Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
sftonkin,
I was thinking only in terms of mass. I am not an expert on all the various head and tripod combinations for mounting giant binoculars, I was trying to keep it simple and as inexpensive as necessary. My 3130 head is adequate for my Miyauchi 20x77 because it is has better balance than a 25x100 that is 17" long and weighs a few pounds more. I have never used a 501 but understand it is a little beefier for handling heavier video equipment. With regards to high altitudes, I am able view perhaps 90% of the zenith with my 3130 head and 45* occulars. Thank you for your input Stephen and your attachment. What would be your recommendation for someone new to binocular astronomy that wants to mount a 25x100 but not spend more than necessary.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
>What would be your recommendation for someone new to binocular
>astronomy that wants to mount a 25x100 but not spend more than
>necessary.
I guess this all comes down to individual interpretations of the word "necessary". My Miyauchis came with the Manfrotto 475 tripod and 501 head for free,so I used that for several monthsuntil I got the P-mount. Observing was possible with the 501, so I guess the P-mount wasn't strictly necessary, but it was awkward to use for astronomy (although I still use it with the bins for terrestrial purposes).
However, since using the P-mount, the awkwardness of the 501 has been made more noticeable -- for astronomy it only wins on portability; it's not even that much quicker to set up than the P-mount.
If you want a pan-and-tilt-type head, then something like the Manfrotto 516 head ( http://manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=79&itemid=1737 ), which has been mentioned previously in this thread, would be better suited to heavy n×100 binocs, although the 501 is probably OK for those weighing less than about 10 lbs. Don't get me wrong; it can be used, but the 501 altitude tension can't be tightened sufficiently to hold 13.5 lb bins at high altitude, but to be even marginally usable it is so tight that the usual difficulties associated with getting close to the zenith are magnified. I also found that I would have to lock just below my target so that the weight of the binoc would shift it on target when I let go.
The bottom line for me is that I observe much more now I have the P-mount. From decision to observation is only about 6 minutes, which is short-enough set-up time for me under changeable UK skies.
Is this the sort of detail/opinion that you wanted?
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
Yes, thank you for elaborating. I really enjoy this forum as I am always learning things from folks like you that have the experience and knowledge that keep folks like me from making poor decisions about equipment. I have been considering a P-Mount for my stargazing sessions. Your comment that you observe more because of a P-mount is interesting and I am now more serious about adding a P-mount to my equipment. I find that my current set-up is adequate but perhaps not ideal with regards to observing near the zenith and tracking satellites which I like to do.
Thanks for the info and dialog.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
777Guy wrote:
[...]
>I really enjoy this forum as I am always learning things from folks like you
>that have the experience and knowledge that keep folks like me from
>making poor decisions about equipment.
This forum is certainly great for that -- it was only a few months ago that I
was asking similar questions about mounting my big binocs, and the
opinions of folk here were invaluable in informing my eventual decision.
However, one thing to remember is that once we get into the realm of
"best", "necessary", "adequate", etc., we are into the realm of personal
opinion.
> I have been considering a P-Mount for my stargazing sessions. Your
>comment that you observe more because of a P-mount is interesting and
>I am now more serious about adding a P-mount to my equipment.
One thing that you need to be aware of about P-mounts is that, because of
the tremendous moment on the tripod head, vibrations take significantly
longer to settle down. If you are considering getting one, one opinion you
should actively solicit is that of Barry Simon, who prefers not to use them.
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
777Guy
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 574
Loc: 48'29N 122'37W
|
|
Stephen,
Thanks again for your comments. The only opinion worth having is a personal opinion. P-mounts are definately something I need to investigate further.
Cheers,
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Stephen,
Thanks for the advice on the damping issue of the P-mount. I was looking at a long mount which would make the problem worse than the short mount. I may reconsider a mirror mount now and a geared tripod like the 475.
I find my Taks at 22x take some time to settle and are still sensitive to pressure on the eps when viewing. Part of the problem is the rubber washer on the hinge and I need to use some other more stable method of fixing. I was also thinking of fabricating a very heavy duty L-adapter.
Regards, Craig.
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
Hi Craig,
IIRC, the S&T reviewer of the 22×60 Taks had them on a UA HD Unimount and found it a good combo. I have the 20/37×100 Miyas on a UA T-mount and, whilst the damping time is greater than I'd ever accept in a telescope mount (but then, I found a Vixen GP to be marginal for my Celestron C5  ), it is such a small fraction of the FoV that it is not nearly as obtrusive and it doesn't bother me any more.
As regards a long-arm P-mount, I take it you wish to be able to observe reclining and standing (and sitting) without having to adjust the 'pod? If not, would not a shorter arm be generally preferable? (Or, as usual, am I mising something?)
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
G'day Stephen,
More likely me missing something. I am still getting up to speed on the most suitable mount for star gazing.
I was looking at a P-mount which would enable viewing whilst seated or reclined as well as standing.
I'll have to log my viewing habits and work out whether the trade off between damping is better than having to adjust the height of the pod.
The binocular helmet is looking better all the time. 
Cheers, Craig.
--------------------
Takahashi FS-102
Fujinon FMT-SX2 7x50
Takahashi Astronomer 22x60
Edited by craig_oz_land (07/06/04 02:38 AM)
|
|
10 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 899
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 