Jump to content


Photo

best binocular for viewing milky way

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#26 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 11:12 AM

Jon,

there is a point at which the edge aberrations become distracting


I have only ever looked through one binocular where the outer field was distracting to the point where I would have preferred not to have had it.

With a wide field you have greater context and can readily detect movement in the outer field as Glenn has pointed out. I had three satellites in a single 11.5* field a few evenings ago and that field was much more immersive than the the 8.8* field of my Nikon 8x30 EII.

Graham

#27 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10520
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:06 PM

As I often point out, if you gaze toward the field center, even pretty bad edge-of-field aberration is hardly perceived as such by the non-foveal retina. Peripheral vision is of notoriously low resolving power, but it's sensitive to both light and motion; very useful to have a more expansive view when star hopping or general panning. Even surprisingly subtle 'fuzzies' call attention to themselves as they enter the field edge, in spite of the aberrations. I continually marvel at just how potent is the peripheral vision in differentiating a not glaringly obvious DSO from even sizeably blurred stars.

#28 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:30 PM

Graham et al,

To clarify my preference, I prefer views through Plossl-like eyepieces with around 50 degrees of "mainly sharp", very nicely framed stars, such as what is seen through Captain's Helmsman 7x50, to views through Orion Expanse 7x32, with around 84 degrees AFOV, around 40 degrees of which only is sharp, the rest being little more than a blur, especially with practically non-existent eye-relief.

So in short, my answer to your question is "no".

Kenny

#29 JustaBoy

JustaBoy

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3956
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2012

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:34 PM

I'm with you, Kenny - Thanks!
-Chuck

#30 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43444
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 18 August 2013 - 05:05 PM

As I often point out, if you gaze toward the field center, even pretty bad edge-of-field aberration is hardly perceived as such by the non-foveal retina. Peripheral vision is of notoriously low resolving power, but it's sensitive to both light and motion; very useful to have a more expansive view when star hopping or general panning. Even surprisingly subtle 'fuzzies' call attention to themselves as they enter the field edge, in spite of the aberrations. I continually marvel at just how potent is the peripheral vision in differentiating a not glaringly obvious DSO from even sizeably blurred stars.


Glenn:

I have to admit that I am coming at this from the standpoint of someone who primarily observes with a telescope. In the telescope world, wide apparent fields of view that are well illuminated and free from aberrations like field curvature, coma, and astigmatism are possible and bright off-axis stars can be quite distracting. And too, smaller fainter objects are detectable off-axis with a better corrected view.

Still, I think there is no one best tool, one best magnification aperture, field of view for observing the Milky Way, they are all good in their own way. A 10 degree TFoV in a 7x35mm binocular shows certain scale. A 1.7 degree TFoV in a 12.5 inch telescope at 38x shows a certain scale. One is not better than the other, they are different and wonderful in their own way.

Jon

#31 mountain monk

mountain monk

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Grand Teton National Park

Posted 18 August 2013 - 07:01 PM

+1. And better yet, most of us get to choose both, or, more likely, more.

Dark skies.

Jack

#32 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 18 August 2013 - 09:16 PM

What is the best binocular for viewing the milky way, the overall structure with star and dark clouds from a dark site ( 21.5 mag/arcsec^2) ?

I am presently considering the Nikon Action EX 7x35 with 9.3 degree FOV or 8x40 with 8 degree FOV, the Kowa 6x30 with 8 degree FOV seems to be to narrow (48 degree AFOV).

with many thanks in advance

Thomas


For panning the milkyway in general I like the blue planet 2.3x40 Galilean opera glasses (advertised 28 deg TFOV and near zero eye relief). 2nd choice 7x40 Orion UW 14 deg FOV. Neither are made in the US anymore. Vixen Ascot 8x50mm UW are pretty god too for handholding.

I have the 7x32 Orion Expanse with 14 deg FOV but did not know there was a 7x40 version made in the US . When were they made in the US ?


Sorry, I was going from memory. You are correct they wer Orion 7x32 UW 14 deg TFOV. I also had an 8x40UW 9.4 TFOV 5mm exit pupil that I liked, as well as the 10x50 SW Vixen Ascot 8.5 deg TFOV 5mm exit pupil 7mm eye relief.

#33 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6106
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 19 August 2013 - 09:28 AM

I find my Fuji 10x50 FMT SX with 65 degree afov (6.5 real fov) to be ideal for looking at the MW "forest."

A flat, well corrected to the edge fov, and very good edge of field illumination which these have is "my cup of tea."

:cool:

#34 Man in a Tub

Man in a Tub

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Fogpatch, CA

Posted 19 August 2013 - 10:42 PM

I find my Fuji 10x50 FMT SX with 65 degree afov (6.5 real fov) to be ideal for looking at the MW "forest."

A flat, well corrected to the edge fov, and very good edge of field illumination which these have is "my cup of tea."

:cool:


Ed Z measured the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX TFOV at 6.7°. To the best of my ability, I have confirmed that measurement. Not that one should doubt Ed's tests.

#35 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6106
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 19 August 2013 - 10:49 PM

Even better.... :grin:

#36 RichD

RichD

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1964
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Derbyshire, UK

Posted 20 August 2013 - 09:09 AM

Yes, not often a bino or scope is better than advertised!

As good as the nikon 12x50se is, the Fuji 10x50 FMT still beats it on milky way sweeping due to the huge AFOV and the sheer number of stars it puts into each field of view.

Doesn't hurt that the contrast is excellent too.

#37 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:24 AM

Plaudits for the Fujinon FMTSX 10x50 only serve to agree with my previously declared preference.

For example, several of us have or have owned Swift Audubon Kestrel 10x50 with an even wider AFOV than the Fuji, yet I can't recall a single user rating it a favourite for astro use!

Kenny

#38 steve@37n83.9w

steve@37n83.9w

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Kentucky

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:32 AM

For bino viewing my favorite areas of the Milky Way are the dense star fields around Cygnus and the binos I use most are my Fujinon and PIF 10x50s. Higher magnifications let you see deeper and lower magnifications let you see more area but I think the wide field views of a premium 10x50 offer the best compromise when viewing the Milky Way.

Steve

#39 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5027
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:42 AM

Post deleted by hallelujah

#40 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43444
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:48 PM

Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your comparison further.



The way I read Kenny's post, he was saying that the Swift Kestrel had an wider field of view than the Fujinonsbut no one he knew thought the Swifts were a great binocular.

The point being that a poorly corrected widefield of view is not necessarily an advantage, something that has been asserted by some...

Jon

#41 SMark

SMark

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:27 PM


Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your comparison further.



The way I read Kenny's post, he was saying that the Swift Kestrel had an wider field of view than the Fujinonsbut no one he knew thought the Swifts were a great binocular.

The point being that a poorly corrected widefield of view is not necessarily an advantage, something that has been asserted by some...

Jon


C'mon guys, you're splitting hairs here. For all practical purposes the Polaris and Kestral 10x50s have the same FOV. The plain fact is that the Polaris is just better (for our purposes, anyway) than any other 10x50 porro available today or yesterday. And the fact that it also has a wide field of view is one of the reasons why it is so well liked. The wide field *feature* of the Polaris 10x50 is very often mentioned right along with its outstanding field corrections.

It's like having your cake and eating it too! ;)

#42 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6106
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:43 PM

Lets see....

would I rather have a contrasty flat field with pinpoint stars out to 90% of the edge

or...

a fov that looks like Hans Solo going into Hyperdrive to gain a little more fov....hummmm.

:grin:

#43 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:49 PM

Stan,

I believe there is no need for me to expand further.

Jon obviously understood what I was trying to say.

Kenny

#44 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5027
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:15 PM

Mark,

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. :like:

Stan

#45 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:25 PM

Stan,

You could just as easily thanked ME for hitting the nail on the head, as Steve(whom you referred to as Mark) essentially said exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along in this thread, which is that any wider areas of field that show stars considerably less sharp than the central field is not really worth having.

Kenny

#46 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:26 PM

Kenny et al,

You're very cheeky comparing expensive binos with smaller fields to cheaper binos with wider fields and claiming that the more expensive binos are superior because of their smaller fields!

The issue is not one of particular models but of a principle:

Consider two otherwise identical binoculars, let's call them 'Standard' and 'Wide'. The sole difference is that 'Wide' has an outer field where 'Standard' has none, they are identical in all other respects.

I prefer 'Wide' to 'Standard' even if the 'Wide' outer field is aberrated.

Don't you?

Graham

#47 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:38 PM

Graham,

For a start, I wouldn't classify my Swift Audubon Kestrel as "cheap" binoculars.

They were priced at over £300 in the mid 1990s.

The second point is I'm not suggesting the Fujinons are "Superior, BECAUSE they have a narrower FOV"

In fact, as Steve implied, the difference between 6.7 and 6.9 degrees TFOV is neither here nor there really.

I only prefer "wide" to "standard" if at least a noticeable portion of that extra field is showing me something beyond AND what I find as easy on the eyes as what can be seen in the "standard".

Kenny

#48 JustaBoy

JustaBoy

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3956
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2012

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:42 PM

No - Not me!
-Chuck

#49 Andresin150

Andresin150

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Bogotá - La Calera / Colombia

Posted 20 August 2013 - 05:02 PM

Is there a model besides the SV 8x32 that shows 8°, with actual 8° of pinpoint stars right to the edge?... if they only came up with a 10° version or an 8° 10x40....

#50 Littlegreenman

Littlegreenman

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
  • Joined: 08 May 2005
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 20 August 2013 - 06:49 PM

snip!... Ask 10 people and you'll get at least 9 different recommendations. snip!


I couldn't resist. Often if you ask 10 people you will get
eleven recommendations.

==
But back to basic question. Let's divide binoculars into two classes for viewing of the Milkey Way.
1. small, hand held binoculars; the 7x35, 8x40. Lightweight , show a relatively large patch of sky.
2. large, mounted binoculars, higher magnification, showing a smaller patch of sky.

...and let's add a third class: binoculars that try to do some or all of both of the above.

I like them all, which leads to the conclusion that if you get one binocular you will limit you viewing experience to one type. If you don't have any binoculars, I would recommened you start with something that can be hand held. That way you will probably use them a lot more.

Down the road you can always get another pair!

LGM

:bounce: This hobby, like Graemlins, can be addictive.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics