For astronomy the 15x56 can’t keep up…DSO are dull in comparison and you can’t see Saturns ring separate from the ballVery strange. Normally he wants a flat(tish) field for astronomy, but he raves about these despite pronounced field curvature. And he sold off his 15x56 SLCs for these! How much better could they be? Oddly he doesn't do any sort of comparison.
Nor can you see that at 18x... and it's IF. So the 18x70 must just be that much better for DSOs, and astronomy the real priority for Roger.For astronomy the 15x56 can’t keep up…DSO are dull in comparison and you can’t see Saturns ring separate from the ball
Yes you can , especially in the NikonNor can you see that at 18x... and it's IF. So the 18x70 must just be that much better for DSOs, and astronomy the real priority for Roger.
We are clearly using language differently. What I mean by seeing Saturn's rings distinctly does not occur at 18x, but (in my 82mm scope for example) somewhere near 50x, as any number of sources generally attest (e.g. Sky & Telescope). Perhaps some people can detect the first bit of separation on a good night in an 18x70, but I don't find that terribly satisfying myself, and Roger couldn't, so that's not why he preferred them over the SLC. (He does say he wasn't using a tripod, which seems odd.)Yes you can , especially in the Nikon
It’s not odd, many astrolux users use them handheld. You can minimize shakes by using natural point of aim (using your bones rather then muscle, among other things) and practiceWe are clearly using language differently. What I mean by seeing Saturn's rings distinctly does not occur at 18x, but (in my 82mm scope for example) somewhere near 50x, as any number of sources generally attest (e.g. Sky & Telescope). Perhaps some people can detect the first bit of separation on a good night in an 18x70, but I don't find that terribly satisfying myself, and Roger couldn't, so that's not why he preferred them over the SLC. (He does say he wasn't using a tripod, which seems odd.)