Second Time Around

I have the Canon 12x36 image-stabilised binoculars. I find with these I can see more than with 10x50s. The steadier image more than makes up for the bigger objective. I suspect the same would apply to your 10x30 IS as well, but can't say for definite as I've never tried them. I agree with Olly in that I'd rather use my 8x42s than 10x50s, as I can hold them steadier. Some of the earlier Canon IS binoculars had problems with the stabilisation but the newest versions seem to have solved this completely. Like others here on Stargazers Lounge and on Cloudy Nights I'd never buy other than image stabilised binoculars again for more or less any hand-held use.

I agree with Olly. I compared binoculars for birding and found that I could see as much with 8x as with 10x because of shake. And of course the 8x likely has a wider field of view. In the end I bought Canon 12x36 image-stabilized binos and, apart from not focussing close in, they're great. Of course close focussing isn't needed for astro use, for which they're brilliant handheld. In fact I can see more with them than 10x50s. But they are expensive. Everyone's different of course, but I've also got some 15x70s. I haven't used them for ages, but I couldn't manage them without a tripod. With a tripod though they were great fun.

Always sitting now, but partly because I can't stand for long so sessions would be much shortened. However I also found that I can actually see more, especially on threshold objects, when I'm sitting comfortably.

Here's what I posted a few weeks ago on a similar topic: I've dug up some of my notes for our old glass paperweight business. They're long out of date so you'll need to check this information. Carriers can de divided into several classes re glass items: 1) Won't officially take them at all, but you may get away with it. However there wouldn't be any insurance cover for either loss or damage. DPD (and their consumer division Interlink Express) fall into this category. See https://www.dpdlocal.co.uk/terms-and-conditions.jsp#4. 2) Will take glass but no cover for damage, or even if they lose the item! 3) Will take glass but no cover for damage. 4) Will take glass with cover for both loss or damage. UPS still do and give packaging advice at http://www.nindelivers.com/the-ultimate-guide-how-to-ship-glass-across-the-country/ Unlike many carriers, they also take long items like fishing rods so long telescope tubes shouldn't be a problem. Also be aware that if you go through an online broker almost all will impose their own restrictions, even if the carrier itself accepts glass. The only exception I found was Courierpoint (www.courierpoint.com). They have a fantastic service rating but, although competitive for international parcels were expensive for domestic ones. My advice would be get quotes for UPS via Courierpoint and direct from UPS. Good luck and please do report back.

One of the big advantages of the lower weight and smaller footprint of the OOUK Dobs is that nearly everyone will be able to manage one size up compared with mainstream models. The OOUK DOB mount is in a class of its own, plus being aluminium and therefore waterproof should much outlast the (fibreboard?) competition. Like the Bresser the OTA can be rotated for the most comfortable position, plus the tube can be moved up and down for balancing. OOUK optics are hand-made and have an excellent reputation for quality. The one advertised is 1/6 wave compared with 1/4 wave or better for the Chinese mirrors and so is likely to perform better. I've kept the 8 inch because they'll probably come a time when I won't be able to manage my 10 inch. New ones are justifiably expensive and used ones are a devil of a job to find.

8 inch Dobs are usually f/6; 10 inch Dobs are usually f/4.7 to f/5. So the tube lengths are almost exactly the same, with both fitting on the back seat of a car. I have both. I can carry the 8 inch tube in one hand and the rocker box in the other. I just can't quite manage the 10 inch like this but then I'm somewhat disabled. It would be a lot easier for someone able-bodied. However mine are both made by Orion Optics UK, that are a fair bit lighter than both the equivalent Skywatcher and Bresser. What's more, the rocker box is much smaller and less bulky, that helps no end with carrying it as you can hold it close to your body. The OTA has full circle altitude rings that make a very good handle. The quality is even better than the Bresser. I wanted the best and biggest aperture Dob I could transport and, after trying lots, decided to look for a used 10 inch from Orion Optics UK. I couldn't find one at first but came across an 8 inch that I snapped up. I had to wait another year for a 10 inch to become available. However there's a 10 inch Orion Optics UK just gone up on the classifieds here on Stargazer's Lounge! My advice would be to grab it as you may have to wait ages for another to turn up. Go to Edit note: Although I wrote this earlier I wasn't able to post it as we lost the internet. I see Alan has posted in the meantime about his Bresser.

Yes, weekly episodes each Friday, and free to Amazon Prime members.

I was dubious until I tried them, but I'd agree about image stabilised binoculars. We're all different, but I can see as much detail in 8x binoculars compared with 10x when handheld because of shake. But with my 12x36 image stabilized Canons I can see even more, despite the smaller objectives. Just push the button and shake disappears! The Canons are very good quality with a lovely flat field. The 12x36s cost about £600, the 10x30s about £400. If this is your price bracket I think you really should try them out. In fact, for hand-held binoculars I can't ever imagine buying non-image stabilised ones ever again!

Just watched it. Very promising.

I've got the Antares 10x60 Versascope finder and can thoroughly recommend it. It has a long dew shield and comes with a 25mm crosshair eyepiece that you can swap out for your own 1 1/4 inch eyepiece. It also has a T2 thread so you can attach a camera. It's very good value for money at just £145 including the mount. Go to https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-versascope-10-x-60-guiding-x-hair-finderscope.html.

I too was very impressed with the Bresser Messier design and feel it's the best of those from China/Taiwan. I gather that one review of an early 8 inch Messier said that the rocker box wasn't tall enough and this might limit the weight of eyepieces that could be used. Does anyone know if this has been sorted since?

Does anyone remember the old RAS screw threads on eyepieces? They were the standard when I first took up astronomy. When and why did they disappear?

Having just bought a Diamond Steeltrack for the 10 inch DOB I'm rebuilding this was extremely useful. Many thanks indeed!

I hate to say it, but what about if and when flying cars take off?

I too wonder how accurate the scales are, especially Bortle. According to Clear Outside, where I live is Bortle 4, mag 20.83. However, it doesn't seem as good as that. I'm guessing that the magnitude scale is based on the 2015 survey (anyone know?) Certainly light pollution has got worse here in recent years. Also, these last few months have seen very few clear nights, and even then transparency has been poor. Finally, my eyes are not nearly so young as they were first time around stargazing. Indeed, my pupil opens to a maximum of only 4.5mm now. What effect would the latter make, and would there be a difference between naked eye and telescope limiting magnitude?

Check the interpupillary distance (IPD). This may not go small enough for a child to close each barrel enough to merge the field of view. I'm sure others will come along with ideas for specific models.

Thanks, Louis, that's very useful indeed!

I've put wanted ads up for a 22mm 70 degree and a 22mm Panoptic. Can anyone help please? I've already got a 22mm Nagler, 22mm Vixen LVW and a 20mm Pentax XW to test as soon as my 10 inch mirror comes back from recoating from OOUK. I'll report back here in due course.

Like Gina, I too was taught that we have no colour perception in very dim light. However recent research seems to show that this isn't completely so. See for instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829393/ More practically, I doubt that many of us observe in dark enough conditions that we use scotopic vision (i.e. rods only). I'd be interested to hear the experience of others who've observed under darker skies than my Bortle 4 ones. For instance, does Mars still appear red? Or is Mars so bright that looking at it damages dark adaption and brings cones into play? In which case does scotopic vision kick in only on cloudy nights in remote locations? I certainly agree with Gina that as dim a light as possible is needed. But even with my dimmable Black Diamond headlamps set to minimum, my white telescope tube still appears tinged with red, so the light is probably brighter than optimal.

I may be totally wrong here, but if the human eye is most sensitive to green wouldn't a green light ruin dark adaption more than red? Yes, the green light could be less powerful, but wouldn't it have the same effect as a brighter red light? Whatever, Rigel who specialise in torches for astronomy discuss this in the article linked to below, including the use of blue-green light, and present evidence concluding that red is best for astronomy. http://www.rigelsys.com/why_red.html

There's not a huge difference - as I said it may be sample variation. As you like just 2 batteries I'd go ahead and buy the Spot Light 160.

Cheers, Louis.

Thanks, I'd missed that one! Does anyone know how well the 22mm Pan works with a Dioptrx? I've now managed to buy 3 eyepieces secondhand - a 20mm Pentax XW, a 22mm Vixen LVW, and a 22mm Nagler. There's been no clear night since, but using them indoors I can't see the full field of view with the Nagler + Dioptrx. The Dioptrx fits the Pentax XW perfectly. Whilst it doesn't fit the Vixen LVW I think finding the right size O ring will make it do so.

Anyone else from the South East Kent Astronomical Society (SEKAS) a member of Stargazer's Lounge? If so what name do you post under if not your own? My real name is Steve Burke.

Edit note: Rob, I'd assume the wavelength is likely to be 620-630 nm. If not I'd guess they'd highlight it as I found some other manufacturers of specialist torches as opposed to headlamp makers do.