasnove okularja je doseči čim širši AFOV, obenem pa ohraniti oster fokus na celotnem vidnem polju, ohraniti visok kontrast (& # 8220blacker & # 8221 črne barve) in upamo, da ima dovolj olajšave za oči, da ga lahko udobno vidite celoten FOV, ne da bi morali gledati naravnost proti lečam, še bolje, če tisti, ki nosijo očala, vidijo celoten FOV.

V zadnjih letih so se okularji radikalno izboljšali z vse bolj zapletenimi oblikami, ki za dosego teh ciljev uporabljajo več (in pogosto veliko večje) elemente leč. Vsi trije novi okularji Oberwerk & # 8217s imajo široko in poglobljeno 70-stopinjsko ostrino slike (AFOV) z neverjetno ostrino po celotnem območju FOV. Kontrast je odličen - in tam je dovolj olajšav za oči, ki jih lahko uporabite med nošenjem očal. Oglejte si rez na desni strani, ki prikazuje osem leče, ki se uporabljajo v teh okularjih. Primerjajte to z okularji 25x in 40x (3 ali 4 elementi), ki so vključeni brez doplačila, z daljnogledom konkurenta (prikazan zgoraj levo). Kateri po vašem mnenju ponuja najkakovostnejši pogled? Vse to izboljšanje delovanja okularja ima seveda višjo ceno, vendar okularji so ključnega pomena katerega koli daljnogleda. Primerjajte stroške okularjev Oberwerk XL z visoko cenjenimi okularji teleskopov Baader in Teleview, prikazanimi zgoraj desno (kar je mimogrede tudi lepo delujejo v seriji XL) in vidite, da so okularji Oberwerk zelo konkurenčni. Medtem ko daljnogledi z daljnogledi XL serije ponujajo neverjetne zmogljivosti in vrednost, so to okularji XL, ki so & # 8220sekretna omaka & # 8221.


Uživanje v ustvarjanju boga z astronomijo

Hugh Ross je svojo kariero začel pri sedmih letih, ko je odšel v knjižnico, da bi raziskal, zakaj so zvezde vroče. Fizika in astronomija sta ujeli njegovo radovednost in je nikoli nista izpustila. Pri sedemnajstih letih je bil najmlajša oseba, ki je kdajkoli služil kot direktor opazovanj Vancouverjevega kraljevskega astronomskega društva.

Ali ti imeti nadobudnega astronoma doma? Naložba teleskopa je nekaj, v čemer lahko uživa celotna družina. Nova tehnologija je v zadnjih letih pomagala znatno zmanjšati stroške, toda kako veste, katero kupiti? Tu je nekaj splošnih smernic.

1. Uporabnost področja uporabe je neposredno povezana s kakovostjo optike. Za najboljše rezultate boste želeli "reflektorski" teleskop (ne "refraktor").

2. Ključna statistika teleskopa ni njegova povečava, temveč odprtina. Torej boste želeli dobiti teleskop z najširša zaslonka (ne povečave), ki si jo lahko privoščite. Večina predmetov ne potrebuje povečave toliko kot posvetlitev. Teleskopi z večjo odprtino zberejo več svetlobe in tako prikažejo zatemnjene predmete.

Za dober prvi teleskop dr. Ross priporoča Dobsoniana z vsaj 6-palčno odprtino. Druga odlična možnost (in bolj priročna za uporabo) je Schmidt-Cassegrain.

3. Na vrednost teleskopa vpliva tudi drugi dejavnik: ozračje. Pogled na zvezde bo izredno omejen, če živite v glavnem metropolitanskem območju. V idealnem primeru bi želeli svoj teleskop uporabljati daleč stran od svetlobnega "onesnaženja". To bo močno izboljšalo vašo sposobnost videti oddaljena vesoljska telesa.

4. Dr. Ross začetnike močno spodbuja, naj razmislijo o dodatni naložbi teleskopa z avtomatiziranim iskalnikom zvezd (GPS). Ta dodatek bo izkušnjo opazovanja zvezd naredil bolj koristno, saj boste lahko veliko hitreje našli določene vesoljske predmete.

5. Dodatna kakovostna okularja so še ena dobra naložba. Velik del frustracij poceni merilnikov prihaja iz njihovih okularjev s tunelskim vidom.

6. Nekateri področji imajo tudi nastavke za digitalne fotoaparate, ki vam omogočajo zajemanje slik vaših odkritij. Dober nabor filtrov je lahko tudi koristen pripomoček. Filtri lahko olajšajo videnje šibkih predmetov, kot so planeti, galaksije in meglice.

Večina večjih mest ima ljubiteljske astronomske klube, ki prirejajo zvezdniške zabave, pogosto brezplačno. Navdušeni veterani radi pomagajo novim ljudem, da se vključijo v njihov ljubljeni hobi.

Na koncu se zavedajte, da so vesoljske slike, ki ste jih vajeni videti, praviloma s Hubblovega vesoljskega teleskopa. Predmeti skozi domači teleskop ne bodo videti tako živo. Kljub temu lahko vaš dom postane skromna naložba kraj za jasne noči, ko si delite boljši pogled na božje stvarjenje.


Kakovost zrcal za reflektorske teleskope

1. Pravzaprav se mi zdi zanimivo, da nobenega korektorja kome ne uporabljate skoraj tako dobro, da bi ga slišali. Zanima me preizkus f / 3 ali tako, vendar še nisem tako hitro zrcalil ogledala. Prebral sem (enkrat) o tem, da se nekdo sprašuje o novih okularjih s širokim poljem, češ da po točki vseeno res ne moreš vsega vzeti. obrobje našega vida ni zgrajeno za "detajle" toliko kot za središče našega vida, zato morajo tudi pri okularjih obstajati "meje" In spet nastavitve. Zmedli so me vaši "všečki" f / 8 in "a huevo", misleč, da pravite, da to ni resnično vprašanje. Da to priznavate, vendar se mi ne zdi tako žaljivo kot drugi, mi je zdaj drugačno razumevanje in jasno.

2. Da, naredil sem nekaj lestvic in se strinjam. Ves čas razmišljam o Clydeju Tombaughu, ki je imel, če se prav spomnim, 16 "f / 10. To je še ena ideja, ki mi je všeč in jo bom moral počakati, da poskusim. Obšel je lestev z gradnjo odra, ki ga je lahko prilagodil, cevni sklop blizu poldnevnika, če se prav spomnim. toda OP je bil približno 6-10 "Obseg in to se oddaljuje od OP (le da so ljudje včasih šli na relativno dolga razmerja f / celo pri velikih področjih).

Motilo me je moje prizadevanje, da prispevam k ideji, kako se je koma obnašala v različnih razmerjih f / razmerje, če je bilo to le nekaj, s čimer si moral živeti v Newtonu. Sumim, da je v objavi, ki je "nakazovala" možnost, da v hitrem primeru ne pride do kome, nekdo ugriznil ("Pssst"). Mogoče se Mark vali od smeha, jaz sem 'zagrizel'. Zdelo se mi je, da se priporočajo hitri dosegi, kar pomeni, da ni bilo resnih težav. Sem refrakcijska matica in zdelo se je, kot da so nekatere "reflektorske matice" obdelale na refrakcijskem forumu, ko so komentirali kromatsko aberacijo kot odziv na nekoga, ki priporoča morda 6 "f / 5 refraktor. OBA kromatična aberacija in koma sta resne nepravilnosti in če bi začetniku rekli, da niso resne stvari v "hitrem" obsegu, bi bilo zavajajoče. Nekdo je verjetno bral to temo in čakal, da se to zgodi, je dovolj pogosto, vendar sem se počutil "odpuščenega" in želel se je prepričati, da je MIcorwerx razumel komo. Bil je del hitre parabole. Da, morda bi lahko amater začel z 10 "f / 3, morda bi bil s tem najsrečnejši, toda čutil sem verjetnost dobiti precej poceni kakovostno ogledalo je bilo boljše z daljšim goriščnim razmerjem.

# 127 znamka cowan

A popolna napačna predstavitev fizične optike - ja, zaradi tega se samo malo smejim po tleh.

S hitrimi obsegi, ki jih korektor kome in pravilna struktura ne moreta rešiti, ni "resnih" težav. OTOH ideja, da lahko uvedete obseg f / 3 brez njega, meji na smešno, a očitno YMMV. Ne podcenjujte niti težav pri izdelavi hitrih ogledal.

