• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Stargazing Binoculars advice (1 Viewer)

Giorgio

Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
Hi

I'm searching for a good (preference for porro, but prisms isnt exluded) pair of affordable binoculars for stargazing.
I don't want a monster size (50-60 diameter is the max) as i will carry the binoculars and won't use a tripod nor monopod neither.
I want to spend like 100-200 euros for it, it will be an occasional use, to complete the 8x30 bins i have.
If you have any experience with a good-cheap bin for stargazing, which should be non flaring issues, im totally open minded to good, original, exotic advices.
 
Yes, either a 10x50 or 7x50. I agree with the above poster that most CN members would probably suggest a 10x50. Something like a Nikon Action EX or a Pentax WPII. I was just outside last night a bit with some vintage extra wide angle 7x50s that provided an absolutely beautiful view of a vast area of the sky. I was looking at Orion's Nebula and the Pleiades. The field was so rich and full of stars. It was a bit breathtaking.

Still, either a 10x50 or 12x50 might be more versatile as it would give you a better view of smaller celestial objects such as planets or moons.
 
If I was mostly looking at star fields I'd go with the 7x50. Most planets outside of the moon really need a telescope IMO. The 7x50 would be perfect also for close galaxy's such as Andromeda.
 
What about a Celestron Skymaster 15x70? Might need a tripod, but I looked through one once in daylight and was thoroughly impressed with the quality. Cost less than 100 euro.
 
An 8x30 is quite pleasant for stargazing. For all its size, 7x50 shows surprisingly little more. Magnification counts for more than aperture.

10x50 is a good step up, and is about as much as most people can enjoy hand holding, unsupported. 10x42 is very close in what it will show, and easier to handle.

But give your 8x30 a try, you might be surprised.
Ron
 
Thanks for the replies
An 8x30 is quite pleasant for stargazing. For all its size, 7x50 shows surprisingly little more. Magnification counts for more than aperture.

10x50 is a good step up, and is about as much as most people can enjoy hand holding, unsupported. 10x42 is very close in what it will show, and easier to handle.

But give your 8x30 a try, you might be surprised.
Ron

I'm surprised a 7x50 is very close to 8x30? The 50 should get 2 to 3 times more light than a 30 diameter no?
I am thinking about a 7x50 or 10x50 in the Nikon Ex series, it seems interesting.
Sancho, this stuff is good for deepfield observations. It is just too heavy for proper carrying, and i don't want to need a tripod. I already have an apo 80x600, i want a binocular to be this apo's companion.
I have red that Nikon EX and Nikon action VII doesn't have the same optics, which surprises me. Their lonely difference should be according to Nikon, the waterproof system.
 
Hi

I'm searching for a good (preference for porro, but prisms isnt exluded) pair of affordable binoculars for stargazing.
I don't want a monster size (50-60 diameter is the max) as i will carry the binoculars and won't use a tripod nor monopod neither.
I want to spend like 100-200 euros for it, it will be an occasional use, to complete the 8x30 bins i have.
If you have any experience with a good-cheap bin for stargazing, which should be non flaring issues, im totally open minded to good, original, exotic advices.


Just my two cents...

I use bino+telescope too... and about the 7x50, it is great. But without tripod it really really make your arms weary ... in minutes.

Seriously it is uncomfortable to use it hand held. I really think you should reconsider it.
I, myself, I always take one of those "beach chairs"(sorry for my english) along with an magic arm mount... so the only thing to weary is my own eyes.
 
Just some comments on the Opticron porros.

The SR.GA is the top of the range and very well regarded. I've only tried the 8x30 myself and it is excellent. There is field curvature which may not be ideal for astro use. They do an 8.5 and 10x50.
http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/srga.htm

The TGA WP is in the middle. I've only tried the 7x42. Still some field curvature, but with a broad sweetspot. Maybe with younger eyes with better accommodation it might be quite reasonable for astro. I rather liked it (particularly the longer ER and waterproof), but not quite the match for the SR.GA.
http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/im_tga_wp.htm

The Aspheric WA I've not tried, but it seems the 8x40 did well in an astro magazine test.
http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/aspheric_wa.htm

David
 
Last edited:
I purchased the Helios Fieldmaster 7x50 porro binocular. Another option would be the Opticron Aspheric 8x40. Both are previous group test winners in the Sky at Night Magazine
 
Thanks for the replies


I'm surprised a 7x50 is very close to 8x30? The 50 should get 2 to 3 times more light than a 30 diameter no?
I am thinking about a 7x50 or 10x50 in the Nikon Ex series, it seems interesting.
Sancho, this stuff is good for deepfield observations. It is just too heavy for proper carrying, and i don't want to need a tripod. I already have an apo 80x600, i want a binocular to be this apo's companion.
I have red that Nikon EX and Nikon action VII doesn't have the same optics, which surprises me. Their lonely difference should be according to Nikon, the waterproof system.

Giorgio

I've got of the best 7x50's made but don't often use them unless I'm traveling to a very dark site. When I'm looking at the night sky in or close to town I usually pick something in the 8x to 12x range with an exit pupil of around 4-5 mm. The smaller aperture keeps the sky background darker and the larger exit pupils are often wasted depending on your eyes dilation capabilities.

Steve
 
Giorgio,
It does sound crazy, doesn't it? But I am fortunate to have Fujinon FMT-SX in both 7x50 and 8x30, and that is what I find. My pupils open to over 6mm at night, so I am actually using most of the 50mm.

The views are quite different, for sure. The 7x50 shows the sky background as bright as it really is, and stars are fat and meaty looking--the view is certainly natural and compelling. But the 8x30's small exit pupils and less light give me star images that are tiny and perfectly sharp, against a black sky--a beautiful view. The tighter images, combined with the noticeable magification increase, make it better than 7x50 at resolving detail, although it lags a little in showing the very dimmest stars. It is hard for me to pick a favorite.

10x50 leaves both in the dust.
Ron
 
Yes Ronh it is kinda strange, but thanks to your description i now better understand your logics.
My choice went for ... Nikon action VII 7x35, as strangely as it is.
Im going to use this pair to watch the deepsky (no Moon, no planets), Milky way and some Monsieur Messier objects. It will also be an "insidecar" quick use pair of bins.
At 60€ it can't be wrong. It seems to be as an french would say, a good "gang for the butts".
 
Last edited:
If you're not going to use a tripod then you're only limited in magnification by what power you can hold steady on a single star. Or, if as me use a higher power & not worry about the stars moving a bit.

I use mounted binoculars on an inexpensive lightweight tripod w/small Boden fluid mount for the majority of my stargazing. You can pick up the mount & tripod used for around a C-note.
 
I agree with the Nixter's advice. When you're stargazing, you're looking at objects millions of miles to millions of light years away. You need to pump up the power.

I read some of the discussion about 7x50s above, and to me, they are totally inadequate for stargazing. Even if your in your thirties, the exit pupil is already too big, and unless you observe from a dark site, the skies will look washed out. Plus the FOV in a typical 7x50 is only about 7-7.3*, which gives you a rather narrowish 49*-51* apparent field of view. You wouldn't want to look down a pipe at birds, why would you want to at the night sky?

But most importantly, you won't see much (if any, depending on your skies) more detail than you can with your 8x Habichts but your arms will tire much more quickly because of the heavier weight.

7x50s are best for marine use. Like a modern day Galileo, somebody pointed their marine binoculars up at the sky and decided that these were the "bong" for stargazing and the rumor got passed on until it became mythic in proportions, but it's still a myth.

My favorite binoculars for handheld stargazing are the Nikon 12x50 SEs. I can see more detail on bright extended objects than an Obie 15x70, but they are beyond your budget (but worth thinking about down the line).

I have pretty shaky hands, but when I'm well braced in a reclining lawn chair, I can minimize the shakes even in a 15x bin. Yeah, stars bounce a little, but my brain cancels out the shakes and concentrates on the moments of "steady seeing" and I can still see more detail than I can with a 10x bin.

If you want to resolve some outer detail in M 13, separate the hub from the spiral arms in M 31, and see the swan shape in M 17, you need higher magnification and bigger aperture.

If you don't mind collimating them when they arrive (if they get knocked out being shipped from one state away, they will get knocked out flying overseas), and you don't have expectations of robustness beyond their price point, the Obie 15x70s are hard to beat for handheld stargazing at your price point.

http://oberwerk.com/products/70mm.htm

If they seem too heavy, you can knock off half a pound by stepping down to the 15x60s.

http://oberwerk.com/products/60mm.htm

Now if you have a telescope and are just looking for a bin to sweep the Milky Way and to look at asterisms, a decent 10x50 will give you a wider FOV.

For that purpose I actually prefer my Nikon 10x35 EII, with its wide 7* (70* AFOV). If I want to see more detail on DSOs, I'll switch to my 10x42 SE, though the 12x50 SE would be better, but my opportunities for stargazing on a dark, cloudless night that isn't freezing are so few and far between that the 10x42, which also serves me for birding/nature watching, gets more use.

So the first thing is to decide if you really want a dedicated pair of binoculars for stargazing or if you want a "two-fer" - a bin that will work for either hobby. That will determine your aperture size since you will probably don't want to carry around a 15x70 for birding.

I also find it harder to hold 12x-15x steady for birding than I do for stargazing since my back is braced in the recliner when I'm stargazing and the weight of the bins is on my face not out in front of me.

Brock
 
Thank you Brock for your precise post.
I ordered some basic Nikon Action vii 7x35's.
I wanted to get first the EX 10x50 but i realised i didn't really want to spend 200 euros to a big sized pair of bins that will force me to empty my car glove box if i want to put them in.
The fov of the 7x35 is huge, but a big part of it must be full of blurr as they are some "bas de gamme" Nikon's.
I assume they will play a good role in the scene: gemmequickouttatheglovebox, wait 15 puff puff minutes by puff puff hinking on the hills till they fog out, stargaze.
That is why Brock, even as bright and trusty as your new signature is, i cannot carry the weight of a very good 12x60 for 15 minutes of harsh hinking, plus it will not fit in a smart little pocket nor glove box.
It doesn't mean i won't need, anyday, to get a real astro set of binocs.
 
If you have dark sky and are mostly looking at star fields then you will love the wide FOV.
Much less so if you are looking at the moon and planets.
 
You are right black crow. I bought an apo a year ago for the moon and the planets. The Nikon will serve only for the deepsky objects, and simply watching the thousands of stars in a wide field of view. They will be a kind of backup binoculars, in case i don't want to use the Habichts in certain places.
I have the feeling they will work well for that.
 
Thank you Brock for your precise post.
I ordered some basic Nikon Action vii 7x35's.
I wanted to get first the EX 10x50 but i realised i didn't really want to spend 200 euros to a big sized pair of bins that will force me to empty my car glove box if i want to put them in.
The fov of the 7x35 is huge, but a big part of it must be full of blurr as they are some "bas de gamme" Nikon's.
I assume they will play a good role in the scene: gemmequickouttatheglovebox, wait 15 puff puff minutes by puff puff hinking on the hills till they fog out, stargaze.
That is why Brock, even as bright and trusty as your new signature is, i cannot carry the weight of a very good 12x60 for 15 minutes of harsh hinking, plus it will not fit in a smart little pocket nor glove box.
It doesn't mean i won't need, anyday, to get a real astro set of binocs.

Hey there, Giorgio,

When you wrote in your OP that you planned to carry the bins, I assumed you meant you would drive to a dark site and then carry them on to a field. I stargaze from the ball field across from my house when conditions permit (which isn't often). I didn't think you meant "15 minutes of harsh hinking". That must exhaust your eyebrows. :)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hinking

Yes, if you're hiking, you do not want high power bins for any purpose, your muscles will twitch like Samantha's nose in "Bewitched" and make the view shake, so lower is better with hiking bins

With 9.3* FOV (65* AFOV), you will get the "Big Picture" with the 7x35 Actions. When you jump up on magnification and aperture, you'll be surprised at how much more detail you can see on the night sky, but looking at asterisms and brighter DSOs with a low power, wide field bin is enjoyable too.

I've haven't been out in a while since my injury, but some objects of interest with the 7x35s would be the belt stars in Orion (note the "S" shaped "string of pearls" asterism that weaves through it), the Orion Nebula, Betelgeuse and Rigel, the Alpha Perseus Cluster (another "S" shaped asterism but much bigger. You can "star hop" from there to the Double Cluster at the bottom of the "W" in Cassiopeia. Some other small clusters in that area.

Then follow the point in the top "V" in the "W" over to the Andromeda Galaxy (use averted vision for better detail).

Then over to the Big Dipper to split Mizar and Alcor in the handle (if you have good eyes and good conditions, you can see this double naked eye).

Jupiter is fairly high if you get out early. You can see the Galilean moons. Also a good test for CA in the Actions (no, forget I said that - see your quote in my signature :).

There is quite a bit of field curvature in the IVs (or Vs or whatever number they are now) but unless you're under bright skies, it might not be distracting. Under bright skies, the out of focus area can form a "Ring of Fire" around the edges of the view like a doughnut. For daytime use, you can focus out a lot of the "fuzz".

Besides the 12x SE, my other favorite bin for handheld stargazing is the Swift 804 Audubon HR5. Wide 8.2* FOV, good edges out to 75% (only on the MC model), good ergonomics for my hands, and the tightest pinpoint stars I've seen in any bin. Astigmatism is really low.

What happens to a lot of binocular stargazers is the same thing that happens to telescope stargazers, they get "aperture fever". Pretty soon they are jumping from 7x to 10x50s, then 15x70s, and the next thing you know they are buying heavy duty mounts for a monster 25x100. Now trying take those babies on a hike! :)

For me, a 15x70 is as much as I can handhold, but I prefer the 12x50 SE. I had a 20x80 LW, which was doable, but the 12x-15x is easier to hold. I figure if I have to drag out a mount with me to use a 25x100, I might as well use a telescope and really pump up the power to see the ring in the Ring Nebula and detail on other DSOs that won't resolve in binoculars.

Good Luck! with the Actions and have fun "hinking" (just don't get caught :).

Brock
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top