Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
InkDark
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1839
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
I consider acquiring binocs for handheld widefield astronomy. I currently own small 7x35 and I am thinking of getting something with better light grasp to view the Milky Way, M31, M45, ... and having that 3D feel. Going ever some posts I am thinking that something like the Garrette Optical Gemini 12x60 or the Oberwerk mini-giant (also 12x60). I’m still not sure about what kind of exit pupil I should go for or if 60mm lens binocs are too heavy for handheld (for most people). Any suggestions regarding handheld binoculars for about 150$?
Thanks for the help!
-------------------- Jimmy
If you could stop time, for how long would you stop it?
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
|
Mark9473
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 3217
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Your 7x35 have 5 mm exit pupil, as do the 12x60. The sky background will look equally dark, but all objects will show more detail and depth in the 12x60 of course.
-------------------- Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63; Docter 15x60
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2157
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
Any suggestions regarding handheld binoculars for about 150$?
Thanks for the help!
Here's two:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3312239
Pentax 12x50mm
You might be interested in this also:Small Binoculars Image Quality
-------------------- Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
jrw11
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/09/07
Posts: 523
Loc: unknown
|
|
Just ordered the Garrett's 12x60's. Should get them tommorow.I feel that they are a great buy.
-------------------- Celestron C6n -HD Reflector
dual axis drive motors added
Orion 80mm Short tube refractor
Skyscout
Early 70's Pentax 7x50
Garrett Optical 12x60
Garrett Optical 15x70
Oberwerk 20x80 Standards
Canon Rebel Ti (film)
4 Minolta Srt cameras
Mamiya RB67 Pro-s with 180 lens
127mm KL lens for RB, Bellows hood for RB67
Mamiya M645 Pro
Cambo SCII 4x5 view camera
over 50 other film cameras
several eyepieces
too much stuff
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I consider acquiring binocs for handheld widefield astronomy. I currently own small 7x35 and I am thinking of getting something with better light grasp to view the Milky Way, M31, M45, ... and having that 3D feel. Going ever some posts I am thinking that something like the Garrette Optical Gemini 12x60 or the Oberwerk mini-giant (also 12x60).
I can't comment on the specific brands, but going from 7x35 to 12x60 seems like a very natural jump to me. It'll make a major qualitative change in what you can see while still staying reasonably small and light.
As for hand-holding, as far as I'm concerned, the main issue is the magnification rather than the weight. Most 12x60 binoculars are really pretty light, but you may (or may not) find the wobbles aesthetically unacceptable when they're magnified 12x rather than 7x.
Personally, I'm pretty happy hand-holding my 15x70 binoculars. Except in unusual circumstances, I only do it while sitting, reclining in a lounge chair, or lying on the ground -- all of which help stability tremendously. But I wouldn't really want to view the night sky for any length of time from a standing position in any case.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
InkDark
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1839
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Quote:
As for hand-holding, as far as I'm concerned, the main issue is the magnification rather than the weight. Most 12x60 binoculars are really pretty light, but you may (or may not) find the wobbles aesthetically unacceptable when they're magnified 12x rather than 7x.
So would 9x60 be a better binoc ? Than 12x60.
-------------------- Jimmy
If you could stop time, for how long would you stop it?
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
|
Radom
member
Reged: 06/15/04
Posts: 52
Loc: Central Oklahoma
|
|
I've had my Garrett 12x60's for several weeks now. The light weight makes it pretty easy to hold steady for stargazing, even better when I'm bracing myself in a chair, leaning against a wall, etc. The more mag & weight you've got, the more you have to do to have acceptibly steady viewing. I will buy a much higher quality bino when I can. But, it will be a WHOLE BUNCH more money. And a lot more weight, too. So, even when I can afford a pair of Fuginons, the Garrett 12x60s are still gonna have a permanent home right here! My first pair of Garretts were damaged in shipping. Zach made it good, however and I'm very glad I made the choice I did.
-------------------- Steven M Henderson
-----------------
XT12i
Meade 102ED/LDX650
Denkmeier II Power X
Garrett Gemini 12x60 LW
Fujinon SMT-FX 16x70
Universal Astronomics Unimount Light
|
Scanning4Comets
Postmaster
   
Reged: 12/26/04
Posts: 5637
|
|
There's a bottom line for what you would like. 9x60 will give you a wider FOV, but 12x60 will give you better contrast and closer views. If you're not sure, try both out and make a decision.
-------------------- Markus
|
jrw11
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/09/07
Posts: 523
Loc: unknown
|
|
The Garrett's 9x60 FOV is 5.4, and the 12x60 is 5.7. Which is why I decided on that for a wider view than my 20x80's have.
-------------------- Celestron C6n -HD Reflector
dual axis drive motors added
Orion 80mm Short tube refractor
Skyscout
Early 70's Pentax 7x50
Garrett Optical 12x60
Garrett Optical 15x70
Oberwerk 20x80 Standards
Canon Rebel Ti (film)
4 Minolta Srt cameras
Mamiya RB67 Pro-s with 180 lens
127mm KL lens for RB, Bellows hood for RB67
Mamiya M645 Pro
Cambo SCII 4x5 view camera
over 50 other film cameras
several eyepieces
too much stuff
|
InkDark
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1839
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Are those Orion any good?
-------------------- Jimmy
If you could stop time, for how long would you stop it?
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
   
