Question about inexpensive reverse Porro compacts (Audubon, Eagle Optics, etc.)

[J. Moore]

Eagle Optics has a sale on the Audubon 8 x 25 reverse Porro compact binoculars which I thought was too good to pass up: http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=3530. ($42 versus $70 or more when not on sale). Just what I needed for something to take along on walks or in the car when I am not specifically birding and want something along just in case I see something. (I use my Vortex Vipers when I am birding).

So far, I have been generally quite pleased with them. Good build quality, very light, fits into jacket or trouser pocket, good eye relief, and even comes with a nifty case with a belt loop if you do not want to carry them in your pocket for some reason.

The only problem I have is that the optics seem slightly askew. If I look at something say 30 feet or closer, it seems in good focus and sharp. But if I look at things more distant, it seems difficult to get it into perfect focus (the object does not "pop into focus") and there seems to be a slight warping of the field of vision. It is still good enough to ID a bird certainly, but somewhat unsatisfying aesthetically. My question is, is this a sub-par sample which I might want to consider returning, or is it just something that one must put up with in a binocular in this price class.

Jim

[Tero]

I have looked at just a couple of Audubon brand products. My impression was that they were pretty mediocre.

[J. Moore]

I have looked at just a couple of Audubon brand products. My impression was that they were pretty mediocre.

Well, my impression is that all inexpensive reverse Porro compacts are pretty much the same, so I am not really talking about the brand here. (And these are supposed to be the same binocular as the Eagle Optics Triumph with just a different covering.) This particular model is selected by one review site as the cheapest decent binoculars you can buy: http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/binocular_advisor/binocular_advisor1.html#least_expensive And reverse Porro compacts are supposed to be significantly better than any inexpensive roof prism compacts (unless you pay more than $100), so they seemed the logical choice for binoculars I do not expect to spend much time looking through.

Best,
Jim

[Tero]

Well, it is the same Wisconsin outfit, but this may have been an early attempt. I was impressed with Vanquish 10x clarity but not the dimness. I still have a 9x ProStaff and I hardly use it now. I use the 8x28 Excursion.

[elkcub]

...

The only problem I have is that the optics seem slightly askew. If I look at something say 30 feet or closer, it seems in good focus and sharp. But if I look at things more distant, it seems difficult to get it into perfect focus (the object does not "pop into focus") and there seems to be a slight warping of the field of vision. It is still good enough to ID a bird certainly, but somewhat unsatisfying aesthetically. My question is, is this a sub-par sample which I might want to consider returning, or is it just something that one must put up with in a binocular in this price class.

Jim

Jim,

You should be able to focus objects more that 30' away with no difficulty. Make sure the diopter adjustment is set properly for your eyes. Slight warping of the field of vision" may mean pincushion distortion, which is normal. But, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "warping."

EO has a very effective 30 day return policy, so give them a call, explain the problem, and see what they recommend. If the next pair doesn't work properly I'd just ask for a refund and be done with it.

Having a binocular that doesn't work for you is no bargain at any price.

Ed

[Alexis Powell]

My question is, is this a sub-par sample which I might want to consider returning, or is it just something that one must put up with in a binocular in this price class.

Can't comment on your particular model, but I've seen plenty of ~$65-100 reverse porro compacts that were excellent, so I think you should expect better.

--AP

[ronh]

I have two samples of a similar thing, the 8x25 Nikon Travelite V, about $80US. They work okay, and serve a purpose. But compared to my good binoculars, they aren't sharp, the view is tiny and distorted, and sensitivity to stray light is very bad. I guess that's just the deal. It really doesn't surprise me. Hey, they only weigh 9 ounces! Maybe some cheap binos of this type are excellent, but not these.
Ron

[Steve C]

Jim,

FWIW, I would send them back. It sounds like a collimation problem to me. Yes, there are some things that I suppose we have to live with in inexpensive optics, but even when not much money is involved, that seems a bit much to me. EO is a good outfit to deal with, so I'd send them back yesterday. I'd send the next one back for a refund if it had the same problem.

[Kevin Purcell]

BTW, I had a pair of Bushnell 8x26 Legend that were very sharp, bright and contrasty (I was very pleasantly surprised - they're view was much better than I expected). Their downsides were very narrow FOV and difficulty with off-axis stray light. Combine that with not quite low enough weight so I returned them.

But focus/sharpness/contrast shouldn't be an issue with $70 to $100 reverse compact porros. If it is you have either a bad example (or potentially a bad design).

[J. Moore]

Thanks for the input everyone. It is a pretty subtle issue, so sometimes I wonder whether I am just being oversensitive. But I will talk to Eagle Optics and probably return to try another pair. I checked over the specs of other compact reverse Porros, and these seem to be best of the bunch in terms of being light and compact, and offering both generous eye relief (18 mm) and a decent field of view (330 feet), so I would like to make this model work for me if I can.

Jim

[J. Moore]

Eagle Optics sent me another pair to try. They seemed pretty much identical to the original pair. But I decided to keep the original pair after all. The more I have used them, the more I have grown to like them. They actually do give me nice sharp images of birds. I think what I may have been noticing is the difference between the "sweet spot" and the rest of the field of view. I think this may be a greater difference than I am used to.

I spent some time looking at the specs and reviews of other more expensive compact reverse Porros, and I think these really fit my needs best. I think they are the most compact and lightweight ones available, and that is really what I am looking for with these.

Jim

[Tero]

Reverse porros can in fact vary quite a bit in the view you get. I never got rid of any for the sweet spot or other issues, but sold some 10x25s as they were in winter ridiculously dim. I tried anothe brand and once again 10x were dim. Plus they really did not work like my 10x42s for distant objects, too shaky.

[Matt_RTH]

I have the Meade Safari Pro 8x25 and they are a great little bin for packing light. I don't have a far away issue, I have a close up issue! I even posted about the issue some time back (though can't find the thread). Ultimately I decided the image convergence issue was probably an artifact of the fixed objectives and didn't affect actual viewing. They are very enjoyable to use, though far from the best I have. This model was a bit up range compared to the lower end Meade reverse porros so don't know how they compare to this Audubon.

[Tero]

The averagae binocular will not give concentric circles close up. Looking far away, it should be pretty round, both circles converged. Porros, regular kind, are the worst close up and some will not focus at all close up.

The only one that corrects for this is the Pentax Papillio.