A question for astronomers... (1 Viewer)

[Squirrel]

(1) Does anybody here use their binoculars for astronomy?

(2) More specifically, has anybody used 8x42 and/or 10x42 binoculars for astronomical observation? If so, what have the results been like?

(3) Even more specifically, has anybody used Nikon Monarch 8x42 and/or 10x42 binoculars for astronomical observation? If so, what have the results been like?

I'd really appreciate any experiences you'd care to share on suitability, objects visible, clarity, colour, brightness, etc. etc.

Thanks in advance! |=)|

 

[AlanFrench]

I have used a variety of binoculars for astronomy. The main ones currently being 7x42s, 15x45 IS (Imaged Stabilized), and, more recently, 12x36 IS. In the past I used a pair of 14x70s.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you ask about "results." Binoculars will reveal far more than the eye alone, but they are more a compliment to rather than a replacement for a telescope. They provide low power, wide field views that are not available in most telescopes. Binoculars are great for providing wide, star filled vistas where the skies are dark. They are also nice and portable and easy to use. Anyone owning binoculars would probably enjoy some time viewing a dark, moonless sky.

You can see examples of most types of deep sky objects - nebulae, galaxies, star clusters, double stars, and so on with binoculars. The Moon reveals a lot of detail, and you can see the four bright moons of Jupiter. They do not approach the views provided by a telescope, however.

What do you wish to observe in the night sky?

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Squirrel]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered whether there were any fellow astronomers here. I have a Meade ETX105 scope. :t:

My 10x50 astronomy bins were recently stolen and I'm therefore about to buy a new pair - but I really need a good pair of nature/birdwatching bins too, and I can't afford to buy separate dedicated astro-bins as well right now, so I won't be buying replacement 10x50s or above. I'm looking at buying a pair of either 10x42 or 8x42 binoculars - probably Nikon Monarchs.

That's why I asked whether anyone had used these particular bins, or other bins in this size range, for astronomy - as I previously used 10x50, I'm not sure how the 8x42 or 10x42 will compare for night sky observation, so am curious to hear others' experiences with these. I would use them to complement my ETX scope, for a wide range of the usual observations - from Moon to Messier - as you have already described.

Could you tell me a bit about how your different sized binoculars have served you for astronomy? What deep space objects became visible with which magnification/aperture and with what quality of image, etc.? Give specific examples of popular clusters, nebulae etc. if you like.

Clear skies to you too, from the UK. :hi:

Clear sky here tonight...
Moon waxing gibbous, low and extremely bright...
Mars looking splendid these nights...
Saturn returning for the Autumn...
Nights getting longer, darker earlier... only problem is they get colder too! :'D

 

[xenophobe]

I've used several of my binoculars for night viewing. I can post what I know about them...

12x50 Trinovids. These are absolutely stunning to use. Great detail of the moon with little CA, though there appears to be some slight coma when looking at the planets. The stars are nice pinpoints against a dark sky. More than average daytime pincushioning, but it does not affect the view at night. Pinpoints, excellent edge to edge performance, but the last outer 5% do tend to soften a bit. I use these with a free standing monopod and these are my first to grab at night for stargazing.

10x42 Ultravids. I use these occassionally. Stars are nice pinpoints, planets are nice and round without coma, the moon has nice detail but unacceptable CA for some reason (during the day there is little to no CA present).

10x40B Zeiss Classics. Stars are very slightly oblong. Great pinpoints against the dark sky, better faint object recognition with these than the 10x42 Ultravids. Moon detail is good, planets have slight coma.

7x42 Zeiss Classics. Great sweeping views of the Milky Way. Magnification is too low for anything but looking at large groups of stars. Very nice resolution out to the edges. I sold these because they didn't fit any application I had.

I am considering either a 20x100 or 25x100 Oberwerk and a tripod for more serious viewing.

I don't really recommend anything lower than 12x for stargazing.

 

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

I've used most of my binoculars for both birding and astronomical observations, with varying degrees of success. I've found that my Leica 7x42 Trinovids and Pentax SP 10x50 are the best "dual use" binoculars in my collection... although the B&L Discoverer roof 10x42 perform very well also.

You might not think it is the case, but I've tried my compact Nikon 10x25 binoculars on large open clusters and large nebulae, and they perform quite well considering their small aperature size. A little harder to keep steady compared to the larger binoculars though... for the most part I prefer 42mm or larger objectives for astronomical use.

Best wishes,
Bawko

 

[Leif]

(1) Does anybody here use their binoculars for astronomy?

