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
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
There were actually stars in the sky last night. It seems these days the sky is clear maybe only once a week!
Last night I went out with two pair of 10x50s, the Nikon Action Extreme and the Pentax PCF WP, to test maximum width of field of view and to test for sharpness across the fov. All I wanted to do was sit down in a reclining lawn chair and get these two measurements.
I tried to view Albireo across the field to see how far out it was still apparently clear as a double. And then I tried to view Delphinus with the tip at one edge to measure the distance across the field of view. Well, I couldn't do it hand held. Too much movement in the images.
At first, I tried regular hold, then I tried right hand to left barrel hold, which was better. Neither of those were steady enough to see Albireo well enough to get a good measure on how far out from center it was still seen as double. Then I rested my elbows on the armrests. At this point my heartbeat caused the binocs to flutter annoyingly. On Delphinus, I couldn't keep the tip star on one edge long enough to get an exact measure across the fov.
I could not hand hold these 36oz. 10x50 binoculars steady enough to satisfactorily get these simple measurements. Sure I could still tell Albireo was a double maybe 40% out, that might be pushing it, but that's the central range. The real measure is somewhat outside that area and that's what I needed to see.
There was no way I could even brace these binoculars steady enough to see Albireo as a clean double star at anything beyond the central area. One thing I needed to do was find a nearby double with a wider separation that I could see. This uneven 34" double was too close for a 10x50 binocular. I tried a double that was about 2 or 3 arcminutes apart, still not steady enough.
When I finally gave up and went back in for a tripod, It was clearly evident that even this type of simple testing requires an absolutely steady tripod mounted binocular if it is to be seen.
By the way, using a very wide double
the Nikon 10x50 was good to 50% fair to 60% and poor by 70%.
the Pentax 10x50 was good to 60%, fair to 70% and didn't get poor until about 80% out.
the Nikon AE 10x50 has a field of view 6.1°, usable limit 4.3°
the Pentax PCF WP 10x50 has a fov of 5.1°, usable limit 4.1°
But the point of this was how difficult it is to hand hold binoculars to do any kind of detailed viewing. I will echo what has been said before,
If you think the view is good handheld, you don't know what you're missing. Wait till you get them mounted!
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Hi Ed,
I have made the same experience when testing the star images across the field. With 10x, this is becoming very tedious indeed. In this case it helps to lay down on the ground and observe the region close to the zenith, letting the binocular rest on the face itself. I generally believe that beyond 8x it is mostly the unsteadiness which is magnified during hand held observation.
With regards,
Holger
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
After many years of testing, many, many binoculars, I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to rating the hand held steadiness of binoculars, about the only conclusion that can be made is that it varies.
It varies from person to person. It varies from binocular to binocular. It varies from night to night. It varies depending on bracing. It varies depending on comfort and posture. It varies on usable FOV. It varies depending on whether the subject wears glasses. It varies depending on: physical condition, caffiene intake, alcohol consumption, mental and emotional status, blood pressure, medications taken, & medications not taken.
Did I mention that it varies? While it's true that almost all binocular astro views can be improved by mounting the binoculars, it's also true that most hand held binocular views can be improved simply by really considering what's at the root of the shaky images to start with.
Some nights, it's all I can do to hold 7x binos steady, other times, I have no trouble at all with 12x. Most people are similarly variable, but each person will likely have their own range of what's generally acceptable.
My own thoughts are that unless one is laying down, and unless one is really utilizing good body bracing, and good natural point of aim techniques, that one probably has never really achieved true handheld potential.
Mike Swaim
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
"My own thoughts are that unless one is laying down, and unless one is really utilizing good body bracing, and good natural point of aim techniques, that one probably has never really achieved true handheld potential."
Is this our moment of Zen?
Everything you said is true Mike. Aside from the whats and hows of hand holding binoculars, who would want to for astronomy? This is a personal preference, but I like my celestial objects to be perfectly still as I gaze upon them for several minutes. [Minus the natural sky rotation of course]. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now....
|
BluewaterObserva
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 4763
Loc: Zuni Mtns, NM
|
|
For short periods of time, I can hold my 11x80's much steadier than any 10x50 I have ever tried, for brief periods of time, the additional weight actually help keep them steady. As long as you grip tham way way out by the objectives that is.
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Hello Mike,
I basically agree with your point. One may account for the varying physical conditions of the observer by adopting a statistical point of view: Using the 8x40 binocular, a reasonably steady image is achieved during 90% of the observation sessions, when using the 10x50, less than 50% of the sessions might be possible hand held. This is essentially what I mean when I claim: The 8x binocular can be held steady, namely it can be held steady under normal, or even less than ideal conditions. Surely, this again varies from observer to observer, but again, this statement may be true for 90% of all observers - and so on and so on...
With regards,
Holger
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Holger, is not even that a pretty gross oversimplification? I'll give you a very good example of what I'm getting at. Until very recently, I had a range of 10x50s sitting in my closet. They ranged in weight from 24oz. to 36oz. They were not at all equal in steadiness when held in my hands. Many folks claim that they get best results when holding heavier binoculars. I did not always find that to be the case. In fact, I found that I greatly prefer binos in the 26-30oz weight until one gets above 12x. Others, might favor a different weight zone. But, again the point becomes that trying to make too much of any one binocular trait, be it magnification, or weight or size of objective lens or exit pupil, likely doen't take into account the whole of the picture. There's a whole lot more to a binocular than any one spec. 8x40, as a size is nothing special. Nor is 10x50. It's what the sum of the whole becomes, and how ergonomic it is, in relationship to the very specifics of the observer, and the manner of observing that really matter.
Mike Swaim
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Although from personal experiences I tend to agree with Holger on this point , that is from PERSONAL experiences.
These guys who score maximum points in Olympic sporting events such as rifle -shooting and archery are clearly of a different ilk , if not of composition and disposition.
I might add that there is a big difference between holding ANY binocular "STEADY" in the "horizontal plane", with elbows supported on a wall , for example , and doing so when the binocular is inclined toward vertical plane with arms totally unsupported.
Technically speaking , the former could still be classified as " hand -held".
Thus , IF some sort of "vertical block" of some substance happened to be conveniently placed or situated against which the elbows could be rested,then it would become far easier for "celestial hand -held viewing" to be optimised.
Unfortunately, rarely , if ever , is this the case.
Unless of course , one went to considerably sophisticated measures to ensure that it was.
To put all this into context , I can remember many times when I couldn't "hold an image steady" with my NAKED eyes , let alone through hand -held magnifying instruments :-)
Regards , Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Quote:
I might add that there is a big difference between holding ANY binocular "STEADY" in the "horizontal plane", with elbows supported on a wall , for example , and doing so when the binocular is inclined toward vertical plane with arms totally unsupported.
Kenny, the trick to looking vertical, is to support the body horizontally, then just use natural resting points for the elbows to support the binos. Looking vertically, is actually easier, since the whole of the back plane is then supported, rather than just relying on feet/legs/torso to support arms/hands/binos. Elbows should usually be supported, whether via artificial supports or body dynamics. If you can't support your elbows, cross your wrists. What you're looking for is body bracing. At some point, every single structural point of your body ought to be connected to another structural point, with eventually ought to be connected to ground.
This next bit has nothing to do with binocular astronomy, but it illustrates the point. When I was taught sitting, target shooting, the mantra was: Ankles to ground, knees as close to ground as comfortable, (but no more), elbows to knees, wrists to elbows, rifle to wrists to elbows to knees to ankles. It's a good braced setup that doesn't even mention the huge value of the sling that everybody uses to good effect. Note that everything is grounded through a structural component.
Relating all this to binoculars is surprisingly easy, and doesn't require any kind of bizarre body contortions, or Zen buddhism or anything. Don't worry about buying new gear, until you've really figured out the limits of what you've already got. (Yeah, I know, I'm not one that should even open up that can of worms, since most of you know me for gear swapping.) But, the point is, there are solutions for a lot of this stuff that don't have to do with much of anything but learning to adapt to what's available. Personally, I often find it easier to swap gear than to learn better habits than the bad ones I started with, but that's just an admission, not an excuse.
Adapting the above to handheld binocular astronomy as practiced from laying on a blanket is pretty easy. Small of back to ground, shoulders to ground, elbows to chest, wrists to elbows via radius & ulna bones, binos to wrists to elbows to chest to shoulders to ground. This gets even more stable when using crossed wrists, or even just one hand on opposite objective bell with weight of binos on forearm. Or better yet, substitute a reclining chaise lounge for blanket, and use arms on chaise lounge for wider elbow positioning. Incidently, an alternative, and often superior method is to support the bino making use of thumbs hooked under binos closer to eyepiece end, but making solid contact with cheek bones. The effectiveness of this approach hinges largely on the ergonomics and balance point of the binos. Lighter, shorter, smaller binos do well with this approach, whereas, heavier, longer, larger ones bennefit more from the obj. end holding methods.
It's all about figuring out what works best for you.
Regards,
Mike Swaim
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Well Mike,
I feel proud if it was MY post which inspired you to reveal all THAT !
