Photon
sage
Reged: 03/10/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Aurora, Colorado, USA
|
|
The shakes in my 10x50s are annoying. And now I learn from my eye doctor that my pupils are not 5mm, but 6.5mm. I'm thinking the wider field would be nice too, maybe 25% wider.
So, what do you think? Would I like 7x50s better? Would I see the DSOs better? Oh, BTW, I DON'T want to use a tripod with my binocs.
Thanks, Pete
--------------------
Orion 120mm f/5 achro refractor
10" Homebuilt Dob for backyard use
5.1" Newt on equatorial mount in the RV
Telrad finders on both
Celestron Nexstar 6SE
10x50 Steiner binoculars
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1660
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
For DSO's you will need more than 7x if you are planning on "seeing" anything.
--------------------
Pentax 12x50mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 16x60mm PCF WP FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Orion 12x63mm Mini Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 15x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 16x80mm Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 20x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 30x80mm MEGAView FMC/JAPAN
Barska 30x80mm X-Trail LW FC
Burgess Optical Series II 20x90mm FMC/WP/FP
Handel's Messiah**Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
Reged: 06/16/04
Posts: 12070
Loc: San Diego, California
|
|
If the 10x50s are shaking low mags might be in order. I have both 10x42s and 7x42s that I use for both birding and astronomy. See more the 10x42s but the 7x42s do provide that wider field of view, 8 degrees I think.
I happen to have the Meade Montana's which I have had for 3-4 years maybe. Meade is closing them out at their factory outlet store for
$159 shipped to your door
These are Japanese Phase coated, nitrogen purged, O-ring sealed roof prism binos with a close focus of 8 or 9 feet, good for those close in galaxies... 
John Cota was going to buy a pair, he could give the real critique...
JOn
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
my 7x50's let me see the majority of objects my dad sees in his 10x50's, so do not discount them for seeing DSO's. you'll see more DSO's with a stable 7x50 then you will with a shaky 10x50 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1660
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
cam,
Would you please give an example of which DSO's you can see at 7x, and, please tell us how much detail is visible at this magnification. 
Thank you
--------------------
Pentax 12x50mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 16x60mm PCF WP FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Orion 12x63mm Mini Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 15x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 16x80mm Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 20x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 30x80mm MEGAView FMC/JAPAN
Barska 30x80mm X-Trail LW FC
Burgess Optical Series II 20x90mm FMC/WP/FP
Handel's Messiah**Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
No, I do not think 7x50s would be better. That does not mean you might not see a steadier view, I just don't think it will be a better view.
We often hear people exclaim they can see more with a smaller binocular because lower power is easier to hold. Well, true, it is easier to hold, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will see more or that it is a better view.
I've compared many different sizes of binoculars on many different types of objects, so my comparisons generally are based on having viewed a wide variety of objects with many sizes and that allows me to state what can be seen in each. Without question, you will not see more with smaller binoculars than with larger binoculars. Given both of those you mention are same size aperture, you have simply removed some magnification, and that magnification is what is necessary to even see many objects.
For instance, you will see M45 in both 10x50 and 7x50, and the 7x50 may even be a slightly steadier view. But, you will see more and fainter stars in the 10x50. Perhaps 40 stars in the 7x50 and 50 stars in the 10x50.
Some clusters will just barely be seen or may not be seen at all at 7x. In Cas, with your 10x50s you might see all three 654, 663 and 659 on a very good night. But in the 7x50 I doubt you would see 659 at all even on the best nights. In o.c 1502, you may see the double star in you 10x50s, but you haven't got a chance of seeing it with a 7x50.
You won't see M57 at all in 7x50. At least it will be seen as a non-stellar spot in the 10x50s.
In all cases, in all open clusters, you will not see as many stars in the 7x50s.
10x50s will allow you to see about a half magnitude fainter in all cases.
You'll see brighter globulars like M13, M5, M15, M10, in your 7x50s, but you'll see even more and even slightly fainter globulars, erhaps M12, M9 in your 10x50s.
You'll see the brighter galaxies in both binoculars, but you'll see fainter and smaller galaxies in the 10x50s.
So, if you want a wider field, that's fine, go for a wider field. But who can possibly say you will like 7x50s better? That's not a question anyone else can answer. But there is no doubt, you will not see DSOs better.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
mttafire
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/02/06
Posts: 1114
Loc: midwest
|
|
Quote:
my 7x50's let me see the majority of objects my dad sees in his 10x50's, so do not discount them for seeing DSO's. you'll see more DSO's with a stable 7x50 then you will with a shaky 10x50
Agreed.
--------------------
God Bless America
Binocular astronomy
for me ONLY.
8x45 Garretts
15x70 Skymasters
2 eyes!
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Hal...EdZ, note what I said. "a stable 7x50 will let you see more then a shaky 10x50". they said they can't hold a 10x50 anymore and they don't want to use a tripod to stabilize them. while the difference in power will lower it's deep sky penetration, the 7x50 would be the better tool. you can't see anything shaking. this scenario has considerations that math cannot easily allow for...
while you don't like the idea of a tripod, Pete, what about a monopod? much easier to manage and gives you excellent stability.
you could also consider a device like the SVP-3 from Simacorp. KennyJ has used one and with padding for the beam that rests against your chest, it's a very useful stabilizing agent for bino-viewing. it wraps around your neck, has a stablizing/balancing beam that cantilever's against your chest and lets you mount bino's eye level.
http://www.simaproducts.com/products/product_detail.php?product_id=76
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
patter1
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/19/05
Posts: 597
Loc: Canada
|
|
Pete, as others mentioned, despite certainly being less shaky, the 7x50s will see quite a bit less deep than 10x50s, so I don't know if you'd find it an improvement...you might actually find it a step down overall. And with your eyes, a 7x50 would effectively be a 7x46. Maybe you can borrow a 7x50 off someone to see how you like it.
For less shakes, you might also want to consider an 8x40 or 8x42, most of which have a wider true FOV and much wider apparent FOV, and less size and weight than 7x50s. These are nice for scanning as well as being a good size for all-round daytime use.
|
mark22c
sage
Reged: 08/12/07
Posts: 343
Loc: cornwall UK
|
|
i have 7x50 and 10x50, i must admit i find the later shows much more detail and give a more pleasing veiw, 7x50's are a little under whelming for astro work, you should try some before buying.
7x50's will show you most things you can find in 10x50's but as others say wont show you much detail.
also fov isnt allways that much bigger in a 7x50 compared to 10x50's.
i think you should at least consider a mount, it neadn't be much maybe just a monopod/lightweight camera tripod or veiwing from a reclined position. of corse you could consider bins with image stabalisation but they'll cost you
--------------------
opticron "imagic" BGA SE 8x42 roof's
10x42 roof's
meade/bresser (lidl) 10x50 porro's
|
Photon
sage
Reged: 03/10/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Aurora, Colorado, USA
|
|
Thank you, folks, for your input.
I was wondering if I'd get an outpouring of enthusiasm for the 7x50s. I didn't. It seems that what you are all telling me is that I'm going to lose some detail in the views. Fair enough. But I don't see binoculars as instruments for seeing detail. I've got a collection of telescopes for that.
You know what I'd really like... a maybe 2x binoc. I'd like to be able to see the sky here in light-polluted Denver like I just saw it in deep, dark Utah. I mean, I'd like to see the big picture (a good, large chunk of a constellation -- wide FOV) without having to strain or even imagine the 4th and 5th magnitude stars. If I can just see a smudge for a DSO, that's okay. Once I know where it is I can go to the scope. So, I was thinking that a low power, large objective binoc would do it for me better than a 10x50 -- hence my wish for a 2x50 (yes, 2).
Thanks again, Pete
--------------------
Orion 120mm f/5 achro refractor
10" Homebuilt Dob for backyard use
5.1" Newt on equatorial mount in the RV
Telrad finders on both
Celestron Nexstar 6SE
10x50 Steiner binoculars
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
So, I was thinking that a low power, large objective binoc would do it for me better than a 10x50 -- hence my wish for a 2x50 (yes, 2).
Thanks again, Pete
Nice wish, but our eyes restrict wishes like that from ever being a possiblity. With your 6.5mm eye pupils, the maximum you could ever get would be 2x13 binoculars.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
mark22c
sage
Reged: 08/12/07
Posts: 343
Loc: cornwall UK
|
|
i do love my 7x50's but only use them for walks by the beach and in the country side, the 10x50's however are used only for astronomy as they give that space walk feel, i find the 7x50's feel a little like looking through a tube, the fov is a lttle more but the image feels distant also the larger exit pupil does give a brighter image, the trouble is everything is brighter even the background sky so it sort of cancels its self out unless your veiwing from extremely dark skies.
im not sure how to explain but my 7.3 fov 7x50's are like looking down long tubes with a pic stuck on the end were as 10x50's are like looking down very short tubes with the same pic only its closer. ironically there is a differance of about 25% but it favours the 10x50's, even though im seeing about the same image i feel my eyes are less impeeded by about 25% with the 10x50's. id be inclined to find some way of suporting your bins even if its just a case of resting your elbows on something.
i understand what you meen with low mag but it doesnt allways follow that your perceived field of view will be bigger by lowering mag and the differance in what you can see dso wise is so slight between the two for example m31 looks no better with 7x50's and other dso's look to small to see detail in shape one looks pretty much the same as the other with 7x50's.
maybe a compramise is in order ... say 8.5x44's or similar
--------------------
opticron "imagic" BGA SE 8x42 roof's
10x42 roof's
meade/bresser (lidl) 10x50 porro's
Edited by mark22c (10/30/07 11:05 AM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Pete ( Photon )
Maybe a 5 x 32 would give you the extra - wide , low magnifiation views you are looking for .
For 10x " cake and eat it " a Swift Kestrel 10 x 50 has a 7 degree TFOV .
That , said , I think I like my 7 x 50s more than anyone else who frequents this forum , too :-)
Variety is the spice of life !
Good luck and clear skies
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
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
Since I got my 10x50, which goes deeper and shows Messiers better, the 7x50 has been mostly relegated to daytime use. I pulled it out the other night, though, and was pleased at the good things it offered, despite the lack of sheer information: wide field, steady view, and extremely sharp stars. It is hard to quantify, but the view was kind of dreamy. Actually, I can quantify it, the dreamy factor was 17.6!
Ron
|
mark22c
sage
Reged: 08/12/07
Posts: 343
Loc: cornwall UK
|
|
just been out with my meade/bresser 10x50's and the harmony 7x50's to compare them back to back with a view to see which offer the most pleasing view with stability in mind. i havent used the 7x50's for a while at night and was very pleased with them they render stars very sharp. took a look at the comet(very bright and prity) in both 10 and 7x50's next andromeda again very prity in both, double cluster was again nice in both... i think if holding 10x50's steady is a problem for you (it isnt for me)having both tools avalable (and i see me going back on myself here) the 7x50's arnt bad and are steadier... id say if you have dark skies get some and try them, as you say you have a scope if you nead a closer look. personly i prefere the 10x50's but theres not as much in it as i thought.
--------------------
opticron "imagic" BGA SE 8x42 roof's
10x42 roof's
meade/bresser (lidl) 10x50 porro's
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Personally, I doubt that a 10x50 shows MUCH more than a 7x50. Of course it depends of which definition we have of the word MUCH! Does a 10x50 shows MUCH more than a 7x35? Significantly maybe, but not VERY much! You may not agree with me here...
But what I want to say is that it isn't always THE MOST IMPORTANT how much we theoretically can se, but in which degree we can enjoy what we actually are seeing.
If a 7x50 provides a considerably more stabile and relaxed view with a slightly larger FOV than a 10x50, IT MAY be worth it. The most enjoying view isn't always ONLY related to the number of objects we can see.
If you have an eye pupil as large as 6,5mm it may be worth using a 7x50, which is usable for as well low light land observations and dark skies. According to what I have read at this forum in some thread you can make gain of a 7x50 in comparison to a 7x42 despite the eye pupil isn't reaching fully 7mm.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
patter1
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/19/05
Posts: 597
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I doubt that a 10x50 shows MUCH more than a 7x50.
Light pollution would be a factor here. Many of us know that decades ago, 7x50 was the standard recommendation for an astro binocular. I have to wonder if ever increasing light pollution is one big reason (out of several good ones) that 7x50 isn't recommended that often any more.
Now if I could find a good, new 7x50 with >65º AFOV, decent edge-of-field aberration correction, long eye relief, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (sorry Miyauchi Binon), and use it in truly dark skies, I suspect I would be a life-long 7x50 lover. 
|
Dennis Menace
member
Reged: 10/14/07
Posts: 27
Loc: Memphis, TN
|
|
I am a life long 7x50 lover. I grew up when the golden rule was 7mm exit pupil for night time viewing. I just now found this forum, and I must admit, it's a shock to find that people no longer believe it.
Even for daytime viewing, I prefer 7x50's. The view thru 7x35's looks dark after looking thru 7x50's.
|
mark22c
sage
Reged: 08/12/07
Posts: 343
Loc: cornwall UK
|
|
i love my 7x50's infact i have two pairs there great as allround bins for me and when dark enough fantastic for casual astronomy, they give a very steady hand held view and very bright clear image but as another poster has mentioned as light pollution gets worse smaller exit pupils offer better views which is why the trend has shifted towards 10x50's as the norm for casual astronomy.
conditions vary were i live, sometimes the skies are wonderfuly dark and i get a more satisfactory image with a 7x50 but if theres a hint of lp the 10x50's are a little better giving a darker back ground and more contrast makeing dso's clearer.
sure if you want a stable veiw and 10x is hard for you, drop down to 8x or 7x but as to apiture it dipends on your veiwing conditions and LP. a 7x42 would offer a 6mm ep and may render a better view with very slight LP
looks like you will have to try several pairs to find whats right for you and best suits your conditions
regards mark
--------------------
opticron "imagic" BGA SE 8x42 roof's
10x42 roof's
meade/bresser (lidl) 10x50 porro's
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
