Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page

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

Equipment Discussions >> Binoculars

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BarrySimon615]
      #127448 - 06/15/04 09:38 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
edcannon
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 680
Loc: Austin, Texas
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BillC]
      #127518 - 06/15/04 11:17 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
edcannon
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 680
Loc: Austin, Texas
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BarrySimon615]
      #127523 - 06/15/04 11:21 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stendec
member


Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Sweden
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: edcannon]
      #127767 - 06/16/04 12:06 PM

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




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
StarWars
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 11963
Loc: Central MN
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: stendec]
      #127780 - 06/16/04 12:36 PM



8X42 Swift Ultralite $209.95 ...

http://www.thebirdguide.com/optics.htm


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EdZModerator
Professor EdZ
*****

Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12789
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: StarWars]
      #127788 - 06/16/04 12:48 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: stendec]
      #127800 - 06/16/04 01:26 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered




Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: Fiske]
      #127838 - 06/16/04 02:56 PM

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: ]
      #127850 - 06/16/04 03:26 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillC
on a new path
*****

Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2129
Loc: Washington, USA
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BarrySimon615]
      #127857 - 06/16/04 03:39 PM


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

Are you kidding?

Do you expect anyone blathering on one of these chat groups to be able to quote "chapter and verse" to back up what they've said?

Hum! Guess I'll have to, Huh?

The quote is from OUTDOOR OPTICS, Leif J. Robinson, Lyons & Burford, Publishers, New York, NY, 1989, page 126.

Have a great day,

Bill

Edited by billcook (06/16/04 03:50 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered




Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BillC]
      #127975 - 06/16/04 05:56 PM

Thanks for the additional blathering.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
KennyJ

*****

Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10446
Loc: Lancashire UK
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: ]
      #128050 - 06/16/04 07:28 PM


I must say there have been some interesting and quite contrary responses to this original question.

I almost suggested the Swift 8 x 42 Ultralites as an out and out/ at a stroke / top of the head solution to this particular request in the first place.

But if I had have done , I'd have been advising solely on hear'say rather than as a result of personal experience.

I've lost count of the number of posts I've made to various forums in which I have praised the virtues of LOWER powered binoculars with LARGER exit -pupils.

When it comes to astronomy ,I have come to consider that this "traditionally accepted advice" IS something of a twin-edged sword , variable depending upon the ability of any individual to hold any given magnification "steady", variable according to "sky darkness" and "seeing conditions", variable upon what KIND of celestial objects hoped to be viewed , and variable with respect to individual eye conditions such as astigmatism.

At least as important as any of these factors is QUALITY of product.

I believe that the main reason , for example , that our friend Friske is so fond of Nikon HG 8 x 42 binoculars is NOT just because they are 8 x 42s per se , and all that can be attributed to such a configuration in terms of magnification , objective size , exit -pupil and all the rest of it , but MAINLY BECAUSE Nikon High Grade / Venturers/ LX roof prism binoculars , just happen to be amongst the BEST binocular ever made.

I have few doubts that if Friske or anyone else who contributes regularly to this forum used Zeiss 7 x 42 binoculars , he or they would be equally lyrically in waxing thus.

At the end of the day , QUALITY wins hands down -- which is what I perceive Bill Cook to be trying to say in his own rather concise and somewhat cryptic way.

For a multitude of very good reasons , the majority of contributors to this forums have seldom compared the views through REALLY good binoculars to those through much less expensive instruments such as Chinese binoculars retailing typically for less than $100 US.

To and through MY eyes , there continues to be a significant difference between the image quality of certain models of binoculars bearing name tags such as Fujinon ,Kowa , Leica ,Miyuachi , Nikon, Swarovski , Takahashi and Zeiss and a miriad of others.

Given equal optical qualities in every other respect, for astronomical purposes , apart from the hand - shaking phenomena , why ANYONE might suggest that a 8 x 42 binocular will show MORE than a 10 x 42 is quite beyond my understanding.

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
btschumy
Think Astronomy
*****

Reged: 04/13/04
Posts: 1113
Loc: Austin, TX, USA
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: KennyJ]
      #128511 - 06/17/04 09:39 AM

Quote:



At least as important as any of these factors is QUALITY of product.

I believe that the main reason , for example , that our friend Friske is so fond of Nikon HG 8 x 42 binoculars is NOT just because they are 8 x 42s per se , and all that can be attributed to such a configuration in terms of magnification , objective size , exit -pupil and all the rest of it , but MAINLY BECAUSE Nikon High Grade / Venturers/ LX roof prism binoculars , just happen to be amongst the BEST binocular ever made.

Regards , Kenny.




Well said! I have some Leitz 8x32 Trinovids that I have used quite a bit for astronomy. Even though they are only 32mm, the image is bright and clear. I have completed several binocular observing list at the Texas Star Party using them. The coordinator was quite surprised I was able to do so.

Quality often triumphs over aperture's brute strength.

--------------------
Bill Tschumy
Where is M13? Freeware -- Add a new dimension to your observing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BarrySimon615
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/01/04
Posts: 963
Loc: New Orleans, LA
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: btschumy]
      #128531 - 06/17/04 10:12 AM

Answering the original question, I feel we need more specifics on what is meant by "large field". Virtually all binoculars have a large field compared to a typical telescope field at typical telescope powers. However, compared to a wide field pair of binoculars, a standard angle pair which can often give fairly good edge of field definition up to the field edge, suffers by comparison. A pair such as the Orion Vista 8x42 probably comes closest to fulfilling the requirements of the original post, however it is standard angle. Even so the 6.5 degree true field should serve well. These binoculars are also light weight. The Carton Adlerblick 8x42 are essentially the same binoculars, but with a more durable rubber (vs. leatherette) skin. Swift Ultralites of the same size would also work well.

In an earlier post, Kenny said - "For a multitude of very good reasons , the majority of contributors to this forums have seldom compared the views through REALLY good binoculars to those through much less expensive instruments such as Chinese binoculars retailing typically for less than $100 US. To and through MY eyes , there continues to be a significant difference between the image quality of certain models of binoculars bearing name tags such as Fujinon ,Kowa , Leica ,Miyuachi , Nikon, Swarovski , Takahashi and Zeiss and a miriad of others."

There is a significant quality gap between premium binoculars and cheap imports. These differences do become glaringly evident in critical observing situations. The differences are not confined to just the optics and the optical train, but to other little things such as focuser feel and movement, eyecup construction and comfort and smell(yes smell, ever walk thru a warehouse full of tires and you will know what I mean). Some of these little things that may seem very minor at first, quickly become major when the binoculars become intimate companions for long periods of time. I have spent the past 27 years buying binoculars. I have upgraded from one pair to the next because of those little things which quickly became major aggravations with use.

One word of advise to anyone happy with a lower priced pair of binoculars - do not look thru a truly premium pair of binoculars. Your significant other and your wallet will be sorry that you did!

Kenny also said - "Given equal optical qualities in every other respect, for astronomical purposes , apart from the hand - shaking phenomena , why ANYONE might suggest that a 8 x 42 binocular will show MORE than a 10 x 42 is quite beyond my understanding."

Kenny the lower magnification pair will not show more, unless in some cases the lower power pair has a wider field, and then it will show more at one time. Additionally a higher power pair will often have less eye relief, so then it may be critical for the prospective buyer to select the one with greater eye relief. Aside from this, the other consideration would be exit pupil which would be just about exactly one millimeter larger in the 8x pair, this may be a major consideration for some. You are absolutely right though, in that discounting potential field size differences, the 10x pair will show more.

Barry Simon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: BarrySimon615]
      #128545 - 06/17/04 10:45 AM

Quote:

Kenny the lower magnification pair will not show more, unless in some cases the lower power pair has a wider field, and then it will show more at one time. Additionally a higher power pair will often have less eye relief, so then it may be critical for the prospective buyer to select the one with greater eye relief. Aside from this, the other consideration would be exit pupil which would be just about exactly one millimeter larger in the 8x pair, this may be a major consideration for some. You are absolutely right though, in that discounting potential field size differences, the 10x pair will show more.




Kenny/Barry:

My experience contradicts what you are saying. In some ways the 10x over 8x is an advantage. It is undoubtedly easier to pick out M57 with a 10x bino than with an 8x bino. But M57 is a tiny, high-surface brightness object.

When it comes to detecting larger, dimmer objects the difference in exit pupil size between 8x42mm and 10x42mm binos (5.2mm versus 4.2mm) is a liability for the 10x42s. Try it out for yourself as I described above by selecting a list of NGC open clusters in fainter magnitude ranges and comparing views between two instruments. It won't take long to see what I'm talking about.

Of course, a 10x50mm binocular, which also has a 5mm exit pupil won't demonstrate this issue when compared with an 8x42mm binocular. You have to be comparing binoculars of the same aperture with different sized exit pupils (read magnfications). You could also make the comparison using different apertures and the same magnification 10x42 versus 10x50mm (4.2mm versus 5mm).

As EdZ has pointed out, differences in magnification can signficiantly offset the advantage of a slightly larger exit pupil -- 18x50s are going to show fainter objects than 10x50s, despite the smaller exit pupil. The difference between 8x and 10x, however, is not enough to matter when it comes to extended, lower brightness objects.

Consider that the Nikon catalog lists the Relative Brightness of its 10x42mm SE (and LX) binoculars at 17.6 while the 8x42mm is listed at 28.1. Do you really believe that this difference isn't going to matter when one attempts to observe fainter objects?

Incidentally, the Relative Brightness rating of the vaunted 10x32mm SEs is 10.2.

--------------------

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered




Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: Fiske]
      #128653 - 06/17/04 01:37 PM

I agree with a lot of what Kenny said. Quality matters. To refer to 8x40 binoculars being brighter or dimmer than 10x40 ones is pretty meaningless unless the binoculars are from the same range from the same manufacturer i.e. use the same prisms, coatings, tolerances etc. One example of something that influences brightness is the choice of prism. A typical premium porro-prism binocular transmits more light than a premium (Schmidt-Pechan) roof prism one. I believe the difference can be ~10% or even more. Some years ago I tried a Pentax 8x42 DCF WP costing ~£300 and was astonished that the image was dim compared to my £100 Nikon 8x42 Egret.

The relative brightness tells you almost nothing as it is simply calculated from the specs. and does not take into account factors such as light transmission and optical quality e.g. 1/4 wave. In other words the optics could be carved out of coal and yet would still have the same relative brightness value.

Fiske: I would be interested to hear your experience with a Nikon 8x32 SE and your Nikon 8x42 HG. I would be especially interesting if two or more of you did the tests. I did try the Nikon and Swaro on the open clusters in Perseus and I could see no difference, though I am not a skilled observer of the night sky.

I will probably be selling the Swaro as it gets no use.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: ]
      #128698 - 06/17/04 02:26 PM

Of course, I agree that quality matters -- I'm using a Nikon LX, after all. But the whole quality argument reminds me a bit of people who imagine that a 3.5-inch Questar is going to outperform a 10-inch Newtonian costing 1/10th the price. (Or even a 6-inch Newtonian come to that.) Questar's are fine telescopes but the laws of optics still apply.

One member of our club actually sold a beautiful 5-inch Takahashi refractor after observing through a home-made 6-inch Dob (with a particularly fine mirror) made by another club member. There wasn't any doubt in his mind about which scope gave the better views of DSOs. (Planetary observers are probably cringing at this.) For myself, I love my Telv Vue TV-101 and won't part with it for any reason -- unless that might be getting an NP-101. I don't, however, expect it to show as much detail in DSOs as my 11-inch SCT.

Anyway, back to binos: in my experience, a pair of Nikon SE 10x42mm binoculars did NOT outperform a much less costly pair of 10x50s when it came to observing extended low-surface brightness objects. I still think the 10x42 SEs are a fine binocular and good for astronomy, but they have limitations and it's important to be aware of them.

A close observing friend of mine owns a pair of the 10x42 SEs. The next chance I get we'll do some comparisons between the 10x42mm SEs and the 8x42mm LXs.

One of the reasons I went with the 8x42mm binos is that I couldn't find a 10x50mm bino that performed as well for me. A 10x50mm Nikon SE would probably have been my first choice. I haven't had the chance to test a pair of 12x50mm SEs, which I would be interested in doing though I believe that 12x would probably not be as comfortable for handheld observation. It would be interesting to see if 12x versus 8x was enough to compensate adequately for the smaller exit pupil.

--------------------

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered




Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: Fiske]
      #128814 - 06/17/04 05:15 PM

Fiske: I agree with your comments on the Questar. I think its strength is as a portable small scope with beautiful engineering. I am not talking about an 8x30 surpassing an 8x50, as that is roughly a factor of 3 in brightness all other things being equal, but the 8x32 SE is brighter and sharper than other 8x32 bins and several cheap 8x42s. I would not be surprised if your Nikon 8x42 HG/LX was as bright as many modestly priced 8x50 binoculars. More importantly, cheaper bins often have lower contrast, so the image might be not as bright, but you see the same amount of diffused detail. I'm sure you know that anyway since you spent money on a premium bin!

I would expect your 8x42 HG/LX to be as bright as any 8x42 i.e. as good as it gets. I owned a pair for some years.

I did not expect the Nikon 8x32 SE to compare with the Swaro 8.5x42 EL. (Obviously if I had then I would have bought the SE first.)

In the Alula birding magazine the author tested numerous 10x binoculars and found that the Nikon 10x42 SE was equal brightest alongside the Zeiss 10x40 Victory II, and brighter than the Nikon 10x42 LX, the Leica 10x42 Ultravid and others. I am not sure how he tested brightness though. I'm also not sure how significant the brightness difference was. These testers tend to say "X was brighter than Y" and I think "Yes but how much brighter! Just a bit? A lot? Huge amounts?"

Incidentally I checked my iris dilation this evening, and it is certainly >=6mm. It looked bigger, but I can say I know how to measure it accurately. It did occur to me that a pupil not dilating beyond 4mm would mess up testing binoculars. Unlikely but possible.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BarrySimon615
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/01/04
Posts: 963
Loc: New Orleans, LA
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: Fiske]
      #128854 - 06/17/04 05:58 PM

Fiske,

You said -

"Consider that the Nikon catalog lists the Relative Brightness of its 10x42mm SE (and LX) binoculars at 17.6 while the 8x42mm is listed at 28.1. Do you really believe that this difference isn't going to matter when one attempts to observe fainter objects?"

FYI - relative brightness is obtained by dividing aperture by magnification to obtain exit pupil and then squaring the result. Accordingly, the relative brightness of my 7x50 binoculars will be "51" rounded, so you would think that if relative brightness were the governing factor, the 8x42's would see fainter objects that the 10x42's based upon relative brightness, and the 7x50's with a relative brightness number twice as great as the 8x42's would do much better than them. However this is not the case. Quoting directly from "The Observer's Handbook" the esteemed Canadian publication updated every year and started 96 years ago, Roy Bishop states:

"A frequently cited figure for binocular performance is "Relative Brightness," which equals the square of the diameter (in millimetres) of the instrument's exit pupils. For example, for 7x50 binoculars this figure is (50/7) squared = 51. Although this is a measure of the surface brightness (luminance) of an extended object seen through the binoculars under nighttime conditions, it is a totally inadequate measure of binocular performance on the night sky. For instance, using this figure of merit, large 14x100 binoculars have practically the same rating as the unaided eyes (which, when young and in dim light, are effectively 1x7 binoculars)!"

The discussion on binocular performance for astronomy goes on to say how important objective size is to performance on the night sky as is magnification. The resultant MxD or magnification times diameter appears to be a better equation to judge a binocular's performance on the night time sky assuming equal quality among instruments compared. Adler, in an article a few years ago pretty much said the same thing, however he put even more weight on magnification. Ed Zarenski has reached the same conclusions based upon extensive testing that he has reported on here and on other forums.

Note, you also said - "Incidentally, the Relative Brightness rating of the vaunted 10x32mm SEs is 10.2."

I was curious and tried to find these 10x32 SE's that you mention. I can only find 8x32 SE binoculars (which would have a relative brightness of 16). Where did you find an outlet for Nikon 10x32 SE's? I am only aware of 8x32, 10x42 and 12x50 in the Superior E Nikon series.

Barry Simon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
Re: Small binoculars? Need some help! new [Re: ]
      #128868 - 06/17/04 06:22 PM

Mickey Mouse:

So many factors are involved here, it's a bit like herding cats -- one reason I don't like to make blanket statements.

Based on our exchange, I'm eager to do field testing with 8x32mm SEs, 10x42mm SEs, and the 8x42mm LXs. They're all top quality so that shouldn't be a signifcant factor.

When I was shopping for binos, the 10x42 SEs were the top contender. I visited a birding store that had both the LXs and the SEs, took a look through them both and said "Amazing, the 10x42mm's are actually brighter than the 8x42 LXs." But on my second trip to the store, and another round of comparisons, I realized that my first impression was simply wrong. The 8x42 LXs were obviously brighter. What might have happened is that I expected the SEs to be brighter, based on what you frequently hear, and I just saw what I expected to see.

In addition, testing in daylight reveals relatively little about brightness with regard to observing the night sky because your pupils aren't dilated. If your pupils are only 3mm, of course, a 10x32mm bino will look as bright as an 8x42mm bino. Given the wider field of view (8 degrees?) it will actually seem even brighter. At night, when your eyes are dilated to 5mm, 6mm, possibly even 7mm it's a different story.

I've also noticed that it is much more difficult to evaluate sharpness during daylight hours. My LXs seem razor sharp to the edge during daylight, but at night some softness (not much!) is readily apparent around the outside 15% of the FOV. This may well be due to the pinpoint nature of star fields, which is surely a demanding optical test.

I tested a pair of Leica's on the night sky several years ago and was shocked by how poor the off-axis sharpness was. An inexpensive pair of 10x50mm Nikon Lookout IVs was obviously sharper -- the Leicas were selling for something like $1100.

I know these are popular and highly regarded binoculars, and during daylight viewing they seem bright and contrasty -- one doesn't notice issues with sharpness. However, other experienced observers I've spoken with have noticed the same problem with the Leicas.

I believe experience comes into play here. I mean, observers who haven't studied a lot of NGC objects with a variety of instruments may not notice subtle differences in performance. It's a bit like people saying a high-quality bino is "absolutely free of false color." From what I've seen, I'd say it's more likely that they just don't notice it.

--------------------

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
10 registered and 20 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: 2805

Jump to

CN Forums Home



Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics