Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

One thing that I don't think has yet been mentioned in this thread is that paired 2" occulars have proved to be very troublesome for some close eyed individuals to merge images with. Mechanically, a 2" binoviewer/binocular poses some real challenges, and those challenges add to the cost geometrically.

Also, from a purely practical standpoint, I wonder if 100mm isn't about the upper limit for portable, reasonably durable, "conventional" binoculars. Beyond that, limitations of focal length and sheer mechanics make solutions very, very pricey.

Also, I agree with Kenny, that a very well done, very well corrected 70-75mm binocular that could take interchangeable eyepieces up to 60-75x should be more than sufficient for most of us. That's one reason that I got so excited about the new Miyauchi "Saturn" 22/40x71mm. Those don't quite address what I perceive as the best mag/apperature size combos. The next step up for them is 115x, which is probably overly amibitous. A really good set of eyepieces that yielded around 60x might be a better choice, but the best solution would be if they took standard 1.25" e.p.s and thus the user could determine the best mag/exit pupil etc. At f/8 they should be well enough color corrected, but at that focal length they would of course have a much narrower FOV than I would truly like. So then the question becomes do you want to go to a shorter focal length that has to be much better color corrected and thus has to cost lots more. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.

Mike Swaim

I've had the Oberwerk 11x56 and Oberwerk 15x70 (early version) and the Celestron 20x80. Based on those experiences and many others, as well as nearly everything that I've read or heard on the subject, I don't really think you're going to beat the new improved Oberwerk 15x70s until you spend substantially more than 5x-7x their asking price. By all accounts, they represent a sort of sweet spot merger that encompases good contrast, good clarity, reportedly much improved mechanics, and just generally the most bang for the buck. There are a lot of physical reasons why a 15-16x70 binocular will generally outperform models with slightly more or less magnification and/or aperature. Going to either a higher mag. or larger obj. means lots more attention has to be paid to eliminating chromatic aberation, and that, generally requires lots more money than simply doubling an already low figure. Also, from a strictly visual astronomical perspective, there's not terribly much difference between 15x and 20x, though there is a whopping big difference between 10x and 15x. To put it another way, 15x70 is the most major step up from 10x50, and the next step on the ladder really requires almost a doubling of either power or quality. And a doubling of quality from the Oberwerk 15x70s may well entail more than a quantum increase in price, not an incremental one such as a mere doubling or tripling. IOW, the next step up from them may well be something in the 25/40x100 range. Arguably, a really good, very high contrast smaller obj. bino with very good optics and slightly higher mag. would also be an option, but again, that raises the cash outlay to many times that of the Oberwerk 15x70s.

Obviously, I can't go too far commenting on what I haven't actually tried, so I'll suggest a different approach. Why don't you call or email Kevin Busarow himself and ask him your question straight out. Kevin is one of a very, very small group of folks in the astro biz that strikes me as a phenomenal straight shooter. I've had enough experience with a variety of other players in the astro world to say flat out that Kevin is one of the very few whose word on something I would take at literal face value. Phrase your questions well, and ask him straight out for his personal opinion. I bet he'll take the time to give a thoughtful and personalized response.

Mike Swaim

That's my favorite low power, wide field 1.25" eyepiece (of many). It'll give you the widest FOV in the 1.25" format, and is both brighter and easier to use, and has much better contrast than most of the garden variety plossls from China. When I got mine, the ridiculous 40mm Televue plossl went on the market just as soon as I saw what the Meade SP could do. At $50, it's a steal. Buy it. If it happens to be one of the ones from Japan, it's really a deal, but if not, it's still worth more than $50. If he's got the 26mm, that one is excellent, too and is a bit better suited to scopes with short focal lengths. Buy 'em both.

Mike Swaim

It turns out that the book is available online as a pdf file from the author.

http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/Book_110BestOfNGC.htm

Mike Swaim

The OTA tension springs have little tabs to facilitate easy removal and reinstallation. However, they don't appear to be adjustable. This causes some problem with heavier eyepieces, as they can tend to make the scope seek zenith whenever it's pointed to within 20* of straight up. Other than that, it tends to stay where it's pointed, and is very easy to pivot and swivel to position.

