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
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
At last I am at a point where I am ready to take the plunge into the world of binoculars to compliment my telescope, but would appreciate some final feedback or advice between the following (many thanks to all who have provided advice so far, helping me get so far in such a short period of time):
Orion UltraView 10x50 (6.5 degree FOV)
Minolta Activa 10x50 (6.5 degree FOV)
Pentax PCF V 10x50 (5.0 degree field)
Carton Adlerblick 10x50 (5.3 degree FOV)
The Carton Adlerblick's are a little on the expensive side but have had some good reviews. Can anyone who has had any experience with these comment if they believe they are worth the extra money over and above the others?
These binoculars will be used exclusively for astronomy in a light polluted metro area for general sky orientation and tracking down constellations (I have an 8" scope for DSO's etc but will use the binoculars to assist in locating the area of the sky I am looking for). Hence the preference for 10x50 (with a 5mm exit pupil) rather than 7x50 (with a 7mm exit pupil). I will only occasionally get out to true "dark skies" and in the meantime have streetlights and a city "glow" to deal with.
I have only had a chance to view the Pentax PCF V's outside a shopping centre store under floodlights on a cloudy night with only one star visible intermittently so it was almost impossible to make a meaningful evaluation to say the least. I must say that I was a little concerned regarding the level of eye reflection in the eyepiece due to the high level of ambient light (I could clearly see the relection of my eye in the eyepiece making it difficult to see through this to the night sky). IS this normal under these conditions? If so, this is likely to be a problem in a light
polluted area with streetlights, etc...
My only other concern with the Pentax is the narrower FOV (5
degrees). Is there really a big difference in "actual" viewable area between this 5 degree and a 6.5 degree FOV as with the other models?
Of the four binoculars listed above, my preferences based on
feedback in this forum go to the Pentax and the Orion based on the best image quality in this price range. Comments?
Which has the widest "in-focus" FOV?
Is it possible to fit shaped "wrap-around" eyepices to any of these binoculars? Are there any other good binoculars comparable to these that have shaped eyecups?
I have had a look through a pair of Steiner Safari 10x42's with shaped eyecups and they where fantastic (large, comfortable, and blocked out all ambient light around the eye so all you could see was the image through the binocular). Unfortunately these retail for about 500% more than the binoculars listed above.
Finally, I have had found a lot of differing opinions regarding the choice between 50mm and 40mm aperture binos. Is 50mm really preferable for astronomy or would 8x or 10x40mm be just as functional (lighter weight, better image quality?), etc? And if so, would it be possible to get a higher quality bino for the same price?
Once again, my greatest thanks for all your valued input and
advice...
Frilby 
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Well, Frilby...still think u shd give the Swift 10x50 Kestrel a good audition b4 u make a purchase. For an astronomy glass, they just don't come any better. The brightness, fov, resolution and reasonable size and wt just make it a stellar performer (there I go with the puns again). As I mentioned in another post, I have either owned or had extensive use of most commercially available binos, old and new, and haven't found any that are any better...some maybe just as good, but for more $. A side by side with a 10x42 Superior E(the BVD reference std for hi power glasses) showed the Swift to be virtually the equal of the Nikon, to wit: wider fov (7* vs 6*...translates to 70* afov vs 60*....that's noticable), slightly brighter in all light (barely noticable, but there), equal resolution(my test is to read car tags in a parking lot at a measured 418 meters across a vacant field, using a sandbag rest on my 2d floor balcony rail...I verify the readings with a Canon 15x50 IS. What I could read w/ the Nikon, I cd read w/the Swift and vice versa...no other 10x I've tried wd to this consistently, unless the light was just right). I would say the Nikon had an edge in color fidelity (totally neutral) and is certainly more rugged (but the SE is probably the best-built porro glass on the planet)...but there's the matter of $...approx $225 vs 750...it's no contest there. You can often find the Swift on ebay for $150 or so (just make sure it's the late model 826 with the full multicoatings). Now as to the last ? regarding 8x v 10x, 40 v 50mm, if I were going to design my ideal astro glass, I think it wd be an 8x50 porro...lightly rubber armored, pop-up or twist-up eyecups, the best, most highly-polished optical glass available(from Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Schott), fully multicoated, prisms too, with Nikon's formula, waterproof (which would also make it dustproof, the real desired feature)...fov wd be 7.5-8*, eye relief at least 17mm and butter-smooth slow-speed focusing (ala Swift Audobons). Would weigh about 30-32oz and be built like vault (ala Nikon SE), have very large prisms, would be extremely well-baffled with edge-blacked lenses and have quick-release strap attachments (ala B&L Elite)...rounded prism covers and objective lenses well inset into the barrels...and finally a good, snug fitting but quick popoff eyepiece cover. I think that would be the ideal hand-held astro bino IMHO.
Doug
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Oh one more thing...Steiners are the most incredibly over-priced units on the market....fair performers, but easily beat by glasses costing half as much...I've always thought of them as kind of "German Tascos". In fairness, they are rugged, as they are basically designed for hunters and military use, but for optical accuracy (i.e. color fidelity, resolution, etc) I've found them lacking...they'd be pretty good to throw in the Land Rover for a trip to the outback, but not much else....some may disagree, but this opinion is based on my own experience, not someone else's review (altho Steve Ingraham of BVD reached about the same conclusion). Doug
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Hey mate!
Although it goes against common wisdom, which holds 50mm as the minimum aperture necessary for stargazing, I've found that the Nikon 10X35 E2 performs better under light polluted skies than my other 10X bins (Orion 10X50 Ultraview, Nikon 10X50 Lookout II, and Celestron 9.5X44 ED). At 22 oz., they are very easy to hold for long periods, and the small exit pupil (3.5mm) gives much better constrast than the 5mm exit pupil bins above. They are also very sharp, sharp as any above but wtih a wider FOV (70* AFOV), and they have better edge sharpness than the Ultraview and Celestron ED.
While you won't see as many stars with the E2 as you would with the Kestrel or other good quality 10X50s, the light throughput in the FMC E2s is so good that you don't miss very much (counted 21 stars in the Pleaides with mediocre transparency). And what you gain in contrast (bright stars against dark background) is well worth any trade-off in star counts, IMO.The Pleaides, Hyades, and Alpha Persei clusters are truly awesome even under light polluted skies.
As an added bonus, the small exit pupil on the E2 compensates for my astigmatism so I don't need to wear glasses. With the 5mm exit pupil Kestrel, I WOULD need to use glasses; but with only 10mm eye relief, the FOV would appear very narrow. For more info on the E2, see my mini-review in the "small binoculars" thread.
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."
|
|
17 registered and 14 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: 1158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
