BinocularSky

I think there's some sort of threadlock on the screws; required quite a lot of elbow grease 🙂 Potential downside is that the payload will be further from the fulcrums (fulcra?), which will reduce the balanceable load.

Thank you. 🙂

Yes, some people are trying that. (But it's unavailable at the mo)

I haven't used the TS Optics one, but I did review the Celestron for AGT, if you're interested: https://astrogeartoday.com/review-celestron-skymaster-pro-20x80-binoculars/

Thanks. Very last page links to this.

I tried stuff hanging from the hook. Didn't like the oscillation set up when I moved it around the tripod (but you may be less intolerant than I 🙂 ).

No, I'm unaware of any that are threaded like that. As an alternative, I did consider wrapping a bit of lead flashing over that foam bit on the counterweight arm, but haven't tried it yet. I did note, though, that fully extended, the balanced payload is only slightly more than the 2kg of the counterweights, so if you have 4kg of kit on it, 4kg of counterweight should just about do it.

I've had three: A 112mm f/18 that I made in 1992 (first and only attempt at making an achromatic doublet - Littrow type, turned out very slightly undercorrected when I "oiled" the air-space to increase transmission). Interesting project, but turned out to be far too unwieldy and the slightest breeze would make it oscillate like crazy. Converted it onto a folded refractor, but that wasn't satisfactory either. Ended up giving the lens away as a raffle prize. (tube is 6" diameter irrigation pipe) 60mm f/12, no makers name, given to me "in case I could use it" mid 1990s. used it to demonstrate how these things could be made more usable. (L-R: add a chain to damp oscillations, add a weight to the mount, shore up the tripod, take the optics out of the finder and use it as a sighting tube (yes, that diaphragm was there originally) Tasco equatorially mounted 60mm f/15, picked up for a tenner (mount but no tripod) on a street market in the late 1990s, and used exclusively for solar projection, initially just a jury-rigged setup with a bit of aluminium angle and plywood board that did sterling service at the '99 eclipse, then later a foam-board projection box:

Delighted to announce that we are reprising our Dark Skies StarFest. A mixture of events, ranging from observing to astro-storytelling, online workshops on observing and astrophotography, childrens art/craft events, and the wonderful Jo Richardson's Space Detectives. The IDSR-run events are all free, but need to be booked in advance. Details at: https://cranbornechase.org.uk/events/starfest-2022-full-timetable/

A few typos, etc., in the review have been corrected; the only significant one is the size of Allen wrench needed for removing the bowl: it's 2.5mm, not 2mm.

I reckon that would probably work, Steve, and it has the advantage of being lighter than the Kingjoy QB10 that I was using. I'd be wary of the 3 kg payload claim, though, for use with binoculars: the centre of mass of binoculars is usually further from the altitude axis than that of a camera, so the turning moment is greater, which can make high elevation use quite awkward.

Let us know how you get on; I'd be keen to know if you agree with my assessment.

Right-oh, here's the TL;DR version: Needs tripod with rotatable centre post. Needs some form of ball-head/pan-tilt head/trigger-grip head. Packs away neatly into a small bag for storage and transport. Has vertical range of ~80cm, so suitable for reclined and standing observing with same tripod height. (payload = binocular + head) Payload = 2kg: no need to tighten pivots. Pleasure to use. Payload = 2.5kg: moderate pivot tightening required, but still elevates smoothly. Still pleasant to use. Payload = 3.5kg; Pivots must be very tight. Still elevates smoothly, but feels like it's nearly at its limit. Vibrations take ~4 secs to damp down. Could probably take up to about 4kg, but would be at its limit. Good match to Amazon Basics tripod with Pistol grip head. Overall: Definitely worth considering for binos up to around 2.5k. Comprehensive review at https://binocularsky.com/binoc_reviews.php

I use my 16x70 IF on a monopod and trigger-grip head. I got a spike foot for it (has a screw-down plastic foot for when the spike is inappropriate). The monopod doesn't have to be vertical - or even nearly vertical - for it to work. When I observe reclining, I just have it down the side of the recliner. I've had this setup for more than a decade in one form or another, and I have no incentive to change it. However, if you're set on a parallelogram, the Paragon (cheapest commercial one) is quite restricted in that you can only look back over the tripod. I'm currently evaluating/experimenting with a Neewer camera crane, which comes packed in a bag, so might meet your portability requirement. Still figuring out the best way to get it to work with heavier binos (eg 20x80), but expect to have a preliminary report by the end of the month: But I'll stick with the monopod for portability. 🙂

Replace it with a Dalek observatory? 😂

Someone I know has posted elsewhere that he is experimenting with a Neewer "Camera Crane" as a parallelogram mount. I think the idea may have potential, so I have ordered one and will experiment with it over the coming weeks. If it does what I think it may, we may have a low cost alternative for mounting light- to medium-weight binos (I'm not expecting the advertised 8kg payload capacity to be realistic). I'll report here when I've thoroughly put it through its paces.

Yes, happy to answer any questions re binos, @biggsthebeast - just tag me to make sure I see it!

The first edition of the Binocular Sky Newsletter for 2022 is ready. As well as the usual overview of DSOs, variable and double stars, this month we have: Quadrantid fireballs The ice giants are still with us Comet Borrelly in evening sky Lots of lunar occulatations I hope this helps you to enjoy these long winter nights with your binoculars or small telescopes. To pick up your free copy, just head over to http://binocularsky.com and click on the Newsletter tab, where you can subscribe (also free, of course) to have it emailed each month, and get archived copies.

The tripod is sufficiently sturdy, but you will need to find some sort of head for it. Note that M12 is NOT 1/2"! Any sufficiently sturdy head will likely have a 3/8" thread in its base, so you will need some form of adaptor. With that size of binocular, you really want a parallelogram or a yoke. The most readily available parallelogram that is sturdy enough is the Orion Monster. The AstroDevices one is a bit cheaper and will also hold the weight. Note that this one will require that you get counterweights separately. (It's the one in my avatar, and my review of it is here, but note that Valentin has made lots of improvements to it in the 4 years since I got one, addressing the shortcomings I noted in the review.) I'd be wary of the 15 lb claims made for the one you linked to. The ones that he says can be used if you add extra weight weigh less than half as much as yours. There really is no point in buying decent binos (or any other kit) then hobbling them with an inadequate mount. I don't use a yoke, but others may chime in with comments (or you could search these forums or Cloudy Nights). I have some links on this page. Graham's one can be scaled up, and Scott's one is likely sturdy enough as shown. Also @michael.h.f.wilkinson has made one and I think the plans are on here somewhere. Also worth asking @Peter Drew - he has decades of experience and probably knows more about this sort of thing than anyone else on these forums. HTH

@Stardaze - just a thought: I've not tried this on IF binos, so I don't know if it's even possible. With things like the SW Heritage 130P Flextube, the rotating focusers tend to be a bit loose. Standard fix is to put a few turns of plumbers' PTFE tape onto the threads. With a bit of trial and improvement, you can get that sweet spot of being stiff enough not to accidentally self-adjust and buttery smooth enough not to need a lot of force when you want to adjust.

Sorry, late to return to the party. The LQs that @Stormbringer recommended are a fine instrument. If it helps to make a decision, my review of it is at https://binocularsky.com/binoc_reviews.php

Yes, I can imagine it must be a real pain. For anyone else considering the S-II, though, they do seem to have sorted out that loose focus (sorry, @Stardaze, I realise that doesn't help you); ditto with the Bresser-branded equivalent (Astro Spezial) LQ HR was pretty similar to my Lunt (essentially same bino, but different branding) - I have the 10x50 and the 16x70, both fine with BBs. Ages since I've focused either - a side-effect of C - I've not needed to share them for nearly 2 years. 🙂 I think the 70mm LQ is noticeably better than the Apollo. It's lighter, gives a better image, and has adequate eye relief for spectacles. HTH

I'd go for the 15x -- 10x (or 11x) really needs very dark skies and exit pupils that can cope with the 6.2 mm exit pupil (6.2 because the binocular is internally stopped to an effective aperture of 62mm). If you want "proper" 70mm aperture, something like the Helios Stellar II is pretty good (and the seem to have fixed the slack focus that was a "feature" of the original ones).

(Times are UT; index marks are for 00:00 UT)