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2069
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Any suggestions
Here's two: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3312239
I do have to say going to the Walmart page that it does leave you with some doubt as to what you are buying. At top we have a pair of 12x50 Nikon's with a 489' FOV at 1,000 yards (wow - 112° And Al thought he had something at 100°). 
Then below we see the specs of 241' at 1000 yards - that sounds better (AFOV of 55.6°), but now the magnification is down to 8x and the objective has shrunk to 25mm. On the other hand it got bigger and heavier. 
Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers putting "specifications" on a web page when they are so ludicrously wrong ....
--------------------
|
Downward Bound
Adrenaline Junkie
   
Reged: 03/29/06
Posts: 2642
Loc: Seattle
|
|
Quote:
Are those Orion any good?
I have the 15x63 Orion Mini-Giants and I am very satisfied with them. They might be a bit over-priced compared to offerings from GO, Obie and others but I chose them for their light weight and to use as the maximum for hand-held viewing. For that purpose I find them to be perfect for me. I would guess that they are the most-used piece of astro-viewing equipment I own for the simple reason I can take them nearly anywhere and walk outside and be viewing in 15-30 seconds. For longer viewing sessions I mount them to a camera tripod. The build quality and optics seem just fine to me but others have suggested they are a bit overpriced
-------------------- Bill
'flector: R200SS, 22" f/3.6 (on order)
'fractors: PST, AT-66, TV-85, FS-102, NP-127, TMB-152
'bins: 15x63, 10x52, 22x85
410+028B, Sphinx, Telepod, EZ Touch, G-11
|
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
   
Reged: 06/16/04
Posts: 12070
Loc: San Diego, California
|
|
Quote:
I have the 15x63 Orion Mini-Giants and I am very satisfied with them. They might be a bit over-priced compared to offerings from GO, Obie and others but I chose them for their light weight and to use as the maximum for hand-held viewing.
I also have a pair the 15x63 Mini-Giants. I hand hold them and find they are reasonable for short sessions. They are somewhat more expensive than some, I think the reason is that they are made in Japan rather than China. I use plenty of Chinese optics but my sense is that Japanese binoculars are generally better made than Chinese binoculars.
In any event, I am happy with mine.
In the big picture some 10x42s or 10x50s might be a nice addition.
Jon
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
   
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
Ink,
The 7x35, although not very big nor powerful by our usual standards here, is a sweet, almost effortless size to use. Please realize that with the "wow" factor of a larger instrument will also come the "dang" factors of narrower field making finding difficult, annoying shakes due to increased magnification, and greater fatigue from the shakes and the weight. If you want to just stand there flat-footed swaying in the breeze, don't get more than a 10x. If you are willing to at least sit down in a recliner, 12x would be okay. If you are going to get serious about a chair with head and elbow support, or a tripod mount, then even higher power will work. We are talking about trading freedom for better views. High powers can be hand held in a cavalier way of course, and faint fuzzies glimpsed, but this comes so far from getting the most out of the bino, and is so frustrating for more than a matter of seconds per object, that I don't enjoy it.
From a 7x35 to a 10x50 is a big step! Twice the light, and 43% more magnification. You would be impressed at the improved depth of views. And I believe, also with the increased difficulty of use.
Ron
|
InkDark
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1839
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Quote:
If you are going to get serious about a chair with head and elbow support, or a tripod mount, then even higher power will work.
No, for that amount of work I prefer setting up my scope.
Quote:
If you want to just stand there flat-footed swaying in the breeze, don't get more than a 10x.
That's good info, thanks.
Quote:
From a 7x35 to a 10x50 is a big step! Twice the light, and 43% more magnification. You would be impressed at the improved depth of views. And I believe, also with the increased difficulty of use.
9x12 would be low mag and a bit more light than the 10x50, but would it be too much to handle? And then the exit pupil would be larger (6,6 for 9x60 and 5 for the 10x50). I thought that this decision would be easier to take than buying a new eyepiece...guess I was wrong!
-------------------- Jimmy
If you could stop time, for how long would you stop it?
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
|
prestonrich
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/01/07
Posts: 541
Loc: Washington DC Mayland suburbs
|
|
CESD--
Do you find that out of all of your equipment you tend to use your Saturn III more frequently than the rest on your list? Doesn't that bino provide some of the best chacteristics of all the rest under most viewing conditions and time constraints?
-Preston
-------------------- Preston
Montgomery Village, MD
Binos: Leica Trin 7x35 | Miya Saturn III | Canon 18x50is
Mounts: Man/Bog 475/501HD | QS Samson/Half Hitch | ASGT
Scopes: Questar 3.5 Duplex | C8 | Onyx 80 | LB 16" w/SkyCom & JMI TNT Track
EPs: Denk II PxS/FS | Hyperions, Brandons, filters, BIPH
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
   
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
Ink, Serves you right for asking us for advice! I would recommend a 10x50, except for one small catch. EdZ has made an exhaustive comparison of small binos, which can be found in the mini-reviews section of this forum, and he didn't find a single 10x50 in your price range that scored very well! (correct me if I've misinterpreted your reports Ed) Other sized binos in this price range fared very well in various categories, but no 10x50. The only 10x50 he tested that scored well was the Fujinon, an expensive bino that came out near the very top.
But there's a sleeper in there--the Oberwerk Mariner 10x60.( It also gets its own mini-review.) This bino has the common flaw of being slightly stopped down internally, so that only 56mm of aperture is actually used. But in almost every other way, it appears to be a strong performer. The edge correction and sharpness rate very highly. It is heavy, at 3.2 lbs., same as the Fujinon 10x50, but also waterproof and supposedly very rugged. A bino this heavy is not something to carry long distances around your neck, but is nice and solid-feeling when looking at the stars. I'll just throw that out as a possiblilty I'd look at if I were in your shoes, and back off now! Happy hunting. Ron
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
So would 9x60 be a better binoc ? Than 12x60.
Well, for me, that question has a trivial answer. My own eye's pupils only open to 5.5 mm or so, so I can't take advantage of a 7-mm exit pupil. For me, 9x60 binoculars would be functionally identical to 9x50 binoculars -- or nearly so. So why not save money and weight, and get the smaller binoculars?
But even if your pupils do open to 7 mm or larger, I'd suggest the 12x60's over the 9x60's. The general rule is that magnification matters more than aperture in determining how faint you can see and how much detail you can see.
That's true even when the view is grossly wobbly. I was somewhat surprised to discover this, but it's definitely true. I used to own image-stabilized 15x45 binoculars, and when I compared them to my 10x50 binoculars, hand-holding both units while standing and without using the image stabilization, I could see much more on each and every target through the 15x45's.
That's why I described wobbles as an aesthetic issue rather than a practical one. An equal amount of wobble is a whole lot more obvious at 12X than at 9X, and you may find it so annoying that it really bothers you. But you'll still see more through the 12x60's -- a lot more.
The other downside of high magnification is smaller field of view. But you can always fall back on your 7x35's if you want a really wide field of view.
As for viewing from a seated or reclining position -- if you haven't tried it, you don't know what you're missing. Quite aside from wobbles, there's a major aesthetic issue. To me, one of the big benefits of binoculars is that you get to face your target head-on, with ample sky all around it. And that's simply not possible if your neck is craned back at a 90-degree angle.
Moreover, once you get into the 12x60 arena, you're likely to find that many astronomical targets take on a life of their own, and you want to study them at leisure. That's difficult or impossible for me when I'm standing up with aching feet and aching neck.
Granted, lugging out a reclining chair is a nuisance. But a normal chair is part of any good observing setup. And lying down flat on the ground requires no equipment at all, and takes just a second or two.
-------------------- Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
Edited by Tony Flanders (01/03/08 02:43 PM)
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Well, several 10x50s score higher than the Mariner 10x60, for a couple of reasons. Good suggestions might include Nikon AE 10x50, and Pentax PCF WP 10x50, the Nikon AE at $149.
Mariner 10x60 is very shapr across the entire fov, but actually operates as a 10x53 and looses several points to others for that reason. It does not score higher than any of the 10x50s. Most 10x50s (all except Pentax) have wider fov than the mariner 10x60 (5.1°). It has excellent eye relief, but closest IPD is limited to 61mm, typical of the Mariner line and unfortunately the "widest" low limit IPD of all small binoculars I tested, so it may not fit everyone.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Any suggestions
Here's two:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3312239
I do have to say going to the Walmart page that it does leave you with some doubt as to what you are buying. At top we have a pair of 12x50 Nikon's with a 489' FOV at 1,000 yards (wow - 112° And Al thought he had something at 100°).
Then below we see the specs of 241' at 1000 yards - that sounds better (AFOV of 55.6°), but now the magnification is down to 8x and the objective has shrunk to 25mm. On the other hand it got bigger and heavier.
Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers putting "specifications" on a web page when they are so ludicrously wrong ....
Yeh, they have some of the specs confused (they confused some of the specs from the 7x35 in the 12x50 list), but that link shows Walmart is selling the Nikon Action Extreme ATB. Actually the 12x50 AE comes highly recommended, outscoring all the 10x50s I've tested by a wide margin (except for the Fujinon 10x50). And the 12x50 AE actually measures a very respectable 5.1° fov. The 10x50 AE actually measures 6.1° fov and scores the highest of all the 10x50s I tested (except for Fujinon).
Don't confuse the Nikon Action (also listed on Walmart's binocular page, but costing much less) with the Nikon Action Extreme ATB. These are very different and the Action is nowhere near the equal of the Action Extreme ATB.
edz
|
|
11 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 996
|
|
|
|
|
|
|