I delivered the Sportsman's Guide 10x50's to Bruce Grim today. He was very impressed with the imagery as well as construction, and is ordering a pair for himself. These will be part of the inventory of SPOC-2, so SLAS members and guests will have a chance to try them out. I dropped off 2 pair. He also told me of his own experience in a side-by-side comparison of the Bears with Fujinon 16x70mm. In his opinion, the Bears were a tad sharper (!) but the Fuji's had slightly better throughput (expected from the better coatings). I had a hard time with this, but I trust Bruce's judgement in telescope matters completely, he's been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I've been in the game about 34 years now! I would like to perform a comparison myself, though. There is a difference between general quality of a product line, and the quality of individual units. Maybe he got the best Bear ever made, and a worn-out Fuji. But, who knows? I told him about our plans for Binopalooza, and he wants to attend. I also got to examine his mini-parallelogram mount. I liked the way he didn't make the arms overly-long. Some of the parallelogram mounts I've seen have a height range of 2' up to 8', and I just can't see making arms that long unless you plan to have a group of toddlers and NBA stars at the same star-party. He also used square aluminum tubing from the home improvement center, making drilling a whole lot easier. His use of double-springs eliminated the counterweight, another nice feature, plus it mounts on a standard commercial camera tripod. I found an old wooden tripod off of a Japanese refractor in my basement, and will use that as a foundation for my own mount, borrowing some of Bruce's ideas...the short arms, namely...but I think I'll use round aluminum tubing just because I've got it on-hand already. I want to have this thing done before Binopalooza. I plan to size the arms for my own use rather than "one size fits all". Hopefully Bruce will bring his set-up so everyone can see it. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Chuck...et al, If I am not mistaken it was my pair of Fujinon 16x70 FMT-SX Binoculars that Bruce had compared the Bears with. It must have been last year at SPOC I believe. We both agreed that the Bears rivaled the Fuji's in resolution (especially near center) but the Fuji's had much richer contrast due to the fully multi coatings. Another plus for the Bears besides their cost is their eye relief. With my glasses on I had an area of comfort between the eyepieces and my lenses. With my Fujinons I tend to be pressed right against for the full field of view...fine for someone with a light prescription. Also, I assure you they are not worn out. They've been babied since the day the arrived. Just ask Jo and Alan Grahn how Ikeya-Zhang looked with the Fuji's at the comet party at Lakeside. I think it was their favorite view. (I'll have to reciprocate and say the best view was through their 25x100 Chinese Binos ;-) Keep your eyes to the skies! Dave Bennett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck wrote: I delivered the Sportsman's Guide 10x50's to Bruce Grim today. He was very impressed with the imagery as well as construction, and is ordering a pair for himself. He also told me of his own experience in a side-by-side comparison of the Bears with Fujinon 16x70mm. In his opinion, the Bears were a tad sharper (!) but the Fuji's had slightly better throughput (expected from the better coatings). I had a hard time with this, but I trust Bruce's judgement in telescope matters completely, he's been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I've been in the game about 34 years now! I would like to perform a comparison myself, though. There is a difference between general quality of a product line, and the quality of individual units. Maybe he got the best Bear ever made, and a worn-out Fuji. But, who knows?
Dave Bennett wrote:
If I am not mistaken it was my pair of Fujinon 16x70 FMT-SX Binoculars
(snip!)
Also, I assure you they are not worn out. They've been babied since the day the arrived.
Thanks for weighing in on this, Dave. Bruce made the comment that he thought that the quality of lower-priced binoculars has shot way up in recent years, and I would tend to agree. My "worn out" remark was referring to the possibility of excessive wear on the focusing mechanism, which can happen even during normal use, with time, to any binocular. Machined, mating surfaces slowly wear, and the inevitable end result is slop that can, in some cases, make achieving precise focus or alignment impossible. The old pair of 8x40's that I inherited from my dad have this condition, and it is only the low power that makes them still very usable. Sounds like you're pair is still tight, though, and if you corroborate Bruce's impressions, then by gosh, it must be true, though I am truly, pleasantly amazed that the inexpensive Bears can hold their own against a much pricier binocular. On the other hand, I believe that all the locally-owned Bears were purchased from a discounter (my own included), so I really have no idea what the original MSRP was for the Bears. Maybe the true price-point disparity isn't truly so great after all. I have been very happy with my Bears, and although I think there is slight room for improvement in some areas, for what I paid, I cannot fault them at all. Especially eye-relief, as you noted, and the wide apparent field. I too thought the resolution was very good in my own pair. It will be very interesting to compare them with the Oberwerks when they arrive... And Dave, will you be attending "Binopalooza" next month? I'd sure like to have a peek through your Fuji's...would you be willing to take part in the "shoot-out"? Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Chuck, If you wouldn't mind, I think I speak for the rest of us out here when I say that it would be very interesting for us if you would carefully document the step-by-step details of your mount fabrication; lengths, sizes, costs, materials, and of course pictures, etc., all helps for those of us that are not so handy with the tools to take heart and perhaps make our own attempt at it (assuming too that you don't get too many "exotic" specialty tools involved in the process) :O) What I'd like to see someday, for example, is a post here that reads something like: "How to build an excellent Home Depot bino mount for only $24.95"; hopefully that's not too wishful thinking... Looking forward to the upcoming Binopalooza... Rich --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I delivered the Sportsman's Guide 10x50's to Bruce Grim today. He was very impressed with the imagery as well as construction, and is ordering a pair for himself.
These will be part of the inventory of SPOC-2, so SLAS members and guests will have a chance to try them out. I dropped off 2 pair.
He also told me of his own experience in a side-by-side comparison of the Bears with Fujinon 16x70mm. In his opinion, the Bears were a tad sharper (!) but the Fuji's had slightly better throughput (expected from the better coatings).
I had a hard time with this, but I trust Bruce's judgement in telescope matters completely, he's been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I've been in the game about 34 years now! I would like to perform a comparison myself, though. There is a difference between general quality of a product line, and the quality of individual units. Maybe he got the best Bear ever made, and a worn-out Fuji. But, who knows?
I told him about our plans for Binopalooza, and he wants to attend.
I also got to examine his mini-parallelogram mount. I liked the way he didn't make the arms overly-long. Some of the parallelogram mounts I've seen have a height range of 2' up to 8', and I just can't see making arms that long unless you plan to have a group of toddlers and NBA stars at the same star-party. He also used square aluminum tubing from the home improvement center, making drilling a whole lot easier. His use of double-springs eliminated the counterweight, another nice feature, plus it mounts on a standard commercial camera tripod.
I found an old wooden tripod off of a Japanese refractor in my basement, and will use that as a foundation for my own mount, borrowing some of Bruce's ideas...the short arms, namely...but I think I'll use round aluminum tubing just because I've got it on-hand already. I want to have this thing done before Binopalooza. I plan to size the arms for my own use rather than "one size fits all".
Hopefully Bruce will bring his set-up so everyone can see it.
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Hi Rich: You wrote:
If you wouldn't mind, I think I speak for the rest of us out here when I say that it would be very interesting for us if you would carefully document the step-by-step details of your mount fabrication; lengths, sizes, costs, materials, and of course pictures, etc., all helps for those of us that are not so handy with the tools to take heart and perhaps make our own attempt at it (assuming too that you don't get too many "exotic" specialty tools involved in the process)
Hey, I'd be happy to, thanks for asking! I never use "exotic" tools, Rich, except perhaps a fitting or two turned on a hobbyist's mini-lathe; the thrust of my atm work has been demonstrating how to get superior results using common tools. My "Woodshop Telescopes" use only a router, table saw, jig-saw, and drill-press, and a hand-held electric drill can be substituted for the drill press in a pinch. A router is somewhat essential for things like laminate (Formica), but not absolutely necessary otherwise. Threading taps are inexpensive and readily available. The gelcoat finishes I'm fond of are not structural elements, and easily-applied, inexpensive substitutes are available. What puts some people off is the man-hours & elbow-grease required; but I maintain that if a person spends weeks to months grinding, polishing, and figuring a mirror, it makes no sense to throw the rest of the telescope together in a couple of weekends. (Sam Brown is rolling over in his grave...) However, "utilitarianism" is a legitimate design goal, simple construction can have a certain charm. Some people seem thrilled by a glossy coat of urethane on plywood, for example, and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, if it works, it really doesn't matter what it looks like, right? Just tonight I was marshalling materials from my stores and putting some first lines on paper, when the idea came to me that I really need to design two parallelogram mounts. The first will follow my established practices, using plastics, non-ferrous metals, etc., "Woodshop" techniques; the second will be more "utilitarian"; that is, just as functional, but without the elbow grease, stainless-steel hardware, PVC fittings, etc. It will require perhaps only access to a table-saw and hand-held drill, and use materials from the hardware-store only. The first may appeal to advanced atms and artisans, the second to those who have little or no background in the manual arts. Take your pick, both will work! If I can get them done in time, then certainly I will document them and make the plans and instructions available to everyone at no charge. Posting on this forum, or a locally-administered Web-page would be preferrable, and/or maybe running them in NOVA or other newsletter, at the discretion of the individual editors.
What I'd like to see someday, for example, is a post here that reads something like: "How to build an excellent Home Depot bino mount for only $24.95"; hopefully that's not too wishful thinking...
Not wishfull thinking at all. Bruce Grim has a neat little mount that may appeal to some, I'll try and persuade him to document his own design for that purpose also.
Looking forward to the upcoming Binopalooza...
Speaking of which, we are narrowing the date down to probably either Thursday, June 13th, or Friday, June 14th. Waxing crescent moon, but being so close to the solstice, the sky won't get truly dark until after moonset anyway. Which would you prefer? If we go for Thursday, hopefully this will give working people enough time to schedule the next day off, and a little less time waiting for moonset. There has also been suggested a barbecue or similar picnic beforehand; how does that sound? ...The rock & roll band idea was summarily dismissed. :o( Thanks! Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
...My "Woodshop Telescopes" use only a router, table saw, jig-saw, and drill-press...
Those wanting to see a fine example of Chuck's Woodshop Telescopes can go to http://planet.state.ut.us/slas.html and click on Roger Butz's name. Patrick
Oops, I should have said: "...http://planet.state.ut.us/slas.html and click on Roger Butz's name in the PICTURES section." Patrick Patrick Wiggins wrote:
Chuck Hards wrote:
...My "Woodshop Telescopes" use only a router, table saw, jig-saw, and drill-press...
Those wanting to see a fine example of Chuck's Woodshop Telescopes can go to http://planet.state.ut.us/slas.html and click on Roger Butz's name.
Hey Chuck, Sounds really neat! how 'bout a photo of the set up/size? OR, better yet, bring it along as a 'guest' to the next meeting and introduce it to the Group. Thanks Jim --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I delivered the Sportsman's Guide 10x50's to Bruce Grim today. He was very impressed with the imagery as well as construction, and is ordering a pair for himself.
These will be part of the inventory of SPOC-2, so SLAS members and guests will have a chance to try them out. I dropped off 2 pair.
He also told me of his own experience in a side-by-side comparison of the Bears with Fujinon 16x70mm. In his opinion, the Bears were a tad sharper (!) but the Fuji's had slightly better throughput (expected from the better coatings).
I had a hard time with this, but I trust Bruce's judgement in telescope matters completely, he's been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I've been in the game about 34 years now! I would like to perform a comparison myself, though. There is a difference between general quality of a product line, and the quality of individual units. Maybe he got the best Bear ever made, and a worn-out Fuji. But, who knows?
I told him about our plans for Binopalooza, and he wants to attend.
I also got to examine his mini-parallelogram mount. I liked the way he didn't make the arms overly-long. Some of the parallelogram mounts I've seen have a height range of 2' up to 8', and I just can't see making arms that long unless you plan to have a group of toddlers and NBA stars at the same star-party. He also used square aluminum tubing from the home improvement center, making drilling a whole lot easier. His use of double-springs eliminated the counterweight, another nice feature, plus it mounts on a standard commercial camera tripod.
I found an old wooden tripod off of a Japanese refractor in my basement, and will use that as a foundation for my own mount, borrowing some of Bruce's ideas...the short arms, namely...but I think I'll use round aluminum tubing just because I've got it on-hand already. I want to have this thing done before Binopalooza. I plan to size the arms for my own use rather than "one size fits all".
Hopefully Bruce will bring his set-up so everyone can see it.
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
I can't make the next meeting, Jim, but Bruce is a member, founder, and driving force in the club (SPOC-2 Project Manager & Coordinator), heck, he's the heart and soul of amateur astronomy in Northern Utah. I believe he is planning to attend Binopalooza, and bring his set-up along. Chuck --- Jim Stitley <sitf2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey Chuck, Sounds really neat! how 'bout a photo of the set up/size? OR, better yet, bring it along as a 'guest' to the next meeting and introduce it to the Group. Thanks Jim
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
participants (5)
-
Chuck Hards -
David L Bennett -
Jim Stitley -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney