Why is there still a market for magnified finderscopes?

[25585]

17 minutes ago, Roy Challen said:

My binoculars don't need any sort of finder - I just point and look?. Anything else is too much like hard work. 

What magnification & FOV binoculars? 

[25585]

I think maybe the ideal finder would be a guide scope with its mini camera plugged into a phablet attached to it. 

That way one has the wide view and magnification all in one. A touch screen device also enables zooming the display in or out, effect depending on resolution. 

Alternatively a digital camera with zoom lens, flip up screen & decent OG lens size might be  an idea. 

[John]

4 hours ago, Galen Gilmore said:

It also depends on the quality of it, that might seem silly as you don't really think about the optical quality that much. But I have an excellent 6x26 finder that is a strait through correct image scope, and I use that more than I do my telrad. It is just the perfect size for star hopping, and the correct image really helps a lot.

I find the Skywatcher optical finders decent quality. I do have a Takahashi 6x30 finder which came with my Tak FC-100DL refractor and it's a superb quality item (should be for the price !) but it's straight though and I much prefer RACI so I've put Skywatcher a RACI finder on my Tak instead.

I think the key thing with finders / finding is to find a method and tools that works for you and that you feel confident and comfortable with. There is no "right" or "wrong" solution as we are all individuals

[25585]

I too have a SW finder but being fixed ep, the too-short eye relief makes it awkward. So I bought an Altair finder & can use decent eps with it. Cross hairs are not really necessary, as most people know where the centre of a circle is. 

[Roy Challen]

32 minutes ago, 25585 said:

What magnification & FOV binoculars? 

x12 and about 4 degrees

[johninderby]

Favourite finder is my Lumicon Super Finder. Great Optics but really heavy. I upgraded mine by fitting a dielectric correct image diagonal. The weight helps in balancing Big Red though. Can be used as a spotting scope as it has a draw tube.

I have no problem with the SW finder though and find it easy to use. Cheap and fairly light weight.

 

[25585]

5 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Favourite finder is my Lumicon Super Finder. Great Optics but really heavy. I upgraded mine by fitting a dielectric correct image diagonal. Can be used as a spotting scope as it has a draw tube.

I have no problem with the SW finder though and find it easy to use. Cheap and fairly light weight.

 

 

I have an 80mm Lumicon. They are heavy but have great light grasp for a finder. My Altair 80mm is lighter but the Lumicon is OK on a counter-balanced scope. 35mm Plossl instead of the OE ep. 

[John]

32 minutes ago, 25585 said:

.... Cross hairs are not really necessary, as most people know where the centre of a circle is. 

Ummm - I find the cross hairs absolutely essential when centering the scope on a point source target. I have them as accurately aligned with the main scope as possible to the extent that, if the target is on the cross hairs, it will be close to the centre of the field even at 200-300x magnification.

Shows how different observers have different needs / preferences.

[Mr Spock]

Yes, I need cross hairs too. With 2350mm focal length I need the finder to be as accurate as possible.

'Near enough' isn't good enough

[Timebandit]

 

With Cross hairs. I find with a lot of DSO targets these are not as important in use . As a lot of the DSO targets have a wider spread of view. And also a lot of the time I am using a lower magnification eyepiece with a wider field of view ,so come into view relatively easily without being accurate with finder cross hairs.

With planetary then its the opposite. Need to get these on the cross hairs centre. As the planetary target is a smaller source to locate. And a higher magnification eyepiece is usually used in planetary , therefore the fov is relatively less and so more accurate cross hairs location is required so it appears in the fov of the higher magnification eyepiece.

Horses for courses☺

 

 

 

[25585]

It's the cross which annoys me, like a hair on the lens. Right where you want a tiny target to be!

If an ep had (as some rifle scopes do) changeable reticules, so circles etc could also be used, that would be an ideal design. Perhaps screw-on targeting reticules for filter threads might work?

[johninderby]

A double crosshair eyepiece is better.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/specialist/skywatcher-125mm-illuminated-reticle-eyepiece.html

[Alan White]

I flip from both types.

The S-W 50mm Raci has been my weapon of choice for some time, however I have a Altair RDF too.
The RDF is great on my 150 f5 Newt for fast start hopping, its not so easy on my ED80 but perhaps another type would be.

As others have said its a Marmite thing, like so much in this hobby.
 

[25585]

10 minutes ago, Alan White said:

I flip from both types.

The S-W 50mm Raci has been my weapon of choice for some time, however I have a Altair RDF too.
The RDF is great on my 150 f5 Newt for fast start hopping, its not so easy on my ED80 but perhaps another type would be.

As others have said its a Marmite thing, like so much in this hobby.
 

An ED80 (600mm) with a 50mm Plossl can become it's own finder at 12x. Exit pupil just below 7 should be ideal. 

[Paz]

I prefer to have both a red circle finder and a 9*50 raci finder together,  doing a team effort and use this set up almost all the time. This covers all the bases well. If I only have room to take one, say going camping,  I prefer to take just a 9*50 raci finder.

[John]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

It's the cross which annoys me, like a hair on the lens. Right where you want a tiny target to be!..

 

I align my finders so that the target will be just in view, nestling in the angle of the cross hairs rather than actually behind them. It seems to work

[newbie alert]

15 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Red dot finders are useless. Good luck finding anything faint!

I wouldn't have one given to me

True..i was put off by them when I had my first scope plus telrad look like you have a brick on the top of the scope..

[Cosmic Geoff]

It's a matter of what works for you, and the job in hand.  A RDF is good for aiming at a patch of sky, or general aiming at bright objects, and it also avoids the "finder for the finder" irritation caused by an optical finder's limited field. An optical finder is good for star-hopping with faint objects not visible to the naked eye, or working in daylight.  For planetary imaging, a RDF won't serve, and I'd like an optical finder with a magnification higher than x9, to get the image on the sensor. 

With GoTo, the finder is only needed for initial alignment, and with Starsense not at all.

[scarp15]

The RACI finder scope is a secondary application, after positioning with a telrad or quikfinder and often will not be used at all. For brighter DSO's it can be sometimes be useful, though I like to use it for reading in correct orientation, a particular star pattern taken from an atlas when positioning for challenging DSO's particularly such as certain nebulae. For example the Little Veil in Cygnus by which I like to employ everything I can, systematically fixing a position with the telrad then reading and fine-tuning the positioning through the finder scope, before attempting an observation. This applies to using my dobsonians at a dark sky location.

[25585]

2 hours ago, newbie alert said:

True..i was put off by them when I had my first scope plus telrad look like you have a brick on the top of the scope..

Telrads are plastic, so paint them!

They run on AA batteries not fiddly coin batteries. 

They have a low profile and long base making accidental knocks in the dark less likely. 

Collimation is easy, especially with Bob's Knobs. Dew heaters, raising bases and covers are made for them. 

Software includes Telrad view/circles. They are an institution. 

I agree a refractor might not look too special with a Telrad on its nice glossy tube, but that's what tube ring tops & top plates are for.

[Louis D]

4 minutes ago, 25585 said:

They run on AA batteries not fiddly coin batteries.

Except I've never had the 18 year old coin cell in my QuikFinder die or corrode, unlike the AA batteries in my original Telrad which corroded in less than 10 years of use and ruined it.  All I can figure is the fumes did it in because I soldered in a new battery holder to no effect.

[25585]

1 minute ago, Louis D said:

Except I've never had the 18 year old coin cell in my QuikFinder die or corrode, unlike the AA batteries in my original Telrad which corroded in less than 10 years of use and ruined it.  All I can figure is the fumes did it in because I soldered in a new battery holder to no effect.

I lost my first Telrad to corrosion, but with the second use rechargeable batteries which get swapped for fully charged ones periodically. I tend to leave the Telrad switched on until a viewing session is over.  

[Timebandit]

11 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Except I've never had the 18 year old coin cell in my QuikFinder die or corrode, unlike the AA batteries in my original Telrad which corroded in less than 10 years of use and ruined it.  All I can figure is the fumes did it in because I soldered in a new battery holder to no effect.

 

18 years battery use and 10 years battery use , wooow 

Do you ever use these finders ,or are they ever lasting batteries ?

 

 

[Mr Spock]

13 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Except I've never had the 18 year old coin cell in my QuikFinder die or corrode, unlike the AA batteries in my original Telrad which corroded in less than 10 years of use and ruined it.  All I can figure is the fumes did it in because I soldered in a new battery holder to no effect.

You had the same batteries in for ten years and are suprised it corroded! I'd suggest no more than two years as an absolute maximum. Doesn't matter if they still have a charge or not, they don't last forever

[Littleguy80]

13 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Finding and centering a planet in daylight needs a magnifying finder. Accurate alignment of a target at high power is easy with a magnifying finder without having to change to a lower power eyepiece to centre the object. Telrads are bug- ugly, cheap plastic contraptions that only belong on the ugliest of telescopes, hence the saying in this neck of the woods "That telescope's so ugly it makes a Telrad look good!" 

None of the above means that zero point finders are of no use. Some are very handy, but most are still ugly little blyters, with the exception of Televue's Starbeam, which with its wonderful flip mirror is a joy to use. However, they all need batteries, which optical finders don't.

 

Nothing worse than going to bed with a Starbeam and then waking up next text to a Telrad 

I do love my Telrad. I felt lost without it when I changed scopes. The 9x50 is useful addition but I can certainly manage without it