The 8x50 finder is about as cheap a 50mm finder as I've seen. It's aimed by adjusting 2 screws against a 3rd stationary post. It's held in the front of the bracket by a thin O-ring. Focus is accomplished by unscrewing the plastic objective retention ring. The crosshairs appear to be painted on. It's a far cry from the fantastic, well baffled 12x50 finder that comes standard with an Intes Micro M603. But, it does an adequate job, nonetheless, and is a vast improvement over the inadequate 6x30 finders that come standard with so many inexpensive scopes.

I've read that these scopes often came pretty well collimated. Frankly, I didn't believe that. But, this one really did come very close to collimated despite being shipped from Taiwan to Oregon, and then from Oregon to NC. I haven't yet laser checked it, but after very minor secondary adjustment, and a very hasty star test, it seems fairly close. That surprised me a great deal.

It doesn't appear to have the same great contrast as the Intes Micro M603 or MN56. But initially, it's still impressive, and I'm hopeful that after some tweaking it'll be a very competent performer.

All in all, this is a heck of a lot of scope for $300. I don't see anything with it initially that would keep me from recommending it.

Mike Swaim

"anyone else have less than favorable luck??"

That's rich! I'm beginning to doubt that the NC skies are going to clear in time to see Mars at all. 290x? I can't see it or any other celestial objects at 0x. I was just sitting here wondering how far west I'd need to drive to get out from under this inversion.

Mike

Something else worth mentioning about this scope is that the primary mirror does NOT come with a center spot for collimation. This would certainly be a very cheap, very easy thing for Guan Sheng to do at the factory. The 2 pages of the simple printed sheet "owner's manual" that deal with collimation, have one simply eye-balling collimation. Given how well these scopes apparently hold collimation from the factory, that's evidently considered sufficient for many owners. However, given how much I've read about how critical collimation is with faster scopes, I wonder if Hardin and Guan Sheng shouldn't spend a little more time going over proper collimation. Personally, I think a center spotted mirror and a simple collimating device would be welcome additions to the overall package. I'd far rather have the mirror center spotted than have the silly little metal eyepiece tray. (In fact, I didn't even attach it on this scope, since I consider such trays to be nothing but guarantees that the eyepieces will get dusty and dewed up.)

Mike Swaim

I'm sensing a good bit of "mission creep" rearing it's ugly head, here. Originally, the plan was to get a 6" f/5 DOB for a couple hundred bucks to use as a wide field scanner, and Messier Marathon runner. I figured I'd add a BW 30mm and have a $300 rich field scope. After reading various comments about the unsuitibility of the BW Optik 30mm regarding fast reflectors, I decided I would consider eyepieces up to $150. Then, just to make things interesting, I posed the idea of increasing that to maybe $175-$200 max. Now folks are saying Panoptic. How long before someone suggests a $620 Nagler V??

I am very intrigued by the idea that a nice 1.25" might be almost as good. I suppose I should just see how I like the scope with my existing 16mm Konig, 26mm & 32mm Super Plossls.

Keep the input coming. I appreciate the reality checks.

Mike Swaim

Congratulations, Denise! You're more patient than I. 10 days, seems like a long time to me. After 10 years, I'm almost surprised that you've kept your interest level up. But, good for you.

One thing that you'll find in the box with the scope, is a little "certificate", that says that Larry Hardin will buy your scope back for 50% of what you paid for it, during the first year, if you decide to upgrade to another scope from Hardin. I can't imagine wanting to take him up on that, since the DSH 8 is really quite a bargain, and seems to be a competent performer. But, I did think that was an interesting biz angle to perhaps alleviate any initial buyer remorse, in addition to the usual 30 day return period.

Just based on using it a couple of times, I really like mine a lot, and have no plans to let it go for quite a long time.
This same exact scope is sold by many other retailers for a LOT more than what you paid. I think it's one of the very best bargains in amatuer astronomy. Also, after having several other small scopes, I think that the 6" and 8" GS DOBs are just perfect for really getting into astronomy.

Get somebody in your local astronomy club to help you collimate it beyond the simple "eyeball" method in the instructions. If you can find somebody local, that has a laser collimator, get them to insure that it's *really* collimated, after you "eyeball" it thru the focuser.

Good luck,
Mike Swaim

Robert, something you should consider when considering any of the fine Russian Maks is cool down time. Depending on what temp you keep the scope at relative to the outdoor temp, and depending on how fast your night temps drop, cool down time can be a real hassle with the Maks.

Mike Swaim