canon is 15x70 vs helios apollo if money is not a concern

[inspectapart]

Helios apollo 15x70 or Canon is 15x50. If money was not a problem which binoculars would you buy out of these two?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Helios Apollo for me. I can stabilize the Apollo, but I cannot double the aperture of the Canon.

[inspectapart]

Helios Apollo for me. I can stabilize the Apollo, but I cannot double the aperture of the Canon.

That`s true, but what about quality of view? Are the canons better in respect of say, teasing detail out of faint fussies or luna serface detail. Does that extra aperture really give that much more detail?

[Alma]

Canon IS 15x50, no question i.m.h.o.  Great focal ratio under normal light polluted skies whereas a 15x70 can tend to pull in too much crud.   In my experience IS in the 50mm aperture also allows you to see just as much as any 70mm. 

[BinocularSky]

Whichever ones doesn't offer a drop in quality when the batteries run out.

[Damo636]

Canon IS 15x50, no question i.m.h.o. Great focal ratio under normal light polluted skies whereas a 15x70 can tend to pull in too much crud. In my experience IS in the 50mm aperture also allows you to see just as much as any 70mm.

I may be wrong here, but I don't see how a 50mm instrument, image stabilised or not, could show as much as a (good) 70mm instrument,? The 70mm has almost twice the light gathering ability of the 50mm?

That said, I'd love the Canon IS, by most accounts its an excellent instrument.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

There is a huge difference between the Helios Apollo and the cheap 15x70s (BA1). A choice between the latter and the 15x50 IS is dead easy.

On the moon there s probably not much between the two: at an exit pupil of 3.33 or 4.67mm the aperture is not the limiting factor, and if anything, the increased brightness of the 70mm at the same magnification will increase glare. On faint fuzzies the 4.67mm exit pupil will help a lot, unless there is a lot of LP, in which case the 15x50 will still not see more, despite the darker background. Imagine stopping down the Apollo to 50mm, which will reduce chromatic aberrations and astigmatism significantly, quite likely matching the 15x50 IS for quality. I doubt stopping it down will help with any DSO, however.

[Alma]

I may be wrong here, but I don't see how a 50mm instrument, image stabilised or not, could show as much as a (good) 70mm instrument,? The 70mm has almost twice the light gathering ability of the 50mm?

That said, I'd love the Canon IS, by most accounts its an excellent instrument.

I think it's interesting that numbers just don't tell the whole story here. I have both the 15x50 IS and a lovely pair of Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70 and even firmly mounted, there's very little the the Fujis can do that can't be achieved with the Canon - they're that good. This isn't a scientific comparison however - I've never actually counted the stars through each, so I would be interested to hear the experiences of others with similar kit.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Much depends on conditions. Under really dark and transparent conditions a 70mm instrument will show more faint fuzzies and many more stars than a 50mm at the same magnification. At the same exit pupil, the bins would be able to see down to the same surface brightness, which means the bigger bins will be able to pick out smaller fuzzies in that case. In many cases, the skies are more limiting than the aperture.

[SteveNickolls]

Eye relief can be another issue here for some people. I would love some image stabilised binoculars but even if they were giving them away for free the 15mm eye relief of the 15x50 IS All Weather binoculars would render them unusable for me. The longer eye relief of the Apollo's does however mean I can use them and they are my most used observing aid.

Cheers,

Steve

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Eye relief can be another issue here for some people. I would love some image stabilised binoculars but even if they were giving them away for free the 15mm eye relief of the 15x50 IS All Weather binoculars would render them unusable for me. The longer eye relief of the Apollo's does however mean I can use them and they are my most used observing aid.

Cheers,

Steve

Same here. 15mm is borderline for me with my glasses. Even the Apollos could do with a mm extra

[inspectapart]

Thanks for the replies guys. It seems to be the case that both are very good and the differences seem to be more to do with the individual using them and the quality of the  observing conditions on the day.  I have thought about this a lot. I think the canons will be better for terestrial viewing and they are more portable.However the helios have the greater light grasp, perhaps revealing more in steady skies. I think I would have to go with the Canons myself. I would presume the quality control would be better at Canon and therefor less likely the chance of any problems at purchase.

[Alma]

The Canons will definitely be more portable, however if the main use was for terrestial (birding, etc.) then I would probably opt for the Canon IS 10x42 L with the superior "L" class optics, to the 15x50 IS which does show a little CA under certain conditions - not a problem for me, but a purist would want the better optic.

[brantuk]

Canon IS 10x42 L binoculars are amazing - the only disappointment is the pathetic lens caps - other than that they're a must have. Fabulous by day - and by night as well. Still can't believe how stars no longer jump around in the diopters and just sit dead steady - and beautifully clear and crisp with no CA that I can discern. 

[inspectapart]

perhaps the comparison should have included the Canon 10x42s!

[Alma]

Whichever ones doesn't offer a drop in quality when the batteries run out.

It takes less than a minute to change the batteries (2 x AA).  That's one thing you learn early on with IS bins - always carry a couple of spares ! 

[mitchelln]

I have the smaller Canon 10x30 IS. The stabilisation is fabulous. Saves you having to carry around a tripod all the time when doing more ad-hoc viewing and terrestial. Image quality is really great. The 10x50's must reveal even more. Just to add more confusion, the 18x50's are not that much more than the 10x50's if you shop around Not sure what their FOV is though. Mind you, spending getting on for a grand on a pair of binoculars does seem a bit excessive!