NobodyReally

After I wrote this, the skies cleared, and the above still holds true after another quick viewing.

I've just (ie, within the past fortnight) bought a couple of pairs of binoculars to up-gun my small collection into the "medium" capability range, a pair of Bresser 7x50 Astro & Marine and a Celestron 15x70 Skyaster Pro. I've just answered a post asking for recommendations for a pair of 7x50 binoculars and, on the basis of my quick first light impression recommended the Bressers. At the time I answered, the sky was 100% cloud, as it has been pretty much all of the time since first light. However, about 20 minutes later, I wandered outside to get something from the car and spotted a bright object straight ahead of me. "By Jove!", I thought, not unreasonably for it was indeed Jupiter, so I forgot my car-bound mission and dashed inside to grab the 7x50s just to see if second light made a liar out of me. However, I am pleased to report it did not, as I quickly found the Auriga Messiers, Pleiades, M42, M35, M54 and sundry other vistas. Before the clouds decided to follow SOP and intervene in my viewing, I conducted first light of the 15x70 Skymaster Pro; I have a pair of standard Skymaster 15x70s, but not to hand, so I have some idea of what the differences should be. The Pro is much sharper than the standard model and gives a darker background. Again, I easily picked up the Messiers, but I was surprised by how little improvement in object brightness they gave over the Bresser 7x50s, and they seem to have a slightly sloppy focusing mechanism, as I had to refocus when switching between zenith and horizon - the 7x50's focus remained fixed. My usual astronomy observational procedure has been to use a 10x50 to get familiar with a patch of sky, the 15x70 to hone in on an object of interest, and once I know where to look, switch to my Vixen R130Sf telescope ... now, I'm not entirely sure I need anything more than the 7x50s after noting what I can see with them. Whilst I was on a roll, though, I had a quick look through the rest of my at-hand binoculars. Bresser 8x56 Roof Prism - I'm not sure what model they are as they were an eBay acquisition (as were the two above-mentioned binoculars) and are unmarked, but they look like Linears. However, they are pin-sharp, and their focusing is the proverbial immovable object. They provide a somewhat darker image than the 7x50s and 15x70s but still picked up the Messiers. Bresser 10-30x60 Zoom - I know what you're thinking - "A zoom binocular? Has he lost six marbles or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. However, despite 'only' having BK7 prisms and a zoom mechanism, they showed a bright and sharp image at low- to mid-magnification and picked up the Messiers quite nicely. It was nice being able to acquire M42 and then zoom in on it and still see a good image. Looking at the specs, I think Bresser now markets this binocular as the Optus 10-30x60; if so, they are currently available directly from Bresser for £35 + p&p or from Amazon for £21 inc p&p. What can I say? At that price, I might just get a pair to check if they are of the same quality and, if so, keep them in the car. Please bear in mind that I literally only spent a few minutes with each pair of binoculars to get a "feel" for how they compared. In part, this was due to my existential panic at the prospect of clouds rolling in or transitioning out of warp drive and, thus, ruining my evening (the Ayrshire coast can be a bit volatile, weatherwise(*)), and in part because it's chilly and I have a cold (I'm writing my memoir as we speak - Diary of a Wimpy Astronomer). I would have liked to have added my Celestron Skymaster 15x70s and Visionary HD 10x50s to the comparison, but that would have required some digging around in boxes. ------------------------------ (*) However, a mere few months ago, I was living in deepest, lightest, Bortle 8 Glasgow, where the cloudscape was just as bad, but the sight of even a Magnitude 2 star always made me think of Isaac Asimov's "NIghtfall".

I can heartily recommend the Bresser Astro & Marine SF 7x50 WP binoculars. I've never bought 7x50s before, as I found the magnification of 10x50s to be more satisfying than that of the 8x56s I've got (another pair of Bresser's, with pin-sharp stars and immovable focus). In addition, I've had a look through a couple of 7x50s owned by other skywatchers and didn't see(!) what all the fuss over 7x50s was all about. However, as I've just moved to a coastal location (with a BortIe 4 (almost 3) sky), I was after a pair of wide-angle binoculars for general daylight use. Oddly, 7x50s seemed rare on the ground, with 8x42s dominating the offerings. Then I found the above-mentioned Bresser 7x50s, with individual focus eyepieces and a nice discount, so I thought, "You only live once ... unless there's a defibrillator nearby ... and it's got both 'Marine' and 'Astro' in the name, so what the heck." and purchased them. First light was a field a couple of hundred yards away with some sheep in it. I was mightily surprised by the brightness, clarity and size of the image, and thought I'd bought a pair of 10x50s by mistake. First astronomical light was under a crystal clear sky, and I was blown away(*) by the sights as I scanned the usual winter suspects. The binoculars easily showed a few Messiers that I normally have to use a 15x70 for, with the added bonus of the rock-steady views that a 7x50 allows due to reduced hand-tremor magnification (not that I have much anyway). Sadly, the clouds suddenly noticed I was enjoying myself and took immediate corrective action before I could try bagging a few more fainter DSOs. The wide FOV was something I thought about, as I'm 68 and have well-aged eyes, but any related viewing deficits weren't apparent. --------------------------- https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275218535871?hash=item40144d95bf:g:2tEAAOSwoPFljS31 --------------------------- (*) Literally, as the wind was gusting over 40 knots.

Before purchasing any binoculars for astronomy, I took good note of the vitriol heaped upon the zoom binocular. The problem is that I'm innately curious and wanted to both see just how bad they were and take them apart to see how they worked. Several years after good use from my Bresser 8x56 and Celestron 15x70, I finally gave into temptation and bought a pair of 10-gazillionx70 binos for a fraction of their postage cost. I am pleased to report that they were every bit as bad as every reviewer said. Totally useless even for daylight viewing. 😁 However, my brain thought it saw a recent uptick in Bresser zooms with a far more realistic magnification range and, given how good my 8x56 are and favourable comments on Bresser's bargain-basement binos, my curiosity bit last week on a very cheap pair of 10-30x60 zooms. I did a brief daylight check, which showed they produced a reasonably bright image, focused nicely in the centre third. Zoom adjustment was easy, but focusing for sharpness was fiddly. Much better than my previous collection of glass masquerading as an optical instrument, but not, of course, as good as a decent fixed mag bino. Zoom is a nice and useful feature, though. At first I thought there was something wrong with their collimation or with the left ocular; however, it turned out that I needed to have a much wider feeling interpupillary distance than I'm used to. The right eyepiece adjustment was sufficiently large to cater for the large difference in my eye's prescriptions. I'm afraid I just don't like viewing with glasses on. Naturally, the curse of the new binos struck and the local weather has been unsuited to star gazing (... given that I live in suburban Glasgow, all I can think is that a lot people around here must buy new binoculars on a regular basis!). However, last night there was a brief interlude in the cloud activity and the skies cleared sufficiently to show Orion low on the horizon, so I dashed in to get the new zooms. There was a bright, near-full Moon, wind, some clouds scudding across or cycling in and out of existence, and the usual Scottish Central Belt skyglow that presents me with triple-digit Bortle number viewing. I won't bother mentioning my local council's penchant for street lights that could double as WW2 anti-aircraft searchlights - nosiree, not going to mention them at all, especially not that 3 MW bright white one on the street corner. So, it was with some double surprise that I had quite a nice view of M42 with clear evidence of nebulosity. Zooming in to max still gave an adequate image. Stars elsewhere were sharp in the centre and didn't blur as much as I thought they would near the edges. However, I did notice that the brighter stars weren't as sharp as the more average ones. I had a brief look at the Moon. It didn't look bad at lower magnifications but it was more difficult to get a satisfactory image at full mag. At that point, the weather noticed what I was doing, hurriedly put out it's cigarette, swilled the dregs of its coffee, pulled the chain, and and rustled up some rain. So, my first impression was "Not bad and much better than expected. I'll stick to my regulars for normal stargazing, but I'll give them a go for evening strolls where they can multirole for general observation and opportunistic skygazing. They're certainly much better than that pair of cheap 10x42s I bought for that purpose." . Does anybody else have any experience of using these, rebadged versions of the same, or other adequate zooms?

Do you know (or anybody else reading this) know if there are commerical solar filters designed to fit specific endcap holes? I've got a Vixen R130 with such a hole. I'm on the verge of making one myself, but I like to have options and prefer not to have my equipment look too "amateur who doesn't have the requistie skills" ... I'm not even sure where I'd get a replacement small-hole cap replacment? Thanks, Stuart