Celestron 10x60 Enduro $49.95 - The Inside Scoop for 9-27-03

http://www.adoramacamera.com/catalog...&sku=CN 1060E

Note: picture shown on link is unfortunately not actual item. Do web
search for Celestron Enduro to view correct representation.

As many of you know Celestron is a well known brand label. The Enduro
is apparently popular enough to warrant a closer look. This news on a
deal for them probably constitutes "near" Super Bargain Astro Bino
status.

They don't have BaK-4 prisms specified for them but any potential
light fall off at far edges may not be that bad. Depends on an actual
degree of edge shading of the exit pupil. At 60mm aperture and fully
coated the binos should have good light grasp.

Other News: Excitedly I still await receiving my new BSA 10x50 (
eBay Astro Binoculars - The Inside Scoop - Sept. 17, 2003) to see how
decent they are or not and if they have appearance of BaK-4 prisms.
Someone else on this NG claims they know what prisms are employed but
they don't so be patient. When they arrive I'll provide some update.

So there you have it...the latest exclusive news reporting about
interesting sounding cheaply priced binocular deals. Hope was useful
and enjoyed...

Clear skies!

Pete

Someone else on this NG claims they know what prisms are employed but
they don't so be patient.

I don't know who that person might be. Myself, I only pointed out that the
Ebay pages in question made no mention of BAK-4 Prisms, that is the only thing
I said.

jon

Pete,

your enthusiasm is infective but I have to douse its flames here. I ordered these (8x40
&10x50) for $25 from Anacortes when they had them in a closeout sale.
In this case, one gets what was paid for. In daylight, there is a hint of bluish donut
reflection in the periphery which can be removed with proper positioning of the eye.
The outer 1/5 is soft, out of focus when you focus the center. At night, I do not get
the feeling that they are focused an any time, brighter stars remain a small blob.
Still, they would make a good bino for trips to Grand Canyon with kids.
I was thinking on replacing them with the Whitetails or the Nikons on sale.

David

On 27 Sep 2003 13:06:11 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

Someone else on this NG claims they know what prisms are employed but
they don't so be patient.

I don't know who that person might be. Myself, I only pointed out that the
Ebay pages in question made no mention of BAK-4 Prisms, that is the only thing
I said.

jon

Hi Jon,

OK, but hmm, somebody sure made that claim. I guess it must have been
a different person with the same name. Let me tell you, that fellow
sure talked from both sides of his mouth. He wrote several bogus
claims to my thread, "eBay Astro Binoculars - the inside scoop - Sept.
17, 2003". Here are some of them below. The first is the one about
his knowing which prisms are in the BSA 10x50:

"You did say these had BAK-4 prism when apparently they do not."

And later wrote:

"If these binoculars had had BAK-4 prisms, that would have been a good
sign that they really were a great deal at $23. But not having BAK-4,
puts them in another class."

He also wrote stuff like:

"You were the one who made the claim that these [Meade Birdwatcher's]
were the same as the Scenix."

When all I implied was:

"Those look like same thing as the Orion Scenix by way of
the specifications and the eyecup styling."

He also wrote:

"Your responses were simply to claim that these same binoculars were
available with other labels other places at maybe better prices."

When all I simply implied was:

"I have the TeleEyes which I think is the same..."

and

"It would seem quite reasonable to assume this..."

As you can see, mine were crystal clear statements of someone's
*belief* not "claims" of definitively knowing something. That's a BIG
difference where this other Jon person, when with weak arguments, left
things insinuated for the sole purpose of destroying my credibility.

But what a relief. I'm glad to hear that wasn't you, someone I have
admired for a long time on this NG.

Clear skies,

Pete

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:08:03 -0500, David
wrote:

Hi David,

your enthusiasm is infective but I have to douse its flames here. I ordered these (8x40
&10x50) for $25 from Anacortes when they had them in a closeout sale.
In this case, one gets what was paid for. In daylight, there is a hint of bluish donut
reflection in the periphery which can be removed with proper positioning of the eye.
The outer 1/5 is soft, out of focus when you focus the center. At night, I do not get
the feeling that they are focused an any time, brighter stars remain a small blob.
Still, they would make a good bino for trips to Grand Canyon with kids.
I was thinking on replacing them with the Whitetails or the Nikons on sale.

Thanks much for the very helpful user opinions. I have seen other
comments on their larger 10x60 being nice but who knows, maybe they
are different?

My Nikon 8x40 Action aspherics have good color correction and are
razor sharp optically on center and maybe similar toward edges (being
optimistic on that last part since our eyes are bound to judge
differently). I am going to sell them since to receive a second pair
of the "somewhat better" Minolta 8x40 Activa WP.FP soon. My first
ones the other day had some spherical aberration on one side, hoping
for better. If wanting my Nikons email me by leaving out the (_) in
the address. I would make it a pleasing bargain. They are like new
without hassle of sending in the rebate forms. JFYI and maybe you
would review them.

Clear skies,

Pete

Peter:

Lets just be straight. This is your description of the BSA 10x50's.
-----
"BSA 10x50, rubber covered, wide-angle, Bak4 prism, green multicoated
objectives, and fully coated. Extremely low dollar reserve and very limited
supply of about 2 dozen units on closeout. Can't give first
hand account just yet as mine are not in-hand. But, time was of the essence to
pass the word forward. IMHO, they do look very good."
Seller reports that, "BSA has replaced them with a similar model at
almost twice the cost".
------
When I read this I checked over Ebay and discovered that there were no BSA
binoculars listed with BAK-4 Prisms. So this is what I posted:

I was looking over the BSA binos
on Ebay, both current and completed, I saw several pairs of 10x50s, saw some
with multicoated optics, some with coated optics, some with 7 degree FOV but
none with BAK-4 prisms. Which were the ones you purchased?

To which you responded:

There are two versions from two sellers there. The ones I show from earlier
link are the ones I am to get. They look unassuming which is actually
encouraging. You are correct, I somehow thought they were BaK4 and am mistaken
stating that.
----
So, it seems to me we are in agreement about the BAK 4 prisms in these BSA
binoculars. It looks to me that there are two people here who have said that
one would be wrong to state that the prisms were BAK-4.

Bottomline: They could be BAK-4 prisms, they could have ED glass, they could
be nitrogen purged and water proof with Oring seals.
-----

Some other minor points to address:

"You were the one who made the claim that these [Meade Birdwatcher's]
were the same as the Scenix."

When all I implied was:

"Those look like same thing as the Orion Scenix by way of
the specifications and the eyecup styling."

The binoculars in question were some Celestron Birdwatchers, possible that is
the source of the confusion.

"I have the TeleEyes which I think is the same..."

You said you were going to call Orion about the World Views and whether they
had plastic optical elements. This would be an important determining factor
because you have said that the Tele-eyes do have plastic elements.

I did call them. I tried to explain the issue, ie that the catalog was worded
in such a way that it was possible that there were no glass elements that were
not coated but even though I addressed it from several angles, the Orion Tech
person was adament that all the optics were glass. Still I am not convinced.
But I did give it my best shot.

I am curious if anyone knows a simple test, optical or otherwise, that can be
performed to determine if plastic elements are present. Obviously I could try
to drill a hole in the lenses but I was thinking of something definitive and
non-destructive at the time.

But what a relief. I'm glad to hear that wasn't you, someone I have
admired for a long time on this NG.

Yeah, it was two guys, Jon and Peter who both agreed that the BSA 10x50s
apparently did not have BAK4 prisms.
--------
Another possibility of course is that these are random left over BSA binoculars
so that some of them might be quite nice and some might be quite basic and that
in order to avoid misrepresenting the basic models, the description was
purposely limited.

But the end result will only be known when the bino's arrive. They should be
showing up any day as it has been at least 10 days since you ordered them. I
would guess and you are probably excited about them.

jon

On 28 Sep 2003 01:51:37 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

So, it seems to me we are in agreement about the BAK 4 prisms in these BSA
binoculars. It looks to me that there are two people here who have said that
one would be wrong to state that the prisms were BAK-4.

To state so, yes. But would be wrong assumption if implying I were
one of those two folks in agreement. I actually have a private
*guess* that they are akin to BaK-4. The info was kept this way
because there shouldn't be need to gamble nor become red faced if
found mistaken.

There has been only one person to my knowledge that corrected mistated
claim about the binocular prisms. That would be me. Yet there
remains conflicting claims (shown) against other remarks made by one
or more posters by the name Jon Isaacs. Bottom line: there isn't
anybody I'm aware of (including the seller) that knows the answer.
When the binos arrive I will likely only learn with certainty how the
exit pupils appear.

"You were the one who made the claim that these [Meade Birdwatcher's]
were the same as the Scenix."

When all I implied was:

"Those look like same thing as the Orion Scenix by way of
the specifications and the eyecup styling."

The binoculars in question were some Celestron Birdwatchers, possible that is
the source of the confusion.

I did mean Celestron not Meade. Doesn't change the story one bit.

"I have the TeleEyes which I think is the same..."

You said you were going to call Orion about the World Views and whether they
had plastic optical elements. This would be an important determining factor
because you have said that the Tele-eyes do have plastic elements.

I do *believe* this model does have one plastic element in the
eyepiece group. I'm not done investigating yet and no, calling Orion
would not, as you state be likely an important determining factor. I
won't take their word one way or another verbally on the phone. That
is what I have decided is best.

I did call them. I tried to explain the issue, ie that the catalog was worded
in such a way that it was possible that there were no glass elements that were
not coated but even though I addressed it from several angles, the Orion Tech
person was adament that all the optics were glass. Still I am not convinced.
But I did give it my best shot.

I'm glad to see you are not convinced yet am confused why you would
also say calling them would be an important determining factor.

I am curious if anyone knows a simple test, optical or otherwise, that can be
performed to determine if plastic elements are present. Obviously I could try
to drill a hole in the lenses but I was thinking of something definitive and
non-destructive at the time.

I have good experience working with all kinds of binoculars and other
instruments. My resume includes collimating dozens of American,
German, Japanese, Chinese, and Russian instruments for over 15 years.
Have worked on cheap to expensive binoculars successfully including
gyro stabilized. Have significantly modified binos, too.

The answer to your question on the WorldView binos is yes,
determination can be made nondestructively and quite easily. It is a
matter of my decision to buy a new pair and ethically keep them to get
the answer.

The reason I suspect an uncoated plastic element is that a cheap
aspheric lens will nearly for certain be molded to shape. This with
current production technology.

But what a relief. I'm glad to hear that wasn't you, someone I have
admired for a long time on this NG.

Yeah, it was two guys, Jon and Peter who both agreed that the BSA 10x50s
apparently did not have BAK4 prisms.

Not really as my earlier explanation clarifies.

Another possibility of course is that these are random left over BSA binoculars
so that some of them might be quite nice and some might be quite basic and that
in order to avoid misrepresenting the basic models, the description was
purposely limited.

Possible but certainly speculative. My guess from talking with this
particular seller is that he is simply not very knowledgeable or that
concerned about them. Most eBay sellers won't be with binoculars and
others certainly to be deceptive, too.

But the end result will only be known when the bino's arrive. They should be
showing up any day as it has been at least 10 days since you ordered them. I
would guess and you are probably excited about them.

You got it. I sent the guy a personal check hence delay Likely to
be here next week though.

Pete

I'm glad to see you are not convinced yet am confused why you would
also say calling them would be an important determining factor.


The obvious possibility is that they could have said, yes, there is at least
one plastic element and the issue would have been resolved. However the person
was adament that the optics are indeed all glass. Given that Orion does have a
good reputation for providing good support for their products, this certainly
is something to consider.

The answer to your question on the WorldView binos is yes,
determination can be made nondestructively and quite easily. It is a
matter of my decision to buy a new pair and ethically keep them to get
the answer.

I have a pair so all that is necessary is to explain your test. That will
allow everyone reading this make this determination.

The reason I suspect an uncoated plastic element is that a cheap
aspheric lens will nearly for certain be molded to shape. This with
current production technology.

It is clear what the advantages of the lens would be, cost. But that does not
mean that they have used such an element. Especially when there is no claim
made that there are aspheric elements.

The binoculars in question were some Celestron Birdwatchers, possible that
is
the source of the confusion.

I did mean Celestron not Meade. Doesn't change the story one bit.

I am still wondering why you then think that Binoculars made in China and those
made in Japan would be the same, especially when the series made in China, the
Scenix, are not available in the size 7x35 size.

From my point of view, in this case and in the case of the Orion World Views,
you were trying to suggest that these were not good deals by suggesting they
were the same as some other binocular. But I had provided enough information
to point out some differences.


To state so, yes. But would be wrong assumption if implying I were
one of those two folks in agreement. I actually have a private
*guess* that they are akin to BaK-4.

The info was kept this way
because there shouldn't be need to gamble nor become red faced if
found mistaken.


Whatever you want to say.... Bottomline though is that You said it, I said it.


jon isaacs

On 28 Sep 2003 01:51:37 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

I am curious if anyone knows a simple test, optical or otherwise, that can be
performed to determine if plastic elements are present. Obviously I could try
to drill a hole in the lenses but I was thinking of something definitive and
non-destructive at the time.

You can tell by checking at the edges of the lenses, which means
taking the glasses apart.

To check whether the porro prisms are BaK4 or BK7 glass, hold the
binoculars up to a white wall or other bright, uniform surface and
look carefully in the eyepieces from a distance of about a foot.
If the illumination of the exit pupil is uniform you probably have
BaK4 prisms. If there is a square brighter area in the center of the
exit pupil you probably have BK7 prisms. This happens because porro
prisms use total internal reflection instead of silvering the prism
faces and with lower index BK7 glass some of the light strikes the
prism face at too steep an angle for total internal reflection and is
lost.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:10:55 GMT, William Hamblen
wrote:

Hi William,

To check whether the porro prisms are BaK4 or BK7 glass, hold the
binoculars up to a white wall or other bright, uniform surface and
look carefully in the eyepieces from a distance of about a foot.
If the illumination of the exit pupil is uniform you probably have
BaK4 prisms.

It used to often be that way but with today's world of cheap Chinese
binos who really knows other than the optical engineers!

If there is a square brighter area in the center of the
exit pupil you probably have BK7 prisms. This happens because porro
prisms use total internal reflection instead of silvering the prism
faces and with lower index BK7 glass some of the light strikes the
prism face at too steep an angle for total internal reflection and is
lost.

As in the prism is too small Probably only way to know with
certainty (from an amateur standpoint) would be to measure the
specific gravity.

Funny thing it seems about BK7. The binos with this prism glass
usually show less chromatism than "known" standard BaK-4 models.

Pete