My good wife is no stranger to finding me tinkling around with binoculars , scopes and lenses in the wee hours , but I suspect even she started worrying about me this morning pre -dawn , when in the half -light she discovered me aside our bed in squatting position ,trying to connect wrists , elbows , knees and ankles whilst holding my 15 x 70s.
As a child I remember a song being played on the old radio which went along the lines of "the hip bone's connected to the thigh bone , the thigh bone's connected to the knee bone" and so on and so forth , but never clocked who sang the song , which was performed in neo - barber -shop harmony style.
It wasn't YOU and group of your followers by any chance , was it Mike ? :-)
Regards , Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Hello Mike,
That's great stuff! You are on the way to open a completely new dimension of handheld binocular observation to me. I am going to start my exercises - I mean it!
I am also aware that giving any specific magnification as the upper limit for handheld observation is a simplification. But the claim for 8x as such a limit appears to contain a sufficiently large safety margin against all these effects - I never seemed to have any trouble with that. Beyond 8x, all those effects you have mentioned are then beginning to pop up. This is the critical region where nothing definitive can be stated any more. For some guys on some days with some binoculars it works out for some minutes. But I still believe: With 8x we are on the safe side.
With regards,
Holger
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
I pretty happily used a fairly nice Bushnell 10x50 model for a few years, although with quite a bit of jittery image. This past January I got Orion Ultraview 8x42 -- lighter and less magnification, and with them I have almost as much jittery image as with the 10x50, which has been a disappointment. On the other hand, one evening I handheld a Celestron 20x80, and there was no jittery image, which was a big surprise to me. My conclusion was that the great mass of the 20x80 dampened the jittery image down to almost nothing. Of course, holding the 20x80 for very long would not be practical, if even possible (maybe for a weightlifter). I'm talking about standing up, holding them totally freehand (all three models).
|
arctic hawk
member
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 59
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
I found my old 10x50's tough to hold & focus for astronomical purposes. When I got my 15x70'x, the situation got worse.
Luckily, I do my observations from home & sitting on the floor & using the back rest of a chair is great. The downside is limited mobility & viewing angle. When outdoors, got to find a pole/tree/whatever to lean one of the barrels against to "sort of" stabilise the shakes.
I hope to have in my possession a spiffy new tripod within the next 2 weeks or so. The tough decisions are how much to spend on one & what to get/look for.
--------------------
15x70 Celestron SkyMaster
Celestron C90 Mak
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
"I hope to have in my possession a spiffy new tripod within the next 2 weeks or so. The tough decisions are how much to spend on one & what to get/look for."
That last sentence is very well applicable to many, if not ALL, purchasing decisions involving anything to do with astronomy.
You'll enjoy the tripod, believe me!
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
There are a number of excellent threads linked from the "Best Of" post at the top of the forum that might help you in your tripod decision process.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
arctic hawk
member
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 59
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Quote:
There are a number of excellent threads linked from the "Best Of" post at the top of the forum that might help you in your tripod decision process.
edz
Thanks for the tip! Certain saves a lot of goofing about, not that is is a bad thing!
As funny as this may sound, from the little window shopping that I have done so far, I think that the cost of the tripod will exceed what I paid for my new bino's.
--------------------
15x70 Celestron SkyMaster
Celestron C90 Mak
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2555
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
As funny as this may sound, from the little window shopping that I have done so far, I think that the cost of the tripod will exceed what I paid for my new bino's.
That's about right. Currently my most used Astro bino is the Burgess 20X80LW ($149). Most used tripod/head combo is the Bogen 3221WN/501 fluid head for $275. I paid $340 for my Orion 20X80 3 years ago. Bought the Bogen 3246/501 combo a week after for about the same.
One thing to remember about investment in a good tripod/head is that you can use it with your other scopes, binos later so it's best to buy something more substantial than your current needs. Years ago when I was just getting in to scopes I spend a lot of time trying to make an extension for the table top tripod of my Bushnell 40 mm spotting scope for target shooting.... I also purchased MANY lesser tripods during the past 15 years. ( I have more than a dozen). Finally came to the conclusion I should just save up and get the quality tripod I want instead of moving up gradually. Saves money in the long run and saves a lot of clutter in the house.
Erik D
|
arctic hawk
member
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 59
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Hello Erik,
Thanks for the advice. I will start putting some pennies aside & tough it out for awhile & get a solid tripod.
Target shooter? Ah, the good old days with the .308  But I gave that up ages ago when I met my girlfriend.
Have a great weekend!
A-Hawk
--------------------
15x70 Celestron SkyMaster
Celestron C90 Mak
|
|
6 registered and 9 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: 495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
