Rodger EON 80 Tak TSA-102 EON 120 Orion Apex 127mm Meade AR6 Tak FS-152 Celestron Nexstar 6SE and 8SE Celestron 9.25" SCT Meade 10" LX50 Celestron 11" SCT Celestron 14" SCT 16" Teeter/Zambuto 20" f/5 Obsession Classic Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42 Astro Physics Premium 15X70 Oberwork 20X80 Deluxe III Oberwork BT 100-45 Complete set of Baader Genuine Orthos Zeiss Diascope eyepiece 12mm, 68AFOV, Great eye relief (sharpest, highest contrast eyepiece I own, just awesome) etc., etc.
The night sky is the canvas....
My optics are the brush....
The Milky Way is the masterpiece
reductio ad absurdum of epistomology is solipsism....
MarkLeica 8x20; Nikon Action 7x35; Vixen Apex Pro 8x42; Orion 15x63; Docter Nobilem 15x60WO Megrez II 80 FD / APM 107mm f/6.5 / Mewlon 210 on DM-6 + Berlebach Planet
Quote:Quote:Brandon,Binocular viewing incurrs a *cost*? Quite the contrary; it affords a *gain*.//cut//Squinting with one eye is an unnecessary handicap to be avoided. That's how binoculars should be promoted! Oh come on, there's huge premium for a binocular view, as we're all aware. To most people, that incremental pleasure from a binocular view cannot justify the significant additional expense and complexity. That's why most telescopes, even those intended to be only visual instruments, remain monocular.Even in refractor vs newt vs SCT debates, there are quantitative comparison data and arguments. I've tried to logically justify a binocular view but the argument always seems to boil down to: two eyes are better than one. Which is where I started when I posed my original question (and with apologies to Mr. Bill, the OP, for taking the thread down this path). I was hoping Glenn had a quantitative metric that captured the "sheer pleasure" of a binocular view, beyond the straightforward summation equations.
Quote:Brandon,Binocular viewing incurrs a *cost*? Quite the contrary; it affords a *gain*.//cut//Squinting with one eye is an unnecessary handicap to be avoided. That's how binoculars should be promoted!
"He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals." . . . Ben Franklin
Garrett Optical 28x110HD Signature Series
Oberwerk 20x80 Standard
Garrett Optical 15x70WP-CF
Garrett Optical 10x50 Gemini
Bushnell 8x40 fitted w/solar filters
Celestron NexStar-11 GPS
SkyWatcher 120mm Equinox APO refractor
Quote:I don't see this as possible at all... I take it you mean the bino is now oriented such that when pointed toward the horizon, one objective lies directly above the other, effectively having the instrument lying on what would currently be considered the side.
Quote:The alternate position for positioning the diagonals puts eps much closer to the altitude axis so the swing from horizon to zenith is minimized.
I tried both and prefer the diagonals and ep further back as I generally observe standing and don't like leaning over the binos...
Binoculars: Miyauchi Saturn III - 33/39/50/71/150x100, WO 22x70ED, Fujinon 16x70 FMT-SX Pentax 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 6.5x21 Papilio
Nikon 10x35 EII, 7x35 E, 8x30 EII, 8x23CF AS Diplomat
B&L 7x26 Custom
Scopes: C9.25, TMB130SS/FT, SV80S-LOMO 80/480
Quote:I understand your point, Planetmalc, keeping the eyepieces near and in line with the alt axis limits the viewer's movement for a single eyepiece but with the BinoBox it seems fiddly to have to keep re-setting the diagonals to maintain a relatively level viewing position and still achieve proper IPD from low to high viewing angles.
You've essentially changed the neck motion from up/down to right/left lean. To keep the right/left lean minimal, you'd have to be adjusting the swing of the diagonals frequently.
Quote:For many of us, I think, the familiar up/down orientation of the sky in binoculars (even if L/R reversed in this case) makes moving the bino or scope towards a target more intuitive. YMMV, of course.
Quote:I've just sketched out the geometry of the independently rotating eyepiece assemblies, and can see that in principle one should be able to devise a scheme which will allow to keep the eyepieces oriented horizontally as the bino is swung in altitude while 'lying on its side.'
Quote:This arrangement requires that the mechanical dimensions be such that the swinging arms do not interfere with each other, and at first examination may make it difficult to build for the 2" eyepiece format. This also seems to require a relatively close observance of the ratio of objective separation to radius of swing of the eyepieces.