All,
I have a beef with the term "cyclops mode" that has become increasingly popular in our little binoviewing sub-culture. I believe that the term is demeaning to people who do not, or worse, cannot afford to purchase a binoviewr let alone double up on sets of eyepieces.
The term "Cyclops mode" is not used by the majority of people practicing observational astronomy today. Most of the people who use telescopes simply look through an eyepiece just like you used to do. They call it "looking through an eyepiece". By using the phrase "cyclops", particularly the way I have seen it written in posts, it comes across as separatist, conveying the opinion that you would never go back to such a thing. Binoviewing may be more comfortable, but you are not seeing more that you would otherwise, so why imply it with a specific term?
I have a lot invested in binoviewing equipment and eyepiece pairs, but I do not do not use my binoviewers exclusively. I have many thousands invested in TeleVue Nagler eyepieces, which some may consider THE superior brand of choice, but I would never refer to using another brand or style with a phrase that conveys a derogitory image like cyclops does.
Just because people use narrow field eyepieces doesn't mean they are in "narrow-minded mode" since their brains happen to be perceiving a narrower field of view does it? If you looked down into someone's eyepiece case and saw a whole collection of eyepieces that you know are on the inexpensive end of the scale, you wouldn't say, "Oh, I used to use them *cheap-o* eyepieces too," would you? You'd probably feel pretty bad if you found out that was all your fellow astronomer could afford with no prospects of improving them any time soon.
I think that if we are going to post our thoughts and comparisons about the binoviewing experience, we should refer to not using the binoviewer as, "looking through one eyepiece." Same as it ever was.
Respectfully,
Matthew Sherman
NGC ME!
I have a beef with the term "cyclops mode" that has become increasingly popular in our little binoviewing sub-culture. I believe that the term is demeaning to people who do not, or worse, cannot afford to purchase a binoviewr let alone double up on sets of eyepieces.
The term "Cyclops mode" is not used by the majority of people practicing observational astronomy today. Most of the people who use telescopes simply look through an eyepiece just like you used to do. They call it "looking through an eyepiece". By using the phrase "cyclops", particularly the way I have seen it written in posts, it comes across as separatist, conveying the opinion that you would never go back to such a thing. Binoviewing may be more comfortable, but you are not seeing more that you would otherwise, so why imply it with a specific term?
I have a lot invested in binoviewing equipment and eyepiece pairs, but I do not do not use my binoviewers exclusively. I have many thousands invested in TeleVue Nagler eyepieces, which some may consider THE superior brand of choice, but I would never refer to using another brand or style with a phrase that conveys a derogitory image like cyclops does.
Just because people use narrow field eyepieces doesn't mean they are in "narrow-minded mode" since their brains happen to be perceiving a narrower field of view does it? If you looked down into someone's eyepiece case and saw a whole collection of eyepieces that you know are on the inexpensive end of the scale, you wouldn't say, "Oh, I used to use them *cheap-o* eyepieces too," would you? You'd probably feel pretty bad if you found out that was all your fellow astronomer could afford with no prospects of improving them any time soon.
I think that if we are going to post our thoughts and comparisons about the binoviewing experience, we should refer to not using the binoviewer as, "looking through one eyepiece." Same as it ever was.
Respectfully,
Matthew Sherman
NGC ME!
