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.

Photo

Pentax 20x60

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:20 PM

I was at a camera shop just outside Chicago over the weekend and they had the Pentax 20x60 PCS WPIIs on display to try.  Always wondered about them.  Was surprised at how light they were and as a result easy to hold steady freehand.  I also didn't feel their smaller AFOVs detracted much at all.  I rather liked them as they did not feel like or come across as behemoths like the Celestron 15x70s which I found nearly impossible to hold steady and easily fatigued when I did use them freehand. 


  • hallelujah and terraclarke like this

#2 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11109
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:22 PM

Did you buy them, Bill?
Plenty of fans for that model here on the forum.

#3 EdZ

EdZ

    Professor EdZ

  • *****
  • Posts: 18849
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2002
  • Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:47 PM

They are rather narrow (afov=44) but unlike almost all the common 20x80s, their field sharpness extends right to the edge.


  • hallelujah and Prescott702 like this

#4 Jawaid I. Abbasi

Jawaid I. Abbasi

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3024
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2007
  • Loc: LEVITTOWN, PA

Posted 21 June 2016 - 03:23 PM

Firstly, Glad to see EdZ back.

Agree with that the FOV is narrow but sharp right to the edge, light and mechanics is superb.


  • EdZ and hallelujah like this

#5 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:20 PM

Did you buy them, Bill?
Plenty of fans for that model here on the forum.

 

No...but I am strongly considering as they are just so darn easy to hold (I do not use a mount for binoculars).  I think for astronomy they would be a perfect compliment for my 8x42s.  Killer price for them at that shop too ($179).


Edited by BillP, 21 June 2016 - 04:20 PM.

  • terraclarke likes this

#6 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7294
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:20 PM

Welcome back EdZ!   :applause:  :bow:

 

 

There are enough of us here that enjoy using the Pentax 20x60 Porro binoculars. :like:

 

I have a couple in my collection.

 

The much maligned narrow FOV is not a deal breaker for myself & others on the forum.

 

http://www.cloudynig...0/#entry2346353

 

Stan


Edited by hallelujah, 21 June 2016 - 04:52 PM.

  • EdZ likes this

#7 denis0007dl

denis0007dl

    Binoviewers Expert

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Umag, Croatia, Europe

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:51 PM

Yep, I also liked Pentax 20x60, and it was winner in my test reported here

 

http://www.cloudynig...rine-vs-hunter/


  • hallelujah likes this

#8 denis0007dl

denis0007dl

    Binoviewers Expert

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Umag, Croatia, Europe

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:55 PM

They are rather narrow (afov=44) but unlike almost all the common 20x80s, their field sharpness extends right to the edge.

EdZ, MASTER of binocular forum, glad to see you back  :bow:


  • EdZ likes this

#9 Dinosour23

Dinosour23

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2015

Posted 21 June 2016 - 05:13 PM

I don't know how you guys use them freehand.

The stars shake and the moon shakes and you can't focus on anything because you're constantly trying to "survive" 

 

Not only that, but you get a 2 degree range so when it shakes, the object goes away with it making it an epic fail.

 

YMMV

 

 

It's a quality product, but it needs a parallelogram mount  to be effective 


Edited by Dinosour23, 21 June 2016 - 05:14 PM.


#10 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7294
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 21 June 2016 - 05:27 PM

I don't know how you guys use them freehand.

The stars shake and the moon shakes and you can't focus on anything because you're constantly trying to "survive" 

 

Not only that, but you get a 2 degree range so when it shakes, the object goes away with it making it an epic fail.

 

YMMV

 

It's a quality product, but it needs a parallelogram mount  to be effective 

I used to use mine hand held, from a comfortable sitting position, but only for scanning the heavens.

 

I find a tripod & pan head most satisfactory for specific star-gazing targets, or daytime bird watching.

 

P-mounts are not my idea of a light-weight grab & go.

 

Stan


  • denis0007dl, Dinosour23 and WALL.E like this

#11 Allardk

Allardk

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Budapest Hungary

Posted 22 June 2016 - 09:32 AM

For the price a great bino. Very well built.  I have one. Needs a tripod to get the most out of it.

 

For the ones who are thinking buying one, look through them first. The FOV is very narrow. 



#12 paul hart

paul hart

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2004
  • Loc: 50 M East of NYC

Posted 22 June 2016 - 09:37 PM

I had a pair several years ago. Optics were excellent, mechanically very good. What I did not like was the they had too narrow interpupillary distance. I couldn't adjust them wide enough for my eyes YMMV.



#13 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3809
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 01:19 AM

I have a pair and really like them.  I use them handheld because they are light.  Sharp across the fov and they have the twist up eyecups which means they probably work well for those who need to wear their glasses.

 

Great value.


  • hallelujah likes this

#14 chris charen

chris charen

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1782
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Auckland. New Zealand

Posted 23 June 2016 - 03:03 AM

I have had 3 Pentax 20x60's over the years. This binocular is one 'you like or do not like' and it does come primarily down to the 2.2 degree FOV. Great optics and build quality, no doubt. In the end I primarily used mine for day time use as a 'dual' 20x60  achro spotting scope'. Ultimately I found just it too dim and too restrictive purely as an astro. binocular. Still if I could get another one at a reasonable price I would buy it. Just as aside note the discontinued PCF 16x60's with a 2.8 degree FOV are worth seeking out.

 

Chris


Edited by charen, 23 June 2016 - 03:12 AM.

  • hallelujah likes this

#15 DarkDisplay

DarkDisplay

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:42 AM

I really enjoy my Pentax 20x60. The narrow view was expected and it doesn't bother me at all. Lots of power in a mid-size bino that is comfortable to hold. The view is great all the way across. This is my specialty bino. I use it for birding/nature and under the night sky when a wider view is not really desired or necessary. Glad to have it in my collection!

 

Best wishes,

Frank


  • hallelujah likes this

#16 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:56 AM

Always interesting for me the comments on the "narrow" FOV, especially from the TFOV perspective.  In my 10" Dob a 2 degree TFOV is massive...in my 4" Apo can only get to that with 2" EPs...and in any SCT something that large is not even possible without reducers! 


Edited by BillP, 23 June 2016 - 10:57 AM.

  • hallelujah likes this

#17 Allardk

Allardk

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Budapest Hungary

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:15 AM

....it is not the FOV that's the issue, but the AFOV....44 degrees....if I am not mistaken...like looking through a tube.

 

It is a complete different sensation looking through my APM 100-45 with the Docter 12.5.....TFOV about 2 degrees, AFOV 84 degrees. So it is not about the 2 degrees.....


Edited by Allardk, 23 June 2016 - 11:16 AM.

  • Rich V. likes this

#18 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 12:54 PM

So it is not about the 2 degrees.....

 

Actually it is as I was commenting about the number of others who commented in this thread specific to the 2 degrees TFOV being limiting.  The AFOV is a separate issue.  I tried them and FWIW did not feel that the 44 deg AFOV in a binocular arrangement was tube-like at all. 


  • hallelujah and Jawaid I. Abbasi like this

#19 dgoldb

dgoldb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2015

Posted 23 June 2016 - 01:51 PM

Clearly the metric for a large TFOV depends on the instrument and the targets being observed.  In telescopes, a 2 degree TFOV is pretty roomy because telescopes are generally operating at high magnifications and observing small things.  In a binocular, 2 degrees is considered very small given you are generally observing large objects (M31 / M45 / milky way / constellations).  In an absolute sense, I already find my 9.3 degree 7x35 to be pretty darn tight compared to my naked eye.  Even the naked eye is pretty limited TFOV when you consider the fact that anything outside of the center ~15 degrees is in your peripheral vision and thus has extremely poor resolution.  



#20 Allardk

Allardk

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Budapest Hungary

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:22 PM

Depends what kind of binoculars.....2 degrees is perfect for lots of Messier objects....


  • hallelujah and denis0007dl like this

#21 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3809
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 24 June 2016 - 08:47 AM

I have other binoculars with wider apparent fields of view, but because they are poorly corrected in the outer parts of the field, it kind of annoys me.  So I enjoy a well corrected field of view more than a poorly corrected, but wider, field of view.


  • hallelujah likes this

#22 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 24 June 2016 - 10:21 AM

Depends what kind of binoculars.....2 degrees is perfect for lots of Messier objects....

 

The vast majority actually.



#23 Allardk

Allardk

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Budapest Hungary

Posted 24 June 2016 - 10:42 AM

As I wrote  :grin:

 

Well corrected wide AFOV is normally expensive....think Swarovski EL series, Docter 40x80, APM 100-45 (or 90) with Docter 12.5 etcetera. My Fujonon 16x70 is pretty ok, the Nikon 18x70 less....but the wide view is very nice.....and most objects I observe fill only the center....so not a real issue.


  • hallelujah likes this

#24 dgoldb

dgoldb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2015

Posted 24 June 2016 - 11:04 AM

Different strokes for different folks - nothing wrong with a 2 degree TFOV - I'm just speaking to why people say the pentax has a restrictive TFOV (which is what billp commented on).  The reason, I suspect, is that many (most?) use binoculars to view larger swaths of the sky (and land), not for detailed messier observations.  And two degrees is small if your objects are larger asterisms / constellations / beehive / m31 / m45 / hyades etc .  That is why the vast majority of binocular use isn't 20x-25 binoculars - but rather something in the 7-10x range.   



#25 Allardk

Allardk

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Budapest Hungary

Posted 24 June 2016 - 12:14 PM

As you can see I have a whole range of binoculars.....all have their use....you miss a lot if you only stay in the 7-10x range...

 

For me the narrow AFOV makes the Pentax less attractive....not the 2 degrees.....tons of objects that will fit....


Edited by Allardk, 24 June 2016 - 12:17 PM.



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