Traveler
member
Reged: 08/19/07
Posts: 23
|
|
Hello all,
The Nikon Monarch 8 x 42, which i use now for several years day and night is in my opinion very good: light enough for handheld, carrying the whole day long and the optics seems to me very reasonble in terms of coast/quality ratio.
But i want more aperture for using at night. Is the step to a Fujinon 10 x 50 for example, enough to see more (deeper) or do i have to make the step to more aperture like 58, 63 or even 70 mm for getting views that are a considerable improvement of DSO's. I do want to use the "next step binoculair" for the night sky only and i don't want to use any mount.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Patrick
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
The Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70 would offer considerable improvement over your Nikon Monarch 8x42. The Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 would offer improvement, but not near the considerable improvement of the 16x70.
An 8x42 and 16x70 offer a nice 2-step approach to binocular observing of the night sky.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12901
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Hi Patrick ,
I have to agree with Bob here .
A 10 x 50 , however good , will not show things so impressively different from a 8 x 42 than will doubling the magnification and almost tripling the light gathering capacity in each objective lens .
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
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12901
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thinking about it more , in his post above Bob also hinted at another factor which is equally important -- QUALITY !!
For some reason , while literally hundreds if not thousands of avid birders seem quite happy to shell out more than $1000 and $1500 for 32mm and 42mm relatively low magnification binoculars , astro geeks seem inclined to go for giant binoculars with much higher magnification , costing little more than 1/10th. of the price of the little birding binoculars , yet expect them to work wonders .
The higher the magnification , the more magnified the optical imperfections become , and thus more critically important it is for the manufacturers ( and commissioning personnel - if any ) to get things right .
Obviously something doesn't quite add up right here , does it ? :-)
Put another way , I've yet to look through a REALLY GOOD 15x binocular that wouldn't cost at least as much as my most expensive lower power binoculars -- which is why I still don't have any ! :-)
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
|
94bamf
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/15/08
Posts: 716
Loc: Kansas City,Mo
|
|
If you are looking for hand-held bins only, maybe just split the difference and try to find a nice 12x binocular. I am not familiar with the more premium brands, but possibly you could find one with enough quality, at a decent weight for hand holding. Maybe try a pair of the Pentax 12x50's or the Nikon AE 12x50's. They might not be the optical quality you are looking for, but both of those are quite useable. For the little investment of ~$150 you would have a better idea of where to go next..
Ken
--------------------
Telescopes:
Celestron C6 SCT on CG4 mount
Skywatcher 8 inch F/5 Newt on a GEM
Celestron 8 inch Starhopper Dob
Celestron Oynx 80ED
Celestron C130 Mak
Celestron C102HD
Binoculars:
Nikon 7x35 Action
Nikon 7x50 Action
Zen Ray Summit 10x42
Celestron 10x42 Noble
Orion 10x50 Scenix
Celestron 10x50 Noble
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II
Celestron 15x70 Skymaster
Oberwerk 20x60
Zhumell 20x80
|
harbinjer
super member
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 127
Loc: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
If he doesn't want to use any mount, than the 16x70 isn't going to be the best. The 10x50 FMT-SX is definitely 1 step up above an 8x42, and per reviews here, the furthest 10x50 step. It will definitely show more. Not "WOW!"-more, but more.
Here is an article that describes what is and isn't seen in a particular size of binocular:
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1634
That's for about Mag 5.5 skies. I've seen M101 in an 8x42 in a darker sky, so seeing something varies a lot with sky conditions.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12901
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
If it MUST be hand - held , then I can only point in the direction of our old friend the Canon 15 x 50 IS. :-)
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
|
Solar B
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/28/07
Posts: 912
Loc: By Edinburgh , Scotland
|
|
The Canons sound really good,and may well be your best bet.
However personally,i would be after something with a bit
more light and Mag,but perhaps they cannot handle 22 or 25 X
Hand held
Brian
--------------------
" Gentlemen only ever use Refractors "
Edited by Solar B (10/08/09 05:20 PM)
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Quote:
I do want to use the "next step binoculair" for the night sky only and i don't want to use any mount.
Opps--missed the mount part. Without a mount, I do not think you are going to achieve "considerable improvement" unless you go, as recommended above, with an image stabilized binocular. However, I cannot recommend an image stabilized binocular--because I must stay true to my porro principles. 
And don't forget the companionship you can have with a tripod, who will always agree with you and never dispute the wonders your eyes behold.
A tripod is also great for keeping your focus while you step aside to consult a star atlas or observing guide. 
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
harbinjer
super member
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 127
Loc: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
Quote:
For some reason , while literally hundreds if not thousands of avid birders seem quite happy to shell out more than $1000 and $1500 for 32mm and 42mm relatively low magnification binoculars...
Kenny, at night, you can't see the Zeiss logo 
They demand roof prisms, because that's the fashion!
I am curious though, if I could tell in a blind comparison between a $700 binocular and a $2500 one. I do respect quality, but also value. And I do wonder if there is much of a "fashion" aspect to them.
And I think Patrick brings up quality first, as soon as he asks about the Fujinon 10x50 instead of say, a Barska 10x50.
Edited by harbinjer (10/08/09 05:53 PM)
|
Solar B
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/28/07
Posts: 912
Loc: By Edinburgh , Scotland
|
|
Is see Canon do an 18X50 to,would like to try a pair
of them out,perhaps this mag is getting near the IS capability.
Brian
--------------------
" Gentlemen only ever use Refractors "
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14731
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Here's a comparison of star counts in the Beehive cluster - M44
Star counts through various sizes binoculars
actually a 10x50 does see considerably more than an 8x42. And especially the Fujinon 10x50 sees more than any other 10x50. So the jump to a 10x50 Fujinon is pretty substantial. It's still not as much as a 12x50 or 15x70.
A 15x70 will nearly double what can be seen in an 8x40. But your hand held only criteria precludes the use of a 15x70. I suggest a maximum of a 12x50, or IS if that appeals to you.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Jim Rosenstock
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/14/05
Posts: 3716
Loc: MD, south of the DC Nebula
|
|
Ed's post above is pretty definitive. 
I will only add that there is a compromise between a tripod and "no mount" that you might consider....a monopod!
In my experience, a monopod makes any 15X70 quite usable; definitely beyond hand-held territory, at least for me.
Garrett is selling a very affordable ($70) monopod that I heartily recommend for binos up to about 15X:
http://www.garrettoptical.com/category-s/54.htm
Cheers,
Jim
|
Traveler
member
Reged: 08/19/07
Posts: 23
|
|
... or swarovski binoculairs: they are so expensive that i always be afraid to use them in the field ... Mayby for high end birders. Not for me.
No guys, i did mentioned the Fujinon 50 mm because i red much good performance tests about it AND because imo the price is not that astronomical high...
The M44 star count-test is very practical!!:
8x42= 40 stars versus 10x50= 57 stars : not the wow factor indeed.
Some suggest a 15 x 70. Then, in a mag 5 sky (like the sky at my backyard sometimes will be in winter) than the double will become insight: 90 stars... Ok! Of course i can use a monopod but i like the fact of observing by just using my hands in a quick observing session after work.
Another question about this 70 aperture league: is there one or more models that you can suggesting, what about the AP (resolux(?)) models?
I have never seen or use a IS Canon series binoculair, like the 15 x 50 in real. What about the batteries and so on. Is this a factor which makes "just observing" a complicated factor or is that a non-issue? I must say: i have to get used to the idea that a binoculair runs on electricity...Ok, i am learning. Thank you for that.
Patrick
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Patrick...
Here is an excellent handheld binocular for night sky observing: Nikon SE 12x50 . Unfortunately, the Superior E is not made anymore, but there are still a few to be purchased with online vendors. The SE 12x50 may be the maximum binocular for handholding--not perfect--but the best on the current market. No doubt, the SE 12x50 views are better with a tripod, but the handheld views still are "superior." Check them out on EdZ's star count link above. I am talking about the Nikon Superior E (SE), not the Nikon Action Extreme (AE). I often unwind at the end of the day with the SE as I stretch out in a chaise lounge, with my elbows supported by the chaise arms.
The SE 12x50 has two brothers who also are outstanding in their size: Nikon SE 8x32, 10x42.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Man in a Tub
Not Retired!, But a little cranky!!!
Reged: 10/28/08
Posts: 2037
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
Another question about this 70 aperture league: is there one or more models that you can suggesting, what about the AP (resolux(?)) models?
Not for hand holding. They weigh 5 lbs. 9 oz. Of course you can do some quick views and use your elbows for bracing or some other technique. But they really need to be mounted. Right now, my Garrett Optical Signature Series 15x70 is not a candidate for mounting on my new Garrett Optical grip-action monopod, even though it is possible. The 10.5x model weighs the same. Great binocular.
Best regards,
--------------------
Todd
Brunton Eterna 15x51 ° Garrett Optical Signature Series 15x70
Nikon Action EX 12x50 ° Oberwerk 15x60 and 20x80 Standard
Orion Paragon Plus Mount and Paragon XHD Tripod
Garrett Optical Series 2000 Grip-Action Monopod
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12901
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Regardless of magnification , I'm not sure that any 70mm and larger binoculars are really designed to be hand held .
Even if we consider 10x to be " easy and comnfortable " to hold steady ( which I don't ) putting aside the weight issue , there are probably few users and / or locations whereby a 7mm exit - pupil is fully used in any case .
Yes , many in the hobby rave about 10x binoculars , and one would think extra aperture surely must be beneficial for astronomy , and indeed two of the big gun manufacturers Fujinon and Nikon have been producing outstanding 10 x 70 binoculars for a long time ( still yet to be bettered in that spec.) yet 10 x 60 as a specification seems to be as rare as rocking horse droppings .
The occasionally seen spec. of 9 x 63 ( Celestron / Pentax ) would seem a particularly useful combination for hand - held astro purposes , yet to my knowledge none of the " big boys " a la Canon , Fuji , Kowa , Leica , Nikon , Swarovski , Takahashi or Zeiss appear to have embraced the spec. -- and I wonder why ?
I suppose , taken LITERALLY , in this particular case , the most logical " next step " to take with regard satisfying a pure and simple aperture fetish would be either a Nikon Monarch 8 x 56 or 10 x 56 .
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
|
Solar B
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/28/07
Posts: 912
Loc: By Edinburgh , Scotland
|
|
Those Nikons sound really good,but i reckon for effortless handheld use 10 X 50s are great,and i enjoyed a Zeiss pair i used recently.
Brian
--------------------
" Gentlemen only ever use Refractors "
|
Traveler
member
Reged: 08/19/07
Posts: 23
|
|
I guess Kenny, that you advice the 12 x 56 more than the 10 x 56 Monarch, given the exit pupil. What do you think, the 56 mm Monarch will beat the Fujinon 10 x 50?
Brain, which Zeiss did you buy?
In the meantime: I red more about the Canon 15x50 IS. I saw that they are already on the market since 1998. I have missed that. Sky and Telescope's Gary Seronik article on his site and the two articles in the S&T, set me on the thought why they are not more penetrating our hobby. Any opinions about the canon IS-series are very welcome.
Patrick
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12901
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
As a matter of fact , Patrick , I doubt whether a Monarch 12 x 56 WOULD " beat " a Fujinon FMTS SX 10 x 50 in many categories .
All I was implying was that if you really want to explore the notion that " bigger is better " , then at least the Monarch is a ready made , reasonably priced model that you are familiar with and seem quite content with .
Depending upon how steady you can hold 10x and higher magnification binoculars , unless you go the image stabilisation route , it could even be that there is no next step hand - held instrument beyond the 8 x 42 that you already have that will satisfy your wishes .
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
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 