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
Aaron
sage
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 234
Loc: Eugene OR
|
|
Wow, this thread kind of got away from me while I was away rafting over the weekend, and I'm pretty tired, so I'll do my best to address some of the main issues that are relevant, but won't address each responder directly. I really appreciate all of the information, recommendations and advice that has been provided! (I see why there is a whole forum for binos - this can get pretty complicated!)
I have no idea what my pupil dilation size is - is that something an optometrist would measure? I should go get my (mild) prescription updated, so I'll be sure to check about pupil dilation size when I do. (I don't generally wear my glasses for telescopic observing)
The binoculars I plan on buying are strictly for astro-observing. Wildlife viewing with binoculars would be done on light-weight backpacking trips, so I would eventually get a more compact and light-weight (roof prism) pair for backpacking/etc. With that said - I do feel like larger aperture is (possibly) an interest.
I did say these were primarily for star hopping, and secondarily for general observing. My initial pursuit for help star-hopping was to combat light pollution (in FL). I have a 50mm finder, which helps with that (see enough stars to hop). Fortunately, in moving to Oregon my problem (well - not really a 'problem') changed from not enough stars visible, to way too many stars visible (from our dark site). The more I think about it, I realize I don't need to see more stars anymore, I just need the wide view to help navigate. I wouldn't be just 'bino observing' unless it was nice and dark either.
That being said, if the binos were big enough to provide nice views of some objects - thats a bonus.
I'm NOT looking to get a nice bino mount at the moment. I cannot afford it, and have no room to store it. I would consider building/buying a bino-chair in the future, but not necessarily for this pair (or maybe for this pair). I do have a pretty steady hand (for brief star hopping), though would rig some sort of basic lounge chair w/ some support for longer periods of viewing.
Finally, I'm not trying to break the bank. I would spend up to $300 for a good pair that I think I'd keep/use for a while. I could also settle for a $150 pair that meets my main goal(s) 'for now' with the expectation of doing the mount+big-binos later.
Aaron
--------------------
12" Lightbridge
Telrad, StellarVue F50
10.5mm XL, 17mm Stratus, 35mm Stratus
TV 2x Big Barlow
Lumicon UHC
My Sketches and Photos
Eugene OR
Eagle's Rest OR
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
Aaron:
Thank you for clarifying your needs for us.
. . .
Despite what has been said about the 10x50 binoculars, I recommend you pick a 7x50 or 8x40 binocular. [Get ready for another round of dissension!] The 7-8x will give you the wide angle you are looking for to help you sweep and identify the stars and constellations.
Don't worry about the exit pupil size, just make sure it is 5mm or greater. Your picture looks like your eyes still have many years ahead--so you may be able to reap the benefits of the 7mm exit pupil size of the 7x50 under your dark sky in Oregon. For many years the 7x50 was the darling of binocular astronomy. Now, as you have probably noticed, the current darling is the 10x50. However, for your sweep and identification needs, the magnification difference between the 7-8x and the 10x is not a big deal.
From what you have said, the field of view (FOV) size is a big deal. Try to get one with 7.5° FOV or larger.
I listed several 7-10x in my first reply to you on page one of this thread. Simply click on the links, call the vendors, and talk with them. All of the vendors I listed have a 30-day return policy with no questions asked.
. . .
If you do not already have a planisphere and red flashlight, I recommend you purchase them at this time. I personally like David Chandler's The Night Sky planisphere. It is simple to use and does not bog you down with a lot of detail. Just go to Amazon.com and type in "planishpere" to pull up those currently on the market.
As for the red flashlight, you can get that from Amazon or any of the vendors in my first reply. I purchased mine from Orion.
. . .
Another observing aid I will mention to you is a sky atlas. There are many fine paper atlases, as well as sky atlas/database software programs.
The paper atlases I like, again because of their simplicity, are David Chandler's Sky Atlas for Small Telescopes and Binoculars (SASTB), Will Tirion and Brian Skiff's Bright Star Atlas (BSA), and Sky and Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas (PSA).
Both the SASTB and BSA contain mini-star/DSO catalogs opposite the actual atlas grids, which make for easy identification. Think of them together as a nice two-step. The SASTB during the first 2-3 months of observing, then move on to the BSA.
The PSA is a convenient size to carry around and has spiral ring binding, which is very nice. Also, the size of the PSA is good for laying beside your computer to do star/DSO online research.
. . .
Which brings me to my last suggestion: Sky atlas/database software. The programs currently on the market breakdown as either planetarium or research/planning types. I use SkyHound II, which is an excellent research/planning program. More than anything else, SkyHound has helped me learn and find specific stars and DSOs. There are numerous features--too many to go into here. Google "SkyHound II" if you are interested.
. . .
In closing, depending upon the binocular you select, you may be able to purchase all of the above within your $300 budget.
I hope this helps.
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
Edited by BobinKy (08/27/07 08:44 AM)
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying your needs for us.
Well, he simply reiterated what he stated in his very first post.
Considering that you are a seasoned astronomer and probably don't need any of this other stuff, I hope you aren't bothered by all the extraneous recommendations put forth in this thread. It is often the case that forum respondents do not stick to the questions asked and veer off on many tangents.
I'll stand by my binocular recommendation. 7x to 8x binoculars are too small for your intended use. That is my experience.
The Garrett Optical Classic 10x50 is a good choice and cost only $119. A real bargain. I've tested them and find they compare well to other 10x50s ranging up to $189.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
Aaron:
If you can handle another suggestion. . .
Whichever size you end up with--7x, 8x, or 10x--check to see if you can get a model with recessed threads in the eyepiece assembly.
The benefit would be attaching nebula or neutral density (polarizing) filters. I have the 25x neutral density filters from Garrett Optical, which I use during lunar observations. They darken the Moon and allow comfortable lengthy views. While I do not own any nebula filters, I understand they make a difference when viewing nebula clouds.
Maybe EdZ has a thought or two on filters?
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
StarStuff1
sage
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 437
Loc: East Tennessee
|
|
I find 8X binoculars about perfect for hand held astro use. A little more power than 7X and easy to hold steady. 10X (for me, anyway) is difficult to hold steady for very long. While I have not used or even seen the Garretts I can whole heartedly recommend the Nikon Acction Extreme 8X40 and the Swift Audobon 8.5X44. Both are quality, wide angle binocs. The Swift is a little sharper on axis while the Nikons I had last year seemed to be a little sharper further out from the center of field. The Nikons are a little lighter as I recall.
aron, I thhink you or any other starting out binocular star gazer would fare better with 8X over 7X50s or 10X50s.
Terry
--------------------
Two dozen eyepieces, a dozen binoculars, a half dozen refractors, two reflectors and a homemade Image Intensifier Eyepiece (IIE). All products subject to change by the owner at any time.
|
StarStuff1
sage
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 437
Loc: East Tennessee
|
|
I find 8X binoculars about perfect for hand held astro use. A little more power than 7X and easy to hold steady. 10X (for me, anyway) is difficult to hold steady for very long. While I have not used or even seen the Garretts I can whole heartedly recommend the Nikon Acction Extreme 8X40 and the Swift Audobon 8.5X44. Both are quality, wide angle binocs. The Swift is a little sharper on axis while the Nikons I had last year seemed to be a little sharper further out from the center of field. The Nikons are a little lighter as I recall.
Aaron, I think you or any other starting out binocular star gazer would fare better with 8X over 7X50s or 10X50s.
Terry
--------------------
Two dozen eyepieces, a dozen binoculars, a half dozen refractors, two reflectors and a homemade Image Intensifier Eyepiece (IIE). All products subject to change by the owner at any time.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The proper placement of filters in the light path is as close to the focal plane as possible. (Exception, solar filters are ALWAYS to be placed in front of the objective lens). That is impossible to do in a binocular. (2nd exception, those flip filter models). Therefore I do not recommend the use of filters on binoculars.
Rather than use a neutral density filter over a binocular eyepiece to view the moon, view with the lights on and no filter.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
Quote:
EdZ wrote:
Rather than use a neutral density filter over a binocular eyepiece to view the moon, view with the lights on.
What do you mean exactly? . . . View the moon from the porch with the porch light turned on?
. . .
Hmmm. . . Sounds like a potential field test.
(a) Viewing the Moon in the dark using neutral density filters.
vs.
(b) Viewing the Moon from the porch with the porch light turned on.
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Turn all your outdoor lights on to view the bright moon. Just be sure to position your scope so as to NOT get any reflections off the eye lens.
Small moon requires no adjustment from normal dark adapted viewing, but you defeat your purpose by dark adapting to view a large bright moon. large moon viewing is actually daylight viewing. Not only have you defeated your purpose by dark adapting to view a bright moon, but then you have cut out 25%+ of the light entering your scope, a scope already made effectively smaller once the light of the moon in that exit pupil diminishes the size of your eye pupils. The minute contrast subtleties will be wiped out.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
EdZ:
Very interesting--I never cease learning from your posts.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and your work.
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Aaron, in reading your messages together, it seems to me that perhaps you may be after a wide field of view. If you had not mentioned "too many stars" at your regular dark site, I would have thought 10x50. But given that comment along with the wide-field trend of your messages, I think you may get close to what you're after with an 8x binocular. The Garrett Classic 8x45 may be a very good fit, and the price is right. The Oberwerk Mariner 8x40 is heavier and costs a little more but may also be a good fit.
But if you want to see more of those too many stars, 10x will show you plenty more than 8x.
--------------------
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
As of 23 August 2008 - Celestron Skymaster 12x60
|
Aaron
sage
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 234
Loc: Eugene OR
|
|
Next Question: is there a super-light pair of binoculars that is still suitable for decent star gazing? This would be to take backpacking, where weight is paramount. This is purely for astro-performance and not daytime viewing.
How about the same question, but for only wildlife viewing - I would assume the more compact roof prism models with smaller apertures?
Thanks
Aaron
--------------------
12" Lightbridge
Telrad, StellarVue F50
10.5mm XL, 17mm Stratus, 35mm Stratus
TV 2x Big Barlow
Lumicon UHC
My Sketches and Photos
Eugene OR
Eagle's Rest OR
|
Jay_Bird
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/04/06
Posts: 680
Loc: Nevada 36N 115W
|
|
For pathfinding before aiming with your 9x50 finder, and for backpacking stargazing, and for daytime wildlife observing, you might look at weight specs for CENTER FOCUS 7x35, 8x30 or 8x40 porros as well as roofs to fill a multi-purpose role. You will find plenty less than 1-1/2 pounds.
In porros a wider field may weigh a little more (9° of sky or more with 7x35, vs. 7° to 8° with 6x30 or 8x30). 7x35 still shows much more than unaided eye, I have 3 older 7x35 with 8° to 10° FOV that are very enjoyable for sweeping skies, spotting satellites, and daytime birding or general use (airplanes, boats on lake, etc.).
Leupold Yosemite 6x30 or new 8x30, or 8x32 or larger aperture Swift Ultralights come to mind as likely lighter-weight Porro candidates for your astro and daytime use.
There are various 6x30, 6x32, compact roof prism (Leupold, Eagle Optics, others), too, that might shave off a bit more weight. Better reverse Porro (one 7x26 is well regarded, can't recall model) could be a candidate too. Growing up at edges of suburbs I found old single coated 8x30 and 7x35 Porros very effective for stargazing, hikes, canoeing, etc.
Tirion and Crossen point out that all objects listed in their book "Binocular Astronomy" can be seen with an old pair of 10x50 and more than half with 7x35...
I'll see some Messier objects, Jupiter's moons, lunar detail with 6.5x21 when nothing else is at hand, but I wouldn't suggest those for astro scouting use, however Pentax Papilio's would be nice and light for backpacking...
Good luck! Jay
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2098
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Next Question: is there a super-light pair of binoculars that is still suitable for decent star gazing?
You really need to specify pounds and ounces, or kilograms. What's super-light to one person might be heavy to another. How much weight are you willing to dedicate to astronomy? Though that statement about "just for astronomy" rings false. If you've got astro-binoculars on a backpacking trip, you'll find plenty of uses for them during the daytime too.
Also, there's plenty of room for interpretation in "decent stargazing." I could happily spend many nights stargazing naked-eye from a dark location. So by extension, I could spend weeks with even the tiniest optical aid. Whether you consider that "decent" is up to you!
IMHO, if you really want to optimize astronomical performance per unit weight, monoculars do a better job than binoculars. And yes, roof-prism models tend to run a good deal lighter and smaller than equivalent Porro prisms.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
Next Question: is there a super-light pair of binoculars that is still suitable for decent star gazing? This would be to take backpacking, where weight is paramount. This is purely for astro-performance and not daytime viewing.
How about the same question, but for only wildlife viewing - I would assume the more compact roof prism models with smaller apertures?
Thanks
Aaron
Aaron, except for your budget, it seems that you may be asking for the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Porro, which gets a lot of praise for a lot of reasons. Maybe you should boost your budget and get both of your two different specs in one very good binocular?
On another hand, way below your budget limit are the Audubon Intrepid 8x40 and 10x40 porros, only 22 ounces, advertised FMC, BaK-4 prisms, waterproof, nitrogen-purged. Their main drawback to me is fairly small field of view (6.0 and 5.2 degrees, respectively).
--------------------
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
As of 23 August 2008 - Celestron Skymaster 12x60
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
Aaron:
Now on this next question, I recommend you give us a little more information. (1) Are you looking for one pair of backpacking binoculars or two pairs of backpacking binoculars?
(2) Please specify in ounces, what weight you are looking for? <16 oz, <24 oz, <32 oz, <48 oz.
(3) How much total money do you want to spend for the backpacking pair(s)?
(4) Do you want them to be waterproof?
(5) The backpacking pair for wildlife--will you be observing moving animals, such as birds in flight? Or are you more interested in fixed landscape observing, such as mountains and water scenes?
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Based on past experiences, I would not consider a non-waterproof binocular for any extended backpack trip.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2098
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Based on past experiences, I would not consider a non-waterproof binocular for any extended backpack trip.
There's something to that. I always keep my optical instruments in plastic bags and packed away deep when it's raining. But if you're out for a long time in a wet climate, it's only a matter of time before everything gets damp. I ruined a camera that way.
Hiking in the West during dry season is a whole different story. It's hard for an Easterner to grasp the fact that in many parts of the world, it's essentially guaranteed not to rain for many months at a stretch. But then you've got dust to worry about.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
|
5 registered and 9 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: 1565
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
