etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
I have the 8.5x42 Swarovski EL and am thinking about getting 10x50 Leica Ultravid or 10x50 Swarovski SLC Neu.
Question, what advantages does 10x50 offer over 8x42 format?
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
well, the obvious are greater light gathering, finer resolution and smaller detail. 10x50s can see typically 0.4-0.5 magnitude fainter, have 25% larger image scale and resolve equally finer deatil.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2054
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
For me, 10x50s hit the sweet spot for handheld astro observing, but although EdZ is absolutely correct, IMO, those improvements over your 8.5x42s would be relatively minor. I feel the next stop might be something in the 15x70 category, but that's either going to need a tripod or have active image stabilization as in the Canon 15x50s IS, which are optically excellent, and way less expensive than the Swaros.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
etc ,
Because I've learned by reading your previous posts to this forum that you know at least as much about binoculars as I do , I am making no further comment ! :-)
Kind 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
|
stevecoe
Reged: 04/24/04
Posts: 2129
Loc: Arizona, USA
|
|
I find that I see just as much in my Orion Savanah 8X42's as I ever saw in my old 10X50 Pentax binoculars. I am 59 years old now and have some trouble holding heavy binoculars steady, I am certain that is part of it--dammit. Another is the fact that I bought my Pentax binoculars in Hong Kong in 1974. They dove to the cement five years ago and I got the 8X42's after using a friends. I have never regretted that purchase. So, I have tried a few modern 10X50's and realized that I saw about the same view with the 8X42's. For my eye there is little difference. It does seem to take something like a 15X70 to make that "Wow" kinda difference.
I would be interested to hear a report once you decide what you are going to buy.
Clear skies;
Steve Coe
--------------------
150mm 6" f/8 Celestron Refractor on Sirius Mount
80mmED 3" f/7.5 Orion Refractor
Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer-Verlag
Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer
New Canon Xt astrocamera with Hutech modification
|
charen
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/28/05
Posts: 786
Loc: New Zealand
|
|
If the binocular are of equal quality the differences are more incremental. However what I do notice when sweeping star fields on a dark night with a 10x50 size binocular is that the background blanket of stars are more prominent and hence the image is more satisfying
With my roofs when I went up the next size from the 10x42 I went to the 10x56 size [Nikon Monarchs] where the difference is clearly noticeable – a 77% increase in light gathering ability over the 42mm’s. The 56mm’s also remain easily hand hold able.
If you want to remain with the 50mm size that does not answer your question. If you could compare a 42 and 50mm side by side that may make your mind up.
--------------------
35 binos.
80mm Cat.
WO66ED
SV NH 80mm / EQ3
Meade 8in.LX90
Skywatcher Equinox ED120 / Goto HEQ5.
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
I understand theoretical advantages of 10x50 over 8x40 format but I wanted to hear from someone who did that kind of upgrade.
I don't want to go beyond 10x without using a tripod.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
I understand theoretical advantages of 10x50 over 8x40 format
Actually, I answered your question based on reams of practical test data.
There is no mistaking the increased image size. This leads to finer resolution in the 10x50s, and unless you are comparing the best 8x42 to the worst 10x50 (which you are not), then you will see at least 20%-25% finer resolution with the 10x binocular. Practically every model I tested falls into that results range. This holds true for handheld resolution. Best handheld resolution at 8x is 14.5 arcseconds, typical is 15-16 arcseconds. At 10x, best resolution is 11.5-12 arcseconds, typical is 13 arcseconds.
"Gathers more light" is a much different concept than "gives brighter image". Increased (or fainter) light is readily noticable in astronomical viewing. That may not translate as easily to bright light terrestrial viewing, but I would make the assumption both would be operating at a much smaller and equal exit pupil predetermined by your maximum daylight eye pupil and that would still have the 10x operating at a larger aperture, for instance 10x30 vs 8x24. The differences on night sky is easily quantified (and has been posted in this forum). You would notice the difference at dusk or any other low light conditions.
I read other answers (elsewhere) to you that the 10x50s will be much heavier. Perhaps for the specific models you are comparing that may be true, but there are quite a few heavy 8x42s that are not lighter than some light 10x50s, so genericly, this may not always be true. For instance, the Leupold WR Mesa 10x50, Nikon Action VII 10x50 and even the Nikon SE 12x50 all weigh 32oz. (900g.), and the Orion Ultraview 10x50 weighs in at 30oz. (850g.). Well the Pentax PCF WP II 8x40 and the Oberwerk Mariner 8x40 weigh 32oz. and 33oz. and the Nikon Action Ex 8x40 wieghs 30oz., so weight is not always readily apparent by size.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2054
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
In my experience, the improvements that very high quality optics convey are less significant when astro observing, so some rather pedestrian binos can be excellent for astronomy. Also, for observing wildlife etc. at dusk, larger exit pupils really only buy you 10 or 15 minutes more observing time. For this reason, I use Zeiss 8x32 (19oz) Victory T* FLs for general use and hunting, and Nikon AE 10x50s(30oz)for general astro use.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1660
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
Quote:
In my experience, the improvements that very high quality optics convey are less significant when astro observing
What about the Fujinon 10x50mm FMT-SX? 
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/fujinon10x50.html
--------------------
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
Edited by hallelujah (07/05/08 10:36 AM)
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2054
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
EdZ would best answer that question as he has meticulously characterized and cataloged the performance of many bins. The Fuginon 10x50s are rather heavy and aren't CF, so are more cumbersome for daytime use. Since I switch between viewing with and without glasses, I prefer CF. YMMV
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 948
Loc: Country road
|
|
Etc--
If you want to continue this discussion--which I think is an excellent idea--perhaps you can tell us something about your observing goals.
Are you considering the 10x50s for daytime, twilight, or night sky observing?
What observing hobbies do you follow, such as astro, birding, landscape, sports, and/or urban architecture.
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3361
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Since your going that big you might want to get a 10x56 like the Zeiss FL's. Your neck will hate you with 50mm or larger roof's compared to the 42mm.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Joe ,
I'm very surprised you didn't recommend one of the 10x PLUS Canon IS models here ! :-)
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
|
GlennLeDrew
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 624
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
For astronomical use, this very simple formula presented and discussed in the RASCs's Observer's Handbook tells the tale:
Binocular performance = objective diameter times magnification.
8 X 42 = 320
10 X 50 = 500
So the 10x50 could be characterized as being 500 / 320 = 1.56 times, or 56% better.
--------------------
Home-made 11X50 right angle bino, 8.1 deg. FOV
Modified 26X100 bino, 3.5 deg. FOV
Mediocre minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3361
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Joe ,
I'm very surprised you didn't recommend one of the 10x PLUS Canon IS models here ! :-)
Kenny
Kenny, I think he wants to stick with an ultra-premium German binocular. 
Joe
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5312
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Thanks for this thread! I just remembered I need to see where the heck I put my old Celestron Pro 9x63. Made in Japan. Nice optics.
Rich
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5312
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Found it!! But, I was wrong about the model it's the Celestron Untima 9x63!!!
Rich 
Good grief, never thought I'd use that gremlin.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Well, about 10 years ago Alan Adler did some preliminary studies that showed Roy Bishop's Index (the index you refer to above) does not really give an accurate indication of how binoculars perform on stars. In fact, he claimed a better index would be magnification times square root of aperture.
So, about 6-7 years ago, I spent months of exhaustive testing and found that Alder is on the right track. Diameter of aperture is fairly meaningless for binocular performance and over-weights performance to aperture. And if you think about it a little further, there are no circumstances where diameter of aperture is a significant value for binocular viewing. Area of aperture is better. But finally, aperture has far less influence on binocular performance than magnification. So magnification needs to be weighted.
By both Adler's Index and my BPI, an equal quality 10x50 vs an 8x42 would give about a 35% increased performance, not nearly the 56% increae that would be predicted by Bishop's Index. You can find previous discussions in this forum that show smaller aperture binoculars with higher power perform at an advantage to larger binoculars at a lower power.
Of course the reason behind this is the fact that for most targets the optimum use of all the aperture is so drastically under-utilized at low powers that you never get the full benefit of the full aperture. But you do get an immediate and full benefit from added magnification. The tests that show this are repeatable and consistent.
See the "Best Of" thread for all the historical discussions in this forum regards Binocular Performance Index.
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
Ed,
You have certainly compiled enough observations to know, and we appreciate it. The ultimate demonstration of what you are saying about magnification vs aperture is probably the use of high-quality 60mm refractors, such as the Zeiss Telementor, for deep sky observing. Despite their small aperture, and of course lacking the binocular summation effect, in the hands of a skilled observer these things will show amazingly tiny and dim things. There is a guy over on the Astromart forums, Thomas Jensen, who sees more, or at least sights more objects, with his 60mm Zeiss than most of us will through a 10" Dob.
Still, I wonder about my, and your, observations that the 10x50 Fujinon obviously beats the 10x42 Nikon SE on the stars. According to Alder's index, the difference in performance is only 9%.
What 9% should look and feel like is hard to know, but such a small value would lead me to expect less of a difference than I see. Area indeed increases, not as the square root but rather as the square of the area. This makes Alder's result more surprising, but hardly invalidates it.
Something not obvious to me is going on. (what else is new?)
Anyhow, I think aperture may be getting a slightly bad rap. From my limited experience, I would like to offer the following non-quantitative defense of aperture (provided it is not wasted by a too-small eye pupil):
1) A practiced observer is sensitive to small improvements, and will value highly an improvement that may not amount to much, percentage wise. Such an observer often works at the threshold of visiblilty, where small improvements seem to make a large differences.
2) The difficulty of using higher magnification binoculars for hand-held or minimally-braced observing can make greater magnification an unsatisfying means of view improvement, despite its theoretical advantages. Of course, with increasing aperture come size and weight, which can get out of hand fast. But as long as the bino is not too heavy to handle, I would much prefer a moderate sized one to a small one at the same magnification.
Regarding etc's original question, on stars, my 8x42 gives a beautiful and worthwhile view of the sky. But in my 10x50, the stars appear to have meat on their bones.
Ron
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 