Nixterdemus
Well-known member
16*?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Vintage and Classic Binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Simon S
- Start date
flossiepip
Well-known member
Yes I know! That's why as was asking. Very tempted to bid on it.:smoke:
If anyone has Rohan's "Guide to Handheld Military Binoculars" look at page 140. This sure looks like a rare British "Binocular, Night, Mark I" (4X, made late 1890's -early 1900's). It also has a War Ministry arrow and a Kew stamp making this identification all the more likely.
flossiepip
Well-known member
I've had a good hard look at the ad and photo's and I would say that it is 657 fov, still thats not to bad.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Steve C
Well-known member
Flossie & Steve:
That is very wide, sounds like a missprint.
Jerry
Jerry,
Yes that does seem wide, but it is sometimes encountered in 7x35 configuration. Sometime poster Bob SD has/had in his collection a Binolux 7x35, I think @ 13* which is 682'. So I don't think it's a misprint, at least at 657'.
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
I haven't seen the ad so cannot comment on that specific binocular however, I would agree with Steve. There are models out there with 12, 12.5 and 13 degree fields. I have yet to hold one myself but have seen it mentioned here and over on cloudy nights. 657 feet would be roughly 12.51 degrees.
Since I started watching the bay for extra wide angle 7x35s I have only seen one 7x35 model with a 12 degree or larger field of view listed. It was a Tasco if I am not mistaken and it went for over $150 in very good condition. Too rich for my blood for what we are talking about here. It seems this type of EWA 7x35 is very rare and highly sought after.
Since I started watching the bay for extra wide angle 7x35s I have only seen one 7x35 model with a 12 degree or larger field of view listed. It was a Tasco if I am not mistaken and it went for over $150 in very good condition. Too rich for my blood for what we are talking about here. It seems this type of EWA 7x35 is very rare and highly sought after.
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
It's close, but not identical if we presume the illustration on Pg. 140 to be correct. That's not to say that slight changes weren't made & determining whether the photobucket pics would fall before or after the Mark I, &/or what changes/when made, would be a start.
There isn't as much detail in the illustration as I'd like, yet there is a point that can be raised.
The hinged/wings eyecups are fitted & I see a screw, probably brass, that is securing these & the pics seem to confirm this.
The fixed weather guard/sun screen on the objectives are of a differing length. The illustration shows them roughly 1.5X longer where the pictures show twice the length.
I'd dig into the Ross links as they show history & number produced. Might be something else there.
Last edited:
There does seem to be a difference in the length of the objective assemblies but I think this is due to the fact that the "Rayshades" on the Photobucket example are not extended as fully as those on Rohan's example. Note that the Mark I rayshades were extendable and not fixed: The 1914 British "Handbook of Artillery Instruments" gives both extended and unextended lengths for the Mark I as well as including a picture of the binocular that Rohan has reproduced. The Handbook's caption underneath the picture reads, "It is drawn here with the rayshades extended and the eyeshields positioned for use.". I believe Rohan in stating they "are fixed in place" means they are extended, not unextendable. Also note that both the Photobucket and Rohan's binocular have identical looking focus knobs.
very interesting data, if you require and more infomation or pictures of certain parts just ask. i thankyou for investigating.
the rayshades can be clipped up or down and are made of metal. the searches i have done, all the simular binoculars i have found,the rayshades are in a fixed position non adjustable.
:t:
the rayshades can be clipped up or down and are made of metal. the searches i have done, all the simular binoculars i have found,the rayshades are in a fixed position non adjustable.
:t:
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
I know very little & comparing an illustration to a picture is tough. They look similar. If the sunscreens are movable/slide I would use extended/retracted or adjustable to describe them.
This is the determining factor for me, "Special uses & unique features: ... The objective weather guards are fixed in place."
Now, you could comment on a specific picture & say these are fixed in place if they were adjustable & extended. However, a fixed position doesn't move. Because of the use of Special uses & unique features I feel if they extended that he would say such and use of fixed in place is descriptive as non-moving/not adjustable.
Turn to Pg. 8 & look @ this example of adjustable shades. The outside diameter of the sliding shade is noticeably larger in diameter than the sleeve that it moves over. It has to be in order to function. On our example, Pg. 140, they are the same diameter. It must be fixed or fixed in place.
What I think doesn't make it so or represent fact because I don't know. Once again merely speculation on my part.
=========================================
Simon or anyone concerning collimating the Ross 12x50 Stepray. I notice little slotted grub screws on the objective endcaps. Also there appears to be concentric rings on the outside of the objective lenses. Does the grub screw hold the endcaps/covers in place?
It certainly appears as such, but I haven't run into endcaps w/tiny slotted screws before.
Was it common practice to use a red oxide primer coat?
These are the easiest moving I.F. I've ever run across. Is this typical? Granted they're smooth, yet I'm used to a bit of tension.
Thanks
This is the determining factor for me, "Special uses & unique features: ... The objective weather guards are fixed in place."
Now, you could comment on a specific picture & say these are fixed in place if they were adjustable & extended. However, a fixed position doesn't move. Because of the use of Special uses & unique features I feel if they extended that he would say such and use of fixed in place is descriptive as non-moving/not adjustable.
Turn to Pg. 8 & look @ this example of adjustable shades. The outside diameter of the sliding shade is noticeably larger in diameter than the sleeve that it moves over. It has to be in order to function. On our example, Pg. 140, they are the same diameter. It must be fixed or fixed in place.
What I think doesn't make it so or represent fact because I don't know. Once again merely speculation on my part.
=========================================
Simon or anyone concerning collimating the Ross 12x50 Stepray. I notice little slotted grub screws on the objective endcaps. Also there appears to be concentric rings on the outside of the objective lenses. Does the grub screw hold the endcaps/covers in place?
It certainly appears as such, but I haven't run into endcaps w/tiny slotted screws before.
Was it common practice to use a red oxide primer coat?
These are the easiest moving I.F. I've ever run across. Is this typical? Granted they're smooth, yet I'm used to a bit of tension.
Thanks
Last edited:
Simon S
Well-known member
Nixterdemus Ross love their red primer, this is perfectly normal.
The screws from memory lock the eccentric rings on position, you are talking about screws behind the removable objective ring?
If collimation is required, there is some provision on the prism plates.
If the binocular is out this will be the most likely problem area, also prism slippage is not unknown.
The screws from memory lock the eccentric rings on position, you are talking about screws behind the removable objective ring?
If collimation is required, there is some provision on the prism plates.
If the binocular is out this will be the most likely problem area, also prism slippage is not unknown.
squidge
Wha Whassssat
Right I had a double check on the listing and it is definitely for a pair of 10x50 stepruva. HOWEVER I had a closer look at the pics and on the bin is the word stepmur. So its either a wrong listing or wrong pics, I'm going with the former.
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/200715703100?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
So any info on the 10x50 stepmur.
Cheers,
Ger.
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/200715703100?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
So any info on the 10x50 stepmur.
Cheers,
Ger.
Last edited:
See this link:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ross10x50.html
Ones made up to about the early 1950's will have cemented prisms and ones made afterward will air-spaced ones. If yours has the cemented prisms, they are prone to separation and may have to be recemented. However, I've had both the air-spaced and cemented prism versions of the Stepmur, and I think the cemented prism one gives a brighter and better image. Both have the same nicely wide FOV for a 10X.
Last edited:
