worth an update ?

[Bender]

I dont have a mount at the moment and grabbed my old pair of binos on friday night to enjoy an hour under the stars. I actually quite liked the experiences without all the hassle of putting up my equipment up.

I noticed strong glare around jupiter and the moon in my old binos and was wondering if i would benefit from an upgrade to a more recent model in the same size as i found the views of the two unsatisfying (to be fair i live in the London suburbs and the skies are far from perfect most of the time).

My Carl Zeiss Jena 10x50 Dekarem are from the early 70's, bought somehow from the east German army and have been in the family for decades.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Welcome to the binocular side of observing .

Upgrading is certainly possible, but much depends on budget. Coatings in particular have improved, which has reduced glare (but a careful clean might also help). I have heard variable reports of Zeiss Jena optics, as opposed to the West German Carl Zeiss Oberkochen optics. Some Zeiss Jenas were very good indeed, but some less so (poorer quality control).

I am tempted to get a pair of APM 10x50 Marine HD bins (very good, reasonably affordable at 229 euro), or the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX (very, very good, but not cheap at all).

[Bender]

CZJ certainly produced some good stuff over the years like the CZJ 0.95" orthos and Telementors, but 40 years are 40 years.

The biggest risk just like with scopes is not to get caught out by aperture fever. I nearly picked up a Fujinon 16x70 on abs, but with parallelogram mount and tripod I am more or less where I am with my TV102 and a alt az mount.

Certainly tempted by the Fujinon 10x50 but not sure I will use it enough to justify the outlay. From Edz tests on CN it seems below that it gets difficult to pick a winner. The Pentax PCF and Nikon AE are good but have their weaknesses (but than they cost only a quarter of the Fujinon)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The APM (or TS) Marine HD are supposed to be very good (same as the WO ED, but 70 euro or so cheaper). My Helios Apollo 15x70 HDs are counterparts of the APM Marine15x70 HD, and they are very good indeed. Individual focusing makes them ideal for astro work. Steve (tetenterre) recommends these 10x50, and he knows his stuff. I might have a look at some Fujinons when I visit Japan later this month, just to check out viewing comfort, etc before making any decision. I actually like 15x70 class bins, and use them without mount most of the time.

[BinocularSky]

was wondering if i would benefit from an upgrade to a more recent model in the same size ...My Carl Zeiss Jena 10x50 Dekarem are from the early 70's,

Obviously there are variations within any particular model, but the Dekarem (the first astro binocular I used was my late father's Dekarem) was significantly better than the modern budget offerings. It didn't have the modern "FMC" and "BaK4" that are erroneously believed to be the essential signature of class binoculars. What they do have is that is better, in no particular order:

• Quality of internal light-baffling.
  
• Type and quality of eyepieces.
  
• Prism housings.
  
• Field curvature.
  
• Spherical aberration.
  
• Crispness of focus.
  
• Edge distortion.
  
• Chromatic aberration.
  
• Mechanical build quality.
  
• Smoothness of focus.
  
• Manufacturer's quality control.
  

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Obviously there are variations within any particular model, but the Dekarem (the first astro binocular I used was my late father's Dekarem) was significantly better than the modern budget offerings. It didn't have the modern "FMC" and "BaK4" that are erroneously believed to be the essential signature of class binoculars. What they do have is that is better, in no particular order:

• Quality of internal light-baffling.
  
• Type and quality of eyepieces.
  
• Prism housings.
  
• Field curvature.
  
• Spherical aberration.
  
• Crispness of focus.
  
• Edge distortion.
  
• Chromatic aberration.
  
• Mechanical build quality.
  
• Smoothness of focus.
  
• Manufacturer's quality control.
  

My main experience with CZJ optics was the 2.4/50mm (Tessar design) lens that came with certain Practica cameras. Some were really good, others really bad. This variability was non-existent in the Carl Zeiss Oberkochen lenses of my Contax cameras. If these Dekarem bins are giving a lot of glare, maybe they need a clean, as I suggested (or maybe they were cleaned inexpertly!). To really know if an upgrade is worth it, the best thing to do is to make a head to head comparison with other binoculars.

[Bender]

Thanks for your thoughts, maybe i give my binos a good clean with the Baader wonderfluid and another chance befor spending on the Pentax PCF (think i cant justefy the Fujinon for me right now).

[Bender]

Just realised a silly thing, when looking at the halve moon I somehow realised that my left eye was in focus but my right eye was not. Adjusting the right eye cleaned up the image to a noticeable degree.

The moon is still surrounded by glare, unlike the pitch black background in my scope but stars (the bino framed the Hyades nicely ) and jupiter look good enough to give my old binos another chance.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Glad you found the problem (and a simple solution ). The fact that the moon is still surrounded by (some) glare is to some extent understandable. In part this is due to the wide-field, low magnification set-up of binoculars (and the fact that there are more air-glass interfaces than in a telescope, as a rule). At low magnification (or large exit pupil), the sky background appears brighter around the moon, so any glare (e.g. due to the slightest high haze) is much more apparent than in a scope. Even my excellent Helios Apollo 15x70 HDs show some glare around the moon (or at least a paler background than in the scope). Besides, the wide, short tube of any fast scope can make baffling the tube without vignetting a bit harder. The moon is not really a good binocular object.