355 replies to this topic

[John Fitzgerald]

I could see about a magnitude and a half fainter, both before and after moonrise.   Of course, before moonrise,  I saw more stars.  I was able to tell that Epsilon Lyrae is two stars.  It's sort of like having enhanced 20/10 vision.

 

I think I will keep the 2x54 binoculars. They work well, and seem to be well made.

[Darren B]

Just got a pair of these delivered today, cannot wait to try them out.

I remember well over 20 years ago I had one of those cheap 60mm Tasco telescope. for fun I took the objective lens and looked at the night sky from my light polluted back yard. although it was not in focus, I could see a lot more stars than I could without it.

I thought back then if only if there was a very low powered binocular with large objectives.

I think I am going to be happy with these.

[Paul Skee]

Going to add my 2 cents. I bought these: https://www.amazon.c...8-4&tag=mh0b-20

They feel good and appear to be well constructed, Coatings look good. Caught a glimpse of Neowise from my bortle 7-8 sky. Too much smoke lately. One nice thing about these, they accept 2" eyepiece filters w/o any adaptors. I already had one UHC filter, so I bought another to try them. Makes sky contrast notably improved, (from my location). Going out to darker sky this weekend to view Mars, but will take these anticipating some nice views.

[Darren B]

I gave these a try tonight. The sky conditions were less than ideal, but still had fun looking through these.

[Pinac]

As far as I am aware, there are currently five different models of "starfield binoculars", i.e. low mag / widefield galilean type binos widely available on the market (left to right in the attached picture):
 

- AstroHutech 1.8x40

- Kasai Trading 2.3x40

- Orion 2x54
- Vixen 2.1x42

- Omegon 2.1x42

 

When this thread was started in February by range88 under the ambitious title "Finally the Ultimate Sky Roamer", I was a bit skeptical whether the Orion as the latest addition to the starfield world would really outperform all the others.

 

But in my view, it does, at least optically.

 

Mechanically, the Japan-made Vixen (and the Omegon, which is a China-made Vixen clone with slightly inferior coatings) appears slightly superior, with even smoother rotation of the eyepieces and impeccable finish.

 

But optically, the Orion 2x54 rules.

I may at some time write a more detailed comparison, but ahead of that, this is my impression so far of the Orion:

 

- clearly wider field than all others
- best edge sharpness and smoothest panning experience
- brightest image, not only due to larger objective diameter, but also due to better coatings that show lower reflections even than the Vixen
- the only one that comes with a proper neckstrap with two-point fixation

- probably best value for price ratio

 

fwiw Pinac

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Pinac, 07 October 2020 - 09:41 AM.

[range88]

As far as I am aware, there are currently five different models of "starfield binoculars", i.e. low mag / widefield galilean type binos widely available on the market (left to right in the attached picture):
 

- AstroHutech 1.8x40

- Kasai Trading 2.3x40

- Orion 2x54
- Vixen 2.1x42

- Omegon 2.1x42

 

When this thread was started in February by range88 under the ambitious title "Finally the Ultimate Sky Roamer", I was a bit skeptical whether the Orion as the latest addition to the starfield world would really outperform all the others.

 

But in my view, it does, at least optically.

 

Mechanically, the Japan-made Vixen (and the Omegon, which is a China-made Vixen clone with slightly inferior coatings) appears slightly superior, with even smoother rotation of the eyepieces and impeccable finish.

 

But optically, the Orion 2x54 rules.

I may at some time write a more detailed comparison, but ahead of that, this is my impression so far of the Orion:

 

- clearly wider field than all others
- best edge sharpness and smoothest panning experience
- brightest image, not only due to larger objective diameter, but also due to better coatings that show lower reflections even than the Vixen
- the only one that comes with a proper neckstrap with two-point fixation

- probably best value for price ratio

 

fwiw Pinac

You are absolutely right. Usually I won't rush into conclusions, I'm a prudent man, hahaha.

The Orion does truimph over the others, obviously.

[ihf]

There is also Kasai Trading 3x50 with 17 degrees FOV. Stiff competition?

