Denkmeier Binoviewer Special Offer (closed)

wucheeyiun · Post by **wucheeyiun** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:47 pm

What do you experts think of mirror based binoviewer....? ( sorry for the OT )

denebman · Post by **denebman** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:22 pm

acc wrote:I couldn't really find any optical difference between Denk's Big Easy and the humble $200 Burgess binoviewer when doing side-by-side comparisons on the same scope. (despite all those cloudynights posts about the denk blowing the burgess out of the water... IMO its all hype and percieved "quality" due to the large price difference between the two). May be worth checking this out http://www.burgessoptical.com/Accessori ... wer24.html instead.

Based on my personal contact with my China friend who also bought the "Big Easy" package, the difference between the Denk std and a Burgess OEM (made in Sichuan province, China) is negligible or close to none. However, both are better than monocular use. I also have the feeling that americans tend to overstate their home brand product.

The heart of the binoviewer is a beam splitter cube that is available from Edmund Scientific, it is a fun for DIYer to try.

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:01 pm

I wanted to test and compare the WO vs Denk 'Big Easy' binoviewer at the last mersing trip but my friend was unable to pass me the Big Easy at the last moment. I hope he can still lend me because I would like to compare that with the WO, Burgess or even Denk II.

Though I have not compared the Burgess (BV-125 model c) vs the Big Easy, I noticed that there are already some fundamental specification differences: the Burgess has 22mm aperture, 3-screw eyepiece holder which are not necessary self-centering, OCA is 1.9x while the Big Easy has 26mm aperture, self-centering eyepiece holder and Optical Corrector System (OCS) is 1.2x.

Even then, I would personally prefer to get the Denk II package rather than the Big Easy for these few reasons: minimum 1/8th wave surface accuracy vs 1/4th wave, 98% light transmission (dielectric) vs 89% (MgF2), Self-Centering Dioptre (SCD) holders vs non-SCD holder, 2" 1.2x OCS vs 1.25" 1.4x OCS. The aluminium case and aluminium caps are a bonus! Look at it this way: if you have a premium scope with 1/8th wave (or better) & 99% dielectric diagonal, why should you compromise your optical train with a 1/4th wave binoviewer & 89% light transmission.

wucheeyiun · Post by **wucheeyiun** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:50 pm

Then again, the latest burgess Binoviewer 24 is also dielectric but does not come cheap...299usd.

di-electric beam splitter, and 24mm clear aperture!

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:51 pm

I wanted to test and compare the WO vs Denk 'Big Easy' binoviewer at the last mersing trip but my friend was unable to pass me the Big Easy at the last moment. I hope he can still lend me because I would like to compare that with the WO, Burgess or even Denk II.

Though I have not compared the Burgess (BV-125 model c) vs the Big Easy, I noticed that there are already some fundamental specification differences: the Burgess has 22mm aperture, 3-screw eyepiece holder which are not necessary self-centering, OCA is 1.9x while the Big Easy has 26mm aperture, self-centering eyepiece holder and Optical Corrector System (OCS) is 1.2x.

Even then, I would personally prefer to get the Denk II package rather than the Big Easy for these few reasons: minimum 1/8th wave surface accuracy vs 1/4th wave, 98% light transmission (dielectric) vs 89% (MgF2), Self-Centering Dioptre (SCD) holders vs non-SCD holder, 2" 1.2x OCS vs 1.25" 1.4x OCS. The aluminium case and aluminium caps are a bonus! Look at it this way: if you have a premium scope with 1/8th wave (or better) & 99% dielectric diagonal, why should you compromise your optical train with a 1/4th wave binoviewer & 89% light transmission.

Hey Steve, just buy the Denk la... no need to think twice...

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:16 pm

Then again, the latest burgess Binoviewer 24 is also dielectric but does not come cheap...299usd.

di-electric beam splitter, and 24mm clear aperture!

There is still quite a difference between a 24mm aperture vs 26mm for the Denk. Then there is the 3-screw holder (Burgess) vs the Self-Centering Dioptre (SCD) holder (Denk). And there is also a big difference between a 2.3x OCA (Burgess) and 1.2x OCS in 2" (Denk). Then there is the convenience of the Powerswitch (Denk). I would prefer to use lower power with large-fieldstop eyepiece without vignetting issues. Anyway the Burgess model 24 is back-ordered. After a while, people do realise that cheap stuff do compromise somewhere on its quality or quality control. In this world, there is no free lunch...you get what you pay for.

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:27 pm

Hey Steve, just buy the Denk la... no need to think twice...

Calling yourself Steve? We still have a few days before the end of this month, so lets see if any more people wants the special offer.

denebman · Post by **denebman** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:20 am

rlow wrote:I wanted to test and compare the WO vs Denk 'Big Easy' binoviewer at the last mersing trip but my friend was unable to pass me the Big Easy at the last moment. I hope he can still lend me because I would like to compare that with the WO, Burgess or even Denk II.

Even then, I would personally prefer to get the Denk II package rather than the Big Easy for these few reasons: minimum 1/8th wave surface accuracy vs 1/4th wave, 98% light transmission (dielectric) vs 89% (MgF2), Self-Centering Dioptre (SCD) holders vs non-SCD holder, 2" 1.2x OCS vs 1.25" 1.4x OCS...

I would have bought the Denk-II long time ago without doing too much painful research.

The binoviewers are optically none magnifying element in the light path, 1/4th or 1/8th wave surface (except for the beam splitter) may not make much difference as it does on a long focal length objective lens/mirror. Another good example is the eyepiece, no manufacturer states that the optical surfaces of their eps meet 1/4th or 1/8th wave criteria since it is not necessary.

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:24 pm

Denk II prisms are highly polished to 1/8th wave surface accuracy and experienced observers have discern that planetary images are sharper than the Denk Standard. The quality of polish on eyepiece lenses are equally important in producing better image quality.

Denk II also have special bafflings to control off-axis reflections and observers reported less scatter compared to the Denk Standard.

Just like CZ mirrors, its the actual in-use performance that counts, more than the technical specifications or lab test reports. I evaluate based on observation performance reports and independent critical reviews by experienced observers, not just on theoretical calculations or design specifications.

One thing to note: the Big Easy is not the same as the Denk Standard as the SCD is not provided with the Big Easy package. If you need to adjust the diopter on a binoculars, then you need the SCD to get sharp images.

wucheeyiun · Post by **wucheeyiun** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:50 pm

In binoviewing, in my experience, the biggest culprits is the vision merging problem of off centred eyepieces.

The best innovation and solution to this problem is the "self centering diotre", in which eyepiece are tighten by conpression ring rather then triple screw.

here, standard & denk 2 is one upas compared to Big Easy and all other burgess type of binoviewers.

The only reservation is to spend premium money for prism binoviewer as compare to mirror based types.