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
Rich V.
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 988
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada USA
|
|
Quote:
It's really strange that the same Chinese manufacturer can produce the 22x85 that I tried, and that was a pure horror in comparison ! But that's not the subject.
Jean-Charles, I would very much like to hear your impression of the Kunming 22x85 in a new thread, if you ever have the time. I'm sure there are many others who would like to hear more too. I expected the 85s to be designed and built to the same high standards that the smaller models seem to be.
There has been quite a bit of interest shown in these higher spec. giant binoculars but very little user feedback has made it back here to the forum.
Thanks,
Rich V
--------------------
Binoculars:
33-150x100 Saturn III, 16x70FMT-SX, 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 10x35 E2, 7x35 E, 8x30 E2, 7x26 Custom, 8x23AS Diplomat, 8x23 Travelite
Scopes:
C9.25, 6" f8 reflector, SV80S
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1268
|
|
Hi all,
I love this thread. Yep, the 7x50 has gone out of favour because of two things. Light pollution and the weight of the instrument.
However, I shall keep the ones I have, BUT, no more. This model was so "nice" when I was a youth. Oh well.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1007
|
|
The Kunming 8 sounds like a very fine 7x50, I'd like to try one sometimes. I have the old standard Fujinon. It is a rare thing to be able to make this brag, so forgive me in taking great pleasure in saying, my bino is lighter, ha! Only 50 ounces.
Although Fujinon claims an eye relief of 23mm, this does not seem excessive, because the eye lens is recessed deeply. With the rubber eyecup rolled down, it is 9mm from the glass up to the top of the eyepiece. And with the cups extended, it is 18mm. This works well, at least for my face. There are ways of building up the eyecups with rubber washers, etc. that others have used with binoculars having too much eye relief. That is a problem I've had with an old 10x50 Celestron Ultima. It is nice to be able to brace the bino against your face, and to have sturdy and comfortable eyecups, but this is an absolute necessity for me when I observe in my chair, when much of the weight of the binocular rests on my eye sockets!
My pupils open close to 6.5mm too. This means there's only 0.25mm of wiggle room, and nobody can place their eyes that accurately. I notice it mostly when viewing terrestially in deep twilight. Just a little positioning error, and the view starts to get darker.
I enjoy my 7x50 for stargazing. Stars look sharp and blaze with color, but the pleasure is largely not in so very much that can be seen (at least compared to other binoculars) but in the steady ease of use, and the challenge of what can be seen with the low power. In the daytime, however, its performance is superlative. It is the brightest and sharpest thing that I have ever looked through, an optical curiosity. It irritates me to no end that my expensive roofs, which are nice to carry, easy to work, and certainly optically good, don't have the same visual snap. I tried to tell myself, and this forum as well to help me believe it, that they did, shortly after getting them. "Money talks." Admitting this error has been one of the great maturing steps in my humble binocular observing life. Now I know, you can't have it all in one binocular. The next Zeiss? The next Swaro? One can but hope.
Ron
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2109
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
7x50s were also the standard recommended astro binocular when I got started in the mid 90s;
but times and recommendations change.
But, why would this change?
Physics are constant. Optics have, for the most part, been constant. The environment is essentially the same. Why would our "recommended" observing toolset change?
I've been pondering this question; it's quite interesting.
A couple of comments before I start speculating. First, 7x50s were definitely already out of fashion by the 90s. Things moved slower then; people were more likely to get their info from books than the Internet, and it can easily take a decade from when a book is written to when it becomes popular to when you decide to read it.
In the magazines and on the Internet, the consensus in the mid 90s the same as today -- that 10x50s are the default choice for hand-held binoculars.
But that just pushes the problem back a little. Why were 7x50s clearly the default choice in (say) the 60s?
Partly, obviously, it's a matter of fashion. 7x50s were popular yesterday; 10x50 are popular today, and who knows what will be fashionable tomorrow? Maybe it will be 12x60s, or maybe we'll go right back to 7x50s. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
But there are two pieces of technology that have altered the equation. Most recently, image stabilization. Before that, the advent of affordable wide-field eyepieces.
Hand-holdable binoculars provide convenience and wide field of view -- that's their whole job in life. Image stabilization extends convenience to higher magnifications by reducing the wobbles problem. So hand-holdable 15x50s work quite nicely with image stabilization, and are a lousy compromise without image stabilization.
As for wide field, back in the old days, it was really hard to get binoculars with decent optical quality and an apparent FOV wider than 50 degrees. So the only way to get wide FOV was to reduce the magnification. Nowadays, 10x50s can offer well-corrected wide fields almost as wide as 7x50s, so that advantage has been significantly reduced.
Having said all that, for certain people and certain applications, 7x50s are still clearly the best choice.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
GaryS
member
Reged: 10/30/06
Posts: 14
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
7x50s were also the standard recommended astro binocular when I got started in the mid 90s;
but times and recommendations change.
But, why would this change?
Physics are constant. Optics have, for the most part, been constant. The environment is essentially the same. Why would our "recommended" observing toolset change?
I've been pondering this question; it's quite interesting.
Hi Tony, all:
I think there are several factors that resulted in this change in consensus, but I would argue that the most significant was the publication of Roy Bishop's "visibility factor" rule of thumb in his seminal article in the RASC Observer's Handbook. Subsequent articles in S&T (notably one by Alan Adler) reinforced Bishop's assertion that magnification was as important as aperture in assessing a binocular's astronomical worth.
The fact of the matter is that 7x50s were *never* the best first choice for astronomy. Probably it was the general acceptance of the Zeiss "twilight performance factor" and the 7mm exit-pupil rule that lead to 7x50s being the de facto choice. But most anyone who bothers to compare 7x50s with 10x50s will verify for themselves that the 10x binos do show things more distinctly.
Things change. People learn and grow, and the culture they participate in evolves. Don't forget that it wasn't *that* long ago that deep-sky observing was the poor cousin to solar-system observing. A lot of the paradigms from that era have fallen -- including which binoculars are best.
Gary
|
desertrefugee
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/06/07
Posts: 531
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Things change. People learn and grow, and the culture they participate in evolves. Don't forget that it wasn't *that* long ago that deep-sky observing was the poor cousin to solar-system observing. A lot of the paradigms from that era have fallen -- including which binoculars are best.
Really nice post, Gary. Sort of sums everything here up quite nicely.
But, to answer the OP's question, my answer is still most definitely . . . YES!
--------------------
"Look now upon the River of Heaven, Sky-Road of the Immortals, White with the star-frost of a billion years".
+++
-Darrell
Reflectors (114, 150, 254mm), Refractors (60, 76.2, 80, 120), MCT (125), way too many Binoculars
Cave Creek/Carefree, AZ
|
werewolf6977
Lord High Smasher
Reged: 12/15/03
Posts: 7444
Loc: Hanover, Ohio
|
|
Wish I still had my Bausch and Lomb's I paid 39.95 USD in 1967!! I got curious and disassenbled them. Disassembly sure, Reassembly ...
--------------------
Pete
6" Apogee/LXD55 - "The Beast"
Starhopper 6" Dob - "Shiva"
Spaceprobe 130 EQ - "Spacey"
Bushnell Fatboy
The Abomination
Sun Pak Pro 7500 Platinum Edition
10X25 Bushnell Camo Roofies
7X35 Tasco Classic Plastic (good views though)
7X42 Tasco Rare Bird
10X50 Nikon Actions (Type 7)
15X70 Skymasters - "DroolMeisters"
One ratty old IBM 600E LapTop
Edited by werewolf6977 (10/05/08 08:24 AM)
|
Simon S
super member
Reged: 01/07/07
Posts: 110
Loc: Crawley West Sussex UK
|
|
The 7x50 is a great hand held binocular and was the first good binocular I bought. I must say I prefere a 10x as they seem to have a wider FOV in most of the models I own.
|
GaryS
member
Reged: 10/30/06
Posts: 14
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Things change. People learn and grow, and the culture they participate in evolves. Don't forget that it wasn't *that* long ago that deep-sky observing was the poor cousin to solar-system observing. A lot of the paradigms from that era have fallen -- including which binoculars are best.
Really nice post, Gary. Sort of sums everything here up quite nicely.
But, to answer the OP's question, my answer is still most definitely . . . YES!
Oh yeah, I should have said that too -- yes!
And I'll add that, as I wrote in my review of the William Optics 7x50s, it really depends on what you're trying to do. There are some things 7x50s are better at than 10x50s.
Gary
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3362
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Wish I still had my Bausch and Lomb's I paid 39.95 USD in 196!! I got curious and disassenbled them. Disassembly sure, Reassembly ...
That was a long,long time ago. 
--------------------
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.
|
Joe Z
member
Reged: 05/24/08
Posts: 37
Loc: NJ, USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Things change. People learn and grow, and the culture they participate in evolves. Don't forget that it wasn't *that* long ago that deep-sky observing was the poor cousin to solar-system observing. A lot of the paradigms from that era have fallen -- including which binoculars are best.
Really nice post, Gary. Sort of sums everything here up quite nicely.
But, to answer the OP's question, my answer is still most definitely . . . YES!
Oh yeah, I should have said that too -- yes!
And I'll add that, as I wrote in my review of the William Optics 7x50s, it really depends on what you're trying to do. There are some things 7x50s are better at than 10x50s.
Gary
And what might those things be?
--------------------
JZ
XT6
XT12i
AT-66ED
PST
Orion Vista 7x50, GO 20x80 Binos
Ultrascopic 30mm
Hyperion 17mm
Hyperion 8-24mm Zoom
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1007
|
|
Joe,
I know the question was not directed to me, but here's one answer anyway, to, "what do 7x50s do better than 10x50s?"
1) Typical apparent fields are 50deg for the 7x, 65deg for the 10x. It is not necessarily so that bigger is better. Bigger is definitely cool and impressive in a way, but the edge is so far out there that it is not really usable--it's mainly for ambiance. The 7x50's combination of wider true, and narrower apparent fields, means it really shows a lot more sky, readily. Wide field scans, like from the Double Cluster down to Stock 1 for example, or wide expanses, like Orions sword and belt all at once, are more easily seen with the 7x, even though the 10x might make the stretch.
2) I'm a double star enthusiast, but don't enjoy doubles much unless they present a bit of a challenge. With a telescope, I came to be disenchanted with some very beautiful, but wide doubles for this reason. Binoculars make these wide doubles interesting! There are doubles that are more fun at 7x than at 10x, simply because they are kind of hard at 7x. I may be kind of strange here...
3) Steadier view at the lower power means a lot when hand holding. It's relaxing, not fatiguing.
4) The apparent daytime sharpness of a 7x50 porro is superior. In my experience, superior to anything. This is due to the combination of two effects: lower power doesn't show aberrations as well as high power, and, the stopped-down pupil limits the effective aperture to around 18mm, which might seem at first glance like a terrific waste of glass, but the increase in effective focal ratio from f/4 to f/12, turns the bino into a very good-quality telescope. Of course, by day as well as night, 10x will "show more" than 7x. So, do you want just to see stuff (boooooring), or are you optics crazed (now that's what I'm talkin' about.)?
Ron
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 666
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
And this article a thecnical paper by Chris Lord, that plots reduction in percentage illumination as affected by eye pupil smaller than exit pupil and also plots reduction in percentage illumination as affected by eye pupil larger than exit pupil. It points out that the ONLY time the eye gets 100% illumination from the eye lens is when the eye pupil is exactly the same size as the exit pupil. For all other conditions illumination is less than 100%.
Wow. Interesting effect. Never heard of this before. Thanks for pointing it out, EdZ.
As far as the utility of 7x50s for the night sky, I think too many on this forum underestimate the comfort of viewing with the lower power. The contributors here are a rather specialized breed that have acquired the skill to handhold 10x and greater binos. Most newbies I see at star parties can barely hand hold an opera glass on target. They are there out of a mild curiosity and do not yet possess the passion to stick with a higher power glass till they master it. A quality 7x50 is a joy to use both day and nite.
Having said that, it is also true that I will no longer hand hold any non IS binocular for viewing the night sky and will only tolerate a light weight non IS 8x for day time use. 
--------------------
Les
Canon 10x42L IS
Oberwerks BT80/45, Helix Hercules mount on Oberwerks Standard Tripod
Swift 8x44ED Ultralite
Questar 50th Anniversary Model, 501 head on Manfrotto 475 tripod
Stellarvue SV90T 90mm Fluorite refractor Bogen 3236/Televue Tele-Pod Head
Questar 7 Astro
Vixen GP-DX on Baader Surveyor Tripod
|
BobinKy
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 952
Loc: Country road
|
|
Here is my second contribution to this discussion.
Many folks posting to this thread do not see any benefit to the 7x50 binocular. However, the U.S. Army joins the position of Ron Harper, Gary Seronik, and others who definitely see benefits to the 7x50.
Here are two links. The first link was originally posted in a thread in the Pentax binoculars forum at the Bird Forum; the second link is the result of my googling to find out more about the amazing M25 (14x41 stabilized binocular with gyroscope).
The links
--------------------
Bob
38° Kentucky, USA
|
JCB
super member
Reged: 10/04/04
Posts: 151
Loc: France
|
|
Quote:
Jean-Charles, I would very much like to hear your impression of the Kunming 22x85 in a new thread, if you ever have the time. I'm sure there are many others who would like to hear more too. I expected the 85s to be designed and built to the same high standards that the smaller models seem to be.
There has been quite a bit of interest shown in these higher spec. giant binoculars but very little user feedback has made it back here to the forum.
Rich, I wrote my first impressions here.
In that thread, I said by mistake that I had read many good reviews of the 22x85, but it fact it was essentially 15x85 models.
I remember also this very interesting comparison.
Jean-Charles
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2109
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
2) I'm a double star enthusiast, but don't enjoy doubles much unless they present a bit of a challenge. With a telescope, I came to be disenchanted with some very beautiful, but wide doubles for this reason. Binoculars make these wide doubles interesting! There are doubles that are more fun at 7x than at 10x, simply because they are kind of hard at 7x. I may be kind of strange here...
I can buy your other arguments, especially #1 and #3. But this argument doesn't hold water.
I agree that sometime less is more, that doubles are sometimes most enjoyable when they're right at the edge of splittability. And yes, a double that's challenging in 7X binoculars may be less fun at 10X.
However, the fraction of all double stars that are wide enough to split at 7X is miniscule. I bet you could write the entire list down on one page. 10X increases that number tremendously.
So yes, when you move from 7X to 10X, all your challenging doubles drop off the list. But they are replaced by other doubles that are impossible at 7X and challenging at 10X. Altogether, there are actually far more doubles that are at the edge of splittability at 10X than are at the edge of splittability at 7X.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2109
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I think there are several factors that resulted in this change in consensus, but I would argue that the most significant was the publication of Roy Bishop's "visibility factor" rule of thumb in his seminal article in the RASC Observer's Handbook.
I have no doubt that you're right, Gary. Do you know when that article first appeared?
But important as he may have been in influencing the astro-binocular community, Bishop was reporting old news -- very old news. Brad Schaeffer's study of limiting magnitude as a function of aperture and magnification had appeared a long time before, and the basic principles were well understood in the 1930s.
A visceral appreciation of the benefits of magnification no doubt date back to Galileo. Anybody who's ever tried two eyepieces in the same telescope could hardly fail to notice that you see more stars -- a lot more stars -- at higher magnifications.
Perhaps more important at a fundamental level was Roger Clark's study of the visibility of faint fuzzies. It's obvious that extra magnification helps in seeing faint stars, but before Clark many people believed (as some still do here on CN) that diffuse objects were best visible at low magnifications.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that 7x50s were *never* the best first choice for astronomy.
I don't know; that's kind of hard to argue. Best for what? By what criteria? If the sole criterion is how much you can see, then 15x70s are indisputably better than 10x50s. Obviously, other factors come into play.
The argument that 7x50s are best is actually unaffected by the fact that 10x50s show more; it starts with the 7X, not the 50 mm. It goes something like this:
7X is the best possible magnification for hand-held binoculars. Lower powers show too little, and higher powers magnify the shakiness of your hands too much. Besides, you want the widest possible field of view, and higher magnifications mean smaller fields of view.
OK, so 7X is settled. The best aperture for 7X is 50 mm, because it fully illuminates the typical 7-mm human pupil. And even for people with smaller pupils, it allows you to be less careful about centering the binoculars in front of your eyes.
FWIW, in terrestrial use, the 7X orthodoxy has been replaced by an 8X orthodoxy. And this certainly has nothing to do with Roy Bishop, visibility of faint fuzzies, or any technological changes. It's a change of fashion, neither more nor less.
As for me, before affordable image stabilization, my most-used binoculars were probably my 7x35s. Now my most-used binoculars (by a large margin) are my image-stabilized 10x30s.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1268
|
|
Hi Tony,
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. My "new" grab-and-go binocular is the Canon 10x30IS, whereas, I too, used a 6x30 or 7x35 beforehand.
You sure struck a cord with me on that one. Thanks.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
2682
super member
Reged: 02/18/08
Posts: 195
Loc: The Heartland
|
|
Quote:
But, why would this change? Why would our "recommended" observing toolset change?
Here are some reasons with specific examples:
Economics - The advent of much cheaper APO's has shifted recommendations to 4" APO's.
Light pollution - A change from equatorially mounted backyard Newtonians to Dobs that are much lighter and can be transported easily.
Economics, again - A shift from EQ mounted Newts to Dobs.
Availability - (and economics, again) Maksutov-Cassegrains were rare and extremely expensive, MC-s now get suggested because of much greater availability and lower cost than in the past.
Technological development - Canon's stabilization has caused 15X and 18X unmounted binoculars to be recommended for handheld astronomical use, this did not happen before.
Technological development and improved manufacturing - Modern coatings make the extra light loss in roof prisms to now be considered negligible in comparison to porro prism designs. Also, many now use coatings that correct the phase problem. So, roof prisms are now more commonly recommended than in the past.
Looking into the future - I'll predict right now that once a manned mission to Mars starts, recommendations of optical gear will shift towards optical gear that can best observe Mars.
--------------------
Benders 1000/11 1180/9.29
Folder, Newt 1219/6
"(Sigh!) I sold it for a song. But, that song was 'White Christmas.' I made millions!" - Montgomery Burns
|
Rich V.
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 988
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada USA
|
|
Quote:
Rich, I wrote my first impressions here.
In that thread, I said by mistake that I had read many good reviews of the 22x85, but it fact it was essentially 15x85 models.
I remember also this very interesting comparison.
Jean-Charles
Thanks for the link, Jean-Charles, somehow I missed it!
Rich V
--------------------
Binoculars:
33-150x100 Saturn III, 16x70FMT-SX, 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 10x35 E2, 7x35 E, 8x30 E2, 7x26 Custom, 8x23AS Diplomat, 8x23 Travelite
Scopes:
C9.25, 6" f8 reflector, SV80S
|
|
13 registered and 22 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: 2295
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
