Click to Enlarge Baader Maxbright Binocular Viewers

Summary

Binocular viewers promise an observer the opportunity to view the night skies in three dimensions. But in Australia they don’t seem very popular. This article outlines how I explored the strengths and limitations of this equipment, its costs, sources, pitfalls and technical issues and decided in the end to buy a mid-price range pair the Baader Maxbrights along with necessary accessories. It summarises the important issues raised in various blogs and recounts how my experiences in buying and assessing the Maxbrights corresponded or otherwise to the caveats and what information was missing from the various on line opinions. Finally I report the results of first light trials with my 3 telescopes, a 72mm Eon refractor, a 200mm CPC SCT Cassegrain and a 300 mm Dobsonian. In a nutshell i) the binoviewers worked very well in my hands and I would recommend them to any visual-only star gazer especially if they want to view the moon (wondrous), planets and bright stars (both impressive); but ii) with the proviso that while they should work very well with a tracking Cassegrain, and they are probably workable with a refractor, you could have serious problems with Newtonian optics. It all comes down to having relatively high focal length and a focuser with sufficient travel to compensate for the binoviewers adding 10 cm of path length that your telescope was probably not designed to cope with.

Background

As a microbiologist I’ve used Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and Leitz research microscopes with binocular heads routinely (trinocular actually as photography and video cameras are common). The difference in comfort over monocular microscopes is enormous. The binocular heads allow long periods of looking in wonder under dark field and fluorescence at views similar to the night sky. So I puzzled why binocular viewers are not more popular in Australia as evidenced by no equipment review in IceInSpace and no units for sale at my local collectables shop (Bintel Sydney).

Recently I bit the bullet and investigated binocular viewers prompted by the prospect of an improved viewing experience, decreased eye strain compared with a monocular and addressing that perpetual ‘star party’ problem – the difficulty novice telescope viewers have in switching from stereovision to monovision which no amount of cajoling can overcome (you win or lose them in a 10 second window). Also I was curious to understand the telescope v. microscope difference.

This review is about exploring the binoviewer information which a novice will encounter, and reviewing the Baader Maxbrights I finally selected. A digression - I’m not talking here about conventional binoculars or binocular telescopes, an extreme example of which can be seen here, but rather binocular viewing heads like those seen on microscopes which split a single beam allowing a kind of stereovision.

Finally the declaration - I have no financial interest in any products or suppliers identified. Nor did I start with any preconceived notions of what would work best. This narrative, however, reflects a series of rationalised choices. So to help the reader reach their own conclusions the decision process and input information is outlined.

Exploring the Binocular Viewer issues and options

Not being an astronomy club goer I get most practical information via Google searches, from on line reviews and from talking with the Bintel people when making a telescope purchase. Initial investigations suggested a range of technical complications explain why binocular viewers aren’t more popular and discussion is sparse – hence this review/analysis Nevertheless I was surprised at the limited availability, as a binoviewer sale should necessitate the purchase of additional matching eyepieces and filters.

Telescope Binoviewers v. Microscope Binocular Heads

Taking first the issue of telescopes v. microscopes: These two instrument classes were invented more or less concurrently in the 17th Century, have essentially an objective lens system, a front end optical tube and observing eyepieces at the rear, exploit diverse filter combinations and are used for analogous purposes (seeing things too small/faint for the naked eye). However, they diverge in several critical design and manufacturing features. Microscopes and their accessories are usually all purchased from a single manufacturer, so the optics tend to be harmonised. Also users, instead of having a collection of telescopes from different manufacturers with very different optical characteristics (refractor v. Newtonian v. SCT for example), have light microscopes with a number of different optically diverse objectives from the same source whose optics are all designed to match a single set of eyepieces. Finally, and distinct from telescopes, microscopes have light condensers with optics matched to different types of objectives (phase, dark field etc.). Binocular heads for microscopes thus end up being part of the basic product. Binocular viewers for telescopes, however, come as a subsequent add-on and telescopes, especially the focusers, are typically not designed with their use in mind. Another difference is that to change magnification the routine approach with a telescope is to swap eyepieces, whereas with a microscope you change the objectives. Finally telescopes rely on incoming light which a binocular head will attenuate. With a microscope you adjust the light source intensity to suit. So overall telescope binocular viewers, tend to be a later optional add-on, third party produced and need to be adapted to diverse telescope optics and eyepiece configurations so the whole matching process is much more hit and miss.

Binoviewer Cost/Sourcing Considerations

Everyone operates on a budget. Sometimes it’s absolute (you don’t have the money), sometimes you’re just a scrooge, sometimes it’s wanting to avoid throwing good money after bad – a greater risk with mail order.

With the last two points upmost in mind I checked the catalogues at all Australian shops with a shop front as listed in Quasar Astronomy. Like Bintel, none offered binoviewers. On-line I identified several ‘trust me’ general shopping sites but these were useless. More promisingly 4 mail order specialist telescope suppliers - Australia telescopes, Astroshop, Ozscopes, and Telescopes-Astronomy did offer binoviewers. Unfortunately the variety and specification details were too limited to satisfy questions I had arising from reading the blogs and only one binoviewer model was generally available from each supplier. Local prices ranged from $400 to $700, a tad higher than for the same model offered in the US, but generally less than UK/EU sites. Overall, the webs sites reported current (2013) prices in the range of $180 to $1200 for basic binoviewers, and most importantly there were many more models available than in Australia along with various accessories. Other uncertainties/issues were the need for matching eyepieces and filters suited to each viewer, the pointlessness of buying good eyepieces but a poor quality viewer and vice versa, the likely need for good flat field eyepieces to ensure image merging, and the question of whether the final choice would work with any or all of my own telescopes (CPC 800 Cassegrain, Lightbridge 12” Dobsonian, Eon 72mm refractor). Scanning the available reviews and blog comments didn’t instantly clarify things.

I concluded: 1) my choice would be a shot in the dark to some degree; 2) on-line purchasing was inevitable; 3) minimum cost for viewers + eyepieces + filters would be $500 plus, equivalent to a complete basic Dobsonian telescope kit; 4) I should re-immerse myself in the information available and go for something reasonable but not necessarily top of the line; 5) with all this in mind make an informed binoviewer purchase, return to my telescope shop to physically try out a number of candidate eyepieces on their display telescopes, get informed tips and then trial the binoviewers on my own instruments.

The Wisdom of the Crowd

After screening out shotgun marketing, self-serving and information thin sites I identified a mix of useful articles and conversations. I’ve compiled the links to the most useful ones in the Appendix at the end of this review. Several have large amounts of valuable technical detail. The main points of interest to a newcomer, at least as I understand them as another novice, are summarised here.

Promises, Promises

The idea of seeing the stars in stereo is very seductive. And there is a degree of reality in the promise. However, don’t be fooled into thinking because others say ‘Wow’ uncritically. I’ve seen this in several of the blog threads (maybe they were commercial trolls) and echoed on some commercial sites without appropriate warnings to the effect “These binoviewers may not work with your eyes or your telescope using your preferred eyepieces or your favourite target”.

Issues of Concern

Overall

The rule as usual is “try before you buy” if you can. I couldn’t, but clearly club goers have the option of looking over someone’s shoulder and borrow viewers if possible. Those who have this option would need to have their own telescope(s) handy. Nevertheless the information below should at least aid discussions and identify what traps to look for and what questions to ask.

Telescope Back Focus (Most critical)

All telescopes are optimised to come to a focus somewhat beyond the point where light exits the tube allowing (Cassegrain, refractor) or not (Newtonian) for a star diagonal. This is the ‘back focus’ where the eyepieces are located. Descriptions of focus theory can be found at wikipedia . The trouble with binoviewers is they greatly increase the effective length of the telescope tube, often to the point where eyepieces can no longer reach focus using the existing focusing tube. Put another way, telescope tubes are currently sized/designed to reach focus with a single eyepiece and possibly a diagonal. But a binocular head throws this calibration out and depending on the telescope it may be fatal.

While all three main optical configurations can reportedly use binoviewers it appears that Cassegrain configurations have the least trouble because their long focal length leads to a flexible back focus distance, while Newtonian and refractor optics have more trouble. In practice the severity of this problem varies between telescopes and there are also ways around it. The main one is to insert a so called glass path compensator (also termed a ‘Corrector’ which is in effect also a Barlow) in front of the binoviewers. This is also reportedly designed to correct colour aberration. Alternative if you are having trouble reaching focus, one post suggested inserting a normal Barlow.

Inter-pupil (and eyepiece centre) distance and Eyepiece Selection

With binoculars and binoviewers the inter-pupil distance (distance between the two light paths of the split beam) needs to be variable between about 50 and 75 mm to suit different individuals. The eyepiece fields also need to be wide and have good overlap, in practice with about 40 – 50 degree field of view. They also need to be flatfield.

Eyepieces can’t be too chunky else you won’t be able to position them close enough. Once you have selected your binoviewers you need to check they can be positioned close enough together with the selected eyepieces to allow image merging. You can’t use 2“ eyepieces if only because no binoviewer holders take them – at least all I saw.

Typically eyepieces range in focal length from 3 mm up to 50 mm. For binoviewers though it appears the useful recommended range is in the region of 15 to 30 mm with a still more limited range being often recommended (16 – 25 mm). Note that resulting magnification will be higher than usual where a glass path compensator or Barlow is used. Matched zoom eyepieces apparently are usable.

Individuality of Stereovision

Not everyone can easily merge images when using binoculars. I usually don’t have a problem but others report they do. Part is physiological apparently but it may be optical quality in part too – when I’ve loaned friends my 63x9 Orion mini-giant conventional binoculars many remark they can finally see stereovision using binoculars. I find the mini-giants easier to use too than smaller models. The same issue could be expected to apply to binoviewers and there also seem to be people who can’t see stereo full stop.

Edge Fading/Vignetting

A common concern with telescope binoviewers is loss of light intensity at the edge of the ocular fields due to suboptimal optics (see blogs for further comments).

Split optics and Reduced Light Intensity

At times / with cheaper binoviewers a noticeable difference reportedly arises between the amounts of light passing down each path. This is supposed to relate to the quality of binoviewer prism optics – a low quality prism gives a poor split – see blogs for further discussion.

A separate concern is that the same eyepiece model, but from different production batches, will have different transmission properties leading to the same effect. Another source is as mentioned the use of a Barlow /Compensator will inevitably reduce the light intensity per unit area.

