20x80 binoculars, are there any images that would illustrate their capabilitites?

[Guest Drew]

Hi all

 

I'm fairly new to astronomy,  relying almost entirely on naked eye sightings other than a set of 8x42's bought for their close focus abilities (garden birds).   I'm looking now to take a further step into sighting and the Celestron Skymaster 20 X 80 Binoculars are an item of interest at the moment.
 

As I have no real visual concept of what I may expect to see assuming viewing conditions are favourable, I was hoping you might be able to provide images, or links to images that would illustrate the possibilities.

 

Many Thanks

Drew.

[Tweedledee]

If you don't already know your way around the sky too well, I think that you may not get on with such large binoculars.

 

Unless you use them on a decent tripod they will be too heavy and you won't be able to hold them still.

 

The field of view (the amount of sky you see in them) will be quite small. Probably only 2.5 degrees or so. Which means that knowing precisely where they are pointed will be more difficult to reconcile with the naked eye view.

 

I would think that 10x50s or maybe 15x70s might be a better bet for you.

 

You can do lots of enjoyable stargazing with a good pair of bins, and they will really help you learn about what's up there. We all still use them even though we have telescopes.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Tweedledee

[Doc]

I agree a good pair of 10x50 or even 10x42 are the best. From a dark site you can even see M81/82 with 10x42's.

[BAZ]

Where do you live Drew? I have a pair of 15X70's and for a short period of time they can be hand held, the 20X80's would need a substantial tripod, they weigh around 2.5KG.

You would be welcome to have a squint and see what you think. M44, M45 (Beehive & Pleiades) look stunning through them.

 

Have a look at Dave JW's posts, he made a parallelogram mount for his out of wood, this makes them much more comfortable to use.

[Guest Drew]

Thanks Tweedledee, I appreciate the reply. 

I understand what you're saying about the wider field of vision, it's a good point that I need to consider further. 

[Guest Drew]

Sorry guys,  some posts were made while I was researching different sizes. thanks for the follow up replies.   Tweedledee thanks for the kind offer, it's very generous of you. 

 

I know with the Celestron ranges, there are concerns that some of them aren't quite ready for use out of the box and some adjustment is required.    As I'm now considering other sizes,  when considering what to buy,  are there any brands that are more or less favoured depending on the size of magnification?  Or are Celestron as good/bad as any other in the the same  general price ranges?

[Tweedledee]

28 minutes ago, Drew said:

Sorry guys,  some posts were made while I was researching different sizes. thanks for the follow up replies.   Tweedledee thanks for the kind offer, it's very generous of you. 

 

I know with the Celestron ranges, there are concerns that some of them aren't quite ready for use out of the box and some adjustment is required.    As I'm now considering other sizes,  when considering what to buy,  are there any brands that are more or less favoured depending on the size of magnification?  Or are Celestron as good/bad as any other in the the same  general price ranges?

It was Martyn (BAZ) who made you the offer Andy.

 

The Celestron range of binoculars are excellent value for money, and I think it is rare that there is any problem with them. I have some Celestrons, but there are other binoculars that are much better quality if you are prepared to spend a lot of money. Mick (Doc) has the best ones that were the price of a secondhand car  but they are absolutely superb to look through.

 

I think the Celestrons are fine as a budget entry level binocular. If you have a tight budget, then get some secondhand binoculars. You can always get better ones as your skills and knowledge increase.

[BAZ]

Mine are Revelation, they work just fine for the fifty seven pounds they cost.

My best pair are Japanese 8X42, they have a really sharp field of view and cost £18 second hand.

[Guest Drew]

8 hours ago, Tweedledee said:

It was Martyn (BAZ) who made you the offer Andy.

 

Thanks for the correction Tweedledee.  My apologies Martyn and thanks for your offer.   On the bright side,  I've checked the rating on the tripod I already have and it's okay for a max of 5kg, recommended weight up to 4kg - it just hasn't got a fluid head at the moment but will hopefully do for starters. 

 

Thanks again for all your suggestions, I'll go and do a bit of further research before making my decision. 

[BAZ]

Have a look round here, it is a great resource for binocular observing.

 

http://www.binocularsky.com/

[Guest Drew]

32 minutes ago, BAZ said:

Have a look round here, it is a great resource for binocular observing.

 

http://www.binocularsky.com/

 

Cheers Baz. 

[+RonC]

Hi Drew, I used this little book when I started; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Stargazing-Binoculars-Robin-Scagell/dp/1849073007/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448352693&sr=1-3&keywords=astronomy+with+binoculars

 

Cheers

Ron

[Guest Drew]

23 minutes ago, Ron Clarke said:

Hi Drew, I used this little book when I started; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Stargazing-Binoculars-Robin-Scagell/dp/1849073007/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448352693&sr=1-3&keywords=astronomy+with+binoculars

 

Cheers

Ron

 

Hi Ron.  Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look at that.

 

[Guest Drew]

Okay guys,  as much as I'd like to get an even closer view,  I think after considering your suggestions the next step might be the  Pentax SP 50mm SP . 

I know the thread has moved a little from the original question, but I'd appreciate any observations about that choice. - thanks.

[Big Al]

21 hours ago, Drew said:

Okay guys,  as much as I'd like to get an even closer view,  I think after considering your suggestions the next step might be the  Pentax SP 50mm SP . 

I know the thread has moved a little from the original question, but I'd appreciate any observations about that choice. - thanks.

I've got the 20x60 PCF WP II version of those (definately needs a tripod), older series but look exactly the same. I imagine they will be very good. They are also the only ones I've found which have enough eye relief to be able to use them whilst wearing glasses.

 

Alan

[Guest Drew]

1 hour ago, Big Al said:

I've got the 20x60 PCF WP II version of those (definately needs a tripod), older series but look exactly the same. I imagine they will be very good. They are also the only ones I've found which have enough eye relief to be able to use them whilst wearing glasses.

 

Alan

 

Thanks Al.  After a little more research I've discovered that my choice may need refining.  I'm over 50 and being new to this stuff have only just discovered the thing about the exit pupil affecting my choices.  I'm going to do a little more research on a couple of options and if necessary start a new thread, in the hope you guys can bring your experience to bear again.

[Guest]

I've snapped the Moon and brighter DSOs using afocal photography and a compact digital camera. I don't do it now I have a DSLR.

[Tweedledee]

On Wed Nov 25 2015 16:48:39 GMT+0000, Drew said:

 

Thanks Al.  After a little more research I've discovered that my choice may need refining.  I'm over 50 and being new to this stuff have only just discovered the thing about the exit pupil affecting my choices.  I'm going to do a little more research on a couple of options and if necessary start a new thread, in the hope you guys can bring your experience to bear again.

A young astronomer like you should have a dark adapted eye pupil of about 6mm. So you would not get the best out of 7x50s since they have a 7mm exit pupil and a small proportion of the light would be wasted on you. Children and teenagers would be ok with 7mm. You would still have a very nice very wide field view in the 7x50s but would probably only be seeing 75% of the total light provided. 10x50s would probably be ideal, having a nice easy to look through 5mm exit pupil. Just divide the aperture by the magnification to get the exit pupil. Forget high magnification or zoom binoculars, you will struggle to hold them still and be squinting through a tiny little exit pupil.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Tweedledee

[Guest Drew]

On 11/29/2015, 10:41:35, Tweedledee said:

A young astronomer like you should have a dark adapted eye pupil of about 6mm. So you would not get the best out of 7x50s since they have a 7mm exit pupil and a small proportion of the light would be wasted on you. Children and teenagers would be ok with 7mm. You would still have a very nice very wide field view in the 7x50s but would probably only be seeing 75% of the total light provided. 10x50s would probably be ideal, having a nice easy to look through 5mm exit pupil. Just divide the aperture by the magnification to get the exit pupil. Forget high magnification or zoom binoculars, you will struggle to hold them still and be squinting through a tiny little exit pupil.

 

Thanks Tweedledee,  I'm not sure you read my age group correctly - no matter though I appreciate your taking the time to reply.   I've decided to go for the 10x50's as a lot of my star gazing is done early in the morning when taking my dog down the trails, portability being a useful thing that loses some of its edge if I need to take a tripod as well.   The option to add something of a higher value magnification next year is still on the cards and I'm sure you guys will be a great help when it comes to making that choice.