Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Which would you choose?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
18 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 07 March 2004 - 01:08 AM

If you were given the choice of owning either a pair of:

Fujinon 25x150mm MT binoculars
or
Nikon 20x120mm binoculars

And based your decision *only* on the image produced by them for astronomical use(meaning that size, cost, brand, etc should not be taken into consideration), which one would you pick and why?

Here are the specifications:
http://www.fujinonbi.../prod/list?p=56
http://www.nikonusa....&productNr=7448

#2 Rusty

Rusty

    ISS

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 22761
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2003

Posted 07 March 2004 - 01:27 AM

Fuji 25x150mms. Bigger is better. OTOH, bigger is better. But, all things considered, bigger is better.....!

Did I mention, that size matters, i. e., bigger is better?

#3 lighttrap

lighttrap

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3833
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2004

Posted 07 March 2004 - 06:29 AM

Daniel, considering that most of us have never viewed through those binoculars, how could we offer up anything meaningful about the comparitive images that they produce?

Sure, as Rusty says, bigger is better. But, you've structured your question in such a way as to exclude anything but image value. There are maybe a few dozen people in the world that could answer your q from the standpoint of actual experience. Markus Ludes is probably one of them. Ask him.

Mike Swaim

#4 craig_oz_land

craig_oz_land

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 345
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2004

Posted 07 March 2004 - 08:01 AM

I have looked through the Fujis and they have a definite wow factor. In fact they are like a drug. You want to look through them because they are so good but it is hard to go back to my own FMT SX 7x50s after the experience.

Have not looked through the Nikons.

If I was going to spend that much money on a binocular I would be tempted to go for a binoscope instead. Much more versatile.

If I was going for astronomy only binocs I would go for 90 degree diagonals. For terrestial and astronomy 45 and 90. The Fujis are available in a 45 degree model but I have never heard of anyone with them.

#5 asaint

asaint

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2003

Posted 07 March 2004 - 08:29 AM

Hi,

I've looked through both and would opt for neither. Like Craig (really - THE craig of oz land?), I prefer 45-degree angle viewing comfort. Remember, the darkest, clearest skies are directly overhead. I would hate to have to avoid the best part of the sky due to equipment restrictions.

I have yet to get my hands on a pair of the Fuji 45-deg version. However, the straight through version was very well corrected.

I did enjoy the Miyauchi 140mms 45-deg angle when I had my hands on them 2 years ago. Not quite as well corrected as I would like but extremely high contrast. The fluorite element really shows on the contrast.

Allister

#6 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:55 AM

I think those who answered "neither" should tell us what they'd rather have for a comparable price! Can you actually get a comparable aperture binoscope for the same price?

(I haven't looked through either so I won't comment.)

By the way if anyone in Tokyo is interested, Skybird is advertising a store demo Nikon 20x120 for 320,000 yen. I think that's about 50% off MSRP.

#7 Garfield

Garfield

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted 07 March 2004 - 06:26 PM

I think those who answered "neither" should tell us what they'd rather have for a comparable price! Can you actually get a comparable aperture binoscope for the same price?


Well, when you get in to this size binocular, it is far cheaper to go with a reflector telescope w/binoviewer. It performs better too.


#8 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 07 March 2004 - 09:45 PM

Well, when you get in to this size binocular, it is far cheaper to go with a reflector telescope w/binoviewer. It performs better too.


Is that necessarily true? I have not heard whether a binoviwer attachment on a reflector is honestly comparable.

#9 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:17 PM

A binoviewer cannot compare with the brightness provided by a separate scope for each eye. I do agree that it is more versatile, outperforming the Fujinon when higher magnification is required.



Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone!

#10 Garfield

Garfield

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:57 PM

Is that necessarily true? I have not heard whether a binoviwer attachment on a reflector is honestly comparable.


To be fair, comparing binoculars to telescopes w/binoviewers is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

But, generally speaking, the cost curve goes up exponentially as binoculars increase in size - just like they do for refractors. I'm able to "cheat" here because I'm substituting refractor for reflector.

As a quick example though, lets choose one of the more expensive 12.5" reflectors available, a 12.5" Portaball which has a base cost of $4200 and which requires no mount. Add an average binoviewer at around $1000 and it's still less expensive than any of the binoculars mentioned. The achilles heal of the telescope w/binoviewer combo is its narrow FOV which suffers because of the telescope's longer focal length.

The telescope's real advantage is that it has completely colourless optics, bigger aperture and high quality optics that can be driven to much higher powers than any of the subject binoculars.

But of course these are moot points for those binoviewing folks who want the widest FOV.


#11 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:21 AM

As a owner of Fuji 25x150s, I can respond to part of your
question as I chose the Fujis. The views of DSOs are great, but small. Clusters of galaxies are exciting, but
detail of each is limited at 25x. The binocs are big, heavy
and not very portable. Add to the 41# fujis, the weight of
a G11 tripod and UA Sirius mount to total 120#. In a travel
case of 48"x18"x12" the weight is 90#. I have seen a
pair of Nikon 20x120s and they are much smaller, lighter,
and more portable. I have NOT viewed though them.

The question is really money. My set up was close to $8k.
To me it was worth it, but for that money you can get a
large APO/premium Dob with a binoviewer.

Ed Jones

#12 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 14 April 2004 - 06:53 AM

Daniel,
I haven't tired either of the binoculars you mention.
However, since the question of a binoscope came up, here are my two bits.
Have you looked into the Borg Bino-Telescope system? It allows you to upgrade from a standard Borg telescope system, is completely modular and very portable, and has 45 degree oculars.
I haven't tried the Borg either, but I really like the idea of assembling my own Binoscope, and when dis-assembled, to have two good quality refractors at the same time.

#13 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 14 April 2004 - 11:54 AM

I would probably go for the 150 Fujis, though I think the 40x version might be worth looking into. For awhile the Nikons were tops on my list, but I'm not too fond of straight through viewing for astronomy.
I believe my next purchase will be the 82mm Kowas after doing some research and seeing the response from my last post.
Their combination of superb image quality and interchangeable eyepieces (plus being at 45 degrees)seems hard to beat for the money.

Mike

#14 EdZ

EdZ

    Professor EdZ

  • *****
  • Posts: 18849
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2002

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:51 PM

NW posted
I have not heard whether a binoviwer attachment on a reflector is honestly comparable.

and
DS posted
A binoviewer cannot compare with the brightness provided by a separate scope for each eye. I do agree that it is more versatile, outperforming the Fujinon when higher magnification is required.

my reply is
it is far to simplified to say the binoviewer cannot compare.
This equivalent comparison requires going thru the calculation of two eyed vision optical gain (binoculars) vs splitting the light from a single objective (binoviewer) and then applying the two eyed light gain. I addressed this comparison over in the binoviewer forum.

Telescope + binoviewer to equal giant binocs?

A 100mm binocular is equivalent to a 141mm refractor with binoviewer. The ref/binoviewer combo would provide the same light equivalent as the binocs while providing the resolution of a 141mm scope. Also, it would provide infinitely greater flexibility in magnification.

edz

#15 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 14 April 2004 - 09:58 PM

By that arguement, no sensible owner of a telescope should be without a binoviewer. In fact, they should come WITH binoviewers.

#16 tomhole

tomhole

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:08 AM

Hear, Hear! I am addicted to binoviewers. I think a great combo is a nice pair of binocs for widefield and a nice big scope with binoviewers for higher powers. Actually, nothing wrong with several pairs of binoculars and several telescopes with a binoviewer to service them.

Clear skies,

Tom

#17 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 15 April 2004 - 07:42 AM

By your testimony Tom, what we know that binoculars can deliver, and EdZ findings...who would be without binoviewers? Granted, right now I don't know how much they cost, but aside from the $$$ factor, it seems to me that they should be prolific in the telescope community. Are they?

#18 tomhole

tomhole

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002

Posted 15 April 2004 - 08:04 AM

Binoviewers can be expensive. But, if I've learned anything in the past few weeks of reading posts here, you binocular folks are as obsessed with two eyed viewing as I am. I just started binoviewing a little over a year ago. I had not known they existed until someone mentioned them on a forum. His description of how great they were prompted me to have a look. Wow, those are expensive. I had an XT10 at the time which cost me $600. A binoviewer costs that much and then you have to add eyepieces. It sat on the back burner for a while until a pair popped up on Astromart at the right price. Actually, to be honest, the pair popped up on Astromart in response to my want ad ;)

Anyway, I used a pair of 25mm Sirrius plossls for a couple of months (that's all I had) and fell in love with two eye viewing. I have since gone off the deep end (not unlike what I see here) and I now have two pairs of binoviewers and a few pairs of Panoptics and Nagelers that add up to way more than my Starmaster in cost. I also use UO orthos and TV plossls in the binoviewers and thy work just fine.

So, how prolific are they? Well, until I owned them, I never noticed them. Now that I own them, I notice others have them. Kinda like when you get a new car and notice how many other people have the same car. I would not describe them as prolific. Last star party I was at (Mason Dixon Star Party), there were not many binoviewers. But, the ranks are growing quickly. There are some affordable options and you DO NOT need to buy Naglers or Pans to get a great binoview. You can get a used Denkmeier for $400 and buy 4 pairs of UO orthos for $400 and be set. $800 sounds like a lot, but I thought $800 would be a ludicrous price for a pair of binoculars and I find that that is just starting to scratch the itch. Well, maybe that's a little harsh, but you guys love your binoculars.

So, that's what I think I know about binoviewers. I never view with one eye anymore, except with the 35 Pan. Just can't stand the discomfort. I'm hooked.

http://www.tomhole.com/Binoviewers.htm

http://www.tomhole.com/Binoviewers.htm

Clear skies,

Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 90864-dualbinosmed.jpg


#19 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 15 April 2004 - 11:45 AM

Oh yeah! Great picture. My (two) eyes are relieved to the see the binoviewer. I am coming from the other end. I have only performed binocular astronomy thus far, and based on that experience and what I have learned lately, when I do get a telescope it will have binoviewers. I guess it's like once you been exposed to say, broadband, you can never go back to dial-up.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics