stendec
member
Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Sweden
|
|
I am going to buy a small handhold binocular and need some recommendation.
I need large field of view, and if possible sharp edges, light weight, max 10x mag. No zoom! Max price around 100-150 Euro.
I want to look at the moons of Jupiter, our moon, some Messiers, Milkyway, and constellations.
/stendec
|
StarWars
Postmaster
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 11634
Loc: At The Movies
|
|
http://www.bigbinoculars.com/brand.asp?sqlq=Oberwerk
http://www.opticsplanet.net/binoculars.html
|
stendec
member
Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Sweden
|
|
Great link! http://www.opticsplanet.net/binoculars.html
How much mag. needed to se the four galiean moons of Jupiter? Would 7-8x work?
--------------------
Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX2
|
StarWars
Postmaster
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 11634
Loc: At The Movies
|
|
I would go more than 7X or 8X to view the moons. When I used 7X I could see 2 sometimes 3 moons and they were just pin-points of light. 12X60/15X70/20X80 will give better views.
You can get Burgess 15 x 70mm Binoculars for $99 ...
http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=86&pid=5196&m=
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
stendec stated quite clearly :
< I am going to buy a small handhold binocular >
Apollo responded :
< You can get Burgess 15 x 70mm Binoculars for $99 ... >
Some might disagree with me here , but I do not consider a 15x70 to be a "small hand -held binocular"
stendec stated :
< max 10x mag >
Again , some might disagree , but I thought that 15x magnification was MORE than 10x.
stendec stated :
< I need large field of view, and if possible sharp edges, light weight, max 10x mag. No zoom! Max price around 100-150 Euro. >
I say this :
Stendec , such a binocular does not exist.
I'm afraid you are going to have to realise that what you WANT and what you GET for 150 Euro is going to be different.
BUT from what you say you wish to SEE through these binoculars , Apollo is right in a way.
I think you might be wise to cross off the "lightweight" and "small" from your wish list.
And forget trying to get a WIDE field AND sharp edges.
Frankly you would struggle to find that in a 1500 Euro binocular , let alone a 150 Euro model.
If you are *bleep* bent on "hand -holding" , my personal opinion is that you could do far worse than find yourself a 10 x 42 or something like that, with a 6 degree TFOV. within your budget.
Regards , Kenny.
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
stendec
member
Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Sweden
|
|
Ok, thanks for reply!
I am a beginner in astronomy, starting with 8" dobson last year. I like something smaller and faster, you know "grab and go". A small binocular would do just fine!
What can I expect from a 7,8 or 10x42 binocular costing around 150Euro? Any Messier objects at all?
--------------------
Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX2
|
Scott Beith
SRF
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 33054
Loc: Gulfport, MS
|
|
I really like the 8x42 Oberwerks I bought a few months back. They are FMC, waterproof, have BAK4 prisms, and easy to hand hold. There is a review of them in the binocular forum. Hope it helps.
--------------------
  Scott
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
"The measure of a man’s greatness is not determined by what he accomplishes for himself, but by what he accomplishes for others.” -- Some Bald Guy
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
What can I expect from a 7,8 or 10x42 binocular
costing around 150Euro? Any Messier objects at all?
I'm pretty happy with my Orion Ultraview 8x42 (about US$170 including local taxes), and before them I used 10x50 with much enjoyment and may go back to 10x50 or maybe 12x50. Nikon Action Extreme models are in your price range, I believe. In the U.K. there are some other brands; I think Helios is one, and Opticron (sp?) or something like that. I would think there might be less expensive models of German brands.
As to what you might be able to see, for example check the Astronomical League's Binocular Messier Club:
http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/binomess/binomess.html
They discuss using various sizes of binoculars. Also check their Urban club, and variable and binary stars.
Of course your best results on deep-sky object will be from a dark-sky site. Use your 8-inch (200mm) telescope for the planets!
Earlier tonight I was able to see Omega Centauri (a giant globular cluster) with my 8x42, as well as comet C/2001 Q4 (NEAT). I think that I saw comet C/2002 T7 (LINEAR), but if so it was barely there. This was from a suburban observing site.
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
|
StarWars
Postmaster
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 11634
Loc: At The Movies
|
|
More Goodies...
http://www.apogeeinc.com/binos.html#top
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The help you may soon need might be to fend off the suggestions to buy BIG.
We need Fiske to stop by this thread and extoll the virtues of small binocular astronomy. Not necessarily cheap, but surely small.
You can certainly see a vast multitude of astronomical objects with small binoculars in the 8x40 to 10x50 range. And no one better than Fiske to describe them.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Scott Beith
SRF
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 33054
Loc: Gulfport, MS
|
|
Ed,
Well stated Sir. Where has he been?
--------------------
Scott
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
"The measure of a man’s greatness is not determined by what he accomplishes for himself, but by what he accomplishes for others.” -- Some Bald Guy
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
He's got his nose in some books over in the reading room.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
I sometimes use a pair of CZJ 8x30 Deltrintems,these were very cheap at the time of buying and when comparing them to a more expensive pair of Praktica 12x50s the 8x30 clearly showed more detail on the moon due to far superior optics.Obviously a smaller image but,more detail could be seen. Something to think about.
Steve.
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
stendec,
here are some recommendations:
10X42 Swift Ultralite (within your budget, and fulfills all your criteria, not too bad on the edges).
Best small aperture, lightweight 10X bin IMO: 10X35 E2 (over your budget by about $100, but worth every penny, particularly if you have light pollution problems, and since you're in Europe, I guess that's a given. Fantastic 70* AFOV for open clusters, also good for bright messiers, the moon, Jupiter's moons, and wonderful for cruising the Milky Way if you can find a spot where you can SEE the Milky Way. I live in the middle of rural America, and I can't always see it! Very sharp optics, lightweight, easy to hold, sharp nearly to the edge. Good close focus for birding too. Once you start using this bin, you'll have to have it surgically removed, because you won't want to put it down (the only cure is buying a Superior E). See my review on this site.
P.S. Since you said "max" of 10X, I assume you're open to using 8X (some people can't steady 10X, and they actually see more detail with 8X). The 8X42 Swift Ultralite is very sharp (sharper than the 10X42, and has better ER, though you didn't list that in your criteria) and can be had for about the same price (~$190). The FOV isn't super wide like the E2, but decent at 6.6* TFOV. Good for birding too, though the 16.4' close focus may not be everyone's cup of tea.
The Nikon 8X30 E2 has one of the widest FOVs available (8.8*) and the distortion is surprisingly low for such a wide FOV, and the edges are also very good for a wide field bin. Good for birding too. It's a little over your budget, about $239.
What's great about both these bins (8X or 10X) is that they are all purpose bins, you can use them for birding, sport events, scenic views, astronomy, etc.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
We need Fiske to stop by this thread and extoll the virtues of small binocular astronomy. Not necessarily cheap, but surely small.
You can certainly see a vast multitude of astronomical objects with small binoculars in the 8x40 to 10x50 range. And no one better than Fiske to describe them.
edz
Ah, speak of the Devil... 
Planetary observation is not necessarily the forte of small binocular observing. I say stick with the 8-inch scope for that. But for grab and go quick views of Messier objects, it's hard to beat a trusty pair of binoculars in the 8x-10x range with apertures from 42mm to 63mm.
I'm not a fan of 10x42mm binos for astronomy (KennyJ's recommendation above not withstanding) because the smaller exit pupil (4.2mm) does not perform as well on fainter objects in my experience. I've found 5mm preferable for handheld, low power observing -- 8x42, 10x50, etc.
Although I have used 10x50s for years, I recently switched to 8x42s as my primary handheld instrument and find them to be more comfortable and just as good when it comes to observing Messier's and other DSOs.
I've used and like
Orion Ultraview 10x50s
Celestron Ultima 8x56mms (smaller Apparent FOV a little annoying)
Celestron Ultima 9x63mm (despite the size they feel like 10x50s and perform marvelously)
and, of course, Nikon Venturer LX 8x42s (out of price range).
The amazing thing about astronomy with small, hand-held binoculars is the extent of what can be seen -- not just a few Messier objects, but 100s of DSOs. Rarely does a clear night pass when I don't spend 10-15 minutes in my backyard with binoculars. Compared with the time and energy involved with setting up a telescope, binoculars are a snap to use. Total "setup" time: maybe 20 seconds.
Of course, you don't see as much detail in smaller DSOs like galaxies, globulars, and planetary nebula with binoculars (lower mag) but you see objects in the context of larger star fields which is a different way to enjoy observing them. And for some objects, many open clusters come to mind, the view is much better through binos because the larger field of view is critical for seeing the entire object or getting a sense of the cluster's overall structure.
And I've found I can see much more with a pair of binoculars from a dark sky site than with an 11-inch telescope in my light-polluted backyard.
It's hard to beat the fun of sitting back in a comfortable sling chair with a pair of binos, a star atlas, a glass of red wine, a few friends (in their own chairs!), and cruising the sky. 
If you don't own a copy, I highly recommend the Crossen/Tirion Binocular Astronomy guide.
--------------------
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
Edited by Fiske (06/15/04 09:26 PM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I would recommend the best 8x42 or 8x50 porro prism binocular you are willing to buy. Roof prisms cost a lot more to make for a given quality so porros will give you more punch for your pound. The Nikon 8x32 SE mentioned by Brock is brighter and sharper than many 8x42 binoculars despite the small size. The reason in the high quality hence the price. The Swift 8.5x44 Audubon is said to be very good and not expensive. The Nikon 8x42 Egret has good contrast, sharpness and brightness (though less than the Nikon 8x32 SE), a huge field, rugged build, but little eye relief and poor field edges. It is inexpensive.
I know from experience that some cheap 8x40 binoculars that seem good in daylight are mediocre on the night sky. As an example, the Viking 8x40 (a UK brand) is much dimmer than the Nikon 8x42 Egret.
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2109
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
"There are good optics, and there are cheap optics, but there are no GOOD / CHEAP optics."
--Leif Robinson, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, Sky & Telescope
Just a thought,
Bill Cook
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
Rick McNelly
member
Reged: 03/16/04
Posts: 37
Loc: Chesapeak, VA
|
|
Hi Steve,
I've been looking at purchasing a pair of CZJ 8x30 Deltrintems, and would appreciate your opinion of them. I have 8x32 SE's and am used to sharp optics, but need another pair to keep in the car.
I've been looking at vintage binocs, and modern compacts, and then started looking at the 8x30 Deltrintems after your post. The pair I'm looking at seem to have a bluish lens coating, and I don't know how old they are.
--------------------
Rick McNelly
8x32 SE, 10x35E II
8x32 S&W
|
Rick McNelly
member
Reged: 03/16/04
Posts: 37
Loc: Chesapeak, VA
|
|
Steve,
I forgot to ask, how is the eye relief and field of view on the CZJ 8x30 Deltrintems?
--------------------
Rick McNelly
8x32 SE, 10x35E II
8x32 S&W
|
BarrySimon615
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 03/01/04
Posts: 918
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
|
Quote:
"There are good optics, and there are cheap optics, but there are no GOOD / CHEAP optics."
--Leif Robinson, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, Sky & Telescope
Bill,
I am curious about when Leif Robinson said this. Do you have a reference? I would be doubly curious to know if this was before the flood of "cheap" Chinese optics, which are getting better all the time. Some may now even be classified as "good".
Barry Simon
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Regardng the 8x32mm Nikon SEs: these are fine binoculars, possibly the most popular high-end birding binocular going.
For astronomy, however, they offer a relatively small 3.2mm exit pupil. The exit pupil is determined by dividing the aperture by the magnification 10x / 32mm = 3.2mm exit pupil. If you point your binoculars at a brightish area and hold them away from your face, the small circular discs seen through the eyepieces are the exit pupil.
Here's the rub, IF magnification remains the same, as the exit pupil size decreases, so does the surface brightness of objects seen through the binoculars. For day time observing, a lot of light is available and the pupils of your eyes do not dilate, so 10x32mms look about as bright as 8x42mm or 10x50mm binoculars.
At night, however, it's a different story. DSOs are faint and the difference between a 5mm exit pupil and a 3.2mm exit pupil means not being able to see many fainter objects. I've tried this out in the field comparing 10x42mm Nikon SEs (4.2mm exit pupil) with 10x50mm Orion Ultraviews (5mm exit pupil and about 1/6th the price). The Ultraviews easily showed fainter objects.
This is not to say that you can't enjoy astronomical observing with 10x32mm Nikon SEs -- the wide field of view and sharp optics make them a pleasure to use. However, they will show signficantly fewer objects than 8x42mm or 10x50mm binos.
--------------------
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
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
"There are good optics, and there are cheap optics, but there are no GOOD / CHEAP optics."
That might be more true if amended to something like "There are high-performance optics, and there are cheap optics, but there are no cheap, high-performance optics."
Part of the discussion is "bang for the buck", and though highest quality tends to cluster with highest price, good quality is spread out over a larger range of prices. And there can certainly be overpriced models as well.
I've read a lot of messages in the last year or two by people who are very happy with an inexpensive binocular. Maybe they're settling for less quality than others, but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". (Sorry for the
cliché!)
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
For more reading on handholdability see this thread:
what's your size-limit for handheld binos? #84410 - 04/03/04 07:16 PM, posted by jmoore.
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
|
stendec
member
Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Sweden
|
|
Hi!
I think I go for the 8X42 Swift Ultralite. It is a bit over my budget but it seams to be the one for me!
Thanks for the help!
stendec
--------------------
Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX2
|
StarWars
Postmaster
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 11634
Loc: At The Movies
|
|
8X42 Swift Ultralite $209.95 ...
http://www.thebirdguide.com/optics.htm
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
At Adorama it's $199.95
http://www.adorama.com/SW761.html
See review here
Swift Ultra Lite 8 x 42
Eye relief is very long.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Hi!
I think I go for the 8X42 Swift Ultralite. It is a bit over my budget but it seams to be the one for me!
Thanks for the help!
stendec
A fine choice. I'm sure you'll be pleased with these.
--------------------
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
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Fiske: I have a Swaro 8.5x42 EL and a Nikon 8x32 SE. I prefer to use the Nikon, even on the night sky. I cannot see any significant difference in brightness between the two despite the difference in aperture which should give a ratio of roughly 25:16 for the image brightness assuming otherwise similar optical properties. (Actually I cannot see ANY difference despite trying after sunset and on the night sky. The Swro has a shade better resolution, but it's close.) The Nikon 8x32 SE seems to be unusually bright. I have heard similar reports from others so it's not just me. I assume the explanation is optical quality. The Nikon 8x32 SE is more than suitable for use on the night sky although the 4mm exit pupil means that it is not always easy to align the exit pupils with the eyes.
In my experience optical quality is important and sometimes larger does not mean better.
I have heard it said that the iris dilates to ~5mm on an overcast day, so I would be using all of the exit pupil of an 8x32 and an 8x42 on a dull day anyway.
I am surprised the 10x50mm Orion Ultraviews beats the Nikon 10x42 SE, though I know nothing about the Orions. Are these Chinese? From reviews I read on this forum, the Chinese bins really do give good performance for a low price.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Mickey Mouse:
Have you tried comparing 8x32 with 8.5x42 EL peformance on a series of fainter NSG objects? You don't want anything too tiny, a series of open clusters will work fine.
Before testing, work up a short list of O/Cs maybe falling into the 9th mag range (integrated brightness). I'm just guessing on the magnitude here, you might find the break-off point higher or lower than this. Compare views between the two instruments trying to see how much detail is visible (or even if the object is visible at all) in both instruments.
What I found, somewhat accidentally I must say, is that the instrument with the larger exit pupil (both were 10x so magnification wasn't a factor) easily showed fainter objects and more detail in fainter objects.
I have offered to give a sky tour to my Backyard Bird Center friend's customers. When I do, I'll get him to bring along a pair of Nikon 8x32mm SEs to do a little field testing.
I wouldn't mind owning a pair of the 10x32mm SEs, actually. For the combination of daytime and night time observing, I think they're a great choice. For a binocular primarily intended for astronomy, however, they aren't my first choice. That's why I now own the 8x42mm LXs.
--------------------
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
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2109
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 