Quote:Regarding aperture, for astronomy it simply cannot be ignored. A 32mm binocular, no matter how fine in quality, will rarely if ever reveal fainter objects than a decent 42mm binocular. This is not to say that one should choose a lesser quality 42mm instrument over a top-notch 32mm. The lesser quality instrument will not be as sharp, as well color-corrected, as well built, as easy to use, etc. If the choice is strictly for astronomical use, however, it's difficult for me to see how one could select a premium 32mm bino over a premimum 42mm binocular.
Quote: I don't suppose you have managed to compare the 8x42 LX against any mid-priced instruments such as the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP?
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST Apex 127,C6 XLT,C6R,C9.25,XT10 ,Celestron Regal 100 F-ED, CT152 Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS 12x36 IS II , Pentax 8x32 ED Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's. 21mm Ethos,17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom, 31mm Axiom LX
Quote:To me, however , there remains "something " -- some hard to describe "x" factor , which is just lacking from Pentax binoculars but which is there to see and feel in the VERY top end binoculars.I have TRIED to convince myself that there is no such difference -- but , sadly for me ,and my wallet , I think there IS.
Quote: When I purchased the Pentax DCF 8x42 WP's over four years ago they were the top rated roof's in their price range.
Quote:My pupils are still 4mm and 4.5mm in the bathroom mirror with 60 watts of light overhead about 3-4 feet away.edz
Quote:Last night I as able to compare a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL with a Zeiss 8x42 FL and a Nikon 8x32 SE. I have often said that the SE compared to the Swaro in terms of brightness, based on earlier tests at dusk. Here in the UK a clear sky is rarer than hen's teeth, so I contented myself with viewing nearby houses from a third floor window on a dark but cloudy night. In short the Zeiss and Swarovski are indistinguisable in terms of brightness and both are significantly brighter than the SE. Now this surprised me as I had found the Swaro and SE to be equivalent when viewing silos and fields at dusk. I am now at a bit of a loss (and not a little red faced) to explain the earlier result. Maybe the light was not low enough for my pupils to dilate beyond 4mm, even though it was some time past sunset? I wonder if anyone knows what light level is required for the pupils to dilate more than 4mm?
Quote:I'm not sure what you mean when you say that: "I've come to the conclusion that the step between 32mm and 42mm is critical for binocular astronomy." Are you saying that 32mm binoculars are to be avoided, and an amateur astronomer should always go for a 42mm? Or are you saying that an amateur needs a premium 42mm?
Quote:Regarding the 32mm versus 42mm, forgive my rudeness, but I think the statement you made is meaningless because it says nothing about optical quality.
Quote:The Nikon 12x50 SE may be my favorite astro binocular. I've used my Nikon 10x42 SE to view the night sky but I prefer the combination of image scale and field of view given by 12x50 SE. I like the Swarovski 8.5x42 for wider fields of view. I've only looked at stars briefly with my new Zeiss 10x42 FL. The Moon has been so bright it is hard to see many stars right now. The FL gave a sharp, high contrast view of the moon yesterday.