chops

thanks @mog3768 and @Nigella Bryant your images are truly stunning. I didn't have much luck last time I tried Autostakkert 3, but suspect it was my own exposure problems and lack of detail. Do you caputure AVI or stills and is it with ASI Studio, in planetary mode please? Also, what sort of gain on the ASI178 please Nigella? I think my image above was 39ms at 150 gain - it was at this point that the blue line on the histogram dropped down to zero, but I'm a beginner when it comes to imaging, having only done limited DSO work recently (I gave up in the 2000s when trying with an SLRs became to tedious and have only recently started up astrophography again).

OK, I admit it, it's all too easy to be carried away by  solar fever, aperture fever, DSO fever, astrophotgraphy fever etc. But ... when all's said and done, if I had to swap *everything* for just one piece of kit, it'd be a pair of 15x70 on a clear, calm night (all too rare in W Cornwall)...

M36m M37 and M38 in Auriga (plus half of a bottle of brandy) and what more could anyone want. (except, perhaps, sweeping left and right a little).

Thanks Steve, for your indefatigable support of the simplest and best.

By way of an update, I bought the (Daystar recommended) 32mm Televue Plossl to use in place of the 24mm 68 degree Explore Scientific, 40mm unbranded plossl, and trusty 26mm Meade 4000 super plossl LP I've been using.

However, I'm slightly disappointed so, by way of comparison:

1) The solar disc size is ideal in the TV 32mm EP, compared with the 40mm and 26 or 24 mm. This is irrespective of TV's 50° aparent field of view, versus the 24mm's 68° AFOV (the 68 degree is easier to 'use')

2) Contrast is better than the other plossls, but only marginally better than the ExSc

3) However, it's not as good as I hoped, because of (I believe) needing an accurately positioned eye (vignetting) due to a very small exit pupil. Eye relief seems OK - indeed I have to pull back from the EP slightly which, with solar work, means having to shield from the stray light. The ExSc by comparison I can push my eye right up against, for a dark view.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the causes of this, other than the different field stop of each EyePiece, when used with the 930mm focal length of the SS60 and the (I believe) relatively small 12mm etalon aperture that we're looking though.

Can anyone shed some light on the issue please?

Edited: Updated below with EP stats

Explore Scientific 68° (ref: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/explore-scientific-eyepieces/explore-scientific-68-degree-series-eyepieces.html)

Meade 4000 Super Plossl LP: https://www.meadeuk.com/Meade-Series-4000-Super-Plossl-Eyepiece-26mm.html

No Field stop published on Meade, but reported at 23.9mm elsewhere (don't know whether either of these match my 'LP' Low Profile version originally supplied with ETX125).

Televue Plossl: https://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?ID=51&Tab=EP_EPL-32.0

Here's the same image, but I've spent 45 seconds increasing contrast etc on an iPhone 'post processing'. A much more pleasing, but still very simple single shot image.

Hi All, I was viewing this rather lovely prominence this morning, through high hazy cloud, from South West England, and thought I should get the camera out to capture it.

Like my last post, it's a Daystar Scout SS60 in Ha, except this time I used a better laptop which made the refresh rate higher, making it much easier to both focus and to adjust exposure.

I find prominences in single still images are never quite as good as viewing with the eyes - the detail I could resolve was incredible - a long 'blown' tail from this prominence hovering above it and extending to the east isn't even visible here. A couple of plages etc have come out OK. I have one dust mote I need to deal with on the sensor too, I now realise.

Both Single full Colour shot on a ZWO ASI183MC taken in ASI Studio

1. about 40ms at 150 gain
2. crop of 90ms at 150 gain to better expose the prominence (possibly focus a little off, but it's only a tiny scope?)

I also took lots more video and still, so will try to figure out how to stack and process those in GIMP later.

Any suggestions for stacking AVI and stills, debayering and all that jazz most gratefully receieved please.

Thanks Roy, here’s another still in slightly better seeing (from mid morning today) and the surface granulation’s beginning to be visible in the stills, as it is at the eyepiece. Plus a rather fun gif from when a gull crossed the solar disc, just as I happened to be holding the phone against the EP.

I'm posting in the hope it helps anyone else considering a Daystar Scout SS60. The video's not quite representative of what one sees looking through the scope, but gives a general idea of field of view through a 24mm EP.  When observing, much more prominence detail and surface texture is visible to the eye and the colour feels less red than it appears in the vid.

I'd have taken this video sooner if I'd realised that afocal video would work so well, so I'll try again next time the sun's available earlier in the day during better seeing. The video's taken by holding an iPhone against an Explore Scientific 24mm eyepiece and adjusting exposure (i.e. afocal video photography). Although I find a Plossl as easy (if not easier) to use as a wide EP for observing, it's simpler to align a smartphone with an eyepiece that has a wider field of view, for afocal video. Hence I used a 24mm ExSc (see below for detail). It seems a fairly quiet solar day, not long after the notoriously quiet 2020 and I believe is still close to the beginning of the sun's new 11 year cycle (hopefully it will become more exciting soon but not as exciting as having any Carrington Events pointing towards us).

I spent some hours, from late morning, watching these prominences form, dissipate and reform. The prom on the Western limb was very tall and bright, looking like a large rectangular tower block, which gradually split, faded as the top looped over to the north, then the top looped back again to the south. At one point this loop appeared to join - forming the outline of the head of a man, whose figure, with arms out, was clear and rather funny. Wish I'd taken this video sooner (or had the ASI183 to hand). The prom quietened and reached its current state (3pm ish) as seen in the video.

The long group of prominences to the South - 4 main and some smaller - were more dim than the prom on the Western limb initially, but they remained impressive, ranging from good to very small and appeared at one point to be as clear row of pine trees, especially the larger right hand prom, with spiky 'branches' and a distinctive triangular fir tree shape, which gradually brightened then faded to this view. The tip of the ‘sharks fin’ to the left of the group extended out to the east then receded.

I'm afraid it's not easy to see the detail in such a simple video - it's slighly more visible to the naked eye. By the time I took this video it had gone 3pm, there was more haze and a lower sun and none of the prominences were particularly impressive.

There were No sunspots easily visible, although a Plage appeared to be visible close to the Westerly limb. Little surface detail other than orange peel, despite tuning the scope (better with the SS60s dial to left of centre for this today). I still need to lots more time with the scope to get the best from it.

I'm a Ha beginner having only observed in whitelight before and only having used this scope twice before, once in combination with a ZWO ASI 183MC astrophotography video camera. Medium seeing, 6/3/21 'third light' on the Daystar Scout SS60 Scope with fixed chromasphere quark built in - 930mm f15 60mm.

Various Eye pieces used: Plossl 40mm, Meade Super Plossl 26mm, Explore Scientific 24mm and 11mm 82 and 68 degree EPs gave good clarity and contrast, but the seeing's not good enough for close viewing of proms.  ioptron motor, roughly pointed north was perfectly sufficiently good to keep the sun in view for at least 45 mins at a time. I'll edit this post to add a pic or two of the equipment setup in a moment.

3 images attached are: Afocal Smartphone still image (contrast increased in smartphont), plus two shots of the setup.

Louis, yes, I believe they are Japanese manufactured. They struck me as well made with a beautiful image when I bought ‘em aged ... well, very young, and they still function perfectly. I have a strange feeling that I paid £12 for them in the mid 80s. Felt a stretch to an *ahem* year old, but worth. Every. Penny.

Thanks WimVb, yes certainly is hazy and I was probably being lazy about it, looking for excuses not to get around to it... I’ve never flocked a scope before, from other’s comments, it’s probably worth the hassle... I struggle to justify the time to do it when spare time’s better saved up for .. well ... using it when the skies are clear. Of interest, where do you get flocking from? I’m always paranoid that it’ll in some way increase dust inside the scope in the long term, as the flocking breaks down... there I go again, looking for an excuse to be lazy again.

After almost a year with the Helios Stellar II, I can confirm they’re still superb. Strangely loose right hand eyepiece focus (left is nice and firm) which loses focus frustratingly.

Compared to the others which I reviewed in detail above, they stand head and shoulders taller. But which binos do I use most still? The 10x25 Swarovski, around the neck in walks and even target finding in the sky when observing. 

My most reliable and longest standing binos are a pair of Hanimex 8x40s, purchased in the mid 1980s on an extreme budget as a youngster, probably in Guernsey at the time. I have a feeling they were not much more than £10. Even with 35+ years of inflation this puts them under £40. If they were £15, that would be £50 and still makes them better value than all of the others listed above, including the £50 fieldmaster.

Optics are quite reasonable but, most incredibly, they’re still well collimated and very useable after living on boats for years. Kudos Hanimex.

Votes please: too dusty, or leave it for another year? I bought it second hand 6 years ago and the dust’s reasonably heavy now... perhaps it’s reducing contrast now. Note that the blade of grass has been removed already, with a vacuum, without needing to touch the mirror surface.

Thanks SuburbanMak. The Blue Danube can make even the worst shots seem magnificent. I find the Dobson much easier to handhold because of the shorter focal length and I can use lower powered eyepieces. Many of the shots are taken with plossls, but a couple with 68 and 82 degree explore scientific eps.

Quick shot attached taken 2 nights ago in a 10 min session,  tweaked in the iPhone to decrease highlights and contrast,  increase sharpness etc.

I’ve since spotted just how badly collimated the mirrors are, so corrected that today. ... which means it’s cloudy tonight!

clear skies!

Hi Grant, thanks for the link; I’ve watched the talk and it’s fascinating. The comments above and Mike’s video inspired me to post this video; the most recent time I’ve seen the Green Flash. I’m sure that he’s inundated and bored of low quality Green Ray / Flash videos, but I shall email Mike in case he’s interested in seeing yet another one.. this one with some admittedly glorious scenery at Zennor too.

After reading the talk, I also zoomed in a little and, whaddya know.. it fits the profile.

Rather sorry I missed this: it’s an occasionally spectacular phenomenon about which I’d like to hear more. The last vivid example was close to home, on the west cornwall coast, as the sun set over the sea in October. The video recorded at the same time was, well, a damp squib which didn’t reflect the majesty of the visible experience at all. Attached is a shot take just prior: as a rain squall passed, the horizon cleared and we realised it would become a memorable sunset.

I started putting this together for my family and kids, but then got a little carried away with adding annotations such as crater and mare names, plus other details. I thought it turned into a handy little resource (for me), and realised that others may like it too.

I hope you enjoy it too, it's a collection of images I've been saving in a phone album called 'astronomy' and thought it'd be simpler to share with friends this way.

It's all single image photos / single take video, so no stacking involved. The only 'post processing' is when I've changed an image in the iphone to mono, or adjusted saturation and contrast to make it more interesting. Many are straight out of the phone - some iPhone 7, some 10 and a couple iPhone 11.

The kit's all very cheap: £80 for a secondhand 1990s Helios Explorer 6" with EQ3-2 type mount, a 1999 ETX-125 (which I bought second hand in 2003), plus a Skyliner 250px dob (again, second hand in 2015 for £232). Lenses are typically Plossl or those supplied with the scope. I'm in fairly good skies - some of these on the edge of a town - probably Bortle 5 and others more rural, so closer to Bortle 4, perhaps 3 on a good night.

Although these were reviews of £50, £70 and £80 binos and I could objectively compare them to Helios Apollo 15x70s, I’ve since bought a pair of Helios Stellar II 10x50s and find them superb.

