Why is buying and collecting binoculars so addictive. (1 Viewer)

[tehri]

I feel so dirty now 😛

Don't worry, Paul, but take your medicine ! 🩺 💊

ahahaha !!!

 

[quincy88]

Lol !... But except here, where we often resemble a kind of crazy sect, I almost never talk about binoculars, optics, etc... This doesn't interest anyone, or very quickly they tell me : ' Calm down a little, they're just binoculars !! '.
Most people find no interest in it, and in any case hardly know the difference between binoculars for 100€ and others for 2 or 3000 !!
Very often here when reading discussions, threads, etc., I really have the feeling of being in a sort of psychiatric hospital among optically ill patients.
For an anecdote, among other things I run plastic arts, painting, workshops, and sometimes I ask children if they use binoculars, and the answer is no for the most part.
Once, I told them about the pleasure of using binoculars, observation, animals, nature, etc etc, and told them about the NL Pure that I had since a few months... They stopped me laughing after 4-5 minutes, telling me that I was crazy with my binoculars, and later, often when starting the workshops, they bursts into laughter, asking me how NL's were doing !! ahahaha !!

We really are a kind of of a cult here, with some kind of crazy people capable of talking optically to each other all the time... but it's quite rare to find this kind of crazy person roaming around outside !! 🤪

View attachment 1535419

' We're in a microcosm here,(SBF)* a few strange birds. ' !!! ahaha, so well said Conndomat, you beat me !! 😋

I also never really talk about binoculars outside of this forum. I'll try and test people to see if they're interested. Say things like "Wow, I haven't used this pair of binoculars in a really long time. I forgot how nice the views are." It never results in a conversation.
I'll also ask people about their binoculars. I see a lot of Vortexs and Monarchs. People are usually nice about it, but clearly uninterested and uninformed to be able to discuss them in a nuanced way.
Talking about binoculars on here can be pretty fun. I also sometimes find it very tiresome.
Those NLs were pretty exciting in the first few months of ownership weren't they? I think Swarovski got a lot right on that design. Which configuration did you get? Do you still have them? How are you enjoying them now?

 

[tenex]

I was hoping to hear from others who suffered from binocularitus and have overcome it. Can someone cheer me up?

Perhaps the more you enjoy using them, the less you'll itch for others. Decades ago I had this problem with camera lenses, saw that buying gear was no longer leading to using it, and it was hard even to justify some I already had. I sold some off and was glad to find that solved it for me... of course collecting is an entirely different story.

 

[Paultricounty]

Im a user and collector, but I buy them to use. When I like them I may buy another configuration of some line. With binoculars that have been out of production for decades, vintage or classics , when I find one that I really like I buy a second or third to have them, because at some point we won’t be able to find very clean ones anymore. So that’s how my specific binoculars collection has progressed.

There are multiple reasons why some will collect, and do it in different manners. There are few here that have just about every brand and their lineups throughout the decades, so as to have an example of each. So when it comes to collecting it’s different strokes for different folks. Addiction is a completely different conversation.

Some of us have collections of other things, like Tenex said about camera lenses , is a good example. I started collecting things as a kid. So the whole collecting of things has an enjoyable aspect to it for me. My bother collected stamps and coins, I still have half of his coin collection. Others here also have multiple collections of things, watches, cameras, telescopes/eyepieces (that’s how I got started 25 years ago) , knives and guns to name a few. It’s an accumulation of items that each purchase bring you pleasure , as you see and feel the the differences and nuances of each.

Paul

 

[etudiant]

Lol !... But except here, where we often resemble a kind of crazy sect, I almost never talk about binoculars, optics, etc... This doesn't interest anyone, or very quickly they tell me : ' Calm down a little, they're just binoculars !! '.
Most people find no interest in it, and in any case hardly know the difference between binoculars for 100€ and others for 2 or 3000 !!
Very often here when reading discussions, threads, etc., I really have the feeling of being in a sort of psychiatric hospital among optically ill patients.
For an anecdote, among other things I run plastic arts, painting, workshops, and sometimes I ask children if they use binoculars, and the answer is no for the most part.
Once, I told them about the pleasure of using binoculars, observation, animals, nature, etc etc, and told them about the NL Pure that I had since a few months... They stopped me laughing after 4-5 minutes, telling me that I was crazy with my binoculars, and later, often when starting the workshops, they bursts into laughter, asking me how NL's were doing !! ahahaha !!

