I made it down to a dark sky site with three observing friends from our local club last night and enjoyed one of the finest evenings of observing I’ve had in a long time. The sky was remarkably transparent and quite steady. I had plans for making detailed notes on all sorts of observations, but spent so much time gawking at celestial wonders that I didn’t write a single note (though I did make a detailed sketch of M-22).
This was my first dark sky outing with the Nikon 12x50 SEs, which lived up to my expectations in every regard. The Nikon 8x42 LXs also performed wonderfully – a dark sky site is a much more level playing field for the lower power, wider field views they provide than a light-polluted, urban backyard (where the 12x50 SE has an overwhelming advantage).
And, one gentleman brought along a pair of Canon 10x30 IS binoculars which he generously let me observe with for about 30 minutes making side by side comparisons between the 10x30s and my 8x42 LX and 12x50 SE binoculars. Here’s what I found.
The Canon 10x30s are very comfortable to hold. They’re light, fit easily in my hands, and the IS button is easily accessible. The smaller instrument is more comfortable to hold than the 18x50, though I didn’t find the larger instrument uncomfortable. Unlike the x50 model, the button on the 10x30’s must be held down constantly to keep IS engaged. On the larger bino, tapping the button will keep it engaged for 5 minutes.
I noticed that one of my observing friends had a little trouble getting IS to work, but I had no difficulty with it. I’ve used binoculars so much that holding the 10x30s steady enough to take full advantage of the IS feature was not difficult. I also noticed that the 10x30s pan much more naturally than the 18x50s. The larger instrument creates bright, trailing artifacts when panning across star fields. The 10x30 does not. I assume that Canon used a different approach with the smaller binocular because they intend it more for frequent panning in daylight conditions. The higher mag 15x and 18x50s, with their smaller FOVs and substantial bulk are not well suited for panning, so it would make sense that Canon beefed up the IS on them.
I also noted, as I read on the internet somewhere, that with IS disengaged, the field edge performance wasn’t nearly as sharp as with IS engaged. When IS was on, stars were virtually pinpoints of the edge of the field. I did notice a bit of odd spikiness about brighter stars when trying to critically focus.
At the lower magnification of 10x, I found the IS feature to be helpful, but not nearly so critical as on the 18x50 instrument. Turning it on was something of a mild and pleasant surprise compared with the blow-your-socks-off shock of IS at the higher magnifications. Although a realize this varies from observer to observer, I have no difficulty holding the 12x50 SEs steady enough for detailed observation. I suspect a certain amount of practice helps in this regard. I use binoculars far more than my observing companions, and several of them commented on their lack of practice with binoculars. (All were extremely impressed with both the LX and the SE binos. Especially the SEs.)
When observing Beta Lyrae (Sheliak?), I noticed that the companion star could be more easily seen with the 10x30s than with the 12x50s. I’m not sure if the stabilization feature was the critical factor in this, however. Stars are so much brighter in the 12x50s (more on this in a minute) than in the 10x30s (with their 3mm exit pupil) that seeing the rather faint companion with the 12x50s is harder due to the glare of the primary. The fact that the 12x50s did a comparable, perhaps even better job, with doubles of similar magnitude like Zeta Lyrae, suggests that aperture more than IS was the primary factor in the case of Beta Lyrae.
Okay, so much for the good news. The bad news? For astronomical observing, the 10x30s are dim. The difference in direct comparison with either the 8x42 LX or the 12x50 SEs was startling, to say the least. Stars in either Nikon instrument blaze with an intensity that must be seen to be fully appreciated. Hot O and B stars have an electric blue tone that is simply breathtaking. Colorful yellow, orange, and red stars have a subtle, transparent clarity. The 10x30 field is flat and dull by comparison. The color just isn’t there and neither is that electric quality that brings the LX and SE views so dramatically to life.
Moreover, on a transparent night, with the Milkyway high in the sky, clouds of bright and dark nebulae are nothing short of fascinating in the Nikon binoculars. I spent a good portion of the evening simply wandering along the Milkyway drinking these in. What a treat! The 8x42s are better for this activity than the 12x50s, due to their wider field and slightly larger exit pupil. Sadly, practically none of this is visible in the 10x30s. The star backgrounds are muddy and dark. Had I only been using the 10x30s, I probably would not have given a second thought to studying Milkyway star clouds and dark nebulae.
Performance on DSOs like M11, M26, etc., etc. was better than on star clouds, but not impressive compared with either Nikon instrument. The problem isn’t one of sharpness, for example, with the 10x30 the bright star in M11 plus the bright stellar companion to its southeast(?), which is actually a double star though not observable as such with lower power binoculars, could be clearly distinguished. The problem is that the objects themselves are dimmer. Smaller portions of extended objects are visible – the outer, fainter elements can’t be seen. The Helix nebula, for example, was smaller and significantly dimmer with the 10x30s than with the 8x42 LXs. The 12x50 SEs, not surprisingly, performed the best on this object. Telescopic observers often fail to realize that the Helix can be more easily observed with handheld binoculars than in telescopes.
I think the 10x30s are a good quality instrument and well-suited for certain daylight observing activities. I am aware that some observers have found them suitable for specific night sky tasks, like picking out satellites under urban conditions. However, after comparing the 10x30s with the LX and SE binoculars, I would never choose the 10x30 IS binos for astronomical use.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Canon 10x30 IS Versus Nikon LX & SE Binos
Edit
Reply
Quote
