What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Leica
the 92% compared with the 95%...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Binastro" data-source="post: 3633504" data-attributes="member: 111403"><p>Hi Maljunulo, post 36.</p><p></p><p>A difference of 0.1 magnitude is 10% (9.65%).</p><p>There are different magnitudes. Visual, photographic and others.</p><p>The comparison stars and main star have to be the same colour, otherwise errors occur.</p><p></p><p>With say Betelgeuse or Mars it is difficult to judge because of the warm colour.</p><p>Also the comparison stars need to be at the same elevation to avoid atmospheric extinction. In a good sky compensation can be made.</p><p></p><p>The comparison stars must be non variable. But different catalogues may give different values.</p><p>There are many things to consider to get it right.</p><p></p><p>The main binocular star may be 2/5ths brighter than A and 3/5ths fainter than B. The resulting magnitude might be mag 7.63, which is rounded to mag 7.6.</p><p>One must be careful to centre the stars or have them equidistant around the centre field.</p><p>Telescopes are used for faint stars, down to mag 15 visually and considerably fainter with cameras.</p><p></p><p>I haven't made estimates for a while, but could estimate to mag 0.1 values. Many people cannot make star estimates.</p><p></p><p>Comet and extended objects are more difficult, but are given to 0.1 mag, but probably only accurate to mag 0.2 maybe worse. There are different methods and one must state the method used.</p><p></p><p>Several observers use ancient Japanese 10x50 Porros. They have made 100,000 or many more estimates over decades.</p><p></p><p>This is all a bit different than saying how bright the white columns are in binoculars 120m away from me in the daytime or twilight.</p><p></p><p>P.S.</p><p>Visual estimates are still commonly made.</p><p>Photometry can be more accurate, say to 0.01 magnitude, but only if one sets up the equipment to an exact standard.</p><p>Photometry can also give a light curve with very short time intervals or for extended periods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Binastro, post: 3633504, member: 111403"] Hi Maljunulo, post 36. A difference of 0.1 magnitude is 10% (9.65%). There are different magnitudes. Visual, photographic and others. The comparison stars and main star have to be the same colour, otherwise errors occur. With say Betelgeuse or Mars it is difficult to judge because of the warm colour. Also the comparison stars need to be at the same elevation to avoid atmospheric extinction. In a good sky compensation can be made. The comparison stars must be non variable. But different catalogues may give different values. There are many things to consider to get it right. The main binocular star may be 2/5ths brighter than A and 3/5ths fainter than B. The resulting magnitude might be mag 7.63, which is rounded to mag 7.6. One must be careful to centre the stars or have them equidistant around the centre field. Telescopes are used for faint stars, down to mag 15 visually and considerably fainter with cameras. I haven't made estimates for a while, but could estimate to mag 0.1 values. Many people cannot make star estimates. Comet and extended objects are more difficult, but are given to 0.1 mag, but probably only accurate to mag 0.2 maybe worse. There are different methods and one must state the method used. Several observers use ancient Japanese 10x50 Porros. They have made 100,000 or many more estimates over decades. This is all a bit different than saying how bright the white columns are in binoculars 120m away from me in the daytime or twilight. P.S. Visual estimates are still commonly made. Photometry can be more accurate, say to 0.01 magnitude, but only if one sets up the equipment to an exact standard. Photometry can also give a light curve with very short time intervals or for extended periods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Leica
the 92% compared with the 95%...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top