281 replies to this topic

[B 26354]

@ eyeoftexas...

 

The link in your post above, doesn't work.   

[eyeoftexas]

@ eyeoftexas...

 

The link in your post above, doesn't work.   

 

Sorry, I copied it from ssantia's post #181.

[B 26354]

Ah... OK. Let's try again:

 

https://agenaastro.c...pter m 11%C2%A0

[John Fitzgerald]

With my Orion 2x54, I could barely get Almach and Algineb at each extreme edge of the field.  According to Sky Safari 6, they are separated by 36 degrees, 4 minutes.

[faackanders2]

I have always been drawn to these but I am not sure if they are the right product for us glasses wearers.  

You can not use gallilean binos with glasses.  to get wide field you nave near zero eye relief.

[MikeTelescope]

I'm getting about 24 degrees FOV with glasses on.  Mirfak to Navi.  With my glasses off I'm only getting about 26 degrees.  Mirfak to Shedar.  I believe the FOV one gets will depend on one's face geometry.  With more deeply set eyes the FOV is bound to be less than the spec of 36 degrees.  For my amount of astigmatism using these without glasses is disappointing.  The couple degrees of FOV lost with glasses on is easily made up by the lack of streaks and winged stars.  

 

Putting a bino bandit on these gives an immersive starwalk-type experience.  I'm seeing M31 in urban skies with direct vision, and a hint of M33 with averted vision.  

[Tony Flanders]

You can not use gallilean binos with glasses.  to get wide field you nave near zero eye relief.

I use my Orion 2x54 both with glasses on and off. Although the field of view is significantly smaller with glasses on, I don't find the difference in the useful field of view to be quite so great. I find the outermost 5-degree circle of the purported 36-degree field of view to be pretty unpleasant to look at -- physically exhausting, and mediocre optical quality.

 

So I find the truly useful field of view with my glasses off to be around 26 degrees, and certainly still bigger than 20 degrees with my glasses on. The glasses correct for astigmatism, which is a pretty major issue for me at wide-open exit pupils.

[PEterW]

You can move your eyes around the mid field fine, the edges provide context, better than having a hard black circle! The 36degree is possible, but as I mentioned that’s the ultimate extreme.... a hero experiment (https://www.photonic...periments/d4552).

Peter

[Darren B]

Has anyone tried these with the Kasai Headset Goggle?

I've noticed that the Kasai 2.3x40 have a different eyepiece design.

[PEterW]

No, but with the 3D printed eyecups they sit on my eyes across a fair range of angles if I lie down and look upwards, only a light touch and I can cover a large are of the sky. Maybe so should add an elastic strap?
Peter

[Traveler]

How many of you still use this instrument after the first couple of sessions? I mean is this instrument really an observation tool for the long term, after the first wow and new experience sessions?  

[PEterW]

I use mine to help see more stars for finding things in my urban location and to see Mr Musks new satellite satellites.
It’s nice to be reminded there are more stars up there.

PEter

[Men2Boyz]

I just got mine yesterday. I am observing in a Bortle 6 region but tonight is quite clear. The Pleiades and Andromeda galaxy can be identified tonight with naked eyes. After two nights I am a bit underwhelmed with these binoculars after all the build up for them. Yes, there are more visible stars and the wide angle view is good, but there was no wow factor for me. The brightest stars didn’t have the extra brightness and contrast that I had anticipated. The stars that were invisible before but now visible were very dim. Even my inexpensive Nikon 9x25 compact binoculars produce better brightness and contrast than these and they were not designed for astronomy viewing.  I have 20/20 vision in my right eye and 20/40 vision in the left eye but these binoculars did not give me the super vision of the night sky I was hoping for. Compared with my naked eye view, the star patterns were closer and some previously invisible stars were now viewable but these binoculars left me wanting for better brightness and contrast. Not everyone will have the same experience but the only way to find out if these are for you is to look through them with your own eyes, thus the old saying, “your mileage may vary”. Maybe I just got a bad copy.

[ppbb]

I am observing in a Bortle 6 region but tonight is quite clear.

When I was observing with mine under Bortle 6 sky my impression was "yup, I can see more stars, nice".
When I was observing under Bortle 3 sky my impression was "woooooooooooooooow".
I wonder what my impression would be under Bortle 1 or 2.

 

My point is, give them a chance under darker sky.

[MikeTelescope]

Something these 2x54's facilitate is seeing the constellations in town as Ptolemy described them in his Almagest.  In the now-rare occasions I get to go to a dark sky, I like to spend time reviewing the constellations with their dimmer stars filled in, to try to imagine how they were seen by the ancients.  When I'm in town, I see the familiar asterisms but miss out on many of the dimmer stars that fill the constellation in. 

 

With these 2x54's, G. J. Toomer's translation of Ptolemy's Almagest, and a star chart with Bayer designations, it has been fun to review the constellations with all of the stars filled in, and without the time constraint of being in a dark sky for a only few hours.  I finally see Auriga and Cepheus as Ptolemy described them.  And once I see them, I use the 2x54's each night to let the pictures sink in.

 

It's a good way to bridge the gap between dark sky sessions and still keep an idea of what the constellations will look like when I'm back at the dark sky site.    

Edited by MikeTelescope, 25 November 2020 - 01:17 AM.

[Pinac]

Just imagine how Ptolemy would have written his Almagest had he had access to something like a 2x54 .....

[Sergey Stern]

Just in from a brief comparison of the commercial Orion 2x54 and the homemade Nikon 2x54. The purpose of my first test was purely to assess the 36° FOV claim. I saw immediately that the homemade Nikon (made out of two teleconverters, as shown by PeterW in post #215 above) shows a distinctly larger field of view. 

 

Rolling clouds prevented precise measurements in the sky. I've done it in the past for the Nikon, though, with which I get 30° without glasses and 27° with. Deducting 2° gives 28° without glasses on for the Orion, 25° with. Still nice. But I'll be keeping the Nikon and using the Orion only to experiment with filters.

 

The 36° claim appears to be some kind of theoretical value. But if anyone here can really encompass 36° with these bins, all the merrier. Please report!

 

Christopher

 

Christopher, did you compared, how these two binos render the stars, especially towards the edge of the field of view? Wich one did you liked better?

 

Sergey

[C.Hay]

Sergey, the rendering of stars was so similar that I didn't start looking for differences at all. In terms of optical quality, the two seemed identical at first glance. I must admit, though, that I didn't pursue that issue, as I immediately realised I'll be using the Nikon, not the Orion.

 

I prefer the Nikon for various reasons:

For one, I find it ergonomically more pleasing, nicer to hold in the hands. Furthermore, fitting rubber eyeguards is much easier: those of the Nagler 3-6 zoom fit perfectly and are readily available in the marketplace.

Above all, the FOV of the Orion is definitely a little constrained. This is readily explained: the body of the binoculars goes straight up from the edges of the objective lens, while with the Nikons it steps back several millimetres. The Nikon engineers did this to prevent vignetting. The Orion engineers wanted to get interpupillary distance down to 60mm or below, so chose to sacrifice a little of the field. That certainly makes sense to make the bins usable for a wider circle of people, but with my 62.5mm IPD I get no gain from it, only loss of FOV.

 

Regards, Christopher

[PEterW]

Ergonomically (for my face) the taper of the Nikon sits better, the Orion straight sides dig into my nose more. A binobandit works for the Orion well, I printed the eyecups for the Nikon design off thingiverse and they work very well.
They seem identical optically, the 36 degree is a absolute max for “just perceived at the edge of your peripheral vision” using bright stars so they are still noticable when bloated out.
I’ll be keeping both as although I don’t need the focussing now, it’ll be useful to have for future. I tend to use both in “eyeball touching glass” mode for maximum field. I should have used them a few days ago in the back garden to help me point the larger binoculars.

PEter

[Sergey Stern]

Thanks Christopher and Peter,

I apriciate your findings, especially on ergonomics.

I tried ones Vixen 2.1x42 and found it very uncomfortable, because of cylindrical barrels, hitting my nose while trying to see the hole field. The barrels of Orion 2x54 are of the same form.

 

Sergey

[Far-Out]

Ordered SVBONY clone yesterday. Black Friday deal Amazon 20% off throughout weekend.

For that price why not.

[Far-Out]

This is a cool book and free PDF.

Project Gutenberg's Astronomy with an Opera-glass, by Garrett Putman Serviss

 

 

http://www.gutenberg...1-h/36741-h.htm

 

Following  is a direct quote from author’s book.

“The instrument used by the writer in making most of the observations for this book has object-glasses 1.6 inch in diameter, and a magnifying power of about 3.6 times.”

 

A good read and fun.

 

Larry

Edited by Far-Out, 29 November 2020 - 08:37 AM.

[norvegicus]

I was scanning eBay today and noticed a Bausch & Lomb Sport Glass from 1916.   

 

It made me think of this thread.   They obviously won't have the same FOV, nor the light gathering capability, but I'm tempted to snag a pair and try them out for sky roaming.

 

This is just one auction, there are many available:  https://www.ebay.com...SA/333704799967

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[Far-Out]

I was scanning eBay today and noticed a Bausch & Lomb Sport Glass from 1916.   

 

It made me think of this thread.   They obviously won't have the same FOV, nor the light gathering capability, but I'm tempted to snag a pair and try them out for sky roaming.

 

This is just one auction, there are many available:  https://www.ebay.com...SA/333704799967

Cool buy, if the price is right in the true spirit of Garrett Putman Serviss.

If you buy them let us know how they perform,

Thanks, Larry

[PEterW]

The opera glass used was a 3.6x40, so mid way between these Galilean units and a full on binocular.

PEter

This is a cool book and free PDF.
Project Gutenberg's Astronomy with an Opera-glass, by Garrett Putman Serviss


http://www.gutenberg...1-h/36741-h.htm

The instrument used by the writer in making most of the observations for this book has object-glasses 1.6 inch in diameter, and a magnifying power of about 3.6 times.

A good read and fun.

Larry