KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I promised not to enter into a discussion in another thread about a matter which I feel can be better addressed by answers to THIS relatively simple sounding question .
Have you ever seen anything in a 10 x 50 binocular which you couldn't or feel wouldn't have seen in a 10 x 42 of EQUAL quality ?
In fact , have you ever seen anything in a 10 x 42 which you couldn't or feel wouldn't have seen in a 10 x 50 of equal quality ?
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
|
Rich V.
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 988
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada USA
|
|
Hi, Kenny
Your question is probably relative to where you are viewing and when.
I have a quite decent 10x43 roof and a well regarded 10x50 porro. In daytime, I'll take the 10x43 over the 10x50 anytime. The extra aperture of the 50 does little good, the glass is heavier and has a smaller FOV.
At night, and I have compared many times, in my somewhat light polluted skies, (mag 5.5 or thereabouts) I can't see deeper in the 50s than I can in the 43s. I'd bet though if I were up on the pass south of me in mag 6.5 skies, the 10x50s might begin to come onto their own searching out DSOs. I can't say for sure though, because when I'm up there I use the 16x70s and the C9.25! ;^)
Alas, it will be next summer before I can tell you definitively if I could see the difference.
Rich V (feeling very balding and grey!)
--------------------
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
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Hi Kenny,
I guess this question arises as a result of the simple fact that there are many more good 10x42 binoculars around than 10x50. Birders don't care for 50mm, that's why we have got little choice. Looking around for a decent 10x50 can be frustrating (see the parallel thread), since there are either low quality ones in the 50-200$ range or those 1000+ guys by Swaro et al. When astronomers are looking around for a medium range 10x50, in many cases they will end up with an old Zeiss Jena Dekarem/Jenoptem. It is a pity that nothing comparable seems to be around these days.
Best,
Holger
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
Hello Holger,I gave my 10x50 Dekarems away as I was becomoing incresingly frustrated with them.
Practicaly no eye relief {My balls had to touch the actual lens} and to ME very poor edge performance.
Also,compared to the FLs,they have a strong yellow cast.
I didnt realize this until I tested them against the FLs.
Steve.
|
holger_merlitz
sage
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Hi Steve,
Yepp, they are not high-end, and at a certain stage of experience they may not feel good enough any more. The next step would be the Fujinon - very close to perfection!
The yellow cast I have experienced with the older versions of Dekarem only, those without multi-coating. So far, the later ones I have seen were pretty neutral.
Best,
Holger
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
My Dekarems had MC but still had yellow cast.
Steve.
|
IDONTSEEIT
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/04/03
Posts: 901
Loc: NYC
|
|
Quote:
...I gave my 10x50 Dekarems away as I was becomoing incresingly frustrated with them.
Practicaly no eye relief {My balls had to touch the actual lens} and to ME very poor edge performance.
...strong yellow cast...
I didnt realize this until I tested them against the FLs.
Steve.
(emphasis mine)
Steve,
Are you sure you didn't jump-the-gun on condemning these bins? Did they come with instructions? Because it sounds as though you may not have used them in the intended fashion, which is to look through them with the two orbs just above your nose, and between your ears. 
Ahem.....sorry... 
--------------------
Joe,
C8 OTA on UA Unistar Heavy Deluxe
SV-102V on same UA Unistar Heavy Deluxe(not at the same time)
WO-Megrez 80-II ED on UA Microstar Basic
Orion 80ED on same UA Microstar Basic(also not at the same time)
Miyauchi Bs-60ic "Pleiades" 22X60
Orion UltraView 10X50's
Orion MiniGiants 12X63 & 15X63
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
I must say that I agree with Holger: it is much easier to find a very good 10x42 than a 10x50 porro which is a pity...There are brands such as Opticron and Minox to name but a few who have launched a new HD porro range but they are 42mm again,no 50mm!This is all very frustrating...because it goes to show that they do have the technology to make them,they just don't see the point in building 10x50 for a couple of amateur astronomers.
Stephane
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
I think Holger Merlitz has a good point here.
The percentual difference between a 42 and 50mm aperture is about the same as between a 50 and 60mm, which is a gain of more than 40% in brightness to the advantage of the larger size. In a direct comparison 40% better brightness is a quite big differens, which means a 10x50 (if the light transmission is equal and under dark sky) has to play a decisive role to discover details who are not visible for a 10x42.
Actually I find the 10x42 to be an attractive size/power combination. I never have seen any 10x42 who has enough ER for eyeglass wearers, however. Therefore it has never came to my mind to get a such one.
Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
Quote:
I think Holger Merlitz has a good point here.
The percentual difference between a 42 and 50mm aperture is about the same as between a 50 and 60mm, which is a gain of more than 40% in brightness to the advantage of the larger size. In a direct comparison 40% better brightness is a quite big differens, which means a 10x50 (if the light transmission is equal and under dark sky) has to play a decisive role to discover details who are not visible for a 10x42.
Actually I find the 10x42 to be an attractive size/power combination. I never have seen any 10x42 who has enough ER for eyeglass wearers, however. Therefore it has never came to my mind to get a such one.
Patric
Patric,
did you try the Nikon 10x42 HG DCF/Venturer LX? It has an eye-relief of 18,5 mm, which is quite a lot.
BTW as you said under a dark sky the difference between a 10x42 and a 10x50 of the same optical quality is quite noticable, especially at fainter objects such as e.g. galaxies are.
Steve
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Steve,
Thank for the tip. If the ER of the 10x42 HG DCF isn't too limited by recessed ocular lenses it would be adequate.
About the difference between a 10x42 and a 10x50 in light gathering power (which is same as brightness with same magnification) even a low or middle priced 10x50 with quite bad coating offers better brightness than the very best 10x42 model. The reason any 10x42, according to some peoples claiming, can be as good as a worse 10x50 for astronomical use, has to be a better contrast and resolution.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< About the difference between a 10x42 and a 10x50 in light gathering power (which is same as brightness with same magnification) even a low or middle priced 10x50 with quite bad coating offers better brightness than the very best 10x42 model. >
Patric ,
Much as I wish that were always true ( mainly because it would make the whole issue easier to understand for me ) I'm afraid that I cannot agree .
I once spent a good half an hour in daylight comparing my FMC , Bak 4 prism , HR5 , Swift Audubon 10 x 50 Porro , which retailed for just below $500 US when it was available , and is a VERY good daytime binocular , with a Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E .
To my eyes , the Nikon 10 x 42 SE had a noticeably brighter image .
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
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Kenny!
I have to confess that my explanation wasn't perfect. I am very aware about the fact that this isn't always true in practice. My starting point in this matter is use during dark conditions there we are able to make use of the entire exit pupil.
About your experience in daylight your eye pupil surely wasn't dilated to more than 3-4 mm and the effective relative brightness in as well the 10x42 and 10x50 didn't exceed the RBI of a 10x42. In daylight use the experienced brightness of a 10x42 and 10x50 with equal light transmission is the same. In your example the experienced brightness therefore was better in the Nikon 10x42 than the Swift Audubon 10 x 50 because of better light transmission.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
Quote:
Steve,
Thank for the tip. If the ER of the 10x42 HG DCF isn't too limited by recessed ocular lenses it would be adequate.
Regards, Patric
No it isn´t limited in that way. The HG has noticable more ER than the 10x42s of Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss and even a little bit more than the Nikon SE.
Steve
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< In your example the experienced brightness therefore was better in the Nikon 10x42 than the Swift Audubon 10 x 50 because of better light transmission. >
Patric , you could well be right about that .
It's BECAUSE I have never had the opportunity to compare two such binoculars side by side at night that I posed the question in the first place .
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
|
brt209
sage
Reged: 09/18/05
Posts: 222
Loc: London UK
|
|
The only advantage that a 10x42 would have over a 10x50 in deep sky viewing (providing that the two are of identical optical quality)would be in weight,making the lighter of the two(the 42mm) more pleasant to hold for "space-touring".
This being said,I'd still go for the 10x50 because I'd see fainter objects and all those deep sky attractions would appear significantly brighter.
Regards.
Stephane
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
In my experience and testing, an excellent 10x42 like the Nikon LX (aka HG) easily outperforms mediocre-quality 10x50s as a result of sharpness, contrast, color-correction, etc. The performance difference is exhibited in many ways. For example, if you compare the off-axis brightness of stars in a mediocre 10x50 with that in a top quality bino, you'll find that the stars in the better instrument are much brighter off-axis. That is, the light-loss off-axis is far lower.
This is to say nothing of the ergonomic and mechanical advantage of the top line instrument. They are easier to hold, easier to focus, hold their focus better, and keep performing well year after year. Many times binoculars are compared purely on optical qualities, which overlooks the fact that, for handheld binoculars, ergonomic factors are far more critical than for stand-mounted instruments.
It is true that for equivalent quality instruments, the larger aperture will show fainter objects, but in practice I've found a fairly small number of objects which can't be seen in the x42s but can be seen in the x50s. The visual magnitude of the objects in question must be just beyond the x42 range, but still within the x50 range. As EdZ has superbly demonstrated, magnification is more critical than aperture. I don't recall his specific numbers, but it seems to me he said the difference between x42 and x50 results in about .15 magnitude. It's not as much as you would think, partially because the magnifications in question are so low -- not nearly enough to realize the full capability of either aperture.
The truth is I started observing with a 10x50 binocular that cost $125. Now I use an 8x42 that cost around $900. Not once have I said to myself, "Ghee, I wish I were observing with those cheap 10x50s." 
I know this is off-topic for this thread, but I haven't visited the forum in a while and I'm just wondering what the deal is with Kenny's Avatar??? Very frightening!!! 
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Fiske ,
Good to hear from you after TOO long an absence ,for my liking .
And I am not saying that just because what you have to say appears to support my hunch on this topic !
I am also genuinely surprised , if not concerned , about the number of apparantly " negative " comments about my most recent avatar .
Perhaps I really SHOULD put that £2 I won from Steve Napier towards a haircut and " grey rinse " :-)
Hoping to hear more from you Fiske ,
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
|
Steve Napier
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/10/04
Posts: 1559
|
|
Fiske, its great to see you again.
I recently found that splitting Albireo with 8x30 was easier than using 7x42 which gives creedance to the magnification over aperture debate.
Fiske, what do you think of Kenny"s new picture?
To think he"s a grown man with a family!
A CN member who shall remain nameless {Hi Walter} reckons Kenny has gone from looking like Phil Collins to Keith Richards.
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
Quote:
I am also genuinely surprised , if not concerned , about the number of apparantly " negative " comments about my most recent avatar .
Regards , Kenny
Kenny,
I would consider some people could suspect that your avatar might be part of a "Plan B" as an alternative for winning the lottery jackpot by selling millions of bottles containing some kind of hair restore miracle cure to mag 14 scalp owners like e.g. me and Jess.
Steve
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 