BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Binastro" data-source="post: 3399082" data-attributes="member: 111403">Thanks David and Henry.Apart from resolution tests, contrast does play a significant part.But also the optical design.The Canon 18x50 that I use has very small tight star images, down to tiny sizes when the stabilizer is on and centred. This translates to me into an immediate gain of 1 magnitude in faintest star seen, i.e, 2.5x fainter.I think that it is the attention to design that produces tiny star images, as well as surface accuracy and choice of glass.The Russian selected 12x45 has much larger star images, based on old Zeiss designs I think, and old glass types. But I think that the surface accuracy at least for the prisms is high.In actual use for me the 12x45 outresolves the 10x35 EII.A good c.2001 old stabilizer system Canon  10x30 IS easily outresolves the 12x45.Do I use stabilized binoculars?Yes, but only when I want maximum resolution or performance, particularly resolving and identifying Jupiter's moons close to Jupiter or each other.Otherwise I usually use standard binoculars such as the 8.5x44 HR/5.But stabilizers certainly now are about as good as tripod mounting.Incidentally, following a moving person at 15 yards with the 8x23 Minolta AF gives amazing facial detail almost instantly in good light. I don't think anyone can follow focus manually as well.Technology is bringing gains in some areas.I would think that bracing a binocular well may be more important to a person with 20/10 vision than 20/20 vision.I get a 10% gain by simply resting my head against a lamppost with unaided eyes.</blockquote>

Verification