A inherent limitation is the reduction by a factor of two in light reaching each individual pupil for the obvious reason that the incoming beam has been divided. However, it also appears that image construction by the brain compensates by a factor of 20 to 40%. This suggests in the absence of magnification you sacrifice about 0.5 orders of magnitude in telescope sensitivity set against reportedly 3-D viewing and improved image contrast.

While any drop in light intensity is clearly undesirable, and to be avoided if possible, it was unclear whether this drop is excessive for many observations given 1) for objects other than DSOs, contrast and relief are more important; 2) dark adaptation keeps increasing logarithmically for up to 30 minutes; 3) local seeing factors like streetlights and atmospheric conditions have bigger effects; and 4) we routinely accept loss of intensity through the use of filters to gain better images anyway.

Moon v. Planets v. DSOs v. Terrestrial

The viewing experience was reportedly different between target types reflecting their brightness. The moon comes into very high relief (Personally I’ve found the moon hard to stay focused on with single eyepieces because of the eye strain so the prospect of easier viewing was very attractive). The planets are also reportedly better (Though limited eyepiece flexibility had me worried that optimum magnification would be unavailable). DSO reports vary – bright nebulae are reportedly spectacular but the benefits with dim ones appear less.
A limitation of shop testing is you have to look at a bright distant terrestrial object in daylight and discussions suggest this may not translate to low intensity emission sources. But at least you can check for general optical integrity.

Age of Review/Blog

Quality of optics seems to be improving rapidly all the time. So it’s unclear to what extent older blogs/posts are indicative of current optics quality. Certainly many of the binoviewer models reviewed/compared in the past have been superseded. There were various comments on good German v. dubious Chinese optics. But I take this with a grain of salt as silly as ‘Made in Japan’ whose meaning has transformed in my lifetime. Anyway with globalised manufacture it’s more about QA/QC of the final product.

Binoviewer weight and Telescope Balance

Telescopes tubes are generally sized to use/focus single objective/eyepieces. Binoviewers use means a big additional mass (0.5 to 1 kg) plus a second chunky eyepiece at the end of a lever putting strain on the fulcrum if not properly balanced.

A common concern raised was that not only will the telescope balance be thrown out but the holding screws on a normal diagonal may not be able to hold the extra weight – worst result is that the binoviewers and eyepieces fall out or tripods overbalance either breaking equipment or disturbing the binoviewer prism alignment or both after which things are never the same.

Exit pupil and observer age

The exit pupil story is still a bit Greek to me. But there was a report of some gain in this area (see blogs for informed discussion).

There has been some discussion about the effect of a person’s age and hence state of their eyes on viewing but whether the effect is good or bad was not resolved.

A 2” diagonal or exit tube

It appeared with Newtonian optics a 2” pre-binoviewer compensator may be preferable. It was unclear how much other telescopes might also benefit. Note this does not imply the use of 2” eyepieces.

Model options

One site identified 14 brands and 33 models. The consensus on the best seems to be Televue which are also the most expensive. No surprise. There are several comparisons of these with other competitors but they felt a bit like they were trying to compare an LX 200 with a 1960s Tasco reflector – not really fair or that useful beyond confirming ‘you get what you pay for’.

Binoviewer Selection

When I made my purchase I appreciated the above complex of issues even less. So I went largely on the principles that ‘you get what you pay for’, ‘a commonly discussed and compared brand apparently lacking fatal flaws is probably worth considering’, ‘top of the line equipment will not be cost effective unless all your other equipment is of comparable quality’, ‘a credible distributor selling a range of equipment from basic to the best has probably been selective and is much less likely to sell crap’, ‘a good manufacturer who is proud of their product and has other good optical products will provide details to help you through the minefield of choices’, ‘lots of suppliers and choices means being able to compare and get best value for money’.

While these ‘principles’ are not optical, they seemed the best criteria I had for purchasing a unit sight unseen. Another consideration was that I was visiting the USA for three weeks and this would allow both application of these principles and unit replacement if something basic appeared amiss upon receipt.

A ‘Mistake’ with the Base Model Celestron

Cutting to the chase I identified Highpoint Scientific in New Jersey as a likely good supplier as they had a short supply delay, 5 different well commented on binoviewer brands, models and accessories. There were other suppliers not too different in price but Highpoint were the cheapest and I have a soft spot for the Noo Joisie accent.

The most attractive model for a Scrooge was the bargain basement Celestron model. At $190 from a major Telescope manufacture it seemed like there wasn’t too much to lose. However, I got it into my head from one of the blogs, that you couldn’t adjust their inter-pupillary distance (In Fact You Can). Nevertheless this caused me to look at the next model up, the Baader Maxbrights.

In hindsight this was the right decision for the wrong reason. However, if my only telescope had been an SCT I think the Celestron basic unit could have been my choice as the blogs seemed reasonably complementary suggesting its optics are basically ok.

Selecting the Baader Maxbrights

The first plus with these was the base price of $270 appeared only marginally more than the Celestron even though they offered a range of accessories which might be important along with much technical supporting information indicating why they were. Also the Celestron appeared designed alone for with SCTs while the Maxbrights appeared suited to all telescope types at least on paper. So given my other telescopes I thought the Maxbright made more sense.

A limitation that emerged was that the base unit did not seem to include a nose piece (essential). Why puzzled me at first. Instead the nosepiece came with the $ 350 package as part of 6 different compensator+nosepiece combinations which I had to specify (Did I need one?). Competing products such as Denkmeier and Televue also had diverse options/packages with different terminology but for substantially higher cost and they looked pretty heavy. This was getting confusing.

More understanding emerged through finding a detailed users PDF manual for the Maxbrights via Alpine Astro (link below) which explained the back focus problem. It also explained other constraints of binoviewers, and how the different Maxbright options addressed them – and did so in plain enough English for an optics illiterate like me. Other makers probably have similar information but I didn’t go further as the price consideration and my visit duration in the USA dictated it was decision time. Another plus was that Maxbrights were reportedly smaller and lighter. As a result I ordered a ‘standard’ Maxbright package (bino head, 1.25 inch nose piece, 1.7X corrector/compensator).

The Highpoint ordering instructions explained that there were 6 different options (11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23). What the hell were these? It turned out these were the 3 different compensator lens/Barlow strengths (1.2, 1.7, 2.6 X) and two nosepiece sizes (1.25 and 2 inch). The explanation was to be found from a close reading of the PDF instructions on the AlpineAstro web site but absent from the Highpoint site. A constraint was being in the US I couldn’t estimate my telescopes’ length and focus travel which are critical to making the right compensator choice. So I chose the most recommended combination and hoped for the best. The 1.7X compensator with 1.25 inch nosepiece was Option 12 I believe (Warning do not take my word for this!). If I needed other options in the future I could still use the same binocular head. Another feature of note was strong exhortation by Baader to consider their various diagonals and other accessories including eyepieces. I left those for another day as it was unclear how essential this other proprietary stuff was.

Receipt of Maxbrights

Having time in the US proved good because of billing hiccups. Once these were sorted the binoviewers arrived 2 days after order confirmation.

I couldn’t obviously test them properly but a quick check indicated no scratches or damage. The pack included a solid metal case similar in design to an eyepiece case but smaller. The feel of the binoviewers was also solid. The appearance was of a well machined product which was not about to fall into a dozen pieces or flake paint. The three main components - binoviewers with eyepiece securing screws (3 each eyepiece), the nose piece and the compensator – came in separate boxes. Assembly was consistent with this being a robust piece of kit. I packed everything into the metal case and put it into the hold baggage confident it would survive the return trip.

Eyepiece Selection and Shop Trial

A little the wiser I returned to Australia and trotted down to Bintel on a rotten rainy afternoon with the binoviewers and my boxes of existing eyepieces and filters to try a mix and match and purchase.

Sadly my preferences weren’t available - a (second) 15 mm wide relief Orion eyepiece was no longer stocked and no 32 mm Televue Plossls would be available for a fortnight. Too impatient to wait, bearing in mind the eyepiece focal length range recommended, the desirability of a single batch, the need for flatfields which didn’t bang into each other, and finally the convenience of having a dedicated eyepiece pair, I tried other eyepieces close to the 32 mm Plossl on telescopes close to mine in specs. We ended up selecting a pair of 27 mm Orion Edge-Ons on 3 telescopes.  

The trial supported the web information. The refractor (short 80 mm Skywatcher I think) had trouble making focus when using a diagonal with or without the compensator though focus could be achieved after removing the diagonal. We had no success at all with the short Newtonian (a 6 inch Skywatcher or equivalent I think). Finally the 200 mm LX90 Cassegrain worked sufficiently well on a terrestrial rainy day target for me to take the plunge. I bought the Edge-ons and a second moon filter.

First Light and Other Trials

In the end the only real test is whether a piece of equipment works. Dot points below give the results of the tests I did:

Environment and Equipment

• The viewing location was an Inner City backyard 7 km from GPO in February over several nights. Skyglow from city to north and port to south is marked. Significant streetlight interference also prevailed (the worst 10 m away and overhead reduced by a shade umbrella). Horizon is about 25 degrees (back fence). So comments apply to suboptimal viewing conditions.
• Primary equipment – Baader Maxbright binoviewers with 1.25 “ nose piece, 1.7X compensator lens, pair of 27 mm Orion Edge-on flat field eyepieces (53o AFOV). Telescopes – Eon 72 mm refractor, CPC 800 8” Cassegrain, Lightbright 12” Dobsonian.
• Ancillary equipment - comparison monocular eyepieces and other accessories – Televue 32 mm Plossl, Televue 13 mm Nagler. Miscellaneous – Star Analyzer diffraction grating/filter, balance rail (CPC 800); two modest quality Barlows of 2X (Celestron) and 2.5X (Bintel). Observers, me and (much suffering) wife.

Eon 72 mm refractor (400 mm F 6/0) – first light

• I saw the Eon as providing a worst case test – inner city location, good optics but limited light gathering capacity, low magnification, wobbly mount (SLK binocular stand) which tended to overbalance with the binoviewer weight – in short, good quality telescope whose views with and without binoviewers could be compared for quality.
• Maxbright handling characteristics:
  • The Eon did not achieve focus with the Maxbrights + 1.7X Compensator + my existing 1.25” diagonal (Celestron) alone but missed by only about 1 cm (path too long). Baader recommends special proprietary diagonals and careful compensator selection etc. to overcome this issue.
  • In desperation I added the Barlows based on blog advice. This worked. Better was the 2X Celestron Barlow. It had better optics and worked very well and allowed the binoviewers to achieve a clear focus both with and without the 1.7X compensator. The first test object, Jupiter, was crisp especially given the magnification - at a guess about what I would expect to see with reasonable 10 and 15 mm eyepieces when I used Barlow +- Compensator.
  • Focus was achieved about 4 cm from the minimum focuser travel point without the 1.7X compensator and about 5 cm from the minimum point when the compensator was present. So I estimate that the 2X Barlow reduced the focus distance by 5 or 6 cm. I speculate that the strongest Baader (2.6X) compensator might have achieved focus without the Barlow. Baader provides a guide on how to calculate whether focus is possible for a telescope before you buy, noting importantly that there is no standard focus point or focus tube and suitability has to be assessed on a case by case basis.
  • The Barlow was inserted between the diagonal and the binoviewers as you might expect. I did try positioning it ahead of the diagonal but that doesn’t work. This was unfortunate as it meant that the two eyepieces were perched on the binoviewers which was perched on the Barlow which was perched on the diagonal. It looked a bit unstable and although the optics worked that is still my opinion.
  • 3-D sense was not intense but viewing and merging images was satisfactory – comparable to a good set of conventional binoculars.
  • As a test I concurrently wore reading glasses. This worked fine to produce a merged image if I reduced the Edge-on glare protectors to their minimum height.
  • It was a bit fiddly to focus both eyepieces simultaneously but not a problem that practice shouldn’t fix. There was no difference notable between left and right eyepiece views and image merging presented no problem for either of us. Bands on Jupiter were discernible even at low magnification.
  • Swapping between monocular view and the binoviewers was quick and simple but it affected the balance on this small telescope. The extra weight was tolerable with the small tripod but I needed to be careful and the security screw issue discussed in the blogs was a worry. Though reportedly a small unit, the Maxbrights with eyepieces were still relatively bulky.
  • When moving between low elevation and high elevation objects, single eyepieces pose little problem as it’s possible to move one’s standing position to making viewing comfortable. But with binoviewers you are forced to always look directly along the axis of the telescope and the height of binoviewers above the ground varied so much that I had to think carefully about the optimum tripod height for two different people. In the end being a binocular /camera tripod meant I could adjust its height easily, but heavier less flexible mounts and GPS tracking could be more of an ergonomic challenge.
  • The compensator thread tended to stick in the holder and a fine metal probe was needed to rotate it prior to removal. I worried about accidentally scratching the lens when I did this.
• Objects Viewed:
  • I first pointed the telescope at Jupiter (low in sky at 25 degrees) with the lightpath straight-through. Images were crisp but small as expected given the short focal length and lack of Barlow. They were about the same size as with the 32 mm Plossl + diagonal alone.
  • With the Barlow good images of Jupiter and its moons were obtained with and without the compensator. Resolution was excellent with one of Jupiter’s moons easily distinguished when it was only a few arc seconds from the rim.
  • With star diagonal and Barlow back in good symmetric images of Aldebaran, Betelgeuse and Rigel were obtained with no major asymmetric flaring when images were out of focus.
  • I inserted a diffraction grating (Star Analyzer) into one eyepiece to see if simultaneous viewing of objects and their spectra might be possible. This worked somewhat but the spectra were too small and narrow in the EON for a full evaluation. Even in the best case of gamma Velorum only one clear blue emission line/point was evident.
  • I examined four close double stars as a test of resolving power. Rigel and delta Velorum could not be split, but k Puppis and Alpha Crucis were split satisfactorily in line with expectations of a 72 mm refractor and consistent with observation using my 13 mm Nagler eyepiece. The binoviewers were much more comfortable for viewing double stars and star clusters as viewing proceeded.
  • The Orion nebula was disappointing. A small telescope + high dilution of the incoming light due to the Barlow and Compensator + beam splitting was too much. I’d guess the dilution compared with the raw eyepieces had to be a factor of 10 to 20. This appeared tolerable for the bright planets, stars and the moon and terrestrial viewing but not for DSOs.
  • The following morning around 0830 I viewed the Sun using a yellow glass filter over the objective. As hoped a satisfactory image and good focus across the field was obtained with no variation in brightness. One complex sun spot cluster was visible and as I watched the detail became clearer. Watching for an extended period caused no eye strain.
  • A few days later the final viewing with the EON targeted the first quarter moon. Usefully we also had 3 visitors who had seldom/never looked through a telescope or knew a planet from a star. The moon was very impressive, they were impressed and no one had any problem using the binoculars. The newcomers were stunned by the views as well as those of Jupiter (one to the point of wanting to write poetry).
• Overall:
  • The first test results were very satisfactory with the Maxbright’s optics living up to specifications and matching the mid-level quality of the Eon, the eyepieces and diagonal which I already had.
  • With refractors, binoviewers are likely best for bright objects provided the Back-focus issue isn’t fatal.
  • I wondered in light of the Barlow performance, if the cheaper Celestron binoviewers, though designed for SCTs, might work with a short refractor if you used a strong Barlow with it.
  • Regarding back focus, one reason I obtained a successful image with Jupiter may have been that the Eon refractor has a long focus travel – fully 7 cm minimum to maximum - and this may help explain the success of the Barlow too. Whether other refractors have this travel is unclear. How well reflectors work and how back-focus impacts are discussed below.
  • My interest in the small telescope (originally bought with photography in mind) was its very high portability and hence potential to show friends the sky opportunistically at their homes. As the sun, moon and bright planets and double stars feature highly in the latter, the ability to use the binoviewers with the small refractor was pleasing despite the balance issue, and it should suit this purpose.
  • I got a chance to confirm this when the recent near occultation of Jupiter by the Moon occurred – impressive to see them side by side.

CPC 800 Cassegrain (2000 mm F/10)

• Maxbright Handling Characteristics:
  • The first trial with the CPC again first involved looking at Jupiter (25o elevation) and then the Orion Nebula (70o elevation).
  • To save time I didn’t level the telescope or connect the power for tracking but manually moved the telescope on its alt-azimuth mount with slight friction locking. This also allowed me also to get a sense of how the telescope balance varied with elevation and swapping between a monocular and the binoviewers.
  • Many handling comments for the Eon refractor above are transferable except as indicated below. Generally CPC handling was better than the refractor except it wasn’t portable.
  • Balance for even this 19 kg telescope was affected by the binoviewers so I attached a counterweight to the telescope’s underside rail noting balance might still need to be adjusted in swapping between binoviewers and a single eyepiece. Compensating for weight is a consideration if you want to minimize stress on the motor drives when using the tracking mode. Noting/marking the optimal weight locations when changing between binoviewers and a monocular appears essential. In the end it wasn’t fatal but it should be borne in mind when using a smaller Cassegrain without a means to balance the telescope.
  • The binoviewers functioned well both with and without the 1.7 X compensator. The compensator again acted as a weak Barlow and substituted for a second pair of oculars. The higher magnification was equivalent to about a 15 mm eyepiece.
  • Happily there was no need for any separate additional Barlow so the mounting was much more secure.
  • No marked change in intensity or colour was evident across the field though slightly higher contrast was evident without the Compensator.
  • Viewing objects was very easy for both of us and was only interrupted by Jupiter moving out of the field of view.
  • The ability to observe without eye strain for extended periods of time had other benefits:
    • Improved detection of fine features in the cloud bands on Jupiter as time passed.
    • Easier intermittent improved viewing when the atmosphere stilled.
    • No little floaties going across your eye.
    • Easier concurrent reading of a book, star map or other guide.
  • The only ergonomic nuisance was that I had trouble using the 8X finderscope and the binoviewers together as they were attached very close to one another.
• Objects Initially Viewed:
  • Jupiter and its moons were excellent even though the planet was close its conjunction. An enthusiast would find it physically easier to watch Jupiter for extended periods of time and pick out increasingly subtle details even when it is low in the sky. I look forward to Mars, Saturn and Venus.
  • The Orion nebula was pleasing even when my dark adaptation was at most 15 minutes. The Trapezium stood out strongly from within the cloud. Though the nebula was faint compared to a dark site due to sky glow, cupping hands over face greatly reduced this ‘noise’ by reducing leakage of dim horizontal glare from backyard fence and sky. Though the view still wasn’t as good as a dark sky the illuminated nebulosity around stars away from the primary nebula stood out distinctively especially when the field of view moved slightly. Certainly compared to the monocular view it was dimmer but being able to watch and adjust for a long period of time made up for this limitation.
  • I took a quick look at Betelgeuse and Rigel to see if the Star Analyzer added something of interest. Technically, it seemed to work and you might concurrently operate a camera from one eyepiece holder while viewing with the second. More impressive though were the distinctive star colours. I’ve always struggled with the colour recognition in the past.   
  • I observed the sun the next day through a Mylar filter over the objective. Sunspots were satisfactory and comparable to viewing with a single eyepiece.
• Optimum Viewing - CPC Revisited + Binoviewers + Tracking + Clear Skies
  • The Moon:
    • I first saw the moon through a telescope 45 years ago and was naturally impressed. But then it became passé in the era of Apollo when landings seemed for a short period ‘routine’ and almost (hard to believe it now) ho-hum. Even after my interest in astronomy was rekindled 5 years ago the moon still didn’t jump back as a highlight. Rather it was a nuisance preventing viewing of DSOs and the Milky Way. When it was up it seemed hardly worth dragging out the telescope to view it through one eye even with tracking. Anyway with on line maps why bother? The one caveat was it was always popular with friends who had never seen craters with their own eyes.
    • But this first viewing night changed all that. All the blog claims about binoviewers and the moon proved true. It was finally possible for me to comfortably view and contemplate the features visible at 1st quarter, the Mares in our south (Fecunditatis, Tranquility, Crisium – our west of the moon, the craters in the north), and match each to their namesake and comb the structures. Jumping out too were valleys and mountains. On the Mares here and there were few impacts following ancient lava flow periods. There were also the lunar landing locations to identify – Apollo 11 and 17 in this first instance – and as never before I thought of what was achieved nearly 45 years ago.
    • A great help in all this were southern hemisphere moon maps from old Astronomy Australia almanacs as well as the guides to interesting features.
    • The binoviewers performed excellently with no differences between the paired light paths. I could see as much detail as air turbulence would allow but the latter wasn’t a major problem because you watch for longer, pick the good points in time and your brain adjusts to catch the perfect view when it appears. I didn’t exactly see 3-D so much as assembled a map in my mind. For the high magnification and first quarter I didn’t need to use the moon filters.
    • I am reminded in all this of walking in rain/forests. When you don’t know one tree from another it’s all a blur. But if you have a guide and you have the time to see how the trees differ and relate to one another, then the whole vista comes alive as you construct a mental model of what you are seeing and begin to memorize the details.
  • Jupiter
    • Jupiter, despite being close to conjunction and relatively low in the sky was superb. As time passed more details of the cloud bands came into view. I await with anticipation the planets when they are in better positions.
    • For closer viewing I am now toying with the idea of getting a second 13 mm Nagler. These are not cheap but their quality is excellent. I would hope when combined with the CPC and binoviewers they could allow imaging at another level. But first I need to mull over whether I would be expecting too much.
  • Double and stars
    • I looked at Rigel, Acrux and gamma Velorum again. All were superbly split. Being able to see Rigel’s faint companion was particularly pleasing. A useful feature of the prisms was the light reduction made viewing easier especially of Rigel.
    • I had a quick look at M41, the Jewel Box, and other open clusters in Argo. They were also satisfactory considering the moon was up and the extended viewing time allowed detection of the varying colour temperatures.
    • I was disappointed again with gamma Velorum’s Wolf Rayet spectrum – you can’t view a spectrum with the Start Analyser diffraction grating and the star together. However, swapping between the gamma Velorum with the binoviewers and a short focal length eyepiece with the diffraction grating proved easy and the telescope’s balance was not disturbed significantly despite my concerns. I have yet to try the camera with it.
  • Nebulae
    • I looked at M42 again. With the moonlight it was disappointing so perhaps another day. It was interesting to see faint satellites frequently crossing the view.
• Overall:
  • The Maxbrights optical performance matched and possibly exceeded those of the CPC and eyepiece specs so I have to give them 5 out of 5 stars in this context.
  • With inner city viewing one is confined to brighter objects and I suggest the light reduction was trivial compared with what is gained.
  • All star gazers that I have met want to share what they see. But they have trouble at star parties with newcomers because of: movement out of view, the queue, focusing, difficulty getting to and setting up in remote locations and straining to see with a single eye.
  • Cajoling is not the answer but a good GPS tracking Cassegrain, a good pair of eyepieces, binoviewers, an urban backyard, and some good targets together appears to change the game. The moon and planets are always favourites for newcomers even with a small basic refractor. But with these binoviewers the views were at another level.
  • Moving to the technical side, as expected the Cassegrain presented no focal length problem and was well suited to the binoviewers.
  • People often note that improving detection of faint objects if possible by averting the eye to let peripheral vision rods to operate. I speculate that viewing objects with both eyes allows peripheral vision as well to come into play more than with a monocular and it allows the brain to build a picture more subtle than allowed by a monocular.

Lightbridge 12” Dobsonian 1500 mm, F/5

Finally I repeated the test on the big telescope. What a disappointment! I had hoped that the large mirror would address the light reduction issue and make viewing DSOs with the Dobsonian a more comfortable affair, and the compensator + Barlow trick would get me over the line again if necessary. But the focus point was still far away with and without the Barlows. I simply couldn’t achieve focus with the Maxbrights. A strong Barlow might make focus achievable but this would reduce light intensity.

Comparing the refractor’s specification with the Dobsonian showed the likely reason. Basically the Newtonian focuser had only 3 to 4 cm total travel whereas the refractor had 7 cm. There simply wasn’t enough travel in the supplied focuser. Apparently even with any of the available compensators there is still an additional 31 to 44 mm of focal length required with the Maxbrights. By contrast, the entire focus available for the Lightbridge was only approximately 30 mm. So whether the available solutions would work with this telescope type is unclear. Baader instructions provide more detail and a possible solution of a special 2” compensator fitting. However, it’s notable also that AlpineAstro have a prominent warning specifically about back focus and Newtonians. For further information see Table 1 here. What is clear is that Newtonians need a strong Compensator/Barlow to go with an add on binoviewer and this would tend to dilute incoming light and make the Lightbridge images little better that the CPC 800 despite its larger mirror. That said Barlow’s up to 5X are commercially available.

I think the best strategy will be to watch/review the blogs to see how much success people have had in using binoviewers with fast Newtonians and see whether the Baader option will work on such telescopes. Alternatively the telescope and binoviewer manufacturers need to work together to come up with solutions tailored to Newtonians which do not require large Barlows. Baader seems to be trying but I’m no sufficiently convinced. Maybe Meade and Celestron and the other big Dob and binoviewer manufacturers need to develop binoviewers suited to their instruments.

Conclusions and Final Comments

If you are a serious astro-photographer primarily I’m not sure binoviewers will do much for you. But if you are the direct viewing type, who hasn’t the inclination to build or buy a stereo telescope, Binoviewers with Cassegrains make very good sense. With refractors and especially Newtonians care is needed to make sure they will work and strong compensators are compulsory.

The Maxbrights themselves though the second cheapest I identified proved to have optics able to take advantage of the CPC’s performance and did everything I hoped they would from reading the blogs and understanding their limitations. The catch is with these, and I suspect any binoviewer, you really need a tracking system and Cassegrain (or possibly Matsukov) optics to take full advantage of them. It’s the combination that made the moon and planets vastly interesting again.

For entry level observers on a limited budget with a cheap powerful Dobsonian, investing in better eyepieces first makes more sense and indeed binoviewers might not even work with these telescopes (though perhaps a strong Barlow might work). But if you have the cash and a Cassegrain (Matsukov or SCT) the marginal cost of $500 to $600 thereabouts may make sense. (Don’t forget you need to buy both a binoviewer and at least one good flat field eyepiece and ensure you are getting the corrector in the package).

I have tried to find some scientific journal articles on the improvements/benefits of binoviewers but to surprisingly little avail. There are old citations going back many decades - but they don’t benefit for modern neurophysiology and are usually directed at other concerns e.g. head up display functioning, interpretation of images. Up to date information on how stereo microscopes improve vision seems remarkably thin and perfunctory. The best I could deduce is that the process is a complex mix of physical light levels, neuron interaction and perception changes between the use of one and two eyes which aren’t just about stereoscopic vision. This may be covered in the old article in Sky and Telescope but I didn’t check. We are for the most part stereovision based creatures and the models of landscapes and star-scapes we assemble in our brains probably reflect this. We can look at expanses for hours when using two eyes but our wiring but monocular viewing needs to be learnt. In a quest for better telescope views we usually think of increasing magnification + higher quality eyepieces + bigger telescopes – The technical fix as it were. The reasons I suggest have been the optical challenges, the need for a long focal length best supplied by an SCT, the past cost and availability of good optics and the fact that CCD and time elapse photography have greatly pushed the viewing boundaries in a different direction. Now while I don’t decry these improvements they don’t address the fact we are using only half our visual system. Binoviewers do this.

I’m still pondering whether the cheaper Celestrons might also make sense. These are clearly designed to support their SCTs and if that is all you have then maybe. They don’t appear to be optically flexible as supplied but their use with different Barlows seems to make sense. I’m also interested to know when more expensive binoviewers would make sense. For the moment I’m thinking I would buy them if I ever went to the next level of equipment like a giant 14” Cassegrain. Maybe in ten years when I have the muscles of Arnie.

Pictures

Click to Enlarge The Maxbrights mounted on the CPC 800

Click to Enlarge The Maxbrights as received with compensator (left), nosepiece (right) and Barlow.		Click to Enlarge The Maxbrights with eyepieces inserted and the nosepiece and compensator separated. The ruler is 15 cm

Appendix – Links to Informative Reviews, Discussions and Other resources

This appendix provides links to web sites I found especially useful. Cloudy Nights was particularly useful. Reflecting my paper chase and review subject there is some a bias toward Baader and Maxbright details but most of the issues and information can also be read generically.

Detailed Apparently Unbiased Overview Appraisals

• 2002 Links to review article in Sky and Telescope (unclear if content in this case is product review of general theory discussion). Issue costs about $6 to download (I didn’t by the way)
• Collation of reviews on binoviewers – gives full illustrative list of current products and includes a number of attached reviews but external reviews require logon to access links (annoying)  
• 2011 Cloudy nights table of links to various binoviewer reviews (vary in utility) written between 2000 and 2010. 
• 2006 very detailed technical discussion of binoviewer theory followed by discussion and exclamations of how good this view is. 

Binoviewer comparisons

• 2000 experience buying binoviewer involving comparison of 3 different types 
• 2003 Binocular viewer shoot out comparing 5 different models/brands – many details - writer tried to develop systematic evaluation by viewing over a night with multiple observers and telescopes 
• See also commercial sites below

General discussions

• 2007 Blog discussion of Maxbright binoviewers 
• 2011 conversation on Maxbrights 
• 2004 Modification of a Nikon microscope binocular head for telescopes 
• 2005 One of a series of posts in an interesting discussion between two users.  with complete set of links here 

Responses to requests for advice

• 2012 discussion of whether low price Celestron viewers are good or bad. 
• 2010 Celestron viewer short comments 
• 2011 request for advice on suitability of Maxbrights for a Nexstar 8SE 
• 2005 Feedback on request for advice 
• 2009 Request for information on Maxbright use with a TSA 102 (refractor). Includes interesting suggestion to extend glass path using a 2X Barlow in font of star diagonal. Lots of discussion about the compensators. 
• 2010 Request for general information on binoviewers 

Commercial stuff

• 2013 Current Baader Maxbright® Binocular Viewer Instruction Manual. Though commercial it provides a very good description of how binoviewers and other end optics interact with one another. 
• 2013 Current specs etc. for inexpensive Celestron viewer (apparently inter pupil distance is variable) 
• Current (2013) page on different binoviewers held by Highpoint scientific (6 varieties ranging from basic Celestron to Televues)  
• Current (2013) supplier outline of Celestron 
• Current (2013) outline of more expensive binoviewers from commercial/amateur site. Some useful specifications like magnifications with different telescope types 
• Current (2013) commercial site describing Maxbright in detail – provides links to extensive specifications details 
• Current (2013) link to commercial site which provides a bit more on the content of the S&T article which compared the high end Televue and Baader planetarium models. 
• Current (2013) short outlines of Televues on their own web site  and a related item from its 1995 introduction
• Current (2013) local Australian supplier of Baader 
• Current (2013) link to details of Teleview binoviewers