BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Binastro" data-source="post: 3500974" data-attributes="member: 111403">Hi Alan,If you are in dark skies maybe try 2x neutral density filters, or maybe variable polarisers.Some of the Canon IS binoculars have filter threads. Not sure about the 15x45.Unfortunately sky conditions have not been good but I suspect the Trapezium stars may be easy in severe light pollution but good transparency with the 18x50 IS. It was awful this morning, poor transparency and Orion too low, but I glimpsed the 4th in the 18x50 even though my eyes were not rested. I only saw 3 with the 10x42 L.There is no point using overkill, too large telescopes or binoculars, as the stars are too bright and too large and fill the small space separating them. It also is no use using binoculars with inherently large star images.That is the reason I think for the lack of success in the link you posted.Additionally, some of the observers do not have very good results with faint stars or close stars. Even though my eyes are old I still do better than some of them.I recently pointed out to a S and T article writer that he was being too conservative re. the Pleiades and he confirmed that he had found observers after he wrote it who did much better, going much fainter.There is a wide range of vision amongst people who are just considered to have normal good sight. Maybe 2 magnitudes and 3x resolution spread.I have been amazed by some people I have met or know well who either have incredible eyesight or some who cannot see faint stars at all well.P.S.36mm masks might help with a 15x45 IS to stop ones eyes to 2.4mm, so they work near the optimum for best resolution maybe together with 2x neutral density filters. 1.5x neutral density filters may be better, but may not exist, although coloured 1.5x filters do exist, but this might look odd.Although some see 4 stars in the trapezium with say a 15x45 or similar tripod mounted or IS binocular, many don't.I realise that some observers with superb eyesight see fully 1 magnitude fainter than I did even when my eyes were young, and some halve my resolution ability, and some do both.What I object to in the linked posted is the firm statements that because they did not see the 4 trapezium stars below 18x, nobody can.George Alcock gave up on planetary observation, particularly on Mars, because his peers did not believe the observations that he made with the 4inch f/12 Ross triplet refractor, as they could hardly equal it with 16 inch Newtonians.He proceeded to learn the positions of 30,000 stars and discovered 5 Novae and 5 comets near sea level from Peterborough with at least one through his window from indoors using a specially made 20x60 Soviet binocular. He normally used the Schneider? 25x105 triplet objective binocular for his discoveries. He saw 7.2 mag stars with unaided eyes, but I think maybe he saw fainter also.His peers could not argue with new discoveries.</blockquote>

Verification