PeterW

.....if you are looking to go wildlife spotting then thermal is a much better bet, monochrome visible light kit (intensifier/digital etc) doesn’t make alive (warm) things so immediately visible. the sionyx or a secondhand Gen 3 would be a good complement for going walkies at night without bumping into things or advertising your presence with a glowing red “eye”. For EEVA you want a tracking mount and a low cost astro ccd/cmos camera or a fast scope and a Gen3 intensifier. Peter

Intensifiers have noticably lower quantum efficiency and no ability to add clever electronics.... so should be worse. Long exposures statistically average the random photon arrivals and show the fainter detail. 200ms exposure will give 5Hz refresh, which from my thermal experiences is poor unles you have a stable(possibly tracking) mount. >30Hz is much preferred for moving scenes. Peter

No. The ONLY digital NV device that gets within a mile of Gen3 intensifiers is the Sionyx (with its special black coating and HUGE pixels). Even it has trouble when things get dark... like when you want to look at nebulae. I am sure it mig he be possible to do better.... the phone machine learning approaches can do wonders with pictures in conditions no sane photographer would normally expect anything..... if there is a market and money to do the development. But no few hundred )£/€/$/¥ digital device will disappoint. Peter

Aperture gives you image scale on fuzzies and deeper magnitude for point source stars. As Stu points out it depends on your skies, if you can get to dark ones then a big exit pupil will give you more..... there are number of posts about binocular observers picking up all sorts of stuff that you’d assume were in big dob territory. peter

For experience (though in old fashioned green) you could do worse that listening to JDB... I agree, it’s the experience we’re after, some people get blown away by seeing Saturn’s rings or the odd moon crater to two, some seek more.... let’s hope for some clear skies we can actually use in ‘21.... Peter

.... the resolution means stars aren’t probably quite as tiny pointy as with glass... though binocular glass views give better stars as your brain can average... and binocular NV views enable even fainter nebulosity to be seen. So many ways to enjoy the sky and see stuff, so many things to look at.... Where I (sometimes) differ from @GavStar is that I have usually done NV handheld, giving me freedom to scan and view where I want... less “artificial” than pushing buttons and letting Goto take you to specific locations. I’d quite like to see what the Sony A7 with a wide fast lens could offer and I wouldn’t mind looking through a sionyx digital system, though even it lacks the sensitivity for nebulae. Peter

Distinctive... good job though! Peter

What @GavStar means is that that it behaves like a normal eyepiece and with modern systems the view is pretty much as “natural” as you could get, meaning a high resolution grey monochrome with minimal sparkle/scintillation… only the bright stars are not coloured and the apparent field of view is a bit narrow compared to modern tastes. Cost…. Depends on US politicians, one senator in the past blocked a loosening of ITAR. The US have much lower costs for second hand and new systems, secondhand systems are available outside the US with costs around half of the new. In the past few years a non-US source of suitable systems has come online, but the costs are rather high. Avoid everything but the “Gen3” level stuff as the cheap Gen1 stuff you’ll come across won’t work any better than a bag of carrots! If people could view the sky with NV they might be more proactive in wanting to fight light pollution. It’s not for everyone, just as huge dobsonians, monster binoculars, 6”Apos and some mounted imaging rigs aren’t, but amateurs are happy to share the views. I am never sure why one has to defend NV when it so obviously delivers such a huge visual benefit. Peter

EEVA is visual observers looking to see more using electronically means... could be rapid CCD stacking, could be intensifiers.... too many people get hung up about the details or too narrowly define things..... if you want to observe more than one object in a session then you’re in EEVA territory, if it takes weeks to observe one object and then you spend a week fiddling in photoshop then you’re probably an imager..... If you want your “eye to an eyepiece” then the intensifier is probably the way to go, if you don’t mind waiting a few minutes and have tracking then using a camera and software are your tools. Lots of options to explore, lots of options people haven’t fully explored yet, but both are fairly mature and close to physics limits, so don’t expect huge improvements. Each to their own..... vive la difference! Peter

I am only attempting this as I have been 3D printing stuff for a while and so happy to design, test and combine different design aspects as I move towards a final version. The printer doesn’t care how complex things are, though you need to be careful to ensure it prints well and any supports can be properly cleaned off. If I had had to buy the finders, eyepieces etc it wouldn’t be worth it. 2”‘erecting diagonals probably house bigger prisms, but they aren’t common or cheap. Effortless, rock steady views of the zenith with no arm strain, I could get used to this….. If/when I have a more user friendly version I’ll post to e OpenSCAD code so anyone can tweak it to the parts they own, it’s rather Kludgey at the moment…… Peter

Certainly a gap in the market, but then you’d be paying extra for flexibility rather than anything necessarily optically better. Imagine a pair of 70mm APM with even smaller objectives!! Also the current large binoculars have longer focal ratios to give good views, but this then impacts on the maximum exit pupil that they can deliver (24mm max focal length for 1.25” eyepieces), people are showing large exit pupils are capable of showing a lot of really quite impressively faint stuff. Of course fast optics are hard to correct and deliver sharp fields for. Everyone knows small binoculars are handheld, but we know that the more stable the views are the better. I hope that these make for good large scale sweeping binoculars, I’m thinking of adding swappable filters to make nebula hunting easier. Under my skies galactic nebulae are way beyond the reach of conventional glass 😉 Version1 is designed for my IPD and the miscollimation can usually be sorted by some wiggling. I plan several more iterations in the coming months to end up with something that others could equally well use and enjoy. I’d be interested in understanding what lenses I might need to add some field flattening, though they may just end up as another source of miscollimation or vignetting, can but try. I need to find a company to cost effectively add some anti-reflection coating to the prisms to up the transmission. Hopefully the new year might bring options to get to darker skies to see what these CaK deliver. Peter

Would it scale to a 13”f3? Peter

Noticed i’d got a few spare 9x50 finders and knowing the benefit of angled binoculars for ease of viewing near the zenith I wondered if I could make my own. Currently no IPD adjust and better focus/collimation is still to be added, but initial trials are promising, focus being a little sensitive these being f3.2 objectives. With the eyepieces I have I can switch between 7x/10x/12x50, using >65degree eyepieces. Given the lack of field flattener and fast objectives the edges are not going to win any prizes, but the sweet spot is quite useable and the stable view makes seeing faint stars much easier. I included a synta rail in the design, so now I have 90degree GoTo binoculars when mounted on an AZ-Gti… almost cheating. Peter

Nice looking job... if the bodge works who cares! I just taped up an old finder scope to chop a bit off the end... rushed it and the cut is most certainly not straight... however doesn’t affect what I needed it for. Peter

Luckily my larger bins have a v-groove I can temporarily rest a laser in, enables me to get initial pointing sorted before I go hopping. You might be able to add something to the centre rail. Peter

If you’re polymer 3D printing then I’d be careful about potential areas of weakness and printing orientation to maximise the strength. Interesting to see a CAD layout, given many people use CNC you don’t need a drawing produced to make anything. Peter

Popped out after a shower as the sky had cleared, went round the corner with the 66mm spotter and nailed them with the zoom at 8mm, very wobbly as they were at tree level. Had a few minutes until game over as the next cloud bank came in... very interesting colour contrast between the planets. Fingers crossed for the next few days! Maybe I could get at least one son to come and have a look..... peter

Thingiverse has a lot of SCAD files that you can build off (creative commons), have a look. I’ve used wide threads before, so worms and pulleys should be easy. To use OpenSCAD you have to think how to add/difference to make shapes. I tried sketchup and a few other options years back and none were so easy to get something useful. I see fusion has a free version I ought to check it out, though I have tried solidworks and found the learning curve rather steep. peter

I’m an OpenSCAD user, does most of what I want if I keep my wits about me. I use 3D-tool free to section and take measurements off stl to ensure I’ve not messed up critical dimensions. good luck Peter

Darn.... missed it. Any chance of a recording? Peter

Dude, I think peoples feet would be the losers if they came into contact with those tripod feet in the dark....!! Peter

Nice build, I used Leds (suitably resistores) clipped to coin cells in clear plastic bags. Used a pile at a starparty, Chuck them about, collect in when finished. There is no shortage of stuff to avoid at night (at starparties) or just to mark a safe route. Peter

It’d be interesting to know if the lens edges are blackened, I’ve thought about but not taken the plunge. Given how wide angle and compact these are I’m not surprised that bright lights can cause stray light. Peter

The winger eyecups let you use them hands free near the zenith. See if the paint does anything, I think the reflections are internal, But not sure from where. I have printed some wide, adjustable light shields that help a bit. Peter

Yes, the number of people making these things has drained the stock of these things, given they were designed for very early digital point and shoot cameras. Peter