Ben the Ignorant

It could very well have been. Even Takahashi has trouble making great aspherical surfaces so Sky-Watcher outperformed them with all-spherical ones of the same diameter.. Link to the complete article: http://r2.astro-foren.com/index.php/de/12-beitraege/04-zweispiegel-systeme-astrofotografie/789-d069b-vergleich-180-mewlon-dall-kirkham-und-180-skywatcher-maksutov

The forum compresses videos, so try listening to it on YouTube. I find Amy the space historian nice to hear and nice to see; in her first videos she was a little stiff but she became more lively and relaxed later on.

No spider vanes, almost no tube currents thanks to the short length and the corrector that shuts the tube. All-spherical surfaces that are more likely to be shaped and polished well, also the moderate diameter makes it more probable that the lens and mirrors will be executed well. And your personal scope is probably a lucky combination of above-average optical components and above-average mechanical assembly. And lastly, your diagonal and eyepieces don't ruin what the scope does.

I looked again at the Aliexpress range of binoculars and the quality is very questionable. Either the field is puny of the coatings are single layer, or the written description doesn't match the picture. It looks like a dead end, you should decide to spend 20$ more on shipping and take a doubtlessly good instrument like the one from Teleskop Autria. Shipping is 24€ to Israel. My brother has the 12x50 from that range and the absence of lateral color (looking at white lamps across the street!) is stunning. I don't know of any other Porro binocular sporting all the desirable features and costing so little.

It's still a zoom binoc with a very narrow filed at 10x (10x4°=40°) but the waterproofing is a plus. Edit: I just noticed the ad says it's an Olympus but the logo on the thing says Maifeng, that's suspicious.

Nothing new; they've been there for several years. I looked for reviews but found almost none around the time they were launched. Someone in Astronomie.de said they have noticeable astigmatism, which might be true with only six lenses and 100°, but it could very well be the opinion was incompetent or biased. Too little info to make a judgement at the time but maybe there are more reviews online now.

No, the fixed-power 10x50 will have a larger field and sharper images. Nice features are prisms made of BaK-4 glass, multi-layer coatings, and at least 6° of real sky, which translates into 60° at the eyepiece. Fortunately good modern binocular makers provides this, and the field is even often 6.5° real (114 meters at 1000meters), 65° apparent. See examples of this: https://teleskop-austria.at/LA10x50exp_10x50-Lacerta-Explorer-Fernglas#m https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-binoculars/opticron-adventurer-10x50-t-wp-binocular.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-binoculars/helios-fieldmaster-50mm-binoculars.html

Avoid cheap zoom binocs, they always have unusable high magnification to seem appealing to the uninformed. Their field of view is very narrow, optical quality can't be good because there are too many compromises in the components and assembly for that price. Very small and toyish telescopes have the same problem, so they end up not being used, or sold with a big loss of value. A good binoc, on the other hand, will keep being used alonside any top-end or gigantic scope you might own later. So, look for a good 10x50 cause that's the standard for the vast majority of stargazers.

The first pic is worthy of being on a book cover!

Most eclipse shots are golden but this one is copper.

Biiiiig!

Nice golden tones!

Yesterday evening the weather was announced as no good, so I looked at the South from my window twenty minutes before it started, and indeed some opaque-looking and continuous clouds were blanketing ten degrees of sky above the horizon. So I started preparing a late evening snack and gave up on observing it. But thanks to the inquiring mind we all have, I interrupted my meal and checked the place where the Moon was supposed to rise. Good thing I didn't blindly follow what the weather forecast said, the clouds had just thinned down, and the Moon, very dark and orangey, was rising as an Apple logo with a missing part, mostly hidden behind a tree and a communication tower, but recognizable enough that I changed my plans for the evening. Or rather, I forgot about them; after the photoshoot was over I realized the half-eaten meal was still on the table, cheese, salad, breadcrumbs and all, which made me a little irritated at myself for leaving it to evening bugs, and for being so forgetful. What I do remember is quickly unpacking my NexYZ adapter, spending almost no time settling for the Explore 24/68 eyepiece because it maximizes the brightness, being one of my lowest power eyepieces that can take the adapter. Last january's eclipse was big on the screen thanks to the Celestron 5's focal length but the exit pupil was small so the shot were darkish. This time I took no chances, went for a large and bright exit pupil, 24mm eyepiece on a 560mm semi-apo refractor. To improve the chances or getting a few decent shots the parameters were changed often, 5 megapixels, 3.9, 3.7, 3.1 and 2 megapixels, which explains the various image scales. exposure adjustment of -2, -1.5, -1, -0.5, 0, +0.5, +1, +1.5, +2. Only the ISO setting was not changed, 400 all the way, but that might have been a mistake, some bright Moon edges were overexposed, and the darker orange region was not revealed anyway. A big wall forced me to stop before the Moon climbed above the nasty foggy lower air so this series is incomplete. But if some imagers want to try to stack and process some of these, maybe a good picture or two can come out. The flares are surely not from the objective, too few surfaces and the coatings are to dim, so they are from the eyepiece and/or the phone's optics. I suppose they would go away through stacking if someone wants to try. The diffusing clouds looked much, much prettier in the binoculars, with so many more fine lines in them, like wood stripes, but that was lost in the phone's non-stellar quality. All in all a busy and not wasteful half-hour interruption of my meal.

Tomorrow I'll post the 26 other pics and I'll ask imagers if they will stack and process them.

A good unprocessed image among the 27 I took with my phone and Celestron's NexYZ adapter. I'll show the rest later.

Matte black inside an observatory is a must, it increases dark adaptation.

It's the first time I notice this thread, now following it with interest. That's one big commitment.

Teleskop Austria measures your filter's curve for 19€. https://teleskop-austria.at/Filtertest_Filtertest-Wir-vermessen-die-Transmissionskurve-Ihres#m

I am on the continent but rain is the same. 🙄

I might as well show what I am talking about. This is one of the A2 bolts that's been enduring the weather for at least twenty-two years, that lamp was already converted to sodium when I moved into this neighborhood. No one to clean it up but shiny after all those years. Note that there is some lateral color because the photo was taken through a Baader Hyperion 10mm, which are notorious for that, but the Sun's reflection on the bolt at the center causes no fringing, thanks to the very good correction of the FPL-51 80mm f/7 doublet. The clamp is either aluminum or stainless, too, and didn't suffer any corrosion either.

I was wondering about that. I presume light pollution is never that strong in Iceland thanks to the low population, but is it a good trade-off for high latitude?

Right in front of where I sit now is a sodium street lamp with cable holders and clamps and stuff. Some parts are regular steel, other newer ones are A-2 stainless. I know because I've often looked at it at night to check for scatter and monochromatic aberrations in optics, and in the daytime to check for chromatic aberration and resolution. The fine spider threads in all manners of thicknesses make for good estimations. While the ordinary steel in some components is deeply rusted (and dangerously so in my opinion), the prominent A-2 bolt shines, a bit dull because of dust but not rusted at all, not after at least twenty years under the rain, and not even where regular rusted steel could have contaminated it. The screws and bolts I've bought commercially are all A-2, and I was very pleased to see that some high-grade mount maker (maybe Avalon if I remember correctly) was using A-2 to built tripods. Not that I want to buy one but knowing good stuff is in astro gear makes me feel okay about the hobby.

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p11398_Baader-2459286---AstroSolar-Filterfolie---Visuell---ECO-size-140x155mm---sichere-Sonnenbeobachtung.html Baader recently introduced a new small format of solar film, if your scope is no larger than 130mm (plus 5mm of clearance on each side) this 140mmx155mm will do and cost very little. But why a rectangular sheet, you ask, since a square would leave less leftover film? Because the leftover can be used to cover the finder and/or a very small scope.

I can't recommend a particular model (too many of them to try them all) but be sure you really want a 25mm, a 30mm or 32mm will be seriously brighter, 44% and 64%, respectively. Yes, aperture rules even in sub-compact optics, and 30/32mm won't be much bigger or much more expensive, they might even cost less in that frame size.