Bushnell Nitro 10x36 anyone? (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

I'm interested in first-hand experience with the Bushnell Nitro 10x36. I've already seen the review of its bigger sibling, the 10x42, on Allbinos https://www.allbinos.com/341-binoculars_review-Bushnell_Nitro_10x42.html

The review is positive with some caveats. But we all now that figures are one thing and field experience is another quite different matter. Anyone around here has them or has tried them?

If so (maybe this is asking for too much), any comparison with other popular models is more than welcome.
Thanks for any input!

 

[[email protected]]

The edges are too soft and the light transmission is really poor @ 82.5% according to Allbino's. I would avoid them.

https://www.allbinos.com/341-binoculars_review-Bushnell_Nitro_10x42_review.html

 

[yarrellii]

Thanks, Dennis. I've read the Allbinos review, but sometimes reviews are only a small part of the story.

I'm sure we've all read reviews and afterwards had very contradicting personal experiences that didn't match the stated in the review. I remember reading some good or even glowing reviews and then trying (even owning) some binoculars and being disappointed (Vanguard Endeavor II 10x42) and sometimes utterly disappointed (Opticron Discovery 8x32). Maybe this could be due to QC issues with a model in particular, who knows, or simply due to personal preferences that are impossible to quantify in a review. On the other hand, I've read very critical reviews that stressed the deal-breaking quality of this or that feature... and then in my hand (and to my eyes) the binoculars were pretty good and completely acceptable (Nikon M7 8x30). Or sometimes you get the binocular for such a price that a feature that seemed so relevant, is quite simply forgivable.

This is why I'm looking for first-hand experience with these (assuming the limited validity of personal preferences; but, hey, that's what we do here all the time! ). The more experiences, the better.

Regarding Allbinos, I read their reviews with plenty of interest (I've discovered great binoculars thanks to them), while other forum members seem to despise their methods and conclusions. Remember that some well-regarded binoculars didn't fare particularly well on the Allbinos test but have a gem-like status. For example, the Kowa Genesis 8x33 had a pretty bad review (scoring less points than it's 3 times cheaper and lesser relative Kowa XD 8x32). And the opposite is also true. The x36 format appeals to me, and I think that price-bracket is really interesting performance and value-wise and has a lot to offer
Let's see if some members own them or have at least tried them.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree with what you say about the subjective part of Allbinos reviews or any reviews but the objective part is pretty cut and dried. In my experience an 82.5% transmission is pretty low and when Allbinos say the edges are really soft I generally agree with them but you are correct in that these two criticisms might not be a deciding factor on whether or not to try the binocular. If the FOV was bigger than the 339 feet these have say 350 feet I might disregard the soft edge comment because you would still have a pretty big sweet spot but an average FOV like 339 feet WITH soft edges is a red flag for me. These being a 10x36 instead of a 10x32 would make up for the low transmission because of the bigger aperture and the weight is still light at 21 oz. so I think they would be worth a try. Interesting format though at 10x36. I like it too. Almost right between a 32mm and a 42mm. Nice compromise. They are nice looking binoculars and have all the bells and whistles. I would try them. Probably not too many people have these being so new. I tried the Kowa Genesis 8x33 and it never really wowed me. It was a good binocular but it didn't wow me.

 

[Rico70]

The specifications seem similar to the Legend Ultra HD 10x36 (perhaps, substitutes), but more interesting for focusing at 2m, pupillary distance adapted to the glasses and for the newer anti-reflections.

Has anyone tried them directly yet?

The format is perfect for European polluted night skies. But if the focus is smoother than the Legend, it could be a good compromise even for birding.

 

[dries1]

I guess they could be used during the day, if used as an extra on a hike (low weight/small size) for some extra reach.

Andy W.

 

[Rico70]

Good morning Andy,
according to my experiences, 10x36 is an all-around format. Not, just for day use. Too bright for the day, but functional until mid-twilight civil. And for the average polluted night sky it is excellent, with the right contrast and a lot of visibility, without lightening the sky to a gray speck typical of the most useless 10x50.

I had for some time the old Legend 10x36, which made me have many beautiful views of the starry sky. I still have good memories, despite a slight dominant yellowish general.
Perhaps this new Nitro, could it be improved towards the neutral?

 

[dries1]

Rico,

All I can say is to try it, but only if you can replace it (if you do not get a good sample) or return it in an acceptable time period for a refund. I have one glass similar to that configuration, a 10X32, which I primarily use during the day.

Andy W.

 

[Rico70]

In fact, 10x32 is not included in the "list" of all-rounders format, but more like a compact format.
I also have a good 10x32 that works great even on starry skies (and of course also all day), but according to calculations and experiences, I consider the all-rounder format between 10x35 and 10x42, with attention to tonnage (weight and size). And these formats are ideal for averagely polluted starry skies. Where, naturally, the 10x32 will be brought to do better with more light pollution, etc.

For this, I think the Nitro 10x36 can be interesting.
Personally I mainly use two formats only. A pocket-sized 10x25 that is always with me and a giant 25x70 format for birdwatching and the starry sky.
I also have an old but good 10x40 Porro-prism that I used for the starry sky, but that I almost don't use anymore, since I have the 25x70.

 

[Binastro]

Rico,
For the starry sky I use many different binoculars from 3x to 30x from 25mm to 80mm aperture.

It depends what I am looking at.

I also use some of these for birdwatching.

Regards,
B.

 

[Rico70]

For the starry sky I use many different binoculars from 3x to 30x from 25mm to 80mm aperture.

It depends what I am looking at.

It seems to me that everything is normal. Indeed, we could say that there is no limit to the magnification useful for observing the starry sky.
Visibility permitting, why limit yourself to 25x or 30x?

 

[Binastro]

With telescopes I regularly used 400x, sometimes 600x or more on planets and planetary moons.

For double stars observers are using 800x on 10 inch scopes to detect when close doubles first become detectable as two in highly eccentric orbits.

The problem with binoculars is keeping the two images well aligned at high magnifications.
Even binocular telescopes seem to max out at 100x, which isn't enough for planets.

As I said I prefer large scopes to large binoculars.

In the Earth's atmosphere the visual limit even with 40 inch or 100 inch scopes is about 1,500x.
So there is a limit.
I suppose a 100 inch scope in space could go much higher but observers haven't yet gone into space.
The Moon might be a good location for a large scope.

There was a Clark double refractor that was well aligned up to about 300x and gave good binocular views.
It was very heavy and very large.

B.

 

[Rico70]

In the Earth's atmosphere the visual limit even with 40 inch or 100 inch scopes is about 1,500x.

The limit is given by visibility. However I read about a visualist who observed at zenith at 6000x, with his dobson binoculars of about 46 inches (I don't remember well).

Who knows, maybe one day the same Chinese who produce it will carry the Bushnell Nitro 10x36 on the Moon and have some extraterrestrial experiences o: D

 

[Binastro]

Even at the zenith, with a 46 inch scope or binocular it will be empty magnification at 6,000x.

Getting a 46 inch aperture binocular well aligned at 6,000x must only work momentarily, as tube flexing will quickly alter the incredibly fine adjustments needed.
I would think that at 6,000x a binocular merged image was not achieved, and only one side was used.

Sure, it is easy enough to get a 6,000x magnification.
Small binoculars are made up to 100x and 80mm up to about 160x, advertised as the most powerful in the world.
They are not.
And the top magnification is just empty magnification, which reduces what can be seen, not increases what can be seen.

As to extremes, Horace Dall employed a focal length of 900 metres, i.e. 900,000mm for his Mercury photos.
Also with the atmospheric dispersion corrector, which he invented.
The image almost filled a 35mm film frame, and the 900m focal length was not empty magnification.

I have used 1100x on Jupiter's moons with a fine 12.5 inch custom Dall Kirkham, but above 700x was empty magnification.

