Guidance needed - Aperture vs Image Quality

[Astro_noob]

I am looking for an upgrade to my current binoculars which are Eschenbach 7x50 and Olympus DPS-r 8x40. I want to see more stars and see some nebula or galaxies from my back yard that looks out to a wide open field. As I live close to Grangemouth the sky is very light polluted and on a bad night the sky can be noticeably orange! My question is really this, for approximately £100 I can get a 20x80 binocular from celestron or revelation or would I be better of saving a little and purchasing a high quality 20x60 such as pentax PCF WP II or a Helios Quantum 4 15x70. Is a larger apperture really better than well coated glass?

Cheers,

Ickle

[jimmyjamjoejoe]

For light transmission, aperture probably beat coatings for the most part. However, it's not that simple. A higher quality optic will provide sharper images and higher contrast, both of which lead to a "je ne said quoi".

I much prefer my good 8x42s to my cheapy 10x50s, or even my skymaster 15x70s. Much more comfortable and natural, sharper stars, no ghosting, better edge correction etc. i'd definitely save for the better quality, especially with light polluted skies where aperture won't gain you much.

[ollypenrice]

For light transmission, aperture probably beat coatings for the most part. However, it's not that simple. A higher quality optic will provide sharper images and higher contrast, both of which lead to a "je ne said quoi".

I much prefer my good 8x42s to my cheapy 10x50s, or even my skymaster 15x70s. Much more comfortable and natural, sharper stars, no ghosting, better edge correction etc. i'd definitely save for the better quality, especially with light polluted skies where aperture won't gain you much.

We are the same person! I share exactly the same findings.

Olly

[Chris]

Got to agree quality wins for me, I use my Opticron aspheric 8x40 the most out of my bins they give very sharp contrasty views and very little edge distortion, they also feel great to hold:) some people are happy with large budget bins but quite a few need collimating on arrival for starters, also some of the aberratons that cheaper bins show can really be off putting.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have a pair of 15x70 Helios Apollo HDs, and they are awesome. Much better than the cheap 15x70s I used to have (Omegon = Revelation =Celestron). I gather the internal baffling of these cheap ones reduce the true aperture to about 60-65mm. Cheap and cheerful, and a lot of fun, but not nearly as good as premium ones. In the past I used the 10x50 Bressers (rather more expensive type than those at Lidl), alongside the 15x70, because glare and internal reflection were better controlled than in the cheap 15x70s. Certain objects were clearer in the 10x50s. With the new Helios Apollo 15x70 I rarely use the 10x50s. So ultimately, you want quality and aperture. If I had to choose, I would veer towards quality.

[BinocularSky]

So ultimately, you want quality and aperture. If I had to choose, I would veer towards quality.

+1

[Bender]

I can only say from my own short experience that smaller quality aperture can beat a bigger rival.

My 8x42 Leica is quite noticeable brighter (and shaper) than my 10x50 CZJ bino.

Unfortunately with ongoing cloudy nights a real life test is still pending.

[Astro_noob]

Thanks everyone for your valued opinions. So if I were to choose one binocular of which would you think would see the most DSOs from my light polluted backyard? Skywatcher 20x80, Helios Qualntum 15x70, Nikon Action EX 12x50 or Opticron Discovery WP PC 10x42? I would think the 20x80 hands down would give me the depest views of the night sky but the views would be more pleasing through the opticrons.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In a light polluted backyard, you may want to consider binoculars with built-in UHC filters. They are not common, but here is an example:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p4307_20-x-80-Porro-Fernglas---mit-einschwenkbaren-UHC-Nebelfiltern.html