Whilst I can’t objectively compare all together (because I gave the £50 and £70 binos, along with Astro books, to friends who‘ve since started to enjoy astronomy with them), I can confirm that the Stellar IIs are brighter, sharper, have a wider field of view (6.5^) are more solid and generally more pleasant to use than the (much) cheaper binos.

The Stellar II 10x50 are still useful as ‘grab and go’ observing tools and so are used often, whereas the 15x70s are best on a parallelogram Mount.

I bought the Stellar II at £169 retail price, from ‘Sneezums’, whilst travelling in early February 2020, through Bury St Edmunds and used them for bird watching as well as star gazing.

Collimated perfectly, bright, clear, wide, with little chromatic abberation, and well weighted, the good eye relief is also one of their strong points and was appreciated by two spectacle wearers who used them with me on their first night in early Feb, although one preferred to remove his to view our few targets (hand held, from a wheelchair, trying to view almost vertically to zenith looked tricky).

Back home in Cornwall, they perform even better against the darker skies. I realise they’re available cheaper from FLO, but I thought Sneezums a great shop, worth supporting, with good stock of astronomy and binocular gear - and I commend it to East Anglian observers once this Cv lockdown ends.

@BinocularSky has reviewed the Stellar IIs before and I have nothing to add to his typically thorough and excellent words* (to which I’ve linked below), other than to concurr with the positive areas as well as the disappointingly lose eyepiece focus adjusters, which also feel inconsistent between eyecups and through their focus range. The difference with the solid feel of the much more expensive Helios Apollo’s eyecup focus mechanism is obvious.

So, they’re now my preferred 10x50, although the lightweight and inexpensive Helios Naturesport Plus are still regularly used (if nothing else, they’re much easier for my children’s hands to hold).

*Binosky’s review is here:

http://binocularsky.com/reviews/Stellar2_10x50.pdf
 

Just an addendum to this - I wanted to give the binos in a usable condition - I'm amazed at the Amazon Basics monopods for £2.50, paired with a £10 ball head and a tripod binocular adapter, they're a great way to get friends to start observing.

Thank you all for the encouraging comments. Adding to the above, I wrote the review it to help others and so, if I were to revisit my findings in the morning, it's worth noting that - at the £50 scale - on the basis of the ever-superb Steve Tonkin's reviews: http://www.binocularsky.com/binoc_reviews.php, I would seriously consider the Opticron Adventurer 10x50. Quote: " A stunningly good binocular for fifty quid!"; something I probably wouldn't say about the Helios Fieldmaster.

Daytime Comparison: looking through them again at hills (2-5 miles+) across the the town (14-1/2 mile) - yes, the differences are still there and obvious:

• the Fieldmaster is dimmer, with a more yellow tinge and noticeable, annoying, CA on contrast objects such as, for example, a horizon. Indistinct, narrower more restricted feel and noticeable blurring less than 50% (possible only 'sweet' in the middle 30-40% of the image) towards the edges from the centre (is this what people mean by 'off-axis'?). It feels 'stopped down'; possibly it's not true a 50mm and prisms are smaller (Steve could probably tell us)?
• the Weathermaster-III is brighter than the Fm, dimmer than the Ns but it has the least CA of the three and is much better than the Fs. I think I prefer to use the Wm's focus & dioptre adjust for daylight terrestrial viewing. Image is clearer than the Fm - blurring again noticeable after around 50% - half way between centre and edge - i.e. sweet spot of 50% of the image. Given the waterproofing, it's the best compromise 'do it all' if you need it for something other than dry astronomy use.
• the Naturesport-Plus is, undeniably, brighter and clearer than the other two. The Field Of View feels wider than both. However it has more CA than the Weathermaster. Wider clear 'sweet spot' with blurring noticeable around 75% of the radius (moving from centre to edge of image) - meaning it feels 'sweet' for the majority of the FOV - certainly 60-70%. However, I still feel the dioptre adjust isn't quite right - it appears not to give an even correction over the view, as though the lens isn't flat and I get an uneven 'bias'.

Daytime viewing comparison with my 20 year old Swarovski 10x25B Habicht? I'll take the 25mm extremely high quality glass, with clearer images, over any of these for sheer portability, usability and stunning views. Only the Naturesports are brighter (if lacking in edge to edge clarity and immersive views), but at 50mm, they're double the aperture, so they really ought to be. The Naturesport would (should!) beat the Swarovski in a night sky (although I've had surprisingly good bright DSO viewing with the Swarovski - really!).

In summary (again, for daytime terrestrial viewing at £50-£80?): Naturesport every time. Worth checking Steve's reviews on the £30 cheaper Opticron though.

Field Of View
I've just noticed that the specs say Fieldmaster has 5.5 degree FOV, but the bino body has 6 degrees written on them.

Therefore I compared the three - including looking a fixed distance point to see area covered: There is a significant difference at distance.

- I also found the Wm significantly better with eyecups rolled down - does this mean my eyes are ageing or is it just a symptom of its lowish eye relief?).

• Fieldmaster FOV: spec says 5.5°, body says 6. It's narrowest of the three, by some way, but this could be partly explained by the lack of clarity towards the edges. Maybe it is 6 Degrees.
• Weathermaster-III FOV: spec and body say 6.5°. At first I thought that either the Wm was wrong or the Ns is simply so much clearer, but they are very similar on inspection (just not as bright to the edge like the Ns).
• Naturesport-Plus FOV: spec and body say 6.5° feels wider FOV than either the Fm or Wm, but isn't actually significant. Maybe the Wm is vignetting in some way, or dimmer towards the edges that it feels narrower.
• for comparison, the 1990s Swarovski Habicht 10x25B is narrower: based on the 5.5 Fm's FOV, I guessed 4.5 to 5°. It's significantly narrower than the Fm, but much sharper to the edges which makes it feel more usable than them. The Ns have a much wider FOV and this is why larger aperture binos are better, note that I have no problem with the exit pupil / eye relief  on the 10x25B).

Other

If it helps anyone, I read elsewhere that 'Plus' model has the twist up eyecups (if you're wondering).

Again, only the Weathermaster is advertised as waterproof and nitrogen filled, which may be important to you as a 'do it all' bino - it's great for that.

Pictures attached too to help compare.

Apollo 15x70 compared to the Naturesport Plus, Weathermaster-III, and, closest to us, the Fieldmaster.

Note differing eyepiece lens diameters

Apollo 15x70 (right) compared to the Naturesport Plus, Weathermaster-III, and (on far left), the Fieldmaster

Apollo 15x70 (furthest), compared with the Naturesport Plus, Weathermaster-III, and (closest), the Fieldmaster

Naturesport Plus (left), Weathermaster-III, and Fieldmaster (right) in daylight

Daytime outlines of Naturesport Plus (left), Weathermaster-III, and Fieldmaster (right) for comparison.
Naturesport's twist up eyecaps are only 1/4 up.

I thought that a Helios 10x50 review may be useful to others and I had occasion to buy 3 pairs of budget astro binos (two as gifts), so took the opportunity to run a comparison for the benefit of others tonight, after they arrived from FLO and there were finally clear skies tonight. I've done no daylight terrestrial testing.

I tried to run a 'Semi-blind' comparison by unboxing in a dimly lit room, ignoring packaging and immediately taking all three binoculars outside, to compare in the dark as objectively as possible, noting and ranking as I went.

There was initially mediocre seeing, with intermittent to heavy high cloud cover, followed by full cover and then clear, good seeing for a while (Kemble's cluster, M52, NGC7789 etc) and then heavy cloud cover again. Obscured, low 1st quarter moon, which rose and later outcompeted stars in the south Sky.

During the first minute of observing, it was a fairly quick process to separate the three instruments into order of my own preference. I tested and noted usage individually and then compared against each other, finally coming inside to identify which model was which, in the light.

Initially, early evening, the quarter moon was the obvious target, partially shrouded by cloud. Then a greater number of stars, in between high cloud, followed by terrestrial tests on distant streetlights across the town, and hills with isolated houses on the horizon. I followed this with a close focus test on a garden led solar lamp and later returned to a clear sky for slightly deeper observation, before it clouded over.

Final Rank (my preference):

1: Helios Naturesport-Plus

2: Helios Weathermaster III

3: Helios Fieldmaster

Specifications are from FLO and, apart from what I paid, plus weight (an interesting comparison of manufacturer's quoted weights v actual), I've not checked other specs, but simply repeated what's on FLO's site. For info, I weighed without eyecaps etc and the manufacturers seemed well off (I checked my scales).

3: Helios Fieldmaster (£49.90)

Quoted: 5.5°, 180mm, 825g (I weighed these at an accurate 845g)

Small and light, making them very easy to handhold. Really good high friction rubberised texture over the entire binocular. Push on tripod bush cover. Overly heavy central focuser (moving 'backwards' to me: clockwise to get closer), with a tiny 'slop', it felt a little difficult to get diopter and focus right in the dark. Eye relief ok (although, unusually, I folded the eye cups down to get my eyes a little closer - I believe I got a better image this way) . Noticeably high internal reflections, especially terrestrial lights or lunar viewing. Not particularly sharp or defined at edges. Easiest to hold, but least rewarding night time viewing, not quite so robust feeling as the other pair, however great value for money (considering it's £30 or 60% cheaper than the Naturesport).

2: Helios Weathermaster-III (£69)

Quoted 6.5°, 190mm, 890g (I weighed these at 960g), "waterproof/fogproof, nitrogen filled")

Larger and a little heavier, but still relatively light. Again, fully rubberised body but much less nice grippy texture than the cheaper Fieldmaster. Central focus not as stiff as with the Fieldmaster - and easier to operate and find focus (but 'backwards' to me: clockwise to get closer). Right eye dioptre adjust smooth and just the right resistance. Tripod bush cover (labelled 'Bak4') stiff to begin with.

On use, feels larger in the hand, less stable than Fieldmaster, but with better image quality: a noticeably wider field of view, with better light transmission and greater contest. Better edge to edge viewing with a overall good 'feel' to the image.

1: Helios Naturesport-Plus (£79)

Quoted 6.5°, 170mm, 790g (I weighed these at 930g - significantly different).

Small, feeling solid & robust, a rubberised body; not as grippy as Fieldmaster, but more than made up for with a very grippy thick rubber ridged band across the centre, knurled central focus knob with a medium action. Dioptre adjustment is a strange twist ring, which I'm not convinced has a fell range on the model I received, I may check this with FLO, but i's fine for now. It has Twist-up eyecups, although I prefer deep eyecups for astro to block out stray light, they work fine and I'll get used to them. They were on a par with the Fieldmaster for their size / feel, but felt easier to hand hold because of the rubber banding. On viewing, they were immediately and obviously the most rewarding binoculars: a crisp, clean, immersive view of star fields, with best light gathering / transmission, contrast etc. I don't know the eye relief or exit pupil figures for these, compared with the Weathermaster, but they felt easier on the eye. Image was sharp (sharp enough for me) to the edges. I'd like to compare against the Apollo 15x70 another night).

Back to night sky viewing examples:

The Moon looked good in the Fieldmaster, through passing cloud there were occasional good patches and it was overall a nice view, with insignificant Chomatic Abberation (I thought less than my Apollo 15x70, but I didn't have them to hand to compare just then. The Weathermaster was better again, brighter and showing clearer views of the terminator and higher relief on the mare. Naturesport pipped the Weathermaster again, with an even brighter image, with best contrast. By far the brightest, clearest image of the three.

Kemble's cascade (follow from Beta Cassiopeia > Epsilon Cass for same distance): fair viewing in the Fieldmaster, although a little dim. Good in the Weathermaster, brighter. Much crisper and illuminating in the Naturesport.

NGC7789 - off beta Cassiopeia. I found it in the Weathersports as a clearly visible light nebulous patch, but which was dimmer and less obvious in the Fieldmaster (which also lacked the FOV to see this in best context), but clearer again in the Naturesport, which provided the best view.

M52 - a dimmer version of NGC7789 in this sky tonight (find it by following on from A>B Cass). I saw an indistinct smudge in the Fieldsport, noticeably brighter in the Weathermaster and, again, best in the Naturesport with a milky 'cloudy patch' against a deeper contrast of dark sky with a greater number of pricks of light in higher relief. Plus the Naturesports were better to edge with a significantly wider, richer, star field than the Fm, marginally better than the Wm.

By contrast, all of these (I know from experience but didn't compare on the night), are better viewed in the heavy Apollo 15x70. However, it's extremely difficult to handhold the heavy Apollo's but quite possible to handhold any of these 3 models of 10x50s. This portability is their joy.

Close up tests (I didn't test closest focus as I'm not interested - plus it was dark)

1) distant streetlights 1/2 mile to 1 mile: again, it was easiest to find focus in the Naturesport, plus it's clearest to the edges and with better resolution. The Fieldmaster had less contrast and a significant distracting glare / reflections from. The Weathermaster have a solid performance only marginally less good than the Naturesport .

2) Garden solar led 15 metres away: even more polarised with the internal reflections from the Fieldmaster. The other two had less to separate them.

Naturesport are easier to use, feel significantly better built, plus with a better optical performance than the other two models. On a relative level, they're 60% more expensive than the Fieldmaster. On an absolute level, there's only £30 difference… and it's easily worth it. However I'd buy a rigid carry case for all models. Only choose the Weathersports if you need their weatherproofing / ingress protection.

All pairs appear to be well collimated (certainly closely enough for me not to notice any imperfection or eye strain in this short time).

Only after coming back in did I look at boxes, cases and accessories and, as could be expected, they varied a little in quality with the extremely inexpensive Fieldmaster and more expensive Naturesport having slim neckstraps, the Weathermaster's was padded, wider, more comfortable, but (although the only one branded Helios) both this and the Fieldmaster had thinner carry bags than the Naturesport. Irrelevant at this stage anyway, because I would fairly quickly find a protective case for any of them. I was surprised that there was so much variation in their boxes, packaging etc. The Weathermaster reminded me of a Swarovski Optic box and the Naturesport looked less impressive than the 'premium' branding on the box (until you use them).

Conclusion: unless you also need it to be weatherproof, or longer life for some reason, I don't see a reason to bother with the Weathermaster-III because only a £10 difference separates the, from the £79 Naturesport. However, at £49, the Fieldmasters are certainly worth considering as a budget bino. If you don't own any binoculars and want to spend very little, go for the Fieldmasters… or upgrade to the Naturesport for significantly better optical performance and night sky views.

As assumed, I'll keep the Naturesports and give the other two, perfectly capable, pairs away to friends as presents, along with a tripod and Binocular Astronomy book each. I know that they will both get a great starter set of collimated Astro Binos.

I do have some photographs of them all together which others may find useful in future. I'll do that tomorrow. For nnow, apart from going to bed, I'd like to compare agInst the Helios Stellar II 10x50 (£149, 6.5°, 185mm, 1150, "waterproof, nitrogen filled")… that's definitely for another day. Night all.

I've ordered a few times from FLO, service has always been great; if something's not in stock then I'm kept updated and it's much appreciated.

When I needed to return one item which was faulty, there was zero fuss, very fast turn around, flexible and helpful service (their courier swapped the item on the doorstep - giving me a replacement as he collected the faulty one).

Further to tonight's earlier post above, for what it's worth I got out tonight between scudding cloud, rain showers and howling winds and compared the Opticron Oregon 15x70 on the ParagonPlus (fits straight on), with my Helios Apollo 15x70:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/220207-new-binoculars-helios-apollo-15x70s-dilemma-solved/

Steve

I've just noticed that you had a question for Matt, about the Paragon Plus' counterweight, which went unanswered. I've just realised that (after asking him to comment on my point 2 below) he's been offline for a couple of months, therefore I hope this helps you compare to the original Virgo mount.

I've just had a paragon plus mount delivered from SCS, so below are some 'unboxing / first attempt thoughts. It's supplied assembled and these are 'as supplied/ stock config'.

Whilst clearly not quite the full freedom of movement or the versatility or quality of the UA mounts which you and others use, at £120 from SCS it's a fraction of the price of these superior mounts and I think I will be happy with it, certainly steadying the viewing and relieving a lot of neck / arm ache, bar a couple of issues below.

I say *think* because it's gusting 40knots here in the far South West at the moment and it'd whip me around the head if I took it outside!), so it's not been used in anger yet.

1) at maximum extension of the counterweight, the Helios Apollo 15x70** is almost balanced, however without tension and especially at zenith / higher elevations, the binos definitely take over. the balance isn't great at low elevation, certainly nothing like the reports for the more expensive UA kit, however I have no complaints - sometimes it feels quite balanced enough for me / near the limit, works AOK and the simple cure, as you say, is to have a very gentle additional pressure applied via the 4 tension knobs. I think a little extra weight could easily be added to the counterweight, but I don't need to bother as a little tension's sufficient, plus adding more weight may further overpower the design limits of the Paragon.

**(binos just kindly replaced by FLO with zero hassle, because the IPD kept reducing as the hinge slipped, but I digress...)

2) The apollo's bush (female 1/4" socket) for the L bracket seems not to have enough space around it for the Paragon mount's 1/4" male thread, which is set into a wider disk than the gap on the apollos allows for.

I can augment it with the use of the Apollo's supplied L bracket adapter (is that what you call the bino mount?), however because of the length of the paragon L adapter, it pulls the binos a long way forward, and I can't get my face close enough to the eye pieces before the paragon mount hits my chin. I will try reversing the paragon l adapter from supplied config to see if this helps to move the binos move backwards relative to the arm. I wondered if I needed a different shaped L bracket (?) or whether you (or Matt, or anyone else) have as additional spacer / mount / adapter which allows the wider paragon's mount to mesh with the mounting port on the apollos.

3) the Paragon seems to have a 1/4 inch, rather than 3/8 tripod adapter, which is awkward as the majority of sturdier tripods (mine included) will have a 3/8 thread and therefore an adapter will reduce some of the stability it it doesn't mate perfectly.

**update before I post - whilst I mounted on a less sturdy 1/4" tripod, I removed it again just now and I realised that the Paragon is supplied with a 3/8" bush, but with a 1/4" adapter already inserted; kudos to Orion!

i) binos mounted with additional (helios) l adapter.

ii) side view of Apollos on Paragon L bracket plus Apollo L bracket. Note the length of the paragon L adapter pulls the binos a long way forward, hence using both (as others seem to do looking at other shots), but I can't get my face close enough to the eye pieces - I will try reversing the paragon l adapter from supplied config to see if this helps

iii) close up of paragon L bracket and Apollo 15x70 adapter port / bushing (not enough room for these to mate, without an additional shim / adapter between the two)

iv) underside of paragon L bracket with Apollo L bracket on it also. Again, if the paragon L bracket was shorter, this combination would work better as I'd be bald to get my eyes close enough to the eyepieces.

Now, all I need is for the wind to drop and for the sky to clear further and I'll be able to provide a decent review.

I hope this helps (and that someone cal help me with point 2 above?)

Thanks

Matthew

Has anyone tried the Arcturus labs adapter? It looks well built and superb for a number of applications?

http://arcturuslabs.com

I've had some great lunar results simply holding the iPhone over a larger plossl.