Very few of us have the experience of Ed, Barry or Kenny to remember all of the information readers might need to know (whether they know it or not) when we write a astronomical binocular review. I know I didn't, so I have developed a "crib sheet" of items to try to include when writing a review.
Something that I would never want to happen would be for reviews to turn into some cookie-cutter format, because I enjoy having the personality of each reviewer come through via their writing style. A list of figures of merit should be viewed merely as a guideline of items that might be included (or not) in any order the reviewer desires as he/she discusses the binocular.
Here is what I have come up with so far, grouped in three broad categories but not necessarily in any order of importance (which is highly subjective anyway). If this has already been done, I apologize. I'm sure I have forgotten something so your changes or additions are welcome! Thanks, Milt
Astronomical Binoculars Figures of Merit
A. MANUFACTURER'S OPTICAL SPECIFICATIONS
1) Magnification 2) Objective Diameter 3) Objective Type / Coatings 4) Prism Type / Coatings 5) True Field of View (degrees) 6) Apparent Field of View (degrees) 7) Shortest Focusing Distance (N/A for Astronomy) 8) Diopter Adjustment Range 9) Exit Pupil 10) Eye Relief
B. ERGONOMICS / OTHER FACTORS
1) Price 2) Weight 3) Size 4) Tactile Feel 5) Interpupillary Adjustment Range 6) Fixed or Interchangeable Eyepieces 7) Focuser Type 8) Diopter Adjustment Type 9) Eyecup Adjustment Type 10) Suitability for Handholding 11) Mounting Capability 12) Waterproofing / Fogproofing 13) Case, Strap and Lens Covers
C. OBSERVED PERFORMANCE (Compared to similar binocular when possible)
1) Actual True Field of View 2) Actual Eye Relief Consistent with Claimed? 3) On-Axis Stellar Limiting Magnitude vs. Naked Eye 4) On-Axis Tightest Double Split 5) On-Axis False Color 6) Off-Axis Field Curvature / Astigmatism 7) Off-Axis Pincushion Distortion 8) Off-Axis False Color 9) Flaring, Ghosting or Other Aberrations
|