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
rnuge
journeyman
Reged: 10/04/05
Posts: 5
Loc: Frenchtown, NJ, USA
|
|
My first post! Yee-ha!
Let me just apologize in advance for yet another post requesting advice on a beginner pair of 10x50's... I have spent many late nights in recent weeks pouring over the wealth of info on this forum as well as a few others, and perhaps this is my problem - all that info plus my tendency to obsess are a dangerous combination! Seriously, this is a great community with many generous contributors... a joy to behold and newbies like me are in your debt.
Having started with no idea, my research (and education courtesy of others) has led me here: I'm looking for a respectable pair of 10x50's... seems like to get into the "respectable" range means ~$130 to $190... mid-$200's is perhaps a meaningful jump but since this is my "toe in the water" purchase I would like to keep it under $200 (am I being short sighted here?)
For me it's down to 2 contenders:
Nikon Action Extreme 10x50
Many positive reviews, with limitations (degredation at edge of fov) noted...
I am leaning this way based on all I have read, plus I am very impressed by Nikon's 25-year warranty, plus their no-fault warranty which they now extend to this line...
Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50
Very compelling review by Barry Simon (including side by side with Nikon AE's) and praised by some others... I hesitate on these mostly because although many have offered praise, as Barry Simon points out one can find little detail written about them - even Barry Simon's review was specifically about Orion Savannah's - same as the Mesa? - this is a little unsettling. Maybe this is irrational fear... The warranty seems good (lifetime) but, boy, that no-fault from Nikon! (btw, the Savannah is a out of my range at $240-$260 otherwise that might be the pick)
Someone please nudge me one way or the other!
btw, have also looked at:
Pentax PCF WP II - $130 and well regarded predecessors but shied away based on some bad feedback on the new WP IIs versus older WPs
Minolta Activa - seems not as well regarded as Nikon AE
Orion Ultraview (initially leaning this way but no longer based on some side by side reviews with Nikon AE)
Oberwork 10x50 - very intriguing (at $130!) but little written about them (are these new?)
Celestron Ultima DX - again, very little written about the new DX line...
Thanks,
Bob
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
Hi Newbie!
I understand your obsession with finding the right pair of binos,no apologies then!lol
The good thing is that you can get very good ones (for $300 or $400)in the US,if you knew how much they cost here in the UK you wouldn't believe it!
I was going to purchase a 10x50 PCF WPII myself because on paper they look great,but after reading a couple of negative reviews I will probably go for the roof model (DCF SP),Minox or Opticron being two more options.The good thing about the roof ones is that they weigh in at~800g and are very compact which is great for hand-held viewing.
Now to answer your question,there doesn's seem to be lots of good 10x50 porros around(or any others 10x50 in this price range by the way).
The manufacters have given up building top class porros and this is a shame(they make more money selling very expensive roofs which would be outclassed by porros costing half the price-you get the picture-)
I own a pair of Zeiss 7x50 Jenoptem Aus Jena bought in 1989
and the picture quality is fantastic.I cannot use them anymore due to a bad collimation (lots of hiking and astro-camping in 15 years...).
I know that you are looking for something new with a modern design but you can find the 10x50 version on ebay very easily and for less than £100,and believe me they will blow away anything this side of $300 in terms of picture quality (only something like the fujinon FMRT-SX would significantly better them).
Just make sure that the collimation and the overall qaulity are spot-on.
If you want to stick with the Nikons then it seems to be a rather good choice,Nikon make fine optics and I cannot see any other binos that would give them a run for their money.
If you do buy them please write a full review here,cheers.
Stephane
|
werewolf6977
Lord High Smasher
Reged: 12/15/03
Posts: 7445
Loc: Hanover, Ohio
|
|
I just bought a pair of Nikon Action 10X50's. While they'reot the Extremes, I'm satisfied with my new purchase.
--------------------
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
|
Raybo
member
Reged: 07/02/05
Posts: 39
|
|
You might want to also check out Bird Forum, lots of folks there will be happy to assist you. (they mostly use bins for viewing)
Edited by Raybo (10/08/05 07:08 PM)
|
Raybo
member
Reged: 07/02/05
Posts: 39
|
|
I would also like to recommend these bins, they are 10X42's and are my goto bins for the night sky.
The only short comming with these are the twist-up eye cups, they tend not to stay in place unless they are extended all the way. They are within your buget and IMHO the ergonomics are great for porros and the are easier to handle than 10X50's.
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
The 10x42 you have suggested (Bausch & Lomb Discoverer, Porro version) is in fact a great binocular - and made in Japan, not China. The 10x42 version was better than the 8x42. Some years back they were above 400 $ MRP and 360 $ in real life. It is a good alternative for a bulky 10x50 and much better built than any 10x50 of this price range. Both optically and mechanically it is superior to the 10x50 Zeiss Jena.
When sticking to 10x50, the old Zeiss Jena Dekarem/Jenoptem is still a good choice for 150-200$, but not waterproof, and some find its edge-unsharpness annoying.
If I am not misguided I have probably seen this Oberwerk 10x50 in China (it is not called Oberwerk there, of course):
http://www.opticsplanet.net/oberwerk-10x50-wa.html
My impression: Quite good for that price tag, better than Nikon Action Extreme. Compared to the Zeiss Jena it has some more stray light but better edge-sharpness (field of view is, with 6 degs., moderate).
Best,
Holger
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Unless my eyesight is getting progressively worse at an even faster rate than I am aware of , we do not even know if the original poster Bob wears glasses .
If he does , the eyecup arrangement on the B&L Discoverer may present a problem , as would eye - relief on several of the previously mentioned models .
Apart from that , I agree there is a wider selection available in Bob's price range in 10 x 42 than 10 x 50 .
Any specific reason for the 50mm Bob ?
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
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
Before considering buying a pair of 42mm binos you should keep in mind that an objectif of 50mm will collect 42% more light than a 42mm,therefore the gain in light greatly makes up for the weight penalty (and we're not talking about 9x63 or 15x70 binos here,besides if weight saving is an issue then go for a pair of 10x50 roof).I believe that 50mm is the minimum for astronomy and one shouldn't have to go for less than that if one had the choice.
I really doubt that any Baush &Lomb 50mm binos would better the Jenomptem for astro use,let alone a 42mm model
I have no idea what the Oberwerk 10x50 are like,looks good on paper but so does the Pentax PCF WPII...
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< looks good on paper but so does the Pentax PCF WPII... >
That " 42% more light " looks good on paper too .
In the REAL world , I've yet to see a 10 x 50 Porro as good as a 10 x 42 Nikon SE.
An old Swarovski Habicht came about the closest .
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
|
|
The Celestron Ultima 10x50s are the best I've used. By this, I mean the "made in Japan" model and not the upcoming Ultima DX line from China. They're not easy to find, but this site is claiming to have them in stock for less than $200. Highly recommended.
http://www.apogeeinc.com/view_category.asp?cat=32
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
>>>I really doubt that any Baush &Lomb 50mm binos would better the Jenomptem for astro use,let alone a 42mm model
--------------------------------------------------------
So this is a great opportunity for you to try it out :-)
Seriously: I owned both (Jenoptem and Discoverer) at the same time and did a couple of comparisons. I was living near Karlsruhe, the sky was not perfectly dark, so that the 4.2mm exit pupil of the B&L offered more contrast than did the 5mm of the Zeiss. Also, the coating of the B&L was somewhat better, no surprise since the Jenoptem was made in the 1980s. Central sharpness was excellent with both glasses, the edge-sharpness was clearly better through the B&L, but this is excused with the wider field of the Zeiss (7.3 degs vs. 6.4 degs.). Only weak point of the B&L was some stray light in certain light situations, but this was without relevance in the night.
I agree: Under really dark skies, the Zeiss Jenoptem should show a little bit fainter objects. But there is nothing close to "42% gain in light" visible in real life. The rule "not below 50mm for astronomy" is not convincing. I have often used a Nikon 8x30 E2 with great pleasure for a walk through the night skies.
Best,
Holger
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
Hey guys!If you start comparing binos on urban or near urban skies then no wonder that small apertures will offer better images!I saw the veil nebula in cygnus with my Jenoptems in the Alps,try the same thing with your 8x30 or your 7x42 Bausch&Lomb and tell me if you can see it at all!
Also,if you start comparing an average 10x50 with partial coatings to top-of-the-line 42mm fully coated Swarovs then no wonder you will find the 42mm a better glass.Please!
We're talking about $200 glasses here.
Kenny:I've yet to see a 10x50 as good as a 10x42 Nikon SE
Well,you could try out a 12x50 Nikon SE or 10x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX for instance.
Now for those of you who don't need dark skies I perfectly understand your point and see why you're happy with a 8x30.I don't like watching nebulas,galaxies or clusters drowned in a bright background,but everyone's different...
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Also,if you start comparing an average 10x50 with partial coatings to top-of-the-line 42mm fully coated Swarovs then no wonder you will find the 42mm a better glass.Please! >
Stephane ,
I can only assume I've missed something here !
Which one of us is guilty of this ?
I own and regularly use a FMC 10 x 50 Porro ( which came with a price tag of $500 US when new ) but it is no way as good as a Nikon SE 10 x 42 , and wouldn't be under ANY kind of skies , the main reason being the poor edge performance .
< Well,you could try out a 12x50 Nikon SE >
I'd love to , Stephane , but that is not a 10 x 50 ! :-)
< Now for those of you who don't need dark skies I perfectly understand your point >
I'm not sure ANYBODY has claimed they don't NEED dark skies , so I fail to see " the point " you claim to understand here .
< I don't like watching nebulas,galaxies or clusters drowned in a bright background >
I doubt if ANY of us LIKE watching ANYTHING in skies drowned in a bright background -- did someone say they did ?
< but everyone's different... >
Now THAT , I agree with ! :-)
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
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with Kenny and Holger here, especially when we're talking night sky.
BTW, Kenny, you seem to look much younger. What vitamins are you taking, and what band are you playing with?
darkside
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 199
|
|
Hello Kenny my friend
What are happening with your hair??
Did you receive some extra ''solar energy'' as the 60's Japanese hero ''Ultraman'' to get it??
Did you receive some ''miraculous'' David Cooperfield's help??
How can a hair grows 12'' in only a few hours - between a few posts??
Congratulations about this new ''fashion'' visual!!
regards Pedro
|
mooreorless
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 1547
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Quote:
>>>I really doubt that any Baush &Lomb 50mm binos would better the Jenomptem for astro use,let alone a 42mm model
--------------------------------------------------------
So this is a great opportunity for you to try it out :-)
Seriously: I owned both (Jenoptem and Discoverer) at the same time and did a couple of comparisons. I was living near Karlsruhe, the sky was not perfectly dark, so that the 4.2mm exit pupil of the B&L offered more contrast than did the 5mm of the Zeiss. Also, the coating of the B&L was somewhat better, no surprise since the Jenoptem was made in the 1980s. Central sharpness was excellent with both glasses, the edge-sharpness was clearly better through the B&L, but this is excused with the wider field of the Zeiss (7.3 degs vs. 6.4 degs.). Only weak point of the B&L was some stray light in certain light situations, but this was without relevance in the night.
I agree: Under really dark skies, the Zeiss Jenoptem should show a little bit fainter objects. But there is nothing close to "42% gain in light" visible in real life. The rule "not below 50mm for astronomy" is not convincing. I have often used a Nikon 8x30 E2 with great pleasure for a walk through the night skies.
Best,
Holger
Hi Holger,I wouldn't mind getting either one of these the 10x42 B&L Discoverer or the Nikon 8x30EII.Both would be great.I have heard good stuff about both.I do have Nikon 10x42 SE and have compared these to the Nikon 12x50 SE and find you can go a little deeper with the 12's of course.Kenny BTW my wife is a hairdresser and she could do wonders for your hair. 
Steve
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
"the eights are better" Jim Carmichel of Outdoor Life magazine
Edited by mooreorless (10/09/05 11:32 AM)
|
rnuge
journeyman
Reged: 10/04/05
Posts: 5
Loc: Frenchtown, NJ, USA
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback.
Kenny - thanks for asking - I do not wear glasses so have tended not to worry about eye relief too much, at least not as a primary consideration...
In re: why 10x50 - 10x since seems to be the consensus trade-off b/t magnification and hand-holdability. Similarly, 50mm since seems to be the consensus trade-ff b/t aperture and weight (ie, hand holdable). Though apparently, I'm being careless in my use of the word consensus! Really, though, I was steered this way by what I have read, for example in Binocular Astronomy by Crossen & Tirion (got the book before the binos) - at this point for me all I have to go on...
In re: bulky 10x50 - I'm no bodybuilder but feel reasonably confident that a bino weighing 36 oz. will not be much more burdensome than one weighing, say, 28 oz. (Watch in three months, I'll be jelly armed in some frigid field cursing those 8 oz!)
If I understand the issue of exit pupil and contrast (and THAT is iffy) - I live in fairly rural area with reasonably dark skies... typical limiting magnitude perhaps 5.5-6.0 within a 10 minute walk (I think based on my casual observation in the corn field across the river in PA - Kenny, that is Pennsylvania - hee hee - I am new at this so could be off here)... From what I understand 5mm exit pupil will not hurt me here but perhaps I underestimate this
All that aside - I'm not married to the idea of 50mm, especially if slightly smaller = broader choices = better viewing for a given price tag
I will say this... I wonder if with the 2 contenders in my original post I am paying for waterproofing at the expense of optics - is that an issue in this price range? Maybe the Celestron Ultima (not DX) is therefore a better 10x50 choice - if still availale (thanks for the tip Skoro) - but then 5deg fov vs. 6+deg? I understand "usable" vs. advertised... will have to look into this
I will look at the other choices folks have mentioned -
Thanks again!
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29817
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Bob, Welcome to Cloudy Nights!
I own both pair that you are considering and have had them for awhile now. I find that I prefer the Leupold's over the Nikons from a comfort POV. I reach for them first. The wider FOV is nice with the Nikon but I find that I am normally looking for something specific so the Leupolds get used...not that the Nikons wouldn't work just as well...I just prefer the feel of the Leupolds, and that is what it boils down to. Go find both at a good sporting goods store and try them out. BTW, I'll not get rid of either pair since my wife and I use them together and interchangably...I find she likes the bigger FOV with the Nikons so it works out great for us.
--------------------
Tom 
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
mooreorless
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 1547
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for all the feedback.
Kenny - thanks for asking - I do not wear glasses so have tended not to worry about eye relief too much, at least not as a primary consideration...
In re: why 10x50 - 10x since seems to be the consensus trade-off b/t magnification and hand-holdability. Similarly, 50mm since seems to be the consensus trade-ff b/t aperture and weight (ie, hand holdable). Though apparently, I'm being careless in my use of the word consensus! Really, though, I was steered this way by what I have read, for example in Binocular Astronomy by Crossen & Tirion (got the book before the binos) - at this point for me all I have to go on...
In re: bulky 10x50 - I'm no bodybuilder but feel reasonably confident that a bino weighing 36 oz. will not be much more burdensome than one weighing, say, 28 oz. (Watch in three months, I'll be jelly armed in some frigid field cursing those 8 oz!)
If I understand the issue of exit pupil and contrast (and THAT is iffy) - I live in fairly rural area with reasonably dark skies... typical limiting magnitude perhaps 5.5-6.0 within a 10 minute walk (I think based on my casual observation in the corn field across the river in PA - Kenny, that is Pennsylvania - hee hee - I am new at this so could be off here)... From what I understand 5mm exit pupil will not hurt me here but perhaps I underestimate this
All that aside - I'm not married to the idea of 50mm, especially if slightly smaller = broader choices = better viewing for a given price tag
I will say this... I wonder if with the 2 contenders in my original post I am paying for waterproofing at the expense of optics - is that an issue in this price range? Maybe the Celestron Ultima (not DX) is therefore a better 10x50 choice - if still availale (thanks for the tip Skoro) - but then 5deg fov vs. 6+deg? I understand "usable" vs. advertised... will have to look into this
I will look at the other choices folks have mentioned -
Thanks again!
I am confused,doesn't take much,it says Frenchtown,NJ and you say you are at rural skies in Pa.I was just wondering. 
Steve M
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
"the eights are better" Jim Carmichel of Outdoor Life magazine
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
Well Kenny,apparently some people don't mind watching under urban skies (see Holger's reply).And when I mentionned the Nikon 12x50 it was in regards to their 50mm aperture.
Now regarding the debate about the poor edge preformance of the FMC 10x50 (which I never mentionned by the way,you've carefully avoided any reference to the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX),I really don't know why the poor edge performance would come into play anyway (unless it's seriously bad,at $200?) when one knows how much the human sight decreases in performance as soon as light goes down,and I doubt that any of use put their deep sky objects near the edge of the FOV!Now this being said,if it's planetary observation that people here want to relate to then ask yourself how big the moon looks through binos at 10x magnification,does it go anywere near the edge of the FOV?Tell me,honestly,do amateur astronomers get binos to observe the moon and the planets?The point in getting binos is to view what the telescope cannot offer:deep sky at very low magnification.I wonder how many amateur astronomers are actually present in these bino forums.
Now we have someone here looking for a 10x50 bino and there are already people mentionning 42mm (the Nikon SE 10x42 does not cost $200...).Now he bottom line is: is there anything better than the Nikon Extreme 10x50 for the same or less money??Is the Bausch&Lomb mentionned earlier better it terms of light gathering and resolution?(we're not talking about the last 10% of the field here).
Kenny's new photo seems to distract everyone here!
|
|
10 registered and 26 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: 2033
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
