Sightron II 8x32 vs. Celestron Nature DX 8x32 vs. Athlon Midas 8x42
Rather than create yet another Sightron thread. I thought I would bump this informative but ponderous thread that is largely responsible for my most recent purchase. I have had the Sightron II 8x32 Blue Sky binocular in hand for only a few days, but it landed during a time of extensive (obsessive?) binocular testing and turmoil. I have been comparing it to two other roof prism binoculars, the Celestron Nature DX 8x32 which is about $100 cheaper, and the Athlon Midas 8x42 which is about $100 more expensive. Prior to these roof prism adventures, my most used binoculars for daytime were Canon 10x30 IS, and at night I use Canon 15x45 IS. My historical and sentimental reference binocular is a 1980s vintage Fujinon Meibo 7x50, a large Porro prism sealed binocular with individual focus oculars.
I like several ergonomic aspects of the Sightron. The narrow eyecups (39mm) fit my IPD and face much better than either the Midas, the DX, or frankly any other binocular I own. I find it well balanced and easy to hold with the open frame design, and it is considerably lighter than the Midas and marginally lighter than the DX. It is easier to hold steady than the DX and similar in steadiness to the Midas, though the Midas is better. The Sightron feels like a slim 8x42 rather than an 8x32. Perhaps the Midas is a relatively compact 8x42. I feel like I am already pulling for the Sightron optics because I like it in hand, around my neck, and literally in my face.
So far, the optics do not disappoint, the Sightron views are more in the class of the Midas than the DX. The sweet spot on this one is larger than the DX and similar to or perhaps slightly smaller than the Midas judged as a percentage, but the Midas has a larger field of view. I have not done detailed tripod testing of optics and field of view yet and I know that perceived sweet spot can differ from more careful measurement. The Sightron snaps to focus better and is sharper on-axis than the DX but again it is comparable to if just slightly behind the Midas. To my eyes, the color balance of the Sightron is a bit warmer than the Midas or the DX. The Midas is brighter in twilight, near darkness and slightly brighter in daylight. Since aperture should not be a factor in brighter scenes, I would expect the Midas to have at least marginally superior transmission. OTH, the Sightron has a surprising amount of contrast on-axis, so that it seems to do more with less aperture--subtle differences in shading can be distinguished, even with slightly less light and in low light situations. In this respect it keeps up with the Midas in low light much better than the DX. The DX view seems slightly veiled compared to the other two. The sharpness and contrast of the DX on-axis are not bad, but they are noticeably worse than the Sightron or the Midas.
The one area where the Sightron bests the Midas optically is stray light (glare?). I only detected this at night with a street lamp just outside the field of view of the Midas. It is not severe, but it is definitely there. Any stray light from outside the field of view, or any light scattered out of the field of view will reduce contrast. No such issue seen with the Sightron. Perhaps that is part of the contrast magic? I look forward to the appearance of the Moon (unusual for me since I generally prefer deep sky observing). I want to do glare and resolution tests of Sightron vs. Midas on the Moon. On a related note, the bitter edge of the field (last 10% next to the field stop) dims a bit more in the Midas compared to its on-axis performance. Again, the field of the Midas is wider so perhaps this is to be expected.
Overall the Midas is a bit better optically in most respects. It is brighter. I think this is more than psychological at 42 vs. 32, and I look forward to testing that at night. The rest of my evaluation is rather subjective, but the colors pop a bit more (could be either slightly better transmission or personal preference for color balance), the field of view and % sweet spot are better, the depth of focus seems slightly better, and it is a bit easier to hold steady. So far my testing has been done looking out from indoors or from a shaded balcony looking out, so I will be curious to see how the Midas and Sightron do in an outdoor setting. It's possible that the better fit of eyecups to my eye sockets and better stray light control would help the Sightron under some conditions.
I also have to give the advantage in fit and finish to the Midas. The rubber coating seems thicker and I prefer the Midas texturing to the Sightron logo bumps. The operation of the eyecups feels more precise. The Midas has more focus resistance, which I prefer, but it also feels a bit spongey to me when I make small adjustments, which I don't like. The Midas neck strap is far superior and I prefer the Midas rainguard and objective covers. Both cases are equally meh.
So why do I enjoy using the Sightron so much, beside the fact that it is a new toy? It is less tiring to carry or to hold. I like the fit to my face and the open frame design. The view is quite relaxed, and the on-axis contrast/sharpness gives me the impression that I am giving up nothing but weight. Also, who doesn't like a good deal?
Alan
P.S. I did a quick urban night sky test this evening. Sightron was about .5 mag behind Midas in faintest star with averted vision. That is very consistent with aperture difference. And I actually did estimate the observed magnitude difference before I calculated the theoretical difference expected between 32 and 42. I'll post a dark sky comparison when I get some data.
