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

Which binoculars to combine with a 20x80 for manual use: 10x50 or 8x42?

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 TheUser

TheUser

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Posted 19 July 2021 - 01:35 PM

To observe celestial objects with light pollution, I already own 20x80 binoculars.

 

My desire is to combine the 20x80 binoculars with a complementary binocular, which is light and suitable for completely manual observations.

 

I would use these small and light binoculars especially during trips and excursions, when I can find myself under a darker sky and far from light pollution.

now I clearly see you

 

so then go for weight as primary factor

 

between similar models take those with wider FOV (~8°)

 

models with small magnification are preferable

 

have a look on gas-filled models (nitrogen or argon)

 

for example:

 

- Oberwerk 6.5×32 LW;

- Opticron Savanna WP 6x30;

- APM Binoculars MS 6x30;

- Vixen Binoculars ATREK Light 6x30 BCF Porro;

- Kowa Binoculars YF II 6x30;

- Celestron Binoculars UpClose G2 7x35 Porro


Edited by TheUser, 19 July 2021 - 01:43 PM.


#27 pat in los angeles basin

pat in los angeles basin

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,033
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2015

Posted 19 July 2021 - 01:41 PM

Somebody is a porro fan!!wink.gif      Regards, Pat


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#28 Bkoh

Bkoh

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2021

Posted 19 July 2021 - 01:54 PM

To observe celestial objects with light pollution, I already own 20x80 binoculars.

My desire is to combine the 20x80 binoculars with a complementary binocular, which is light and suitable for completely manual observations.

I would use these small and light binoculars especially during trips and excursions, when I can find myself under a darker sky and far from light pollution.


I cycle to my birdwatching and stargazing sites, so weight is also important to me. I use a 8x42 Celestron Trailseeker, 655g 8.1° TFOV.

If you can, buy both 8x42 and 10x50, and return the one you don't want (maybe you will keep both!). Everyone is different, only you can decide for YOU.
  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#29 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 94,649
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 19 July 2021 - 02:17 PM

I cycle to my birdwatching and stargazing sites, so weight is also important to me. I use a 8x42 Celestron Trailseeker, 655g 8.1° TFOV.

If you can, buy both 8x42 and 10x50, and return the one you don't want (maybe you will keep both!). Everyone is different, only you can decide for YOU.

I like your suggestion but would recommend 8x42's and 10x42s rather than 10x50s.

 

I am 73, don't wear glasses, I can hand hold 10x42 and 10x50s.  I can even hand hold 15x70s for short periods, up to a minute, they are steady but my arms get tired. 

 

But that's just me.  Someone else may have issues with 10x binos.  That's why buying both makes a lot of sense.

 

I'm not sure what Vortex's return policy is but in the Eagle Optics days, it was very generous.

 

jon



#30 sevenofnine

sevenofnine

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,444
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Santa Rosa, California

Posted 19 July 2021 - 03:56 PM

At night, anything short of a 50mm objective always leaves me wanting more.  Meaning kind of dim. As long as you realize this compromise then the 8x or 10x42 should work for you. Best of luck on your decisions! watching.gif



#31 MT4

MT4

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2021
  • Loc: Tokyo, JP

Posted 19 July 2021 - 09:49 PM

To the OP, you have an Oberwerk 20x80 so another smaller Oberwerk (e.g. 8x42 Deluxe or HD/ED) might seem like a good choice.  There are quite a few people on CN who are very happy with their Oberwerk binoculars.  (I don't have any but I've heard so many good things about Oberwerk the company and their binoculars.)



#32 Yarlan Zei

Yarlan Zei

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2021

Posted 21 July 2021 - 02:41 AM

Hello,

yesterday I tried a friend's 10x50, an Olympus DPSi weighing about 850g.

 

I could hold it in my hand without any problems, but I had a hard time getting a steady line of sight.

 

Having little experience with handheld binoculars, I probably have something wrong with my posture.

 

Anyway, for me the most important thing is to have a comfortable manual vision, and as steady as possible.

In that sense, with a lighter 8x42 would I have a significant advantage in being able to hold the binoculars steady and have a more stable view?


Edited by Yarlan Zei, 21 July 2021 - 02:43 AM.


#33 TheUser

TheUser

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Posted 21 July 2021 - 03:02 AM

I could hold it in my hand without any problems, but I had a hard time getting a steady line of sight.

 

are you talking about celestial objects you tried this binoculars on, right?

 

or there were just nearby terrestrial objects?
 


Edited by TheUser, 21 July 2021 - 03:02 AM.


#34 MT4

MT4

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2021
  • Loc: Tokyo, JP

Posted 21 July 2021 - 03:11 AM

Hello,

yesterday I tried a friend's 10x50, an Olympus DPSi weighing about 850g.

 

I could hold it in my hand without any problems, but I had a hard time getting a steady line of sight.

 

Having little experience with handheld binoculars, I probably have something wrong with my posture.

 

Anyway, for me the most important thing is to have a comfortable manual vision, and as steady as possible.

In that sense, with a lighter 8x42 would I have a significant advantage in being able to hold the binoculars steady and have a more stable view?

 

I think what you need is something with a lower power.  E.g. 8x or even 7x.   In general, lower-powered binoculars are much easier to hold steady.  That said, there are lots of other factors too, such as shape, weight and weight distribution.

 

Good luck!


  • Yarlan Zei likes this

#35 Yarlan Zei

Yarlan Zei

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2021

Posted 21 July 2021 - 03:11 AM

are you talking about celestial objects you tried this binoculars on, right?

 

or there were just nearby terrestrial objects?
 

Yes, i'm talking about celestial objects.



#36 TheUser

TheUser

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Posted 21 July 2021 - 03:57 AM

Yes, i'm talking about celestial objects.

which exactly? was it just asterisms and star associations or there were DSOs? maybe some SSO? you just tried random way or you planed to see something?

 

what you saw?



#37 Yarlan Zei

Yarlan Zei

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2021

Posted 21 July 2021 - 04:03 AM

which exactly? was it just asterisms and star associations or there were DSOs? maybe some SSO? you just tried random way or you planed to see something?

 

what you saw?

Generic stargazing, mainly constellations and stars of greater brightness (Sirius, Arcturus).

 

I tried to keep a stable vision but it was very difficult for me. I was standing upright.

 

I guess sitting / lying down can be easier to keep a more stable vision.



#38 TheUser

TheUser

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Posted 21 July 2021 - 04:29 AM

I see

 

The specifics of celestial objects is about there always be sort of shaking while watching by hands no matter the instrument. The lower magnification - the less critical is shaking. Weight also matter because the lighter the instruments the easier to stabilize it.

 

Try to begin with instruments of low magnification (3x, 4x, even 2x) and very light-weight at the same time. Maybe try theatrical binoculars. Maybe try monoculars.

 

 

If you want the instruments for sky-travel (you refer as stargazing) then just find those with widest FOV.


Edited by TheUser, 21 July 2021 - 04:33 AM.

  • Yarlan Zei likes this

#39 TheUser

TheUser

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Posted 21 July 2021 - 04:34 AM

I guess sitting / lying down can be easier to keep a more stable vision.

not much



#40 Bkoh

Bkoh

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2021

Posted 21 July 2021 - 05:09 AM

Generic stargazing, mainly constellations and stars of greater brightness (Sirius, Arcturus).

I tried to keep a stable vision but it was very difficult for me. I was standing upright.

I guess sitting / lying down can be easier to keep a more stable vision.


I use 8x42 binos. For daytime birdwatching, shake is not a problem. For night stargazing, shake is there. For me, lying down is more stable than standing or sitting, especially when I can rest my head against my bike helmet. Then my arms can hold the binos against my glasses.

For maximum stability when lying down, I mount the binos on my tripod and fold the legs to form a monopod, then lie down and hold the binos up to my eyes, with the tripod "monopod" between my legs. The increased mass keeps the setup steady, and the video head's counterbalance spring stops any shaking.

If you don't want to carry another tripod or swap out the 20x80s, you can consider a monopod for your 2nd set of binos whether 8x42, 10x50 etc.

Some people favour 6x or 7x binos for lower shake and wider TFOV. At the budget end there is the Opticron Adventurer 6.5x32 (9.2°, 550g) and the Nikon 7x35 Action Extreme (9.3°, 800g). If you have more to spend, Kowa has the BD II XD 6.5x32 (10°, 524g).
  • Yarlan Zei 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






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics