Circular Logic; Binocular Vs Spotting Scope Vs Finderscope

[Stonius]

I have a strange circular logic that is preventing me from making a decision.

My vintage seventies 10 x 50's are out of alignment (eye to eye) and without any adjusting screws it seems they are more expensive to fix than to buy another pair. I find them useful for scoping out new targets before star-hopping using my 16" Dob.

So I'm thinking " I should replace my binoculars".

But then, I'm thinking why do I even *need binoculars? Theoretically, one $200 pair of binoculars is just two $100 telescopes stuck together. If you don't particularly care about the binocular experience, a spotting scope would theoretically be twice as good for the same price because you don't have the cost of replicating the image path for the other eye, right?

In reality though, they seem quite expensive (Swarovski? I thought they made crystal doodads and earrings for shopping malls).

But then, when you think about it, how different is a spotting-scope from a finder-scope really?

Maybe I should just buy a spare findersope? But then, if I was going to do that, what's wrong with the one attached to the telescope?

So now I'm thinking "I *shouldn't replace my binoculars".

But then I won't have anything to scope out new targets with before star-hopping with my 16" Dob!

I hate myself right now. :-/

Markus

[Wavytone]

Shut one eye, problem solved !

[Stonius]

That's what I've been doing! But I've decided to succumb to the ultimate in astro-tragic dagginess - I'm wanting to experiment with using an eyepatch to keep one eye for the scope and another for charts. Aye, me hearties, hoist the scope on Vela, unfurl the Paracorrrr and rrrroll out the Pentax - never mind the light-lubbers!

At least in the dark no-one will recognise me :-/

Point is I think it will interfere with the binos and the alignment issue will annoy me because, well just because really. :-)

Markus

[Wavytone]

OK, turn the 'nocs into a monocular, stick a patch over one objective... or physically separate the halves permanently.

[xelasnave]

Chart, binos then finder scope then spoting scope and always wear two eye patches and a hood but dont let the neighbours see you.
Alex

[Tinderboxsky]

I use binoculars to explore constellations, targets and star hops before moving onto the finder scope to find the objects of interest. I quite enjoy this exploration before "zooming in" with the telescope. I use low power wide field binos for this - 6.5X32 with an ultra sharp 9 degree field of view. The wide views are terrific and allow you to explore hole areas at a time. Don't be tricked into thinking you need big, heavy objectives for this - eg, I have not failed yet to find The Messier objects when looking for them. One does not need to spend big on Swarovski - there are plenty of excellent options at a fraction of the cost.
I have an 85 mm spotting scope that I use as a quick grab and go system. I would find it too restricting for the exploration part. It needs it's own mount where as binos are so simple to use.
I guess it is a case of deciding how you want to explore the wonders of the night sky and then choose the most cost effective tools to achieve this.
If I am being lazy, rather than star hop, I just turn on Mr Argo Navis to guide me there. He is very good at that.

[Stonius]

But that would be smart and easy! I want to do it the hard way!

I find binocular viewing annoying at the best of times as I'm always tweaking the focus on the eyes or the interocular distance because it never quite seems to settle into comfortable viewing for me.

But I think my 'Astronomical Binoculars' are objectively crap, even when each eye is taken individually. The stars never quite render as round. I have two sets of cheap 8 x 21's that do a far better job of resolving point-like stars than my 70's no-name brand 'Bino's'. I may well heed your advice and saw it in half, but I'm not sure it will be along the same axis as you were imagining. :-)

Markus

[Stonius]

Ah yes, I hear that wearing *two eyepatches really assists with dark adaption. And you see so many more stars - especially when you start walking into things! :-D

[Stonius]

Thanks for your considered reply. I was hoping to replace the binos with a low power spotting scope - maybe like the celestron hummingbird 56ED w/9-27x Zoom. Can you tell me a little more about why the spotting scope is too difficult to use hand-held? Is there something about the nature of the way a pair of binoculars is held that lends more stability?

Best,

Markus

[Stonius]

I'm an idiot.

I didn't even realise that 'monoculars' were a thing. I don't think they *were when I started out many years ago. It's weird coming back to a hobby after a number of years - everything is different and it puts you in a weird space where you know some stuff, but there are things you *thought you knew that are just wrong now.

Anyway, monoculars. Like exoplanets, they're a thing now.

Hey, I wonder what happens if you buy two of these and strap them together? Someone should try that. :-)

But yes, sounds like that might just be what I'm looking for.

Thanks for the input, people.

Markus

[Kunama]

I did that but am having trouble hand-holding them steady enough :shrug: and my neck strap keeps breaking (have ordered a new Kevlar one) so I had to put them on a mount, still they work even down to 28x.....

[Kunama]

Fixed that for you Glen :lol::lol:

[LewisM]

You have "relared macukar deteriouration" - without being an opthalmologist, I would say that is the source of your issues Glen :P :lol:

Awful mouthful of a medical issue, and one I have never heard of

[dannat]

binoculars are much more comfortable & pleasurable to look thru than monoculars [be it a finder/spotter etc]
i prsume you're 10x50 has eccentric rings at the obj end to adjust [if not the screws are just hidden]? you should be able to pick up a 80's japanese made 10x50 off gumtree for $50 -build quality is still better than cheap chinese versions of today, eye relief is often a bit tight though

[Steffen]

The adjustment screws may be hiding under the leather/rubber cladding, see this thread:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=125507

[Tinderboxsky]

My comments were made in the context of my spotting scope - it has a magnification range of 20 (FOV about 3 degrees) to 65, the eyepiece is at 45 degrees (not straight through) and weighs well over 2 kgms.
It needs it's own red dot finder as it is impossible to line up objects with a 45 deg angled eyepiece. I certainly cannot hold mag of 20X steady enough to observe effectively. I think most people find about 10x the max to hold comfortably steady for any period of time. The final "nail in the coffin" is the weight.
Perhaps you can judge the specs for the spotting scope you are thinking about against these comments and your intended use.
I am away from home at the moment, otherwise I could have posted an image or two to show what I mean.

[Stonius]

Update;
I pulled them apart as a last ditch effort to see if there was anything obviously awry with them. When I got in there, I saw a metal plate that was holding the prism in place. One of the screws was a bit loose so I tightened it up. Hey presto, alignment is back! That's good. These bino's are sentimental for me so I don't have to send them to an early grave :-)



I'm not that old - 43. I decided to measure my pupils the other night and was suprised on two accounts; one - that my eyes were different. For some reason I would have thought they would degenerate together. It was disconcerting to see that it has actually happened, but -two- I was pleased to see that my left was at 7.5mm, which I thought was pretty good for my age.

But then I went looking for data and according to this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20506961), that's not all that special. Sure the *mean dark adapted pupil diameter goes down after peaking in your twenties (6.15mm is the mean for my age group, which is about where my right eye is at). BUT, the range of measured pupil sizes in my age group went from a measly 4.5 all the way to a whopping 8.2mm! Even in the 60-69 age bracket, they had measurements between 3.5 and 7.5 mm (mean 5.6mm). So there's no rule that your eyes *have to degenerate it's just luck of the draw, like with hair loss (not so lucky there, I'm afraid! :-/ )

Best

Markus

[Wavytone]

Aaah congratulations are due, Markus, a bit of careful DIY never goes astray with optical gear.

[Stonius]

Thanks Mate! :thumbsup::thanx: