SpaceBanter.com

SpaceBanter.com (http://www.spacebanter.com/index.php)
-   UK Astronomy (http://www.spacebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Bresser Special Saturn 30x70 binoculars (http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=38052)

gswork April 22nd 04 01:22 PM

Bresser Special Saturn 30x70 binoculars
 
Recently surfing for binoculars, looking for something with
significantly more aperture and magnification than my swift audubon
8.5x44, i saw this range:

http://www.optical-systems.com/defau...th/125_168_280

Of which the 30x70 was priced (albeit in Euro's) quite well and seemed
to have features desirable for stargazing.

It would need a mount for maximum utility, not so much the weight but
at x30 and a more modest FOV the image would be jumpy.

Just wondering if anyone had experienced them or had any thoughts on
them.

The other options are a pair of orion/helios 15x70 or similar.

(hope the UK group doesn't mind the crosspost, but they might know
this product better)

Tony Flanders April 24th 04 12:10 PM

(gswork) wrote in message . com...

Of which the 30x70 was priced (albeit in Euro's) quite well and seemed
to have features desirable for stargazing.

It would need a mount for maximum utility, not so much the weight but
at x30 and a more modest FOV the image would be jumpy.


I don't think you understand! 10x50 binoculars clearly need a
mount for maximum utility. At 15x70, a mount stops becoming a
matter of utility, and starts to become more of a necessity.
At 30x70, hand-holding is utterly and totally out of the question.
Jumpy is the understatement of the year -- unviewable would be
much closer.

Really, really, really, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want high powers, you get a mount -- and a good one, too!
And a telescope will end up being much cheaper and more
convenient than binoculars. Why so reluctant to get a scope?

- Tony Flanders

gswork April 26th 04 09:17 AM

(Tony Flanders) wrote in message m...
(gswork) wrote in message . com...

Of which the 30x70 was priced (albeit in Euro's) quite well and seemed
to have features desirable for stargazing.

It would need a mount for maximum utility, not so much the weight but
at x30 and a more modest FOV the image would be jumpy.


I don't think you understand! 10x50 binoculars clearly need a
mount for maximum utility.


Then so should my own 8.5x44 shouldn't they? Can't be *that* much
different from 10x50.

At 15x70, a mount stops becoming a
matter of utility, and starts to become more of a necessity.
At 30x70, hand-holding is utterly and totally out of the question.


I'd taken that as read (on the 30x70), with 15x70 i've seen posts
archived saying hand holding is possible for brief periosd and give
acceptable images.

Jumpy is the understatement of the year -- unviewable would be
much closer.

Really, really, really, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want high powers, you get a mount -- and a good one, too!
And a telescope will end up being much cheaper and more
convenient than binoculars. Why so reluctant to get a scope?


On that last point, cost. I can't really afford the kind of scope
that seems to be considered minimally useful and of the kind of
quality that won't just leave you feeling you're missing out. a high
quality 6" reflector or 3" refractor seems to be recommended, anything
less leading to a desire to upgrade within weeks, in which case why
buy two. I like the FOV and ease of use of binoculars too.

Not sure though, perhaps i should just give in and get a modest scope
then make it last anyhow, not like i'm going to get the extra years
appended onto my life just coz I waited is it !! I quite like
daytime viewing too and am impressed by every single thing posted on
various amatuer astrophotography sites (as in, "what you'll see"), so
a refractor around 3" should be ok for me. No need for extra
binoculars then.

Tony Flanders April 26th 04 07:34 PM

I said:

I don't think you understand! 10x50 binoculars clearly need a
mount for maximum utility.


"gswork" responded:

Then so should my own 8.5x44 shouldn't they?


You bet! And 7x35 too. Sure, they work fine hand-held, but you can
see *much* more if they are well mounted. The higher the magnification,
the greater the relative importance of the mount, but mounts make a
major difference all the way up.

I asked:

Why so reluctant to get a scope?


And "gswork" replied:

On that last point, cost. I can't really afford the kind of scope
that seems to be considered minimally useful and of the kind of
quality that won't just leave you feeling you're missing out. a high
quality 6" reflector or 3" refractor seems to be recommended, anything
less leading to a desire to upgrade within weeks, in which case why
buy two. I like the FOV and ease of use of binoculars too.


Right, but going to 30x defeats both the FOV and the ease of use.
The thing that makes binoculars convenient is precisely the low
magnification -- which is also precisely what limits them most.

As for telescopes, you can get an *awful* lot of functionality, with
irreproachable quality, for under $400, and if you are willing to
compromise a little -- *much* less than you would with those 30x
binoculars -- you can easily get down to $200 or so.

- Tony Flanders

Richard April 27th 04 03:12 AM

(Tony Flanders) wrote in message m...
I said:

I don't think you understand! 10x50 binoculars clearly need a
mount for maximum utility.


"gswork" responded:

Then so should my own 8.5x44 shouldn't they?


You bet! And 7x35 too. Sure, they work fine hand-held, but you can
see *much* more if they are well mounted. The higher the magnification,
the greater the relative importance of the mount, but mounts make a
major difference all the way up.


In other words, buy a telescope instead. A nice 80mm short tube will
at least support 8-100x and work on about the same sized tripod which
is FAR more flexible than binos.
-Rich


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 SpaceBanter.com. Space photos on this page are credited to NASA and ESA