AFOV vs Aperture Poll

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! =-----

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! =-----

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

Living in an area of rather severe light pollution and owning a 12 inch scope,
I think I would choose the large scope and the light pollution over the
binoculars.

Observing under polluted skies means going with the flow, choosing targets
that are viewable, globulars, open clusters, planetary nebulas, and some
galaxies. Planetary viewing and double stars is obviously an advantage to the
large scope over the binos.

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x. My eyes are
not good enough to see recognize targets like the Ring nebula in 10x50s while
it can be quite impressive with a larger scope inside the city limits.

jon

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

Living in an area of rather severe light pollution and owning a 12 inch scope,
I think I would choose the large scope and the light pollution over the
binoculars.

Observing under polluted skies means going with the flow, choosing targets
that are viewable, globulars, open clusters, planetary nebulas, and some
galaxies. Planetary viewing and double stars is obviously an advantage to the
large scope over the binos.

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x. My eyes are
not good enough to see recognize targets like the Ring nebula in 10x50s while
it can be quite impressive with a larger scope inside the city limits.

jon

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

Living in an area of rather severe light pollution and owning a 12 inch scope,
I think I would choose the large scope and the light pollution over the
binoculars.

Observing under polluted skies means going with the flow, choosing targets
that are viewable, globulars, open clusters, planetary nebulas, and some
galaxies. Planetary viewing and double stars is obviously an advantage to the
large scope over the binos.

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x. My eyes are
not good enough to see recognize targets like the Ring nebula in 10x50s while
it can be quite impressive with a larger scope inside the city limits.

jon

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x...

Well, when push comes to shove, there's only one object that looks
really good in 10x50 binoculars, but that one object is (for me)
worth all the rest put together. I am speaking, of course, of our
own Milky Way. All the other great binocular targets, like M45,
are just aspects of the Milky Way.

Sure, it is entertaining to search out galaxy fields in 10x50
binoculars, especially in Virgo where you can see a dozen
simultaneously in the same field, but for me, that is somewhat
at cross-purposes with what binoculars do best.

Going out even farther on a limb, if I were given a choice between
spending my life on a desert island under dark skies with no
instrument but my eyeglasses versus the telescope of my choice
under the equivalent of bright urban skies, I would probably
choose the dark skies and the eyeglasses. Again, there's only
one target, but the detail visible naked-eye in the Milky Way
under dark skies would keep me busy for a lifetime.

- Tony Flanders

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x...

Well, when push comes to shove, there's only one object that looks
really good in 10x50 binoculars, but that one object is (for me)
worth all the rest put together. I am speaking, of course, of our
own Milky Way. All the other great binocular targets, like M45,
are just aspects of the Milky Way.

Sure, it is entertaining to search out galaxy fields in 10x50
binoculars, especially in Virgo where you can see a dozen
simultaneously in the same field, but for me, that is somewhat
at cross-purposes with what binoculars do best.

Going out even farther on a limb, if I were given a choice between
spending my life on a desert island under dark skies with no
instrument but my eyeglasses versus the telescope of my choice
under the equivalent of bright urban skies, I would probably
choose the dark skies and the eyeglasses. Again, there's only
one target, but the detail visible naked-eye in the Milky Way
under dark skies would keep me busy for a lifetime.

- Tony Flanders

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

Sure it fun to use those 10x50's but after a spell there are just so many
targets that are visable and many of those lack detail at 10x...

Well, when push comes to shove, there's only one object that looks
really good in 10x50 binoculars, but that one object is (for me)
worth all the rest put together. I am speaking, of course, of our
own Milky Way. All the other great binocular targets, like M45,
are just aspects of the Milky Way.

Sure, it is entertaining to search out galaxy fields in 10x50
binoculars, especially in Virgo where you can see a dozen
simultaneously in the same field, but for me, that is somewhat
at cross-purposes with what binoculars do best.

Going out even farther on a limb, if I were given a choice between
spending my life on a desert island under dark skies with no
instrument but my eyeglasses versus the telescope of my choice
under the equivalent of bright urban skies, I would probably
choose the dark skies and the eyeglasses. Again, there's only
one target, but the detail visible naked-eye in the Milky Way
under dark skies would keep me busy for a lifetime.

- Tony Flanders