Astronomy Binoculars?

[JasonBlank]

Astronomy Binoculars?
I'm a beginner in astronomy so i've bought a set of 20x60 binoculars..but apparently i'm having a 'shaking problem' when viewing the night sky..the store has agreed to exchange it for a pair of 10x50 (which, according to a lot of reviews i've been reading, is quite good for beginners)..but i'm a bit confused..since i'm getting double the power shouldn't i just get a tripod ? or should i exchange ??

[Fwiffo]

You could get a tripod, but the advantage of binoculars for getting started in astronomy is their simplicity. You can just pull them out any time it looks clear out. That's why 10x50s are popular "starter telescopes". Adding a tripod to the setup complicates things. At that point, you're better off saving up for a telescope.

[BucklingSpring]

You can use this at football games and looks like the world's biggest Geek.

Ripsterized picture? Do you actually own this puppy?

[BucklingSpring]

Well, I don't watermark other peoples pics.......

I understand that, but it could have been shot in a store. I didn't try to warp the red surface to make it flat, so I can see a proper reflexion of what is shown :-)

Ripster in Red


Do you spam astronomy forums as much as you do it here?

That's nice piece of equipment you have.

[quadibloc]

Probably a tripod is a good idea, but later on, for astronomy, what you probably would want to get is a 7x50 pair of binoculars. That's because the ratio of magnification power to aperture with 7x50 makes it what is known as a "richest-field" device - the brightness of the stars is not diminished by the magnification spreading the available light out over a larger image.

A telescope like this is called a "Richest Field Telescope", binoculars like this used to be called "Night Glasses".

I talk more about this on my web page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/opt0201.htm

[REVENGE]

What you really want are image stabilized binoculars from Canon or Nikon, but I have no idea whether you can afford them or not.

[Fwiffo]

Probably a tripod is a good idea, but later on, for astronomy, what you probably would want to get is a 7x50 pair of binoculars.

Great point. Magnification is actually a negative for dim objects. You're not going to be doing a lot of up-close planetary observations or splitting close doubles with a small pair of binoculars; might as well give yourself the best shot at the deep sky stuff. They'll also be steadier. 7x50 > 10x50.

Once you get a taste you'll be ready to pick up a proper light bucket.

[BucklingSpring]

Actually unlike your posts mine aren't spam.  Quality ingredients leads to Quality content.

Ouch... I should of said active on astronomy forums as you are here.
I didn't mean to offend. Sorry if I did.

[keyb_gr]

Not meaning to threadjack, but would there be any recommendation for a fairly broke bat (20/100 if I have that right, plus some myopia) to see more of the night sky?
I don't think I'd need all that much magnification, but I guess within certain feasibility / portability limits, the bigger the aperture the better. (All the stuff I have now is far too dim.) Chromatic aberration should be reasonably well-controlled.
A tripod is nothing that would put me off right away, I don't have the most steady hands anyway.

[BucklingSpring]

Not meaning to threadjack, but would there be any recommendation for a fairly broke bat (20/100 if I have that right, plus some myopia) to see more of the night sky?
I don't think I'd need all that much magnification, but I guess within certain feasibility / portability limits, the bigger the aperture the better. (All the stuff I have now is far too dim.) Chromatic aberration should be reasonably well-controlled.
A tripod is nothing that would put me off right away, I don't have the most steady hands anyway.

I'm very happy with my Celestron PRO 10x50 binoculars. Good allround and catch enough light at night for casual star watching.

[Fwiffo]

If you want to go beyond binoculars, the best bang for your buck is probably a Dobsonian mounted reflector (Orion has a wide selection of good ones). Easy to use and lots of light gathering power for the dollar. Being a reflector, the only chromatic aberration would be from the eyepiece. The focuser lets you correct for the shortcomings in your own vision (within limits) so you may be able to use it without glasses/contacts.

[ricercar]

Is that an Edmund-made finder scope mount for Astroscan, Ripster? Or is that just a finder ring without optics? When did you order yours? That looks a whole lot more stable than the optics-less finder ring I got with my 2003 Astroscan.

Nevermind



Wasn't available when I bought my Astroscan.

[quadibloc]

Being a reflector, the only chromatic aberration would be from the eyepiece.

True, but being a short-focus Newtonian, that deep parabola is going to give you coma - although there are coma-correcting focal reducers out there, and that's more of an issue for astrophotography than visual observing anyways.

[Fwiffo]

keyb_gr specifically asked about chromatic aberration, which is why I mentioned it. And a dob isn't a great astrophotography scope anyway, because of its mount. And anyway, that's a hobby for masochists.

[quadibloc]

And a dob isn't a great astrophotography scope anyway, because of its mount.

True, which does make coma a minor point. Although nowadays the alt-azimuth mount is less important - since people can add multiple short CCD exposures, instead of taking a long exposure with film. That even has allowed amateurs with 11-inch telescopes to make images of Jupiter that look like they were taken by the HST.

[vils]

Kind of OT:



But beautiful... from here: http://www.gemini.edu/node/11631
The pic can be downloaded in a nearly 50MB big TIFF file, maybe a good wallpaper for a multiple screen set up?