Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

(Borg) Binoscope vs (APM) binoculars - user experiences?

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#26 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 11:01 AM

Jochen, I stop the conversation now. It leads to nowhere, and I know your provocative style. I don't agree with your poor understanding of the situation. You can be happy with your poor system, I am happy with mine;-) I don't have to proof anything. I just don't want you to spread lies about the three mirror systems because of your prejudices (you never used one, or saw the light cones) and poor understanding of the maths.

 

Full stop.


Edited by salico, 12 April 2020 - 11:12 AM.


#27 ThomasM

ThomasM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2009

Posted 12 April 2020 - 11:57 AM

I use two Binoptics, three mirrored BTs.

It is a little bit off topic, neither APM nor Borg, but your Binoptic binos sound very interesting. I was aware that Binoptic offered the bigger binos (> 150, 175mm) with 2", but you have a 120 mm ED, the one with the nice center mount? Could you please post pictures, you seem to have very rare, interesing instruments.

 

best regards and many thanks

 

Thomas
 


Edited by ThomasM, 12 April 2020 - 12:33 PM.


#28 Andeas72202

Andeas72202

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2016
  • Loc: Stuttgart Area / Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:16 PM

Hi all,

 

to my understanding it is not so difficult to determine how good the illumination of the fov is. At least in a qualitative way and by observation rather than raytracing. Simply defocus a reasonably bright star and move it to the edge of the fov. If the iluminated circle remains complete there, the illumination is 100 %. If the circle is getting smaller and somewhat halfmoonshaped at the edge, the fully illuminated fov is smaller than the field stop of the used eyepiece. Everything in between can be roughly estimated. A slight lightloss at the edge of the fov is not a big problem and barely noticeable, but too much of it should be avoided.

 

Best

Andreas


  • Moravianus, ThomasM, alpha_centauri and 1 other like this

#29 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,075
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:19 PM

Jochen, I stop the conversation now. It leads to nowhere, and I know your provocative style. I don't agree with your poor understanding of the situation. You can be happy with your poor system, I am happy with mine;-) I don't have to proof anything. I just don't want you to spread lies about the three mirror systems because of your prejudices (you never used one, or saw the light cones) and poor understanding of the maths.

 

Full stop.

Yet another opportunity lost to resolve the misunderstandings that you claim exist. That's very unfortunate.


  • ArsMachina likes this

#30 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:29 PM

Hi all,

 

to my understanding it is not so difficult to determine how good the illumination of the fov is. At least in a qualitative way and by observation rather than raytracing. Simply defocus a reasonably bright star and move it to the edge of the fov. If the iluminated circle remains complete there, the illumination is 100 %. If the circle is getting smaller and somewhat halfmoonshaped at the edge, the fully illuminated fov is smaller than the field stop of the used eyepiece. Everything in between can be roughly estimated. A slight lightloss at the edge of the fov is not a big problem and barely noticeable, but too much of it should be avoided.

 

Best

Andreas

I ve watched stars moving to the edge of the field, not losing brightness. Will try with a defocussed one next time.


Edited by salico, 12 April 2020 - 12:35 PM.


#31 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:31 PM

Hi Thomas,

 

here is one:2017-04-16 22.03.43klein.jpg Mr Schumann only created few of them


Edited by salico, 12 April 2020 - 12:36 PM.


#32 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:33 PM

Yet another opportunity lost to resolve the misunderstandings that you claim exist. That's very unfortunate.

I just don't want to deal with Jochens provocative style. It makes me angry.



#33 alpha_centauri

alpha_centauri

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria

Posted 12 April 2020 - 12:36 PM

Hello Jochen,

 

Thanks for the information on the most used configuration. I have taken 2" eyepiece a necessary requirement now.  I am also seriously considering playing with an APM to learn such a device until I can afford a premium configuration Binoscope.

 

Hello Thomas,

Thanks for the direct comparisons. Also your most used configurations serve a nice guideline as to what I can expect to see. I will make a table of the focal lengths and FOVs to get a better idea.

 

Hello Brent,

This looks like the most fun scope! I'm not worried about the looks, but holding collimation while transportation and slewing. I was already skeptical of the flextures of the 3D printed parts.  Your cord solutions take it to another level!  I will follow both Peter and Bill for their designs. Nice of them to share!  This can be a nice side project regardless of any binoscope I may buy.

 

Clear skies!

Elan



#34 ArsMachina

ArsMachina

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 01:36 PM

I ve watched stars moving to the edge of the field, not losing brightness. Will try with a defocussed one next time.

If you are making this test with the 27mm Panoptik or 22mm Nagler it will not proof anything.

These are easy to illuminate eyepieces.

 

Get a pair of 32mm 85° Masuyamas, then we are talking.

But when I am looking at the tiny mirror housings of your bino I can advice you to better save the money for the Masuyamas, it will not work.

 

Jochen



#35 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2020 - 01:52 PM

Jochen, I don't take you serious, play with others. BTW: One of your mistakes: EMS need MUCH larger mirrors than three mirror Binos, but you need a bit of math and understanding of angles to get it. Not sure, if you can do it;-) BTW: How often do you use your Borg/EMS bino? Or your C8 and C11 Bino? Never? My Binoptics are out very often. Only the Mewlon 180 C sometimes is in the way;-)


Edited by salico, 12 April 2020 - 02:13 PM.


#36 bcarter1234

bcarter1234

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2018

Posted 13 April 2020 - 09:15 AM


Hello Brent,

This looks like the most fun scope! I'm not worried about the looks, but holding collimation while transportation and slewing. I was already skeptical of the flextures of the 3D printed parts.  Your cord solutions take it to another level!  I will follow both Peter and Bill for their designs. Nice of them to share!  This can be a nice side project regardless of any binoscope I may buy.

 

Clear skies!

Elan

Elan,

 

Please make a thread if you build something. It is a relatively inexpensive project and you can learn a lot about the compromises any system must have.

 

As far as holding collimation there is no worry with a properly executed design. The 80mm BT from the photo holds collimation easily from horizon to zenith. Changing eyepieces sometimes requires a collimation adjustment but even when teaching the process to new people that adjustment requires less than two minutes. For me it takes about 20 seconds.

There is a rope carry handle that allows the OTA to be picked up and carried in one hand like a briefcase while the tripod is carried in the other. Both assemblies are easily managed at the same time.

You should certainly consider one of the more upscale options. You can however get a great deal of pleasure and learn what is important to you by building something of your own.

 

Some disadvantages of the asymmetrical BT:

1) The one mirror system reverses the image left to right. Not a big issue for astronomy but for some this alone would be a deal breaker. 

2) Ugly!

 

Some possible advantages in no particular order:

1) The ability to determine the size of the fully illuminated zone.

2) The option to use 2" focusers and eyepieces if your facial structure can accommodate them. (Not an option with my Herman Munster eye sockets.)

3) The option to choose your focal ratio, aperture and objective type.

4) Only one mirror per side so you don't ever have to worry whether prisms or multiple mirrors are brighter. ;-)

5) Relatively easy (and cheap) to get a stable instrument at a low total system weight even with a larger aperture.

6) Never having to compromise the collimation of an individual tube to achieve merge.

7) Ability to easily merge at any magnification.

 

Can you tell merging a quality image was the chief design brief? ;-)

 

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

 

Take care,

Brent


  • alpha_centauri likes this

#37 garret

garret

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Netherlands

Posted 13 April 2020 - 11:12 AM

Hi all,

 

to my understanding it is not so difficult to determine how good the illumination of the fov is. At least in a qualitative way and by observation rather than raytracing. Simply defocus a reasonably bright star and move it to the edge of the fov. If the iluminated circle remains complete there, the illumination is 100 %. If the circle is getting smaller and somewhat halfmoonshaped at the edge, the fully illuminated fov is smaller than the field stop of the used eyepiece. Everything in between can be roughly estimated. A slight lightloss at the edge of the fov is not a big problem and barely noticeable, but too much of it should be avoided.

 

Best

Andreas

You can also take an image of the exit pupil at the edge of the field, image below is from the APM 100 ED APO and 22mm LVW vixen ep,  field illumination at the edge is about 60% I guess.

 

If Salico Binoscope has 100% field illumination the exit pupil should be a perfect circle.

Attached Thumbnails

  • field illumination LVW 22mm small.jpg

  • ArsMachina and Andeas72202 like this

#38 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 12:13 PM

dirty in many ways, but:IMG-20200413-WA0010.jpg IMG-20200413-WA0011.jpg



#39 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 12:14 PM

me on Saturday:2020_04_11IMG_99_13.JPG


  • ianatcn likes this

#40 ArsMachina

ArsMachina

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 12:38 PM

Salico, you do not even tell us what eyepieces these are?

10mm?

 

Again, even if these are 27 Pano or 22 Nagler it does not prove anything.

But as you do not want to understand it you will not understand it :-(

 

Jochen



#41 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 12:44 PM

Nagler 22, fully illuminated;-) PROOOVEN;-)  Jochen, talk on, I don' t care, what you say, you know, you lost again;-)


Edited by salico, 13 April 2020 - 12:47 PM.


#42 ArsMachina

ArsMachina

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 01:40 PM

No surprise for the Nagler 22, so now please go on with a long focal length widefield eyepiece.

This is what we are talking about here.

 

Binoptic did build great instruments!

He used the best objectives available (mostly russian APOs from APM), the mechanical quality was superb and the weight was low.

His binoptic fork is still today the best fork design for big binoculars, copied by many makers.

 

But his triple mirror system with small standard diagonal mirrors was a big mistake and step into the wrong direction.

Beside the side reversed views this design also destroyed the possibility to use his binos also as good widefield instruments.

Sure most of his clients were planetary observers, so this dis not bother them, especially because the triple mirror setup provided them a comfortable IPD adjustment.

But it is really tragic, that a good part of the potential was lost.

 

The big advantage of of well designed binoscopes is that they do shine as widefield AND planetary instruments.

 

Jochen



#43 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 01:48 PM

I see, you change your stratergy. Nice try;-) How the heck you want to know, he used cheap mirrors? Rubbish! How do you want to know, the wide field eps cannot be used? Rubbish! First you said N22 cannot be fully illuminated. I ve proven, they can. Than you said, 32mm eps. Next: 3" EPs?



#44 Andeas72202

Andeas72202

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2016
  • Loc: Stuttgart Area / Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 02:11 PM

To me this looks like 100 % illumination of N22s with 31 mm fieldstop diameter. Ethos 17 mm has about 30 mm fieldstop diameter and thus should be also 100 % illuminated. In the worst case I assume, a Masuyama 32 mm (47 mm fieldstop diameter) would get a 66 % illumination at the fov's edge, which is not too bad and would likely be no problem wink.gif  But maybe the illumination would be even better, but this would have to be tested somehow.

 

C'mon, bury the "Kriegsbeil" guys smile.gif

 

Best

Andreas



#45 ArsMachina

ArsMachina

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 03:09 PM

1) First you said N22 cannot be fully illuminated.

2)How the heck you want to know, he used cheap mirrors?

3)How do you want to know, the wide field eps cannot be used?

1) I always said that it is no problem to fully illuminate the N22 and the Pano 27 even with the poor Binoptic triple mirror design.

Read my postings carefully and stop spreading lies

 

2) I definitively know that Binoptic never had special mirrors made for his scopes.

He bought mirrors which were intended for star diagonal at the available market.

I do not say they are cheap or of bad optical quality, but they were never sized to pull out the optimum regarding eyepiece illumination. They were just available standard sizes

 

When you are ordering a set of EMS from Tatsuro he is asking your aperture, focal length and the eyepieces you are intending to use with this system.

Then he is calculating the mirror sizes and housings needed to provide maximal performance.

 

How can you think ignoring all these specs could provide the same quality?

 

3) Because I have calculated it and I did draw the light cones when I was planning my 125mm Borg binoscope.

First I also had a triple mirror design in mind, because it is cheap and easy to build.

But I saw, that it is very limited regarding fully illumination of long focal length wide angle eyepieces and as this was my main intention for this scope.

So I had to switch to a way more expensive twin mirror design.

 

You are showing up the same discussion style than in the german forums since years :-(
You do not even understand the basics of optical geometry, light pathes and cones and always proclaim your expectations as facts.

 

Now I am out, feeding trolls like you is just wasting time

It is all said, everyone can make up his own mind.

 

Jochen



#46 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 04:11 PM

 Jochen, you are always like that and will never change! Like you are theTroll! You seem to understand nothing about optics! EMS need MUCH bigger mirrors. There is no proven quality about them. I met Mr Schumann and I know the mirrors he used for the Binoptics. Can you prove the quality of EMS mirrors? No, you cannot. Enjoy your APM 150 SD Bino with the maybe MUCH TOO TINY prisms;-)

 

Cheers


Edited by salico, 13 April 2020 - 04:39 PM.


#47 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 04:15 PM

To me this looks like 100 % illumination of N22s with 31 mm fieldstop diameter. Ethos 17 mm has about 30 mm fieldstop diameter and thus should be also 100 % illuminated. In the worst case I assume, a Masuyama 32 mm (47 mm fieldstop diameter) would get a 66 % illumination at the fov's edge, which is not too bad and would likely be no problem wink.gif  But maybe the illumination would be even better, but this would have to be tested somehow.

 

C'mon, bury the "Kriegsbeil" guys smile.gif

 

Best

Andreas

true, you confirm, what I think: All EPs can be used in my BINOPTIC in the NORMAL way, sane observers do...



#48 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,075
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 13 April 2020 - 04:16 PM

salico, I'm sorry to say this but you are becoming an increasingly unpleasant presence on the forum.

I hope you can turn around to actually contribute something.


  • ArsMachina likes this

#49 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 13 April 2020 - 04:18 PM

salico, I'm sorry to say this but you are becoming an increasingly unpleasant presence on the forum.

I hope you can turn around to actually contribute something.

true, Jochen is so nice, but I am very evil... but as he said, he will end the discussion ( =provoking me), so I will turn around and be my nice self... cheers
 


Edited by salico, 13 April 2020 - 04:18 PM.


#50 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,075
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 13 April 2020 - 04:23 PM

Maybe it's just your style to over-exaggerate your reactions and responses.

Increase the content versus discussion ratio and we might get used to that.


  • sonny.barile and ArsMachina like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics