Jump to content

30 secs banner.jpg

What REALLY matters when hand held?


Recommended Posts

Some say 10x50 can be held, other say it’s shakey, or at the limits of what’s possible. We all know the YMMV differences between each of us, but what I find misleading is the weight of the bins are never mentioned. Some 10x50s are twice as heavy as other brands. (I have some APM apo ED 10x50 that are over 3lbs, while the Orion Scenix 10x50 is like 1.7 lbs.)

How much are the recommendations we read speaking in strictly magnification terms? Or is it possible the wide range of opinions from the community come from unwittingly comparing apples (3lb 10x50s) to oranges (1.5lb 10x50s)?

Cheers!

Tyler

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a little extra weight helps, so long as balance in the hand is good. I have a pair of Minolta 10x50 and they are light and nicely balanced for me, tho on a cold night getting a steady view handheld isn't so easy so I use them on a monopod. My Swift Audobon's are heavier but I find the balance is good and at x8.5 are easier handheld. Higher mag will accentuate any movement so while you may still shiver etc an x8 or x7 will seem more stable as the image moves about a little less. As you said tho, YMMV, some can hold 10x and above more easily than others hence the general guidance is 7/8x up to 10x. Above 10-12x things get a whole lot harder.

Edited by DaveL59
Link to post
Share on other sites

The steadier the views the more you’ll see and enjoy using them. Get a cheap monopod and trigger ball head and improve what you have. Any jiggle will stop you detecting the faint stars. Using a reclining seat to enable you to observe closer to the zenith also helps. Tripod mounted angled binoculars are very powerful, pity you can’t get power power angled views... guess we’re not a hit enough market.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really matters ?

Instrument magnification, weight, balance, grip.

User strength, stance , steadiness, grip, heartbeat, breathing

Target angle of altitude, local conditions of wind , security of footing etc.

The steadiness is a result of interplay between all the above, but magnification is the simplest, most easily quantifiable factor.

In the days before image stabilization, photographers like me had to learn how to hold a camera steady by using similar methods to those of competitive rifle target shooters and archers. We had a reciprocal rule of thumb : for a 50mm lens , most people's longest hand held exposure without camera shake spoiling the photo would be 1/50th of a second, for a 200mm lens, 1/200th of a second, and so on.

Out of habit, I still bring a DSLR to my eye , one hand under the lens, one on the camera body, elbows tucked in, back of camera pressed firmly to nose and eyebrow, and breathe out before pressing the shutter. I could manage 1/30th with a 50mm lens back then , and these days quite often turn the stabilization off on my current lenses (which is recommended when using them on tripods) , forget to turn it back on,  and see no difference until I really push the camera in low light.

And, at last, I've found a use for the monopod which became redundant when stabilized telephotos became available ... to hold my binoculars steady  !

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, another photographers trick to steady a telephoto without a tripod : tie a long string to a bolt put in the tripod socket under the camera, drop the string, stand on the bottom end of the string, and pull the string taut as you lift camera to eye. It was surprisingly effective, I'll have to try it with the binos now I've remembered it .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

By the way, another photographers trick to steady a telephoto without a tripod : tie a long string to a bolt put in the tripod socket under the camera, drop the string, stand on the bottom end of the string, and pull the string taut as you lift camera to eye. It was surprisingly effective, I'll have to try it with the binos now I've remembered it .

I'd forgotten that one too - thanks for the reminder! Never tried it in practice, since I mostly had a decent tripod when needed, so I must give it a go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to get on well with fairly heavy binoculars handheld, partially I suppose because I did heaps of photography using a 500mm or 600mm tele lens handheld for about 10 years or so leading up to astronomy interests. Prior to that, I spent a lot of time target shooting from my early teens up to my late 20s, so I guess breathing control and holding somewhat heavy things as still as possible is a bit second nature at times.

I'm able to use my 15x70s Apollos handheld for short 5-10 minute sessions on/off throughout the night and I'm no bodybuilder or bricklayer. In fact, I've only used them on a tripod once for about 10 minutes, specifically when I was trying to bag the Horsehead in October (close, but no cigar) I think they're around 2.5 - 2.7kg. My 12x70 Celestrons weigh a mere 1.4kg and are a doddle in comparison. Same with my 20x60 Pentax WPs (also around 1.4kg)

I had 25x100 Skymasters at first on an AZ4 with an L-bracket. That worked quite well actually, wished I'd kept the AZ4. I've hoiked the 25x100s up to my eyes handheld on the odd occasion to look at something for 10-20 seconds, but that was borderline desperation, think I'd forgotten the L-bracket one night or something. Can't say it was relaxing!

One of the main benefits of handheld binocular viewing for me (up to 15-20x max) is the complete freedom to move around the night sky without a tripod or any restrictions. However, I will shamelessly take advantage of anything stable around me that I can use to relax a bit and steady the views. That includes leaning up against my van, or rest my elbows on the roof of my car if I've taken that out to a dark site. Walls, fence posts, picnic tables, etc, whatever is around. If I really want to hold still near zenith, I'll lay on a foam camping mat, that works well. 

Anytime I can view handheld, that's my preferred option for unrestricted movement, but magnification and aperture/weight seems to vary quite a bit from person to person. 👍

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Tiny Clanger for remining about those good old days of film camera tricks. I agree some might work. My favorite one is the "space walk": hold it at the very CoG and use the short shutter delay; watch the counter indicator; and just prior to the shutter release "drop" the camera, as if it's free falling straight down from your hands for a split second. Makes wonders in low light as soon as you figure how to make it falling straight without rotation.

However, there is a serious difference from the photography here: you need to sweep the sky with binos often and the angle is usually very high. So I would look into video shooting tricks as well.

For example, I'm used to handle my 16x50 holding it as a monocular with my elbows resting on my chest one hand on the lower bino OTA, another holding its wrist. That's how you hold the ancient portable 8mm camera by its pistol-grip handle.

However, a trivial long enough stick is such a DIY no-brainer that there is no single excuse for not making one for a trivial lean-to monopod, which will improve your binos steadiness at least an order of magnitude granted. Add a single bolt and nut to clamp one more wooden piece from the side and you have a sturdy bino attachment point. Cut it and add another bolt and you have the venerable bending section to look near Zenith. It's good to mend stray dogs problem in a rural black hole as well :)

Edited by AlexK
Link to post
Share on other sites

As said above it is a mix of many factors of which magnification is only one. Size, weight, bulk, your strength, how long you tend to observe for, target altitude, ergonomics, etc.

You are always trading something off against something else.

Personally after years going around the houses I've settled on 8x for less shakes, and on roof prism design, to take advantage of the smaller size and easier handling, and only 42mm objectives also to take advantage of smaller size and less weight. 

Edited by Paz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I found I could see as much through 8x binoculars as I could with 10x.  This is because I could hold them steadier.  Additionally, the lower power ones had a bigger field of view.

Like many, I too initially thought I wanted very light binoculars on walks, so bought 8x32s.  However, to my surprise, I’d found that compact binoculars didn’t perform as well as larger ones, even in bright light when there was no exit pupil disadvantage.  In case it was just the various compacts I’d used, I went into a camera shop and spent ages looking through lots of different sizes and makes in various price brackets.  It's counter-intuitive, but what I found was that for a given magnification I could indeed see more detail through the larger binoculars – even outside in full daylight.

The reason turned out to be a surprising one.  We're all different, but up to an objective size of about 42mm, I could actually hold heavier binoculars more steady – presumably because of inertia, it taking more force to start them shaking in the first place.  For this reason I rejected the 8x32s and bought 8x42s.

However, I've now upgraded to 12x36 Canon Image-stabilised binoculars for birding and astronomy.  I can hold these very much steadier than even my 8x42s.  They also show me a lot more, but are of course a lot more expensive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What REALLY matters when hand held?"

- Image stabilization. 😜

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Seriously speaking though, having IS in binoculars was a real game changer for me. Yes, it is an expensive feature, but with it you can just forget worrying about how to mount your binoculars.  No need to carry extra stuff out in the field. I have a relatively small pair of binos, Canon 10x30s, yet somehow they show a lot more that my hand held 10x50 ever could.  Under dark skies, plenty of deep sky objects are available, even with the small aperture. However, my favorite object is the Moon. So much fine details can be seen when the image isn't shaking all the time. 

IS might not be for everyone, but if you ever happen to get a chance to try out a pair, give it a shot!

 

  • Like 1
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By andyrawlins
      Here is a review and then a couple of questions to the forum
      The experience I gained assessing my new Nikon Action EX 10x50s https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/369052-comparison-of-pentax-sp-50-wp-10x50-and-nikon-action-ex-10x50-cf/?tab=comments#comment-4009551 led me to dig out my old Vivitar Series 1 8x25.  I bought these in 1995 for £99, so not an insignificant amount then.  Series 1 was Vivitar's premium range at a time when (I believe) they were well regarded for their optics (now they seem to sell basically children's toy binoculars). Anyway, despite their price/apparent pedigree and excellent build (made in Japan) I never got on with them, finding them very difficult to focus and to keep in focus.  They rarely got used and indeed got superseded for general use by the Inpro 10x50 mentioned in the thread above.
          
      Using what I learned when assessing the Nikon's I decided that the focus problems were down to four things: 1. a small exit pupil, quoted as 3.12mm, so you need to have the eyepieces correctly positioned over each eye; 2. a short eye relief that I estimated to be about 11mm. I found the view (without glasses) to be best with the short (4.5mm) rubber eye cups folded down.  Wearing glasses, it was like looking down a drain pipe with a severely vignetted view; 3. difficulties getting the interpupillary distance right: for some reason the image is significantly brighter when the binoculars are set wider than the correct distance.  However, at this, what would appear to be the correct separation, they will not come completely to focus. When they are brought down to the correct distance (60mm for me)  the image suddenly gets darker but actually focusses well; 4. a very 'low geared' focus wheel and seemingly very short depth of field which necessitates a lot of focus twiddling every time you change view (not for objects at infinity, obviously).  Because of these things, its crucial to get the binoculars correctly positioned over the eyes and to keep them in that position.  Once they are correct the image is actually not bad.  To be specific, the image is almost exactly like it looks with the naked eye: the same colour balance, the same detail and resolution, the same clarity, the same brightness - just a bit bigger.  Its quite uncanny really. In contrast, the Nikons give an almost hyper-real clarity, detail and brightness and as serious wow factor. 
      Compared to the 10x50s they really didn't seem to magnify that much  (I found the objectives to actually be 23mm so 7.4x not 😎 but maybe this is something to do with AFoV. FoV is quoted as 'Wide Field 8.2°'.
      So basically they magnify the image but not the brightness which is fine for daylight use but fairly useless as night.  The big advantage, however, is that whereas the Nikon's are over a kilogram and will only just fit inside my zipped up coat when round my neck, these weigh a third as much (350g) and are a fraction of the size (105x120mm).  They easily fit in my coat pocket.  
      So I think I should give them more of a chance by keeping them in my coat pocket so they are there when I need them (the best binocular is the one you have with you!). 
      On to my question then: does anyone know anything more about these older Vivitars: whether they are actually any good and when and why the company seemed to give up with proper optics?  I can find nothing on the internet.  All I have is the Vivitar brochure from the time (attached) in which the certainly seem to regard themselves as makers of 'proper optics'. 
      I'd also welcome comments on the issues I found and whether my conclusions are correct.  



      IMG_20210113_0002.pdf
    • By anyela
      Hello, my eight yeard old child wants to get into astronomy so she asked for a telescope. I have read that binoculars are as good as telescopes. Since I have always wanted to get into astronomy but never found the time, I thought I tag along and buy one that both can use. Can anybody recommend me a telescope that  is good enough for astronomy but can also be used by a small child.
      Thanks
    • By andyrawlins
      Hi All
      After much research, primarily on this site and The Binocular Sky, I got hold of the above binoculars.  I spent ages writing a review specifically for this site of what I found, as a thanks for all the advice I had received.  By the power of idiocy I then managed to post it on Cloudy Nights instead (I had both open in my browser).  Too much Christmas port I guess  
      Anyway, too late to take it down as some have already replied and I guess I shouldn't post the same thing on two sites so here is a link to my review on completely the wrong site   No offence at all to Cloudy Nights but I wrote it with the Stargazers Lounge audience in mind and it may make less sense on a US site.
      Comparison of Pentax SP 50 WP 10x50 and Nikon Action EX 10x50 CF




    • By WiltsStarGazer
      Hi,
      I have Skytee 2 mount, on which I use the side mount for my 200p and use the top mount for my 127 Mak, sometimes at the same time. (Yes, I got carried away with secondhand bargain madness during the first lockdown 😏)
      What I would like to do is use the top mount to mount my 15x70 binoculars so I can let the family see what I'm looking at without having change the height of eyepieces on the scope or them using steps.
      For this I would need a sturdy adaptor which has a dovetail (vixen?) base with the normal screw fit for the tripod mounting bracket between the lenses.
      Does such a thing exist? If it does, I haven't been able to find it.
      Does anyone know of one?
      Thanks
       
    • By Gazer 1996
      Barely used, no damage.
      £40 or nearest offer
      Contact me for anymore information!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.