purchasing new binoculars

[Justin]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?

[Leif]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?

If you want to watch dragonflies and other insects, then you really want at least 3m close focus, and preferably 2.5m. If you want to use them in more extreme lighting conditions, then you need an 8x42 (or 7x42) roof prism (or Nikon 8x32 SE which to my eyes is as bright as 8x42 roofs). If you wear eye glasses, then you really need at least 15mm eye relief.

Mid-sized roof prism bins are compact and light, at the expense of resolution and brightness, thus they are not so good in dark woods and at dawn and dusk. I see a lot about, so they are clearly very popular. You have to ask yourself whether you really need compact and light at the expense of the optics. Mid-sized roof prism bins tend to have less eye relief than a full-sized instrument. They also have smaller exit pupils which makes it a little harder to align the opical axes with your eyes.

Full sized roof prism bins are heavier and bulkier, but in my opinion the extra weight is not significant unless it exceeds ~800g. (That of course is a subjective judgement on my part.) They will be more useful in low light, and will resolve more detail, which is noticeable when for example observing in a hide.

It is very important how binoculars feel in your hands and how comfortable you feel using them. The shape of the eye tubes might not match your face, or you might find the materials used for the armour unpleasant. They might be too heavy for you, or you might have big hands, and find a small binocular fiddly to use. Or you might find the focus too coarse, or too fine. The Leica 8x42 BN always gets rave reviews, but to me it has the ergonomics of a brick! I suspect I have smaller than average hands. I hated the original Zeiss 8x40 Victory due to the small lugs at the side of the eyepieces. This 'fault' has been rectified in the Zeiss 8x40 Victory II.

The Swaro 8.5x42 EL and the Leica Ultravid 8x42 combine class leading optics with good ergonomics, and modest weight, although the Swaro has a rather fine focus that some do not like. The Nikon 8x42 HG has a bit too much chromatic aberration for my tastes, but is a fine instrument, despite being a bit of a fatso. The Zeiss 8x40 Victory II does not seem to get as much attention as the others, but it has excellent optics, and is noticeably lighter, and a bit cheaper too.

In short, try them for yourself, preferably at a specialist dealers with viewing facilities i.e. an open window through which you can observe birds with a selection of bins.

[tomreid24]

Justin,
From your choices I believe the best all rounder will be the leica 8x42 ultravid.This binocular is light,fits well in the hand and gives a bright image.
The swaro 7x42 is a bit heavier, has an excellent f.o.v. and resolution but sometimes 7x just isn't enough mag' unless backed up with a scope.
The 8x30 i've never tried.
The leica 8x32 is a great wee binocular.I use one and chose it over the 8x42 as it was much lighter , fitted my hands better, gave as good,if not better ,view.Although I chose it as my 2nd pair as I had already had swaro 10x42els.
The swaro 8x32el is also a cracker of a binocular, you really have to try it to believe it.
Tom.

[Sleeper]

How about the sworo 8x32 ELs? Have you any experience of these Leif?

[Leif]

How about the sworo 8x32 ELs? Have you any experience of these Leif?

I have peeked through a pair, but I've not tried them properly. They have better eye relief than the Leica 8x32 BN, and seem to have better correction for chromatic aberration. I have no idea how the brightness and sharpness are, though I would guess that they are no sharper than the Leica 8x32 BN (and the Nikon, Swaro SLC and Zeiss competitors). The magazine reviews I've seen seem to say "Cor, wow" which does not tell me much. I wish they would say something useful e.g. "as bright as the Nikon 8x32 HG, and just as sharp" or whatever. I had my fortieth birthday last year and could have had a pair of the Swaro 8x32 EL, but chose the Swaro 8.5x42 EL. My personal subjective biased choice is for the larger bin.

[Justin]

Thanks a lot for your responses. Your input is much appreciated. I believe my decision would be much easier if only Swarovski made an 8x42slc. I've looked at the EL's and loved them, but the price is a little steep. For what I can spend, I am split between the Swarovski 7x42's, the Leica Trinovid 8x32 or 8x42 and the Leica Ultravid 8x42. I am not really experienced with binoculars and from what I could tell, they were all competitively close. Each having there own strengths and flaws. I should mention that I will be using these a lot for hunting. I will be viewing animals from between 100-250 yds. out. Anymore input you can offer is very much appreciated. Thanks!

[Art Thorn]

Hi Justin. Why not check out some of the web sites where several top birders have spent an intensive day or two comparing top models? Just search for 'binocular review' and you will find plenty of choises. I started at 'better view desired', and it is as good a starting point as any.

[Jonathan B.]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?

Justin, I don't know where in Texas you are, or where you were able to handle binoculars, but if you don't already know, Wild Birds Unlimited in the University Park area of Dallas has--or at least until recently had--a great selection of high-end binoculars that they would allow you to handle and compare. In Norman, OK, Christopher's also has an excellent selection and will let you handle and compare. Both shops have prices that match the best you can get on the Internet.

I bought my Nikon Superior E 8x32 at the WBU in Dallas about 3 1/2 years ago. As Leif says, these are as sharp and bright as the most expensive 8x42 roof prism binoculars. The drawbacks to the SE are that they are not waterproof and they have rubber eyecups, rather than pop-up or twist-up cups. They are superior optically to the Leica 8x32 BN Ultra (I believed that when I originally compared them, and I renewed my opinion after comparing them again about two weeks ago).

I echo Leif's and a couple other people's suggestions. Based on my own handling and resulting opinions (mind you, opinions only--you must try them yourself), the finest all around binoculars are the Leica Ultravid 8x42 and 7x42, Swarovski 8x32 EL (optically barely distinguishable from Nikon SE, but a jewel for its size and ergonomics), and Zeiss Victory II 8x40. I have stated elsewhere in these forums why I don't like other models of binocular, and I don't use 10x.

My last purchase was Leica Ultravid 7x42. I have now used it for about 100 hours, and I'm amazed by its performance and handling every time I use it. I don't think the Zeiss Victory has quite the resolution or contrast that the Ultravid has, but the difference is slight, and my opinion may be subjective, so you really should compare. The ergonomics of the two are extremely similar.

[pduxon]

Thanks a lot for your responses. Your input is much appreciated. I believe my decision would be much easier if only Swarovski made an 8x42slc. I've looked at the EL's and loved them, but the price is a little steep. For what I can spend, I am split between the Swarovski 7x42's, the Leica Trinovid 8x32 or 8x42 and the Leica Ultravid 8x42. I am not really experienced with binoculars and from what I could tell, they were all competitively close. Each having there own strengths and flaws. I should mention that I will be using these a lot for hunting. I will be viewing animals from between 100-250 yds. out. Anymore input you can offer is very much appreciated. Thanks!

check out the reviews on www.betterviewdesired.com

I'd have a look at the Nikon Venturer LX 8x32 (hope that's right they have a different name over here).They're review on the above site.

Whatever you do try the bins and buy the one you think best.

[scampo]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?
I have Swaro 8.5ELs, but a very experienced and discerning friend recently chose Nikon HG42 against these (he was changing from Leica 8x42BN) any others - unlike Leif he fails to detect any chromatic aberration and think the Nikons render natural colours more faithfully than nay other make. Nikon also cost a fait bit less than the ELs if money is an issue - and it usually is!

In the US Nikon are very highly regarded. My own favourite Nikon is their 8x32HG - a wonderful binocular.

[Leif]

I have Swaro 8.5ELs, but a very experienced and discerning friend recently chose Nikon HG42 against these (he was changing from Leica 8x42BN) any others - unlike Leif he fails to detect any chromatic aberration and think the Nikons render natural colours more faithfully than nay other make. Nikon also cost a fait bit less than the ELs if money is an issue - and it usually is!

In the US Nikon are very highly regarded. My own favourite Nikon is their 8x32HG - a wonderful binocular.

I think the fact that several people disagree about the Nikons shows how important it is to try them for yourself!

Steve Ingraham has an interesting letter from an experienced observer regarding chromatic aberration:

http://betterviewdesired.com/chabletter.html

I thought I was going a bit potty as I did not like the Leica 8x32 BN due to excessive CA and yet all the magazine reviews said "Wow" or words to that effect.

[scampo]

Leif

I can make my Swaros show excessive CA easily by looking through them at certain angles against the light. I'm pretty certain (and I did look for a good time!) that the Swaros are similar to the Nikons in this respect.

[Leif]

Leif

I can make my Swaros show excessive CA easily by looking through them at certain angles against the light. I'm pretty certain (and I did look for a good time!) that the Swaros are similar to the Nikons in this respect.

Steve: Almost all bins seem to show some CA with one or two exceptions e.g. Takahashi 20x60. I tested the Leica 8x32 BN and the Nikon 8x32 HG against the Swaro 8.5x42 and I saw much less CA through the Swaro. I bought a pair of the Nikon 8x32 HG but sold them within the month (I lost £150) because I found the CA interfered with observing and was annoying me too much. I also didn't like the associated lack of purity of the colours (a noticeable magenta cast). I now own Swaro 8.5x42 and they are much much better IMO.

However, I accept that I am in the minority and most people consider the Nikon and Leica 8x32's to be superb. I wish I was in that group because the little Nikon's are otherwise superb bins.

[gorank]

Thanks a lot for your responses. Your input is much appreciated. I believe my decision would be much easier if only Swarovski made an 8x42slc. I've looked at the EL's and loved them, but the price is a little steep. For what I can spend, I am split between the Swarovski 7x42's, the Leica Trinovid 8x32 or 8x42 and the Leica Ultravid 8x42. I am not really experienced with binoculars and from what I could tell, they were all competitively close. Each having there own strengths and flaws. I should mention that I will be using these a lot for hunting. I will be viewing animals from between 100-250 yds. out. Anymore input you can offer is very much appreciated. Thanks!

The 8x42 Ultravids or the 7x42 swarovski may be a better choise (than the swarovski 8.5x42) becuse of their higher contrast in low light due to the anti-reflective coating and bigger exit pupil.
BUT the Swarovski 8,5x42 is an ergonomic dream and very nice to look into...a bit slow focus wheel though..but that shouldnt bother you if animals are your main target.
And the 7x42 Swarovski seems a bit heavy to me.

[gorank]

However, I accept that I am in the minority and most people consider the Nikon and Leica 8x32's to be superb. I wish I was in that group because the little Nikon's are otherwise superb bins.

I have used the 8x32 BN Leica for several years and I can NOT say that they are superb bins...

The most positive with this binos is that they have good contrast.

The negative is that the sharpness of the view is low halfway from the center and out.
And the CA is disturbing me often (flying birds, birds against sky, bird in a tree top etc..).

In bad light the vignettning is also disturbing. (This could be an effect in combination with glasses and difficulty to get full FOV.)
In my opinion they are not very good with eye glasses. The eye relief is only 14 mm. And its not comfortable when you need to push the binos/glasses into your eyes. I had to make some modified glasses to see 100% of the FOV.

Still the Leica 8x32 BN:s are decent and very compact binos.

Today I would probably buy the 8x32 Swarovski or the Nikon HG 8x32 if I would by a pair in this size category. Both are better with glasses, they got an easier view and they are good binos...but superb?? No, I would not say...not in all light conditions..

[Leif]

I have used the 8x32 BN Leica for several years and I can NOT say that they are superb bins...


And I thought I was alone in not liking the Leica 8x32 BN! Sounds like you should write a review of them for this site. In the UK I see loads of Leica 8x32 BN/BA. I have never understood why. Maybe it is the social kudos.

Are they popular in Sweden too?

[scampo]

It's not that you are in any minority (except of one like us all...!), it's just that the very reasons you got rid of your bins are the binary opposite of why a good friend chose Nikon 8x42HG against Leica (which he had already) and Swaro. I think it could be that you had a faulty pair - maybe that had been dropped.

Another birder loves the Nikon except for the rain cover (?) and so bought Swaro. He too felt the Nikon gave no noticeable CA.

Odd eh? But there we are! I shall investigate further...

[gorank]

And I thought I was alone in not liking the Leica 8x32 BN! Sounds like you should write a review of them for this site. In the UK I see loads of Leica 8x32 BN/BA. I have never understood why. Maybe it is the social kudos.

Are they popular in Sweden too?

Here in Sweden its very much a question about being a Leica-ist OR a Swarovski-ist...if your are into the material and superficial aspects of birding...=)

I sometimes see 8x32 Leicas but the 8/10x42 models are definitely the most common. The Swarovski-EL is still increasing rapidly, but the Nikon is a very rare bird here...to heavy or maybe exotic for the average viking I guess...=)

[marcus]

I have used the 8x32 BN Leica for several years and I can NOT say that they are superb bins...

The most positive with this binos is that they have good contrast.

The negative is that the sharpness is low halfway from the center and out.
And the CA is disturbing me often (flying birds, birds against sky, bird in a tree top etc..).

In bad light the vignettning is also disturbing - they dont deliver enough light...)

They are not very good with eye glasses either (I had to make some modified glasses to see 100% of the FOV)

Still the Leica are descent binos.

Today I would probably buy the 8x32 Swarovski or the Nikon HG 8x32 if I would by a pair in this size category. Both are better with glasses and good binos...but superb?? No, I would not say...
Gorank
Whats vignetting? Darkness?
marcus

[Leif]

Here in Sweden its very much a question about being a Leica-ist OR a Swarovski-ist...if your are into the material and superficial aspects of birding...=)

I sometimes see 8x32 Leicas but the 8/10x42 models are definitely the most common. The Swarovski-EL is still increasing rapidly, but the Nikon is a very rare bird here...to heavy or maybe exotic for the average viking I guess...=)

I have the impression that the Nikon 8x42 are becoming more popular here although I see far more Leica, Swaro and Zeiss BGAT. Oddly enough I have never seen a Zeiss Victory in the field. Maybe here magazine reviews determine purchases. Sad if true given how rubbish such reviews are.

[Sleeper]

Who needs magazine reviews eh!

Scampo how do you rate the various optics when wearing glasses? I find most optics seem to have problems one way or another. Can anybody explain the reason why those with glasses seem to get a rougher ride?

[marcus]

Sleeper, here's one.
Trying to line the binocular pupil up with my eye can be annoying since I wear glasses.
At least the binoculars I have.
marcus

[scampo]

"Who needs magazine reviews eh! Scampo how do you rate the various optics when wearing glasses?... Sleeper"

I couldn't agree more. The only binoculars I can truly say I feel entirely comfortably using while I wear my (long-sighted) specs on is Nikon's Sporter 8x36s. My own Swaro EL8.5s hardly allow a full view so I find myself removing them 90% of the time. Same with scopes - my Nikon ED82 allows a lovely full FOV - but only at at 25x, my son's Swaro 65, only at 20x. So frustrating - I think I'll have to buy one of those things that you hang your glasses on - as pretentious as I have always thought they looked!

When I read how so many binos and scopes state that they allow the use of specs, I often wonder what's wrong with my own!

[scampo]

I have the impression that the Nikon 8x42 are becoming more popular here although I see far more Leica, Swaro and Zeiss BGAT. Oddly enough I have never seen a Zeiss Victory in the field. Maybe here magazine reviews determine purchases. Sad if true given how rubbish such reviews are.
A friend owns a camera shop that sells many scopes and binos - but not many "birding" binos. It always surprises me that most binos sold are probably not to birdwatchers! So, it might be that Zeiss are very popular, say, with race goers or sailing types? Mind you - once upon a little while ago, I envied the many birders whoi had Zeiss around their necks. Fashion, huh? Or crafty marketing! I think I bought my Nikon ED82 partly out of contempt for the fashionable brands - and I'm sure their binos are up their with the very best if not ahead of them!

[marcus]

Really Steve? I once read that birders are the main customers of binoculars, but I guess that may have just been advertising.

[Leif]

"Who needs magazine reviews eh! Scampo how do you rate the various optics when wearing glasses?... Sleeper"

I couldn't agree more. The only binoculars I can truly say I feel entirely comfortably using while I wear my (long-sighted) specs on is Nikon's Sporter 8x36s. My own Swaro EL8.5s hardly allow a full view so I find myself removing them 90% of the time. Same with scopes - my Nikon ED82 allows a lovely full FOV - but only at at 25x, my son's Swaro 65, only at 20x. So frustrating - I think I'll have to buy one of those things that you hang your glasses on - as pretentious as I have always thought they looked!

When I read how so many binos and scopes state that they allow the use of specs, I often wonder what's wrong with my own!

I find the Swaro 8.5x42 EL and Nikon 8x32 SE very comfortable with eyeglasses. In fact if anything I find them more comfortable with eyeglasses than without. I suspect it depends very much on the nature of the eyeglasses. I recently got some of the small frame kind that seem to be all the rage, despite my dislike of this modern fashion. It turns out that they are much better for use with binoculars than the old round John Lennon kind I used to wear. They seem to sit closer to my face. Also, it helps that I am only modestly short sighted in one eye and hence do not need thick lenses.

BTW The Nikon 8x42 HG have very long eye relief ~20mm IIRC.

[gorank]

Gorank
Whats vignetting? Darkness?
marcus

Vignetting is when the view seems darker around the edges than in the middle. I see it when I look at an even but poor illuminated object such as a grey sky.
Could be me in combination with my glasses, but I think the binos must be guilty in some way...

[scampo]

I certainly thought so but just look in those camera shop windows - there are all kinds of makes!

[Leif]

Vignetting is when the view seems darker around the edges than in the middle. I see it when I look at an even but poor illuminated object such as a grey sky.
Could be me in combination with my glasses, but I think the binos must be guilty in some way...

Steve Ingraham (BVD) also reckons that the Leica 8x32 BA vignettes so I would tend to believe your observations. When I tested them I could not see it, but I only had half an hour with them, and the sky was not even. In fact I have never noticed vignetting through any bin (either my ignorance or maybe the Leica are unique in this).

[Swissboy]

Leif, that's a perfect summary you gave in post #2! Congratulations. I copied it for further personal use. I can only agree with what you said.

[Swissboy]

check out the reviews on www.betterviewdesired.com

Unfortunately, that site is no longer up to date. It is OK for those binos that have been around for a while, but not for the newest top of the line crop.

[Swissboy]

[QUOTE=scampoWhen I read how so many binos and scopes state that they allow the use of specs, I often wonder what's wrong with my own![/QUOTE]

How true! It would seem that all those specifications are made under the assumption that a person has the specs extremely close to his eyes (with the corresponding higher chance of them fogging up in hot and humid conditions).

[Tim Allwood]

I'm a specky git and have no trouble with my 8 x 32 HGs but the Zeiss 7 x 42 are THE bins for the glasses wearers among us......

[Art Thorn]

I hear that birding is the fastest growing hobby because of the ageing 'Baby-Boomers'. And there are some optics shops located on the doorsteps of famous birding spots, so they sell mostly to birders (big surprise). It would be interesting to find out how many of what they sell, and if that fits their own biases. I swear by any of the Nikons top models, but see more red badges when I'm in a birding area. I've only noticed one Zeiss, but also many bargain brands. Not too many Swaro's around here either.

[Raptor]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?

Hello Justin, one area to consider is retained value, Leica, Swaro and Zeiss, hold the value better than any others out there (sorry all you nikon users) but them is the facts, if you ever want to sell your binos you to upgrade you will find that the top three will get a very good return on investment, Raptor.

[Art Thorn]

Hello Justin, one area to consider is retained value, Leica, Swaro and Zeiss, hold the value better than any others out there (sorry all you nikon users) but them is the facts, if you ever want to sell your binos you to upgrade you will find that the top three will get a very good return on investment, Raptor.
I don't usually outright disagree with anyone, but, in this case, I must! I have purchased and sold Nikon binoculars on eBay. I did that because it was the easiest way to give them all an extensive try-out (no local shops carry any high end except B&L Elites), and it lost me virtually NO money. If you were to go to your local shop and buy an 8x32 HG and then sell it on eBay, you would lose. But if you buy and sell on eBay, the loss is negligable. I have had 6 pairs of top of the line Nikons: 2 pairs of the 8x32 SE (I have kept one pair), a pair of 8x42 HG, a pair of 8x32 HG, a pair of 10x32 HG (I have kept those) and a pair of 10x42 SE (I have kept those). Never was I disappointed in any of them, but am keeping the three pair that suit me the best under the different circumstances in which my wife and I bird. The three I kept are the lighest for their particular strengths. One pair is waterproof and 10 power for those days at the beach when it rains (my wife would not be there in the rain). One pair is eight power, wide angle, has the BEST optics and is very light for those days in the bush (if my wife is with me she prefers the roof prism 10 power pair always). And one pair is for all other circumatances - bright, the best resolution, and acceptably light. When I think that I have all three of these (all were brand new) for just a bit more money than 1 pair of Swaro's, I think myself brilliant (and thank Nikon profusely). And I am not alone in my opinions.

[Leif]

Hello Justin, one area to consider is retained value, Leica, Swaro and Zeiss, hold the value better than any others out there (sorry all you nikon users) but them is the facts, if you ever want to sell your binos you to upgrade you will find that the top three will get a very good return on investment, Raptor.

I could not disagree more. In my experience in the UK Nikon binoculars retain their value extremely well, and certainly as well as posh European brands. The quality of top end Nikon binoculars is widely recognised esp. by specialist dealers. However, it is still sometimes possible to buy used Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII at low prices as some people do not realise their true value.

[Art Thorn]

I could not disagree more. In my experience in the UK Nikon binoculars retain their value extremely well, and certainly as well as posh European brands. The quality of top end Nikon binoculars is widely recognised esp. by specialist dealers. However, it is still sometimes possible to buy used Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII at low prices as some people do not realise their true value.
I agree Lief, and I saw a pair of Swaro's also go for a low price ($430 I believe) on eBay because the title wasn't worded so that the search engine would find them easily and the auction was short (and the owner didn't set a high starting point). So bargains can be found on anything, and I'm glad of that (speaking selfishly).

[scampo]

"but them is the facts..."

Your facts are as faulty as your grammar, eh? (-:

It simply not so in the UK - indeed why ever should it be so? Nikon - which often costs quite a bit less to begin with over here - tends to hold its value probably better. If you ever try to buy Nikon kit on EBay you'll see what I mean.

[Tim Allwood]

The guys at In Focus in Norfolk apparently all bought a pair of 8 x 32 HGs when they came out....for what it's worth!

[scampo]

There is something weird happening to postings - I have posted a reply here and it has disappeared. Equally, I am getting emails saying I have received a reply and when I use the hyperlink - it's not there? Odd.

[Leif]

The guys at In Focus in Norfolk apparently all bought a pair of 8 x 32 HGs when they came out....for what it's worth!

One of the staff at Barnes InFocus replaced his Zeiss 10x40 BGAT with a Nikon 8x32 HG ... FWIW.

[scampo]

I want a pair!!! Can't afford it though...

[pduxon]

The guys at In Focus in Norfolk apparently all bought a pair of 8 x 32 HGs when they came out....for what it's worth!

Yup. interestingly they reckon the classic Zeiss are as good as anything around now. The guy I was nattering to said that we've all gone waterproof mad and that he'd used the zeiss for years in all weathers with not a problem.

[Tim Allwood]

yep...me too
still love em

actually used em in very muggy trpoics for a two year spell and not a single problem. Unlike my mates Swaros (three diff pairs) that misted each time he went to Peru!

[chartwell99]

I emphatically second the recommendation to handle and use a variety of models before buying - and not take every word of the published reviews as revealed truth. I own and love the Zeiss 8 x 40 Victory I, have no problem with the placement of the strap lugs, actually find the swivel feature a real plus, and especially appreciated the dramatic discount available at the time over the Victory II.

[dogfish]

Don't get too carried away with the water-resistance of the Zeiss Dialyts folks. My 10x40s let water into one tube in rainy New Zealand and were never quite the same again, despite servicing by Zeiss. But that was me getting caught in a v heavy storm with nothing to cover them with.

No problems with my 7x42s in the past 12 years though.

[Tim Allwood]

Oh those 7 x 42s - they are THE best!

[mpedris]

If you want to use them in more extreme lighting conditions, then you need an 8x42 (or 7x42) roof prism (or Nikon 8x32 SE which to my eyes is as bright as 8x42 roofs). Leif,

Do you mean to say here that the Nikon 8x32 SE is actually brighter than the Nikon 8x32 (not 8x42) HG?

[scampo]

My brother has just bought a pir of 8x42 HGs - what a marvellous binocular they seem to be. I've heard people comment on their weight but if you hold them their design seems to not give the illusion of heaviness in any way. I'd reccomend them as a "must look at" brand. Their manufacturing and design qualities seems superb.

[dogfish]

I agree that heavy (and those 8x42 HG Nikons are heavee!) but well-balanced binoculars can feel absolutely great in the hand. Even the heavier Leica/Swarovski 50mm series. But have you asked your neck's opinion, specially in summer when you're only wearing a T-shirt? Tying myself up in a harness doesn't appeal.

Unfortunately weight is not a subjective factor when it comes to choosing optics. I hope Nikon couple their excellent optics with lighter materials in future bins and scopes; it's what their rivals are doing. If their ED80 scope was lighter I'm sure it would sell more.

[Leif]

Leif,

Do you mean to say here that the Nikon 8x32 SE is actually brighter than the Nikon 8x32 (not 8x42) HG?

Mpedris: To be honest I don't know as I have not done side by side tests of these two binoculars. I was struck by how bright the HG seemed compared with the Leica 8x32 BN. Steve Ingraham on the BVD site reviews both binoculars and I think he says that the Nikon 8x32 SE is a little bit brighter than the Nikon 8x32 HG, but not by much. Anyway, the HG is amazingly bright, and I was impressed by how useable it was when the light was fading, and my unaided eyes were starting to have difficulty making out shapes.

[Leif]

My brother has just bought a pir of 8x42 HGs - what a marvellous binocular they seem to be. I've heard people comment on their weight but if you hold them their design seems to not give the illusion of heaviness in any way. I'd reccomend them as a "must look at" brand. Their manufacturing and design qualities seems superb.

They do feel good in the hand. Was that the £500 deal? If only I could find a scope at such a good price!

[scampo]

I emailed you about them, Leif - it was indeed the offer and what an utter bargain. And, despite the comment above that they "are heavee" this is just not so. They are rather heavier than Trinovids or Swaros but in the hand they feel so extraordinarily good and are incredibly well made. The view is surely as good as it gest? And there are no plastic and gold paint logos to fall off them as recently happened to my Swaros - even if good old Swarovski got one in the post to me the next day!

[Art Thorn]

Leif,

Do you mean to say here that the Nikon 8x32 SE is actually brighter than the Nikon 8x32 (not 8x42) HG?
I would venture to say that you could NOT tell the difference in brightness. I have 10x42 se, 8x32 se and 10x32 hg. I also had 8x42 hg and 8x32 hg but sold them. Only as it gets very dark can I find, by looking hard, any difference between the 10 power 42 and 32, and it is so dark by then that I can only make out shapes anyway. Any of these bins are sure to please.

[dogfish]

Scampo wrote: And, despite the comment above that they "are heavee" this is just not so. (end quote)

You've lost me there. They are easily the heaviest in their class. They may be fine in the hand but as I pointed out, the real problem with heavy binoculars is the weight around the neck, bungee-style straps notwithstanding.

Weights (from Birdwatching mag surveys): Nikon 8x42 High Grade 970g; Swaro 8.5 x 42 835g; Leica Ultravid 8x42 790g. Zeiss Victory 8x42 720g.


Could Scampo perhaps be a little biased towards one particular brand?

[Tero]

Hunters may buy a lot of binos as well. Not sure what they prefer.

With all this talk of eye relief and weight etc., I wonder how long any of you look without putting the binos down. For me, it is rarely more than 5 minutes. I walk and move a lot and only look when stopped.

[scampo]

Well all I was saying (and it is a subjective description, I agree) that the Nikon 8x42HGs are not heavy. What you are saying is quite correct - that the Nikon's are, relative to some other binos, heavier than those. That's rather different and not semantics; neither am I being flippant - the fact is that if the extra 5oz is an issue then you might not choose the Nikon bins; but... I have been using a pair with another experienced birder - my brother - and neither of us feel they are "heavy" in a non-comparative sense; and I use Swaros myself. Indeed the Nikon's mechanical construction might explain their extra weight because it is, so far as it's possible for us to tell, beyond compare.

Interestingly, one of our best known local birders recently switched from Trinovids to Nikon HGs after a deal of research and he says he would never switch back owing, in his words, to Nikon's more faithful colour rendition and overall clarity - clearly, to him and to us, the weight is not an important issue in the light of the Nikon's other aspects.

[pduxon]

Hi Steve

personally I reckon the 8x42 HG aren't worth the extra over the 8x32. And they are way too heavy. The Opticron DBAs are really comfy to use, light (lighter than the 8x32HG) and surprisingly good.

[gunvald]

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!

I have been investigating binoculars for a while and have not yet got a chance to take a look at the Nikon 8x42 HG. They are very tempting for reasons such as constantly good reviews and a very good eye relief. This alternative cannot be easily rejected even though almost all reviewers complain about their weight and clumsiness.

I would like to ask Scampo about what you think about these compared to the Swarovskis you own (8,5x42, yes?) with respect to:

1. The field of view with glasses in the Nikon, can you see the entire field? You stated in an earlier post that this was not possible with your Swarovskis.

2. What kind of strap does your brother use with his Nikons, the ordinary one or an elastic one? I just thought I should ask, it should make the Nikons easier to carry.

More thoughts on binoculars and eye glasses:

I feel unsure about the eye relief of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 which otherwise seem to be a really good candidate for a good pair of binoculars.

I use eye glasses with a strength of -7 dioptries, although I have thin glass elements with high refractive index, I have tried to measure how much eye relief I need and it seems to equal 15 mm "free air" between my eye and the outer rim of the eye piece of the binoculars.

Judging from pictures, the Leica Ultravids seem to have the outer rim located a few mm-s above the eye piece glass element even with the eye cups lowered, so even if the eye relied is 16 mm, the free distance seems to be less, perhaps ~14 mm. This is probably too little for me.

The Zeiss Victory 8x40 also have 16 mm eye relief and have their glass element located closer to the outer rim, which unfortunately is that tiny plastic ring, which is no good for eye glass wearers.

[scampo]

Hi Steve

personally I reckon the 8x42 HG aren't worth the extra over the 8x32. And they are way too heavy. The Opticron DBAs are really comfy to use, light (lighter than the 8x32HG) and surprisingly good.
Maybe - but my brother got them for £499-00 and at that price, well... . The Opticrons are a good glass, but not made to the same standard as the Nikon. That might not matter in practical terms - but those Nikons will become collector's items in the future; as good as they are, I doubt the Opticron's will.

[scampo]

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!

...even though almost all reviewers complain about their weight and clumsiness.
I just cannot accept this. When the Nikons first arrived on the scene they took the reviewing world by storm - but they were over-priced (well, let's say, Nikon were before their time ; Swaro timed their launch much better - in marketing, timing is all - but it's rare for a Japanese firm to get it wrong. I think Nikon put too many resources into photography and don't keep their eye fully on the birding ball - but who can doubt their optical brilliance, really?).

Also... I have never read a single report saying the HGs are "clumsy" - in fact, they simply are not. Ergonomically they are a beautifual design and perfectly balanced..

I would like to ask Scampo about what you think about these compared to the Swarovskis you own (8,5x42, yes?) with respect to:

1. The field of view with glasses in the Nikon, can you see the entire field? You stated in an earlier post that this was not possible with your Swarovskis.

2. What kind of strap does your brother use with his Nikons, the ordinary one or an elastic one? I just thought I should ask, it should make the Nikons easier to carry.
I'm out with him over the weekend - so I'll reply then. Actually he joined BF last night in the excitment his nes bins have brought him so he might reply (he's much shier than I am and much less subjective (-: ). First impressions are that, with my big hands, the Nikons would suit me fine - but I do think the Swaros are brilliant for large handed folks. I doubt I will be able to see the whole FOV with my specs on as I can't with any bino I've yet tried except the Nikon Sporter 8x36.

[pduxon]

Maybe - but my brother got them for £499-00 and at that price, well... . The Opticrons are a good glass, but not made to the same standard as the Nikon. That might not matter in practical terms - but those Nikons will become collector's items in the future; as good as they are, I doubt the Opticron's will.

499 is a cracking price but I'd still stick with the 32s!! Its not so much lifting them but the weight after around the neck after a long days birding. Where did he get them from?

You may be right about the Nikon's being collectable in the future but with a 30 year guarantee the Opticrons will last me a while. As I'm a two bin birder I better keep quiet after another thread eh ;)

[Leif]

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!

I have been investigating binoculars for a while and have not yet got a chance to take a look at the Nikon 8x42 HG. They are very tempting for reasons such as constantly good reviews and a very good eye relief. This alternative cannot be easily rejected even though almost all reviewers complain about their weight and clumsiness.


I always find UK magazine reviews a bit odd when it comes to binoculars. The Leica 8x42 Trinovids always get rave reviews, but I have always found them uncomfortable to hold due to the brick like ergonomics, the bulk and the coarsely ribbed armour. In contrast, the Nikon 8x42 HG are a joy to hold, even though they are heavier, presumably because of the ergonomically shaped armour. I happen to prefer the Swaro 8.5x42 EL but have to admit that there is something special about the view through the Nikons.

Incidentally, there may well be a new Nikon 10x42 HG for £600 at the shop where Steve's brother got his 8x42 from (£850 from Warehouse Express):

www.parkcameras.co.uk

Also I have noticed some new Leica 10x42 BA going for £500 at www.ffordes.co.uk according to an ad in a magazine. It seems that quite a few camera shops are selling new bins cheap for some strange reason. Maybe they stocked some and found that they did not sell, so reduced them to clear?

[pduxon]

Leif - since they only have 1 of each then I reckon you're right. Definite steal at that price.

[Leif]

499 is a cracking price but I'd still stick with the 32s!! Its not so much lifting them but the weight after around the neck after a long days birding.

I think this weight thing is a bit exaggerated unless you have weak arms. (My mother has weak arms so I bought her a Zeiss 8x20 Classic.) When I had some Nikon 8x42 HGs I bought a neoprene strap and never noticed any neck ache. Part of the trick is to use the heron stance when holding binoculars (elbows held beneath the bins) rather than the seagull stance (elbows stuck out each side). Of course the best approach with any binocular - though not always practicable - is to try a pair in the field and see how you find them rather than rely on a second-hand (but as new) opinion.

[Art Thorn]

Hunters may buy a lot of binos as well. Not sure what they prefer.

With all this talk of eye relief and weight etc., I wonder how long any of you look without putting the binos down. For me, it is rarely more than 5 minutes. I walk and move a lot and only look when stopped.
Mags targeted at hunters in the US have identified the Nikon 10x42 HGs as the best of the best. Considering that the hunters are carrying guns quite a bit heavier than our scopes, they probably pick ruggedness over light weight. ANd I think the 42 HGs are about as rugged as it gets.

[dogfish]

Scampo's comment that Nikon 8x42s may become collectors' items is an interesting one. I wonder which bins or scopes are considered collectors' items now. Does anyone really collect optical equipment in this sense? Maybe the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts are the nearest thing we have so far. Any thoughts?

[Leif]

Scampo's comment that Nikon 8x42s may become collectors' items is an interesting one. I wonder which bins or scopes are considered collectors' items now. Does anyone really collect optical equipment in this sense? Maybe the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts are the nearest thing we have so far. Any thoughts?

There is a thriving market in old Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses, and some especially the earliest are rather valuable. I don't understand the appeal, though I suspect that for many people it is seen as a way to invest for the long term c.f. buying antiques, paintings, wine etc. Old Leica and Zeiss bins could have value to a collector, but they would probably have to be in mint condition i.e. unused. I don't really see the point given that optics have advanced so much since the 70s that modern binoculars are noticeably superior to old ones.

Oddly enough there seems to be a thriving market in old german U-boat commander binoculars. Some of these are really tatty but fetch ~£1000 or more. Again I do not understand the appeal.

[gunvald]

Also... I have never read a single report saying the HGs are "clumsy" - in fact, they simply are not. Ergonomically they are a beautifual design and perfectly balanced..


I think I was just trying to say that some people thought that the Nikons are a quite big heavyweight when not in active use, so to say. On the other hand, they seem to be very well balanced and good to hold up to the eyes for viewing.

It is good to read that the Nikons are good to hold for us who have got big hands, just like the Swarovskis which I tried last year and which I liked alot.

[Adey Baker]

I think the appeal of old Leica cameras is the fact that they actually 'do' something.

It's a bit like vintage cars - you can keep them all polished-up in a showroom but you can take them out on a sunny Sunday afternoon if you wish.

Binoculars don't do much - apart from the focus-wheel not much happens and you can only look through them one person at a time, whereas everyone can listen to the 'perfectly-timed, smooth-action' shutter of an old camera!

Like the old cars, many old Leicas are still fully functional - especially if you've got the later rare-earth lenses. So everyone can appreciate the photos they're still capable of taking which stand comparison with anything taken on modern kit.

As Leif says, old bins can't compare to today's equipment in the field.

Birders also tend to be an unsentimental lot so a big part of the potential collectors market would sooner blow a few hundred on the latest equipment rather than invest in something for 20 years down the line!

[scampo]

I think I was just trying to say that some people thought that the Nikons are a quite big heavyweight when not in active use, so to say. On the other hand, they seem to be very well balanced and good to hold up to the eyes for viewing.

It is good to read that the Nikons are good to hold for us who have got big hands, just like the Swarovskis which I tried last year and which I liked alot.
When I used to visit Oslo and Halden years back I noticed many Norwegians were tall and had big hands - like me! I used to love my time there - especially in the winter (when the Oslo-Halden train used to break down and we were stuck in a winter wonderland!).

[scampo]

499 is a cracking price but I'd still stick with the 32s!! Its not so much lifting them but the weight after around the neck after a long days birding. Where did he get them from?

You may be right about the Nikon's being collectable in the future but with a 30 year guarantee the Opticrons will last me a while. As I'm a two bin birder I better keep quiet after another thread eh ;)
Park Cameras - thanks to a tip off from Leif. Apparently they only had the one pair. I'm not at all knocking Opticrons, Tim.

[scampo]

There is a thriving market in old Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses, and some especially the earliest are rather valuable. I don't understand the appeal, though I suspect that for many people it is seen as a way to invest for the long term c.f. buying antiques, paintings, wine etc. Old Leica and Zeiss bins could have value to a collector, but they would probably have to be in mint condition i.e. unused. I don't really see the point given that optics have advanced so much since the 70s that modern binoculars are noticeably superior to old ones.

Oddly enough there seems to be a thriving market in old german U-boat commander binoculars. Some of these are really tatty but fetch ~£1000 or more. Again I do not understand the appeal.
You should look at the price of a pristine Olympus OM4 - what a camera that was / is!

[Adey Baker]

I wouldn't touch an OM4 in any condition - far too many had problems with heavy battery-drainage (speaking from first-hand knowledge here!)

OM4Ti's are better but the OM3Ti is the real beauty and far too expensive to consider collecting for an investment!

[mak]

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!
Judging from pictures, the Leica Ultravids seem to have the outer rim located a few mm-s above the eye piece glass element even with the eye cups lowered, so even if the eye relied is 16 mm, the free distance seems to be less, perhaps ~14 mm. This is probably too little for me.

The Zeiss Victory 8x40 also have 16 mm eye relief and have their glass element located closer to the outer rim, which unfortunately is that tiny plastic ring, which is no good for eye glass wearers.

As 15mm is regarded as the minimum eye relief for spectacle wearers to obtain full field of view, I would have thought that the Leica development people would have made sure that the eye relief was sufficient enough to give full field of view, so I would guess that the eye relief is at least 15mm. I appreciate that not all spectacle wearers can obtain a full field of view with binoculars, but this could be down to other reasons, and not just eye relief.

Why is the plastic ring (as you put it) no good for spectacle wearers? Again surely the people who manufacture the Victory binoculars are not all non spectacle wearers, and would know if this ring is o.k.

[scampo]

As 15mm is regarded as the minimum eye relief for spectacle wearers to obtain full field of view, I would have thought that the Leica development people would have made sure that the eye relief was sufficient enough to give full field of view, so I would guess that the eye relief is at least 15mm. I appreciate that not all spectacle wearers can obtain a full field of view with binoculars, but this could be down to other reasons, and not just eye relief.

Why is the plastic ring (as you put it) no good for spectacle wearers? Again surely the people who manufacture the Victory binoculars are not all non spectacle wearers, and would know if this ring is o.k.But surely there just cannot be any such thing as a "minimum eye relief for specs wearers", can there? Just where do these figures come from?

I cannot see the full FOV with my Swaros even, yet I can see the full FOV with my Nikon ED82 scope (at 25x); and I cannot see the full FOV with my 30x wide despite its much longer FOV.

[mak]

But surely there just cannot be any such thing as a "minimum eye relief for specs wearers", can there? Just where do these figures come from?

I cannot see the full FOV with my Swaros even, yet I can see the full FOV with my Nikon ED82 scope (at 25x); and I cannot see the full FOV with my 30x wide despite its much longer FOV.

Can't explain that. Point is, that because some binoculars have eyecups that fold down or pull down, it does not mean that you have sufficient eye relief (as some say suitable for spectacle wearers). Sufficient eye relief on bins would be 15mm in order to give full field of view. I did say that not every spectacle wearer can obtain this, but maybe it is not the eye relief (and no I am not saying that they do not know how to use binoculars, Scampo your previous posts obviously show that you do).
Even non spectacle wearers sometimes have to adjust the binocular eye relief in order to get full FOV, I have even seen them using them with the eye cups in the down position, so not every one is the same.
Perhaps I shold have said that a majority of binoculars that have a minimum eye relief of 15mm should give a spectacle wearer a full field of view.
9mm eye relief will tend to give only 50% FOV

[scampo]

Can't explain that...
I only make the point because over the years I have become more than a little fed up with manufacturers that make claims about eye-relief and specs. I've even read someone criticising the Nikon ED82 because of its zoom having "only" a 14mm or so eye-relief and so not being suitable for spec wearers. Well - my son's Swaro with its 16mm won't let me see the full FOV despite that; yet the Nikon will (only at the lower magnifications). Similarly with the bins I've mentioned.

In reality, we simply have to try these things out rather than read much into theoretical figures.

Regarding the rubber or turn down eye cupes - well, my glasses are all but on the lens. I think it has to be something to do with the distance between your own eye's lens front and the front of the optic's lens, as well, I think, of any long or short-sightedness within your own eye.

[Leif]

You should look at the price of a pristine Olympus OM4 - what a camera that was / is!

Steve: Given your part time unpaid job as a Nikon publicist - :) - you might be pleased to know that early Nikon M and Nikon S series rangefinder cameras from the post war period sell for many thousands of pounds each. These are typical prices in US dollars for an example with signs of light use:

Nikon I - perhaps over 100,000.
Nikon M - Probably over 6,000.
Nikon S - 300-400
Nikon S2 - 600-800
Nikon S3 - 2000-3500
Nikon SP - 2000-3500
Nikon S4 - have not seen one sold but it would probably exceed 4000
Nikon S3m - one sold at Southeby's for > 75,000

They are lovely objects but at those prices?

PS I took a look at a Nikon scope today. It feels much lighter than I thought. Sadly InFocus did not have a Leica to compare since as you know they do not stock them. I also tried an InFocus Delta tripod that seemed quite good and light too. BTW What tripod do you use?

[Leif]

I wear glasses and tried all the top makes a year ago before the Ultravids appeared i.e. Leica 8x42 Trinovid, Zeiss 8x40 Victory, Swaro 8.5x42 EL and Nikon 8x42 HG. I found that the Nikons had the best eye relief though all were excellent and gave me a full field of view. The actual eye relief required will depend on the shape of the users eyeglass frames, the thickness of the lenses, the shape of their face (which determines how they sit on the face), and how their eyes are set in their face. I have small frames, thin lenses and do not have deep set eyes. I certainly find that I need at least 15mm of eye relief. I prefer 17mm, though the Zeiss Victory with 16mm were excellent.

As suggested what matters is the effective eye relief measured from the point where eyeglasses would make contact with the binocular. I am not sure if this is the figure given by manufacturers. I suspect they quote the eye relief relative to the rear surface of the rear eyepiece lens element. Certainly that is true of the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 which are notorious for having little eye relief despite a high quoted value.

As always, the message is that someone who is planning to fork out a small fortune on some nice bins should try them for themselves, or at least seek out as many viewpoints as possible.

[pduxon]

Park Cameras - thanks to a tip off from Leif. Apparently they only had the one pair. I'm not at all knocking Opticrons, Tim.

Tim ? What Tim? You were quoting me!!

[scampo]

Tim, Pete, Steve - what the heck, it's Saturday! And if you knew what kind of day I had yesterday, you'd forgive me solidly...


But - I'm sorry. You just sound like a Tim sometimes!

[scampo]

...I have small frames, thin lenses and do not have deep set eyes. I certainly find that I need at least 15mm of eye relief...Okay, Leif - I attach a photo of me. It was taken a while back, but it'll do. Looking at it, can you give me any hints at what kind of eye relief I'd need?

[Leif]

Okay, Leif - I attach a photo of me. It was taken a while back, but it'll do. Looking at it, can you give me any hints at what kind of eye relief I'd need?

LOL. I'm not sure why you sat on a high pressure air hose whilst having your picture taken. Must be a fine old East Midlands tradition.

[scampo]

LOL. I'm not sure why you sat on a high pressure air hose whilst having your picture taken. Must be a fine old East Midlands tradition.
Nah - I was just watching some pneumatic things on "I'm a something or other, get me outa here!".

[Leif]

How about the sworo 8x32 ELs? Have you any experience of these Leif?

I was out looking at scopes today at an InFocus field day, and took some time to look through the Swaro 8x32 EL. My impression was that the shape and ergonomics are superb but I was underwhelmed by the optics. I compared them with my Nikon 8x32 SE. The optics were excellent but contrast, brightness, and sharpness were all noticeably lower and the depth of field seemed to be a bit less (this seems to be the case with all 8x32 roofs). Chromatic aberration was well controlled with no obvious field curvature or distortion. These are without doubt excellent binoculars and - along with the Nikon 8x32 HG - are the best in their class. I wouldn't go for them simply because the Nikon 8x32 SE has better optics. But if someone needed waterproofing in a compact package and wanted to lose a few pounds on the Swarovski diet then these would be a superb choice. Of course, these things are a matter of taste and ones own needs, so some people will no doubt disagree.

What surprises me is the rave reviews these have received in the UK birding press. But then again, what do I know. I'm not a professional bird-journalist.

[dogfish]

I entirely agree based on my comparison at the Bird Fair this year. But I also thought the Nikon HGs were much better than the Swarovski 8x32s. My only problem with the HGs is that they are too short for my hands (I've got the SEs so don't need another pair of 32s)

[Leif]

I entirely agree based on my comparison at the Bird Fair this year. But I also thought the Nikon HGs were much better than the Swarovski 8x32s. My only problem with the HGs is that they are too short for my hands (I've got the SEs so don't need another pair of 32s)

I'm glad to hear someone else agrees with me. I was surprised and almost doubting myself given the over the top reviews in the press.

I thought the Nikon HGs had too much chromatic aberration but otherwise, yes much better.

[scampo]

Had a wonderful walk this morning over my local patch with Roy, my youngest brother; he was putting his new Nikon 8x42HGs through their paces. It was interesting to get the chance to use them for a prolonged time alongside my Swaro 8.5x42s.

When you first put the Nikons up to the eyes, the first impressions are impressive. The image is clear and contrasty (I hate to say but slightly better than the Swaros by a whisker); it is very sharp across the whole field of view (the equal of the Swaro, perhaps a smidgeon better); it is very bright (the equal of the Swaro), clear (equal if not, I hate to say it, a touch more clarity on certain views - might be the somewhat higher contrast); fringing was none existent, however hard we tried (as with Swaros); colour as near as can be said, utterly faithful to nature (both); field of view is a fraction narrower than the Swaros but is very wide; eye relief is better than the Swaros and allowed me to see the circular edge of view at a push (noticeably better than the Swaros); focusing is smooth, precise and quick (somewhat easier than the Swaros); weight - well, despite the objective difference on the scales, subjectively it proved not to be an issue over an extended and long walk in quite difficult walking conditions; grip and comfort were excellent and they were very easy to hold and use wearing gloves (as with Swaros).

All in all, a top-quality fieldglass that offers all a birder could ask from modern optics. Would I swap them? It wouldn't worry me at all - and they are a binocular that seem made to last a lifetime. They look more rugged than the Swaros, partly because they are a bit heavier, or because of the thicker black rubber covering.

Yet, the best part was, of course, the birds. Despite expecting to see very little owing to a very high and cold wind for much of the morning, we found a large set-aside field replete with alders around its edge, flanked by a babbling brook, full of hepas of rotted manure and with a deep wet ditch along one side shielded by a high hawthorn hedge and a few old rotting oaks and elms. We thought we might be lucky; and we were.

On that one patch of rough land we saw: red and grey (first for a good while) partridge, pheasant, kestrel, brambling, chaffinch, grey wagtail, mistle thrush, fieldfare, song thrush, lapwing and heron. In a nearby strip of woodland, we added tree-creeper, goldfinch, green finch, siskin and redpoll (sadly we were not able to locate a lesser-spotted woodpecker, which we have been on the look-out for as they are known to frequent the dead elms); finally, in a small nearby lake, we added coot, moorhen, mute swan and a resplendent pair of gadwall in their Sunday best.

[scampo]

I'm glad to hear someone else agrees with me. I was surprised and almost doubting myself given the over the top reviews in the press.

I thought the Nikon HGs had too much chromatic aberration but otherwise, yes much better.
You really must get hold of another pair of Nikons, Leif - try as I might, no CA was visible at any time this morning. I looked askew through them, any which way, all I got was a fine, brigh and sharp image. Same with the Swaros - although, I have seen CA with them on different occasions.

[Leif]

You really must get hold of another pair of Nikons, Leif - try as I might, no CA was visible at any time this morning. I looked askew through them, any which way, all I got was a fine, brigh and sharp image. Same with the Swaros - although, I have seen CA with them on different occasions.

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.

[gorank]

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!


More thoughts on binoculars and eye glasses:

I feel unsure about the eye relief of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 which otherwise seem to be a really good candidate for a good pair of binoculars.

I use eye glasses with a strength of -7 dioptries, although I have thin glass elements with high refractive index, I have tried to measure how much eye relief I need and it seems to equal 15 mm "free air" between my eye and the outer rim of the eye piece of the binoculars.

Judging from pictures, the Leica Ultravids seem to have the outer rim located a few mm-s above the eye piece glass element even with the eye cups lowered, so even if the eye relied is 16 mm, the free distance seems to be less, perhaps ~14 mm. This is probably too little for me.


Compared to the 8x32 Trinovids (14mm eye relief) the eyerelief is better for the Ultravids 8x42 and I would say that its about 16 mm (stated by leica is 15,9 mm). The 7x42 ultravids is even better with 17 mm, and they are even easier to look into.

When I compared the Ultravids (7x) with 8,5x42 ELs (18mm eye relief) and zeiss 7x42 (19mm) my impression was that the "looking into comfort" is almost equal for the trio maybe with the Zeiss being just a bit ahead.

Though the sharpness of the zeiss 7x42 classics is not on the same level as the leica/swarovski duo. The chromatic abberation also seemed a bit larger. (The zeiss pair i tried was rather new and had both P* and T* coatings, the earliest models dont have P* coating I think).

When it comes to the 8x ultravids eye relief I thought it was just on the short side for me. It would be acceptable unless you are looking for the ultimate "widescreen" experience in binos. But at this price levels I think one should demand almost perfection when it comes to the view...

Another point that differs between the models, is the larger outer diameter of the eye piece tubes of both the Zeiss (with rubber eyecups folded down) and the Swarovski EL. This makes it easier for me to support the binos on my eye browes, and this makes them more comfy I think...

[scampo]

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.Both of us this morning felt that the contrast was a shade better on the Nikon HGs - interesting, really - I was surprised to be honest; the overall impression on just a few views was that the Nikon did give a clearer, more faithful view. I shouldn't be surprised really as I have said, one of our most highly respected local birders has swapped from Trinovids to 8x42HGs for just the same reasons (and he didn't choose Ultrvids, either!). Interesting.

[scampo]

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.
Well - as I've said, one of our most respected birders sold his Leicas for the HGs and once or twice this morning, I did feel the Nikons had the edge; but still so very close.

Is that fungus on your website, btw? You must give me the address again - I think I forgot to put it in my favourites folder.

[Leif]

Well - as I've said, one of our most respected birders sold his Leicas for the HGs and once or twice this morning, I did feel the Nikons had the edge; but still so very close.

Is that fungus on your website, btw? You must give me the address again - I think I forgot to put it in my favourites folder.

You can find my site address from my BF profile. There is a rather poor photo of the fungus on my site. I keep meaning to put up a better one, though I am currently archiving my slides so that is occupying my time. I am sure that if you search the Internet you will find a better picture. The Fungi of San Francisco Bay is a quite superb site. Worth a look and it might have a picture of said fungus.

[scampo]

I shall have a good look when I have a spare half-hour. Last time I looked I remember being hooked - you do have some amazing photos of fungi, etc.

[iporali]

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

If you mean my recent post http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=12242 it was actually with 10x32HG, which may be the worst from HG-models in this respect. I have looked through 8x42HG only briefly, but I'd say it has less CA than 32mm models. -If only it wasn't so heavy...

Ilkka

[scampo]

If only it wasn't so heavy...

IlkkaThat does seem a rather odd statement to make really - all the more so because you have regularly sung the praises of the Leica Apo-televid.

Now, no one would describe the Nikon 8x42HG binocular as a comparative lightweight in its market segment, but how heavy is it? Well - it there are 90g. between say, the Nikon and the excellent and very popular Leica Trinovids.

One look at the Nikons hints at where these 90 grams go - on the rugged rubber armouring, more than likely. One look at the Nikons suggests that they should easily see their owner through a lifetime of use and more. Now, to my real surprise, a recent post concerning Trinovids stated that their owner's pair was "past their best" in just seven years of use (very heavy use, I should think - but a point of interest, nonetheless).

So - 90 grams? Well, that excellent scope you speak so highly of weighs in at over two kilograms with its case. I wonder, can 90 grams make or break that enjoyable birding day? Heavens above, the cheese in a few sandwiches weighs as much.

(-;

[dogfish]

Are the Nikon 8x42s really ''equivalent'' to the Trinovids? Granted, they're in the same price bracket, but the Nikons are better bins to my eyes. So surely the most interesting comparison is with the Ultravids, which are noticeably better optically than the Trinovids. And they're c 790g and superb in the hand. Oh, and around the neck too.

[iporali]

That does seem such an odd statement from you, especially as you are singing the praises of the superb, but long and heavy Leica Tele-Apovid 77 in other posts.

Steve:
I apologize if I have caused confusion. I have often commented different details of different optics, but I really wouldn't recommend 77mm Leica for anyone searching for a lightweight and compact scope. I do sing praises of its correction of chromatic aberration and suitability to digiscoping (wide angle, long eye relief) - but I still wouldn't buy it for myself, however.

Nikon x42HGs are too heavy for *my* birding habits, that is why I bought x32HGs. Same goes with most 42mm binos. My ideal binos would be the sleek old 10x40 Leitz Trinovids/Zeiss Dialyts (from early 80's) with modern optics.

Ilkka

[scampo]

The Nikons HGs were launched around the time of the Trinovids, I think - so maybe Nikon will be launching new top-end bins soon, too?

[scampo]

...and suitability to digiscoping (wide angle, long eye relief) - IlkkaI understand, but, again, you make a comment about the Leica's suitability for a particular use and then add a comment about two features of the Leica (zoom, I presume), viz. "wide angle, long eye relief" which seem to suggest that these points separate out the Leica in a favourable way. Well, the Leica zoom, along with all current and past zoom eyepieces, has an objectively comparatively narrow field of view, although its eye relief is longer than average.

Now, I have just begun to use the new Nikon ED82 scope + 25-75x zoom along with the Nikon CP4500 - and I am finding it easy to fill the screen without any vignetting. Compared to the Leica zoom, the Nikon has a somewhat shorter eye-relief and a slightly narrower field of view; and yet these two theoretical aspects appear to have no relevance in everyday practical usage.

I bought my scope before I discovered this fine birding site, but if I hadn't, I might easily be swayed by the comments various people make. What I am finding is that there is sometimes a very real difference between some of the comments made and real world practice. When I comment, I try hard to make points that are either objectively true or I make it clear the statement is subjective or comparative.

[pduxon]

The problem is guys that we all perceive things differently. You can put out a request for info but at the end of the day you've got to try with your own eyes.

[scampo]

The problem is guys that we all perceive things differently. You can put out a request for info but at the end of the day you've got to try with your own eyes.
Often yes, but I don't think always. Quite often I read points that turn out to be subjective or theoretical that can be objectively measured. I think that is the case here.

[Leif]

Steve:
I apologize if I have caused confusion. I have often commented different details of different optics, but I really wouldn't recommend 77mm Leica for anyone searching for a lightweight and compact scope. I do sing praises of its correction of chromatic aberration and suitability to digiscoping (wide angle, long eye relief) - but I still wouldn't buy it for myself, however.

Nikon x42HGs are too heavy for *my* birding habits, that is why I bought x32HGs. Same goes with most 42mm binos. My ideal binos would be the sleek old 10x40 Leitz Trinovids/Zeiss Dialyts (from early 80's) with modern optics.

Ilkka

Hi Ilkka. Did I hear chromatic aberration mentioned? Seriously though, given that I am looking for a scope, I was interested in your comment. I noticed a little CA through the Nikon 82 ED and Swaro 80 HD scopes when looking at white gulls, but it was very well controlled and acceptable to me. Are you saying that the Leica would show appreciably less? Would you class the overall image quality of the Leica as being a match for the Swaro and Nikon and Zeiss?

It is odd to me that everyone is saying the Leica is outclassed by the Nikon, Swaro and Zeiss scopes. Can't be doing much for Leica's profits. No wonder they are laying off staff.

So you are not tempted by the Zeiss 10x40 Victory II?

[iporali]

Hi Ilkka. Did I hear chromatic aberration mentioned? ...Are you saying that the Leica would show appreciably less? Would you class the overall image quality of the Leica as being a match for the Swaro and Nikon and Zeiss?
...
So you are not tempted by the Zeiss 10x40 Victory II?

Now what was this thread again? Never mind... Yes, Leica APO shows appreciably less CA than my Kowa 823 (with 20-60x zoom or 32x fixed), although Kowa is OK too. Overall I like Kowa, Swaro and Zeiss zooms slightly better than Leica (mainly at 60x), but fixed eyepieces are all so good that I really can't say which is the best.

Actually I was very much tempted by the lightness, brightness and wide fov of Victories - unfortunately their focusing was left handed and I didn't like the rubber armour. Optically I would have been satisfied - I just can't remember about its CA-correction...

Ilkka

[trealawboy]

I've been following threads on the various preferences for binoculars and 'scopes, as I am currently considering replacing my Zeiss BGAT 10x40 Dilayts and Kowa TSN4 x30w.

I've also had an opportunity to look at equipment in shops and those used by birdwatching colleagues.

It seems to me, that much of this discussion really reinforces the notion that when considering high-end optics, much of the decisions are based on an individual's own particular prefences for particular traits shown by certain manufacturers.

What is clear is that Swarovski, Zeiss, Nikon, Leica and Kowa all produce first rate equipment that give fantastic views of birds. Optically the differences in them are often very small. There are other factors then that come in to play when deciding which one to chose, and this can be a very personal thing.

I'm sure all equipment produced by these manufacturers have their own charecteristcs that are either favoured or disliked my many birdwatchers, e.g. in no particlar order, Nikons are heavy and have high focus gearing (good or bad - you decide); Swarovskis have slow gearing; Leica and Zeiss 'scopes have dual focus knobs. Some binoculars will fit nicely in one persons hands and eye sockets and not anothers. I know I would not be happy with an uncomfortable pair of binoculars however good they were optically.

At the end of the day, the various magazine reviews, BF discussions, all of which are very instructive and intersting, can surely only help and individual create a fairly small list of equipment on which to base a purchase. This must then be followed up by a hands-on visit to the shop or ideally field event.

[scampo]

I agree in the main but am interested how a myth can become perpetuated: Leica's 77mm scope + zoom / case is quite a bit heavier than the new Nikon ED82; the Nikon at 82mm is as compact in length as the small Swaro at 65mm; Nikon's top bins are just 90g heavier than Leica's...

[gunvald]

Damn, you have convinced me to order a pair of Nikon HG-s and a pair of Swarovskis (and possibly a pair of Leica Ultravids as well, just to complete the set-up). With careful treatment, I can them evalutate them and then return those I don't like.

My Swedish forum colleagues might agree (or not), but I think that here in Sweden it is very hard to be able to take a close, restful and careful look at a suffiently complete range of high-grade binos at the same time. I just spoke to a birders' shop at the Isle of Oland, and yes, of course they have all the top models in stock, but no Nikons att all.

[Blincodave]

An interesting thread. So confession time: over the years since the late 1970s, I have been a serial binocular adulterer flitting between most of the top guns. I have traded in, traded down or sold my way through the following (fortunately not loosing too much along the way and almost always buying second hand) and have added some comments for each:

Audubon 8.4 x 44s. Fine if heavy porros. Excellent starter bins on a tight budget.
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGATP. Superb optically, even now after so many years of production, very good eye relief but found 7 x was not quite enough power.
Leica 8 x 42 Trins Excellent optics, poor eye relief (relatively) and terrible ergonomics. Felt like a brick.
Zeiss 10 x 40 Dialyts. Persuaded me that 10x felt like looking through a tunnel. Very good for the time they were made.
B & L Elites 8 x 42. Good optically with excellent eye-relief but not as sharp as other leading models or as well built.
Swaro 8 x 30 SLCs. Not the current swarobright coated model which is probably an improvement. Very light, well built, but not quite sharp enough, eye relief on the low side. For me not quite right as my main birding glass.
Nikon 8 x 42 HGs. Simply the best optically but I struggled to hold them steady. There is a good reason why retailers struggle to sell them! Mine were ex demo at only £450! Outstanding eye relief.
Nikon 8 x 32 HGs. Perhaps mine were lemons because they were not quite at the races for sharpness. Good eye relief.
Swaro 8.5 x 42 SLCs. My current model. Superb optics, perhaps not quite as good opticaly as the 8x42 HGs, useful extra power at 8.5 but retaining a very fine field of view, excellent ergonomics, very good eye relief. and appallingly slow focus. For me, a major design flaw which those insipid magazine reviews often fail to mention for fear of losing the advertising revenues.

What does all of this mean? Obviously, I need counselling or perhaps should move into optical sales as a career. More seriously, however, there is no perfect binocular. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. You have to compromise and decide upon the features and characteristics that are important for you. As a spec wearer, the Swaro 8.5s feel very comfortable and given the other plus points, I have decided that I can put up with the poor focus. Let's just hope they will provide a retrofit service for those of us who own the Mark 1s when the Mark 2 comes out (whenever that happens - any clues anybody?) In the meantime the Swaro 8.5 is Blincodave's current reference standard!

Dave

[scampo]

Surely this is a "Let's wind Steve up, day", isn't it?

What the heck is it some folks have against Nikon 8x42 HGs?? They are optically = the best+++ and weigh just 90g. more than Leicas...!! Are we all a bunch of wimps - our flask of hot coffee weighs far, far more!!

Come to Leicestershire and you'll see plenty round local necks - then we must be a tough bunch, I suppose?

[gorank]

If you mean my recent post http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=12242 it was actually with 10x32HG, which may be the worst from HG-models in this respect. I have looked through 8x42HG only briefly, but I'd say it has less CA than 32mm models. -If only it wasn't so heavy...

Ilkka

I agree... they are heavy...
the Leica Ultravid 8/10x50 weighs 1010 grams wich is only 50 grams more than the Nikon 8x42 HG...

But if i could afford a sherpa on my birding expeditions i'd might consider these "japanese bricks" of optical excelence...=)

On the other hand, for a couple of birding hours in the park the weight might be acceptable..just for the feel of a true nikon focus wheel...
and the optics is quite good for a brick...=)

[Grousemore]

They also weigh 190 grammes more than the Leica Ultravid 8x42,Steve!

[scampo]

Damn, you have convinced me to order a pair of Nikon HG-s and a pair of Swarovskis (and possibly a pair of Leica Ultravids as well, just to complete the set-up). With careful treatment, I can them evalutate them and then return those I don't like.

My Swedish forum colleagues might agree (or not), but I think that here in Sweden it is very hard to be able to take a close, restful and careful look at a suffiently complete range of high-grade binos at the same time. I just spoke to a birders' shop at the Isle of Oland, and yes, of course they have all the top models in stock, but no Nikons att all.
Well - we have less land area and almost eight times the population - that might explain why Nikons and all other top makes can be bought in just about every town and city in the UK. We're also mad keen on birding by all accounts - I'd import mine from say, www.warehouseexpress.com (http://www.warehouseexpress.com) - a good place to buy.

[scampo]

They also weigh 190 grammes more than the Leica Ultravid 8x42,Steve!Indeed they do - but cost about 2/3 the price for equivalent optical quality and, I should think, far greater durability. They were launched around the time of the Trinovids - that's why I compared them.

To be fair, I should think Nikon have a new design in the wings. If they cut the weight, they wouldn't have to touch the quality and they'd have a class beater.

[pduxon]

Indeed they do - but cost about 2/3 the price for equivalent optical quality and, I should think, far greater durability. They were launched around the time of the Trinovids - that's why I compared them.

To be fair, I should think Nikon have a new design in the wings. If they cut the weight, they wouldn't have to touch the quality and they'd have a class beater.

2/3 the price? Methinks not ..... The Ultravids are 898 and the Nikons about 765 - yes I know one dealer has one pair available at a bargain price but that's hardly a fair comparison.

Yes they are optically very impressive.

I have a feeling I'm watching an old Christmas special of Have I Got News for You when Clive Anderson kept plugging schweppes products on the hope he'd get an order in time for Christmas ;)

[scampo]

I agree... they are heavy...
the Leica Ultravid 8/10x50 weighs 1010 grams wich is only 50 grams more than the Nikon 8x42 HG...

But if i could afford a sherpa on my birding expeditions i'd might consider these "japanese bricks" of optical excelence...=)

On the other hand, for a couple of birding hours in the park the weight might be acceptable..just for the feel of a true nikon focus wheel...
and the optics is quite good for a brick...=)Enough... enough... I can't take any more!!!

B (:

The Nikons are on me!

(On me neck, I mean, of course)

[Ragna]

Steve. I choose the Ultravids over the HGs partly beacause of the weight but also they fitted my hands better.But optically the Nikons were as good as if not slightly better than the Leica.Still this was good news for yor brother .Park Cameras were holding the 8x42HGs for me but on the way over i called into Kays of Morden to compare them with Swarovski ELs and Ultravids.He gave what i considered a very good part exchange deal on my Zeiss.I also think if Nikon make the HGs lighter then they would have a winner.

[Ragna]

Pete most dealers will price match the Ultravids about £820. Nikon about £740.

[gunvald]

Well - we have less land area and almost eight times the population - that might explain why Nikons and all other top makes can be bought in just about every town and city in the UK. We're also mad keen on birding by all accounts - I'd import mine from say, www.warehouseexpress.com (http://www.warehouseexpress.com) - a good place to buy.

Well, maybe it is time to visit UK again for a little photo trip to England and Scotland combined with a binocular shopping tour. I just watched a TV program about the recruitment of new soldiers for the British SAS. They had to walk for miles with bricks in their rucksacks with a total weight of 25 kg. They would certainly enjoy to carry a lightweight Nikon HG (not even one full kg), just to put it into perspective. Fascinating.

[scampo]

Steve. I choose the Ultravids over the HGs partly beacause of the weight but also they fitted my hands better.But optically the Nikons were as good as if not slightly better than the Leica.Still this was good news for yor brother .Park Cameras were holding the 8x42HGs for me but on the way over i called into Kays of Morden to compare them with Swarovski ELs and Ultravids.He gave what i considered a very good part exchange deal on my Zeiss.I also think if Nikon make the HGs lighter then they would have a winner.Small world, then, Graham! You mean they really did only have one pair? He's thrilled to bits - a big lad so a few extra grams won't hurt him!

(-:

[scampo]

Well, maybe it is time to visit UK again for a little photo trip to England and Scotland combined with a binocular shopping tour. I just watched a TV program about the recruitment of new soldiers for the British SAS. They had to walk for miles with bricks in their rucksacks with a total weight of 25 kg. They would certainly enjoy to carry a lightweight Nikon HG (not even one full kg), just to put it into perspective. Fascinating.
I bet their binocs weigh one heck of a lot more than anything we would buy!

[scampo]

2/3 the price? Methinks not ..... The Ultravids are 898 and the Nikons about 765 - yes I know one dealer has one pair available at a bargain price but that's hardly a fair comparison.

Yes they are optically very impressive.

I have a feeling I'm watching an old Christmas special of Have I Got News for You when Clive Anderson kept plugging schweppes products on the hope he'd get an order in time for Christmas ;)
I was forgetting! But I thopught the Ultravids were much more - they have come down a fair bit I would say since launch - I wonder why?

[jad29]

The Nikons HGs were launched around the time of the Trinovids, I think - so maybe Nikon will be launching new top-end bins soon, too?


I heard Nikon would be realeasing a new top end model, of lighter weight possibly at this years SHOT show in the us. The SHOT show was a couple weeks ago and there wan't a new release that I've heard of, but it has to be coming soon, I can't wait

Jad

[Ragna]

Steve.
Could'nt believe i'd turned down such a bargain,but iam very happy with the Leica's(not paid for them yet). Ive been using Park Cameras for a couple of years and they are very good on prices but they dont sell a great range of binoculars mainly the cheaper end from camera manufacturers, The HGs i think were just a trial,and yes i tthink they did only have one pair of each.

[scampo]

They will have a winner on their hands as their optics seem, by general consensus, to be better than any other!

[Leif]

Is that fungus on your website, btw? You must give me the address again - I think I forgot to put it in my favourites folder.

Steve: I was archiving some slides today and came across a decent one of Rhodotus palmatus: the pink elm fungus.

See here:

Rhodotus palmatus (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19268)

[scampo]

You're a very good nature photographer. What a beuatiful fungus. I have seen one before now I see it in the photograph. It's a fascinating hobby.

The fungus that sticks most in my memory was a very large and odiferous rather rude looking pole in our garden many years ago. We lived in an old hose thn and it had a lovely mature garden. I forget its name - stink something.

[Scott Crabtree]

Steve;

Those would be stinkhorns. Phallus or Dictyophora species.

[scampo]

That was it - phallus impudicus; thanks - just looked it up to find out a little more. I smelled it often since in deciduous woodland but never again in a garden. It's easy to smell but far harder to find in my experience. Are they common in the USA, too?

[Scott Crabtree]

Hello Steve;

Yes, ol' P. impudicus is fairly common. I seem to find it most often growing out of mulched beds.

Scott

[marcus]

Let me ask a question, just to get back into everything. I recently bought a pair of 8x32 roof binoculars, mainly because of hearing how good the Nikon 8x32 Venturers and Leica 8x32s are. Their made by BSA, (have you heard of them?). It really surprises me at how good their optics are, for a pair less than $100. But I can see that the edges are a little darker than the center. What do you call that? Just 'cheap lens'?

[scampo]

Vignetting is the term. Normally in a lower priced binocular, the field of view is not as wide, flat and clear to the edge as in a top make. That doen't mean they are not very useful - maybe in poor light a better make might provide its worth?

[Leif]

Hello Steve;

Yes, ol' P. impudicus is fairly common. I seem to find it most often growing out of mulched beds.

Scott

In Victorian nature books (second half of the 19th century in the UK) P. impudicus was printed upside down in order not to offend reader's sensibilities. However, the name Stinkhorn is quite crude and derives from slightly archaic slang. The common Victorian name is cruder to our ears and might even violate the forums rules on rude language.

Many people consider the young egg stage of the fungus an aphrodisiac for obvious reasons. I would not eat something so foul though.

[dogfish]

Any chance of having the fungus discussion somewhere other than an optics thread?

[marcus]

Vignetting is the term. Normally in a lower priced binocular, the field of view is not as wide, flat and clear to the edge as in a top make. That doen't mean they are not very useful - maybe in poor light a better make might provide its worth?
Thanks Scampo. These bins are so good that I can lie to myself and say
that they are those Nikon... what's the other name for Venturers? HG's? LX's?

[scampo]

Any chance of having the fungus discussion somewhere other than an optics thread?Surely, one thing leads to another in any human conversation? But maybe when computers rule rather than serve, eh? We'll be far worse for that.

I think that it's hardly possible to start a new thread in the way you describe. I would try not to let it get to you as there's no way of stopping it so far as I can see.

[dogfish]

Well, you could start an "I've got fungus growing in my Nikons thread'', catering for a small and select readership. And then I'd know I wouldn't have to call it up.....

I bet there are some people with fungal growth in their Nikons though...

[scampo]

I might be wrong - but doesn't it grow betwixt the glass and the coating? It's difficult to imagine it growing on glass as such - or at least, it would then be easily removable.

I tell you what, when it gets between the toes it danged hard to get rid of; and when it gets into the nail, you're stuck with it, I reckon!

[scampo]

Well, you could start an "I've got fungus growing in my Nikons thread'', catering for a small and select readership. And then I'd know I wouldn't have to call it up.....

I bet there are some people with fungal growth in their Nikons though...
Now then it wasn't me that started this diversion (or was it?)...

[dogfish]

Now then it wasn't me that started this diversion (or was it?)...

No, I'm guilty this time. But I have just noticed that there is a fungi thread on Bird Forums and jolly interesting it is too.

Meanwhile back on thread, an interesting review in the latest Alula magazine of 10x binoculars. The Ultravid 10x40s and the Nikon 10x32s come joint top. An impressive performance by the small-objective Nikons I'd say, especially as the Ultravids were considered the brightest on test.

As usual with Alula, there is more of an attempt than most magazines to be objective but inevitably there are some controversial subjective judgements. For example the Swarovski 10x42s lose points for having (what is considered) too slow a focus but Nikon doesn't lose any for having (what is considered) too fast a focus. You know the sort of thing. The Nikon 10x42SE (their reference binocular) is considered the best in purely optical terms.

Perhaps Alula has a bias towards Nikon? Wouldn't that make a change?

[pburgers]

Justin, I recently purchased (after much research and comparison shopping) Leica 8x42 BR Ultravid binoculars. I could not be more delighted with them. I compared them against Swaro ELs and Brunton Epochs and settled on the Ultravids because they seemed to "fly" into focus for me, and I loved the feel and handling of them. The optical quality was about a horse apiece in my opinion, with the Leicas maybe just a hair brighter. I am not any sort of expert, but I sure don't notice any of that CA stuff everyone talks about, and maybe I wouldn't recognize it if I did! I also will be using my glasses for deer, elk and turkey hunting and Leica's lifetime "Passport" warranty was another factor in my decision. It is supposed to cover everything except fire or theft for the lifetime of the purchaser. My advice would be to handle and use as many bins as you can and then make your decision based on your experience. I doubt you would ever regret it if you end up with the Ultravids, I sure LOVE mine. I got them through Cameraland in NY for $1214.00 including shipping to SD, which was about $100 less than I could find them anywhere else.
Good birds to ya, and happy hunting
Paul Burgers
Sioux Falls, SD

[mpedris]

Meanwhile back on thread, an interesting review in the latest Alula magazine of 10x binoculars. The Ultravid 10x40s and the Nikon 10x32s come joint top. Which Nikon 10x32 were they referring to? SE or LX?

Also, exactly how good is this ALULA magazine? How is the print and photo quality? How does it compare to the UK-based Birdwatching magazine?

Thanks.

[scampo]

Perhaps Alula has a bias towards Nikon? Wouldn't that make a change?Well, being Finnish, perhaps Alula have a preference for Nikon just to spite the apparent contempt for that brand from across the border in Sweden where, we recently heard on BF, few people buy Nikon equipment...

Joking aside, since coming across their website, I feel I can trust the Alula testers if only because they admit to their weaknesses, are clearly technically very knowledgable, and don't forget what previous tests have shown. Clearly they care sufficiently to research not only their products, but the background to those products; they also take great care to explain any difficulties they meet when testing. They get my vote 100%. I only wish I could speak Finnish (one of the world's hardest languages to master, apparently).

As a thought, though - isn't it interesting that a Japanese product that has been on the market for a good while (Nikon 8x32HG) is rated the equal of a completely new German product? In the area of optics and elsewhere, it does begin to seem that it can take Europe a rather long time to catch up with the technical innovativeness of the very best Japanese companies.

[scampo]

Which Nikon 10x32 were they referring to? SE or LX?

Also, exactly how good is this ALULA magazine? How is the print and photo quality? How does it compare to the UK-based Birdwatching magazine?

Thanks.
They are referring to the High Grade series - known as Venturers in the USA. How good a magazine is is hardly related to the glossiness of its product; rather to the quality of its content - and, because it is published mainly in the Finnish language, that remains a mystery to me!

[scampo]

I doubt you would ever regret it if you end up with the Ultravids, I sure LOVE mine.
Paul Burgers
Sioux Falls, SDI'd rather save my love for the more sentient things in my life...

(0:

CA - chromatic aberration - is seen as a yellowy or bluey fringe around one edge of an object when viewd against a bright background.

I can't see it either, except in a very few lighting conditions; I certainly cannot replicate it.

[dogfish]

Scampo: Alula is available in a full English language edition, has been for a few years. I think the overall content of the magazine is not quite what it was; it carried some first rate ID articles (eg on yellow legged gull by Lars Jonsson) in its early days but seems to have run out of steam a bit. And of course, there's a distinct Fenno-Scandian bias to the bird-finding articles, but we can't really blame them for that.

Could be worth buying for the optics reviews alone, but they seem to post at least some of them on the website.

(on my earlier posting the Nikons referred to were 10x32 HGs; there's no 10x32SE so far as I know.)

[Leif]

As a thought, though - isn't it interesting that a Japanese product that has been on the market for a good while (Nikon 8x32HG) is rated the equal of a completely new German product? In the area of optics and elsewhere, it does begin to seem that it can take Europe a rather long time to catch up with the technical innovativeness of the very best Japanese companies.

Zeiss invented phase (P) coating, and multi-coating of lenses. I think they also brought out image stabilisation before Sony, Nikon and Canon. They brought out the world's first camera with auto-focus in the body. One of their founders c0-invented the Abbe-koenig prism. A German company - Hensoldt - invented the roof-prism binocular. Steiner - a German company - claim to have manufactured the first nitrogen filled binocular. I'm sure the list goes on. The only recent innovation I can think of from Japanis diffractive optics. I suspect that where Japan has strength is in manufacturing to a good price and a high quality standard. fs

[Leif]

CA - chromatic aberration - is seen as a yellowy or bluey fringe around one edge of an object when viewd against a bright background.

I can't see it either, except in a very few lighting conditions; I certainly cannot replicate it.

Not necessarily. I can see slight green fringing through my Nikon 8x32 SE, but only if I look for it, which I don't. I see slight off-axis purple fringing through my Swaro 8.5x42, sometimes when I don't look for it. It all depends on the glass types used, and the optical design. I agree that it only appears in certain lighting conditions (at least in a decently corrected system).

[scampo]

Scampo: Alula is available in a full English language edition, has been for a few years. I think the overall content of the magazine is not quite what it was; it carried some first rate ID articles (eg on yellow legged gull by Lars Jonsson) in its early days but seems to have run out of steam a bit. And of course, there's a distinct Fenno-Scandian bias to the bird-finding articles, but we can't really blame them for that.

Could be worth buying for the optics reviews alone, but they seem to post at least some of them on the website.

(on my earlier posting the Nikons referred to were 10x32 HGs; there's no 10x32SE so far as I know.)
Thanks df (I refuse to type dogfish - won't you give me a proper name, please... (-: )...

I just emailed Alula and by return their editor emailed me about the English edition. I'm looking into a subscription now. Seems like it could be a very interesting magazine.

[scampo]

Zeiss invented phase (P) coating, and multi-coating of lenses. I think they also brought out image stabilisation before Sony, Nikon and Canon. They brought out the world's first camera with auto-focus in the body. One of their founders c0-invented the Abbe-koenig prism. A German company - Hensoldt - invented the roof-prism binocular. Steiner - a German company - claim to have manufactured the first nitrogen filled binocular. I'm sure the list goes on. The only recent innovation I can think of from Japanis diffractive optics. I suspect that where Japan has strength is in manufacturing to a good price and a high quality standard. fs
Point taken! Auto-focus was a British invention, if I remember rightly - but weren't Nikon the first to manufacture low dispersion glass without the use of fluorite?

Still - good old Nikon for coming top in a tough review by a group of keen and straightforward testers!

[Leif]

Point taken! Auto-focus was a British invention, if I remember rightly - but weren't Nikon the first to manufacture low dispersion glass without the use of fluorite?

Still - good old Nikon for coming top in a tough review by a group of keen and straightforward testers!

I would say that the Japanese are not so good at image management c.f. European companies. Just look at Japanese cars, which rarely inspire the sort of kudos associated with BMW, Mercedes, Audi and so on, but always come near the top in the reliability and value for money stakes.

[mpedris]

The Japanese may not invent too many things. But they sure know how to PERFECT others' designs. Ultimately, they give us what we want, at a price we can afford, and with a reliability we cannot find elsewhere! Isn't that what all of us are looking for?

You'd typically drive your BMW to the garage for repairs more times than you would drive your Lexus to the petrol station to fill up the tank in the same period of ownership!! ;-)

The Japanese mentality is very well summarized in the Lexus motto, "The Relentless Pursuit of Perfection..."

The Nikon HGs and SEs are simply demonstrating that state of mind.

[scampo]

I would say that the Japanese are not so good at image management c.f. European companies. Just look at Japanese cars, which rarely inspire the sort of kudos associated with BMW, Mercedes, Audi and so on, but always come near the top in the reliability and value for money stakes.
Hmm - have you seen the number of Lexus showrooms opening recently? Watch out Mercedes!

(-:

[Geoff Brown]

Scampo

My neighbour recently purchased a small Lexus and, as you infer, watch out Germany, the Japanese quality will really bite into the Merc, Beamer, and Audi sales before very long.

[Leif]

Scampo

My neighbour recently purchased a small Lexus and, as you infer, watch out Germany, the Japanese quality will really bite into the Merc, Beamer, and Audi sales before very long.

Nissan used to spend relatively small sums advertising the Micra: a few hundred pounds per car sold IIRC. BMW and other premium marques spend thousands of pounds per car sold. We the customer pay for the adverts, and the associated marketing spend (placement in films, endorsement by celebrities and so on) and we gain by driving around in a car with status. FWIW I drive a Ford Ka i.e. I'm a cheap skate who values function over style, and the ability to park in a small space in the local nature reserves.

Lexus are indeed said to be a good buy. Toyota realised that people would not pay a premium price for a badge associated with non-premium cars, and so they created the Lexus badge and have reserved it for expensive cars.

I wonder what would have happened if Nikon had done the same for their top end birding optics, thus distancing them from cheap consumer grade optics, and establishing them as a high status item?

Interestingly Zeiss are now introducing more mid-priced items, whereas in the past they have tended to aim for the top end of the market.

[scampo]

That's a very odd comment regarding Nikon - their name - in my books at least - is synonymous with quality and high price in photography. Only in more recent times have they sold lower cost products. Maybe it is my photographic background that has led me to appreciate Nikon so highly?

[Leif]

That's a very odd comment regarding Nikon - their name - in my books at least - is synonymous with quality and high price in photography. Only in more recent times have they sold lower cost products. Maybe it is my photographic background that has led me to appreciate Nikon so highly?

Yes that's true, but Nikon also produce cheap consumer grade gear, and have done so for decades. (What counts as cheap is of course relative.)

The Leica brand is synonymous with absurdly expensive cameras and lenses. I don't think that even Swarovski has that sort of status among non-birders. A non-birding colleague I spoke to today knew Leica and said they made the best optics, but had never heard of Swarovski. That says a hell of a lot for the brand image.

Actually I consider the Leica image a bit regrettable. Perhaps I'm a reverse snob!

[angigator]

The Swarovski 8x32 ELs are the best thing on the market. forget Ultravids, Zeiss and especially Nikon (recently told by a shop that the warranty on Nikons is not transferrable, so the px value will be less). The 8x32 ELs fit well in the hand, are light, bright and sharp. Accept nothing less!!!

[Richard K-M]

"Who needs magazine reviews eh! Scampo how do you rate the various optics when wearing glasses?... Sleeper"

I couldn't agree more. The only binoculars I can truly say I feel entirely comfortably using while I wear my (long-sighted) specs on is Nikon's Sporter 8x36s. My own Swaro EL8.5s hardly allow a full view so I find myself removing them 90% of the time. Same with scopes - my Nikon ED82 allows a lovely full FOV - but only at at 25x, my son's Swaro 65, only at 20x. So frustrating - I think I'll have to buy one of those things that you hang your glasses on - as pretentious as I have always thought they looked!

When I read how so many binos and scopes state that they allow the use of specs, I often wonder what's wrong with my own!

Try going to a decent (NOT descent) optician who can fit your glasses properly - they need to fit as close to the eyes as possible. Small frames help, by allowing a thinner lens - especially for long sighted eyes - and consequently the frames to fit closer. I despair when I see how many people walk around with specs that are half-way down their noses and simply have not been fitted correctly. Sadly, today's "supermarket" opticians have badly trained staff who have no idea of how to fit a pair of specs properly. I had 30 years in the business, but gave up when Specsavers et al came on the scene!

[scampo]

Thanks for the advice and I shall keep it in mind when I next go to the opticians. One problem seems to be that as I have vari-focal lenses, there is a limit to how small the lenses can be - or so I am told. Also, the design surely limits the distance between eye and lens as well as the anatomy itself.

[Richard K-M]

Thanks for the advice and I shall keep it in mind when I next go to the opticians. One problem seems to be that as I have vari-focal lenses, there is a limit to how small the lenses can be - or so I am told. Also, the design surely limits the distance between eye and lens as well as the anatomy itself.

As I said, it's all down to the skill of the Optician. Modern varifocals can be very small, there just needs to be about 18-20 mm of lens under the pupil of the eye to allow for the transition and reading areas. Obviously the anatomy of the face plays a major part, but careful selection of frames by a skilled Optician will allow for a close fit. Generally speaking, lenses are designed to fit on average 11 mm from the cornea - the BVD. If you have powerful lenses and the lenses are a at a different BVD, then the Optician should adjust the power to compensate. The closer the fit, the better the field of view. (All this is of course generalisation, there will always be exceptions - like the person who prefers a straight telescope!!!)

Go to a small, independant optical practice.

That will be £25 initial consultation fee, thank you.

[scampo]

Thanks, again. Erm... How do I pay?

(-;

[Atomic Chicken]

The Swarovski 8x32 ELs are the best thing on the market. forget Ultravids, Zeiss and especially Nikon (recently told by a shop that the warranty on Nikons is not transferrable, so the px value will be less). The 8x32 ELs fit well in the hand, are light, bright and sharp. Accept nothing less!!!

Angigator,

With all due respect, I must disagree with your post.
When I set out to purchase a pair of 8X32 binoculars, I decided that I would accept nothing but the best that money could buy. I didn't care about the cost, I had the cash to buy anything up to $3,000 - I just wanted the absolute finest 8X32 optics available.

I spent well over a week, almost every day, for several hours a day, driving around from retailer to retailer looking through 8X32 binoculars. I would sometimes spend a half hour straight looking through a single pair of binoculars, thinking about EVERYTHING I was seeing, and taking detailed notes for later comparisons. I turned this into an obsessive, all consuming, serious part time job - I was NOT about to settle for anything but the finest I could obtain. I was interested in these factors (notice that Price is definitely NOT among them!):

Ruggedness/waterproofness (Very important to me, this ruled out the Nikon SE)
Overall image resolution and quality
Low light performance
Glare performance (looking at targets near the sun's position)
Color saturation and purity
Contrast, especially when looking at neutral scenes
Chromatic aberations (which REALLY bother me!)
Geometric aberations, especially at the edges
Edge effects, including focus and center-edge brightness differential
Ease of handling and quality of the focus control
Diopter adjustment position and locking arrangement
Weight (ranked low on my importance scale, but was still a factor)
Overall "brightness" of image
Aesthetic appeal (This was VERY low on my list, but was a consideration)

After this week of very detailed (and, I think, very OBJECTIVE) testing, I made my decision.

I chose the Nikon 8X32 HG (U.S. Name: Venturer LX 8X32) binoculars. I have not regretted my decision of 1 millisecond since then - these are simply the best 8X32 roof prism binoculars currently available, in my not-so-humble opinion. The Swarovski optics you refer to were VERY high on my list, but several factors - including overall image quality, ruggedness, and the SUPERB focus control of the Nikons won me over and made me pass the Swaro glass by. Again, cost had NOTHING to do with it - I really was interested in owning ONLY the best - and if the Swaro 8X32 binoculars were that, I would have a pair right now.

One other thing - in my opinion, whether the warranty is transferrable or not really isn't of importance, I plan on keeping these binoculars for life and passing them on to my children - hopefully FAR more than 25 years in the future :)

Best wishes,
Bawko

[pduxon]

Bawko

I own the Nikon's BUT its all subjective. Read the reviews, ask mates and BFers for opinions and use that to get a short list BUT at the end of the day it is your and olny your opinion that matters.

So for Angimator the ELs win for you and me its the Nikon's for someone else it'll be Leica and do you know what we're ALL right.

[mike60]

I have a pair of HGs and have found nothing better in terms of overall image quality to my eyes in their class, but they do have their faults - watch for a skinny purple bird flying in very tight formation with your next albatross.
On pure egonomics I would prefer the ELs - lighter, better feel etc to me. However, despite the better ergos of the ELs, I find the HGs provide me with the "steadiest" image in my hands of any bin I have owned. I dont think there is a viable challenger to the HG yet - for me.

[Buster]

Angigator,

With all due respect, I must disagree with your post.
When I set out to purchase a pair of 8X32 binoculars, I decided that I would accept nothing but the best that money could buy. I didn't care about the cost, I had the cash to buy anything up to $3,000 - I just wanted the absolute finest 8X32 optics available.

I spent well over a week, almost every day, for several hours a day, driving around from retailer to retailer looking through 8X32 binoculars. I would sometimes spend a half hour straight looking through a single pair of binoculars, thinking about EVERYTHING I was seeing, and taking detailed notes for later comparisons. I turned this into an obsessive, all consuming, serious part time job - I was NOT about to settle for anything but the finest I could obtain. I was interested in these factors (notice that Price is definitely NOT among them!):

Ruggedness/waterproofness (Very important to me, this ruled out the Nikon SE)
Overall image resolution and quality
Low light performance
Glare performance (looking at targets near the sun's position)
Color saturation and purity
Contrast, especially when looking at neutral scenes
Chromatic aberations (which REALLY bother me!)
Geometric aberations, especially at the edges
Edge effects, including focus and center-edge brightness differential
Ease of handling and quality of the focus control
Diopter adjustment position and locking arrangement
Weight (ranked low on my importance scale, but was still a factor)
Overall "brightness" of image
Aesthetic appeal (This was VERY low on my list, but was a consideration)

After this week of very detailed (and, I think, very OBJECTIVE) testing, I made my decision.

I chose the Nikon 8X32 HG (U.S. Name: Venturer LX 8X32) binoculars. I have not regretted my decision of 1 millisecond since then - these are simply the best 8X32 roof prism binoculars currently available, in my not-so-humble opinion. The Swarovski optics you refer to were VERY high on my list, but several factors - including overall image quality, ruggedness, and the SUPERB focus control of the Nikons won me over and made me pass the Swaro glass by. Again, cost had NOTHING to do with it - I really was interested in owning ONLY the best - and if the Swaro 8X32 binoculars were that, I would have a pair right now.

One other thing - in my opinion, whether the warranty is transferrable or not really isn't of importance, I plan on keeping these binoculars for life and passing them on to my children - hopefully FAR more than 25 years in the future :)

Best wishes,
Bawko

Hi all, been lurking a while, but this is my first post. I've owned a pair of 10x42 Nikon Venturer/LX's for a couple of year now, and while they are heavier than most, the view is so great that weight is unimportant to me. As far as warranty goes, yes Nikon warranties their binos for 25 years, but they also offer a "no fault" guarantee that allows you to return them for any reason, even if the damage is your fault, for $10.00 plus the cost of return shipping, which I was told is normally $7.50 in the US.

I spoke to Nikon on the phone today and they verified this includes refurbished and secondhand goods. The reason I called is because I just ordered a second pair for my daughter to use. They were sold as refurbished and the total cost was $450.00 shipped in the US. Leica has always been touted as having the best warranty in the business, and while I hope to never have to use Nikon's service department, it seems their warranty and "no fault" guarantee is pretty tough to beat.

By the way, I've owned several pairs of binos over the years, including Leica 8x32's, 8x42's, and 10x42's; 10x43 Pentax DCF SP's; Zeiss 10x40 ClassiC's, and while each has their strong points, none are the equal of the Nikon's.

[Bill Atwood]

Uhhhhhhhhh Buster? Where are you getting those refurbs???

I've been tempted by 'em on Ebay, but the warranty period was only 90 days, which I consider to be no warranty at all.

[Buster]

Uhhhhhhhhh Buster? Where are you getting those refurbs???

I've been tempted by 'em on Ebay, but the warranty period was only 90 days, which I consider to be no warranty at all.

www.ewins.com. The refurbs do come with a "90 day limited warranty", which I was a bit confused about. Hence the reason I contacted Nikon today. They explained the "90 day limited warranty" means any defects in workmanship or materials are covered for 90 days at no additional cost to the consumer. Anything after that point, including damage inflicted by the owner, is covered by their lifetime "no fault" guarantee. They said if there is ever ANY problem, send the bino in with a check for $10.00 plus the cost of return shipping (generally $7.50 in the US), and they'll either repair or replace said item. Doesn't seem like there's much risk involved in that.

I've never dealt with Nikon's repair center and I hope I never have to, so I can't comment on their efficency, but it is comforting to know they're willing to stand behind their product.

By the way, Ewins.com quoted me $800.00 for a new pair of 10x42 Venturer/LX's, which is the best price I've seen yet. The refurbs were $450.00 shipped. I believe they have 8x42 LX's for even less money. For those who might be interested, they also list the SE's at discounted prices. Not sure if they stock those in refurbished, but it's a good possibility. It's a simple matter of e-mailing them and asking for their rockbottom price. My Venturer/LX's are slated for delivery on Monday. I'll report back then.

Buster

[Pileatus]

Hi all, been lurking a while, but this is my first post. I've owned a pair of 10x42 Nikon Venturer/LX's for a couple of year now, and while they are heavier than most, the view is so great that weight is unimportant to me. As far as warranty goes, yes Nikon warranties their binos for 25 years, but they also offer a "no fault" guarantee that allows you to return them for any reason, even if the damage is your fault, for $10.00 plus the cost of return shipping, which I was told is normally $7.50 in the US.

I spoke to Nikon on the phone today and they verified this includes refurbished and secondhand goods. The reason I called is because I just ordered a second pair for my daughter to use. They were sold as refurbished and the total cost was $450.00 shipped in the US. Leica has always been touted as having the best warranty in the business, and while I hope to never have to use Nikon's service department, it seems their warranty and "no fault" guarantee is pretty tough to beat.

By the way, I've owned several pairs of binos over the years, including Leica 8x32's, 8x42's, and 10x42's; 10x43 Pentax DCF SP's; Zeiss 10x40 ClassiC's, and while each has their strong points, none are the equal of the Nikon's.


I'm not questioning your veracity, only what Nikon told you.

Are you saying that Nikon told you that secondhand goods were included in the No-Fault warranty? I was under the impression, based on the written warranties accompanying my bins, that only the original owner was covered and that proof of purchase was required to obtain warranty service. I assume by secondhand you mean the current owner is not the original purchaser.

Please advise.

Thanks
John

[Buster]

John, when I spoke to the Nikon rep on the phone, he said ANY of their binoculars, secondhand, refurbished, or otherwise, are covered by their "No fault" warranty.

[dpulez]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?

I have a pair of zeiss victory II 8x40's I'm selling (on the buy/sell forum). Please email me if you are interested.

They ARE the best all round binocular. I did my research and tested all high end pairs before I decided.

[elkcub]

Hi Buster,

If you are still considering Swarovski (which you might), I'd suggest you evaluate either the 8x30 SLC or the 10x42 SLC. The former is very light (19 oz.), comfortable, and versatile, — and the latter is to kill for (IMHO). It took me 10 yrs. to realize that I couldn't live without a 10x42! The clarity, color, balance, stability, and DEPTH OF FIELD are really exceptional for a 10x glass. It really compares well with 8x bins for DOF.

At this time the 10x42s sell for $1K± USD and (again, IMHO) is a "best buy" among hi-end optics. Other than their very short focus, the new Swaro design really doesn't impress me. Curiously, the 8x30 SLCs have climbed in price to the $900± region, which is surprising. Still, discriminating birders buy them for a reason.

Swarovski customer service revolutionized the bino industry during the last 10 yrs., so that's not an issue.

Happy birding,

elkcub

[scampo]

Hi Buster,

If you are still considering Swarovski (which you might), I'd suggest you evaluate either the 8x30 SLC or the 10x42 SLC. The former is very light (19 oz.), comfortable, and versatile, — and the latter is to kill for (IMHO). It took me 10 yrs. to realize that I couldn't live without a 10x42! The clarity, color, balance, stability, and DEPTH OF FIELD are really exceptional for a 10x glass. It really compares well with 8x bins for DOF.

At this time the 10x42s sell for $1K± USD and (again, IMHO) is a "best buy" among hi-end optics. Other than their very short focus, the new Swaro design really doesn't impress me. Curiously, the 8x30 SLCs have climbed in price to the $900± region, which is surprising. Still, discriminating birders buy them for a reason.

Swarovski customer service revolutionized the bino industry during the last 10 yrs., so that's not an issue.

Happy birding,

elkcub
But close focusing distance?

[elkcub]

But close focusing distance?

Hmmm. Thought I mentioned that. Yes, it's about the ONLY way they "might" be improved, — but 12 ft. isn't all that bad and my eyes still work pretty good. If I look at a bird 120 ft. away with a 10x glass, it looks 12 ft. away and I'm thrilled.

Thirty years ago I bought a German Seibert EMO system from Haverhills to examine teeny-weeny things. B (:

Really, they are a high-end "best buy."
-elk

[Leif]

Hmmm. Thought I mentioned that. Yes, it's about the ONLY way they "might" be improved, — but 12 ft. isn't all that bad and my eyes still work pretty good. If I look at a bird 120 ft. away with a 10x glass, it looks 12 ft. away and I'm thrilled.

Thirty years ago I bought a German Seibert EMO system from Haverhills to examine teeny-weeny things. B (:

Really, they are a high-end "best buy."
-elk

I think it depends on intended use. One person was very uppety when I suggested that the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT was an excellent binocular. He considered the 3m close focus completely unacceptable. I think he did a lot of birding in areas with tame birds, unlike here in the UK, where birds rarely approach close. For dragonflies and butterflies 4m close focus is not really close enough and 3m seems to be adequate but 2m is better. On several occasions I've used a binocular to watch watched mice rummaging around in the forest undergrowth at a distance of about 2m.

[scampo]

I think it depends on intended use. One person was very uppety when I suggested that the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT was an excellent binocular. He considered the 3m close focus completely unacceptable. I think he did a lot of birding in areas with tame birds, unlike here in the UK, where birds rarely approach close. For dragonflies and butterflies 4m close focus is not really close enough and 3m seems to be adequate but 2m is better. On several occasions I've used a binocular to watch watched mice rummaging around in the forest undergrowth at a distance of about 2m.
Yes - it's not for birding that a ~2m focus is required, it's for insects. My son's Optolyth bins focus down to about 12 feet and he has found himself disappointed when he couldn't view a moth or butterfly in detail, for example. I certainly would not be happy with a pair of bins that would not focus down close. The Swaro ELs and the Zeiss FLs are able to focus down to about 2 metres, I think.

[elkcub]

Yes - it's not for birding that a ~2m focus is required, it's for insects. My son's Optolyth bins focus down to about 12 feet and he has found himself disappointed when he couldn't view a moth or butterfly in detail, for example. I certainly would not be happy with a pair of bins that would not focus down close. The Swaro ELs and the Zeiss FLs are able to focus down to about 2 metres, I think.

Of course I completely agree that it all comes down to the observer's task. I was just being cute. In my case I've resisted the new product urge, being unwilling to forego the advantages of quick focusing, natural pointing, and superb balance in order to get a short focusing ability to look at butterflies and insects that are not often of interest. Others may have a different need set. But I'm still thinking of buying a classic Bushnell Custom 7x26 for those tasks, just like I have the Seibert system for teeny-weenies.

Nothing's perfect. :-C

Thanks,
-elk

[Curtis Croulet]

I often look at butterflies and lizards. 3m focus is insufficient for me, and I specifically rejected the Leica Ultravid several months ago because it didn't go close enough.

[denco@comcast.n]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?


Best all around binocular? Zeiss FL 8x42. Number one in the Cornell study and with it's fluorite lenses probably the best all around binocular. Here's a link to the Cornell test:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html.
I personally have a Swarovski EL 8x32 and a Zeiss FL 10x42 because they compliment each other. I still would say the Zeiss 8x42 FL is the best binocular I have ever looked through because of it's apochromatic lenses which no other binocular has. The fluorite lenses do the same thing for binoculars that they do for telescopes. Why do you think people pay $5000.00 for Apochromatic telescopes from Takahashi and Astro-Physics. The fluorite in the lenses gets rid of CA and produces a better image. Why do you think people pay more for ED glass spotting scopes? Same reason. Best all round binoculars:

ZEISS 8X42 fl. PERIOD.

[xenophobe]

Nice 10 month thread bump. :p

Today, I spotted a dragonfly from 83 yards (known laser'd RF distance, where I usually spot bees flying to various flowering plants much closer to me) as it was approaching me (didn't know what it was until about 40-50 yards out), head nearly towards me until it was about 15 yards away, then flew to the right, in front of me and tracked it for another 60 yards before losing it in the background.

I could see it clearly at about 40 yards, and only lost focus of it briefly before it was close enough to recognize. I held focus on it until I lost it.

I was using my 10x42 Ultravids. Pure perfection I tell you.

[Pileatus]

Best all around binocular? Zeiss FL 8x42. Number one in the Cornell study and with it's fluorite lenses probably the best all around binocular. Here's a link to the Cornell test:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html.
I personally have a Swarovski EL 8x32 and a Zeiss FL 10x42 because they compliment each other. I still would say the Zeiss 8x42 FL is the best binocular I have ever looked through because of it's apochromatic lenses which no other binocular has. The fluorite lenses do the same thing for binoculars that they do for telescopes. Why do you think people pay $5000.00 for Apochromatic telescopes from Takahashi and Astro-Physics. The fluorite in the lenses gets rid of CA and produces a better image. Why do you think people pay more for ED glass spotting scopes? Same reason. Best all round binoculars:

ZEISS 8X42 fl. PERIOD.

Take the Cornell study and either omit the close focus score or relax the viewing range by a few feet. Do this and the Ultravid 7X42 "wins" in the top category. These are reviews, not scientific certainties. There are no winners.

The best binocular is the one you will gladly pick up day after day and use without analysis.

John

[denco@comcast.n]

Take the Cornell study and either omit the close focus score or relax the viewing range by a few feet. Do this and the Ultravid 7X42 "wins" in the top category. These are reviews, not scientific certainties. There are no winners.

The best binocular is the one you will gladly pick up day after day and use without analysis.

John


There have been many other reviews where the Zeiss FL has beat the Leica Ultravid in just optics alone without considering all the other attributes that it is superior in. The Zeiss is way brighter and it has less CA for one. My contention is that a non fluoride lens can not compete with a fluoride lens. It is a matter of physics. A scientific certainty. Here is another article where Alula gives the Zeiss the number one rank:
http://www.alula.fi/gb/test_zeissFLGB.html.
Also, here is another review where the Zeiss FL 8x42 trumps the Leica Ultravid 8x42 by a noted Ornithologist:
http://binoculars.org/birding/Reviews/Index.html.
I have closely compared an Ultravid with the Zeiss FL and there is no doubt that the Zeiss is better optically. It's like comparing an Apochromatic telescope to an Achromatiic telescope. Optics with Fluoride will always be superior. I feel that Leica and Swarovski will come out with a fluoride lens in the not too distant future to compete with the Zeiss FL.

Dennis

[henry link]

I think before everyone dumps their non FL binoculars in the trash it might be worth noting once again that here are two kinds of CA in binoculars. The Fluoride glass in the FL binoculars only addresses longitudinal CA which is actually much less of a problem in low power binoculars than lateral CA. In most binoculars with magnification of 10X or less there is only a small amount of longitudinal CA visible exactly on axis. Away from the center (or even at the center if the pupil of the eye is not held perfectly still and exactly on axis) the longitudinal CA in the image is quickly obscured by much larger amounts of lateral CA. Lateral CA occures mainly in the eyepiece and is at its worst in the short focal length optics used in binoculars were the eyepiece must deal with a steep light cone. Objective material has virtually no effect on it. If you look at one of the targets that tends to show CA like dark tree branches agaist a bright sky you will see plenty of lateral CA in the 8x42 FL by either looking off axis or by slightly de-centering your pupils. What is improved in the FL compared to most other binoculars is a small spot in the center (provided you can keep your pupils precisely on axis) which does look unusually clean and transparent by binocular standards. The binocular I own that suppresses both types of CA the best in daylight is a Nikon 7x50 Prostar which I noticed today shows much less off axis lateral CA on tree branches than the 8x42 FL. Mostly this results from the accident of its large exit pupil rather than any superiority in optical quality. Looking at this target in bright daylight both binoculars are probably stopped down to about 2.5 mm exit pupils, so the FL is operating at about f/7-8 and the Prostar about f/12-13. There is lower lateral CA in the Prostar simply because the eyepiece is seeing a less steep light cone, and there is about the same amount of (invisible) longitudinal CA in the two because the image from the Prostar’s achromatic doublet is completely color free at 7x when stopped down to f/12.

BTW using the APO designatiion for the low focal ratio objectives used in binoculars strikes me as a degradation of the term. While he Zeiss 8x42 FL objective does have very low longitudinal chromatic aberration by binocular standards it has much more than an objective should have to be called apochromatic. I can clearly see longitudinal CA in the 8x42 FL with the magnification boosted to 40x, perhaps about as much as would be expected from an f/8-f/10 achromat. A true 42mm APO would show no longitudinal CA even with the magnification boosted to 100x or more. Of course an instrument that is always going to be used at very low magnification doesn’t actually need a true APO objective.

[denco@comcast.n]

I think before everyone dumps their non FL binoculars in the trash it might be worth noting once again that here are two kinds of CA in binoculars. The Fluoride glass in the FL binoculars only addresses longitudinal CA which is actually much less of a problem in low power binoculars than lateral CA. In most binoculars with magnification of 10X or less there is only a small amount of longitudinal CA visible exactly on axis. Away from the center (or even at the center if the pupil of the eye is not held perfectly still and exactly on axis) the longitudinal CA in the image is quickly obscured by much larger amounts of lateral CA. Lateral CA occures mainly in the eyepiece and is at its worst in the short focal length optics used in binoculars were the eyepiece must deal with a steep light cone. Objective material has virtually no effect on it. If you look at one of the targets that tends to show CA like dark tree branches agaist a bright sky you will see plenty of lateral CA in the 8x42 FL by either looking off axis or by slightly de-centering your pupils. What is improved in the FL compared to most other binoculars is a small spot in the center (provided you can keep your pupils precisely on axis) which does look unusually clean and transparent by binocular standards. The binocular I own that suppresses both types of CA the best in daylight is a Nikon 7x50 Prostar which I noticed today shows much less off axis lateral CA on tree branches than the 8x42 FL. Mostly this results from the accident of its large exit pupil rather than any superiority in optical quality. Looking at this target in bright daylight both binoculars are probably stopped down to about 2.5 mm exit pupils, so the FL is operating at about f/7-8 and the Prostar about f/12-13. There is lower lateral CA in the Prostar simply because the eyepiece is seeing a less steep light cone, and there is about the same amount of (invisible) longitudinal CA in the two because the image from the Prostar’s achromatic doublet is completely color free at 7x when stopped down to f/12.

BTW using the APO designatiion for the low focal ratio objectives used in binoculars strikes me as a degradation of the term. While he Zeiss 8x42 FL objective does have very low longitudinal chromatic aberration by binocular standards it has much more than an objective should have to be called apochromatic. I can clearly see longitudinal CA in the 8x42 FL with the magnification boosted to 40x, perhaps about as much as would be expected from an f/8-f/10 achromat. A true 42mm APO would show no longitudinal CA even with the magnification boosted to 100x or more. Of course an instrument that is always going to be used at very low magnification doesn’t actually need a true APO objective.


I believe the CA you are talking about is spherical aberration coming from the eyepieces. This can be eliminated with aspherical eyepieces. It has already been done with high end telephoto camera lenses. With the Zeiss FL binocular Zeiss has taken the first step to producing a color free optical system by producing the objective lenses with fluoride. This puts it a notch above every other binocular. The eyepiece would be the next step if people are willing to pay for it. Here is an article by Stephen Ingraham explaining the different types of aberrations caused by the different wavelengths of lights being refracted differently(He also feels the Zeiss FL is optically above all other non-fluoride binoculars):

http://www.birdforum.net/article.php?a=2

Dennis

[art92101]

I have recently checked out the Swarovski 7x42slc and 8x30slc, along with the Leica 8x32bn and 8x42bn. I have also looked at the Leica Ultra 8x42. I am trying to choose the best all around binocular. I'll be using them for various activities and am looking for the best multi-purpose. Any comments?
The best way to decide is to of course field test the binos. A great way to accomplish this is to check out your local audubon society, they usually have a birding fest once per year. The optics reps are out in full force showing their wares in the great outdoors. Heck you might find a good used or demo equipment at a great price. Also check out this unbiased review of things: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html :eek!: