B1548

Has anyone used this monocular with their camera?

Francyne Loc: Bromont, Qc

Yes and I returned it. I wrote to them to get the attachment for the iPhone and did not receive an answer. For me it was too heavy to hold steady in front of the lens. Maybe OK if you are using a tripod

B1548

Did it seem to be a quality product and did you get a refund?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

According to the reviews (https://www.bestproductscanada.com/review-of-starscope-monocular), if one actually believes reviews, it is a reasonable product.

All one requires is a readily available adapter to attach it to a camera, although I suspect the vignetting will be rather severe on a large sensor!? It might work well with a smartphone?

bwa

B1548

Thank you.

B1548

Thank you both.

Francyne Loc: Bromont, Qc

Quality, not so sure according to my partner. Yes they refunded me after I complained to Paypal.

B1548

Thanks again.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

I'd like to bring up another issue with such monoculars. That is, their labelling can be very incorrect. For last Christmas, my wife bought me a 80x100 labelled monocular. It looked like a reputable piece until I tried to use it. First of all, the label 80x100 means that it magnifies the image by 80-fold and that the objective lens (the big one in front) has a diameter of 100 mm=10 cm=3.94 in. I do not remember the exact size of the objective, but it was way smaller then that size. I tried doing a bit of measurement on the magnification, and the value was far from 80x. It could have been 8x or 10x. Without a optical bench, it is hard to get a precise number, but one can easily notice things way out of bounds.

After I (and I hope lots of others) complained, most the of monoculars now sold by Amazon are labelled more realistically as 10x40 or 12x52. But I did still see a 40x60. So, the buyer must beware. --Richard

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

With monoculars (or for that matter with anything) it is buyer beware. I keep seeing ads for a wonderful monocular that magnifies 300x and is better than many quality telescopes... And I believe this with my whole heart; NOT!

bwa

BArthur3

I recently purchased the Starscope (thru one of the "wow" ads online) and can only say using it is a real challenge. Yes it does provide a big zoom image but accurately focusing it is the first big challenge. Then there's getting a stable image -- it has such a narrow field of view even a minor movement can take it way off aim. It certainly works but far more a toy than a quality optical product.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Just get a bridge camera. You will like the results better.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Individuals need to understand that this $40 monocular telescope is not the finest optics that one can buy. And it has a 42mm objective, which by the way is 1.65 inches.

There are rules of thumb on how much magnification can be used per inch of objective. But this rule of thumb is also very dependent upon the quality of the optics, the seeing conditions and the type of object being observed.

I have seen this rule of thumb range from 25x per inch of objective up to 50x per inch and even higher for the scopes with the very best optics. But for less than stellar optics, perhaps the 25x per inch is in order. Beyond this limit, chromatic aberrations, diffraction, astigmatism, coma and other imperfections make it not possible to see more detail of an object with greater magnification.

So, let's suppose that this StarScope should be rated at 25x per inch of objective. With 1.65" of objective, that gives a magnification of about 41x. And my concern is that this scope is really a toy type scope, so maybe 25x per inch is too high.

Many, many, many moons ago, when I was a teenager, I used to get the Edmund Scientific Catalogue in the mail. They sold telescopes, but one claim I would hear from them was the term "Empty Magnification. They also explained this is some pamphlets describing everything you needed to know about telescopes. I remember reading and rereading these pamphlets, absorbing every detail they provided. Their rule of thumb using the best optics was 50x per inch of objective. And beyond this max magnification, one enters into empty magnification where increasing the overall magnification gives you no additional ability to resolve detail. And additionally, as the total magnification increases, the size of the exit pupil decreases smaller and smaller which additionally impacts the ability to see detail.

The high end scope company Telvue uses 60x per inch of magnification on their scopes by the way.

No StarScope is in my future. But in a weak moment some years ago, I did buy a similar 8 x 42 Celestron monocular. Maybe it is the same scope under a different name. All I can say is "what was I thinking in buying this?"

I just went and dug out this old Celestron monocular to refresh my memory. Looking through it, its every bit as bad as I had remembered and the apparent FOV is extremely narrow. Reminds me of looking through a paper towel tube. When I compare with the view I get on my spotting scope when I use it with Baader eyepieces which give an apparent 68 degree field of view, as the eye sees it, to this little 8x42, the difference is staggering. Understand what apparent FOV is. It is different than actual FOV. It is the angle of view you see while looking through the eyepiece. For instance, if looking at the stars at night, it makes the view seem like you are out among the stars rather than the small apparent view that seems like looking through a paper towel tube.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I've got a pair (actually two pair) of no name 30x60 binoculars; cost $10 (for both) and not worth that amount!

bwa

bwa