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_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

m12_shakes

10x50's or 15x70's?

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Looking to get myself a pair of bins, but I'm not too sure which to go for out the two.

I've set myself a budget of around £100.

The majority seem to say 10x50, but the Celestron 15x70's can be had for around £60.

Any recommendations? Any input is much appreciated...

---

Regards,

m12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally i'd say 10x50's, but not long ago i got to hold the celestron 15x70s and they're surprisingly light. Given the choice i'd go for them every time. The optics may not be quite so great as a similarly priced pair of 10x50, but the extra aperture reall makes up for it.

They shouldn't be too bad hand-held, except for extended sessions, in which case mounting them is a cheap and easy option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both sizes. I can handhold the 10x50's quite easily but the 15x70's I can only hold steady for brief periods. If I was a regular binocular user I would need a decent tripod for them, which would cost as much, if not a bit more, than the binoculars. The larger pair do show some lovely views though and a number of galaxies and lots of star clusters are well within their reach.

jimmyjamjoejoe must have bigger muscles than I have :icon_salut:

Edited by John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got both sizes and I'd say go for the 10X50s. The issue with the 15x70s isn't really their weight, it's that the greater magnification magnifies every little shake so much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 10x50 and two 15x70s -- a decent one and a cheap one (but not as cheap as the Celestron). I'd say 10x50 -- you get more quality for your bucks and quality is really very important for binoculars that are going to be used for astronomy, which is as demanding of optical and mechanical quality as you can get. Not only are they much more easily hand-holdable, but they have a myriad of other uses as well.

If your interested, I have some blurb on this sort of thing:

BinocularSky - Choosing a First Binocular for Astronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies so far, it's much appreciated.

Steve, after searching this forum I've seen the link you posted, it's very informative! How about if I were to up my budget a little?

How would the Helios Quantum-4 15x70 compare to the Celestron? Bearing in mind the Helios are about twice the price.

Just a bit more info, I don't plan on using the bins for hours on end, so long duration of holding weighty bins should not be a problem. If anything they'll be used for quick gazing.

-

Regards,

m12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bit more info, I don't plan on using the bins for hours on end, so long duration of holding weighty bins should not be a problem. If anything they'll be used for quick gazing.

Even for quick sessions I found 15x70 too much to hold steady, I had to mount them on my camera tripod (but couldn't get on with them in the end anyway, I went back to my 8x42s). The Celestrons come with a flimsy tripod adaptor but it is plastic and wobbles terribly, it can be re-enforced using metal rods and epoxy resin but I'd go for a much higher quality L bracket like the ones they sell at FLO, I have the larger of the two for my 8x42 bins which gives me rock-steady views of the moon and some star clusters.

Even for brief viewing periods, a tripod-mounted pair of bins can give you so much more than hand-held, you have all the time you need to see every last detail.

I mainly use my 8x42 bins for spotting things that I want to view in the telescope, they are a good size to quickly hold up with one hand for brief looks.

Edited by jonathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also consider a monopod and a chair, since a tripod will stuggle to look up, and even when it does, you'l be fighting with the legs.

I was skeptical about monopods, but after trying one in a seated position i think they're great! Really steady views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Quantum 4 is a decent binocular. It's part-way between the Celestron and the Helios Apollo. It's weight has the advantage that its inertia makes it easier to hold steady, but the disadvantage that it quickly becomes tiring. Realistically, we are talking minutes (very small numbers of), not "hours on end" here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to take them out and about, I'd say 10x50's. At home, maybe 15x70's.

Saying that, I find that I never use mine - I just use the scope (then again, that's because you can;t take pictures through the binos - I haven't actually used any of my eyepieces for ages either).

I decided that I use them that rarely, I put my Celestron 15x70's on Astro buy/sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, would you give the quantum a recommendation? (for their price, the cheapest I've found is £135). The Apollo's are around £300, which would be eating into my scope budget.

Thanks for all the replies. I will be getting a monopod or tripod to go with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, would you give the quantum a recommendation?

Didn't he just do that? :)

The Quantum 4 is a decent binocular.
Edited by Grunthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi m12

I've just sold a pair of Celestron 15x70's and bought a pair of Helios 10x50's. Much prefer the 10x50's - much more manageable.

I thing (and this is subjective) that, especially from light polluted skies, you see as much.

Rgds

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're undecided about 10x vs 15x there are plenty of decent looking 12x bins about. In particular I've had my eye on the Barr & Stroud Savannah 12x56 or a bit more pricy but highly rated on these forums and cloudy nights is the Pentax PCF 12x50.

I'm after the best bins I can get away with without a tripod. Both these will be a fair bit easier to hold than the 70mm and I'm guessing significanty better quality - certainly the Pentaxs from what I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very decent 10x50, and a cheap and cheerful 15x70 (clone of the Celestron/Revelation). I use the 15x70 far more than the 10x50 on the stars. I would not be without the 10x50, but the 15x70 Omegon is used more. I do notice its shortcomings, the image quality of the 10x50 is clearly better. The sheer light graps of the 15x70 has the 10x50 beaten. I also notice i keep using the 15x70 despite having an 80mm wide field scope which has the 15x70 beaten on all fronts except one: speed of set up. I should shortly get a secondhand pair of Helios Apollo 15x70 HDs, so my Omegons are going on astrobuysell when they arrive. I can use the 15x70 hand held quite well, but for long stretches I use either a reclining chair, or I use the roof of my car as a support. I also use this:

http://stargazerslounge.com/diy-astronomer/154871-diy-parallelogram-mount-made-my-15x70s.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is really nicely turned out! Inspirational; until now I have wondered about having a go, but I think this Summer I may have a crack at one of them! I'm no great shakes with wood, but I feel the urge to make sawdust now! I'm sure mine won't be that tidy but it is definitely something to strive for. Thank you for sharing that.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies!

I've more or less decided on 15x70's, which will be used by hand for short bursts but it will also be supported by a mono or tripod for long duration viewing.

I'm now deciding between the Helios Quantum-4 or Steller's. The stellar's being £20 more expensive. The cheapest place I've found for the Quantum's is £127, which from what I've gathered is a bit of a bargain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is really nicely turned out! Inspirational; until now I have wondered about having a go, but I think this Summer I may have a crack at one of them! I'm no great shakes with wood, but I feel the urge to make sawdust now! I'm sure mine won't be that tidy but it is definitely something to strive for. Thank you for sharing that.:D

Seconded, cracking set up you've got there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After being in the same position myself I went for 25x70 but quickly went to 10x50 as anything higher really does need a tripod, I should have listened the first time lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Был у меня 12х70, не нравилось, что он сильно трясется. Со штатива шея затекает смотреть. Пришел к 10х50

Edited by kosmosoved
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kosmosoved said:

Был у меня 12х70, не нравилось, что он сильно трясется. Со штатива шея затекает смотреть. Пришел к 10х50

Please post in English - forum rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto translate produces....

I had a 12x70, I didn't like him shaking much. With a tripod the neck starts to look. Came to 10х 50

 

if you have very steady hands or better a monopod/tripod then the higher power can be used. If you want to carry these about a lot and avoid tripods then the smaller ones are more recommended.

 

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that absolutely nobody I've ever met or read in the birding world has advocated 15x without stabilization, yet many astronomers say they can hand hold them. It isn't about weight, it's about the magnification making the image jittery. I suggest a self-test. Find some distant text at the limit of legibility in 10x50 and read the letters backwards (to stop the brain doing 'predictive text.') Then try the hand held 15x. Can you really do better with the higher power? If you can you're doing a lot better than I do but that's perfectly possible.

Birders debate the range 7x to 10x for unstabilized binoculars. I'm with them on this.

I also find bins can be too light. I have some tiny Leica 10x25s and find them jittery because they don't have enough anvil effect.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Opticron 11x70 great compromise for weight, magnification and aperture. Easily hand held but much better on an telescopic monopod with a ball head,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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