>> Great responce John, but I'm not sure what you base you statement on by
>>saying one pair outperforms another. Outperformes in what way?
>> At a star party last year, ( could have been last night since that was
>>last year) I saw a giant pair of binoculars (25x100)mounted to an LX-200
>>12". Its was a modification to a losmany mount attached to the top of the
>>scope.
>> Its was very impressive to see the two mounted one on top of the other.
>> The binoculars were mounted back enough that the diagonal on the scope
>>didnt bother the views thru the binoculars and visa versa. After glancing
>>thru the scope and then thru the binoculars, the whole perspective of the
>>sky and what it has to offer to us all changed for me completely. The two
>>complimented each other very well.
>> Just as a guide scope compliments a telescope for astrophotography, I
>>also now feel a great pair of binoculars attached to a Meade LX-200 or
>>any other scope can compliment the prespective of what the sky has to
>>offer. Back and forth view thru one then the other will leave you
>>breathless, especially in the areas of Sagatarius and more densly
>>populated areas of the sky.
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> I can only imagine what views thru those spectacular 25x150 Fujinons
>>must be like.
>
>Ralph:
>
>Good point, I did not qualify my statement.I thought I would e-mail you
>direct in case some folks might get upset. First, you have to understand
>"where I came from". I bought a new Celestron refractor this Spring. Long
>horror story. As a result of that experience, and postings I have seen on
>MAPUG(although my lx200 is running fine), I was determined to buy QUALITY.
>That meant high manufacturing standards, quality components, good
>engineering, that would all lead to reliability. I had to balance my
>desires against my budget (darn!), but I did not want to buy a larger pair
>of binouclars to get less of any of the above items.
>
>I did some shopping. Went to Company Seven in Maryland. You may know of
>the store. He is the only Astrophysics "dealer" in the country and knows
>his optics. He sells Fujis and we talked binoculars. (I actually bought my
>pair elsewhere however).
>
>Now-on to performance. First is contrast.Very important. Neither the 10X50
>Orions or the 20X80 Celestrons had the "snap". The sky did not seem
>"dark". All else suffers to me. Second, is the image quality. The Orions
>were simply outclassed by my old Swift 8.5X42 pair. The man who had the
>Orions just walked away quietly after I let him see through my pair of
>Swifts. Third is flatness of view around the edges. Even though Fuji
>advertises this point, I still see some distortion around the edges WHEN I
>DELIBERATELY LOOK THROUGH THE EDGES.Image brightness is fourth. I can only
>say I'm impressed. M42 actually looks"hot" and I saw some texture last
>night. M 43 was a snap.
>
>You can certainly use the binos on the scope. I do not. I have a tall,
>durable tripod to which I have attached a fluid head mount. On top of that
>I have a large universal ball tripod mount. This combination helps when
>near the Zenith but your neck still gets stiff! Im not terribly happy with
>this but have not tried commercial mounts. This one is rugged.
>
>Finally -you are right. What about those larger ones??? Hmmm.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>John

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: Dec Drive System Modifications, Improving Performance, Michael Hart
Next message: Re: [M]: Dec Drive System Modifications, Improving Performance, Michael Hart
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Differences between binocular manufacturers?, Ric L Ecker