Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

fmeireso

Members
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About fmeireso

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Eeklo, Belgium
  1. Well, we can all argue about many things and differnces between the above mentioned binoculars. FWIW i use to have a stellar 20x80 wich i compaired to my then newly obtained 15x70 BA8 series(In Britain the Helios Apollo line). The BA8 15x70 was superior in almost any way. It comes with a price tag. I guess one has to think it over what's important for himself. From the three (Skymaster, stellar, Quantum 4) i would choose the quantum 4
  2. Nice drawing. Jupiter is difficult. Last time in the Provence while still low i did not go much higher then 200X in my 18". Had a fair view though ... A missing belt was really was struck me...no big news anymore but after years of seeing two big belts in different scopes this view was a bit strange....
  3. Yes,actually i was going to mention that. The pentax is good but has a very small field of view. Indeed only 2.2° and one of the advantages of a binocular over a telescope should be the big FOV. I have allready a 2° FOV in my 8" OO telescope with the pan 24.....makes you think... The indeed "Helios Apollo 15x70" better referred as the Kunming BA8 series of binocular has allready a 4.4° FOV. Quite pleasing. A bit more expensive but worth every penny IMHO.Very good binos just as Argonaut stated.
  4. I agree mostly with Steve. Anyhow a good step up would be a 15x70. It's a very versatile size. Best of course mounted wich you can allready do from what i've read but still a 15x70 can still be handholded for short periods of time.And a 15x70 sees really a lot more then a 10x50. You might consider the Apollo 15x70 wich is very good quality allthough is a Chinese bino. Comes close to the famous Fujinon 16x70, no kidding.
  5. I wonder if the difference will be that big or big enough. I i were you and had the money i would consider a 28x110. But that's a real heavy beast and needs a very sturdy tripod...and has a small fov...like always with optics : considerations... I guess it depends what you are after...
  6. Maybe, buth don't overlook the 'quality' of your own eyes. This too comes into play. Over the last couple of years i see my eye astigmatisme increasing, slow but sure. It has become so that i need my glasses to correct it in my 22x85. In my 15x70 due to the smaller magnification is is less bothersome.
  7. Probably true. Most 80mm have only between 72 and 74 mm true aperture. The Apollo 15x70 has 69 mm aperture. One of the many reasons why it's better then a moderate binocular. I did some testing between my former Helios Stellar 20x80 and my Apollo (TS Marine actually) 15x70. It saw as deep as the 20x80 without doubt.
  8. I can imagine. You will be more then pleased with, i assure you. It's about thesame quality of the famous Fujinon 16x70 allthough the latter still has a better corrected field toward the edge. That's about the only difference but at almost double the price...
  9. Chinese designations; The BA8 series of binoculars is the series found on the united optics website.They are sold under different 'private labels' like the Apollo series in Britain , Garret signatures in the US, TS Marine by Teleskope service in Germany , General HI in Italy and probably some others. Giant Binoculars
  10. Well FWIW i would never trade a BA8 series 15x70 for the Celestron 15x70 (BA2 series?). Me too i was always and i am still impressed with the brightness and sharpness of the BA8 series bino. Still don't understand why you sold it, johninderby. Now the 22x85 surely will impress you because it has far more lightgrasp and is as bright as the 15x70 but it is less versatile and need to be mounted every time you want to use it. As it is a bigger bino it will show you easier CA and other abberations also. Just the law of optics. I just hope the Celestron will keep you happy though together with the 22x85. Clear skies!
  11. Nice setup. I always considered the 'default' head of the horizon 8115 too light though the tripod seemed all right. In changing it in this way this seems a step forward.
  12. The 25x100 has only slightly more lightgrasp because it is not 100 mm full aperture. The Apollo has 84 mm true aperture. Views are bright and most colorfull. The Apollos (=BA8 Kunming series) are very good binoculars. Good coatings, big prisms, nitrogen filled, sharp FOV, very good contrast FWIW the Apollo would be my first choice the Quantum my second. Don't forget the Apollo 22x85 has a bigger FOV also I own both the 15x70 and 22x85 BA8 series binocular. I own a 10x60 quantum 4 too. (Quantum 4 = Kunming BA3 series) Views are less bright , too much eyerelief but an overall very sharp field almost to the edge. Reduced aperture.(probably in favor for shaper views at the edge) I don't know how much the 25x100 resembles the specs of the 10x60. Still i believe the quantum 4 are nice binoculars but still not up to the level of the BA8 series. On CN you can find reviews and test of both series of binoculars (See binocular forum - Garreth signatures http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/63783/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1 see also http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1351 The oberwerk 25x100 is the quantum 4 Read also this http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2345
  13. It is not. In theory it should be. But as i said the 10x60 has reduced aperture. When you measure the exit pupil with a caliper it sure does not reach 6 mm. I am not the only one who has measured that. Anyhow, i was just curious about the eyerelief. It sounds on the 15x70 it's less of an issue.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.