BinocularSky

I prefer monopods: fewer legs in territorial dispute for the same tiny portion of spacetime. Make sure you get one with tension-adjustable clamps, because they will loosen over time. Some mounting suggestions here.

Yup, it was looking through your DS - but don't apologise ?. Definite contrast increase. Quick and nasties with a LifeCam (unprocessed):

It is, of course hazy, and the Sun is a tad quiet... I'll probably pop a camera onto the scope later - there's a nice prom (visible without the double-stack filter).

Excellent post! Thank you.

There is, but it's terse. Also I did do one for Sky at Night a while back: http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/feature/how-guide/how-collimate-binoculars-astronomy Also, see Bill Cook's excellent new book: Understanding & Attaining 3-Axis Binocular Collimation (review in the pipeline)

I expected that to be a nuisance, but a slomo in each hand was fine. Alternatively, you could put short knobs on the slomos.

Here you go. For reference, I am 178 cm (5' 10") tall. (& No, I am not looking at the Sun & Yes, the objective caps are still on ? ) In short, it can be done, but I wouldn't do it: too many legs in a territorial dispute for my liking, and my ageing neck really doesn't like looking up beyond about 45*.

When this wind and rain calms down a bit, I'll try it and take some photos.

It does. I have an AZ3 with that on it. I find the AZ3 too low for binos, though.

In case you need it, I've written an instruction/maintenance manual for that trigger-grip (it usually comes with woeful instructions) - see the "Choosing and Using tab on http://binocularsky.com Also, I see you have the 7DayShop monopod. Just a heads-up: if it is the one I think it is, the clamps are not adjustable for tension.The top clamp gets a lot of use and the one I had became too slack after about 18 months (still, lots of use for such an inexpensive monopod) and would no longer support the weight of my Helios Apollo 15x70, so you might want to start thinking about your eventual upgrade.

I'm not very impressed with the batteries they use in those power packs. Mine started losing capacity very soon after I got it. I replaced the battery with a Yuasa one (also 7Ah) about 5 years ago and it's been fine ever since; much better than the original.

As a matter of habit I let it run for a few seconds (to expel any loose dust) before directing it across the optic, and obviously you don't want to touch the optic with it. At 12v, electrical safety isn't a major concern.

Yet many DSOs such as the larger Melotte and Collinder clusters, the Pleiades, Kemble's Cascade, and the Andromeda galaxy, overflow many telescope fields of view unless you use low magnification like that of a binocular (even my 37x100 magnifies too much for these). And I don't think the telescopic view of pretty starfields, like the one at the back of Leo, comes close to that in binoculars in which you can take in the whole thing. Since I started the "Binocular Sky" website & newsletter, I have had several correspondents tell me that they have subsequently "down"graded to binoculars, and get much more observing done and enjoy it more. But agreed, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Horses for courses, I guess, if I may mix my metaphors.

Only by either stuffing them under my jacket - which initially makes the dewing worse - or by taking a heating/power source to my observing site. (I do sometimes take a battery pack and hairdryer when it's a public outreach event)

And require power. Which my binocular doesn't.

I make mine at least 3x, unless it would make them unwieldy. At 4.5x, they actually work properly! (see length of primary "dew shield" on a solid-tubed Newtonian ? )

http://binocularsky.com/manuals/TG-manual.pdf

Cheap yoga/exercise mat. Can get it thinner than camping mats. Stitch velcro onto it to hold it in place.

Coronado PST 40 (and probably many others)

April 2013.

Short answer: Yes. TL;DNR version: I am aware that a lot of what people think are 10x50s are, in fact, internally stopped to 10x42 or less (one was 10x39!), and the 15x70s are often stopped to 15x62. Also, experience and reasonably good skies aid my observations (and deteriorating eyesight hinders them). For this reason, I check all the "10x50" objects with 42mm or less (nowadays usually 6.5x32) and the "15x70" objects with 50mm or less. However, I may use the appropriate magnification for e.g. splitting doubles.

Nope, not plural, only one of me (many will be relieved to know). Glad you like them, but they are actually done by Pete Lawrence (+ Steve Marsh from the S@N art department). I provide a chart from Guide output, and Pete makes it look nice for the mag. No, the maps are very different in the book. They are on a white background; there are two types: summary charts covering approx 60* x 60* of sky that highlights object for which there are individual entries, plus 196 individual finder charts for each object or close group of objects (with an aperture circle dependent upon the size of binocular recommended) and descriptions for each object, eg: If I'm seeking unfamiliar stuff, or stuff I've forgotten how to find, I mostly use Sky Safari or Collins Gem Stars - a surprisingly good little star atlas, with charts by the superb Wil Tirion, that fits in a shirt pocket or a binocular case.

That doesn't mean what most people think it does; I wrote about this in the Dec 2015 Binosky Newsletter: The first thing to note is that this is not a prismatic binocular. It has Galilean optics, i.e. the same as an opera glass, but the similarity with common opera glasses stops there.The specified field of view and eye relief are essentially meaningless. With a Galilean optical system the exit pupil is virtual and resides between the objective and the eyepiece. In addition, the field of view increases as you bring your eyes closer to the eyepieces. This means that spectacle wearers will have a smaller field of view than those who do not wear them. I measured the true field of view to be 23° without spectacles and 17.4° with them, both larger than the specified 12.2°.

Indeed he had forgotten this! Thanks. Must be 15 years old. Very odd that 19mm/14mm thing; the effect is certainly more like 19mm. Sometime (within the next 15 years? ) I must figure out what's going on. See above (& the review) re 14mm/19mm; as I said earlier, fine with specs on. The WP CF model is OK (nice and sharp, less internally stopped than the Marine), but it does have annoying focus lag -- essentially, this is the waterproofing O-rings in the eyepiece tubes doing their job.

Lovely, but unlike anything else. They add a bit more than a magnitude of depth and I don't notice the magnification. It's sort of like counteracting LP a bit. @DirkSteele has written a comprehensive review of them.