Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Ron,
This I do like very much. Wished my Zeiss would honk along with me when spotting Surf Scoters or Sabine's Gulls from those deserted beaches.
Renze
-
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.
Substitute for telescope (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sandp
- Start date
Ron,
This I do like very much. Wished my Zeiss would honk along with me when spotting Surf Scoters or Sabine's Gulls from those deserted beaches.
Renze
Dear Ron,
Yes, because of its weight and inertia if you brace yourself well against a tree or fence it will split a 6.5 arcsecond equal double star of the correct brightness.
But a strong person might do it unbraced especially a trained person, especially if the position angle of the double star is about 90 or 270 degrees altazimuth.
The 18 x 50 Canon might do 8.5 arcseconds at best with stabilizer on but only 17 arcseconds off and unbraced. The star images are tiny and the edge performance wonderful. The Zeiss edge performance is poor unless you refocus when the stars are again small points. Someone with vast accommodation might not need this. But they may be ten years old and be unable to hold the Zeiss. I am not sure if any adult has enough accommodation, but I stand to be corrected.
When following aircraft at night I reckon the resolution for me is 2x to 3x worse with the 18 x 50 stabilizer off compared to stabilizer on when examining the passenger windows, which are easily seen at about 1.5 miles distance.
Yes I can just manage 14 arcseconds with a 10 x 30 Canon braced and stabilizer on.
Also a really good 10 x 42 the same and the same with a Soviet 12 x 45.
Completely unbraced is so variable from person to person and the stance one takes.
One can use a strap looped around an elbow to help as with a camera.
Even standing on a piece of string attached to a binocular might help if done correctly.
Personally I used car roofs, trees, fences anything to steady binoculars or scopes, sometimes just flat on my back looking skyward.
A completely unbraced 10x to 15x Alpha might typically achieve 12 to 14 arcsecond.
A 15 x 56 Alpha braced might get down to about 8.5 arcsecond if it displays really small star images.
Yes, because of its weight and inertia if you brace yourself well against a tree or fence it will split a 6.5 arcsecond equal double star of the correct brightness.
But a strong person might do it unbraced especially a trained person, especially if the position angle of the double star is about 90 or 270 degrees altazimuth.
The 18 x 50 Canon might do 8.5 arcseconds at best with stabilizer on but only 17 arcseconds off and unbraced. The star images are tiny and the edge performance wonderful. The Zeiss edge performance is poor unless you refocus when the stars are again small points. Someone with vast accommodation might not need this. But they may be ten years old and be unable to hold the Zeiss. I am not sure if any adult has enough accommodation, but I stand to be corrected.
When following aircraft at night I reckon the resolution for me is 2x to 3x worse with the 18 x 50 stabilizer off compared to stabilizer on when examining the passenger windows, which are easily seen at about 1.5 miles distance.
Yes I can just manage 14 arcseconds with a 10 x 30 Canon braced and stabilizer on.
Also a really good 10 x 42 the same and the same with a Soviet 12 x 45.
Completely unbraced is so variable from person to person and the stance one takes.
One can use a strap looped around an elbow to help as with a camera.
Even standing on a piece of string attached to a binocular might help if done correctly.
Personally I used car roofs, trees, fences anything to steady binoculars or scopes, sometimes just flat on my back looking skyward.
A completely unbraced 10x to 15x Alpha might typically achieve 12 to 14 arcsecond.
A 15 x 56 Alpha braced might get down to about 8.5 arcsecond if it displays really small star images.
Binastro,
Thank you for sharing your experience with double stars. I am a double star enthusiast too, sometimes using a 5 inch f/12 D&G achromat, but usually observing with binoculars (7x50, 8x30, 10x56, 12x50 and 15x60), hand held but well braced in a supportive chair. I was driven to this decidedly unpopular pursuit by increasing light pollution at my home. This is the case especially in winter, when I suffer the combination of the sensationally brilliant lighting at the damnable outdoor hockey rink a quarter mile away, and snow on the ground which reflects back into the sky all the worse. Even in a remote location, I still observe my favorite doubles before delving into the faint objects that only the dark sky can reveal.
The quality of the binocular and the eyesight are limiting factors, but I find that lots of practice and patience are very important too. I suspect that even if had a 10x binocular with absolutely perfect image stabilization, I'd still need added support to split 14", simply because it takes a minute of concentrated effort to get that split, and unsupported, my arms would tire and interfere with my concentration. So I will not fault the 20x60 stabilization because you had to support it to split 6.5". If it will do that it is good enough for me. Although not having one, apparently I must not be good enough for it!
Ron
Thank you for sharing your experience with double stars. I am a double star enthusiast too, sometimes using a 5 inch f/12 D&G achromat, but usually observing with binoculars (7x50, 8x30, 10x56, 12x50 and 15x60), hand held but well braced in a supportive chair. I was driven to this decidedly unpopular pursuit by increasing light pollution at my home. This is the case especially in winter, when I suffer the combination of the sensationally brilliant lighting at the damnable outdoor hockey rink a quarter mile away, and snow on the ground which reflects back into the sky all the worse. Even in a remote location, I still observe my favorite doubles before delving into the faint objects that only the dark sky can reveal.
The quality of the binocular and the eyesight are limiting factors, but I find that lots of practice and patience are very important too. I suspect that even if had a 10x binocular with absolutely perfect image stabilization, I'd still need added support to split 14", simply because it takes a minute of concentrated effort to get that split, and unsupported, my arms would tire and interfere with my concentration. So I will not fault the 20x60 stabilization because you had to support it to split 6.5". If it will do that it is good enough for me. Although not having one, apparently I must not be good enough for it!
Ron
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Just found these- Magnar 20x50 image stabilized binoculars for $2,399.95. That's about $4K cheaper than the Zeiss. The company claims the bin's resolution is 2.8 SOA, and it also claims it will outlast the Zeiss and Fuji IS bins..... and there are no batteries required and no gyro! Sounds too good to be true, huh?
http://www.magnaroptics.com/image-stabilized-binoculars-features.html
<B>
http://www.magnaroptics.com/image-stabilized-binoculars-features.html
<B>
Thanks.
These may be an upgraded Russian 20 x50.
The problems with the earlier Russian 50mm IS binoculars were that the true aperture was 35mm as they utilised only part of the objectives, they were meant to be good in tanks, but it is likely civilian models were inferior to military versions and also reliability was questionable. They had a big angle of stabilization but were dim and optically not that good.
The ones shown here must be tested and not selected ones but actual production ones bought retail.
So if someone buys one please report.
I have a crazy Russian one that takes about 2 minutes for the gyro to get up to warp speed.
I have no idea how to change the maybe 8 batteries.
Russian stuff can be excellent if quirky.
These may be an upgraded Russian 20 x50.
The problems with the earlier Russian 50mm IS binoculars were that the true aperture was 35mm as they utilised only part of the objectives, they were meant to be good in tanks, but it is likely civilian models were inferior to military versions and also reliability was questionable. They had a big angle of stabilization but were dim and optically not that good.
The ones shown here must be tested and not selected ones but actual production ones bought retail.
So if someone buys one please report.
I have a crazy Russian one that takes about 2 minutes for the gyro to get up to warp speed.
I have no idea how to change the maybe 8 batteries.
Russian stuff can be excellent if quirky.