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
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hello everyone
This is my first post to these forums though I have been surfing Cloudynights for nearly four years. A brief introduction: I live in Wiltshire, UK and am interested in satellite observing in particular and binocular astronomy in general. Although I own a small refractor (an 80mm f/5) I find that I do most of my observing with binoculars. There is something intoxicating about the simplicity of binocular astronomy; you can see the sky is clear, and in two minutes you can pop the caps off and away you go. This is especially important in cloud-ridden Britain. By the time you have set up your SCT and waited for it to cool down the chances are that the clouds have rolled in again.
For the record, I use two pairs of binoculars for astronomy.
Canon 10 x 30 IS image stabilised - a fine pair of general purpose binos.
Josef Schneider Fernrohrglas 10 x 80 (as reviewed on Cloudynights) - on loan from a friend, these are superb wide-field binos, but heavy and have to be mounted on a Slik Pro 700 DX tripod and fluid head.
And finally the question: looking to the future, I am wondering what to replace the 10 x 80s with when eventually I have to give them back. I have done my homework and need the extra aperture of 70mm or 80mm objectives for observing faint satellites. I also need magnification in the 10x-12x range. Has anyone here tried a side-by-side comparison of the Fujinon FMT-SX 10 x 70s against any of the 11 x 80s on the market?
I want to be able to hand-hold these binos as I want to sit down whilst observing. Although 15 x 70 and 16 x 70 would be nice, my recent experience borrowing a friend's Helios 15 x 70 glasses suggested that this magnification range is too high for my purposes. I also need a good FOV so the Fujis look good at 5.25 degrees.
Price is not an issue as I will just save up the extra if I decide to go for the Fujis. The cheapest I have found is £529 which is around $1100 at today's artificially-low exchange rates.
Best wishes,
Bruce
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2570
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Bruce,
Welcome. I got hooked on giant bino astronomy for the same reason. However, I'd really recommend you trying higher power 20X80s mounted. You will enjoy darker sky background and see a LOT more than 10X70s or 11X80s.
$1,100 sounds really really high for Fuji 10X70s. The FMT 70 series are excellent binos. The 10X70 is available in NYC for US$525, the 16X70 for $560. I recommend you get a weekend package and fly over for a long weekend. The amount of money you save will pay for the trip. Come now while the US$ is at a five year low!
Come over with my friend Kenny J and I will pick up both of you at the airport. :-))
Edited by Erik D (02/14/04 05:47 AM)
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12601
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
A couple things here.
The Fujinon FMT-SX 10x70 is exactly the same binocular as the 16x70 with a different eyepiece, and hence a wider fied of view. They weight 4#12oz. 2.16Kg. My opinion is they would be impossible to hold. The sized common 15x70s all weigh 3# 2oz. 1.4Kg
On nearly every night, I see more and fainter objects with 16x70 Fijunons than I do with 10x70 Fujinons. The reason?. When sky magnitude is in the range of 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, the sky is so bright it washes out the view in the 10x70s. The 16x70s darken up the sky background so much more that the 10x70s can't even compare.
See my review comparing these two binoculars here in the forum.
Exit Pupil, Large or Small
The only time the 10x70s lived up to their potential is the one single night I had them up in New Hampshire under mag6 skies. Under all other conditions, I would not recommend a binocular with a 7mm exit pupil.
If you want to hand hold binocs, you might try fora pair of 12x60s or 15x70s at the largest. Are those Kenny's helios you borrowed?
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Hello Bruce,
Since my name has cropped up in passing in the previous two replies I may as well make it a hat-trick :-)
Welcome to the forum !
I share Ed's doubts about the wisdom or comfort of hand -holding 70mm Fujinons for any length of time.
That is a different kettle of fish from holding the Helios 15 x 70s (which I can confirm are NOT mine Ed - having just checked to make sure :-) )
You sound like you are something of an "expert" on "faint satellites" Bruce , so are you SURE you need at least 70mm aperture to see them ?
I am not disputing this assertion , but just interested to why this is the case.
If so , it is a shame , because either bigger brothers of your Canon IS or perhaps a Nikon 12 x 50 SE ( another flight to New York included of course ! )would probably be far better choices.
Also ,if approaching 60mm would do the job , perhaps the Minox 12 x 58 BR "bells and whistles" roof prism bino might be the just the ticket. It's as elegant a binocular as I've ever seen too.
By the way , what a refreshing change to see the condition "price is not an issue" for a change !
Only last night I was considering posting a message addressing that very issue of why it is so many people looking for a binocular seem to have such a rigid maximum budget in mind as the MAIN factor in which one they buy.
I am far from being rich , believe me , but if I want some material thing to use and enjoy using , whether it be a car ,guitar, amplifier , sound system , tennis racket, cordless power drill , PC or binoculars , I would rather scrimp , save , beg or borrow than buy something that is not really up to the job.
I realise I may be going off topic here , but when a likely re -sale possibility and it's relative value is taken into account, it is usually better to "buy better" in the first place.
By the way Erik -- thanks for a lovely thought ! -- perhaps one day I can take advantage of your kind offer and enjoy your company !
Regards -- 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
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hi Ed.
No, they weren't Kenny's; he lives over two hundred miles away which isn't far in US terms but in the UK it is a LONG way. 
Thanks for the advice on the 10 x 70s. I have read a lot about the 16 x 70s but as I said, it is FOV rather than magnification I am after. I take your point on the background magnitude issue. Here in Devizes the sky conditions are variable; near my house is a football club which plays floodlit games and beyond that is a sports centre with floodlit hockey and football pitches. Yet only five miles from here are probably what passes for the darkest skies available in Southern England west of Norfolk. It could be that I will have to think about the higher magnification but then that would mean mounting and sacrificing FOV which I am not keen to do.
Can you tell me what the FOV on the 16 x 70s is?
Best wishes
Bruce
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2570
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Fujinon 16X70mm
FOV: 4 deg, Eye relief: 12.5mm
|
Charlie Fisher
member
Reged: 06/28/03
Posts: 38
Loc: Tampa, FL USA
|
|
For the Fujinon, it is good to remember the nose factor in the eye relief equation also. I can only speak specifically as to the 16X70 FMT-SX, but as a generously-nosed person, I can say that the proboscis can be a factor in getting close to the eyepieces on that binocular. The individual focus rings on the eyepieces may hit (or contact, or interfere with, shall we say?) the bridge of the nose if you have such an esteemed prominence and close interpupillary distance. If so you may need to view more from behind the binocular, eating up some eye relief.
So try them first if you can, in case you have this very laudable and distinguished problem.
Charlie
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Kenny
Nice to speak, I have read your posts on this forum many times.
Binoculars in the 70-80mm range are the norm for serious satellite observers, it seems. I got the idea for 11 x 80s from Desmond King-Hele's book "Observing Earth Satellites" which includes a picture of someone observing with 11 x 80 binoculars, in a deck-chair, hand-held. Correspondence with other observers, many of whom have 40 years' experience of this type of work,has suggested that big binos are the way to go if you want to observe faint satellites, which I do. The 10 x 70s are mentioned by name in Dyer and Dickinson's "Backyard Astronomer's Guide" so that seemed to be sufficient acclaim for me to consider them.
Certainly I am at an early stage of choosing my next binoculars, so I am open to suggestions. I had not considered either the bigger Canon IS, the Nikons or the Minox, though I feel that I need objectives larger than 50mm. Perhaps the Minox would be a nice compromise.
As for price: I agree, most posters seem to put price at the top of the list of criteria for choosing their binoculars,which is a pity, since binoculars are difficult to manufacture well and are complex instruments. Call me weird, but if I was given £1000 I would rather spend the money on a pair of top-notch binoculars than a telescope (or maybe a new saxophone, but that would need £2000). I do not need a vast collection of binoculars, the next pair I buy will be probably a once-in-a-lifetime purchase so I may as well save up my pocket-money and get the best I need.
Best wishes,
Bruce
P.S. Three posts already and I have been here less than twelve hours!
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks for the reply Bruce,
Indeed , it's nice to "speak".
From my own admittedly sparse and spasmodic experiences with satellite following I appreciate the importance of a wide field and hand -holdable magnification but am still wondering whether or not the two examples you quote championing the need for 80mm objectives is necessarily as important as might be implied , even from such well respected sources.
An analogy springing to mind is that somewhat dogmatic recommendation of 7 x 50 binoculars by Sir Patrick himself and others with regard to "beginners" wishing to "get to know" the night sky.
Perhaps that made more sense in pre- light-polluted times.
I'm sure if you have read many of the posts to this forum you will realise that such a blanket statement can be very misleading ,because if the eye-pupil is only open to 5mm , one may as well be using 7 x 35s as 7 x 50s.
Perhaps there is something specific to satellite viewing that conflicts with this assertion -- I simply don't know --which is why I asked !
Even if there is some aspect exclusive to this specific type of binocular viewing that cries out for , or benefits from, a relatively high light-gathering factor, even then I suspect this must be measured against the requirements for low power , wide -field and hand -holdability , bearing in mind that TOO large an exit -pupil is unlikely to increase contrast and very likely to increase the unwanted effects of human eye astigmatism.
Also , unlike with most astro -bino activities ,I wouldn't have thought that "flat -field" would necessarily be so high on the list of priorities.
That is to say that to cite an example of my thinking here, a 22 x 60 Takahashi fluorite , whilst being probably the very best binocular through which to view the moon , with it's 2.1 degree TFOV ,it's relatively high magnification and consequent need to be mounted , AND possibly it's too SMALL exit -pupil ,in spite of it's celebrated qualities ,would probably be a very bad choice for your intended usage, whereas if such a binocular existed ,a lightweight 10 x 60 with a 6 degree TFOV and top quality glass and coatings would be great.
By the way , I'll tell you what I think would be useful for satellite viewing !
A digicam recorder attached to the binocular which records the passing and can be played back in variable speed slow -motion :-)
All this of course ,yet further examples of my "armchair theorising of the optical kind"
Regards , 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
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Hi Bruce,
Let me start off with the disclaimer that I don't know diddly about satellite specific binoculars. To me, satellites are just something that temporarily befuddle me when they cross the FOV. But let's just say that I've had "a few" binoculars in various configurations over the years. And, the one thing I've learned is that the published "norms" for specific pursuits, are often just total BS. For instance, It's been repeated in print, by everybody from Muriden to Schaffer to Dickinson to the Dec. 2003 issue of Astronomy magazine, that 7x50s are "best" for astronomy.
Maybe in a time when light pollution wasn't an issue, and maybe in a time when there weren' t the current number of binocular size choices, maybe, just maybe, that advice made some sense then. But, there are too many of us that have tried and tried those solutions repeatedly, to completely ignore the idea that a great many of us have found that for cutting through light pollution one needs magnification and a smaller exit pupil.
I mention that just in case you've not tried some select alternatives that might fall outside whatever is considered "normal" for satellite observing. You mention that you're concentrating on 10-12 power. That's very good. But, you also mention that you feel you need large aperature. I question that, simply because aperture increases do not necessarily lead to more detection power. In fact, it can lead to less detection if the exit pupil gets too large, or if the light scatter and light pollution is too much. I would urge you to have a look through various 10x50s, 12x50s and 12x60s and see if you can't find something in that range that gives you both handholdibility and the FOV that you need.
For *me*, I've found that I'm ridiculousy happy both birding and astronomizing with a set of Nikon SE 12x50s with a 5* FOV. They're not cheap, but I have no trouble handholding them on anything from ducks to DSOs. Another interesting option might be the Zeiss B*gat 15x60s. But, those would come with the caveat that you'd really have to ascertain for yourself whether or not you could hold them still enough for your liking. Still, I've heard of several folks that apparently find that they can handhold the larger Zeiss with good effect.
I'm a big believer in 10x50s and even some very select 12x50s as being a very solid way to have both power and handholdability. Some find even that level of magnification to be too much, but most have little trouble once they understand body bracing. Increasing the aperture from about 50 or 60mm often tends to just wash out the view and decrease handholdability.
See if you can't try several well baffled, well coated, well built binoculars in the 10x50 or 12x50 range. Some of the high light transmission, high end binoculars in this range might just surprise you when compared to some of the generic 10x70s and 11x80s. In the end, you might find that it's not the nominal aperture specification that matters as much as the overall ergonomics and quality of the overall whole product.
Regards,
Mike Swaim
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
lighttrap
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
This is funny. It looks like Kenny and I were basically working on the same response at the same time. If you Brits ever do decide to cross the pond, after Erik picks you all up, I'd like to buy the first rounds and dinner. ;-)
Mike
--------------------
18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
Hi Bruce,
And, the one thing I've learned is that the published "norms" for specific pursuits, are often just total BS. For instance, It's been repeated in print, by everybody from Muriden to Schaffer to Dickinson to the Dec. 2003 issue of Astronomy magazine, that 7x50s are "best" for astronomy.
Hello Mike
To be fair to Messrs. Muirden and Dickinson, both have written that the classic 7x50 "night-glass" may not be best for use. Muirden recommended 12x40 binoculars in his book "Astronomy with Binoculars" which I have a copy of, and Dickinson and Dyer both recommend 10x50 binoculars over 7x50. And this is not new. I have a book by Peter Lancaster Brown called "Star and Planet Spotting" published in 1974 which again recommends the 7x50 type only if you have dark skies (even then light pollution was an issue in the UK). And in the September 2002 Sky and Telescope, Alan Adler wrote a comprehensive and very good article on choosing binoculars for astronomy where he gives advice on just the same lines as has been recommended on this thread.
Only Patrick Moore continues to peddle the orthodoxy that 7x50 is best, but he spends most of his time looking through telescopes.
Like I said, I am looking for a combination of ease of holding, decent magnification, good light-grasp, and a wide field of view. ("Is that all?" I hear you ask.) 10x70 and 11x80 glasses seemed (on paper at least) to offer that combination. Personally I am not bothered by a washed-out background sky and I do have easy access to relatively dark (if not totally coal-black) skies. Nor am I bothered by colour fringing for that matter, which would not arise anyway in my intended application. I merely took the advice of some experts in satellite observing as a point of departure for what is looking increasingly like a weird odyssey.
As a result of the response I have had (for which many thanks) I am now going to reconsider my shortlist. The Minox 10x58EDs look very nice. A mere £749 including VAT here in the UK. And so do the Canon 15x50IS which if they are anything like the 10x30s would be a fine performer too.
Ed Cannon who I see posts to this forum is also a satellite observer. Ed, do you have any input to this discussion?
Looks like I could have fun trying stuff out!
Bruce
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Yes Mike,
Spookily ironic was that !
As the saying goes, great( or was it twisted ? :-)) minds think alike --apparantly at the same time too !
You know , considering the current high pound to dollar rate, the unexplained absence of the Nikon 12 x 50 Superior E in the UK , and my overwhelming desire to try and possibly buy one for myself -- this trans -atlantic crossing / chauffeur driven by Mr. Lin tour of the Big Apple , wined and dined by Mr.Swaim "weekend break" is looking increasingly tempting !
Now what's that web site address for the cheapest flights?
Regards to all with a big smile -- 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
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Bruce,
I would not recommend the Fuji 16x70s unless you are willing to accept false color. I purchased a pair new and was very disappointed in the false color and flare that they exhibited. They are also quite heavy and would not lend themselves to hand holding for any length of time.
I believe that Kenny is spot on when he wrote: "I realise I may be going off topic here , but when a likely re-sale possibility and it's relative value is taken into account, it is usually better to "buy better" in the first place."
I did exactly what Kenny suggested. After the Fuji let-down I saved every penny I could and purchased a pair of Takahashi 22x60s. No more false color. No more collimation problems. No more regrets. Only hours of happy and wonderous observing. I would add one more piece of advice. If at all possible purchase through a local vendor where you can walk in, handle the binoculars, test them, and then walk right back in if not satisfied thereby eliminating expensive ping-pong-purchasing through the mail.
Is there a draw-back to the Taks? Well, so far the only negative I have found is the weight (at a little over 4 pounds). I cannot hand hold these puppies for any extended periods, but on the other hand I really don't want to. When I go out with the Taks I spend hours, even if I initially only plan on a quick peek, because of the sheer pleasure of seeing throught the Taks. I am able to quickly and easily afix them on a parallelogram mount.
I would also echo Mike's comment on the Nikons. When looking at what to get after the Fujis I looked at several pair of Nikons and they appeared to have a brighter image with better contrast than the Fujis. Perhaps therein lies one of the secrets to finding that acceptable blend of qualities with binoculars, and that is to try them out before purchasing. I know that is not always practical, but due to the differences in vision between us humans, that is part of the finding the best match between binos and owner.
Good luck with your search. Nick
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2570
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Kenny,
I am much better at surfing for low bino prices than cheap flights. A quick search of two volume NYC retailer indicate price for the Nikon 12X50 SE is US$ 850. Right now <focuscamera.com> offers free shipping in the US. You can avoid paying 8.5% sales tax for out of state purchases.
After seveal years of reading Mike S' praise of the Superior E I am tempted also....If Nikon would just make this model water proof I may even reconsider my quest for roof prism binos for terrestrial use. For me the 31.7 oz wt and ergonomic design of the 12X50 SE is more attractive than the 50 mm Canon IS at 42 oz.
As you know I recently test my friend's 18X50 IS for over a month. I am less impressed with the optical performance or overall package of the bigger IS than I was with his 10X30 IS. The housing and reverse IPD adjustment seem less user friendly and the optics did not have the "Wow" factor I would expect from a pair binos costing nearly $1,000. That said, my friend has embarked on his 3,000 mile journey the to Winter Star Party in the Flordia Keys. His main equipment: NextStar 11 GPS, Zeiss 85 Diascope with solar filter and his Canon 18X50 IS. He will be gone for 3 weeks and sleeping in a tent for at least one week. 
Erik D
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I made a slight error in recommending the 12 x 58 Minox to Bruce. There is no 12x version , just 8x , 10x and 15x.
The following review suggests very much that the one I had in mind ( 10x), which although no lightweight by any stretch of the imagination ,is from personal experience a very pleasant glass to hold and look through ,and may be worthy of consideration for anyone looking for a waterproof hand -holdable bino for astronomy.
Minox 10x58ED
The star of the test and the real surprise was the Minox 10X58ED. I had expected them to be similar to most mid-priced roof prism binoculars, with satisfactory optical performance but generally uninspiring. I was wrong. They are now my firm favourite medium size hand held astro binocular. Although larger and heavier than the Leicas, the Minox was still comfortable, and easy to focus when wearing gloves. For spectacle wearers, the viewing comfort is superb, even better than the Leicas. I can't think of a binocular that has had such an immediate positive impression with every viewer. Shouts of 'b***dy hell these are good' confirmed that this binocular was not just a personal 'like'. Eye relief is outstanding, with none of the problems associated with some wide-field eyepieces, such as over-critical eye positioning. Binoculars belonging to other observers were compared to the Minox in order to set a 'known' benchmark, including a Fuji and a Canon Stabilized. None performed as satisfactorily as the Minox in overall image quality, some of this I think is due to an ideal exit pupil diameter with the Minox of 5.8mm, coupled with a manageable 10X magnification for hand held use. If this combination is allied to excellent quality optics, then there are very few, if any, hand held binoculars that will outperform a binocular like the Minox for astronomy. Everything about them is so immediately usable. I found myself preferring to use them over extended periods rather than spend time at the telescope. (I can only imagine what the Minox would be like if they included an internal stabilization system). I must admit, I was actively looking for ways to delay handing them back to Leica after the weekend.
The term 'ED' used on the Minox denotes 'extra low dispersion' referring to superior correction for chromatic aberration. On test however, there was little difference in lack of chromatic aberration on the moon or during the day between the Minox and Leicas. I suspect that if normal Krown and Flint elements were used in the Minox OG, chromatic aberration would be more noticeable. As it is, any chromatic aberration is far from objectionable with the Minox. Deep sky fuzzies within the grasp of 58mm aperture were all visible, although as the transparency came and went, so did the visibility of fainter galaxies and planetaries. M31 was the best I've seen it in a hand held binocular for many years, and M42 was superb, surprisingly, even better than the low power view with my 60mm Tak. (using two eyes makes such a difference).
As with the Leicas, the use of nebula filters has not been thought of when designing these binoculars, however, I am in no doubt that a way will be found to attach them. Astronomers are very useful for manufacturing home made add-ons. Back at home, the moon was clear and crisp and although the Leicas just nosed ahead for image sharpnesson the moon, I still admit to preferring the Minox as providing a more 'immediately' satisfying view, again the Minox eyepieces provide this benefit. Extra focal star images were symmetrical over most of the apparent field (something that was lacking in a pair of 15X58 Minox I tried earlier).
The 58mm Minox binoculars are available in 8X58ED, 10X58ED and 15X58ED. On test, the 10X58ED was notably superior in all areas important for astronomy. There is no wasted aperture because the power/aperture ratio is too low, and the usable field is greater than the higher power Minox. All 58mm Minox binoculars are offered in a luxury foam lined case, a welcome addition for the gadget presentation freaks amongst us, and tripod mounting is possible with all models.
Overall verdict. I can't think of a hand held binocular that I would rather own. Now, if Leica UK could only find it in their hearts to loan a pair for me to take to the Texas Star Party this year.
MINOX BD 10x58 ED BR
Magnification: 10x
Aperture: 58 mm
Exit pupil: 5.8 mm
Field of view: 6.2°
Eye relief: 19mm
Close focus: 4,9m
Over run: > 4 dpt
Diopter adjustment: >2 dpt
Operating temperature: -10° to +45°
Water resistant: up to 5 m
Height, width, depth: 225x159x69 mm
Weight: 1485g
Includes aluminium case and neoprene strap.
The full series of reviews can be seen at :
http://www.brayimaging.co.uk/Astro/binoculars.html
Regards -- 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
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Ken, I saw that review you've just posted not long after you recommended the Minox to me. I just put in a Google search for "Minox 10x58ED" and there it was. Very interesting and it made me want to get a pair to check them out.
I emailed Chris at Bray Imaging and he came back with a reply very quickly with prices: £749 for the 10x model and £799 for the 15x. I didn't ask about the 8x. Looks like I may have to save up for a couple of years. 
How much experience have you had with this binocular? It sounds as though you have been able to use them "in anger". I would like to try a pair out under night conditions but all the astronomers I know are more into using big telescopes. They do own binos but I doubt any would be willing to fork out nearly eight hundred quid on a pair of binoculars. (Except maybe the guy with the 18" Obsession Dob and 18 x 50 IS binos.) Now if we were talking CCD cameras....
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Hi Bruce,
I've only ever tried the 10 x 58s -- in daylight outside a store --for about 3 minutes.
I know it sounds very cursory , but I only need a couple of minutes with a binocular in my hands to get a very good idea of it's overall feel and quality.
To that end binoculars to me are like guitars , and the older and more experienced I get , and the more different models I try -- the easier and quicker it seems to get to be able to make an on -the spot decision about whether or not I would consider buying a model if necessity demanded and funds allowed.
Neither were the case at the time of my quick testing of these Minox , but in spite of their undeniable weightiness , I got the impression they were a first class product.
Trying to get hold of binoculars for astro-testing unconditionally is a perennial problem, which is one of the main aspects of usefulness of forums such as these.
Unfortunately , it usually takes many years for a "new" name to establish itself in the binocular world , and especially when the product is highly priced.Consequently the chances of many people having actually tried these for astronomy are quite remote , so apart from the review we have both seen , there seems very little to go on.
If the asking price places it in the " 2 year saving " bracket then perhaps you could pick something else up for the interim on Chris Heapy's astro ads. or various other camera stores that advertise used binos on the internet.
I picked up my Swift 10 x 50 Kestrels from Anglia Cameras online for £130 and my Helios 15 x 70s ( as new in box) for £100 from Chris Heapy's site.
I suspect either would do a job for you for now , but I have a feeling that 10x or 12x are going to be your best bet for satellites.
Regards --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
|
|
12 registered and 18 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: 893
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
