First outing for 15x70s + monopod

[Demonperformer]

Some years ago, I bought a pair of celestron 15x70 binos from FLO for £50 as they were on offer, but I never really got on with them. I presumed that was largely due to the 'too big to handhold' size of them, and they have sat in their box doing nothing ever since.

I was recently recommended this monopod: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002J9MMDI?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00 for bino use and thought that, for under £10 including postage, I really had very little to lose (about £10, I suppose), so went ahead and bought it.

This morning was the first outing for this combo.

What I have learned about the monopod
* It isn't exactly grab-n-go by the time I have attached ballhead to the monopod, the L-bracket to the ballhead, unscrewed the socket on the binos and screwed them onto the L-bracket - but it is close, and a lot faster than setting up the scope.

* I LIKE the firm feel of the clips that hold the sections of the leg in place AND the easy way the sections slide in and out when the clips are undone. Excellent.

* Using it is not quite as easy as I had first thought. Practice will no doubt make this a lot better, but the interplay between how I sit, the length of the monopod, the angle of the ballhead and how that affects the height of the eyepieces of the binoculars means that, when I move from one object to another at a different altitude, I have to readjust all these to observe in comfort. Azimuth sweeps do not have the same problem. Hassle? Compared to just moving from one object to the next with the handheld 7x50s - definitely. Enough to make me consign it to the 'never to be used again' bin - definitely not.

* My initial thought was that I want it to be as stable as possible, so I want the minimum diameter of the monopod as great as possible, so have as little of the last section out as possible. Whether the theory of that is right or not, in practice that was completely the wrong thing to do. Adjusting the height by stretching for the clip on the floor did not make life any easier. Promptly changed plan so that the two 'end' sections were completely extended and the top one was used to adjust height - much easier. Also found that some change in alt could be achieved by moving the position of the end of the monopod on the ground further away from me without loss of stability.

* Once set up on an object, it is very easy to hold the binos steady, in position, for quite a long period of time - certainly a mega-improvement on trying to handhold them.

What I have learned about the binoculars
* My initial problems were NOT just due to the 'too big to handhold' size of them.

* Part of my difficulties MAY be due to setting them correctly. By one of life's happy coincidences, I am visiting the optician tomorrow, so will get him to confirm my interpupillary distance and dioptre difference between my eyes. Although, compared to the 7x50s, which have a dioptre scale on the right eyepiece, the simple '+' & '-' on the celestrons is not particularly helpful.

* Some bright objects do look a little like comets, with little tails. This was particularly noticeable on Antares (maybe not the easiest object) which also showed up a less than perfect colour correction.

* Most worryingly, stars which is a pinpoints in the centre of the field become arcs as they are moved to the edge. This effectively means that the useful field of view is severely curtailed. The 77m@1000m official field of view works out at just over 4d30', which I consider to be a little optimistic, even for the extreme edge-to-edge field. I could just get Saturn and Dschubba in the same field (as arcs) and the distance between them on CdC this morning was 4d13'. But the useful field just about encompassed Dschubba & Graffis at 3d03', giving a useful area of about 45% of the official figure.

* Having said all that, within that central field I was getting an amazing number of faint stars. I wasn't set up to do a magnitude check this morning, but considering how close to 'streetlight alley' Scorpio was, I was quite impressed. And when I moved over to check out some of UMa (higher in the sky and away from 'streetlight alley'), I became very impressed.

Overall impression
* Definitely curate's egg-ish (very nice in places).

* The monopod gets a 5* thumbs-up from me. All of the issues I had will, I have no doubt, be worked out with practice. And the difference between using the monopod and handholding produces results that are orders of magnitude (pun definitely intended) better.

* The binoculars get a 2-3* "mmmmm" from me. If I stick to the reasonable central part of the field, I am sure that I will get many splendid views with this setup. And, in fairness, the number of objects I am going to want to hunt down that are more than 3d across could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand with some left over. But that, to me, is not the point. From a name like Celestron, I do not expect to have to limit myself in this way. Maybe that is an unfair criticism of a pair of binoculars that only cost me £50. But I am very glad that I did not spend more.
 

[Dave In Vermont]

A member here - Lowjiber - made a mono-pod out of a mop-handle. He never seems to have upgraded this. You might enjoy talking with him. Maybe drop him a message to compare results.

Clear & Dark Skies,

Dave

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Nice report. I had similar BA-1 type binoculars, and they are good for the price, but optically much as you describe. The focuser is a bit wobbly which makes adjusting them problematic, because once set they can wobble away from that setting too easily. I bought them to see if there was a place in my kit for another wide-field instrument, between 10x50 bins and the APM80 F/6. The answer was a resounding yes! This is why I later got the Helios Apollo 15x70 HD. Much better, but of course much more expensive. I had a lot of fun with the BA-1s, and for €79, I cannot complain.

[goodricke1]

My Celestron 15x70s have got loads of use & I think they're excellent, pound for pound probably the best value you can get. Even last night picking out Mercury in twilight from a vantage point where setting up the scope would have been impractical. They even survived a heavy fall onto a hard surface from a lofty height, v impressive

[k9wis]

I would be interested to see how faint of star you can see...with my 10x50's on a dark night I can just barely see 8th magnitude.

Brian

[goodricke1]

Was observing M68 through them last week - it's given as mag 7.8 but low altitude diminishes it. There were other faint stars in the field also, so I think on a perfect night near the zenith mag 9 would be possible.

[Demonperformer]

G, what was your limiting naked-eye magnitude for that?

If you can get below 5 with naked-eye, I wouldn't think 9 would be a problem.

If you are struggling to get below 3 (like here), I would think 9 would consider 9 to be quite impressive.

But I plan to do a test on M44 if I get a clear evening this week - I've got it plotted out with the stars down to 11.15, which I think will be more than ample for my needs! Going to try to draw the cluster (the result should be amusing, if nothing else) and then compare it with the print out (that way I should avoid imagining I can see some of the fainter stars on the printout that I can't).

[goodricke1]

Oh yes mag 5 is certainly within my range, I'm probably guilty of taking my dark skies for granted...

Btw the moon is going to be a nuisance for a week or so, you might get more accurate results from your M44 project by holding off for a bit longer.

[Demonperformer]

DON'T LAUGH! This is my first attempt at drawing with binos, so some of the proportions are way out. I was merely marking star positions with no attempt to indicate brightness by size of dot.

Three versions: (1) as done (2) fainter stars where mags plotted are circled (3) mags & Flamsteed # added.

There are a number of stars that I have not been able to conclusively identify from my drawing, and some of these could well take the faintest mag further, but I have not included them. Definitely got down to 8.98.

LP - let's just say that, thanks to the streetlight across the road, I did not need my red torch to make the drawing!

Details:
Date: 27/04/2015
start: 9.40BST, SQM 17.01
finish: 10.15BST, SQM 17.28
Object: M44
Equip: 15x70 + Monopod
Notes: Moon 67.7% @ 21 degrees
 

[DemosL]

I would be interested to see how faint of star you can see...with my 10x50's on a dark night I can just barely see 8th magnitude.

Brian

I have the Celestron 15x70 SkyMaster binoculars. They have almost twice the light gathering power of your 10x50s. I'm able to easily see M27 (Dumbbell Nebula) which is dimmer than 8th mag. M57 (Ring Nebula) blinks (it's dimmer than 9th mag). My skies are medium to dark grey and I can't make out the Milky Way.

For comfort and stability, I use a zero gravity lounger, which steadies my body a whole lot.

[BinocularSky]

I have the Celestron 15x70 SkyMaster binoculars. They have almost twice the light gathering power of your 10x50s. I'm able to easily see M27 (Dumbbell Nebula) which is dimmer than 8th mag. M57 (Ring Nebula) blinks (it's dimmer than 9th mag). My skies are medium to dark grey and I can't make out the Milky Way.

I wouldn't be too sure about the Skymaster's having twice the light-gathering of a 10x50 (unless the 10x50 is internally stopped): the 15x70 Skymaster is internally stopped to an effective aperture of just under 63mm.

Also, did you mean "brighter" rather than "dimmer"? VIsually, M27 is usually taken to be mag +7.4 and M57 is mag +8.8. (See, for example, Deepskypedia)

[DemosL]

I wouldn't be too sure about the Skymaster's having twice the light-gathering of a 10x50 (unless the 10x50 is internally stopped): the 15x70 Skymaster is internally stopped to an effective aperture of just under 63mm.

Also, did you mean "brighter" rather than "dimmer"? VIsually, M27 is usually taken to be mag +7.4 and M57 is mag +8.8. (See, for example, Deepskypedia)

Magnitude values I've seen decades ago for M27 and M57 were 8+ and 9.3, respectively.

[mdstuart]

I can get to mag 9.8 in my mag 5.5 skies with 50mm bins with averted vision.

My 100mm bins take me up to mag 11.4.

[Stu]

Magnitude values I've seen decades ago for M27 and M57 were 8+ and 9.3, respectively.

Just checked SkySafari and M27 is listed at 7.09 and M57 at 8.8. Both are manageable under reasonable skies with my 15x50s. But M27 is much the easier of the two, larger and brighter. I think I managed mag 9.5 with them on one very clear night at home.

[Demonperformer]

Stars are better than DSOs for judging how faint you can get. Most catalogues list DSOs as an integrated magnitude (which is all the light from the spread out object as if it were coming from a single point). With stars (being point sources) this is not an issue.