AFOV vs Aperture Poll

"Bill Ferris" wrote

I stand by my statement that the 10x50 binoculars under a pristine sky
will
allow an observer to explore more deep-sky objects than will be visible in
a
12-inch aperture under heavy light pollution. And expanding the observing
list
to include phenomena such as aurorae, meteor showers and comets further
drives
home that advantage.

Having lived for 25 years in an area known for incredible skies, I have to
agree with you, Bill. I would rather have 10x50's (or 15x70's!) and great,
dark skies, than a 12" class telescope and have to "nudge" out any sense of
the existence of a DSO. I'm not one who hunts for DSO's per se; I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list. Probably because I'm spoiled, I find
light-polluted skies entirely boring.

Howard Lester
Tucson




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Ferris" wrote

I stand by my statement that the 10x50 binoculars under a pristine sky
will
allow an observer to explore more deep-sky objects than will be visible in
a
12-inch aperture under heavy light pollution. And expanding the observing
list
to include phenomena such as aurorae, meteor showers and comets further
drives
home that advantage.

Having lived for 25 years in an area known for incredible skies, I have to
agree with you, Bill. I would rather have 10x50's (or 15x70's!) and great,
dark skies, than a 12" class telescope and have to "nudge" out any sense of
the existence of a DSO. I'm not one who hunts for DSO's per se; I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list. Probably because I'm spoiled, I find
light-polluted skies entirely boring.

Howard Lester
Tucson




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Ferris" wrote

I stand by my statement that the 10x50 binoculars under a pristine sky
will
allow an observer to explore more deep-sky objects than will be visible in
a
12-inch aperture under heavy light pollution. And expanding the observing
list
to include phenomena such as aurorae, meteor showers and comets further
drives
home that advantage.

Having lived for 25 years in an area known for incredible skies, I have to
agree with you, Bill. I would rather have 10x50's (or 15x70's!) and great,
dark skies, than a 12" class telescope and have to "nudge" out any sense of
the existence of a DSO. I'm not one who hunts for DSO's per se; I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list. Probably because I'm spoiled, I find
light-polluted skies entirely boring.

Howard Lester
Tucson




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.


john

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.


john

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.


john

"Jskies187" wrote

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just
finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.

No, John, you're right. We just view with different sets of eyes. ;^)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Jskies187" wrote

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just
finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.

No, John, you're right. We just view with different sets of eyes. ;^)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Jskies187" wrote

I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just
finding
a spot and checking it off a list.

But those tiny little smudges _are_ enthralling too!
And checking lists is never a requirement.

No, John, you're right. We just view with different sets of eyes. ;^)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Hello, Jon,
Yes, I agree with you, all through this Phyrric thread I have been thinking,
why not use 15 x 70's? Mine by Oberwerk are comparatively light, and I agree
with Jay Freeman that they can be hand held for reasonable periods, with rests.
This might not be true for some of the very expensive heavy 15 x 20's.
Tony s suggests, from his experience with 15 x 45 Canon image stabilized
binoculars, that it may be more the 15 x magnification rather than the 70 mm
aperture that make these binoculars show so much, and my brief exposure to the
Canon binocs leads me to agree with him on that.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers

Howard Lester wrote:

"Bill Ferris" wrote

I stand by my statement that the 10x50 binoculars under a pristine sky
will
allow an observer to explore more deep-sky objects than will be visible in
a
12-inch aperture under heavy light pollution. And expanding the observing
list
to include phenomena such as aurorae, meteor showers and comets further
drives
home that advantage.

Having lived for 25 years in an area known for incredible skies, I have to
agree with you, Bill. I would rather have 10x50's (or 15x70's!) and great,
dark skies, than a 12" class telescope and have to "nudge" out any sense of
the existence of a DSO. I'm not one who hunts for DSO's per se; I'd rather
have the feeling of being enthralled with the view rather than just finding
a spot and checking it off a list. Probably because I'm spoiled, I find
light-polluted skies entirely boring.

Howard Lester
Tucson

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----