Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

It's no secret that experienced eyes often make better use of lesser equipment than inexperienced eyes make of better equipment. One thing that I constantly struggle with, that perhaps many on this forum can readily identify with is the urge to upgrade equipment rather than just be happy with what I've already got. Oddly, after way too many telescopes, I finally found happiness with a cheap Chinese 8" DOB. But, I'm certainly not suggesting that is the panacea for everybody. Oddly, I started out with a much more expensive, and much better made Intes Micro M603 Mak and have basically been regressing ever since. Currently, I teeter between wanting a 100ish mm refractor and a 15ish" truss DOB. However, the thrust of this post isn't about me and my whacky buying habits. Rather it's to point out an all-to-common buying and not really trying pattern. This article sums it up pretty eloquently:

http://home.fiam.net/ericj/aperture.html

Enjoy,
Mike Swaim

I find myself in need of a scope that can show the public what it's all about. I've attempted to put on a few public demos with my sm. DOBs, but have run into trouble when objects drift out of the FOV and when folks have had a hard time getting in and out of a chair positioned for viewing. Few folks seem inclined to learn to drive a DOB that isn't theirs. For me, in the yard, a cheap 8" DOB is plenty, but it's not working really well in the snow, mud, rough fields and with trying to show others. The bottomline is that I'm in the market for a scope with mount and drive that can serve to enthrall the public, but will also serve my own needs. To that end, here's what I think I need:

1. Tracking ability -- goto a plus
2. One man portable w/ easy setup/takedown
3. Eyepiece height easily accessible to everyone from 7-70
4. Capable performer on planets and DSOs
5. Minimal cooldown & dewing issues
6. Budget is $600-$1200 (Max!)

I'm currently considering:
Orion Skyview Pro 8 EQ dual drive 8" f/5 newt
Celestron C8N-GT 8" f/5 reflector w/ goto
Celestron C6R-GT 6" f/8 refractor w/ goto

Those are pretty much on the short list, but I've considered various scopes from 5" to 10" including the obvious variations on the above in different sizes as well as the Orion Skyview Pro 120 EQ refractor, and Celestron G-5, etc.

The local astro dealer suggests the Celestron C6R-GT (current incarnation of the venerable CR150-HD), is what I need. I'm very tempted, but am also quite wary of the eyepiece location at anything approaching zenith. Seems like a heck of a scope for groundhogs, or seated solo usage, but I'm worried that it wouldn't be terribly easy for the public to use. (Could be wrong)

Neither of the 8" EQ Newts is really as slow as I'd like them. If they were f/6, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that choice. Also, neither has many reviews anywhere on the net. Other than that, they seem to be pretty much what I want.

I'm also concerned that all these scopes may be somewhat undermounted. The Orion Atlas versions seem to solve that, but at a price in $$ and lbs that I'm not willing to pay.

What experiences and suggestions can you all offer?

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

Bill Burgess was at Tri*star in Greensboro, yesterday. He was there showing off some new angled astro binos and some eyepieces.

I was interested in the supposedly magnesium tripod that he had the binoculars mounted on. I've been looking for something a little taller, and a little more stable than the Bogen 3221WN. Since the Burgess tripod looks a lot like a knockoff of a Bogen video tripod, and since it came with a pretty decent head similar to the Bogen 501, and since it came with 2 quick detach plates, all for a show price of $199, I bought one. I'll post a review of it somewhere, after I've had a chance to check it out with the Ranger.

I was disappointed that Bill only had demo eyepieces, and was simply taking orders for a shipment "to be delivered in 10 days". Being the sucker that I am, I went ahead and placed an order for a 17mm WA with 65* FOV for $39 and a 2" 32mm SWA with 72* FOV for $69. The fit and finish of the display eyepieces looked better than GTO, and I figured for those prices, with a 30 day return policy, I couldn't go too far wrong. We'll see. I'll give him 3wks to ship, but if I don't have them in hand by April Fool's day, I'll cancel.

Mike Swaim

I posted a mini review of these unusal binoculars over in the Cloudy Nights Binocular Forum. It's much too long to post here.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=binoculars&Number=70355&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Mike Swaim

Great deal, Nils. I wondered when I never heard back from you about testing my older 16x70s. But, man, you get the last laugh, since you got the newer, updated ones cheaper than I got the older version 5 years ago. I hope they live up to your expectations.

I'm just waiting to get my hands on a set of the nearly mythical Fuji 10x50s.

Regards,
Mike Swaim

Here's a good starter link for those wondering what to look for in their binoculars:

http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/binosky.html

Mike Swaim

I've kept the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70's, which I use on a mount, but I previously had both the Pentax PCF V 16x60's and the Oberwerk 15x70s. ALL of these binos can be used handheld from a braced or supported position but are enormously better from a good mount. The problem with the Pentax 16x60s was that the FOV was very narrow. I suspect that you may encounter that with the 16x50s. They may also be somewhat dim depending on several factors. Which 16x50's are you considering?

Given your stated purpose of getting them just to keep in the car in case you come upon opportunity, I wonder if you'd not be better served with something in the 12x range. Are you planning on having a suitable parallelogram mount and tripod in the car with you? If so, why not go bigger than 50mm? Forgive me if I sound dubious, but 16x50 is IMO neither fish nor fowl or maybe more acurately, neither wildlife nor astronomy. It's my opinion that as power goes up, so must objective size. While there are perhaps no hard and fast cutoff points, I'd suggest no more than 12x in 50mm and not less than 60mm in 16x based on what I've seen of various binocular performance. Again, this is just one guy's opinion and may not be worth the electrons it's printed on. What specific 16x50's are you considering?

Mike Swaim

You might want to drop a line to Mirakel Optical at:

http://www.mirakeloptical.com

They just gave me a reasonable estimate for cleaning & restoring some binoculars. Their estimates are free and they can probably give you a quote via email or phone without even seeing your binos.

Alternatively, since your Orions aren't waterproofed, you might consider attempting to disassemble them yourself. Most porro prism binos unscrew where the objective bell narrows to meet the porro body. This might allow the debris to fall out. Sometimes the eyepieces themselves simply screw out, sometimes not. Under the rubber eyecup there may be one or more little screws that you'll need to back out to get the eyepiece to unscrew. Don't force anything and be careful not to crossthread anything when re-assembling.

Good luck,
Mike Swaim

Do you feel that the greater depth of field in this photo as compared to others posted on this forum is due to using an f11 scope or due to using film or both? I notice that it's got foreground depth, but fades out almost imediately beyond the bird. Was this intentional? If so, how'd you do it? That's a look that I've not been able to do with regular 35mm telephotos. It seems like I always get either more or less DOF than I want, but rarely with definible hard cutoffs. In case you can't tell, I like your pic of the ruffled dove very, very much. I'd be very interested to see more of your work and learn more about how you do it.

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

So, the differences are lots more subtle than I would've imagined. Somewhere between 25 and 50yds they become more evident, but to me the differences were almost more meaningful in terms of high quality glass vs. lower quality than in terms of power. It'd be darned interesting to try this with some really top drawer mid-power binos such as the famous Swarovski El 8.5x42's.

What I get out of this little exercise is that neither the bit about "Z" power being ideal, nor the bit about increasing the power to decrease the distance is always linearly true. Clearly the bit about seeing the most detail depends more on lighting, quality of optic and contrast of target subject than on power alone. But also, clearly, raw power can compensate for a few of those variables.

One thing worth pointing out is that the 7x50 Steiner Night Hunters were by far the most even and consistant performers across a range of lighting conditions. This doesn't mean that I think they're at all suitable for most (or any) birding. In most every instance that I can think of a set of center focus 10x50's is a better choice.

The other thing that really struck me was how close in performance the relatively inexpensive Pentax PCF V 12x50's were to the MUCH more expensive Nikon SE 12x50's. Make no mistake, the Nikon SE's have an edge in clarity and color definition that I've not seen in any other binos including the very finest phase coated roof prisms, but it's a subtle step up, not an overwhelming one.

I'd be very curious to see others report on duplicating this very simple exercise with optics at hand.

Regards,
Mike Swaim