Re: Camera

Message posted by gary on May 20, 2002 at 18:57:05 PST:

Not bad for the price, but I see a few things to at least think about. First, the resolution is 640x480, i.e. they use a very basic camcorder CCD. I'm not sure you could capture a tail number at that resolution unless the image filled the screen. Second, the camera is "focus free", which always makes me wonder what they aren't doing. Now if it uses the binoc control to focus the camera, then this should not be problem. However, reading the Meade datasheet, it looks like the focus is set for 50ft, trying to use the lens at hyperfocal. That still might be ok. There is no spec on the shutter speed, other than automatic, so I would wonder if the shutter is fast enough to prevent blur.

The final thing about this product that bugs me is the use of AAA batteries. I could write about 3 paragraphs why AAA batteries suck, but this is already pretty much off topic.

You can read the meade datasheet here:

I've been using a cheap (about $80) made in China 12x60 for snooping around the base. With some moonlight, you can spot the camo dudes thanks to the large aperture. I did some checking and the old sources for these binoc no longer have them, but I found a similar pair on the net:

The price is now about $109. I'd draw the line at 12x magnification for handheld use.

During the last meteor shower, Joerg, myself and two of my friends got to compare binoculars. I would say the canon image stabilized are the best. They use ED glass, so the optics are good, and of course the IS helps. Second best were the Celestrons 10x50s at about $270. However, when I bought the visoneers I compared them to the Celestrons and there was no difference in daylight viewing. For astronomy, the celestrons were much sharper.

In Reply to: Camera posted by Hal on May 19, 2002 at 13:00:39 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]