Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

Milton, you make me grin. I've gotta like somebody that stays up late thinking of reasons to like binoculars for astronomy :-)

I don't know about optical theory, but I do know that higher power binoculars generally show lots more color than lower power bins. That's to be expected. For instance, both the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70's and the Miyauchi 20x77's show considerably more color than less powerful binoculars. In the Fuji line, the 10x70's show virtually no color, while the 16x70's show purple on really bright objects if you look for it. With the Miyauchi Exceeds, one hardly has to look for it. It's there. Likewise, many of the various 20x80s out there really show more color than even cheap ST80 scopes at 20x.

I think a large part of it has to do with the quality of the objective and the quality of the prism. I keep waiting for somebody to come out with an affordable 80mm or 100mm binocular that features a triplet objective.

Mike Swaim

Thanks to both Mikes and Rick for responding.
Rick, would you please post a review when you've had a chance to use that Baader. That's faaaaarrrr more than I'd hoped to spend, but I am curious.

For the time being, I'll probably order the 90* Amici erect prism from UO and see if I can live with it.

Anybody have experience with TV's direct through pancake porro?

Mike Swaim

I would urge caution when using photos through a 12" SCT to attempt to guess visual performance from an 8" SCT. There's nothing like actually using one yourself to determine if it's right for you. I don't know if every single SCT from 8" through 12" that I've looked through has been a bad example, or out of collimation, or what. But personally, I've just not been terribly impressed with the contrast of any of the Meade SCTs that I've looked through, even though some of them were capable of good CCD imaging. That's not to say that any of them were bad scopes. Their owner's were certainly happy with them, but I decided that they just weren't right for me. I think I got spoiled early on with a really top-notch, high contrast 6" Mak, and none of the larger SCTs that I've seen could compete in terms of sheer contrast to either the Mak or the DOBs that I've used. Again, this is just one guy's annecdotal experience and is not necessarily indicative of the breed. Take it with salt, but do try before you buy if at all possible.

Mike Swaim

Russell, keep in mind that the seeing conditions and the skill of the observer/sketcher can make up for A LOT. The few astronomical sketchers that I've corresponded with have all readily said that the way they got good at sketching and observing was through sheer practice and perserverance through lots of cold, lonely nights.

Mike Swaim

I've been looking into those, as well. Something to think about is that even assuming that they are identical, (and I don't know if they are or not), but even assuming that they are: UO orthos sell very quickly within a few dollars of new price whenever they're put up for sale on Astromart. Will a used Antares ortho sell as fast and at such a high percentage of new price? Unknown.

Don't get me wrong. I like Gary Hand and Hands On Optics a lot. There's a better than average chance that my next scope will come from him. But when it comes to orthos, I'd just as soon have them from a brand that will sell very quickly if I decide that the short eye relief doesn't work for me or something.

Just one opinion, not having ever used either.
Mike Swaim

Thanks for the input, Paul. You might want to post this over on the Birding Optic forum.

Mike Swaim

When I got a TV Ranger, I thought that I'd finally gotten just exactly the merger of light weight portability that I wanted for both terrestrial and very quick astronomical peaks. It is a good scope, and is ED in a non-ED price range. However, after using it in the field only a few times, I decided to get another dedicated, waterproof spotting scope. Here's why:

1) difficulty in finding an erecting prism of the quality that is up to the quality of the scope
2) difficulty in finding a zoom eyepiece that is up to the quality of the scope -- I've got the Orion/Vixen 8-24mm ep that is supposedly the same as the TV zoom. Comparing it to Nikon and Leica zooms really shows just how washed out the view in the Vixen really is.
3) My own unwillingness to settle for fixed focal length eps as a solution for terrestrial use. I tried a variety of TV plossls, Meade plossls, Intes erfles and UO Konigs. None really offered the perfect merger of wide field, good eye relief, reasonable magnification and image quality. The TV 20mm plossl that typically comes with the Ranger is a bit low on magnification, but going to higher power generally means giving up the nice size of the eyelens and some eyerelief, OR spending mega bucks on some of the more complex and heavier TV eyepieces.
4) My hesitations to use this completely unsealed scope in high humidity conditions, such as birding at the coast.
5) The Ranger's limited use for astronomy. At some point, I plan to do a review of the Ranger as compared to a set of Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70s. The Ranger is a neat little scope, but it is only 70mm, and to me, that's bino territory.
6) To date, I've spent almost as much on e.p.s and prisms and diagonals trying to make the Ranger really shine as a terrestrial spotter as I did in purchasing it used.

When I've had the time to do direct comparisons, I plan to do a detailed comparitive review of the 70mm ED TV Ranger compared to a 60mm non-ED Nikon Fieldscope III and a Leica APO Televid 77mm. I haven't yet decided which of these I'm keeping. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
My theory about astronomy is to go significantly larger, while my theory about the kind of birding/nature observing that I do is to go to the minimum of scope that will show the maximum of detail at dawn and dusk.

Mike Swaim

I really like this one of the white ibis because the shadow reinforces the silliness of the ibis's curved bill.

Mike Swaim

This extreme closeup of the Great Egret is truly great because it shows the green area of the bill. Good job!

Mike Swaim

I've been pretty disappointed with some of the common budget spotting scopes from Bushnell, Simmons and Swift. If you can hold on for a few months, Burgess Optical just may have exactly what you want in terms of an armored 62mm scope that should be considerably better than most scopes in it's price range due to a much better than normal objective lens group and Bill B's attention to detail. I haven't yet seen the prototype, but am awaiting it more anxiously than any optics product in memory, just because I hope it to be the entry to the market that will put a good spotter into the hands of everybody that's wanted a spotter but held off for ecconomic reasons.

If you can't wait, you might want to check out the Cabela's Pine Ridge spotters in 20-50x63mm for $220 and 20-50x70mm for $270. I've not seen those newer, weatherproof versions, but Cabela's house brand stuff is often pretty good value. I've had one of their older, discontinued Japanese made 60mm spotters for over a decade, and it's really a decent scope considering what I paid for it. It dims a good bit at powers over about 30x, but at 20 or 30x it's a pretty good scope and has survived some fairly rough handling. I don't know how the newer ones would compare, but Cabela's has a good return policy. They also have the Burris 15-45x60 spotter for $200 and it's bigger brother in 20-60x80 for $260. Burris is a well respected mfr. of rifle scopes, but I've not seen their spotter. Personally, I would choose one of those over the lowend Orions and lowend Nikons. (Highend Nikon Fieldscopes are a completely different matter.)

Cabelas.com

One word of encouragement to those on a budget is that one of the very best birders that I've ever met has used a beat-to-hell Bushnell Discoverer for over 20 yrs, and despite it's clunky, dim view, he consistantly makes IDs at distances that have some of us just shaking our heads in disbelief. He's had to get really good at knowing fieldmarks and behavior patterns rather than just relying on a really good view of the bird. It's a scope that I literally wouldn't own if it were free, but it hasn't slowed this guy down, and may have even helped him concentrate on the birds, rather than the equipment.

Mike Swaim