Binoculars?

[blackrock13]

I bought some binoculars around the $200 mark, and I'll be damned if I cant use them. No matter what I do I see two images, even though others can use them no problem. I am going to look for a small single lens/eyepiece spotting scope instead.

Two possible problems. You're having problems adjusting the proper distance between the eye pieces for your face or there is a misaligned prism in the binocs that could have been fixed or replaced. Binocs are more comfortable to use for long periods that monoculars or spotting scopes and give you a better sense of distance/depth.

 

[Aardvark154]

I've always liked Bridge Glasses (7x50) even on land but believe me you are never going to able to hide the fact that you are looking through binoculars!

 

[alexmst]

http://www.giantbinoculars.com/2540m.htm

Rotating ocular turrets allow wide-angle viewing at 25x and high-power viewing at 40x. Apparent field of view is a very wide 67°. True giants, these are two feet in length and weigh over 26 lbs! For decades, this Carl Zeiss-designed binocular was available only to the East German and Chinese militaries. Now the same factory is producing these long range high powered binoculars for Oberwerk Corporation for the civilian market. This is the ultimate optical instrument for terrestrial observation. If you've got a home with a view, enjoy it to the utmost with this magnificent instrument.

These very same high powered binoculars used to be featured in the famous Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog, for a whopping $3995! When you see the quality of construction, and the quality of the view that it offers, you'll understand why it could sell for such a high price. Comes complete with rock-solid wooden tripod, mount (which is also a removable table-top tripod), and lightweight carrying case. $1795.

 

[Aardvark154]

Comes complete with rock-solid wooden tripod, mount (which is also a removable table-top tripod).

Thank goodness for that, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see a thing with that kind of magnification!

 

[blackrock13]

http://www.giantbinoculars.com/2540m.htm

Rotating ocular turrets allow wide-angle viewing at 25x and high-power viewing at 40x. Apparent field of view is a very wide 67°. True giants, these are two feet in length and weigh over 26 lbs! For decades, this Carl Zeiss-designed binocular was available only to the East German and Chinese militaries. Now the same factory is producing these long range high powered binoculars for Oberwerk Corporation for the civilian market. This is the ultimate optical instrument for terrestrial observation. If you've got a home with a view, enjoy it to the utmost with this magnificent instrument.

These very same high powered binoculars used to be featured in the famous Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog, for a whopping $3995! When you see the quality of construction, and the quality of the view that it offers, you'll understand why it could sell for such a high price. Comes complete with rock-solid wooden tripod, mount (which is also a removable table-top tripod), and lightweight carrying case. $1795.

..... and everyone who visits your place won't think twice about thinking you're a Nosy Parker spying on your neighbours, or not. Mind you, if you don't have friends, go for it. Go big or go home and get a 5" Celestron C5 or C8 telescope at $500. or $1200 respectfully and really get personal.

 

[alexmst]

Thank goodness for that, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see a thing with that kind of magnification!

These (or similar) one often sees in beachfront condos in Florida where the owner has a say 20th floor condo and wants to check out the action on the beach. When I was looking at condos many of them had these by the balcony doors.

I don't own these as where I live there is no use for them. I still have a Nikon Nikkor 1000mm f11 reflex lens for my F4s. That gives a 20x view and one can take a photo (tripod required). I also tried using a 2x adapter that turned it into a 2000mm (40x) lens, but image quality suffered and any vibration of the tripod would blur the photo. Better was just using the 1000mm and a 400 iso film. In the tropics the light is so bright that the maximum f11 ap didn't matter, though up north it wouldn't have worked well as shutter speeds would have been too slow and blurred it and films over 400 iso were not great (this was in the 1989 time frame).

Funny thing, I was trying out a Nikon D3 camera in 2008 in Toronto and took my old 1000mm out of its case that I hadn't used in years and hooked it up, using a tripod. It was summer here, so light was decent, though still dim by Miami standards. However, since the digital camera had a usable 6400 iso, I used that iso speed and actually got some nice shots. Not topless girls on South Beach lol, but I took birds - cardinals feeding from 100 ft away and made prints 8"x10" that were great - one even in flight with attractive wing motion blur. So digital technology has improved things for those using the old 1000mm Nikkor. Nikon also made a 2000mm reflex lens with its own tripod in the early 1970's but it cost as much as a car and I haven't seen any in the flesh. The 1000mm was kind of inexpensive as it used a reflex optical design. I paid $1000 cash for it in 1988 used off of a photographer who paid $1,549 for it new. He only used it once (during the Toronto Papal visit) and the newspaper he worked for bought it for him specifically for that purpose and gave it to him afterwards to keep. He never used it again as he didn't need long lenses. The 800mm 5.6 cost much more at the time - like $8,000 - because it had a better optical design (non-reflex). Canon brought out a monster 1200mm 5.6 in the 1990's that I wanted but passed on when I found out it was pushing 100k. I think Canon discontinued this model due to poor sales.

These days I just hire models to do nude shoots and use 50mm, 85mm and 135mm lenses up close rather than checking things out from afar with the 1000mm lol.