1978 replies to this topic

[opticchase]

No, they were right to do so - partly as a lesson learned from the battle of Guadalcanal.

 

Graham

 

Thanks Rich , Graham

That's true, particularly at the battle of Savo Island where the IJN  spotted us first at night  allegedly due to superior large optics and sent 4 cruisers to the bottom at zero cost to them.  I thought that was due to twilight factor ( you know that magic number seven so many incorporate -objective size divided by magnification),  7x50, 8x56 etc) and light gathering ability of the larger objectives and not the "peep  hole" ability as mentioned by Rich in his post.  

Edited by opticchase, 03 December 2021 - 08:18 PM.

[Fiske]

Last night I went to my Bortle 4 site, with 4 of my binoculars: 7x35, 10x25, 10x50 and 18x50.

I found an ultra clear sky (never seen before), but with a strong 40-50Kmh wind. So, I was sheltered from the wind, mainly looking north and over 60° towards the zenith.
The 10x50 was masked (with paint) at about 42mm, to remove some internal reflections (very nice the cutter you took for your test    thanks for the link), so the widest pupil available was the 5mm one of the 7x35 vintage, mono coated, BK-7 and with glasses not perfectly clean (and yellowish vision as with 10x50). 

 

What I saw with the 7x35 was a rather milky sky with scattered stars. Interesting for a general brushing, but not aesthetically beautiful (in my opinion). I used it little, it was only to test the 5mm pupil, and it confirmed the partial uselessness for me, under those skies.
The 10x42 IF Porro was also "too" bright, but far more acceptable than the 7x35 and also the 10x25 which was slightly dark.
Here too I made various tests from 25 to 50mm, but in fact the difference in the number of stars that I could see in each area, with one and the other, has never been so exaggerated as I read sometimes. Surely I would have preferred binoculars between 10x32 and 10x36 approximately, although I liked the 10x42 a lot much more than the 10x50 in the city.

Henry, did you do the M45 observation that Jon suggested?

 

And for which I helpfully provided a chart. 

 

Edited by Fiske, 04 December 2021 - 09:18 AM.

[ECP M42]

Henry, did you do the M45 observation that Jon suggested?

I didn't have the chance. The sky is still cloudy.

Can you (or anyone else) see the Orion Nebula (M42) with the naked eye, from a rural Bortle 4-5 site?

[Rich V.]

Yes, Henry, M42 is a naked eye object under those skies.

[spazmore]

Reminder - keep this thread on topic. Personal attacks - whether implied to be "cute"/in jest, or not - will not be tolerated.

[Fiske]

Yes, Henry. I can see M42 naked eye from darker sites. It is 4th magnitude range, so fairly bright. Practically anyone can see it naked eye. I'm surprised your friends were not able to. Do they observe regularly? Often people who are not familiar with amateur astronomy (typically public night visitors) are unable to see objects because they don't know what to look for. 

 

I'll add a note to the dark sky site list to write a naked eye description of M42 on my next dark(er) sky site visit.

[ECP M42]

Yes, Henry. I can see M42 naked eye from darker sites.

What do you mean by "darker sites", Bortle 1-2?
I imagine that in those sites it is visible to almost everyone (maybe), but in Bortle sites 4-5 it is not for everyone, I assure you. Some saw it in binoculars, but not with the naked eye. And I was surprised too. 

 

But I'm still not "convinced" that your retinal sensitivity can be as high as mine (at least for what emerged from our respective "reports" of the city sky with 10x binoculars). 

Can you see it from your home site "B7"?

Edited by ECP M42, 04 December 2021 - 07:54 PM.

[djeber2]

The standard advice about what binocular to choose for starting out in astronomy is to go with a 10x50, because it provides a balance of sufficient magnification to see many objects while still being reasonably steady for handheld use with a wide enough field to facilitate finding one's way among the stars. Many prefer lower magnification 8x or 7x binoculars, and a few favor higher 12x50 binoculars. But on average the advice is sound and has held up for decades.

 

Owning binoculars ranging from 32 to 100mm, I enjoy different instruments for different types of observing. Nevertheless, the 10x format holds a certain fascination for me. Accordingly, I have assembled a representative set of 10x binoculars for an open-ended project to make side by side observations with binoculars in the 10x50 format (actually ranging from 42-56mm). These include value priced, mid-range, and top quality instruments in both porro and roof prism designs. Here is the set of binoculars I have chosen. (Still waiting on the APM.) And okay, I do own several additional instruments that could be included, but I wanted to list 10.

1. Nikon 10x42 Monarch HG
2. Canon 10x42L IS
3. Nikon 10x50 AE
4. Oberwerk 10x50 Ultra
5. APM 10x50 ED MS – backordered
6. Vortex 10x50 Viper HD
7. Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX
8. Vortex 10x50 Razor UHD
9. Maven b.5 10x56
10. Nikon 10x70 SP

Here are the two latest additions to Team 10x, the Vortex Viper and Razor UHD.

 

 

 

I haven't done much observing with the Viper yet, which I rate as a better quality midrange binocular. The Razor UHD, on the other hand, has had several outings alongside the Maven b.5 10x56 (which quickly won a place in my heart). Both are top quality instruments, arguably among the best 10x binoculars available. No, they aren't alphas, but they are nevertheless outstanding, and are at the top of my price range. 

 

The Razor has the best hand feel of any binocular I have used. This is a subjective impression, of course, depending somewhat on my medium size hands, but I find the instrument instantly likeable. Just picking it up makes me feel happy.    And it is amazingly sharp on axis. Possibly the sharpest instrument in my collection. The vivid, needle-like stars seen with it are breathtaking. The edge performance, while outstanding, isn't as good as the Nikon 10x70 SP (or the 7x50 SP) both of which are sharp literally to the edge of the field. It's also a little under the performance of the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX. The Razor is sharp to about 90-95% of the FOV, which is plenty good for observational use -- the edge softening is virtually unnoticeable unless you are deliberately looking for it.

 

While it is a pleasingly sharp instrument, the Maven doesn't match the Razor in this regard. It is still an exceptionally comfortable binocular to hold, despite its weight 45 ounces versus 36.5 for the Razor. Also, it is more comfortable to look through. My girlfriend commented on this after trying both instruments for a few minutes. She does not wear glasses and found that at full extension the Razor's twist-up eyecups aren't deep enough to prevent beaning, which is not an issue with the Maven. Since I observe wearing glasses, I hadn't noticed it. When I focused the instrument without glasses and with the eyecups at full extension, I saw what she was talking about. Neither of us have deep set eyes. If you have deeper eye sockets, the extension of the Razor eyecups may not be an issue for you. It certainly won't be if you observe with glasses. I'm not sure I've come across another binocular with twist up eyecups that weren't deep enough at full extension, though.

 

The point of comparing 10x binoculars isn't to determine which is "best." I'm not a believer in the perfect binocular -- they all involve trade offs and what one observer loves, another may actively dislike. My purpose is more to understand the differences between them in actual use, and explore how they suit my observing preferences. My hope is that enough useful information will be shared in this topic to help others choose binoculars that best suit their own preferences as well.

 

Thank you for reading. 

 

 

    Fiske I have just recently read thru this thread and am very interested in your evaluations.   I am considering either a Vortex Viper or Razor as my next binocular purchase, but am looking at the 12x50 size.   I had tentatively decided on the Viper, but after reading this thread I am reconsidering the Razor based on your comments about its performance.   I would be interested in hearing of any further side by side comparisons that you do between these 2.   Also, can you please advise if they have the same AFOV or if one or the other has a larger AFOV?   Thanks Don 

Edited by djeber2, 04 December 2021 - 08:09 PM.

[Fiske]

Hi, Don.

 

I haven't made specific AFOV measurements of any of these binoculars. The view in the Razor feels maybe a little more spacious, but it is not a big differentiator between the two instruments. Not to me at any rate. The Viper is a good value in the $500 USD range, but the Razor is a considerable step up optically. Brighter and sharper. The edge performance is comparable to the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX and the Razor is sharper in the center of the field (the Fujinon is pretty good in this regard, needless to say). 

 

If you have the budget for it, I would be considering the Razor versus the Maven b.5 12x56 or maybe the b.6 12x50 ($1000 USD). Maven has a program where they ship you a like new binocular to evaluate for two weeks and then either purchase (at a slight discount) or return. BHPhotoVideo has a 30 day no questions asked return policy. You could order both the Viper and Razor from them and keep one or the other. Maven is sold direct, so you can't purchase them through other resellers. The Maven has better contrast and color correction than the Razor. Color correction in the Razor is good, but the Maven is close to flawless. The edge performance isn't on the same level with the Razor, but despite that it is still a very likeable binocular. My favorite 10x instrument, honestly. And the edge performance may be better in the 12x instruments, which have a smaller FOV -- 5.5 degrees.

 

Good luck with your decision. Please keep us posted about your choice and share observations made with your new binocular. 

 

Fiske

[djeber2]

Fiske thanks so much for the added information and guidance.  I looked thru a Viper at a Bass Pro Shops several weeks ago and thought that the AFOV seemed just a bit bigger than I was used to with most of my other binocs.   That was just my impression, but your comment seems to confirm that.  I really liked the Viper based on my quick 10 minute evaluation at the superstore, but your reviews have me thinking of the Razor instead.  I will also have to go back to the Maven website and read their binoc specs again.   I have the Fuji 10x50 so since the Razor is comparing favorably to it I know what I will be seeing in the eyepiece if I go with the Razor.  I do want good edge performance in this purchase.   I already have a bunch of pretty good mid level binocs (Nikon AE, Pentax PCF, Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell Legend L, etc.) so I am looking for a noticeable step up with this planned purchase.   I am hoping to make this purchase in early January.  Thanks again and I will post something once I get my next binocs.  

[Fiske]

Razor UHD, Don. 

 

I will say, however, that 12x50 versus 10x changes the edge sharpness game. The difference between a 5.5 and 6.5 degree FOV might not sound like much, but increasing the FOV to 6.5 degrees significantly increases the challenge of controlling field curvature (and thus maintaining good edge performance). Although I have not tried either a Razor 12x50 UHD or a Maven 12x50 or 56, all 5.5 degree FOV binoculars, my expectation is that the edge performance would be good in all three. It sounds like you have some nice midrange binoculars and are looking for a step up. The Viper may be slightly better performance than what you now have, but not that big of a step compared with the Razor UHD or Maven instruments.

 

To me, a significant advantage of the Razor over the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX is easier eye positioning and comfort. The Fuji fold up eyecups either work for you or they don't. Twist up eyecups are a significant improvement in that regard. The Fuji is an excellent binocular, though, and the optical differences between it and roof prism instruments costing nearly double the price are subtle, not dramatic. At least for astronomy.

 

Fiske

Edited by Fiske, 05 December 2021 - 09:59 AM.

[Fiske]

I started working on the 25mm aperture masks for the Razor 10x50. There is a bit of a learning curve to cut accurate circles. Plus the diameter gauge is not accurate. 

 

But just looking at how tiny 25mm is compared with 50, the whole enterprise has an element of the absurd. I mean, the views will be ludicrously dim at 25 versus 50mm. 

 

For me, the main point of doing this is to make observations on specific objects, and record limiting magnitudes with specific stars so other observers can compare results if they wish.

 

Fiske

Edited by Fiske, 06 December 2021 - 03:24 PM.

[gwlee]

To me, a significant advantage of the Razor over the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX is easier eye positioning and comfort. The Fuji fold up eyecups either work for you or they don't. Twist up eyecups are a significant improvement in that regard. The Fuji is an excellent binocular, though, and the optical differences between it and roof prism instruments costing nearly double the price are subtle, not dramatic. At least for astronomy.

 

I don’t care for the folding eyecups on FMT-SX binoculars. Fortunately, I don’t need to fold the 7x50 and 10x50 eyecups to work with my eyeglasses, but a change in my eyeglass prescription might create a problem. 

[gwlee]

I started working on the 25mm aperture masks for the Razor 10x50. There is a bit of a learning curve to cut accurate circles. Plus the diameter gauge is not accurate. 

 

But just looking at how tiny 25mm is compared with 50, the whole enterprise has an element of the absurd. I mean, the views will be ludicrously dim at 25 versus 50mm. 

 

I live in a small rural mountain community that’s B3-4. It takes a couple of hours for my eyes to fully adjust to take full advantage of the conditions. 

 

A person who just goes outside for a few minutes in a brightly lighted metro area for a casual look at a random a star field might not have fully dilated irises and their eyes probably haven’t undergone the chemical changes required to reach their maximum sensitivity. 

 

Some people have eyes that are more or less sensitive than average, and many of us experience a degradation in sensitivity as we age. Whatever the sensitivity of our eyes though, I think most observers find doubling the aperture provides a brighter view and shows stars that aren’t visible in the smaller aperture.
 

It also takes some observing experience to learn how to see all that our observing site, our instruments, and ours eyes are capable of providing. Ideally, a new observer will belong to a club and get some coaching at the eyepiece from more experienced observers that will accelerate their learning.

 

In the absence of a coach, tripod mounting two binoculars, say 25mm and 50mm, and pointing them at the same carefully selected object, say M45, and observing for a few hours while sketching what’s visible in each can be enlightening. 

Edited by gwlee, 07 December 2021 - 12:41 AM.

[ECP M42]

I tried just these nights to see M45, but a few minutes before it looked out from the building opposite, the clouds and mist appeared.
However I was able to do at least two hours (previous) of tests in my starry sky (B-8), very clear (for that period). But my home site is among the worst, with a low position in the midst of other buildings and too many street lamps around, and rather small sky observation windows to a few degrees of elevation (40-80° or less). 

 

I obviously tried the 10x25 and the Porro 10x50 reduced to 42 (which works better).
When the sky is very clear, the background looks darker than usual and the 42mm mask also helped a lot. But the visibility of the faintest stars in 10x25 is only slightly better in 10x42. And I didn't notice stars visible in 42 which were invisible in 25mm.

So, I continue to remain firm on the idea that for me it has no practical sense to observe a milky night sky inside a 10x50, when the observation limit is mostly determined by light pollution. And in which, the aesthetics of an apparently "black" sky (more enjoyable for me) I will have it with my 10x25 (or even better with 18x50). 

 

 

Henry

[gwlee]

I spent about 30 years observing in a major metropolitan region with A B9 sky. In using instruments from 20mm to 210mm, I could always see more stars in the larger instrument, but not always dramatically more. In using similar instruments at my rural mountain home where the sky is B3-4 or nearby B1-2 sites, I can see much more with with all my instruments that range from 32mm to 203mm, but of course my larger instruments show me more when I use them. 
 

To me, the essential tradeoff between large and small instruments is the tradeoff between optical performance and portability. At some point, the increased performance that comes with aperture isn’t worth the increased cost and inconvenience of larger aperture. For that reason, I don’t own a binocular larger than 50mm or a telescope larger than 203mm, and I frequently use my smaller instruments for their convenience although they can’t show me as much.

 

Here you will find experienced observers that prefer to do most of their binocular observing with no less than 70mm and others who prefer less than 50mm for various reasons. 

 

When I lived in a metro area, I strongly preferred using a 10x50 to a 7x50 because the 10x50 didn’t show as much of the omnipresent sky glow. It was primarily an aesthetic concern that the higher magnification binocular satisfied by filtering out the sky glow and as well as other things less obvious to me at the time. 

Edited by gwlee, 07 December 2021 - 12:27 PM.

[ECP M42]

No, when I go from 7x to 10x I see more stars clearly (under polluted and unpolluted skies), so the gain is not only aesthetic.

For this I prefer to use the 18x50 over any 10x from 25 to 70mm.

[gwlee]

No, when I go from 7x to 10x I see more stars clearly (under polluted and unpolluted skies), so the gain is not only aesthetic.

For this I prefer to use the 18x50 over any 10x from 25 to 70mm.

There are other categories of objects in the night sky to observe besides stars. 

Edited by gwlee, 07 December 2021 - 03:56 PM.

[ECP M42]

Beyond the Moon and the brightest planets, what's so interesting to observe under a polluted Bortle 8 sky?

Edited by ECP M42, 08 December 2021 - 12:08 AM.

[The Ardent]

Whatever the sky gives you. Whether it’s interesting or not, that’s subjective.

I lived in city skies with surrounded by streetlights. Directly between the two largest shopping malls in the areas. Two miles to the north and south.

I observed many nights. Mostly with telescopes large and small and small binocular telescope. Surrounded by tall trees that blocked the circumpolar sky and the sky south of +10° declination.

Cassiopeia and Cepheus only at meridian. Cygnus only when overhead.
No Canis Major. No Sagittarius. That was for trips to the country or Star party.

Handheld 50mm binoculars showed me many important stars that were invisible naked eye. I learned the sky was permeated with faint patterns of stars large and small, that are not described except in the most obscure texts and ignored forum posts.

[Fiske]

Beyond the Moon and the brightest planets, what's so interesting to observe under a polluted Bortle 8 sky?

My skies are Bortle 7, so not that much better, but there is simply no end to what can be seen with binoculars. If one devotes some time and effort to learning about the night sky. 

[ECP M42]

Whatever the sky gives you. Whether it’s interesting or not, that’s subjective.

That's the point. If I have to force myself to look only at objects that are not seen, it is only frustration.
So, no, I'm not interested in wasting my nights looking for the invisible.
I prefer to aim the binoculars at what I can see more easily, in the least polluted area and it is already fun. I don't have to be an astronomer. 

 

 

My skies are Bortle 7, so not that much better, but there is simply no end to what can be seen with binoculars. If one devotes some time and effort to learning about the night sky. 

I fear that the Bortle scale is not very suitable for evaluating our skies well.
You talk about Bortle 7, but I think you seem to live in a less polluted and quite dark suburb (once you turn off the neighbor's lights, "Mr. Edison"). So, you just go out on the driveway to affirm whenever you prefer 10x50 to 10x42.
Ok. it is possible to assume that your retinas are less sensitive than mine, but it is also possible that the evaluation of the light pollution of your sky is a little too high. Maybe it's B6?

 

From home, with 10x42 (for example) I can't see HIP 14030 - SAO 130241 (8.7 magn). 

Edited by ECP M42, 08 December 2021 - 03:04 AM.

[The Ardent]

But this is an astronomy forum???

[ECP M42]

So I have to go out ???

[The Ardent]

Without the shared philosophy of Burnham’s Celestial Handbook, we cannot have a meaningful exchange of ideas.