Swarovski SLC 8x56 or Canon 10x42L IS for Astronomy? (1 Viewer)

[Elpha8888]

I had all of these binoculars, and Canon 10x42 IS is far sharper than Swarovski.
When Image Stabilisation is ON, Canon EAT Swaro even more.

Here is one of my numrous reviews and comparations I did

Swarovski 15x56 SLC vs Canon 18x50 IS ***my take*** - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 3 - Swarovski 15x56 SLC vs Canon 18x50 IS ***my take*** - posted in Binoculars: Lets see how these binoculars finally compare 😎

www.cloudynights.com

Kind regards
Denis

I've actually spent a lot of time under the stars comparing all the Canons and mainly EL and NL Swarovskis, I've yet to test the 15x SLC.
The 12x Pure being my favourite astronomy binocular this far and like others have mentioned the 15x Canon is the one to go for. An honourable mention to the little eii in which has given me hours of pleasurable night time views as well.
I do not think it is fair to compare the Canon 10x42 to the Pures, the Swarovski are in a different league altogether.
Kind regards
Bobby

 

[dries1]

Alex, I will take the SLC 8X56 for $500.

 

[Binastro]

The Canon 15x45 IS is renowned for fine optics.
It is, I think, a roof prism binocular.

I looked at the bright planet Venus with the 8x32 BA and 12x50 Ultravid and there is no sign of spiking from roof prisms.

Looking directly at a street light at 7 metres I could just detect some flaring probably from the roof prisms, but this is extreme.

With an Inara 9x36 spiking from roof prisms is intense and rolling ball is upsetting. Edge performance is poor.

I think it likely that top quality roof prism binoculars have minimal spiking but cheaper roof prism binoculars may well have poor accuracy with their roof prisms, which results in spiking.

In general a cheap Porroprism binocular is likely to have better optics than a cheap roof prism binocular.

Regards,
B.

 

[etudiant]

Yes, it was already clear to me it was about the observation with the Canon!
So it's bad for you with eyeglasses too?!

The problem with the IS glasses is that practically all of them are not completely suitable for spectacle wearers, which should also deter quite a few people.

Andreas

Interesting, as my glasses correction is 6.5 diopters and I've no trouble with the Canon 10x42.
It has been noted that the limited eye relief of the Canons is less of an issue for users with myopia such as myself.
It appears to be true, but I don't really know why that should be the case. Can anyone shed light on this?

 

[Conndomat]

Interesting, as my glasses correction is 6.5 diopters and I've no trouble with the Canon 10x42.
It has been noted that the limited eye relief of the Canons is less of an issue for users with myopia such as myself.
It appears to be true, but I don't really know why that should be the case. Can anyone shed light on this?

Convex lenses are used for long-sightedness, the optical center of which is at the thickest point. Concave lenses are used for short-sightedness, here the optical center is at the thinnest point.

Andreas

 

[etudiant]

Convex lenses are used for long-sightedness, the optical center of which is at the thickest point. Concave lenses are used for short-sightedness, here the optical center is at the thinnest point.

Andreas

Thank you, that helps me understand.

 

[Tringa45]

Interesting, as my glasses correction is 6.5 diopters and I've no trouble with the Canon 10x42.
It has been noted that the limited eye relief of the Canons is less of an issue for users with myopia such as myself.
It appears to be true, but I don't really know why that should be the case. Can anyone shed light on this?

A diverging lens used to correct myopia is going to place the exit pupil further away from the eye lens of the ocular.
The opposite is the case with converging lenses used to correct far-sightedness, so the far sighted are more demanding as regards eye relief requirements.

John

 

[Binocollector]

I have the Canon 18x50IS. When I bought it, I thought, "okay, just bite the bullet, drop the cash and be done with it" (I bought it mainly for astronomy and thought, I probably will never need another one for that purpose -- joke was on me). I have bought probably about 30-40 more binoculars after that. So it seems it didn't work out.
The problem is -- while the IS is certainly impressive, the ergonomics certainly aren't.
I can hold my Fuji FMTR 7x50 far longer and with more comfort than the Canon, despite being about the same weight.
When I use it, then almost always just for a short amount of time. Then I'd rather return to something with less magnifications but better ergonomics.
I'd love to try the Zeiss 20x60S one day, though. I think the longer shape should make them more balanced to hold. The Canons are like a brick. But the 10x42 looks a bit nicer to use than the 15x50 or 18x50.
Still, I'd go for the Swaro 8x56 and a monopod or tripod or even better, a p-mount.
I'd love to try one of the smaller IS models either from Canon or something like the Sig Sauer 16x42 or the Kite-version. But I've read here and elsewhere that those have less than stellar optics.