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
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Okay, opening up a can o' worms here, but since there are other amateur astronomers who are birdwatchers on this forum, this might be a useful thread (hope it isn't a repeat). What sparked this question is Alan Adler's comment in a bin article he wrote for S & T (or Astronomy), which said not to discount roof prism bins for astronomy. Even though the introduction of new porros with WP FP features is swaying me away from roofs, which are usually too small for my hands and too expensive for my wallet -- if a roof bin could do double duty for birding AND astronomy, it might be worth the extra $s since the typical long ER, wide FOV, good close focus, and other nice amenities are very attractive.
Anyone using roofs for astronomy?
Brock
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Brock ,
Whilst realising there are Porros out there that might do the job even better , from my little collection that includes Porros such as Swift 10 x 50 Audubon Kestrels and Orion 15 x 70 Little Giants , none come close to the qualities provided by my Zeiss 7 x 42 B GA T roofs in terms of sharpness , contrast and field of view.
Even my little Swarovski 8 x 20s are so sharp and crystal clear that they make me think seriously about getting larger versions every time I use them.
I have long championed the superiority of Porros v Roofs , but mainly on a value for money basis rather than anything else.
Yes the Nikon Superior Es, the Fujinon FMT SXs and of course the Zeiss 15 x 60s prove that when all the stops are pulled out , the Porros are still at the top of the tree , but they share some very high branches with the very best Roofs , even for astronomy.
Regards --Kenny.
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Kenny,
Yes, I've heard other Zeiss 7X42 owners say they use them for astronomy too. However, the 6mm exit pupil is probably too big for my middle-aged eyes and for my light polluted skies, the Zeiss 10X40 might work better. Saw one for $400 on Astromart a couple months ago, but I had just spent that much on two used big bins and a used SkyWindow. Considering how little opportunity I've had to use them due to the Cloudy Nights, I may have been better off with the Zeiss.
Brock
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
Anyone using roofs for astronomy?
Brock
Affirmative. Swarovski 10x50 SLC. Nothing has surpassed them thus far, not Zeiss, not Leica, nothing. At five years of age though, the "new" SLC, introduced two years ago, may improve the view due to better coatings. I've looked through the new ones, indoors, but no side-by-side.
If you want the best, but can't afford them, save your money till you can (like I did).
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Yep.
My Zeiss 7x42 classics (roof)blow any other hand-held i have tried outta the water. Astro or terrestrial. Every year i get a chance to compare binos at a dealer table at a major hawk migration site. The Zeiss rules. Generally, Good birding binos make for good astro binos, 40mm and up. Same concerns apply: Resolution, contrast, FOV and brightness.
I also have a pair of Leica 10x42's. Use them mostly for raptor migration counts. Really nice on the sky.
Only porro I have used that comes close for me, are the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 model.
jay
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
Wilson
member
Reged: 01/02/04
Posts: 10
|
|
Hello,
I agree with Mr.Minnick about the roof prism Swarovski 10x50 SLCs. I wear eyeglasses, and this binocular is the most enjoyable to use for astronomy than any I have owned. Great contrast, pinpoint stars, little or no color and this wonderful viewing sensation of swimming in the sky. I had an old porro prism Swarovski 10x50 Habicht SL which was very, very good, but short on the eye relief. I sold that binocular after some factory service which was so good that I will be a Swarovski fan for life. For the money, though, you supposedly get more with a porro prism.
Wilson
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I'm a huge fan of my Fujinon FMTR SX Porro's (7x50s) and for the price nothing comes close....however..just bought a very nice pair of roofers, These are made by Bresser 7 X 40, absolutely superb....the fuji's had a slight edge on them in astronomical use but the bresser's are half their size and are great all rounders, (lightweight, excellent near focus) these are also good value for money (same price as fuji's) and they are much cheaper than Ziess and Swarovski of same spec but compare well against them.... I tested all three brands at the same time a could detect very little difference between them ....no doubt if I had the cash I would buy the Swarovski's but at nearly half the price and little difference in quality I'll take the Bresser's ...
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Lee,
is your bresser the montana model? meade sells the exact same bin (phase and silver coated roof, lots of good featurers too) under the same name for $299. Bressers are about twice that price. meade, and i think bresser (are they are owned by meade?) also makes a 10X42 Montana, which one amateur astronomer rated on par with top of the line roofs (see his mini review on meade's sports optics website). oddly enough, tha 10X42 sells for less than the 7X42-- $269. it was also rated very highly (4 on a scale of 1-4) by three reviewers on bird watchers digest. i know ONE person who has the 7X42, and raves about it, although the guy he bought it from didn't like it. thought it was too heavy and not very sharp.
funny how its supposed to be so good, but no one i know has one, that is, the 10X42. are those reviewers exaggerating or is the 10X42 Montana one of the best kept secrets in roof designs?
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Brock,
They are indeed the montana 7X42 roof prism (more costly than their Porro namesakes)...these are superb.....I was recommended them by Telescope house in London..they are real fans too, and I must say I now know why...they are indeed made by Meade and if you can get them cheaper go for it....I have some good binos ..Miyauchi and Fuji's and these will take pride of place next to them........I really could barely detect much difference between them and the Zeiss....the Swarovski's were slightly better...
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Lee,
there is a difference between the Zeiss and the Meade 7X42s (about $700).  i'd really like the 7X42 for its wide FOV, same as the Audubon but much better eye relief. however, until i officially get my exit pupils measured, i have to assume that the 6mm exit pupil is too big for my eyes, and i already have a very good bin for birding (nikon 8X32 SE). plus, i'd like my bins to do double duty for astronomy, and after that rave review by dr. reynods (director of the cabot space & science center in jacksonville, fla) and the fact that he is writing a book on binocular astrononmy and including the 10X42 Montana in his top recommendations, i'm leaning toward the 10X42 model (6.5* FOV and 17mm ER). thanks for the reply.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
There would appear to be a popular misconception , even amongst experienced binocular users , that an exit pupil from a binocular that is greater than the dilation of the human eye -pupil , is completely "wasted".
Although this may be true from a purely optical standpoint , following a very long, most informative and highly enjoyable discussion on this very topic a few months ago over on an astromart forum , which attracted about 100 posts from numerous highly informed and well -respected contributors ,I remained adamant following it's closure, that an exit pupil larger than the eye -pupil is by far a more preferable situation to find oneself in when looking through binoculars.
I did not remain of this opinion out of stubborness , dogmatism or sense of self pride or preservation, I simply continued to take all my binoculars outside in all kinds of conditions , and by masking them down to various reduced objective diameter / magnification ratios , re -enforced my assertion that for example , a 7 x 42 system provides superior resolution to a 7 x 21 system , as does 10 X 50 when compared with a 10 x 25 --even when lighting conditions, assumed human entrance pupil dilation , and optical theory all suggested otherwise.
Although eventually apparantly proved wrong and out-voted by most of the other contributors to that discussion , some of whom have probably forgotten more about optical theory than I shall ever know , unperturbed and convinced of the results of my private experiements ,I continued to seek
some kind of support or explanation from other people more "expert" in the field than myself.
Eventually my patience was rewarded by the following advice from a well respected optical designer.
<< There are two very good reasons why a binocular benefits from having exit -pupils greater than diameter of the eye pupil.
1.Avoids the necessity for setting the IPD perfectly, and then the need to perfectly center your eyes to the exit pupils.
2. Permits your eyes to swivel in their sockets, without losing the image, as the iris of your eye slides off to one side as you look toward the edge of the field of the binoculars.
This is the main reason why so many binoculars have been made with configurations such as 7 x 50 ,10 x 70 and 11 x 80 --not out of regard for the possibility of very young people happening to be using them >
Another "expert" --most flatteringly claiming to have been inspired by my query, went out of his way to "prove" that exit pupils of between 3 and 5mm are the "optimum" for almost ANY kind of binocular viewing.
His "paper" proving this makes very interesting reading -and can be obtained from me privately by sending me a private message on my "home page".
Speaking of which -- a few poeple have contacted me in this way recently -- and although I have responded --it has become apparant that not every one is aware of how to access their own private mailbox .
Sending a "private message" does NOT send an " e mail" --it merely places a message in a private place within THIS site.
I hope this helps to explain why some people may think I have ignored their questions.
Check YOUR " HOME -PAGE " !
It is true that especially for celestial use a smaller exit pupil can reduce the effects of astigmatism and increase contrast --and I must re -state the fact that any comments I offer forth to this superb forum are bound to be biased by the fact that I probably spend 90% of my binocular viewing in DAYTIME applications.
If this were not the case, then perhaps I would be less critical of aspects such as narrow and flat fields.
Clear skies --Kenny.
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
Paul G
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/08/03
Posts: 1751
Loc: Freedonia
|
|
Leica 8x50, Leica Duovid 8 - 12 x42 here.
--------------------
Gus
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I use Minolta Activa 8x42D WP roof prism binoculars. Very nice. I think the general argument against roof prisms for astronomy (other than cost) revolves around the fact that one reflective surface on a roof prism is aluminumized or silver coated, unlike the 100% reflectivity on porro prisms due to glass' characteristic of total internal reflection. Until recently, aluminum coatings were only about 90% reflective. Silver was better, but tarnishes. Modern enhanced or dielectric coatings are 97% to 99% reflective, so good roof prisms can have the same light throughput at porros (but at a higher cost).
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
kenny,
i agree about the comfort, i prefer larger exit pupil bins for birding and other daylight activities. both my 10X35 E2 (3.5mm) and 8X32 SE (4mm) cause blackouts if i don't have my eyes positioned correctly. even my 8X42 ultralite (5.25mm) will show some blackout at twilight.
not sure what that expert "proved" in his paper about smaller exit pupil bins being optimal, but my reasons for preferring small exit pupils for binocular astronomy are related to contrast and astigmatism. i live near a major university that has a google number of lights (my astro. club managed to get legislation passed to require full cutoff lighting, but the existing lights were grandfathered in, so it's still very bright at night). small exit pupil bins increase the contrast by darkening the background of the sky, which allows me to see more detail in star clusters and nebulae. from that same field, views through my 7X50 and 9X63 look "washed out." in fact, the only place where they have provided better views is at a very dark site (Cherry Springs State Park, where we have our star party). the smaller exit pupil also corrects for my astigmatism and allows me to use short ER bins such as the nikon 10X35 E2 without glasses so i can see the full field of view (7*).
the point about "wasted aperture" seems true to my eyes. the detail through my 7X35 and 7X50 bins (both fully coated) look about the same, typically a little better in the 7X35 because of the increased contrast. this probably means that my dark adpated exit pupils (as much as i can adapt with light pollution) are smaller than 7mm, and being middle-aged, they may be 5mm or smaller. so why carry the extra weight of the larger aperture bin, which is harder to hold steady, unless i'm at a dark site? OTOH, during the day, i would prefer a larger exit pupil bin (8X42) to avoid blackouts and for the better eye relief so i can use sunglasses.
there are a lot of personal factors that go into deciding which size exit pupil works best for someone, so i couldn't make a general statement that would apply to everyone's eyes or sky conditions. but for my eyes and my sky conditions, smaller exit pupil bins work better for astronomy.
brock
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
In the absence of any other recent posts to read or respond to I was just re -reading the posts to this thread.
It's interesting ( and sometimes a shame )how ONE good question --such as " Are Roof prism Binos good for Astronomy " starts to get approached and responded to , when through no real fault of anyone in particular , by the time we get half a dozen messages down the list , we are discussing exit -pupils of various 7x binos ( YES -- equally interesting --but not strictly related to the original heading -- and --this is the MAIN POINT --almost impossible to re -find a few weeks later when the same or similar question crops up about exit -pupils ! )
I have approached one of our moderators about these ongoing problems -- and with a bit of luck , we may all be able to re- access and find MUCH more easily preciely what we are looking for -- and perhaps even a bit more !
Due to the complexities of this -- it may take a while -- but I hope it will be worth the considerable amount of effort it is likely to take.
The main objective is that at some time in the future --if anyone , member or visitor wants to find out about or re -read specific posts they found of particular interest , for example about EYE RELIEF , PORROS v ROOFS , Fields of View , Exit Pupils ,Magnification differences and what it means , Objective diameters and what the differences might provide , etc etc -- then hopefully some standard place of reference will be available at which to find them or direct perhaps a "newbie" asking a "frequently asked question" to.
Not really my place to be telling anyone about this -- but hey -- I can't find anything else to write about this moment
Back to the main point -- I can't honestly think why anyone should express any element of surprise in the first place about the fact that some poeple use ( or even prefer )Roof prism binos to Porros for astronomy.
Admittedly , once the roofs start to get any longer than the Zeiss 10 x 56 "classics" or rarely mentioned Optolyth
15 x 63 Royals , they do get a little "ungamely" if not exclusively the instrument of choice for a person long of reach :-)
Clear skies -- Kenny .
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
kenny,
reading back over the messages above, i see you started the subthread on exit pupils. your emphatic post on the virtues of larger exit pupils prompted me to respond since it was my earlier reference to the 6mm exit pupil of 7X42 roofs that you referred to in your post. in any case, i agree our subthread has gotten off topic, as such discussions tend to do since they mimic verbal conversation, which meanders but sometimes with the benefit of discovering new ideas. however, in the context of this written forum, your point is well taken about searching for specific info. i've tried to do this myself on certain topics to no avail. having a search feature would be very helpful. if that can't be done, an indexing software program could be used to create an index of keywords. i think either solution would be preferable to starting an endless string of new threads each time we wandered a bit off topic.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks Brock ,
Your idea sounds good to me.
No way had I intended to suggest for one moment that this was ANYONE'S "fault" any more than my own :-)
I certainly was not attempting to blame YOU Brock !
Indeed I am probably this forum's WORST offender in this regard.
I would just like to see threads and specific topics "tidied" up into some kind of classified order , although I have sufficient foresight to concede this could be far more difficult than it sounds :- )
Rest assured the matter is in hands more capable than my own
Regards -- Kenny.
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
for a review of a "roof prism bin for astronomy" see post #41707 under the thread Re: Pentax DCF SP 10x43 Has ARRIVED!
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
in the above mentioned thread on the new SP Pentax, Frilby commented on the magnesium body reducing weight compared to the 10x42 pentax HR II model, and the aspherical lens elements, which also reduce weight. other recent examples of roofs employing these innovations include the new Leica Ultravid (lightweight metals) and the minox BD ALT (aspherical lenses). and the addition of phase/silver coatings on roofs have increased contrast and image resolution close to if not on par with porro bins.
we're also seeing higher power/larger aperture roofs that appeal to astronomers such as the 15X56 Swaro SLC and the new 10+15X50 Leica Duovid.
all these innovations are catching the eye of amateur astronomers, who have long shunned roofs because of the above "deficiencies" that made them unsuitable for stargazing. however, the premium roofs that offer these features sell at an "astronomical" price beyond range of many porro buyers' budgets. Catch 22.
so the next hurdle is to lower the prices within range of porro buyers, and pentax is making great strides to this end, largely due to manufacturing in china. given the added cost of making good quality P-coated roof prisms, seeing the 10X43 SP selling for just over $400 in the US marks the coming of an age where more amateur astronomers may be using roofs for stargazing, particuarly those who like the WP FP features for birding or hunting.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Good points Brock !
In spite of historically having made what may be construed as being derogatory comments about certain products bearing the name "Pentax", it must be remembered that I have also been known to go out of my way to positively "recommend" Pentax binoculars to advice seekers.
I agree wholeheartedly that if there is any way a really good product can be made available to an end user for less money than it had been previously , then that is usually a good thing for the end user.
It is no secret that for several years now ,many "German" optical instruments have been assembled in countries where labour is far cheaper than it is in Germany.
After all , if I were to call even an "emergency" service tonight from my UK home , there is a possibility that the person at the other end of the phone is in India !
Quality control is the all -important factor.
Call me a " bino snob" if you so desire , butI'm still happy that my Zeiss binoculars were assembled and checked in Germany , even if they didn't exactly come cheap.
Regards -- Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
okay, since you asked: Kenny, you're a bino snob! Deutschland Uber Alles!  (i'll keep your message on file for the day the chinese take over the world.)
i'm not thrilled with chinese bins, i've made that abundantly clear on my posts about my 15X70s. but 'a man's got a do what a man's gotta do' and if that means buying chinese, then that's better than being "binocular deprived". plus, the chinese have come a long way in a short time. i'm old enough to remember when 'made in japan' was considered a derogatory term, and yet now they make the best consumer electronics, the most reliable cars, and some of the finest cameras and optics in the world.
someday, i would like to apply for admission to the royal order of SOBs (Society Of Binocular snobs) after purchasing an overpriced Ayran bin (i'm still undecided btwn the Zeiss 10X40 Classic and the Swaro 10X42 SLC), but until then, i shall continue my quest for the best quality bins at the lowest possible price -- be they new, used, or refurbished or japanese, russian, or chinese. 
not to sound nationalistic, but what i'd really like to see is for the United States to start producing some good quality bins. to coin a phrase: if america can send a man to the moon (and make top notch refractors), why can't we make top notch bins? then i could not only be a bino snob, but also live in the country that makes the snob binos 
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hi Brock
posted on this thread earlier about Bresser/meade montana's....well I must be a bino snob too because after I was initially impressed by these glasses after a week of testing I found these bino's were just not sharp enough....I was testing them against my Fujinon FMTR SX (a harsh test I know)..but they just were'nt good enough so I took them back and with a lot of extra cash bought a pair of Swarovski 8.5x42 EL....these are great..and the finest bino's I have ever ever come across ergonomically....
Very sharp and bright too...I now have to break the news to the missus about how much they cost me....thats the tricky part...
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Lee,
well, if they are not good enough for your sophisticated British tastes, then they are not good enough for this Anglophile ("another lager and lime please, barkeep"). i'm cancelling my order! your membership in SOBs (Society Of Binocular snobs) is pending upon survival after you wife finds out how much you spent. 
have you read the BVD (Better View Desired) review of the EL? Steve Ingraham thought they were not as bright as the 8X42 Nikon Venturer (HG?), and he apparently thought 10X42 EL was not as sharp as the 10X42 SLC (since he listed the latter as the roof reference standards). of course, that's only one man's opinion.
the ergonomics on the ELs do look great esp. for my XL-sized hands, which wrap twice around most slim-bodied roofs. but the price - ahhhhhhhhh! i'm not even married, but if i bought one, my ex-wife would probably hang me. i'm leaning toward a 7X42 Zeiss Classic (actually the reason i'm leaning is because i hurt my back shoveling snow, and it hurts less when i lean on my right side). i can pick up a classic new for $677 at discounters, cheaper if i can find one used. but even used, an EL would be beyond my present budget (they don't pay teachers much in the colonies).
anyway, thanks for that update, it's given me food for thought.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Brock,
It is easy to get carried away with the specs and make a decision on exit pupil alone think that everything else may be equal in a model line. I can assure you that it is not and to some people the degrees of difference may not be noticeable.
However, I would suggest before making your mind up on a model based on exit pupil alone have a look through them. The Zeiss 10x40 Classic and 7x42 Classic are perfect examples. They both come from Zeiss, have a lot of similarities but there is a certain magic the 7x42 has that isn't there in the 10x40.
Standard disclaimer. This is my opinion only and your mileage may vary.
Cheers, Craig.
G'day Kenny.
--------------------
Takahashi FS-102
Fujinon FMT-SX2 7x50
Takahashi Astronomer 22x60
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Craig,
my preference the 10X40 was not based solely on the exit pupil (4mm), which from my light polluted skies would be better than a 6mm, but also because of the 10X magnification, which i prefer for astronomy. i was looking for a "two-fer" bin -- astronomy and birding -- to get more "bang for my megabucks". i had also read some good reviews of the bin. however, at some point (see kenny's thread "brock's choice"), i came to the realization that i would be making too much of a compromise to expect one bin to do it all, even in a premium line.
as far as one model excelling over another in the same line, steve at BVD found this to be the case with the Swaro SLCs, preferring the 10X42 over the 7X42, despite the fact that steve, like most birders, does not normally prefer 10X bins. so your point is well taken, and i've decided to buy a 12X50 Superior E for astronomy and am considering the 7X42 Classic as my WP birding bin. thanks.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I'm posting this mainly to say a special return G'day
to yet another "newcomer" to our little group , offering in return a warm welcome to another knowledgable guy and old bino -rambling mate from yesteryear , Craig from Oz.
How are you matey ?
This point about even different varieties of the same model is a very good and interesting one , probably worthy of further discussion at some stage.
Of course it is always difficult to decide which aspects are being judged purely on personal preferences and which are genuine differences that would be clearly discernible to most if not all individuals.
For example I prefer the view through the Nikon 8 x 32 SE to that through the 10 x 42 SE ( I've never seen a 12 x 50 SE here in the UK )and I also prefer the Canon 10 x 30 IS to the Canon 18 x 50 IS .
It would be very easy to assume that this is because of the wider field of view alone , especially in the case of the Canons , where not even the extra "shakes" that comes with extra magnification can be "blamed".
Perhaps it's also related to my impression of a wider -field bino always offering an "apparantly brighter" image as if by virtue of extra light coming from the larger area viewed , even though I am fully aware that all optical theory points to this being complete rubbish.
I also know two individuals who love the 10 x 70 version of the Fujinon FMT SX , yet are not quite SO impressed by the much celebrated 16 x 70 version.
Perhaps the best example amongst binos I actually own is the 15 x 70 Orion Little Giant , which has only 8mm of eye-relief , yet it's larger siblings have much more.
Since I've started wearing glasses , this has become a very major issue for me.
Regards to all --Kenny.
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1514
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
| | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: