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.

Aldebaran88

What's the difference?

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,astronomy newbie here.

I'm looking to purchase my first pair of astronomy binos  and was wondering what is the difference between the Celestron SkyMaster Giant 15x70 and the Celestron 15x70 SkyMaster Pro binoculars?

On paper they are very similar.Same magnification,same size of the lens,same type of glass -bak-4.

Why are the skymaster pro binos more than double the price of the skymaster giant?

I was looking at these 2 models because they are fairly lightweight and can be handheld for short periods.

I'm not interested in higher magnification binos because they are heavier and require a tripod.

I look at it like this: if i need a tripod in order to use my binos i  might as well get a telescope.

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is the optical coating that adds to the price. I have a pair of the ordinary ones but I can't really use them without putting on a tripod. Short periods handheld but very difficult to keep still.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aldebaran88 said:

 

I look at it like this: if i need a tripod in order to use my binos i  might as well get a telescope.

 

I find it much quicker to put my binos on a mount than a telescope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't attempt to hand hold 15x other than with image stabilization. In the birding world it is almost unheard of to hand hold at more than 10x and, in my view, with very good reason. Before anyone decides that they really can hand hold at 15x they should perform a self test by having a pair of 10x binos handy as well. Find some text at the limit of what is readable at 15x  and then try the 10x on the same text. Most poeple, though I don't insist that it will be all, will not read more easily at 15x, showing that the higher resolution is lost to the jitters.

Olly

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Olly.

I compared binoculars for birding and found that I could see as much with 8x as with 10x because of shake.  And of course the 8x likely has a wider field of view.

In the end I bought Canon 12x36 image-stabilized binos and, apart from not focussing close in, they're great.  Of course close focussing isn't needed for astro use, for which they're brilliant handheld.  In fact I can see more with them than 10x50s. But they are expensive.

Everyone's different of course, but I've also got some 15x70s.   I haven't used them for ages, but I couldn't manage them without a tripod.  With a tripod though they were great fun.

Edited by Second Time Around
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main diferances are that the pro's are nitrogen purged and waterproof better build and  better optics / coatings . They also come with a decent tripod mount with a red dot finder rail

Out of the 2 sets the pro's are the better set of binoculars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to SGL.

Both of the binoculars you mention are Celestrons.  The higher price will be better build quality and probably better materials.   If you’re buying for long term use then the more expensive binos may be cheaper in the long run.  I learnt this with eyepieces - started with entry level, “upgraded” to cheap widefield, became dissatisfied, paid top money to upgrade those.  It would have been less expensive in the long run to have got good ones sooner.

Please take notice of previous posters regarding what you can effectively hand hold. I have 7x50 and 10x50 bins.  Now I’m older the 7x are used much more as the view is noticeably steadier, and the large exit pupil easier to view through.

If you can, try before you buy, and don’t rush to decide.

All the best with your choice, Ed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are, I believe, quite a few differences between the 15x70 and the 15x70 pro.

The advantages are as follows:

  •  Better coatings
  • Better, more adjustable prisms.
  • Fully waterproof
  • They look nicer!
  • They are a true 70mm aperture - where the regular 15x70s are stepped down to about 63mm

BUT...

The 15X70s are much much less expensive and pretty incredible value for money in their own right!

But if I were to add my own 2 pence; I completely agree with the comments above. I started out with a pair of 15x70s and they were pretty much impossible to use handheld. Spotting Dolphins on the welsh coast and watching ships in the distance was no problem but you have to be able to hold them rock steady for astronomy or the stars kind of "dance" around which is very frustrating. In fact - I went from there to a pair of 10x50s after that and I still struggle with them (but not as much). It's not a strength thing I don't think. Seems to be that you need to recruit a whole army of muscles to hold them up at that awkward angle - so it is really really difficult to get those fine motor skills working in the manner in which you'd like.

If I had the money I'd actually go for 8x42s now. But that's just me, I'm sure others will have had different experiences; and there are those out there that say they can use 15x70s for extended periods hand help so maybe I'm just a weakling after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ 8x42 for me, too, hand held. This was a change from my previous 10x50.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No comparison. At all. My review of the PRO version is here.

Don't use a tripod; use a monopod and trigger-grip head (see here) - almost maintains the portability, and still much quicker to set up than just about any scope except a small Dob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon 10x42 L Image Stabilized Binoculars are a) extremely expensive, and b) utterly stunning.

When you turn the IS on - it's like you just clamped the bins to a tripod!

 They get ten times more use than my old (non IS) Nikons ever did. Just because of the IS.

I would really recommend finding a dealer near you that sells them - and going there and giving them a try.

When you do - you will understand why there are a number of Astronomers with one kidney and a pair of Canon 10x42 L Image Stabilized Binoculars! 😉

They really are that good.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ian_bird said:

The Canon 10x42 L Image Stabilized Binoculars are a) extremely expensive, and b) utterly stunning.

Agreed, looked through some at an SGL star party, utterly amazing, shame they're so expensive 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ian said!

I know someone that has one, and it is quite simply beautiful. But, much as I'd like to, I can't justify it: I can see deeper with my Lunt 16x70/monopod-triggergrip combo which is less than half the price.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 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.