Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 140
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
BTW, the Celestron Regal 8x42 roof would outperform any binocular I listed. It does cost a bit more though.
I just googled "8x42 celestron regal lx" and see them listed as available and priced at $258.98 with free shipping from binoculars.com. I don't know how fresh they keep their website, in fact, I have no affiliation or experience with them at all. But that price puts them pretty close to the Link's range.
--Tad
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
kray
super member
Reged: 01/25/05
Posts: 134
Loc: NC, USA
|
|
I just bought them at this site @ 3weeks ago for this price and couldn't be more pleased> 
--------------------
Ken
Celestron Regal LX 8 x 42 roof
Orion Expanse 7 x 32 (14 degree)
Nikon 10 x 35 E2
Nikon 10 x 50 Action V ( Made in Japan)
Oberwerk 15 x 70
GO 25 x 100 IF Bogen 501/3046
Celestron 102 F/5 Wide View Refractor
|
GlennLeDrew
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 568
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
I'll add my two cents regarding field of view...
I'm a big advocate of large fields of view in any optical instrument. After all, if we have the peripheral vision, why not use as much of it as possible?
In a hand-held instrument, as long as the central portion of the field is sharp, softness of image toward the edges should not be as big a problem as you might think. There are three reasons for this:
1) Your off-axis vision is remarkably poor at resolving detail. If you want to examine *anything*, you must swivel your eyes to bring it into the very center of the retina at the fovea. (I'm not including here the technique of averted vision, which is necessary for the detection of very faint objects.) As long as you are looking into the bino's center-of-field, objects toward the edge, however un-sharp, will probably *seem* to be quite sharp to your off-axis vision system (eye and brain).
2) Unlike a telescope, which might be annoying to always tweak the aim for so as to place the object under scrutiny in the middle of the field, a bino is *so* easy to point that doing this is completely a subconscious response.
3) If a "standard" and wide field instrument are compared, it may be that both have the same angular field of sharp imagery. For example, let's say two 10X50's are compared, one with a 5 deg. fov and the other with a 7 deg. fov. If both are rated as having really good imagery within the same 3.5 deg. central portion, then why not go with the wider field? More of a constellation pattern can be squeezed in, large objects are better framed, and the more sensitive outer retina can better pick up faint stuff of low contrast as you pan around the sky.
So don't necessarily discount a wide angle instrument just because it doesn't deliver ponpoint stars to the edge of the field.
--------------------
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.
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2420
|
|
Quote:
So don't necessarily discount a wide angle instrument just because it doesn't deliver ponpoint stars to the edge of the field.
I agree with this... though it bothers some people more than others. Some of my most fun bino's are the Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's and tne 7x50's... widefield at the cost of edge sharpness and some other issues- some people can't enjoy them- me- I love them.
Wes
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 11889
|
|
I'll just add that I have been amazed by how much one can see with a good 8X42 roof prism binocular. I have one that is similar (I believe) to the Bushnell 8X42 that EdZ includes in his recommendations. I can see DSOs (including the Swan and the Lagoon, and the North America nebula and the Pelican, and M81 and 82), and of course it's great for star fields. Not good for planets, though. The low magnification and light weight make it a good instrument for casual hand held use.
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1802
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
you may have thought that 3 pairs are enough  Not in this forum.
No...three pairs are more than enough, it's just that we haven't learnt that yet
--------------------
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 208
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Quote
I've read the same too, but I now wonder why they say this. I have not found that at all, unless the roofs are of low quality. Some of the roofs I've tested outperformed some of the porros I've tested, near equal cost or more.
edz
Hi Edz
Well this may be one of the most interesting comments i've read on the forum recently especially coming from yourself
I did read most of your small binocular tests and was intrigued to see not only some roofs return high overall test results but also that the price points for these performers were not in the mega cost bracket
As my signature would hint i have mainly been a porro fan but i've often wondered about how roof binoculars are gradually changeing both in performance and costs
In all honesty the only visible difference i saw in a Nikon SE 8 x 32 and Nikon LX (HG) heavier earlier model was the porro seemed to have slightly sharper extreme edges and no curves in the field whilst the roof image seemed larger in scale and slightly less 3d ie the roof image seemed to my eyes to hold all the objects within a narrower depth
There did seem to be some separation of the objects in the porro whereby closer items stood off more
Overall i couldnt truthfully say either image was a definite advantage but of course this was terrestrial daytime viewing
I have tried sky gazing also with pals Leica Trinovid 10 x against my Nikon E2 10 x and found much the same result ie both excellent views but exhibiting similar image size differences obviously E2 had wider field
I did however note some reflections at the eyepiece with the E2 which i just could not entice the Trinovid to produce
I also notice in your tests the "big guns" of the roof world were absent probably due to the fact they cost a small fortune just to buy and test and people dont pass them around for fun to be examined
Have you personally ever tested the Leica's Swarovski and Zeiss latest roofs ?
I would be intrigued to see those outcomes both against mid and premium porros but also mid price roof offerings
Just as a footnote i recently tried a Swarovski SLC 10 x 42 Neu against my Nikon and Zeiss 10 x porros and again i thought the roof image was very good but then again we are talking vast cost differences
It makes me ponder just how far some of the "lesser" known Japanese and higher end Chinese emergent roof models are actually reaching now into the top "Marques"
As ever more questions than answers but like many i'm here to learn as well as just read
Regards
RichT
--------------------
Carl Zeiss MC Jenoptem 10 x 50
Nikon SE 10 x 42
Nikon E11 8 x 30 + 10 x 35
Bresser/Meade x2 10 x 50(40)
Pentax Papilo 6.5 x 21
Minolta Activa WP FP 8 x 40
Praktica WA Lanthanum x2 8 x 25
Swift Audubon 804 FMC 8.5 x 44
Fujinon CD Phase Coated Roof 7 x 42
Opticron Minerva Porro 9 x 35
Opticron Vega 11 WA Porro 12 x 50
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12497
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
some roofs return high overall test results but also that the price points for these performers were not in the mega cost bracket
I also notice in your tests the "big guns" of the roof world were absent
Have you personally ever tested the Leica's Swarovski and Zeiss latest roofs ?
My small binocular reports were constructed around testing binoculars under $200. Other than the benchmarks used, a few crept into the mix that were between 200-300.
never tested any of those.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 208
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Hi Edz
Thanks for the response i guess its down to any kind optics rich forum members to extend models to you for such tests then 
Still think it would be interesting when actually measured
Maybe the roof versus porro debate will gradually dissolve but i'm guessing history and reputations always bring the argument back to the surface
For whats its worth the porro's i've personally owned have generally seemed better value then similar cost roofs
Then again i havent tried the Celestron Regal or Bushnell Legends
I do hope to become the owner of the older 8 x 42 Bushnell Discoverer roof (previously done by Bausch and Lomb i beleive) later this year so can make some more comparisons then
Regards
RichT
--------------------
Carl Zeiss MC Jenoptem 10 x 50
Nikon SE 10 x 42
Nikon E11 8 x 30 + 10 x 35
Bresser/Meade x2 10 x 50(40)
Pentax Papilo 6.5 x 21
Minolta Activa WP FP 8 x 40
Praktica WA Lanthanum x2 8 x 25
Swift Audubon 804 FMC 8.5 x 44
Fujinon CD Phase Coated Roof 7 x 42
Opticron Minerva Porro 9 x 35
Opticron Vega 11 WA Porro 12 x 50
|
jllinko
member
Reged: 07/23/08
Posts: 12
|
|
Well, after a lot of reading and thought (I'm self diagnosed with obsessive compulsiveness), I pulled the trigger. I decided to go with a large hand held as my first bino, the Nikon AE 10x50. My reasons, cheap at $135.00, wide field, even thou not the sharpest at the edges, and I ergonomics. I actually got to try a pair, and I liked the looks, the feel, they just fit me like a glove, compared to others, and the view was just incredible (for a newbie). I just loved the look and feel. I know that shouldn't be a determining factor, but it is to me.
So, I should get them this week, cant wait. I'm now planning what my first DSO should be and how to find it, what do you think? I live in Ohio.
Link
PS, and for those of you who think I will own more than 3 pair,
you probably right!
|
Franklink
member
Reged: 07/19/08
Posts: 74
Loc: Somewhere Dark
|
|
my advice to you is, go for bright dsos. Try M13, or M27. Whats your light pollution? This factor will determine how much you can see and how detailed the views will be
|
GlennLeDrew
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 568
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
A 10X50 is possibly the ideal astronomical binocular, when all factors are considered.
I'd suggest "getting your feet wet" with some of the brighter open clusters and nebulae. At this time of year, the Sagittarius/Scorpius milky way holds the highest concentrations of nice DSO's. The clusters M7, M6, M23 and M25 are all resolvable so some extent. The M24 star cloud (as big as several Moons) is awesome, especially in a dark sky. The Lagoon nebula (M8) is an easy target, and the globular cluster M4 (nest to Antares) is a snap to locate. Once you bag these, go for the Swan nebula, M17 and the Eagle nebula/cluster, M16 (the former is a bit brighter.)
--------------------
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.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10081
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Glenn ,
I have to agree that Scorpius is probably the most bino - awesome region of the sky known to mankind .
But I'm surprised you can see it from Canada !
I realise that a heftier slice of Canada than most people probably realise is actually further SOUTH than northern England is ( indeed , NO part of North America is as close to the north pole as is Cumbria in England ) but I've only had the pleasure of observing M6 and M7 when on holiday in either Spain , Greece or the Canary Islands !
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
jllinko
member
Reged: 07/23/08
Posts: 12
|
|
Thanks everyone, I appreciate it.
By the way, how does one explain to their wife that is not another expensive hobby I'm getting into
Link
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2420
|
|
Quote:
By the way, how does one explain to their wife that is not another expensive hobby I'm getting into
Lie, lie, lie!!! 
|
jllinko
member
Reged: 07/23/08
Posts: 12
|
|
Well I got the binos today and they seem real nice (what do I know as a newbie). The only concern and a little irritating is how exact I have to position the binos without experiencing "blackouts". I have to fold them closer together than I expected and I must have the eyecups all the way out and then pull the the binos away from my eyes even more. Even then, if I move my eyes to look at the edges, I get blackouts. Is this normal?
Some one loaned me a pair of old 7x35 bushnells, I dont have this problems nearly as much, but still a problem.
Are some peoples eyes more prone to blackouts?
Link
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1629
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
Quote:
Are some peoples eyes more prone to blackouts?
Link
First, make sure that you have the IPD/Interpupillary Distance adjusted/centered as best as you can for your eye pupils. Experiment with the eyecup settings until you find the best distance for your eyes.
My Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II is real finicky about IPD and eyecup adjustments.
You just need to play around with everything until you get them at the best possible setting for yourself.
--------------------
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
|
GlenM
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/20/07
Posts: 1047
Loc: 53° 36'N 2° 06'W
|
|
Link,
I haven't told my wife that a large box left British Customs tonight 
If you don't here from me in a week,expect the worst.
--------------------
Glen
|
jllinko
member
Reged: 07/23/08
Posts: 12
|
|
Wes James, GlenM,
LOL, I hear ya.
Link
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