Uredil Mark Cowan, 6. april 2016 - 16:16.

# 128 Jeff Morgan

Trenutno sem res zmeden.

ml69737.

"Huevo" (živeti s tem, nič hudega?)

vendar vam je všeč izjava Starmana 1, da bi uporabil korektor kome na f / 8.

?

Pssst !!

torej, to je reflektorski forum in reflektorji nimajo kome. ??

Na tej točki, če se predlaga Fast, zrcala v višini tisoč dolarjev za fanta, ki se začne učiti in se želi učiti (in to zrcalo v višini tisoč dolarjev bi verjetno bolje delovalo s fokusorjem za 500 USD in okularjem za 400 USD [vseeno ste želeli samo en okular, kajne ?] in ekvatorialno platformo, tako da vam ni treba vso noč pritiskati obsega, da bi bil Pluton v središču), namesto tega predlagam 6 "F / 12 akromat. Akromati nimajo nobenih barvnih posledic in bi bil dober vsestranski obseg in VELIKO manj "zmeden" kot Screaminov živčni Newtonian.

Refraktorji imajo veliko prednosti, čistost slike je med prvimi. Dober lomnik običajno ne dela zelo težko pri 50-krat na zaslonko - brez težav s toploto, brez težav s kolimacijo, brez kome in brez "zapletenosti". Iskreno, vsi bi morali priznati, da če bi bili refrakterji tako poceni kot reflektorji, noben uporabnik ne bi imel zrcalnih področij.

Toda stroški niso enaki. Ne meri dobro. In ni tako prenosljiv. In ne pozabimo, da je kompromis precej močan kovinski nosilec. Večja teža, več stroškov, zmanjšana prenosljivost.

Tip, ki si začenja želeti lomilno sliko brez tisoč dolarjev vrhunskih ogledal, korektorjev kome in vrhunskih okularjev (ali dragega nosilca), mora dobiti le 6-8 "reflektor okoli f / 9 ali tako. Na alt-az Stvari z visokim dolarjem lahko pridejo kasneje.

Uredil Jeff Morgan, 6. aprila 2016 - 16:49.

# 129 Jeff Morgan

2. Hitri dosegi, zlasti v večjih odprtinah so skoraj nujna. Ne morete smiselno uporabiti 24 "f / 6! Visoka lestev ponoči postaja kraljevska bolečina. Zdaj, s sodobnimi, visoko zmogljivimi dizajni okularjev, ki jih je začel Al Nagler in delujejo do f / 3 , to ni več res, za planetarne zmogljivosti potrebujete dolgo pozornost. Samo vprašajte Mikea Lockwooda o njegovem f / 3 na WSP

Zdi se, da je John Dobson veliko uporabil svoj 24-palčni f / 7. In takrat ni bil ravno pomladni piščanec. Mogoče je skaliranje lestve skrivnost njegove dolgoživosti?

Z vsem spoštovanjem do gospoda Lockwooda je prodajalec specializirano za takšno optiko. Razumljivo, da bi bil. navdušen nad takšno prijavo.

Ali je tak obseg dobra izbira za zanesljiv planetarne zmogljivosti, se ne bi obrnil na prodajalca za nepristransko mnenje. Zdaj, če bi fantje iz ALPO začeli uporabljati f / 3 Newtonians - bi bilo to precej močno priporočilo.

# 130 Starman1

Živjo Mike,

1. Pravzaprav se mi zdi zanimivo, da nobenega korektorja kome ne uporabljate skoraj tako dobro, da bi ga slišali. Zanima me preizkus f / 3 ali tako, vendar še nisem tako hitro zrcalil ogledala. Prebral sem (enkrat) o tem, da se nekdo sprašuje o novih okularjih s širokim poljem, češ da po točki vseeno res ne moreš vsega vzeti. obrobje našega vida ni zgrajeno za "detajle" toliko kot središče našega vida, zato tudi pri okularjih morajo obstajati "meje" In spet nastavitve. Zmedli so me vaši "všečki" f / 8 in "a huevo", misleč, da pravite, da to ni resnično vprašanje. Da to priznavate, vendar se mi ne zdi tako žaljivo kot drugi, mi je zdaj drugačno razumevanje in jasno.

2. Da, naredil sem nekaj lestvic in se strinjam. Ves čas razmišljam o Clydeju Tombaughu, ki je imel, če se prav spomnim, 16 "f / 10. To je še ena ideja, ki mi je všeč in jo bom moral počakati, da poskusim. Lestvico je obšel z gradnjo odra, ki ga je lahko prilagodil, in ga držal cevni sklop blizu poldnevnika, če se prav spomnim. toda OP je bil približno 6-10 "Obseg in to se oddaljuje od OP (le da so ljudje včasih šli na razmeroma dolga razmerja f / celo pri velikih področjih).

Motilo me je moje prizadevanje, da prispevam k ideji, kako se je koma obnašala v različnih razmerjih f / razmerje, če je bilo to le nekaj, s čimer si moral živeti v Newtonu. Sumim, da je v objavi, ki je "nakazovala" možnost, da v hitrem primeru ne pride do kome, nekdo ugriznil ("Pssst"). Mogoče se Mark vali od smeha, jaz sem 'zagrizel'. Zdelo se mi je, da se priporočajo hitri dosegi, kar pomeni, da ni bilo resnih težav. Sem refrakcijska matica in zdelo se je, kot da so nekatere "reflektorske matice" obdelale na refrakcijskem forumu, ko so komentirali kromatsko aberacijo kot odziv na nekoga, ki priporoča morda 6 "f / 5 refraktor. OBA kromatična aberacija in koma sta resne nepravilnosti in če bi začetniku rekli, da niso resne stvari v "hitrem" obsegu, bi bilo zavajajoče. Nekdo je verjetno bral to temo in čakal, da se to zgodi, je dovolj pogosto, vendar sem se počutil "odpuščenega" in želel se je prepričati, da je MIcorwerx razumel komo. Bil je del hitre parabole. Da, morda bi amater lahko začel z 10 "f / 3, morda bi bil s tem najsrečnejši, toda začutil sem verjetnost dobiti precej poceni kakovostno ogledalo je bilo boljše z daljšim goriščnim razmerjem.

Upoštevajte, da je območje brez kome v goriščni ravnini reflektorjev izraženo kot 0,01778 mm x razmerje f / razmerje³.

Brez kome je napačno poimenovanje, saj je na osi koma le nič. Če pa je koma v disku Airy, je preprosto nevidna in to je področje, ki ga opisujem.

Pri f / 3 je območje brez kome široko 0,48 mm. Tako je, manj kot pol milimetra.

V 16,5 "f / 3 obsegu je lestvica goriščne ravnine 2,73 'na mm.

Zaradi tega je območje brez kome široko 2,73 x 0,48 = 1,31 '.

Jupiter je širok manj kot minuto, zato se prilega območju brez kome.

Dokler obseg sledi in je Jupiter v mrtvi točki.

Če pa Jupiter od središča oddalji celo 1 premer planeta, začne neka koma na njegovem disku vplivati ​​koma.

To je skoraj nemogoča naloga.

In skoraj vse ostalo je večje od Jupitra, zato bo večina predmetov glavnino svojih slik spremenila s komo, TUDI ČE SO V CENTRU.

Obseg f / 3 brez korektorja kome preprosto ne daje kakovosti slike, ki bi jo lahko dal - skoraj povsod na terenu.

Kar zadeva okularje, ne pozabite na polje našega vida, ki ima največjo ostrino in pozornost in na sliki vidimo vse ostro in vse naenkrat je približno 5 ° široko. Naš vid tava in rečeno je, da lahko v sekundi ali dveh relativno ostro zavzamemo 30 ° polje.

Kaj to pove o priljubljenih 68 ° okularjih? Pravi, da spreminjamo pogled, da bi gledali na rob - namenoma gledamo vstran, da bi videli rob.

Na neki točki razširitve navideznega polja okularjev ne moremo več gledati samo postrani, da bi gledali na rob. V okularju je navsezadnje izhodna zenica, ki jo je treba držati, da se slika vidi iz okularja. In pogled vstran brez premikanja glave in zgolj premikanja očesa se lahko zgodi le toliko časa, preden zenica očesa prestreže izhodno zenico okularja in začnete dosegati odrezan rob polja, ker nekateri izstopni učenec je udaril v šarenico očesa.

Koliko stopinj vstran je potrebno, da se to zgodi, je očitno povezano z velikostjo izstopne zenice in premerom zenice opazovalčevega očesa, vendar se zdi, da soglasje kaže, da je polje 65-68 ° približno največ, da samo odvrne oko pogledati na rob.

Toda na neki točki širitve polja mora vsak zaviti z glavo v stran, da pogleda naravnost na rob polja.

Potrebni bodo okularji od 76 ° do 120 °.

In če vas to pri tem ne moti, velikost polja, ki ga lahko uporabite, ni omejena. Da, vaš periferni vid bo videl rob, ko gledate v središče, vendar v resnici na rob ne gledate tako.

Mnenja, na katera boste naleteli tukaj na CN, bodo pokazala, da so okularji ultra- in hiper-širokega polja všeč ali da jih ne marajo.

Potrebno je le malo izkušenj z njimi, da se boste lažje odločili o tem.


PRAVNA ODPOVED MJV AQUATICS

Z več sodelavci boste včasih odkrili nekaj objav z nekoliko drugačnimi perspektivami glede nekaterih vidikov ribogojstva. Pogosto obstajajo zelo različne poti do uspeha in vsi smo podvrženi določeni stopnji tunelskega vida, ko svoja mnenja oblikujemo na podlagi svojih osebnih izkušenj.

Čeprav verjamemo v točnost posredovanih informacij, lahko pride do napak in si pridržujemo pravico, da kadar koli spremenimo katere koli dokumente.

MJV Aquatics ali avtorji na noben način niso odgovorni za kakršno koli posredno, posebno ali posledično škodo zaradi uporabe kakršnih koli informacij, slik ali grafik na tej spletni strani.


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

Oberwerk 8 & # 21542 in 10 & # 21542 Sport ED & # 8217s so naš najbolje prodajani daljnogledi. Zaradi tega smo postavili eno vprašanje bolj kot katero koli drugo - & # 8220Kaj priporočate, 8 & # 21542 ali 10 & # 21542? & # 8221 Tukaj & # 8217, kaj morate vedeti, da se odločite -

1) 8 & # 21542 in 10 & # 21542 sta popolnoma enaka daljnogleda - enake velikosti, enake teže, enake cene. Edini način, kako jih ločiti, je gravirana aluminijasta plošča & # 82208 & # 21542 & # 8221 & & # 822010 & # 21542 & # 8221, vgrajena v ostrino. Kaj določa, ali so naprave, ki delujejo 8x ali 10x, kombinacija leč, nameščenih znotraj okularjev. Sprašujete se, zakaj večina konkurentov zaračuna dodatno za svoj model večje povečave, kajne?

2) Povečava je obratno sorazmerna z FOV (vidno polje), kar je preprosto količina prizora pred vami, ki je vidna skozi daljnogled. 8 & # 21542 naredi tisto, kar gledate 8-krat večje, s širokim FOV 8,1 °. 10 & # 21542 naredi tisto, kar gledate 10-krat večje (25% večje kot 8 & # 21542), s 6,5 ° FOV-, kar je 25% manjše območje od tistega, ki je prikazano skozi 8 & # 21542.

3) Oba modela imata enak AFOV (navidezno vidno polje), ki je 65 °. AFOV se nanaša na to, koliko vašega perifernega vida se uporablja v pogledu skozi okularje. Široki AFOV (60 ° ali več) ima več pogleda & # 8220sliko & # 8221, medtem ko ima ozek AFOV (50 ° ali manj) omejen pogled & # 8220, podoben tunelu & # 8221. Ne glede na to, ali se odločite za 8x ali 10x, boste imeli enak 65 ° & # 8220 slikovno okno & # 8221 pogled.

4) Torej je glavni premislek, kaj bi raje - zajemanje večjega dela scene pred vami ali osredotočanje na manjše območje, a malo bližje?

5) Upoštevati je treba še eno stvar. Daljnogled, ki ga imate v roki, bo povečal kakršno koli tresenje ali tresenje v vaših rokah do enake stopnje kot povečuje prizor pred vami. Čeprav se to razlikuje od posameznika, bo nekaterim 10-kratno povečavo nekoliko težko držati dovolj, da bodo imeli enakomeren pogled. 8x je stabilnejša izbira za večino ljudi.


Končni grab & # 39n go :)

Sinoči smo imeli nekaj ur jasnega vremena, prvo po skoraj dveh mesecih. Razčistilo se je šele po sončnem zahodu, zato nisem načrtoval vnaprej in nisem imel ničesar zastavljenega. Postalo je hladno, vlažno in vetrovno in preprosto nisem imel energije, da bi spravil svojo opremo, vendar sem hotel nekaj narediti, ker je bilo takoooo lepo videti zimsko nebo. Ko sem nekoliko izstopal na zadnji terasi, sem samo prijel stol, se usedel, se naslonil in pogledal. Bilo je tako lepo samo sedeti tam, pustiti, da se moje oči prilagodijo in samo pogledati. Nebo med Bikom, Aurigo, Dvojčkoma, Malim pasom in Majorjem ter navzdol čez Orion je tako bogato s svetlimi zvezdami, kot da bi gledali čudovito odprto kopico s pošastnim okularjem.

Pametni fotograf mi je nekoč rekel "ne pozabi pogledati" in to me je resnično zataknilo. Včasih je lepo samo sedeti in pogledati. Nobena oprema ni potrebna, razen udobnega stola in toplega klobuka.

# 2 NEOhio

+1, po možnosti s stolom brez gravitacije kot "udobnim stolom" (in morda z daljnogledom z majhno močjo).

Pravzaprav sem sinoči gledal isto nebo, imeli smo pol ure odmora v oblakih od 8 do 8:30, gledal med sprehajanjem psov. Ni tako prijetno kot sedenje, še posebej z dvema psoma pod nogami, vendar bi se lahko prisegel, da bi meglico Orion lahko dvignil s prostim očesom z odvrnjenim vidom, čeprav je bila to morda le zvezdna kopica na splošno.

# 3 MalVeauX

Vedno sem bil bolj slikar kot vizualni opazovalec. Toda bolj ko slikam ponoči, bolj sedim in gledam navzgor, medtem ko tam zunaj slikam in samo opazujem z očmi in se prilagajam temi. Pripeljal sem do bolj vizualnega opazovanja in moj najljubši način opazovanja je majhna odprtina (relativna) kratka goriščnica s širokim vidnim poljem, saj dobite veliko več svetlobe in globlje vidite z lepo bogato področje uporabe. Uživajte tono. Grab & amp gre in res samo sedi in uživaj. Pomembno pa je tudi, da se le naslonite nazaj in pogledate navzgor. Ogromno je.

# 4 aeajr

+1, po možnosti s stolom brez gravitacije kot "udobnim stolom" (in morda z daljnogledom z majhno močjo).

odrez.

Nocoj bi morali prvič v tednih imeti jasno nebo in 40 stopinj. Toda veter bo sprožil do 15-20 mph

Ne glede na to bom verjetno še 15–20 minut prišel ven, da bi pogledal, občudoval, si predstavljal in se spraševal. Moji zanesljivi 10X50 bodo z mano.

# 5 Arthur L.

Ena od prednosti zgodnjega začetka dela je možnost ogleda neba.

Pred soncem zapustim hišo in si pogosto želim, da bi se lahko ustavil namesto, da bi se odpravil ven.

V zadnjem času so vsi oblaki.

# 6 Jim4321

S svetlobnim onesnaženjem doma sem vedno v načinu "mobilna astronomija". Del moje opreme je stol za torbe, na katerega si pri razpakiranju in pakiranju nataknem torbo, nataknem tablico, ko sem na EP, in med opazovanjem počivam v hrbtu.

Uporabljam ga tudi kot sedež, ko na koncu treninga zložim stativ. Prejšnjo noč, skoraj zmrznjen, sem to ravno storil, ko sem pogledal gor, in glej! Tam so bili moji stari zimski prijatelji iz otroštva, razporejeni po visokem vzhodnem nebu. Orion, Bik, Plejade in preostala igralska zasedba. Kako lepo! Popolnoma sem pozabil hladne noge in roke, bolečine v hrbtu in ukočena kolena ter samo sedel in pustil, da so me oči in možgani in duša pili v čudežu nad vsem.

Teleskopi so čudovite stvari. Vendar se moramo paziti tunelskega vida okularja.

# 7 oldtimer

+2 za obleko za mraz

+4 za morda majhen (60-80 mm) RFT na lahkem nosilcu Alt-Az

Temu pravim "Grab & amp GO".

# 8 GeneT

Do takrat, v 1600-ih, pred teleskopi, je bil edini ogled 1X.

# 9 GeneT

Do takrat, v 1600-ih, pred teleskopi, je bil edini ogled 1X.

# 10 REC

Sinoči smo imeli nekaj ur jasnega vremena, prvo po skoraj dveh mesecih. Razčistilo se je šele po sončnem zahodu, zato nisem načrtoval vnaprej in nisem imel ničesar zastavljenega. Postalo je hladno, vlažno in vetrovno in preprosto nisem imel energije, da bi spravil svojo opremo, vendar sem hotel nekaj narediti, ker je bilo takoooo lepo videti zimsko nebo. Ko sem nekoliko izstopal na zadnji terasi, sem samo prijel stol, se usedel, se naslonil in pogledal. Bilo je tako lepo samo sedeti tam, pustiti, da se moje oči prilagodijo in samo pogledati. Nebo med Bikom, Aurigo, Dvojčkoma, Malim pasom in Majorjem ter navzdol čez Orion je tako bogato s svetlimi zvezdami, kot da bi gledali čudovito odprto kopico s pošastnim okularjem.

Pametni fotograf mi je nekoč rekel "ne pozabi pogledati" in to me je resnično zataknilo. Včasih je lepo samo sedeti in pogledati. Nobena oprema ni potrebna, razen udobnega stola in toplega klobuka.

Uživajte!

Podobna zgodba tukaj v NC sinoči. ampak hladno. Med mojimi očmi in daljnogledi je tisti del neba moj najljubši!

# 11 jgraham

Eden najbolj čarobnih trenutkov v mojem življenju je bil, ko sem eno jutro pred svitanjem stopil ven in videl komet West, ki visi na jugovzhodu. To mora biti nekaj najlepšega, kar sem jih kdaj videl.

Zabavno je razmišljati o desetletjih, ki sem si jih prizadeval videti globlje, širše, šibkejše, ostrejše, nato pa se usesti in vpijeti 'blizu neba' brez meja okularja ali se je treba ukvarjati s fokusom oz. potisniti nosilec. Uživam v dnevnem odmerku Zvezdnega zmenka (iz observatorija McDonald) in berem Turn Left pri Orionu ter mojega zanesljivega starega Burnhamovega nebesnega priročnika in zelo sproščujoče je sedeti zunaj in samo gledati nekatere zvezde in regije, ki se dogajajo opisano. Tudi večino zadnjih 14 let sem preživel v sodobnem slikanju (pred tem že 40 let filma) in zabavno je gledati v nebo in obkljukati vse predmete, ki sem jih videl s svojimi kamerami. Mogoče jih ne vidim s prostim očesom, vem pa, kje se skrivajo.

# 12 thomasr

Ena od prednosti zgodnjega začetka dela je možnost ogleda neba.

Pred soncem zapustim hišo in si pogosto želim, da bi se lahko ustavil namesto, da bi se odpravil ven.

V zadnjem času so vsi oblaki.
.

Danes, ko sem čakal na svoj primestni vlak ob 6:45 zjutraj, ko je sončni vzhod začel razsvetljevati vzhodno nebo, sem videl poletni trikotnik, ki se je dvigal. Tisti "urni" vidik nočnega neba mi vedno nekako nasmehne obraz.

Poslano iz mojega LG-H915 z uporabo Tapatalk

# 13 zgodaj

+1, po možnosti s stolom brez gravitacije kot "udobnim stolom" (in morda z daljnogledom z majhno močjo).

Pravzaprav sem sinoči gledal isto nebo, imeli smo pol ure odmora v oblakih od 8 do 8:30, gledal med sprehajanjem psov. Ni tako prijetno kot sedenje, še posebej z dvema psoma pod nogami, vendar bi se lahko prisegel, da bi meglico Orion lahko dvignil s prostim očesom z odvrnjenim vidom, čeprav je bila to morda le zvezdna kopica na splošno.

Opazil sem, da je nebo videti temnejše, ko gledam skozi luknje v oblakih. Moja teorija je, da oblaki senčijo nebo pred večino svetlobe s tal.

# 14 thomasr

Opazil sem, da je nebo videti temnejše, ko gledam skozi luknje v oblakih. Moja teorija je, da oblaki senčijo nebo pred večino svetlobe s tal.

Poslano iz mojega LG-H915 z uporabo Tapatalk

# 15 zgodaj

Opazil sem, da je nebo videti temnejše, ko gledam skozi luknje v oblakih. Moja teorija je, da oblaki senčijo nebo pred večino svetlobe s tal.

Poslano iz mojega LG-H915 z uporabo Tapatalk

To je še ena možnost, o kateri sem razmišljal. Pogled skozi počrnjeno cev lahko ta optični učinek odpravi. Potreboval bi noč, ki je imela obdobja večinoma oblačnega in jasnega neba, da bi lahko primerjala najmanjše vidne velikosti pod vsakim pogojem. Ogled skozi daljnogled bi lahko tudi uspel.

# 16 MalVeauX

Torej, med slikanjem včeraj zvečer sem prižgal svoj C6. Vedno pozabim, koliko več zaslonke ima v resnici več kot 80 mm. Vrgel sem jo v Somrak in začel brskati po Orionu samo zato, da sem začel noč. Telrad na C6 je tako uporaben, zdaj je dokaj dobro poravnan in ko postavim sredinsko piko na kompleks ali zvezdo in pogledam, tudi pri 100-kratni povečavi je motiv v vidnem polju. Niti enkrat ni uporabil obsega iskalca. Čeprav razmišljam, da bi to spremenil in dodal 50 mm pravega kota, samo za "široke poglede" (manj iskalca) kot kompliment zanj in laser (ker mi je zelo všeč hitrost laserskega poskakovanja zvezd).

Med križarjenjem okoli Oriona in ogledom Trapezija s 100-kratno povečavo s 15-milimetrsko plosslo sem zagledal gibanje in ugotovil, da gre za letalo, zato sem ga držal in mu sledil s kontrolniki za počasno gibanje. Sucker se je vseeno hitro gibal. Sledila sem ji do obzorja, v bistvu preden je zbledela v nevidno. Spoznal sem, da verjetno spremljam satelit ali ISS. Bilo je zelo zabavno, zanimivo in vzbudilo me je, da sem si želel bolj loviti. Tudi zaradi večje zaslonke me je srbelo (uf!). Ampak mora biti prenosljiv, da ga lahko uporabite zame.

# 17 Posebna izdaja

Ena od prednosti zgodnjega začetka dela je možnost ogleda neba.

Pred soncem zapustim hišo in si pogosto želim, da bi se lahko ustavil namesto, da bi se odpravil ven.

V zadnjem času so vsi oblaki.
.

Danes, ko sem čakal na svoj primestni vlak ob 6:45 zjutraj, ko je sončni vzhod začel razsvetljevati vzhodno nebo, sem videl, kako se dviga poletni trikotnik. Tisti "urni" vidik nočnega neba mi vedno nekako nasmehne obraz.

Poslano iz mojega LG-H915 z uporabo Tapatalk

Drugo jutro sem prišel zgodaj (5:30 po lokalnem), da bi opazoval Jupiter, vendar sem moral odnehati, ker je bil vid tako slab. Pri hiši sem pustil daljnogledi, ki so mi stabilizirali podobo, zato sem se kar nekaj časa ozrl po nebu, ko se je mrak razsvetlil. Ena od prednosti opazovalnice za zrušitev strehe je videti celo nebo.

Nizko na JV je Antares zažarel rdeče, sledil mu je rumenkasti Saturn, sledil pa je padajoči polmesec z zemeljskim sijajem. Za JV je bil Jupiter le nekaj stopinj nad Špico. Visoko nad glavo je Arktur zasidral ozvezdje Bootes. 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. Odlično.

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 hallelujah

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.


Komentarji

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 Prekliči odgovor

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


Poglej si posnetek: RAZARAJUĆI ZEMLJOTRES POGODIO! Glavni udar bio zastrašujući - treslo se (Oktober 2022).