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
Tom Andrews
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/25/07
Posts: 607
Loc: Homebase - Albuquerque, NM; c...
|
|
Aren't wide field binoculars just the best for scanning the Milky Way? There are so many stars up there. I think this is my favorite summer viewing.
--------------------
Tom
The Secret To Life:
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't;
Focus on what you can do, not on what you can't.
|
Mike Rapchak
sage
Reged: 11/17/06
Posts: 450
Loc: Indiana, USA
|
|
Tom,
I have to agree with you on this. There is something so special about those wide-field summer night views. Following the Milky Way from Cygnus down to the Scorpius/Saggitarius region with a hand-held wide-angle bino is an experience that can't be duplicated with any other kind of instrument.
Mike Rapchak Jr.
|
StarStuff1
sage
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 437
Loc: East Tennessee
|
|
Don't forget to go north of Cygnus into Cass and Perseus. Just too many nice open clusters there to enjoy.
--------------------
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.
|
Dylan Gladstone
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 08/05/07
Posts: 955
Loc: Connecticut, USA
|
|
I much prefer the Milky Way in binoculars than in my telescope. (I've GOT to find out where they're packed away!  )
--------------------
Orion SkyView Pro 127mm Maksutov
|
F.Meiresonne
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 2957
Loc: Eeklo,Belgium
|
|
Quote:
Aren't wide field binoculars just the best for scanning the Milky Way? There are so many stars up there. I think this is my favorite summer viewing.
I stronly agree.
I use a 8X40 for that. Wide 8.5° wide fields
Even the NA nebulae i can see this way.I find it more difficult in my 10X50 because the FOV is smaller and the nebuale is so big it does not stands out well enough.
--------------------
Freddy Meiresonne
Obsession 18 inch #1638
Orion Optics 8 inch F/4.5 -1/8 wave optics -Vixen GP-E
20x80 Helios Stellar Binos
10x60 Helios Quantum 4(= Obie Mariner)
10x50 Helios Nature sport plus
8x40 Helios Nature sport plus
Eyepieces in use :Pan 35,24,19, N13T6, Pentax 10 XW, N9T6, Ultrascopic 7.5, TV2, baader ortho 12.5 and 9 mm
|
KerryR
sage
Reged: 12/05/07
Posts: 317
|
|
Yup! I agree!
This is what the little Constellation 2.5x40's are so great for! Very hard to beat for Milkyway scanning!
Kerry
--------------------
Kerry
|
Mr Q
sage
Reged: 02/25/08
Posts: 351
Loc: N Central New Mexico
|
|
As long as the images of the stars are crisp across the whole field of view! I bet only the higher priced models have this image quality. Besides, too wide of a view will make otherwise interesting objects too small to view properly. I prefer to use standard F.O.Vs (4-6 degrees) and slowly scan each area of the M.W. This way, I don't miss much. Mr Q
--------------------
What goes around, comes around, eventually.
Meade DS-10(10" newt)
10x50, 10x70 binos
|
Gordon Rayner
professor emeritus
Reged: 03/24/07
Posts: 506
|
|
So today, where does one get a wide field, large aperture, large pupil, large prism, well-built binocular for this activity?
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
So today, where does one get a wide field, large aperture, large pupil, large prism, well-built binocular for this activity?
Considering that the largest apertures mentioned here so far are 40mm, if you want larger, I'd say you wouldn't go wrong with the 6.7° Fujinon 10x50. If you want larger aperture than that I'd direct you towards the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x70 5°.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
F.Meiresonne
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 2957
Loc: Eeklo,Belgium
|
|
Quote:
Besides, too wide of a view will make otherwise interesting objects too small to view properly
Could be, but then your bigger binocular comes in...
You have to have at least 2 bino's! 
--------------------
Freddy Meiresonne
Obsession 18 inch #1638
Orion Optics 8 inch F/4.5 -1/8 wave optics -Vixen GP-E
20x80 Helios Stellar Binos
10x60 Helios Quantum 4(= Obie Mariner)
10x50 Helios Nature sport plus
8x40 Helios Nature sport plus
Eyepieces in use :Pan 35,24,19, N13T6, Pentax 10 XW, N9T6, Ultrascopic 7.5, TV2, baader ortho 12.5 and 9 mm
|
KerryR
sage
Reged: 12/05/07
Posts: 317
|
|
I think ultra wide field observing is largely done for aesthetics. I dare say that for most of us, binocular observing, and observational astronomy in general, is done for aesthetic purposes. In that capacity ultrawides have a distinct and important place.
The Constellations are remarkably sharp despite the wide field and low cost.
The power is too low to see smaller objects, but you see large scale structure in the sky (like huge stellar associations you didn't know were there, and better resolution of large milkway structures like star clouds and large scale dark nebula) that there is really no other way to see; short of having really good eyesight, excelent night adaptation, and a really really dark, dry, thin sky. So, no, you don't look for Messiers or binocular doubles with them, but they have their place for other very interesting things. Not much else can duplicate what they (and others made in the same/similar way) do.
It would be silly to have these be your ONLY pair, though.
My Miauychi 5x32w binons show more of the smaller targets (for a ultra wide angle bino), but they don't have the sharpness near the edge that the Constellations do, nor as wide a FOV (even at 12ish deg.s) depspite costing nearly 4x more. I usually reach for the Constellations instead.
I use 12x36IS when I need to get to the smaller stuff... Or BT 100-45's... But, I tell ya, despite using those other binos, I can say that very little makes you say "wow" the way the Constellations do.
Kerry
--------------------
Kerry
|
GlennLeDrew
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 624
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
This is why I made my own ultra wide bino, originally as a 9x35 with 10 deg. field, but modified last year to an 11x50 with 8.1 deg. field. Even though the imagery leaves a lot to be desired in the outer portions of the field, I wouldn't "trade in" the the current 85 deg. AFoV oculars, even for much better quality ones if the field was any bit smaller.
The aesthetics of the view is very important to me, and the largest apparent field possible is what I strive for (read: crave). I like the illusion of having my face thrust up against a "spaceship's" porthole. I'm spoiled to the point where even a 65 deg. apparent field is like peering through a soda straw!
In a dark sky, with a wide field I can cruise the milky way without ever having to look away from the eyepieces. The billowy star clouds and multitudes of dark nebulae make navigation a breeze... no need to star hop whatsoever!
--------------------
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.
|
Gordon Rayner
professor emeritus
Reged: 03/24/07
Posts: 506
|
|
Ed Z: But 10 x 50 does not have a big pupil, and Fuji 10 x 70 , with which I have experience inside and out, does not have a wide field. When do we get 8 x 60, , 9 x 70, or 10 x 70, other similar, and/or the bigger mounted types, all with 70 deg. or larger apparent fields, combined with at least 7mm pupils, such as in WW II types, and with modern multicoated optics? Those are what are indicated for the type of observing under discussion in this thread. It is excessive work to disassemble a wartime 10 x 80 with 45 inclination of sight line, for example, for multicoating on each surface ( I provided the indices), and then reassemble.
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Mike,
I completely agree with you except in one respect. The binocular views are even much better when they're mounted. That's true for both lower power binoculars like my 7x50s and 8.5x42s and my higher power/larger apeture ones like the 10x70s, 12x50s, 15x60s and 22x60s.
However, there is mounted and there is mounted. When I make reference to it I mean mounted in a way similar to what is shown in the attached picture.
John Finnan
--------------------
Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
people overlook the value of lawnchairs
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
But 10 x 50 does not have a big pupil, and Fuji 10 x 70 , with which I have experience inside and out, does not have a wide field.
On the contrary, but for me they do. Seldom do I use larger than 5mm pupils. When I choose to do so I'll pick up the Fuji 10x70, or the Nikon Prostar 7x50. And few 70mm binoculars have a 5° fov, so the Fuji 10x70, for its aperture size is quite wide. So for me, both of these provide the answer to your question large pupil.
Personally, I don't crave extreme wide fov. But I do appreciate extreme fine image across the entire fov. I like all of what I'm looking at to provide detail. Unquestionably, the Prostar does that. So does the Fuji 10x50.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Falcon Birder
super member
Reged: 04/16/07
Posts: 111
|
|
Yes, it is my favorite summer activities as well.
--------------------
Zen-Ray SUMMIT 10x42 WP
Swaroski 8.5x42 EL
Leica 8x32 Ultravid
|
|
8 registered and 29 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: 779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 