14x32 is great (1 Viewer)

Super Dave · Jan 2, 2020

I've really been enjoying the 14x32 Canon since I purchased it and it's by far my favorite binocular. It's a big improvement over the 15x50 in terms of the improved stabilization and image quality related to the stabilization. And, the weight savings is huge.

I took the family to Pipeline today to watch the surfers. Wave faces were in the 20 foot range and the surfers were maybe 100 yards off shore. The Canon was the perfect binocular to see all the action. I brought some 8 power bins for the kids and they were glued to them.

You can get an idea of the wave sizes in the attached photo. You can see a surfer taking off on the top of the large wave and to the right of the foam.

One older guy came out who was probably pushing 60. He wasn't super fit but he rocked it like a pro. Really impressive.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9...yhwbPs7C_YEInvHm3SqwbBQ1UCqmuZ=w3094-h2170-no

dries1 · Jan 2, 2020

Nice pic Dave, you truly live in paradise.

That is good info on the canon, how is it on the night sky.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Andy W.

Super Dave · Jan 2, 2020

Thanks Andy.

The Canon is great with the moon but I don't using it for other things in the sky.

Wishing you and everyone a healthy 2020.

Dave

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

Super Dave said:
The Canon is great with the moon but I don't using it for other things in the sky.

Big waves, Dave. A 14x32 is great for watching surfers. Also good for the moon, but for the starry sky it will be a little dark, like an 8x24.
There is a good weight improvement compared to the 1.2Kg (42oz) Canon 15x50. However, 850g (30oz) is still a massive weight for daytime binoculars.
Is this waterproof?

Super Dave · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Rico,

I doubt it's waterproof if you dropped it in the water. The battery case would likely leak. It's seems plenty water resistant for rain and such.

It might might seem heavy when considering the specs. But, when you can benefit from the power then it seems well worth the weight and fast compared to trying to set up a small spotting scope and such.

If you have the need for that kind of power then it will smoke any non stabilized binocular for the power and ease of use (no tripod, etc).

I'm a big fan. I think it's fantastic.

Dave

Rico70 · Jan 5, 2020

What to add, Dave? Good choice! :t: (but there is not much else).
Maybe one day, Canon could also come up with something like 25x42 ...

Have fun and many great visions!

18000bph · Jan 5, 2020

I am also a huge fan of the 14x32. It's easy to come up with a list of flaws as they far from perfect binoculars, but the optics and IS are phenomenal. They are my go-to if the weather is clear and their size is acceptable for the application. Also, I think the weight is a bit less than the specs quoted a few posts above, but they are still quite large.

They are much better than my other binoculars at viewing Jupiter's moons. However, they are not that great for stargazing and the CA gets a little out of control when viewing a bright full moon.

AlanFrench · Jan 10, 2020

Rico70 said:
Big waves, Dave. A 14x32 is great for watching surfers. Also good for the moon, but for the starry sky it will be a little dark, like an 8x24.
There is a good weight improvement compared to the 1.2Kg (42oz) Canon 15x50. However, 850g (30oz) is still a massive weight for daytime binoculars.
Is this waterproof?

Should have a slight edge on the often recommended 10x50 for night sky viewing due to the higher magnification.

A steady hand-held view is also a huge benefit.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 11, 2020

Am I wrong, or 10x50 and 14x32 are two formats for slightly different purposes and therefore less easy to compare?

Each of the two could have advantages and disadvantages based on the type of sky (light pollution) and the objects observed.

AlanFrench · Jan 11, 2020

Perhaps to some extent, but there is a pretty good way to compare binoculars on how they perform for astronomy. It's nicely described here: https://garyseronik.com/rating-binoculars/

Other experienced amateur astronomers give the nod to Adler's approach, which gives a rating of 71 for 10x50s and 79 for 14x32.

For some star gazers a wider true field might be a more important consideration. I have a pair of 7x42s that give an 8 degree field, nicely providing context and a larger field than a telescope, and the Canon 15x50 IS for better reach on the night sky.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 17, 2020

The article is very interesting and well written, especially the final sentence
[...]"Finally, it’s worth noting that it’s the nature of rules of thumb that exceptions will exist. The Adler and Bishop indexes exist in a universe where the phrase “all other things being equal” applies. Obviously, we don’t really live in that universe! Rules of thumb are meant to guide you in a general direction, so if you’ve narrowed your choice down to a couple of individual models, do your best to test them out under the night sky. There’s no substitute for actually holding binoculars in your hands and trying them."[...]

I agree with you, Bishop and Adler, that higher magnification will generally be more useful in astro observations.
But also that perhaps the comparison between the two cited binoculars, are not entirely adequate

AlanFrench said:
Adler's approach...gives a rating of 71 for 10x50s and 79 for 14x32.

That besides getting more or less the same score, I think they are differently useful. One to take advantage of the higher magnification under fairly polluted skies (14x32) and the other instead for wider visual fields under fairly black and clean skies (10x50).

I personally believe that each binoculars is more or less adequate and fun under the starry sky, but if I have to make specific choices, I would catalog the two binoculars mentioned differently.
You don't see any difference, more than 10% of the score?

AlanFrench · Jan 17, 2020

I agree that a wider field can be an advantage, but believe the 14x32 will show at least as much under dark skies as a 10x50. Perception of faint objects has a lot to do with how large a portion of the retina their light falls on, which is why magnification is important.

I suspect the difference between an Adler rating of 71 and 79 is not large enough to be very meaningful.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 20, 2020

AlanFrench said:
I believe the 14x32 will show at least as much under dark skies as a 10x50.

Hi Alan, have you already tried or are you relying on the formula?
If we talk about the amount of stars shown, they will be many more with the 14x and also double-stars (fun for the Pleiades).
If instead we talk about nebulae or to observe the galaxy (for example), I believe that the 10x50 under a dark sky, can "brighten up" the view more than the 14x32, which could "darken" it too much.

Honestly, I have never tried any binoculars under a really dark sky where the 10x50 can work to the best. And under the darkest skies I can reach (about 4.5Mag or medium pollution) I have always preferred 16x50 or 25x60, to any 10x30 or worse at 10x25 (for example). So, I too certainly prefer a higher magnification to a greater aperture, agreeing on the perception of "faint objects", but for this I would never take a 14x32 to look under my starry sky. And not even a 10x50, since the former would be too dark and the latter too bright (already tried).

AlanFrench · Jan 21, 2020

I have neither 10x50 nor 14x32, so have no way to do the comparison. I do have experience with binoculars under dark skies, and I've found the Adler numbers give a reasonable indication of comparative performance. They provide a nice shortcut when you can't do the comparisons.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 22, 2020

AlanFrench said:
I do have experience with binoculars under dark skies...

and below that sky, how did the 15x50 work in comparison to other brighter ones?

AlanFrench · Jan 22, 2020

My 7x42s provide a nice, wide 8 degree field, and are great for context - where things are in relation to other things. Both the early Canon 15x45 IS and Canon 15x50 IS show deep sky objects better than the 7x42s. The 18x50 do better than the 15x50s.

I now do all my birding and, except for the 7x42, all my binocular astronomy with IS binoculars, so I have a limited number of comparisons I can do. In the past I've had B&L 7x50, 14x70 Funjinons, and Astro-Physics 16x70. My wife had a pair of 10x70s.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 23, 2020

Tomorrow there is black moon and I go under the best dark sky in my area.
I have the opportunity to bring 3 or 4 binoculars between 7x32, 7x50, 10x25, 10x32, 10x40 and 25x70 and make various tests. Under that sky I have already seen that the 10x40 is the preferable one of the three 10x, despite being the worst in terms of transmittance, chromatic neutrality and geometric corrections. The best apparent contrast, could be made with a 10x36 (already tried and looked great) or perhaps with a 10x38, since the 10x40 is slightly too bright. The 10x32 is still too dark and the 10x25 is far too dark.
I think I will bring the 7x32 and leave the 7x50 at home because it is too bright, then the 10x40 and the 25x70 which I can diaphragm at 56mm and 38mm. In this way I believe that the 25x56 will be the most suitable solution for the best contrast. While the 25x38 will be too dark, since I had already done tests at 46mm (25x46).

Alan, avrei qualche domanda per te:

- quale binocoli dovrei portare e provare?

- According to Adler's formula (M√A), to equate the 10x40 (63) I should use a 6mm diaphragm for the 25x. But I think any 25x6 would be too dark compared to any 10x40. What do you think?

AlanFrench said:
Both the early Canon 15x45 IS and Canon 15x50 IS show deep sky objects better than the 7x42s. The 18x50 do better than the 15x50s.

- What objects are you referring to?
- What do you mean "better"?

I hope the good dry weather remains tomorrow too :t:

AlanFrench · Jan 24, 2020

I think you want to stick with reasonable exit pupils and stay at 2mm or above. Stopping the 25x70 down to 6mm gives a 0.25mm exit pupil, which is simply way too small, essentially insufficient aperture to provide a suitably bright view.

You can make a good selection to see the effect of larger aperture, but perhaps only need the 10x25 and 10x40. Not quite as clear how to compare increased magnifications, but maybe 7x50 and the 25x70 stopped down to 50mm, which provides a reasonable 2mm exit pupil.

My comparisons under dark skies have been done under summer skies. I looked at whether I could tell if the Ring Nebula was not a star, which was "no" at 7x and "yes" at 15x, and more obvious at 18x. But mostly I looked at how well larger DSOs were seen, M27, M13, M92, M81/82, M51, were often viewed, and whatever else came to mind. Higher powers made each more obvious and appear brighter. In some cases more details were visible.

This time of year I'd look at M42, M81/82, M35, M36, M37, and M38. M31 and, especially, M33 are also good targets, but past their prime by now.

I'd just look at DSOs that are well placed and compare how well each is seen (how bright it appears) and how much detail is visible. I'd advise not getting carried away with a burdensome number of objects or binoculars to compare.

A big issue with seeing detail is whether you can hold a binocular steady and are comfortable when looking through it. For me any binocular benefited from a mount, but I found comfort was a big issue with any binocular looking high in the sky, no matter how it was mounted. Except for the 7x42s all my astronomy binocular viewing is done with IS binoculars from a comfortable zero gravity chair.

Clear skies, Alan

Rico70 · Jan 26, 2020

Hi Alan,
unfortunately the day and the night was totally obscured by the clouds and I didn't test. I was interested in seeing M42 again too. Maybe next time.

As for the 25x6, mine was a simple provocation to be able to reason with you on Adler's formula, more accurately.
Here you write:

AlanFrench said:
I think you want to stick with reasonable exit pupils and stay at 2mm or above. Stopping the 25x70 down to 6mm gives a 0.25mm exit pupil, which is simply way too small, essentially insufficient aperture to provide a suitably bright view.

but then what does it mean? Does Adler's formula work or not work?
Does it only work in certain cases (with clauses) or does it always work?
... or only when it is convenient for you?

One night I had the opportunity to observe M13 at about 150x, using a telescope that had an exit pupil of 0.5mm (I don't remember the model). But the vision was still sufficient as brightness and I found it "fantastic" (I liked it very much).
Why should we have observed M13 at 38x or less, trying to keep an exit pupil "at 2mm or above"?

AlanFrench said:
My comparisons under dark skies have been done under summer skies. I looked at whether I could tell if the Ring Nebula was not a star, which was "no" at 7x and "yes" at 15x, and more obvious at 18x. But mostly I looked at how well larger DSOs were seen, M27, M13, M92, M81/82, M51...

Please don't treat me like a stupid! You have chosen only objects of a few arc seconds where the largest needs at least a 10x. Here it seems logical that if the 7x is not even suitable for solving the necessary detail, it does not any make sense to compare it to a 15x or an 18x, to assert what you have claimed. My question was different and concerned the brightness to some faint object that was visible (and not, invisible because it was too small!).

If it's really how you want to support, why don't you get rid of the heavy 15x50 and replace it with the 14x32?

AlanFrench · Jan 26, 2020

My main point has been that Adler's formula provides a reasonable way to compare binoculars and that 14x32s should be comparable to 10x50s.

Although Adler's formual emphasizes magnification, it includes aperture, so the 15x50s would be more capable that the 14x32. I have done comparisons between the 12x36 II IS and the 15x50 IS and peferred the latter.

I'm sorry you seem to see my responses are argumentative. That's not my intent.

I hope you get a clear night and can do your comparisons.

Clear skies, Alan

14x32 is great (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread