|
Hi Nick,
Like you it is tricky reconciling the glowing reports of the binoviewers elsewhere with the possible reality that they dont cut it in practice. I accept that there are likely to be problems with light scatter etc, but I can see that monocular viewing also presents limitations. Another thing is that the Chinese gear is improving all the time. In fact I wonder how much Japanese gear originates in Taiwan / China. Im careful therefore to not discount Chinese gear without looking into it. Also mindful of the earlier post questioning whether it would be been better to go with a budget binoviewer rather than the Denkmeier.
The Burgess 24 looks interesting - it has self-centring eyepiece holders and might be more suitable for deep sky with 24mm clear aperture. A little more expensive at $300 US. Spec wise while not perhaps quite up there with the most expensive models practically it might give them a good run perhaps. Interestingly however for planets it seems that even 18 to 20mm would be ok. The silvered prism coated prism might also make a difference of course (mind you the images get fused in the end - hopefully). I still wonder whether a cheaper budget variety would be that different for planets. Hence the call for further feedback from anyone satisfied with viewing even around 200-250x or so.
Interested that you get a good barlow effect with such a low barlow. Most people already own a 2x barlow (I have a very nice 1.8x televue barlow hence the interest). With a 2x barlow and my setup that would be a fairly acceptable 180x for planets. Thanks also for the reference to the optics of the OCS - worth a read.
Thanks also to Dan from Frontier too for the feedback on the Denkmeier eyepieces. I guess it is great if you can take pot luck in getting similar focal ratios out of the equation.
Cheers
David
|