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

Significance of Aperture in Binoculars For Astronomy (8x25 vs 8x42)

binoculars optics observing equipment
  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#26 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7996
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 14 May 2019 - 06:39 AM

In your country, chances of good support are perhaps highest for the Nikon.



#27 Naraya

Naraya

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Jakarta, Indonesia

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:13 PM

Out of those 3, the Celestron or Nikon. 

 

For me personally, my Nikon's turned out to be better than I expected.

 

If possible, trying them for yourself would be great, since binoculars are a bit like shoes. But either would hopefully show you better images than the instrument they replace.

There aren't really any binocular shops here in Jakarta, also about the Nikons, I just read that they aren't phase coated. Do you think this will result in a lesser quality compared to the Nature DXs?

it also seems like the 10x42s are way more popular than the 8x42s, you think there are any reasons for this or are they both the same quality.

 

https://www.amazon.c...36K06E60ME&th=1



#28 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7996
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 15 May 2019 - 01:45 AM

For hand held observing and outdoor exploring, the 8x42 is easier to hold still, has a wider field and shows a brighter image due to the larger exit pupil, also helpful in the forest when observing birds. The 10x show more detail, but are more difficult to hold still, especially after walking some distance with them. It's a matter of personal preference.

 

Phase coating helps, but in this price range, sample quality (and consistency) plays perhaps an even bigger role in image sharpness.

 

There are reasons the best 8x42 cost 20x more. But the models you are looking at, start to show some nice images and can be very satisfying instruments to use. I've observed with some very sharp and contrasty models in the US $ 130 -150 price range. Since they we porro's, they did not need phase correction, but are a bit bigger and not as well weather sealed. But for the money invested, they deliver superb images. Eyecups are generally much easier to adjust in roof models, making them easier to adapt to your eyes/face.



#29 Naraya

Naraya

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Jakarta, Indonesia

Posted 15 May 2019 - 03:57 AM

waytogo.gif

In the US, the fine print in the Celestron warranty says that collimation and alignment issues must be reported within 30 days of purchase...  

As far as I'm concerned, that's a deal breaker.

Jon

 

 

For hand held observing and outdoor exploring, the 8x42 is easier to hold still, has a wider field and shows a brighter image due to the larger exit pupil, also helpful in the forest when observing birds. The 10x show more detail, but are more difficult to hold still, especially after walking some distance with them. It's a matter of personal preference.

 

Phase coating helps, but in this price range, sample quality (and consistency) plays perhaps an even bigger role in image sharpness.

 

There are reasons the best 8x42 cost 20x more. But the models you are looking at, start to show some nice images and can be very satisfying instruments to use. I've observed with some very sharp and contrasty models in the US $ 130 -150 price range. Since they we porro's, they did not need phase correction, but are a bit bigger and not as well weather sealed. But for the money invested, they deliver superb images. Eyecups are generally much easier to adjust in roof models, making them easier to adapt to your eyes/face.

In that case what do you guys think about the vortex crossfires? Although they are quite expensive, their VIP warranty program seems very attractive (No fault, no questions asked), and I think the quality would be on par, or better than the previous mentions.


Edited by Naraya, 15 May 2019 - 03:58 AM.


#30 Howard Lester

Howard Lester

    Seasoned Veteran

  • -----
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Saratoga, NY

Posted 20 May 2019 - 02:29 PM

For the record, I had the Nikon 8x25 Trailblazer. While their resolution is decent, and the field of view comfortably wide, the contrast is poor. Also, eye relief is minimal, I think 11 mm. When I used them once or twice on the night sky, however, under mag 4 - 4.5 skies, they simply revealed so many more stars than I could see naked eye. (duh) Really, I was pretty impressed with that. Their compactness (the barrels fold inward and meet) can mean a lot when traveling or walking or keeping in the car.

 

Still, if one is buying one binocular to do the job, larger is certainly better for astronomy, and I think should be at least 8x.

 

Howard 


  • Jon Isaacs likes this


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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: binoculars, optics, observing, equipment



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics