89 replies to this topic

[ihf]

I presume the 10x70 WF is not for people needing glasses? What is the eye relief on those?

[Fiske]

You will love the 10x70 Astroluxe!  I have one as well as the earlier 6.5 degree model and the feel and views are both remarkable yet different enough that I enjoy both.  Now if the earlier WF model had the newer coatings there’d be no contest at all.  But the Astroluxe is breathtakingly sharp and contrasty all the way across the field and way more comfortable with the smaller diameter foldable eyecups.  I also had an earlier style Fujinon Polaris 10x70 and felt the Astroluxe showed a bit more nebulosity on the Rosette Nebula in a side by side.  Not a huge difference but noticeable and maybe due to different color bias from coatings or glass.

 

Dave

Thank you, Dave! 

 

I'm really pleased this instrument is still available.

 

Fiske

[davidmcgo]

Negligible since the eye lens is pretty deep in the housing and I have to use it without the winged eye guards to get enough nose and eyebrow clearance to see the full field.   The eyepieces are fat.  Here are the two side by side.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

I presume the 10x70 WF is not for people needing glasses? What is the eye relief on those?

 

Edited by davidmcgo, 01 May 2021 - 04:40 PM.

[Fiske]

I presume the 10x70 WF is not for people needing glasses? What is the eye relief on those?

Well, uh, I'm quite near-sighted -- sphere 5.50 in both eyes.  

 

The 7x50 SP is close to the end of its focus range for my uncorrected eyesight. I had it out this morning observing the moon both with and without glasses before placing the 10x70 SP order. I prefer to observe without glasses, but am able to see the entire FOV of the 7x50 with glasses on, so I expect the 10x70 will be fine. Hoping for a bit more focus leeway with it. Eye relief is not a one size fits all thing, I have found. And it seems like I am comfortable with, in fact prefer, a lot less eye relief than some.

 

Fiske 

[Fiske]

Negligible since the eye lens is pretty deep in the housing and I have to use it without the winged eye guards to get enough nose and eyebrow clearance to see the full field.   The eyepieces are fat.

 

Dave

I tried the winged eyecups for about 3.4 seconds and put them back in the box!

 

  

[davidmcgo]

I edited my post above to add a picture of my 10x70 WF and Astroluxe together to show the differences in the eyepieces.

 

Dave

[ihf]

Dave, thank you for clarifying the eye relief! I have the Lunt MS 11x70 (non-ED). Which is fine with my glasses on fuzzies, if a bit narrow. I will stick with those.

[Fiske]

Thanks for posting the pictures, Dave. I see what you mean about the WF. If I couldn't get those to focus w/out glasses, I would probably have to wear contacts to use them. But then I would need glasses to read star charts. 

 

I have that same Bright Star Atlas, BTW. Though my preferred charts are Sky Atlas 2000 and Uranometria 2000.

 

Fiske

Edited by Fiske, 01 May 2021 - 07:10 PM.

[MrZoomZoom2017]

I tried the winged eyecups for about 3.4 seconds and put them back in the box!

 

  

To bad is wasn't 3.14 seconds or you could have had some pi!

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Lappe Lad]

Well, uh, I'm quite near-sighted -- sphere 5.50 in both eyes. 

 

The 7x50 SP is close to the end of its focus range for my uncorrected eyesight. I had it out this morning observing the moon both with and without glasses before placing the 10x70 SP order. I prefer to observe without glasses, but am able to see the entire FOV of the 7x50 with glasses on, so I expect the 10x70 will be fine. Hoping for a bit more focus leeway with it. Eye relief is not a one size fits all thing, I have found. And it seems like I am comfortable with, in fact prefer, a lot less eye relief than some.

 

Fiske 

I think your words have encouraged me to give bino use without glasses another whirl, after many years. I have astigmatism of -0.75 Cyl, besides short-sightedness, which couldn’t be that difficult to ignore using 6 or 7mm exit pupil instruments. I’ve read that the brain’s optical processing can suppress modest aberrations when both eyes are employed at once i.e., binocular use.

 

After all, if I’m using a scope without glasses, it would be highly convenient to employ binoculars without them, too. Oh, now I lament giving up the Prostars all those years ago on account of... not enough eye relief. 

 

Tonight will be the night, if it stays clear.

 

 

Robert

[Fiske]

To bad is wasn't 3.14 seconds or you could have had some pi!

 

Cheers,

Tim

Well played, Tim. 

[Fiske]

I think your words have encouraged me to give bino use without glasses another whirl, after many years. I have astigmatism of -0.75 Cyl, besides short-sightedness, which couldn’t be that difficult to ignore using 6 or 7mm exit pupil instruments. I’ve read that the brain’s optical processing can suppress modest aberrations when both eyes are employed at once i.e., binocular use.

 

After all, if I’m using a scope without glasses, it would be highly convenient to employ binoculars without them, too. Oh, now I lament giving up the Prostars all those years ago on account of... not enough eye relief. 

 

Tonight will be the night, if it stays clear.

 

 

Robert

I have some astigmatism too. Maybe a little worse in my left eye than yours and maybe not quite so bad in my right -- I don't have the numbers in front of me. The opthamologist described it as mild.

 

I think neurological processing for binocular vision does help quite a bit. I focus IF bins with first one eye, then the other. When I'm doing that, the distortions are fairly apparent. My focusing approach is to turn past best focus either way then center in on the best star image I can manage. When I'm using both eyes, the view is good. I tried contacts years ago with telescopes and that was a non-starter for me with floaters and what not galore, nothing near as good as my unadorned pupil. But that wasn't binocular vision, either. 

 

I wear progressive glasses, pretty much a must for anyone using a computer screen for work, but I also have single strength glasses for astronomy.

 

Fiske 

[nowhere]

I tried the winged eyecups for about 3.4 seconds and put them back in the box!

 

  

Me too! Too bad really as I like the idea of the winged cups. They were impossible to use for me though because I can't get the IPD adjusted close enough for me when they were installed (my IPD is about 57mm) because my nose got in the way. If they just made the winged cups so that they went right on the bare eyepiece the way the cylindrical cups do instead of using those wide plastic snap on rings they would probably be perfect for me. I'll be interested to see if the 10X70s come with both types of cups like the 7X50s do as I understand the 18X70s which I would like to get some day only come with the winged cups. Apparently the fix for that is to use Televue Panoptic eye cups instead.

 

 

Regarding Kyoei-Osaka taking a little while to get back to you, it just occurred to me that Japan is in the middle of the Golden Week holidays right now too. That can slow things down a bit.

[Fiske]

Regarding Kyoei-Osaka taking a little while to get back to you, it just occurred to me that Japan is in the middle of the Golden Week holidays right now too. That can slow things down a bit.

Thanks for this information. I was unaware of the holiday in Japan. Though, I think the issue may have been not wanting to say they didn't have it in inventory and wanting to be sure it could be obtained before providing an invoice for it. Allowing 7 days for an email response seems fine to me. Kyoei is typically way faster than that, and it seems like we have come to take nearly immediate responses for granted when it is okay to be patient and wait. Better, even.

 

Fiske

[ECP M42]

Greetings to everyone. Sorry if I step in to ask a question about these ultra-bright beasts.

 

Relatively close to me I can reach a Bortle 4 site approximately. Sometimes the sky is very transparent and if you point to the southwest the sky is blacker, away from artificial lights.
So, I wanted to know:

Do you use these 10x70 at 100% or could a 10x50 also be enough for your skies? Or are there other reasons to use them?

 

 

Well, uh, I'm quite near-sighted -- sphere 5.50 in both eyes. 

 

The 7x50 SP is close to the end of its focus range for my uncorrected eyesight.

I prefer to observe without glasses ... so I expect the 10x70 will be fine.

Hi Fiske, I wholeheartedly hope the Astrolux fits you, but I assume the 10x70 model uses the same eyepieces as the 7x50, so it may mechanically have a lower-insufficient stroke beyond infinity, and fail to cover your specs (but I hope it doesn't).

 

Thank you all,

Henry

Edited by ECP M42, 02 May 2021 - 08:30 AM.

[Erik Bakker]

Henry,

 

Under  your skies a 10x50 is also wonderful. A 10x70 will add sparkle to the stars and dimmer objects, along with a brighter sky background. So depending on the objects you observe, a 10x50 might sometimes be the better choice because of the darker sky background.

[Fiske]

Hi Fiske, I wholeheartedly hope the Astrolux fits you, but I assume the 10x70 model uses the same eyepieces as the 7x50, so it may mechanically have a lower-insufficient stroke beyond infinity, and fail to cover your specs (but I hope it doesn't).

 

Thank you all,

Henry

Thanks Henry. I'm not worried about it. That is why I was testing with the 7x50s before I ordered the 10x70 -- to make sure I could use them with my glasses, which I can. Also, I'm not ruling out wearing contacts with binoculars, even if that means glasses for reading charts and stuff. We'll see. I'll definitely be reporting back on that in this topic.

 

With the 82XL, where I run into focal distance concerns is with the longer focal length / lower magnification eyepieces. Increasing the magnification typically increases the amount of leeway in bringing the instrument to focus. I noticed that across multiple different eyepieces I tested -- 24s, 22s, and also the Pentax 20 XW were all fairly close to the focus limit w/out glasses, though the XWs are the most forgiving of the three in that regard. I don't believe I will be able to use the 20s with filters unless I am wearing glasses or contacts. But I probably will be able to do so with the 14s. I'm going to take a run at M97 with filters in the 82XL -- could not see it at all without them. Was a challenge even with an 8-inch scope from my suburban yard. But, more about that in another topic. 

 

I have heard that the focus mechanism can be modified to increase travel. The 7x50 clearly has a hard stop. Not sure about the technicalities of changing that. Something I might look into. Not sure I would want this particular binocular modified either. Ultimately, if it turns out the x70 SP isn't a great fit for me, I think they will not be hard to resell.  And taking that chance with this particular binocular seems like a worthwhile risk, considering the performance of the 7x50 SP.

 

Major optics companies with resources like Nikon has (or at least used to have) don't seem to be offering binoculars specifically designed for astronomy these days. My sense is that the 10x70 SP is not only the best in class for for this size, but one of the few remaining instruments of this quality designed specifically for astronomical use.

 

Fiske

Edited by Fiske, 02 May 2021 - 10:39 AM.

[ECP M42]

Under  your skies a 10x50 is also wonderful. A 10x70 will add sparkle to the stars and dimmer objects, along with a brighter sky background. So depending on the objects you observe, a 10x50 might sometimes be the better choice because of the darker sky background.

Hi Erik, I take this opportunity to greet you and thank you for the answer. 

 

I have tried a 10x50 under my sky several times, but I have found that the vision is always low in contrast. I also tried 10x40-42, but I have the same effect (albeit improved). 10x36 is the format that gave me the best contrast ratio. But I've never searched for DSOs at the limit of magnitude. I'm just a visualist for pure enjoyment in observing the immense space.

 

I also tried 10x25-28, but they actually look a bit dark, despite the high contrast between sky and stars. Thus, these work best under the polluted city sky which I live.

 

I would like to take a good Porro 10x50 IF WP maybe even ED and then use it diaphragm as needed, but I soon discovered that 10x is little magnification for the starry sky: 15x-20x is better for me.

A 10x70 in my part would be worn and too bulky compared to the yield.

Edited by ECP M42, 03 May 2021 - 05:48 AM.

[ECP M42]

I'm not worried about it. That is why I was testing with the 7x50s before I ordered the 10x70 -- to make sure I could use them with my glasses, which I can. Also, I'm not ruling out wearing contacts with binoculars, even if that means glasses for reading charts and stuff. We'll see.

Good  

 

Sure glasses are a nuisance for binocular observation enthusiasts.

During the day I happen to observe even with sunglasses and if the binoculars do not allow it, I do not use them. So I know what that means.

[Echolight]

After reading all this 10x70 hoopla, I decided to partake when a Parks 10x70 fell in my lap. Probably not the optical quality of the bins discussed here. But dimensionally, a good fit for handheld like I wanted at only 9.5 inches and 30% lighter than the Resolux.  And I figured for a third of a Benji to the door, not much to lose.

[Fiske]

Looking forward to your reports, Echo. 

 

Fiske

[Echolight]

Looking forward to your reports, Echo. 

 

Fiske

It looks a little dusty.

But I'm hoping nothing that a little spit-n-polish won't fix. 

[Fiske]

  

 

I like it!

 

Fully multi-coated BAK-4. 

 

Fiske

[Erik Bakker]

Let’s please stay on topic: Nikon 10x70 SP or Fujinon 10x70 FMT?

 

Thank you all.

[Fiske]

Okay, that was deserved.