We really are a kind of of a cult here, with some kind of crazy people capable of talking optically to each other all the time... but it's quite rare to find this kind of crazy person roaming around outside !! 🤪

View attachment 1535419

' We're in a microcosm here,(SBF)* a few strange birds. ' !!! ahaha, so well said Conndomat, you beat me !! 😋

The nice thing about binoculars is that they are both durable as well as affordable. One can collect, buy or sell without huge investment or big big risk of loss, handling well made precision equipment that is often super quality..
The gear is also very broadly usable, stuff that begs to be used and it links directly to people with interests in astronomy, birding and sailing, all kindred individually focused pursuits, whether professional or hobby.
So dealing in used binoculars is largely a social activity, it creates links and relationships with like minded individuals as much or more than economic value. That is a rare situation, although amateur telescopes may well have similar trade communities.

 

[tehri]

Which configuration did you get? Do you still have them? How are you enjoying them now?

Of course, Quincy, I still have these NL's (10x32), and use them every day... It's easy for me, even without going on long treks, because I live in the middle of the bush surrounded right at my doorstep by a magnificent landscape.
Regarding your last question, I would have a lot to say about the way in which I appreciate, i enjoy, such an optical instrument, as a lover of nature, wildlife in general and as a painter... For almost a year I've wanted to write a topic about this, a long one, trying to describe my feelings observing the world and nature through such lenses, but I haven't yet found the time to really seriously delve into it, and especially finish. I must do this !!... and here would really be the only place where other 'crazy dudes' would enjoy reading this !! hahaha !!
😉

 

[Paultricounty]

The nice thing about binoculars is that they are both durable as well as affordable. One can collect, buy or sell without huge investment or big big risk of loss, handling well made precision equipment that is often super quality..
The gear is also very broadly usable, stuff that begs to be used and it links directly to people with interests in astronomy, birding and sailing, all kindred individually focused pursuits, whether professional or hobby.
So dealing in used binoculars is largely a social activity, it creates links and relationships with like minded individuals as much or more than economic value. That is a rare situation, although amateur telescopes may well have similar trade communities.

Excellent, well said 🙏🏼.

 

[Paultricounty]

Of course, Quincy, I still have these NL's (10x32), and use them every day... It's easy for me, even without going on long treks, because I live in the middle of the bush surrounded right at my doorstep by a magnificent landscape.
Regarding your last question, I would have a lot to say about the way in which I appreciate, i enjoy, such an optical instrument, as a lover of nature, wildlife in general and as a painter... For almost a year I've wanted to write a topic about this, a long one, trying to describe my feelings observing the world and nature through such lenses, but I haven't yet found the time to really seriously delve into it, and especially finish. I must do this !!
😉

I for one would be very interested in your writings on the topic. 🙏🏼

 

[quincy88]

Of course, Quincy, I still have these NL's (10x32), and use them every day... It's easy for me, even without going on long treks, because I live in the middle of the bush surrounded right at my doorstep by a magnificent landscape.
Regarding your last question, I would have a lot to say about the way in which I appreciate, i enjoy, such an optical instrument, as a lover of nature, wildlife in general and as a painter... For almost a year I've wanted to write a topic about this, a long one, trying to describe my feelings observing the world and nature through such lenses, but I haven't yet found the time to really seriously delve into it, and especially finish. I must do this !!... and here would really be the only place where other 'crazy dudes' would enjoy reading this !! hahaha !!
😉

Awesome. I’ve always been a 42 guy, and have only started dabbling in 32s. And when dabbling I’ve always gone for 8s, so I have never used a pair of 10x32s of any variety. I’m sure those 10x32s are excellent. I had their big brother 10x42s for about a year, and they were in a lot of ways, the best binoculars I have ever used. I’m glad that you are enjoying them, and look forward to your write up should you ever get around to it.
I’m a big objective, low magnification type of person. The binoculars I use most are 7x42s and 8x50s. I have read posts on here about the virtues of 10x32s and am starting to become curious about the configuration. With a model like the NLs I’m sure a 10x32 offers a very big view in a small package.

 

[ReinierB]

Awesome. I’ve always been a 42 guy, and have only started dabbling in 32s. And when dabbling I’ve always gone for 8s, so I have never used a pair of 10x32s of any variety. I’m sure those 10x32s are excellent. I had their big brother 10x42s for about a year, and they were in a lot of ways, the best binoculars I have ever used. I’m glad that you are enjoying them, and look forward to your write up should you ever get around to it.
I’m a big objective, low magnification type of person. The binoculars I use most are 7x42s and 8x50s. I have read posts on here about the virtues of 10x32s and am starting to become curious about the configuration. With a model like the NLs I’m sure a 10x32 offers a very big view in a small package.

I really like my NL 10x32's. Not very small, but very comfortable in the hands. Also because of the wider strap, I mostly wear them hanging on my neck in front of me. I think 42's are a bit too heavy for that and I mostly wear them bandolier style. Although I like wearing them with my rick young harness lately.
10x32 is very useful during the day. At dawn/dust or on darker days I prefer 8x42/10x42/10x50. If I would have had just one pair of binoculars, it wouldn't be a 10x32. But paring a 10x32 with a bigger exit pupil pair of binoculars, would be nice.
I like 10 power, that's why I went with 10x32, otherwise I would go for a 8x32, the latter just a bit more comfortable at darker conditions.

 

[Maljunulo]

I still think this is a personality thing, and is in no way unique to binoculars and other optics.

In many cases, the behavior seems to approach the obsessive.

(yust my opinion)

 

[dries1]

Thing=disorder?

 

[Maljunulo]

Thing=disorder?

Whichever you prefer, I’m not getting drawn into that.

Opinion does not equal diagnosis.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Im a user and collector, but I buy them to use. When I like them I may buy another configuration of some line. With binoculars that have been out of production for decades, vintage or classics , when I find one that I really like I buy a second or third to have them, because at some point we won’t be able to find very clean ones anymore. So that’s how my specific binoculars collection has progressed.

There are multiple reasons why some will collect, and do it in different manners. There are few here that have just about every brand and their lineups throughout the decades, so as to have an example of each. So when it comes to collecting it’s different strokes for different folks. Addiction is a completely different conversation.

Some of us have collections of other things, like Tenex said about camera lenses , is a good example. I started collecting things as a kid. So the whole collecting of things has an enjoyable aspect to it for me. My bother collected stamps and coins, I still have half of his coin collection. Others here also have multiple collections of things, watches, cameras, telescopes/eyepieces (that’s how I got started 25 years ago) , knives and guns to name a few. It’s an accumulation of items that each purchase bring you pleasure , as you see and feel the the differences and nuances of each.

Paul

I just found this discussion through a link from an astronomy website, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading through these ten pages of "mostly genial headbutting". There are many similar discussions on astroforums, and they all share a curious parallel with this thread. Almost no references are ever found to microscopes. They are equally fascinating optical systems, yet they rarely attract the same levels of passion and dispute that aficionados of photo gear, astronomy gear, and binoculars show as has been seen in this post. Totally obsolete "brass era" microscopes are desirable and exchanged as collectables but more recent instruments attract little interest.

My take is that microscopes are mostly seen as "tools of the trade" that are appreciated for their excellence, but as long as they meet the necessary performance standard needed for their scientific task, their users don't get overly passionate about them or see the need to chase an incrementally better level of performance. The best instruments are usually provided by institutions for their employee's use, so perhaps the "collector syndrome" doesn't factor into their acquisition process, and the decision of when to replace equipment is made by a committee process. Newer automated digital imaging and automated data processing of the images has also resulted in the elimination of many former micrologist's positions in medical labs and industrial inspection stations. The only "sub group" that I have found is astronomers who trade in top quality microscope eyepieces to adapt them for telescopes.

My astronomy requirements tend to leave me less passionate about visual gear as electronic imaging can reveal so much more information than the human eye, so I tend to acquire "adequate" gear and I have rarely owned alpha optics as either binoculars, telescopes, or eyepieces. This perplexes my colleagues, when I look through an AP or Takahashi APO with a TeleVue eyepiece and agree with them that the view is vastly superior to my mass produced Mak coupled to one of my "decent" mid level eyepieces. I can appreciate top quality gear, but once you establish a given largish aperture, seeing conditions have a far greater limiting influence than the equipment typically shows. I immediately recognized the advantage of digital imaging when it first appeared because of its ability to greatly reduce and sometimes completely overcome atmospheric problems. For visual astronomy I have always ascribed to the "aperture is king" philosophy. A five or six inch APO is an optical toue de force, but pushing a cheap twelve or sixteen inch Dob around the sky is going to show you much more detail in distant objects, and faint smudges even if remarkably resolved in the APO, turn into disctinct shapes with discernable details in the Dob.

I have tagged along on a few birding and wildlife observation sessions with friends and I have compared my Nikon M7 8x42 and Celestron Nature ED 12x56 binos to many others during these events. There is no question that the much better binos - - - are exactly that - - - MUCH better. However, when I compare the degree to which feather detail or whether a band can be read, the central acquity of alphas with the same magnification and aperture seems to offer very little advantage. I never argue about the delight of owning superb equipment, but I do push back when someone claims perfomance traits that field tests do not support. Even with unlimited funds, I would chose a variety of mid level apertures and magnifications over one alpha model to increase my chances of seeing the most detail or glimpse a difficult target in poor light.

This discussion seems to mostly center on pride of ownership and the pure enjoyment of using a superior device. The practical aspect of deciding which point of compromise suits you best when choosing aperture and magnification without adding excesive weight or bulk will always be an entirely subjective choice. These exchanges of viewpoints are sometimes understood and frequently, as seen here, a point of unresolvable dispute. I started astronomy in the 1960's with a pair of Tasco 7x50 binoculars that my Dad used on his boat. Some helpful members of a local astronomy club steered me to a much better pair of used Pentax 7x50's and later I added a small refractor to begin my life long trip down the astro rabbit hole.

I realize that some of what I have said is comparing apples to oranges, and many observers need to sacrifice weight and bulk, so a smaller much higher perfomance scope or binocular is the logical choice, but many lower priced spotting scopes and binos now offer much greater improvements compared to a few years ago, while alphas are subject to the laws of diminishing returms. I agree with several of the posters here, that an alpha will probably remain useful for a longer time because the "newer" version will only be a very subtle upgrade., but my Nikons are a good example of this greater pace of improvement with mid-range and entry level optics. By moving production to China, they have cut production costs. Compared to the two generations past model, Monarchs have added ED glass and dielectric surfaces, and even compared to the immediate predecessor, much improved transmittance, hydrophobic protection, a wider field of view, and a noticable increase in contrast through better coatings and improved prisms.

None of this puts them in competition with models priced four times or more above them, but as with most of the day to day items that we use, the performance difference is often hard to justify on a simple cost beneifit analysis. The intangibles are exactly that, but no single optic does it all, and I remain convinced that apart from the weight and bulk penalty, two or even three seperate well chosen optics at the level of my Monarchs will increase your liklyhood of catching a random unexpected appearance of a rare bird or animal. I was recently walking on Mount Royal (a large municipal park) at the center of downtown Montreal, when a very large bird of prey appeared at a very high altitude. I was carring my usual "strolling back pack". This holds a Sony A6500 camera with the compact kit zoom, my 8x42's, a cheap Chinese 20-60x80 spotting scope, and in my hand, a dual duty hiking stick-monopod. Several birders were trying to decide who and or what the visitor was, but the largest binos amongst them was a 12x56, and that wasn't able to resolve enough detail. It took me less tha twenty sceonds to quick connect the scope to my pistol grip ball head and extend the monopod. I gave it to an experienced birder who focused and zoomed to declare, somewaht perplexed, that it was a golden eagle. One of the other birders knew that a golden eagle was being rehabed at a center some thirty miles distant from downtown, and this must be that bird. A phone call confirmed that the center was monitoring the bird and letting it hunt over the park.

Between the spotting scope and the binos, there are very few surprise events that I can't quickly set up to view. These cheap Chinese scopes are extremely variable as to quality, but Amazon offers "no question returns", and the "good ones" can be surprisingly good. Svbony, Bosdon, and UScamel are "brand names" that offer after purchase service (check that they do this in your country) and they frequently offer these scopes at substantial discounts, making them excellent "reach" options to carry with a good pair of 8x or 10x binos. I sometimes velcro this scope in its cover to a tool belt that I wear for even quicker deployment than digging it out of the back pack. The case protects the objective, so I leave the lens cap off, and I can yank off the lens case cover, then snap it on my walking-stick/pistol grip/monopod in less than five seconds.

So..... this became a much longer and somewhat wandering "greeting" to this discussion, but I'd love to hear about anyone's opinions as to why microscopes don't seem to inspire the discussion and controversy that accompanies scope and bino debates.

 

[Binastro]

Hi and welcome.

I suppose a large zoom ratio bridge camera would have identified the golden eagle.

Astronomers nowadays are often photographers rather than traditional astronomers.
Also the after processing often produces false results.

I have seen artifacts on the planet Uranus by a top level astrophotographer that I was sure were false. It turned out to be so.

Jupiter rotated 45 degrees compared to the moons.

Supposed Saturn moons that I immediately said were not.
One was Titan, the other a star.

Frequent photos claiming to be Jupiter's moons are in fact stars.

In many cases I am the only person to notice these errors, when the photos have been posted in several publications previously, with nobody pointing out they are in fact fake.

Photos back to front, impossible depictions of the Moon, full cover page photos of Orion back to front.

It is only because I am mainly a visual astronomer that I can notice these errors.

Many want pretty pictures and process them to achieve that without actually checking the photo is factually correct.

I started with refractors in the 1950s, then larger reflectors, and only fairly late with binoculars.

Why microscopes are not in favour I don't know.
I have had one from maybe the 1960s.

Horace Dall had world record microscope objectives he made from jewels that were close to electron microscope levels.

I have had essentially perfect telescopes, but used ones that were good or very good rather than the very best.

I do watch birds with binoculars.

Regards,
B.

 

[Paultricounty]

I just found this discussion through a link from an astronomy website, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading through these ten pages of "mostly genial headbutting". There are many similar discussions on astroforums, and they all share a curious parallel with this thread. Almost no references are ever found to microscopes. They are equally fascinating optical systems, yet they rarely attract the same levels of passion and dispute that aficionados of photo gear, astronomy gear, and binoculars show as has been seen in this post. Totally obsolete "brass era" microscopes are desirable and exchanged as collectables but more recent instruments attract little interest.

My take is that microscopes are mostly seen as "tools of the trade" that are appreciated for their excellence, but as long as they meet the necessary performance standard needed for their scientific task, their users don't get overly passionate about them or see the need to chase an incrementally better level of performance. The best instruments are usually provided by institutions for their employee's use, so perhaps the "collector syndrome" doesn't factor into their acquisition process, and the decision of when to replace equipment is made by a committee process. Newer automated digital imaging and automated data processing of the images has also resulted in the elimination of many former micrologist's positions in medical labs and industrial inspection stations. The only "sub group" that I have found is astronomers who trade in top quality microscope eyepieces to adapt them for telescopes.

My astronomy requirements tend to leave me less passionate about visual gear as electronic imaging can reveal so much more information than the human eye, so I tend to acquire "adequate" gear and I have rarely owned alpha optics as either binoculars, telescopes, or eyepieces. This perplexes my colleagues, when I look through an AP or Takahashi APO with a TeleVue eyepiece and agree with them that the view is vastly superior to my mass produced Mak coupled to one of my "decent" mid level eyepieces. I can appreciate top quality gear, but once you establish a given largish aperture, seeing conditions have a far greater limiting influence than the equipment typically shows. I immediately recognized the advantage of digital imaging when it first appeared because of its ability to greatly reduce and sometimes completely overcome atmospheric problems. For visual astronomy I have always ascribed to the "aperture is king" philosophy. A five or six inch APO is an optical toue de force, but pushing a cheap twelve or sixteen inch Dob around the sky is going to show you much more detail in distant objects, and faint smudges even if remarkably resolved in the APO, turn into disctinct shapes with discernable details in the Dob.

I have tagged along on a few birding and wildlife observation sessions with friends and I have compared my Nikon M7 8x42 and Celestron Nature ED 12x56 binos to many others during these events. There is no question that the much better binos - - - are exactly that - - - MUCH better. However, when I compare the degree to which feather detail or whether a band can be read, the central acquity of alphas with the same magnification and aperture seems to offer very little advantage. I never argue about the delight of owning superb equipment, but I do push back when someone claims perfomance traits that field tests do not support. Even with unlimited funds, I would chose a variety of mid level apertures and magnifications over one alpha model to increase my chances of seeing the most detail or glimpse a difficult target in poor light.

This discussion seems to mostly center on pride of ownership and the pure enjoyment of using a superior device. The practical aspect of deciding which point of compromise suits you best when choosing aperture and magnification without adding excesive weight or bulk will always be an entirely subjective choice. These exchanges of viewpoints are sometimes understood and frequently, as seen here, a point of unresolvable dispute. I started astronomy in the 1960's with a pair of Tasco 7x50 binoculars that my Dad used on his boat. Some helpful members of a local astronomy club steered me to a much better pair of used Pentax 7x50's and later I added a small refractor to begin my life long trip down the astro rabbit hole.

I realize that some of what I have said is comparing apples to oranges, and many observers need to sacrifice weight and bulk, so a smaller much higher perfomance scope or binocular is the logical choice, but many lower priced spotting scopes and binos now offer much greater improvements compared to a few years ago, while alphas are subject to the laws of diminishing returms. I agree with several of the posters here, that an alpha will probably remain useful for a longer time because the "newer" version will only be a very subtle upgrade., but my Nikons are a good example of this greater pace of improvement with mid-range and entry level optics. By moving production to China, they have cut production costs. Compared to the two generations past model, Monarchs have added ED glass and dielectric surfaces, and even compared to the immediate predecessor, much improved transmittance, hydrophobic protection, a wider field of view, and a noticable increase in contrast through better coatings and improved prisms.

None of this puts them in competition with models priced four times or more above them, but as with most of the day to day items that we use, the performance difference is often hard to justify on a simple cost beneifit analysis. The intangibles are exactly that, but no single optic does it all, and I remain convinced that apart from the weight and bulk penalty, two or even three seperate well chosen optics at the level of my Monarchs will increase your liklyhood of catching a random unexpected appearance of a rare bird or animal. I was recently walking on Mount Royal (a large municipal park) at the center of downtown Montreal, when a very large bird of prey appeared at a very high altitude. I was carring my usual "strolling back pack". This holds a Sony A6500 camera with the compact kit zoom, my 8x42's, a cheap Chinese 20-60x80 spotting scope, and in my hand, a dual duty hiking stick-monopod. Several birders were trying to decide who and or what the visitor was, but the largest binos amongst them was a 12x56, and that wasn't able to resolve enough detail. It took me less tha twenty sceonds to quick connect the scope to my pistol grip ball head and extend the monopod. I gave it to an experienced birder who focused and zoomed to declare, somewaht perplexed, that it was a golden eagle. One of the other birders knew that a golden eagle was being rehabed at a center some thirty miles distant from downtown, and this must be that bird. A phone call confirmed that the center was monitoring the bird and letting it hunt over the park.

Between the spotting scope and the binos, there are very few surprise events that I can't quickly set up to view. These cheap Chinese scopes are extremely variable as to quality, but Amazon offers "no question returns", and the "good ones" can be surprisingly good. Svbony, Bosdon, and UScamel are "brand names" that offer after purchase service (check that they do this in your country) and they frequently offer these scopes at substantial discounts, making them excellent "reach" options to carry with a good pair of 8x or 10x binos. I sometimes velcro this scope in its cover to a tool belt that I wear for even quicker deployment than digging it out of the back pack. The case protects the objective, so I leave the lens cap off, and I can yank off the lens case cover, then snap it on my walking-stick/pistol grip/monopod in less than five seconds.

So..... this became a much longer and somewhat wandering "greeting" to this discussion, but I'd love to hear about anyone's opinions as to why microscopes don't seem to inspire the discussion and controversy that accompanies scope and bino debates.

Welcome to the forum Astrovisitor. Agreed it was wondering , but I enjoyed it🤣✌🏼.

As far as no inspiring discussions and controversy on microscopes on BF, is because this is mainly a birding forum website, with sub-forums on items and tools that can be used in that endeavor. The equipment and tools can serve double duty for other types of nature observing, hunting, astronomical purposes as well as municipalities using these tools to police our wildlife preserves , forests, and nature parks, as well as our waterways and so on. On this forum microscopes don’t fit into the overall genre of the website. Imo microscopes are a more limited use tool as far has hobbies go.

On the other hand I’ve always been fascinated with microscopes, but never took the step to indulge considering how much time my other hobbies take up. Ive seen a few amazing old brass microscopes that are works of art. I’m sure sometime in the future I’ll acquire one or more 😉. Id be surprised if there were not lots of websites that discuss microscopes.

I knew a guy who collected old vintage pianos and old cash registers. He had a very large home in a prestigious neighborhood in New York on Long Island. The home was approximately close to 3500 ft.² without the basement. There were 14 rooms in this home. He was an elderly gentleman that lived by himself and was collecting these things for close to 45 years. Every room in the house had pianos and cash registers. I’m looking for some pictures as I write this. The craftsmanship and build quality that went into some of these things was astonishing. These things were made in an era where every item was handcrafted and assembled. The home was in extreme disrepair, it hadn’t been updated in probably four decades. It shows the passion that this individual had for these items or an unhealthy addiction.

The gentleman had passed away and the home was sold for over $1.4 million about five years ago, I was told by a family member that some of the items in the house sold at auction for close to the amount of the home. The moral of the story is people have passion for many things in life, but you can’t take them with you. Although it is in my will to be berried with my Leica Noctivids and my Colt 357 Python 😜

Enjoy the forum.

Paul

 

[GrampaTom]

and in my hand, a dual duty hiking stick-monopod.

It took me less tha twenty sceonds to quick connect the scope to my pistol grip ball head and extend the monopod.

Could you name or add photo of your monopod/pistol grip setup, please?

Tanks

 

[Conndomat]

So..... this became a much longer and somewhat wandering "greeting" to this discussion, but I'd love to hear about anyone's opinions as to why microscopes don't seem to inspire the discussion and controversy that accompanies scope and bino debates.

Because microscopists are shy, withdrawn people who pursue their passion in solitude.

Hi,

of course it was a joke, but first of all, welcome on board.

In fact, the topic of microscopes and their use is much more complex than binoculars, there are more factors involved and you need a certain understanding of the subject.
Several years ago I was in a German microscope forum because I was also interested in the subject. There were already discussions about the various microscopes, but usually not quite as heatedly as here in the binoculars forum.
A microscope can be put together from several different parts, binoculars are self-contained, which also makes comparison easier.

By the way, I myself have an older Leitz Lux transmitted light microscope and a Zeiss DV4 stereo microscope and although they are no longer up to date, they are still very good and are by far sufficient for me.

Binoculars are more suitable for a wider range of people, microscopy is a bit special because it is more complex and is therefore, IMO, carried out by far fewer people.

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

There is the Queckett Society or Queckett microscopial club, which has a large following.

Camera collecting has a large following.

B.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Hi and welcome.

I suppose a large zoom ratio bridge camera would have identified the golden eagle.

Astronomers nowadays are often photographers rather than traditional astronomers.
Also the after processing often produces false results.

I have seen artifacts on the planet Uranus by a top level astrophotographer that I was sure were false. It turned out to be so.

Jupiter rotated 45 degrees compared to the moons.

Supposed Saturn moons that I immediately said were not.
One was Titan, the other a star.

Frequent photos claiming to be Jupiter's moons are in fact stars.

In many cases I am the only person to notice these errors, when the photos have been posted in several publications previously, with nobody pointing out they are in fact fake.

Photos back to front, impossible depictions of the Moon, full cover page photos of Orion back to front.

It is only because I am mainly a visual astronomer that I can notice these errors.

Many want pretty pictures and process them to achieve that without actually checking the photo is factually correct.

I started with refractors in the 1950s, then larger reflectors, and only fairly late with binoculars.

Why microscopes are not in favour I don't know.
I have had one from maybe the 1960s.

Horace Dall had world record microscope objectives he made from jewels that were close to electron microscope levels.

I have had essentially perfect telescopes, but used ones that were good or very good rather than the very best.

I do watch birds with binoculars.

Regards,
B.

Thanks for the "welcome". I have been looking at other postings here and it looks like a place where I can learn a lot. You are right about the popularity of long reach bridge cameras, but only the recent best models have really high res screens or viewfinders, so that when using them as viewers the resolution is usually insufficient. You need to download the file or link to an iPad or hi-res tablet. The Nikon Coolpix 1000 is very popular here, but it is heavier than what a lot of people find comfortable to carry.

I agree 100% about the "art" of astro-photography. Pretty pictures and accurate scientific recording do not always align. I presume you heard about the recent controversy when it was proven that a "recent premium phone" was totally faking details on moon pics. If you zoomed in and took an image of the moon, the phone was consulting an image base, scaling a stored image and using it to fill in the details that were "lacking" in the photo taken by that user.
Once people have seen Hubble and JWT images, that is the new minimum that they expect of any astro-image.

Even long standing visual viewers can screw up depictions by confusing a Newt, a frac, or a spotting scope "view". Most Japanese frac users do not use a diagonal, so they are used to "upside-down" views. I agree with you that posters should show the actual orientation of their images as referenced from where they recorded the image. Then again, as I roll my Newt tube in its rings, throw in a meridian flip and end up standing on the other side of the tube - up, down, left, and right can become a little confused, but the constellations most definitely do not present themselves as mirror images.

Thanks again for the greeting.