• 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.

An Understanding (1 Viewer)

WJC

Well-known member
Even though tens of thousands of words have been posted—on at least the 4 bino forums I frequent—about the dangers of the 15x70 SkyMaster being out of collimation right out of the box or about going out of collimation if you look at it wrong, there are still some who seem to feel they’re the one person on the planet who has one or two that have remained in collimation over the years. And I have been asked to make the lamb lie down with the lion, why some people have such a different story in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary from all over the world.

This is my take:

1) The observer may not know what “collimation” means—some don’t.
2) The observer has a greater than normal range of spatial accommodation, although no set of human eyes can compensate for the error illustrated.
3) The observer may be new to binoculars and thinks the double-image is just the nature of the beast. I have been asked why, “my binocular doesn’t offer the ‘PROPER’ figure 8 image?”
4) The likely answer:

When I take in a binocular for repair, the first thing I do is work the hinge for tightness and smoothness. The second thing is to check for alignment issues.

While at Captain’s, an older lady brought her binocular in for “cleaning.” Seeing the image of a van in the parking lot with its tires in one telescope over the top of the van in the other telescope, I had to point out what I was seeing (graphic recreated). She took the binocular, looked through it, and said: “It looks okay to me.”

Was she using only one eye? Did she not understand what the image SHOULD have looked like? Or, being on a fixed income, was she just trying to avoid paying some young upstart to have the binocular collimated? It didn’t need cleaning.

The similar is true with much younger people; their opinions on what is and is not right is often not based on honesty but, rather, what they can afford. But really, should honesty be based on the size of your wallet? :cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-22 at 12.55.30 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-22 at 12.55.30 PM copy.jpg
    518.3 KB · Views: 39
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
I suspect that some people have one poor eye and one good eye and don't know.
This is sometimes the case with older folk.

I know for a fact that one young person observed every deep sky object listed in a binocular book using the 15x70.
This really surprised me. Particularly his dedication.

Unfortunately he has 10% vision in one eye.
The 15x70 was aligned when given to him, but may have slipped out in use.

I rather liked the Revelation 15x70 fully multicoated because of the light weight. It may only be 15x63 but certainly shows a lot more on the sky than a 10x50.
I also have the much better Quantam 15x70, but this is too heavy for me nowadays hand held.
On a tripod it is very good.

It is a great pity that the Skymaster 15x70 and clones are not built better.

B.
 

WJC

Well-known member
I suspect that some people have one poor eye and one good eye and don't know.
This is sometimes the case with older folk...

... It is a great pity that the Skymaster 15x70 and clones are not built better.

B.

Hi B,

You said: "I suspect that some people have one poor eye and one good eye and don't know. This is sometimes the case with older folk.”

You are most certainly correct. Most people have a “dominant eye” but don’t really understand that and have never performed the ever-so-simple test to find out which it is. If the difference is great, it may be easy for some to ignore stimulus from the weaker eye. Optics is not the black & white—one size fits all—some people see it as being.

“It is a great pity that the Skymaster 15x70 and clones are not built better.”

An old saying says, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” While that is certainly true, I think for our needs it should read: “The inexperienced and his money are soon parted.” At Captain’s I worked with so many people who were head and shoulder over me intellectually but who were optically clueless. That’s not a sin. Take an egghead and put him on a ranch. Take the rancher and give him a job in Silicon Valley. Regardless of IQ, both would be lost in their new environment. For many, optics is a new environment.

The 15x70 SkyMaster will probably never be “built better.” There is no reason to build it better. When you cater to the lowest common denominator, it has no reason to stop going lower. The Chinese manufacturer has seen that the low price point keeps dragging the foolish, overly thrifty, or inexperienced to the cash register. Within one week recently, I saw 6 threads on Cloudy Nights dealing with, “misalignment,” “double-vision,” “poor collimation,” and the like. My original thought was: Have you guys been living under a rock for the last 30 years?

I think people would be shocked to learn how much American importers are paying for that unit. But as long as the source is making such a profit, they have no motivation to change. And they are making SUCH A PROFIT.

I once offered Celestron a simple solution to the problem. But that TINY (inexpensive) solution would have cost more than the instrument. Sigh! :cat:

Bill
 

rdnzl

Not Sure.
In my experience, Celestron products are all over the board, quality wise. I have had junk, and I have had gems. My Japanese made 11x80's are quite nice.
 

Stephen Prower

Well-known member
Understanding

WJC

You like a pertinent quotation!

Stephen


https://www.samueljohnson.com/argument.html

Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, "I don't understand you, Sir;" upon which Johnson observed, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Boswell: Life
 

WJC

Well-known member
WJC

You like a pertinent quotation!

Stephen


https://www.samueljohnson.com/argument.html

Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, "I don't understand you, Sir;" upon which Johnson observed, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Boswell: Life

Thanks, Stephen,

... If I were your husband, I would drink it. First seen in 1899, that was not Winston to Lady Astor. However, I know enough of the fellow to know that he would have said it ... given the chance. :cat:

Bill
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top