Differences between 12x50 and 15x70

[Zoom]

Hello,

First post in this forum!

I am thinking to buy Celestron SkyMaster 15x70 Binoculars for both astronomy and general use. I currently own some old 12x50 binoculars with 5 degrees FOV (which are not of particularly high quality). What kind of differences should I expect from the Celestrons when compared to my old 12x50s.

Also, I've read several posts about the Celestrons here and many people say that I will need a good tripod to use them efficiently. Is this true always, or is true only when the binoculars are used for astronomy? Or maybe it is true only when used for extended periods of time?

My old Binoculars are over 900 grams and I don't have much of a problem keeping them relatively stable. Would the Celestron 15x70 be much more difficult to handle? (their weight is 1360g)

Thank you

[BinocularSky]

What kind of differences should I expect from the Celestrons when compared to my old 12x50s.

It's difficult to know without having looked through your 12x50 but, assuming that by "old" you mean 1980s vintage or earlier, you will probably find the following: Slightly brighter image. The overall optical quality will probably be about the same, the mechanical quality of the Skymaster will probably be lower (in particular, the prisms are prone to displacement).

Also, I've read several posts about the Celestrons here and many people say that I will need a good tripod to use them efficiently. Is this true always, or is true only when the binoculars are used for astronomy? Or maybe it is true only when used for extended periods of time?

You will be magnifying any shake by fifteen times. It is very difficult to hand-hold a 15x binocular steadily, especially for long periods of time (but here are some suggestions for steady hand-holding). I find a monopod (+ trigger-grip ball-head) to be far more useful than a tripod for my 15x70. See here for this and other mounting ideas.

My old Binoculars are over 900 grams and I don't have much of a problem keeping them relatively stable. Would the Celestron 15x70 be much more difficult to handle?

Yes.

[Wobbly Bob]

I found a monopod a simple way to hold my 15x70 s, hight adjusted quickly and mobility, one leg to move rather than 3. The big differance you will find with 15 x70 bins over your 12x50 s, is more light gathering with the larger objectives.

Bob

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I found my Omegon 15x70 bins (Celestron clone) very much more powerful than the old 10x50 Bressers I had. I use a reclining chair or parallelogram mount for my Omegon 15x70 bins, the newer (and far better) Helios really benefit from the parallelogram mount. Steadying the bins on by resting them on the roof of the car also works well (if you are on a campsite, or have driven to a dark location).

[Zoom]

Thank you all for your replies.

Tetenterre, from your reply I get the impression that I will not benefit much from going from my old 12x50s to the 15x70s. Did I understand this right?

I don't know if my old Binoculars classify as vintage, but I did get them as a gift in the 80s. Their brand is "Kenlock" and searching online for them didn't reveal much.

I assumed that brand new Celestrons would be much better, and this combined with the additional aperture and magnification would give me a nice upgrade. After reading your post I started having doubts.

I will be a casual user, so using tripods, or even a monopod, is not something I am sure I will be doing. Actually this is why I decided to buy binoculars instead of a telescope.

So should I buy the Celstrons, or something else would be a better upgrade for me?

Thanks!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The nice thing about the Celestrons (or Revelation, or Omegon) is that they are light and cheap. They are light enough to hold for quite a while, if you have steady hands, I used mine for years like that. If you have no problems holding 12x50s still, 15x70 should be manageable. I can see more with my 15x70 bins than with the old 10x50s (and if anything these should have a slight edge over 12x50s due to lower magnification). However, I still use the 10x50s, as they have the wider field of view. If you can visit a star party or local astronomy club, you might get in touch with someone who has the Celestron 15x70 (or clone), and check them out yourself before buying

[Zoom]

Thanks Michael. Is there anything else at that price range that might be a better upgrade for my 12x50s, considering that I prefer not to use tripods or any other accessories?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks Michael. Is there anything else at that price range that might be a better upgrade for my 12x50s, considering that I prefer not to use tripods or any other accessories?

There isn't much else in that price bracket really. That 15x70 (or its clones) is one of the best deals out there, and 15x70 is the largest you could hope to use freehand.

[BinocularSky]

Tetenterre, from your reply I get the impression that I will not benefit much from going from my old 12x50s to the 15x70s. Did I understand this right?

Depends on the value of "much" . It will be slightly but noticeably brighter. However, if you are intent on using it hand-held only, you may not actually see that much more. Best bet is to try one (there are lots of them about!), and see if you think it is worth it. Binoculars are very much an individual thing, so it's impossible to give hard and fast "rules".

Their brand is "Kenlock"

Japanese, inspired-by-Zeiss, generally robust and "workmanlike". As I surmised, mechanical quality is better than the Celestron. (Kenlock is better known for its "robust and workmanlike" lenses and other photographic equipment.

I will be a casual user, so using tripods, or even a monopod, is not something I am sure I will be doing. Actually this is why I decided to buy binoculars instead of a telescope.

So should I buy the Celstrons, or something else would be a better upgrade for me?

As I said, very much an individual thing. I really don't like the Celestrons, but lots of people do and are very happy with them. If you want to stay hand-held, I would suggest saving for an upgrade in quality. A good 10x50, for example, will give you better image quality than you have with the Kenlock, but will be even easier to hand-hold. Again, my opinion only, and others will disagree (so solicit their opinions and experiences), but I don't see the point in going to a 15x70 as a main instrument unless you are prepared to mount it.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good advice, Steve. I personally prefer the 10x50 to 12x50 bins. If you want to go better than the 12x50 Kenlock, you may need to up the price (although the Strathspey 10x50 Marine are very affordable and have a good rep). As said before, bins are very much a personal thing, and one thing I did not like about my Omegons was the amount of play in the focuser. This is one of the main reasons I replaced them with the Helios Apollo 15x70 HD, which have individual focusing (much nicer for astonomy). The build quality is indeed quite a bit worse than my old Bresser 10x50 (which is quite a notch above some cheap Lidl Bressers I have seen). Having said that, I have taken the Omegons to South Africa and Australia, and seen many wonders of the southern hemisphere with them. For 89 euros that is not a bad deal at all. I used them without tripod throughout, but then I have very steady hands (got a shot of a woodland kingfisher in Uganda with a 400mm telephoto at 1/30th second exposure time, and there was no discernible camera shake). Even so, a mount is more comfortable.

Try befor eyou buy is probably the best advice,

[Polar Bear]

I would persevere with the Kenlock 12x50's until you have the funds to get something better than the Celestron 15x70's. I have owned a pair and they were OK even giving good views of Jupiter and its moons. They suffer from CA (purple fringing) on bright objects and the build quality can seem to be a bit hit and miss. My first pair had to be exchanged.

15x magnification will need a good tripod for anything other than a quick look. Another thing to consider is getting a pair with IF (individual focus) Most inexpensive binoculars suffer from 'looseness' in the focussing mechanism. Even my 20x90's at £230.00 new had this and used to drive me insane with the amount of refocussing needed.

Paul

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I would persevere with the Kenlock 12x50's until you have the funds to get something better than the Celestron 15x70's. I have owned a pair and they were OK even giving good views of Jupiter and its moons. They suffer from CA (purple fringing) on bright objects and the build quality can seem to be a bit hit and miss. My first pair had to be exchanged.

15x magnification will need a good tripod for anything other than a quick look. Another thing to consider is getting a pair with IF (individual focus) Most inexpensive binoculars suffer from 'looseness' in the focussing mechanism. Even my 20x90's at £230.00 new had this and used to drive me insane with the amount of refocussing needed.

Paul

I can concur with the hit and miss build quality: my first pair (Celestron) was seriously out of collimation, and showed two chunks of some dark gunk in the optical path. I wanted a replacement quickly, as I was leaving for France, and they (astroshop.de) offered me a replacement pair of Omegons (which they would check for collimation issues) because they had no more Celestrons in stock. IF is much much nicer indeed.

[Zoom]

I could buy something more expensive now if I wanted, but I thought that the Celestrons would be good enough because I will be using them only occasionally. How much would good binoculars cost?

By the way, why is individual focus needed? My current binoculars have this feature, but I never understood what is the point.

[BinocularSky]

I'll repeat, always best to try before you buy. If you can't, check the returns policy.

I could buy something more expensive now if I wanted, but I thought that the Celestrons would be good enough because I will be using them only occasionally. How much would good binoculars cost?

It's like "how long is a piece of string?". I have the Strath 10x50 Marine that Michael mentioned -- it is a little over £100 now; I would not buy it at that price. I could be tempted by this if I had the money available. I have looked through a friend's one of these and have been spoiled for life!

By the way, why is individual focus needed? My current binoculars have this feature, but I never understood what is the point.

It's not needed, only preferable (for astronomy) but you will understand why when you have a tacky centre-focus one (which the Celestron is). See http://binocularsky.com/binoc_basics.php#5

[Zoom]

Thanks. So it seems "good" binoculars are more than €100. Would it be easier to find a decent telescope for under €100?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks. So it seems "good" binoculars are more than €100. Would it be easier to find a decent telescope for under €100?

Not really, unless you go second hand. For no-hassles set-up and price performance ratio, a dobson design is probably best. The skywatcher Heritage 130P is a fairly cheap one at €169 (or thereabouts). It will need collimation (not that difficult). By comparison, a little 70mm refractor from skywatcher is €199.

[BinocularSky]

Would it be easier to find a decent telescope for under €100?

As Michael said, it's unlikely unless you get a used one. Thre is also the issue of conflict with one of your earlier stipulations:

I prefer not to use tripods or any other accessories?