Binocular stargazing is one of my favorite activities. Telescopes may offer more spectacular views, but binocular astronomy has a peaceful, organic quality that's easy to lose when you're zoomed in on one object, attempting to squeeze every drop of possible detail through a high-tech telescope.

Binoculars give a direct connection to the night sky that's hard to achieve through a telescope. That's partly because binoculars are so simple and because viewing with two eyes is more natural than squinting through one eye. But it's also a function of their low magnification, their wide field of view, and the fact that you look directly toward your subject. All of these make it easy to correlate the binocular view and the naked-eye view. Telescopes, by contrast, tend to transport you into an alternate universe where familiar sights are completely absent — which has charms of its own, to be sure.

Over the years, I've written a number of blogs on binocular stargazing. To provide easy access from one to another, here's the complete list:

Nov 25, 2009More on Scopes and Binoculars
Nov 15, 2007Traveling Without a Scope
Sep 28, 2007Big Binocular Messier Survey
Aug 31, 2007Ridiculously Small Optics
May 10, 2007Coda: Binoculars Versus Starblast
May 1, 2007Binoculars Part III: One Eye Versus Two
Apr 27, 2007Three Binoculars: Part II
Apr 23, 2007A Tale of Three Binoculars: Part I

 

Tony Flanders

 

Comments


Image of Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher

March 9, 2010 at 9:48 pm

Tony,

Thanks for gathering these up. I think you're right on about the "peaceful, organic quality" of binocular viewing. That direct connection with the night sky you describe always surprises me. In fact, it was the impulse behind a poem I wrote & published recently on stellar nucleosynthesis:

http://thediagram.com/10_1/fisher.html

Hope you get a kick out of it.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Michael Wolfson

Michael Wolfson

April 11, 2010 at 4:15 pm

I read your article in the current issue of S&T with great interest. My main question is with regard to what's missing -- using a binoviewer with a small refractor. You get two eyes, larger aperture, no neck strain when looking at objectc high in the sky, and a range of mags. Of course, the gear probably costs more, and is not so easy to carry around, but both of your other options involve at least a tripod... Where do you come out on this third approach? Best -- Michael

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Anthony Barreiro

Anthony Barreiro

May 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

I've been enjoying the night sky through hand-held 10x50 binoculars for a while now. In addition to being easy and enjoyable, I think it's also the best way to learn the geography (so to speak) of the sky season by season. More recently I got a 5 inch schmidt cassegrain telescope, which definitely has its own charms. Tony, your article in the May S&T on big binoculars vs. small telescopes inspired me to buy a pair of oberwerk 15x70 binoculars and an orion tripod and parallelogram mount (yes, I totally copied you). I love the oberwerk binos! I find them manageable for hand-held viewing. The tripod and mount give a much steadier view, of course, but the additional weight, bulk, and hassle are all considerable. Now I'm craving a pair of image-stabilized binoculars, but I'll have to save up.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Anthony Barreiro

Anthony Barreiro

May 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

I've been enjoying the night sky through hand-held 10x50 binoculars for a while now. In addition to being easy and enjoyable, I think it's also the best way to learn the geography (so to speak) of the sky season by season. More recently I got a 5 inch schmidt cassegrain telescope, which definitely has its own charms. Tony, your article in the May S&T on big binoculars vs. small telescopes inspired me to buy a pair of oberwerk 15x70 binoculars and an orion tripod and parallelogram mount (yes, I totally copied you). I love the oberwerk binos! I find them manageable for hand-held viewing. The tripod and mount give a much steadier view, of course, but the additional weight, bulk, and hassle are all considerable. Now I'm craving a pair of image-stabilized binoculars, but I'll have to save up.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of jamesmarien

jamesmarien

August 3, 2020 at 1:40 pm

You said it correct.
Binoculars are best option for it. I used 10x50 but I just want to ask you which type of Binocular should be used in travelling because your object can be different like Birding, long view, large view, etc. I read a blog on wildlife binoculars https://binocularsfor.com/best-binoculars-for-wildlife-viewing/ in this blog they mentioned 10x40 is best.

What do you think?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

August 4, 2020 at 6:54 am

Travel by foot, bicycle, public transportation, and airplane put a premium on compactness and light weight. But even the biggest and heaviest 10x50s are fairly modest in size, so I don't see much benefit to using anything other than the 10x50s that you already own. Most terrestrial viewing is done in fairly bright light, where 10x40s work just as well as 10x50s, with possible weight saving. But size and weight vary greatly depending on the design (porro vs roof) and model, so it's hard to generalize. My own favorite all-purpose travel binoculars are my image-stabilized 10x30s.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.