[PEterW]

Interesting, Kasai seem to sell several different models (2x, 2.3x). Amazon Japan notes they are “ astrological ornamentation” and don’t come with a SIM card! Bit narrower AFOV than the Orion, wonder what the filter threads are on the front?

Peter

[ButterFly]

- brightest image, not only due to larger objective diameter, but also due to better coatings that show lower reflections even than the Vixen

 

I was getting many more stars out of M7 with the Vixens.  That was really the only surprising difference.

 

The size of the objective has no bearing on brightness with Galileans.
 

[PEterW]

Wonder if that was from the slightly higher magnification.. which might indicate that the 3x would be interesting to look at?

Peter

PS sightron have a 2x40 https://www.amazon.c...0/dp/B0788C6ZH6 they even sell only one half as a “MONO” too. The market is getting my crowded indeed!

Edited by PEterW, 12 October 2020 - 07:45 AM.

[ButterFly]

Probably not.  That 5% more magnification is only a whopping tenth of a magnitude deeper.  Definately a surprising result.  I would like to confirm it with the Hyades and the Beehive in a month or two.

 

PPS: there was also a Kinglux 2.5x42.  Probably the best opera glasses I have ever owned.  They operate around 3x from the back of the orchestra at the Met.  They stand no chance under the stars though.

[John Fitzgerald]

I gave my Orion 2x54 an extended trial under Bortle 2 skies last night.  They work very very well.  It was like being above the atmosphere, with better resolution to boot.  Several DSO showed up very well.  The Milky Way was simply fantastic.  The addition of a nice cot or hammock would have served well.

 

One thing I did notice is, I needed to keep them square with my eye sockets.  A little tilt spoils the images.  It helps to move your head and the binos as one unit. 

I had my 15x70 bino on a parallelogram mount.  It was nice to find something in the 2x54, then use the 15x70 on the object.

Edited by John Fitzgerald, 14 October 2020 - 03:19 PM.

[PEterW]

I made some winged eyecups from bike inner tube that I can rest the bins against my face with, the only jiggle being you have to set the focus and get the eyecups lined up so they don’t twist and change the focus. Cutting out extraneous lights and stuff makes the view more engaging. Really need to find some dark skies to get the most from them.

Peter

[ppbb]

I made some winged eyecups from bike inner tube

Can you show a photo?

[PEterW]

Sure, in the photo are the Orions with rubber eyecups and the 3D printed Nikon (with printed eyecups). The eyecups block straylight and hold the l binocukars in place nicely if looking straight up.

 

Peter

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by PEterW, 15 October 2020 - 11:30 AM.

[MikeTelescope]

The center hinge on my Orion 2x54 that arrived today is fairly stiff and smooth when reducing the interpupilary distance.  However, when increasing the interpupilary distance, it does not move up to a certain amount of pressure, and then slips and moves (opens) a large amount quickly.  When this happens, the screw-on barrel on the back of the hinge unscrews itself.  

 

Has anyone else observed this?  I have tried tightening the screw-on barrel, and loosening it to see if it changes the behavior, but it does not seem to change the behavior.  

[John Fitzgerald]

The center hinge on my Orion 2x54 that arrived today is fairly stiff and smooth when reducing the interpupilary distance.  However, when increasing the interpupilary distance, it does not move up to a certain amount of pressure, and then slips and moves (opens) a large amount quickly.  When this happens, the screw-on barrel on the back of the hinge unscrews itself.  

 

Has anyone else observed this?  I have tried tightening the screw-on barrel, and loosening it to see if it changes the behavior, but it does not seem to change the behavior.  

Mine doesn't do that.  It's fairly smooth in both directions. On mine, the screw on barrel in back is just a metal cover for a brass stud.

 

The only quirk I have noticed about mine is I need to turn the eyepieces inward about one turn to achieve night time focus, after having focused on a distant object in daylight.  Maybe that's a function of Galilean optics combined with night myopia, one or both, idk.

[ppbb]

Has anyone else observed this?

I don't have this problem.

[ButterFly]

The center hinge on my Orion 2x54 that arrived today is fairly stiff and smooth when reducing the interpupilary distance.  However, when increasing the interpupilary distance, it does not move up to a certain amount of pressure, and then slips and moves (opens) a large amount quickly.  When this happens, the screw-on barrel on the back of the hinge unscrews itself.  

 

Has anyone else observed this?  I have tried tightening the screw-on barrel, and loosening it to see if it changes the behavior, but it does not seem to change the behavior.  

 

I would contact Orion and send them back.  They are brand new.  The black barrel (see below) of your central hinge is too tight against the plates.  The set screws holding that black barrel in place cannot accomodate the friction against the plates.

 

When using a tripod adapter with these binos, be careful not to over tighten the adapter against that black barrel.  When loosening the tripod adapter, the black barrel can loosen along with it.  Use washers between the adapter and the binos if your 1/4-20 screw is long enough.  I had this issue after I had to readjust the central hinge after the first time I used a tripod adapter.

 

The shiny metal cover between the objectives covers the tripod adapter hole.  The tripod adapter threads are on the inside of a black barrel.  That black barrel holds the two halves of the binos together.  Use extreme caution here.  Two set screws hold the black barrel in place to prevent loosening the black barrel when the IPD is adjusted further apart.  Otherwise, the black barrel itself unscrews due to friction.  If that black barrel is too tight against the plates, the set screws cannot hold the barrel "fixed" relative to the peg because there is too much friction.  Terrible design, but it is what it is.

 

The is another, much shorter, shiny metal cover between the eypieces.  There is a cutout with a set screw accessed through the cutout.  Do NOT touch that set screw - it adjusts collimation.

 

Take of the cover between the objectives.  Fully open the IPD and set the binos objective side up on a table.  Back off both set screws at the sides of the black barrel.  Tighten the black barrel against the plates, but not too tightly.  Check the stiffness - it will slip because the set screws are loosened.  Retighten the barrel as before.  Tighten the set screws.  Check the motions.  If that black barrel is too tight, loosen the set screws and back of the black barrel a bit.  Ideally, you want the IPD to remain set even when you hold one objective and jiggle up and down slightly.  Replace the cover when done.

Edited by ButterFly, 16 October 2020 - 05:58 PM.

[MikeTelescope]

Thanks for that thorough description of the center hinge, ButterFly.  There is something wrong with the brand-new set I received today.  I will send them back.  I paid extra to have them shipped in time for a dark-site new moon outing this weekend!  

 

I'm batting 0/3 this year on new binoculars.  Miscollimated (Orion 15x70), grossly miscollimated (VisionKing 5x25), and these.  

Edited by MikeTelescope, 16 October 2020 - 06:42 PM.

[John Fitzgerald]

I wouldn't send them back.  I would adjust them as described above.  But, do what you will.

[ppbb]

OMG, this thing can be mounted. Nice to know
But I wonder why would one need this. These are perfect to be handheld during observation.

[C.Hay]

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

[PEterW]

Using Lyra. Cygnus and Aquila I could *just* perceive stars 35deg apart... they were very distended and hardly visible at the extremes when I was staring straight ahead and in my very peripheral vision. I see the Nikon and Orion as very similar in views, though you can use standard adapter rings to add 2” filters to the Orion.

PeterW

[eyeoftexas]

I finally had a chance to try my Orion 2x54 with filters at my dark site last night.  I used these adapters (https://agenaastro.c...pter-m-11.html  PAAR-BF-M-11) to mount the filters.  Quite frankly, I was not overwhelmed.  They worked fine, and I could indeed see nebulous regions throughout the Milky Way. And I'm positive I saw NGC 7000, which was nice given that it is usually too large to fit in FOV for my telescopes.  But, not surprisingly, very little detail could be seen, just greenish patches.  It was a different view of the Milky Way, which was interesting.  Admittedly I only used OIII filters, so maybe that just cut out too much light to see.  Any ways, I think for me I'll stick to using them without filters (or maybe try UHC or similar filters).  The main advantage of them is to see fainter stars that fill in the constellations, and that is somewhat lost with filters.  As always, everyone's experiences are fine, and I'm not saying don't use filters or anything.  Just that I didn't gain much from them.  I'm glad that this experiment only cost me the price of the adapters.