What type of binoculars are best for stargazing in a light-polluted area?

  • Context: Stargazing 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joej24
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around selecting the appropriate binoculars for stargazing in light-polluted areas. Participants explore the impact of magnification and aperture size on visibility of celestial objects, considering both theoretical and practical aspects of binocular use in astronomy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether 10x50 binoculars would be suitable for stargazing in light pollution, suggesting that a larger aperture might be necessary.
  • Another participant emphasizes that a wider aperture captures more light, which is crucial for viewing fainter objects, and suggests that 7x50 binoculars may be ideal without a tripod.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that 10x50 binoculars are not optimal and recommends considering binoculars with an aperture of at least 60mm for better visibility.
  • Concerns are raised about the manageability of 10x60-70 binoculars without a stand, prompting questions about the importance of magnification.
  • Some participants argue that magnification is less important than aperture size, as the goal is to collect more light rather than simply magnifying objects.
  • One participant explains that many celestial objects are large enough to be seen with minimal magnification but require a larger aperture to be visible due to light pollution.
  • It is noted that while planets and moons can benefit from magnification, most deep-sky objects require significant light collection rather than increased magnification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the importance of magnification versus aperture size, with no consensus reached on the ideal specifications for binoculars in light-polluted areas.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the trade-offs between portability and aperture size, indicating that larger instruments may be less convenient to use. There is also mention of specific models and sizes without a definitive agreement on the best choice.

joej24
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've become interested in astronomy but there are many street lights near my house. My
10 X 25 binoculars don't really help at all too. Would a pair of 10 X 50 's better suit me for stargazing in this situation or is light pollution the problem?

From where I live, the sky is dark enough to see the Small Dipper constellation however.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The first number represents magnification, and the second represents aperture size. For star gazing the second number should be as high as possible. A wider aperture will capture more light and allow you to see fainter objects (which will help with light pollution). Magnification, on the other hand, can actually be a bad thing if you aren't using a tripod. You may find 10x to be too much magnification. I'd say 7x50 is ideal for tripodless star gazing.

Also, if you live in North America, this is a pretty good map to help you find areas near you with less light pollution.
http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/index.php"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to star gazing!

First of all feel free to ask questions. I'm pleased to help.
Second, a binocular 10x50 is not that "great". It works fine but it won't take long until you want to get even bigger to see more & better so I'll suggest you get an aperture of at least 60mm. Let's say 10x60-70.

Ignore the magnification (10) for this case because the magnification will be suitable for the binocular no matter.

But if is 10x50 is your only option, then just go! It's a big sky to explore:smile:!


Regards, Robin Andersson
 
Is one that's 10X60-70 light enough to use without a stand? Why is the magnification not important?
 
10x is manageable for most people. More than that tends to get exponentially more difficult without a stand. Aperature is more important than magnification irrespective of magnification. The same applies to telescopes. The main issue with aperature is portability - also true with telescopes. An instrument that is grab and go easy will be used more than one than that doubles as a bowflex.
 
joej24 said:
Why is the magnification not important?

Because the objects you are trying to see aren't small, they are dim. For example the Andromeda Galaxy appears larger than a full moon in the sky. However, if you live in a populated area you've probably never seen it due to light pollution. There is no need to magnify it, but there is a need to amplify its light. Stars are point objects, which means even with a huge amount of magnification you won't see anything other than a point. The point won't be brighter with only magnification either. You need aperture size to collect more light to make it brighter.

See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Messier_objects" , all of which are large enough to be seen with no or very little magnification (10x will be more than enough). However, many won't be bright enough to see without collecting more light than your eyes alone will be capable of.

The exception to all this is objects within our solar system (eg planets and moons). These objects can actually be magnified to the point where surface details appear. However, for anything other than our moon you are going to need a serious (and expensive) telescope, not binoculars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K