already want another pair

[cutepetgroomer]

Okay so I have my one pair binoculars that while they are spot on for terrestial viewing, they are a bit off for stargazing. I get a slight double image. I did find the collimation screws but I got them as close to being whole as possible for stargazing. I'm definately looking at fixed bins for stargazing and keep the zoom bins for daytime use. but I do like that I have been able to get a for what power suits me best. that is when my bins are set for being 10X50. but when i was looking at the bins for sale at a local store, i noticed a nice looking pair of 10X50s, as well as a smaller 8X30 holding both I cant really choose between the two but I'm leaning more towards the 10x50s. research I have done on my own regarding bins for stargazing suggest something like 10X50 or the biggest pair I can comfortably handhold. 

[Stu]

I think 10x50's are a very good size and compromise - easy enough to hold steady but enough aperture to give nice images.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronin]

In general the bird watching and nature watching people have gone to the 8x42 format. And having 2 sets I can understand why. They are a little lighter then 10x50, are no dimmer, should actually be just a little brighter. There are many more to chioose from so you can get a better selection.

I use Bushnell's (binoculars.com). Their H2O's sets are good, fairly short and solid feeling. Their Natureview's I find are better optically, they are longer so this could be expected. The Natureview's feel lighter then the H2O's - not actually sure they are. The ones I have are the roof prism variety.

For the cost these do a very good job.

Just looked and the Natureview binoculars are presently they come in a pretty awful (disgusting) colour now. Whoever thought that that colour scheme was "attractive"?

[happy-kat]

This is a related read

http://binocularsky.com/binoc_choosing.php

[cutepetgroomer]

I have been reading on that site as well as other websites. I will be doing more "comparative shopping" at a local sporting good store (where I feel they will have more variety to look at than walmart does .) I did see some at bestbuy.com that comes with two different sizes so I may just end up going with that one that comes with an 8X30 and a 10X50. 

[Kropster]

10x50s are difficult to hold by hand and can be shakey.

Fine on a tripod though.

[Chris]

Another vote for 10x50 from me

You definetely get what you pay for with binos, cheap pairs can struggle to hold collimation and are often stopped down in aperture by under sized prisms

Try and set a good budget and you'll be rewarded with relaxing wide field views for life

[cutepetgroomer]

$60 US dollars is the max budget my hubby has given me for bins. Well, the new pair anyways

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I find 10x50s easy to hand hold, but then I can handle 15x70 bins well, and have even used 20x80 without tripod. Others find 10x50 tricky to hold still (my wife, for example). This is very much a personal thing, so try before you buy is the best advice. You could also consider 7x50 bins, and of course the 8x42, as mentioned above.

[AlphaOrionis]

I own both 10x50 and 15x63, and I find myself able to hold them both pretty well without a tripod. For the 15x63 if I sit, or lean on a tree/building, I get very steady views. The 10x50 is definitely easier and I can get great views without leaning on anything, but I did get a lot of breathing pracitice with the 15x63 that I got first, I learned various holding techniques that reduced shakiness. 

A lot of people will say that 10x50 is too much and needs a tripod, but it all depends on the individual. Im 24, so maybe my young arms are a bit steadier  

[F15Rules]

For handholding it's hard to beat a 50mm aperture. I myself use a pair of Zeiss Jena 7x50s porro prisms (the traditional binoculars from the 70s and 80s) which I found on ebay. They are in mint condition and being Zeiss built are of very high quality. Like most older porro prisms they lose a bit of sharpness in the outer third of the field, but on axis they are superb and essentially false colour free. The lower magnification also means it's a little easier to hold them steady versus the x10 magnification version.

The 7x50 configuration gives about a 7mm exit pupil (50mm lens divided by x7 magnification), which some people think is too much (the older your eyes, the smaller your exit pupil as a rule, and I believe the normal range is around 4mm to 6mm exit pupil for most adults, the lower figure applying more to older adults), but I like them as you get a wider field of view, excellent low power views and they can work well for daytime use as well.

I'd also say your choice should take into account your local skies. Lower magnification will mean a brighter sky background: this isn't a problem if you have reasonably dark skies, but if you have a fair bit of local light pollution, the 10x50s would probably give you better contrast.

In the US you should be able to find a really nice used pair like the above for around your $60 budget.

Hope that helps.

Dave

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Those pupil sizes are averages. For people in their early fifties, the average is 6.2, gather, but from  4 to 8mm is quite normal. The large exit pupil can mean you are effectively reducing the aperture to e.g. 35mm (assuming a 5mm pupil) but the image should be no worse or better than buying a 7x35 in that case., so if you can pick up a good used 7x50, you are no worse off than buying a new 7x35 (which are much rarer, new and secondhand alike). What can be troublesome is the slightly washed out background a large exit pupil can produce in situations of light polution

[BinocularSky]

Re pupil sizes:

Sample sizes are too small for statistical significance in some age cohorts, but certainly indicative of a very wide variation and clear evidence that the "internet fact" that "by [insert age] your pupil only opens to [insert small digit] millimetres" is utter codswallop!

(Edited to correct abysmal spelling)