Uncle Rod's Astro Blog

What did your old Uncle Rod think of Burgess Optical's Bargain Basement Burgess Binoviewer (it’s alliteration day) he received a from Herb York at Anacortes for evaluation purposes, muchachos? For the 200-dollar price tag, I was fairly impressed. However, going in, I didn’t quite know what to expect. I mean, sure, we know the Mainland Chinese factories have been able to turn out some decent gear for amazing prices over the last few years. But binoviewers? In the past, the combination of “cheap” and “binoviewer” has meant “eyestrain” and “waste of time” and, generally “YUCK.” 

All that in my mind, such as it is, a look at the Anacortes website revealed the specs on this thing: “Binoviewer with Bak4 Prisms with 24 mm clear aperture and broadband coatings. Dual Individual helical focusers. Threaded for filters.”

Sounded pretty good, but what would such an el-cheapo be like on an observing field? When the Burgess arrived, I was, yeah, impressed. The binoviewer does not look or feel cheap at all. The body is a nice anodized aluminum with a rubberized coating that provides a good grip for the folding binocular style body. The (non-removable) 1.25-inch nose piece is threaded for filters, and, in quite a coup for a 200-dollar unit, each eyepiece holder is equipped with a helical focuser. The overall appearance is good-looking without that cobbled together appearance so common in the less expensive binoviewers we’ve seen. The unit sports a “Burgess Optical BAK4 FBBMC” (fully broadband multicoated) nameplate.

Anything I didn’t like right off the bat? Well, from first sight and first light, I was skeptical about the method the Burgess uses to hold the eyepieces in place, noncaptive setscrews. Over and above the fact they are more of a hassle to use in the dark than the self-centering eyepiece holders on the Denkmeiers and other top of the line binoviewers—I’m famous for dropping small set screws—this “feature” of the Burgess was to prove to be its Achilles heel in testing.  

Luckily, we’ve been undergoing one of our infrequent spells of clear, cool weather down here in Possum Swamp, so I was able to get the Burgess out to my club’s suburban Pine Lake Observatory site for some deep sky testing t’other night. While this location is far from perfect light pollution-wise, it’s good enough. The Nexstar 11, the scope I’d use for the test, is capable of revealing fine detail in M76 at this location, for example.   In addition to the Nexstar 11, my setup was as follows:

• Peterson “EyeOpener” 2 inch visual back that allows me to insert a 2 inch diagonal directly into the back of the C11, allowing for a more stable installation of heavy equipment like binoviewers than you get with a 2 inch adapter attached to an SCT’s standard/small rear port. 
• Denkmeier SkySweeper. I use this f/5 reducer almost exclusively now. It’s easier to use and more versatile than a Meade or Celestron reducer corrector. I screwed the SS onto the 1.25” - 2” adapter that I then inserted the Burgess into. The Burgess is a 1.25” device like most current binoviewers.
• 2” Intes enhanced diagonal. 
• A Denkmeier Standard binoviewer for comparison purposes. The model I have has the self-centering eyepiece holders, but no helical focusers.
• Handsonoptics GTO Plössl sets. Yeah, I know they ain’t Cadillacs, but they are sharp, very sharp. They were also attractively priced when I was first getting into binoviewing, not too long ago.

What first? Can’t let M13 slide away without one more look. I got the NS11 aligned and sent it that way. I started out with the Denks. MAN...I’m still impressed by that binoviewer. It’s so comfortable to use, and just works so darned well, delivering beautiful views of the deep sky in addition to the Moon and planets. With the 25 mm Plössls, the field stop was sharp, and the field was well-illuminated to the edge. Many, many tiny stars twinkling out of the light pollution and thick air down toward the horizon.

OK...moment of truth. It was time to give the Burgess its chance. What to expect? I didn’t know. I did realize that it wasn’t realistic to expect the Burgess to keep up with the Denkmeier. The Denk Standard’s price with no accessories is now an amazingly low $499.00, but that’s still more than twice the price of the Burgess’ $199.00.   “OK steady as she goes...25 mm Plössls in place...Denk safe on the observing table—man, this dew is HEAVY—what will it be? A dim microscope-bino head disaster?”

Nope. Not at all. YEAH, BABY! The stars of M13 looked as good in the Burgess, frankly, as they did in the Denkmeier. There was no detail I could see in the Denk that I couldn’t see in the Burgess. These relatively poor skies were probably not the ultimate test, but I was impressed by the brightness of the Burgess’ images.

So, the view in the Burgess binoviewer was just as good as it was in the Denks? Well, no... The smaller clear aperture of the Burgess produced significant vignetting with 25 mm Plössls. The field stop was fuzzy, and the field obviously smaller. Was this fatal for the Burgess? No, not really. I noticed it most when I switched back to the Denkmeiers. When I didn’t worry about it and just concentrated on enjoying the sky with the Burgesses, the field faux pas didn't bother me at all.

With the Denkmeier StarSweeper focal reducer in place (a standard SCT reducer/corrector would also work), the field was more than large enough to make the Burgess useable on the deep sky with an f/10 SCT.   Usable, yes? As immersive and comfortable as the Denks? No.