I think that Pic du Midi in France probably has or had the best seeing, and 2,000x would work there with the 1 metre scope.
NASA used this and I think a 1.5metre scope for high resolution Moon and Mars photos.

Getting back to the topic of a 10x36 binocular, I used a 12x45 Russian binocular, best of six, for 10 years as my main binocular. It is ideal in light pollution and clearly outresolves the Nikon EII 10x35 hand held. The balance of the old design 12x45 is for me perfect.
Both the Nikon EII 10x35 and 8x30 are too short and stubby for best hand holding results.

B.

P.S.
It might be possible to align the two 46 inch telescopes at 6,000x when they are both pointing straight up.
I wouldn't like to try aligning them.
But still 6,000x would be empty magnification.

Incredible resolution of star discs is being achieved by having several 1 metre scopes separated by maybe hundreds of metres in an array. The accuracy needed is phenomenal.
The resolution is about ten times better than previously achieved.

P.P.S.
Liquid mirror telescopes pointing at the zenith were first postulated by Newton, but stable spinning speeds couldn't be achieved.
He realised the surface is a paraboloid.
The first working one was in 1872.

Canada made a 6.5 metre one and is working on an 8 metre version in a better location.
A multi mirror version is planned giving an equivalent of a 70 metre aperture telescope.

The reflective material is usually mercury, but I don't know how safety is assured.

 

[Rico70]

It might be possible to align the two 46 inch telescopes at 6,000x when they are both pointing straight up.
I wouldn't like to try aligning them.
But still 6,000x would be empty magnification.

Undoubtedly, 6,000x is a mostly empty magnification, but I don't remember the diameter of the mirrors (maybe 96 "). If he mentioned that magnification, which surprised me too, he remembered it as a beautiful thing that was happened only once in life (so many years looking at the sky)

I used a 12x45 Russian binocular, best of six, for 10 years as my main binocular. It is ideal in light pollution and clearly outresolves the Nikon EII 10x35 hand held. The balance of the old design 12x45 is for me perfect.

I tried it too, the 12x45 is just like you say. Very comfortable in the hand and an ideal light power for polluted medium skies.
For a while, I used an old Lieberman & Gortz 16x50 f5.3 (same power) that I had restored. A great binocular! With polished lenses, single-layer anti-glare and free of AC. A little heavy (1.2 Kg - 42 oz) but very very stable in hand.
However, 16x is very close to 10x and even if 16x is better, many times it is preferable to have a lighter binocular (if I have to use a tri-mono/pod, then I want a much higher magnification) like this Bushnell 10x36, I think it's great for the free hand use. To which we must add the merit of being waterproof and anti-fog (which is always convenient) and a more neutral response to colors, compared to the aforementioned vintage binoculars (both yellowish).

 

[Binastro]

At 6,000x the field is about 35 arc seconds, not enough for Jupiter or Saturn.
The object would race through the field in 4 seconds.
Vertically placed, the only suitable places are the north and south poles.
The north pole is I think sea ice.
Both very cold.

With 46 inch double telescope a 2.5mm eyepiece and 5x Powermate or Barlow will give around 6,000x.
With 96 inch only a 2x or 3x Barlow needed.
I cannot recall any amateur scopes above 72 inches aperture, using an ex military mirror.
So if 96 inches, maybe a professional facility.
There were 96 inch space scopes costing I think several billion.

High speed video could deal with objects moving across the field in 4 seconds, but I doubt anything would be seen visually, except racing stars.

The 900,000 mm Horace Dall photos might be said to be 18,000x magnification, but I think he just wanted to fill a 35mm negative and make contact prints.
There wasn't much detail on the photos, but they were still pretty good.

Nowadays with stacking of 10,000 frames in each of 3 colours there are good images of Mercury.

I saw a Geminid mag minus 3 fireball or bright meteor just looking out of the kitchen window on Dec 14/15.

I have a specially made Russian 20x60 binocular, which I used for many years.
Also a good Japanese 20x80 1970s Celestron best of three.
Both used hand held.

Rico, can you provide a table listing groups of binoculars in the different classes you postulate for twilight or light polluted skies?

Regards,
B.

 

[Rico70]

If I remember correctly, the displacement of a star with respect to the earth's rotation (drift), measured on the celestial equator for a time of 60 seconds, is equivalent to about 0.25 angular degrees.
1 degree = 3600 seconds of arc. Thus, the maximum (equatorial) drift is 900 arcosec per minute.
Thus, the vision of a star or a distant galaxy could last about 25 seconds, in the normal field of view of that damned 6000x binoculars.

Have I made the right accounts?

PS: Binastro, but are you sure you have registered in the correct forum?

I have a specially made Russian 20x60 binocular, which I used for many years.
Also a good Japanese 20x80 1970s Celestron best of three.
Both used hand held.

Rico, can you provide a table listing groups of binoculars in the different classes you postulate for twilight or light polluted skies?

20x60 = 180pln, and is equivalent to 6x32, 7x35, 8x38, 10x42, 12x46, 16x54, 25x67 e 30x70
20x80 = 320pln, and is equivalent to 6x44, 7x47, 8x50, 10x56, 12x62, 16x72, 25x90 e 30x98

 

[Binastro]

Thanks Rico.

I do these calculations in my head and I only slept 3 1/2 hours last night, so I'm tired. Being an astronomer gets one thing. Insomnia.

Assuming the field at 6,000x is 35 arcseconds.

You have divided 900 arcseconds by 35 to get 25 seconds. But this is arcseconds, not seconds of time.

I think one has to divide 1 minute of time or 60 seconds of time by 25 giving 2.4 seconds of time.
However, at say latitude 50 degrees this is lengthened to about 4 seconds.

Spitzbergen at about 78 degrees? latitude would give longer, but ideally it's the North Pole and Santa for the large binocular telescope. There one can observe for ages. Maybe the field would rotate slowly, but not drift.
The North Pole does actually drift slightly but maybe 10s of feet?
But the sea ice probably also drifts.

William Herschel used very high powers to examine stars. That is how I think he discovered Uranus, which was originally named after the King, his sponsor. He saw it was a disc not a star.
Over 1.000 times magnification using spherical one element eyepieces with tiny fields.
Maybe his mirrors were speculum that had to be repolished constantly.

Thanks for your tables of binocular equivalents.
I am too tired to do the calculations.

Here the light pollution exceeds full moon. I can see 3rd magnitude stars. Perhaps when young 3.5 to 4.0 magnitude.
It also varies, which direction I look.
This light pollution is a disaster for insects and then bad for birds.

The foxes the last few nights scream like babies in distress.

Regards,
B

 

[Rico70]

I think one has to divide 1 minute of time or 60 seconds of time by 25 giving 2.4 seconds of time.

Yes, that's right 2,4s. And it's the maximum speed. At latitudes greater than 45 °, times should more than double. Or am I wrong? Anyway, there's time!

Here the light pollution exceeds full moon. I can see 3rd magnitude stars. Perhaps when young 3.5 to 4.0 magnitude.

Very polluted! But even Italy is one of the most polluted countries in the entire European area.
http://www.darksky.ch/dss/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Falchi_Light_Pollution_Europe_2015-1020x994.jpg

 

[Binastro]

At 45 degree latitude the speed of rotation of the Earth is 0.707 times the equatorial speed, assuming a spherical Earth, which is good enough.
This is square root of 2 divided by 2.

At 60 degrees latitude it is half the speed.
The cosine of the latitude in degrees.

The light pollution here gets worse and worse, with over the top lighting.
Too many people in a crowded island.
Besides the pollution, my eyes are not as good as they were when younger.

I only visited Italy once after an overnight drive to Monte Carlo in a 1963 Mini Cooper S.
But I didn't go very far into Italy.
Pity, as I missed some very nice scenery and towns.

B.