(2) More specifically, has anybody used 8x42 and/or 10x42 binoculars for astronomical observation? If so, what have the results been like?

(3) Even more specifically, has anybody used Nikon Monarch 8x42 and/or 10x42 binoculars for astronomical observation? If so, what have the results been like?

I'd really appreciate any experiences you'd care to share on suitability, objects visible, clarity, colour, brightness, etc. etc.

Thanks in advance! |=)|

I've used a Nikon 8x32 SE, Swarovski 8.5x42 and Zeiss 8x42 FL on the night sky, and would suggest that someone could happily use a binocular without need of a telescope. You can see star fields, loads of globular clusters, open clusters, asterisms, galaxies, comets when they are around, and so on. But the one big problem with binoculars is than in a light polluted sky the results are execrable, and IMO not worth the trouble. I don't bother where I live, but down in South Devon, where my late mother used to live, the views are glorious. I think you could happily spend many 10's of hours simply learning the constellations, and Messier objects, with a binocular. My problem is that I get so little time in a good location that each time I learn a new object, it's forgotten the next time I am viewing.

Many people seem to consider the Nikon 8x32 SE unsuitable for astronomy, but the contrast is so high, and the image quality so good almost to the edges of the wide field, that it is very useful. A wide flat field is highly desirable. On the night sky edge softness is IMO more of an issue, and that is why I would rate the Swarovski 8.5x42 above the Zeiss 8x42 FL for use on the night sky (but the opposite for birding). However, both give excellent views. I cannot comment on the Nikon Monarch. I guess it depends on the FOV, the quality of the field, and the transmission. But if your intended use is astronomy, then I suggest you check out the Nikon 10x42 SE and 12x50 SE (described by some as the ultimate 50mm astronomy binocular), and the more modestly priced Swift Audubon 8.5x44. After all why pay for water proofing and compactness when you will stay in one place? Ah, okay, I see that you also want it for birding. Well you might get a used 10x42 SE, but make sure it is collimated. Take care on ebay! The Swift Audubon might be a bit too bulky, and according to posts on BF there are issues with the build, and the diopter.

Leif

 

[solentbirder]

.... as I previously used 10x50, I'm not sure how the 8x42 or 10x42 will compare for night sky observation....

I use binoculars extensively for astronomy and have done for many years. Personally I find that a 50mm binocular is the smallest for long term satisfaction when viewing the heavens. In fact the ideal all-round binocular is probably a 10x50. Switching to 40mm you'll visibly loose light grasp for deep-sky objects. My favourite astro bins are a pair of Minox 10x58ED. Hope that helps.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

There are several astronomers here. I always take binoculars with me when I go observing. Usually I take an 8x42 these days, but I also have a battered 10x50 porro. While it has more light-gathering power, the optics -- which I once thought were wonderful -- are pretty sorry compared to either of my 8x42s. If you know what to look for, many deep-sky objects are visible in binoculars. For most of them, you need a very dark sky. The Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is in some respects better in binoculars than in a telescope, because it's easier to see its extent. The Helix Nebula NGC 7293 is easy to see in binoculars, but it can be hard to find in a telescope in anything less than an excellent sky.

 

[AlanFrench]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered whether there were any fellow astronomers here. I have a Meade ETX105 scope. :t:

My 10x50 astronomy bins were recently stolen and I'm therefore about to buy a new pair - but I really need a good pair of nature/birdwatching bins too, and I can't afford to buy separate dedicated astro-bins as well right now, so I won't be buying replacement 10x50s or above. I'm looking at buying a pair of either 10x42 or 8x42 binoculars - probably Nikon Monarchs.

That's why I asked whether anyone had used these particular bins, or other bins in this size range, for astronomy - as I previously used 10x50, I'm not sure how the 8x42 or 10x42 will compare for night sky observation, so am curious to hear others' experiences with these. I would use them to complement my ETX scope, for a wide range of the usual observations - from Moon to Messier - as you have already described.

Could you tell me a bit about how your different sized binoculars have served you for astronomy? What deep space objects became visible with which magnification/aperture and with what quality of image, etc.? Give specific examples of popular clusters, nebulae etc. if you like.

For astronomy, both aperture and magnification are important, although there is some disagreement over their degree of importance. Roy Bishop, argues that they are of equal importance. Alan Adler gives a bit more importance to magnification. At any rate, you will see more with 10x42s than you will with 8x42s, and you would see more with 10x50s than you would with 10x42s.

I generally use my binoculars to review where things are in the sky, as I have a poor memory. I was out recently observing objects in and near Hercules, and, although I know them well now, I looked at globular clusters M13 and M92 with my 12x36 IS pair. While in the area, I reminded myself how to find M27 (the Dumbbell), and learned where M56 is - something I had forgotten entirely.

In doing comparisons, I have done them most with my 7x42s and my wife's 15x45 IS. There is a substantial difference at the higher magnification. M57, the Ring Nebula, can be seen in the 7x42s, but looks just like a star. With the 15x45s, it is obviously not a star.

My wife has done all the Messier objects in the 14x70s we used to own, and other folks have done them with smaller sizes. I tend to like some of the larger DSOs in binoculars - the Andromeda Galaxy, M33, the double cluster, the Pleiades, and so on. I also like groups of objects - galaxies M81 and M82, for instance.

Although I am more an amateur astronomer than a birder, my binocular selection has always been driven by birding, and almost any birding binocular - with the possible exception of the smallest (less than 32mm aperture) can provide a lot of nice viewing under dark skies.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Leif]

For astronomy, both aperture and magnification are important,

As an aside to your informative posting, do you find much advantage to using an IS binocular?

As you know, there was on the Cloudy Nights forum much discussion about magnification in relation to light pollution. The conclusion reached was that increased magnification is of benefit in light polluted skies. I'm not sure if that holds true for extended objects such as galaxies.

Leif

 

[AlanFrench]

As an aside to your informative posting, do you find much advantage to using an IS binocular?

As you know, there was on the Cloudy Nights forum much discussion about magnification in relation to light pollution. The conclusion reached was that increased magnification is of benefit in light polluted skies. I'm not sure if that holds true for extended objects such as galaxies.

Leif

Leif,

I find the IS feature is a terrific advantage. My normal birding binocular is a 7x because I simply can not hold 10x binoculars steady enough for my liking, and unsteadiness seems even more annoying when turning binoculars to the night sky. I like binoculars for astronomy because they are self contained, so I find the idea of a tripod or some type of mount repugnant. With the IS feature I can view with either 12x36 or 15x45 binoculars and have fine, steady views of the skies. Although it might seem a slight violation of my "extra stuff" rule, I often use a lawn chair with the IS binoculars (actually, naked eye lawn chair viewing is a common practice of mine, so it might more be considered adding binoculars to this mode of viewing).

I also find the IS feature provides, for me, an amazing improvement for birding. Now I can have nice detailed views at 12x without the shakes I would get without the IS feature. It has really convinced me that the main factor is seeing detail in birds is magnification, and the main limitation on how much you can see is the inability to hold binoculars steady.

In my experience, under extremely dark skies and moderately light polluted skies, is that magnification increases the visibility of virtually everything - stars and DSOs. I expect the same is true under heavily light polluted skies (it is under moonlit skies) for the same reasons. Stars remain essentially point sources until you get to about a 1mm exit pupil, so the sky background is spread out and dimmed with higher magnifications while stars remain points. The perception of dim objects is improved when the cover a larger portion of the retina - perceived by more sensors - so extra magnification helps. The next time I have the misfortune of being somewhere light polluted on a clear night I will compare the views through the 7x42s and 15x45s.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I don't like binocular mounts, either. Maybe I'd feel differently if I owned one and used it for awhile, but for me they're never steady enough, and reclining on a chaise lounge with hand-held bins is more comfortable for looking overhead. I've not invested in big binoculars (those 70 mm and larger monsters), because most of the ones I've looked through are really not very good. Maybe a really expensive pair would be good, but the standard sub-$400 have been disappointing. The FOV is too narrow, and collimation between the tubes is usually poor.

 

[Leif]

Leif,

I find the IS feature is a terrific advantage.

[snip]

Thanks. Given your experience, would you expect a ~10x40 IS to be more useful - i.e. show more - than a 10x50 or 10x60 for astro. use? It's not something I am currently considering, but I am curious. I guess the lack of jitter gives you extra reach.

Leif

 

[AlanFrench]

If you are talking about hand holding them, I would guess that in most hands the 10x40 IS pair would be the winner. On a tripod or mount of some sort, most folks would benefit from the greater aperture, although some might not have a large enough maximum pupil to benefit from a 6mm exit pupil.

I strongly suggest anyone considered an IS pair of binoculars try them in person before spending the money. Some folks are not as impressed by them as I, and seem to have issues with the IS function.

Clear skies, Alan