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
Djarum
sage
Reged: 03/12/09
Posts: 218
|
|
I realize I am bringing up an old thread, but would the GO 11x56 be the same way as far as being stopped down?
Dj
--------------------
Celestron Astromaster 130eq with a 60mm finderscope
Bushnell Legend 10x50
TMB planetary 5mm EP
Enhanced Wide Angle 6mm EP
Plossl 10mm EP
Plossl 32mm EP
Ultima 2x barlow
Baader M&SG and UHC filters.
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi Dj,
Yes, I have the OB 11x56, and it is a light, very ergonomically-friendly binocular, with great optics for the price, to boot.
If you really want to stop the aperture somewhat, you would gain a bit more latitude with the 60mm, only because you have 10mm diameter more with which to work.
However, I strongly suspect that BOTH are already stopped down to some extent, i.e., 5-10mm. Trust this helps you some.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Djarum
sage
Reged: 03/12/09
Posts: 218
|
|
Well, I've been looking for a pair of binoculars. I thought if I got the 11x56, I'd get some more apeture. But if they are stopped down, whats the point? Looking at Edz data, it seems like some 10x50's actually have more usable apeture than the 11x56. The reason I was looking at the 11x56 as well was for more magnification. I imagine I won't be able to handhold 12x60.
Dj
--------------------
Celestron Astromaster 130eq with a 60mm finderscope
Bushnell Legend 10x50
TMB planetary 5mm EP
Enhanced Wide Angle 6mm EP
Plossl 10mm EP
Plossl 32mm EP
Ultima 2x barlow
Baader M&SG and UHC filters.
|
zanti-misfit
member
Reged: 08/17/09
Posts: 88
Loc: SE United States
|
|
I missed this post. I asked a similar question about these binoculars, my mistake.
If the apertures are not as advertised are the 50mm also overstated?
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14731
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Many binoculars have baffles or prism aperture that stops down the main objective aperture. Unless you are asking about premium binoculars, it's a pretty fair assumption that they are stopped down and are not operating at full aperture. Some are stopped down considerably more than others.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
zanti-misfit
member
Reged: 08/17/09
Posts: 88
Loc: SE United States
|
|
So in general, if I wanted a pair of 10x50s at an affordable price I'd need to buy a pair of 11x56 to get near that rating? Man, this really throws a monkey wrench into the binocular search...thanks for explaining the situation. 
|
Jay_Bird
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/04/06
Posts: 959
Loc: Nevada 36N 115W
|
|
What you said is more true in a specific sense, when evaluating a particular model, than in general, zanti.
Better (not always most expensive) 10x50 are really 10x50, or too close to full 50mm working aperture to matter.
And other factors all add up to the overall performance of a particular model, the effective aperture is one among those factors.
Please read all of Ed's tests linked in the "best of" threads in this forum.
--------------------
'these things stand like stone - kindness in another's troubles, courage in your own' Gordon
C-8, Nighthawk, C-90; Binoculars 6-11x21-80mm; Paragon p-mount
|
zanti-misfit
member
Reged: 08/17/09
Posts: 88
Loc: SE United States
|
|
Ed's info is amazing. Should be published if it isn't already.
I'm leaning towards the Oberwerk 12x60 size. I just want to use it on those semi-cloudy nights mostly. Nights that aren't quite worth the effort to get my 8" Dob out, but still offers some chance to catch a glimpse of something cool.
|
GlennLeDrew
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 1269
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
|
It seems that *MOST* consumer-level binoculars work at a smaller aperture than nominal. And yes, the wonderful work that EdZ has done should be widely published. It's evident that a great majority of prospective binocular purchasers have no idea of what goes on in the designer's mind when a bino is spec'ed.
It's becoming painfully clear that I'll likely never have the opportunity to quit the job of 'town cryer' when it comes to decrying the deplorable practice of proffering a bino having objectives of too-short focal ratio to fully field at *least* the on-axis light cone.
But in no small measure must some part of the blame fall upon the public. The customers' desire to have the lightest-for-aperture instrument only inspires (no, forces) the manufacturer to employ almost ridiculously short focal length objectives. The inevitable result is an instrument which effectively works at a smaller aperture, 'wastes' glass and is actually *heavier* than is necessary. All in the name of claiming a desirous--but in practice unrealistic--objective aperture for the designed magnification.
My advice, until sanity prevails among manufacturers; get used to it.
--------------------
Home-made 11X50 right angle bino, 8.1 deg. FOV
Modified 26X100 bino, 3.5 deg. FOV
Home-made Mk II RA bino, using interchangeable objectives and eyepieces
My Gallery
Mediocre minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.
|
Jokulainen
member
Reged: 08/10/09
Posts: 29
|
|
Quote:
It is not true of all their binoculars. Also it is not brand specific, but it is model specific, so it wouldn't matter from whom you purchase that particular model. I tested the 8x56. It is effectively 48mm. The 11x56 simply uses a different eyepiece.
edz
Btw, what's the effective aperture of the 12x60?
|
|
5 registered and 16 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: 998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
