Optical quality versus the whole package...

[John M Robinson]

I'm writing this as reaction of sorts to Dennis's thread on grading binos purely on optical quality. I have owned some good binos over the years, but last winter was the first time I was ready and able to buy the best bins available. That prompted my joining this forum as well as 24hour campfire, and I spent many hours at local sporting goods stores asking questions and looking through various high end binos. At that time I weighed optical quality as the highest factor concerning my pick of optics. I spent hours and hours splitting hairs between an 8x42 Ultravid and a 8.5x42 Swaro EL for example. During these comparisons I considered ergonomics, but if there was a noticible difference in view, I went for the better view regardless of other considerations. I had my limits, 29 oz was my max, so I ruled out 42mm size Swaro SLCs and Trinovids, but other than that criteria I valued things such as eye reliefe, handiness and carryability pretty far down the list.

I ended up with a very nice, cherry unit 8x42 Ultravid BR that is just super, but I immediately noticed that it was a bit too large and heavy for all the hiking I do. This last weekend I went hunting with my buddy's son who was hunting with the old Leitz 7x35 Trinovids I gave him ten years ago when they were judged too expensive to repair ($410.00, loose prism, collimation and dirty lenses, specks inside). They still have all of those problems, but they are all he has and they work better than nothing. Anyway I borrowed them for a bit and loved the package. I had forgotten how handy those old Trinovids are, he just keeps them in his coat pocket, no strap. They are very light and compact. I fantasized about trading him my new 6x30 Yosemites and sending the Leitz's back for repair after all. I know the view would be nowhere as good as the view through my Ultravids, but there would be a lot to say for a view 80%-90% as good in a light handy package like that, and to my mind there has never been a better looking binocular than that original 7x35 Trinovid design.

Where do you guys stand on binoculars as a total package? Are you willing to compromise larger EP and some twilight use for an easier to carry bino? Is there a certain bin that feels so good in the hand, or up against your face that you picked it over another that a slightly better view? How about ease of view? If I hold my Ultravid just right, it is clearly better than any bino in the shop, but now after owning it almost a year, I can see the EL is less critical in the way I hold it. If I had to do it over, I probably would value that ease of view a little higher than I did. Any other considerations?

John

[Steve C]

I pretty much always go for my perception of the total package within the other limits I usually impose on myself with price constraints. Everything seems to be about compromises and I haven't found one binocular that has everything I like, and I doubt I ever will. So, I look for faults that I can live with and concentrate on what I like about the binocular.

I recently spent a fair bit of time looking over Leica Ultravids, Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, and Steiner Peregrine XP. Now IF I were to decide to spend that much for a binocular, the Steiner XP would be what I'd buy as of today, in the full size range. If were to buy an alpha class 32 mm glass today, it would be the Swarovski 8x32 EL. In both cases, the deciding factor would be the ergonomics of the binocular. The images do look "different", but I could easily live with any, although, I'd prefer the Leica image overall. While the Steiner has a terrific image, I'd personally rate the image order as Leica, Zeiss, Swaro, Steiner. But the difference is rather nit pickish. Resolution of detail does not seem to noticeably differ to me. So the Steiner ergonomics make the choice a no-brainer for me. Now, if I were to win one of the others at a raffle, that's what I'd use happily everafter.

But if I really went alpha, I'd like to get a 7-8x30ish binocular, for the same reasons you state, ease of use when hiking. That is where my Swift 7x36 shines. So, I'm in the wait and see what develops mode.

[orbitaljump]

Whole package, definitely.

Lots of very good optics out there. The Chinese and East Europeans have really stirred up the market and have the Japanese on their toes. There has been an explosion of decent to very good binoculars put on the market...almost unbelievably so.

If I had 1800 dollars to spend on a bino, Id end up with half a dozen at least. :)

[orbitaljump]

I see you are revisiting the 7x35 Trinovids. Good on you.

At a certain point, other factors trump optical considerations. Please do not take this as acquiescence to other peoples claims of "alpha binoculars" superiorty.

;)

[orbitaljump]

I went to the Sportmans Warehouse in Columbia SC today, which has a very good selection of binoculars. I recommend this place to others in the area. The fellow behind the counter was pretty knowledgable as well. Great experience.

I was impressed with the 8x20 Leica sub compacts.....and the 7x26 Bushnell Elite Custom...and to a lessor extent the Nikon ATB 8x25 Reverse Porros.

Also the 10x50 Alpen Porros for $50. The Bushnell 8x40 and 8x42 Legacy's. And the the whole lineup of Nikon Action EX...which I like much better than the older plain "Action."

Also, I was impressed by the Vortex Fury 8x32 and the Steiner Predator 8.5x44. The Steiner had contrast enhancing coatings though.

And the Nikon Monarchs in both 8x42 and 8x36 configs.

The Vortex Vipers and Kalhes and several other big money binos failed to impress for the bucks....not to mention the
$1800 Leica and Swaro EL.

I didnt get to look at a lot of Alpens and Bruntons and Bushnells and whatnot, but Im sure there is a lot of decent to very good glass out there at affordable prices....so you get to distinguish on "The Other Stuff" or "The Whole Package" for your binos needs.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!

[denco@comcast.n]

I went to the Sportmans Warehouse in Columbia SC today, which has a very good selection of binoculars. I recommend this place to others in the area. The fellow behind the counter was pretty knowledgable as well. Great experience.

I was impressed with the 8x20 Leica sub compacts.....and the 7x26 Bushnell Elite Custom...and to a lessor extent the Nikon ATB 8x25 Reverse Porros.

Also the 10x50 Alpen Porros for $50. The Bushnell 8x40 and 8x42 Legacy's. And the the whole lineup of Nikon Action EX...which I like much better than the older plain "Action."

Also, I was impressed by the Vortex Fury 8x32 and the Steiner Predator 8.5x44. The Steiner had contrast enhancing coatings though.

And the Nikon Monarchs in both 8x42 and 8x36 configs.

The Vortex Vipers and Kalhes and several other big money binos failed to impress for the bucks....not to mention the
$1800 Leica and Swaro EL.

I didnt get to look at a lot of Alpens and Bruntons and Bushnells and whatnot, but Im sure there is a lot of decent to very good glass out there at affordable prices....so you get to distinguish on "The Other Stuff" or "The Whole Package" for your binos needs.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!
I am amazed you like the Leica 8x20's Ultravids(Got them for $400.00 New on E-bay). I just bought a pair and sent them back. I just can not put up with the fiddling around with them. More difficult eye placement, smaller FOV., less brightness. Too me they are a pain in the ass and I don't care how small and light they are. I really WANTED to like them too because they are so small and convenient and the functionality is just marvelous. Just aren't worth the aggravation. The Nikon Monarch's are popular but they are just lifeless compared to alpha glass when it comes to contrast. For alot of people if you aren't too picky they are a good inexpensive choice for hunters for a few hundred bucks.
Can't believe you aren't impressed by the Swarowski EL's and the Leicas. That and the Zeiss are some of the best in there is in my opinion. I really don't put Steiner's in the same group and Nikon Actions have terrible edge resolution. I can not stand them!

Dennis

[orbitaljump]

For $1800 bucks, I can get a pair of 8x30 Yosemites and a round trip ticket to South Africa.

There just isnt enough there. Maybe if I was more affluent....they would be worth the money. Who can say?

Yeah $600 compacts are way out there.

I am impressed with some of the cheaper porro offerings compared to what was available in the 80s and 90s at that price point. The Chinese have really changed the equation.

Porros are the way to go to maximize Price to Performance.

Ill be getting a first generation B&L Custom Compact when I can find one.

My Optolyth 10x40s are the equal of any Leica, Swaro, or Zeiss roof, and the better of many. Though I do have a fondness for the old Zeiss 7x42 and 10x40 B/GAs.

Purpose and personal preferences change the equation too much making blanket statements about which bino is the best a foolish pursuit. Swaro 8x42 ELs dont stand a chance against the Fujinon 16x70 or Zeiss 15x60 porros for astronomical pursuits.

[Tero]

Swaro 8x42 ELs dont stand a chance against the Fujinon 16x70 or Zeiss 15x60 porros for astronomical pursuits.
For the most part, roof prisms are for hunters and birders.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!
I don't know, it was fun for a while. I might take that ticket to South Africa.

When out there in the field, we get aquainted with other people's scopes, nobody care what binoculars you have. One guy has 300 lifers with Bushnell Powerviews. The ones with the awful rocker focus knob.

[orbitaljump]

It good to know that some birders arent concerned about having the approrpriately named for psycho-anthropological reasons..... "alpha binoculars."

I can obsess over optics as good as anyone. Who am I to talk?

LOL!

[GeneralEverything]

I am amazed you like the Leica 8x20's Ultravids(Got them for $400.00 New on E-bay). I just bought a pair and sent them back. I just can not put up with the fiddling around with them. More difficult eye placement, smaller FOV., less brightness. Too me they are a pain in the ass and I don't care how small and light they are. I really WANTED to like them too because they are so small and convenient and the functionality is just marvelous. Just aren't worth the aggravation. The Nikon Monarch's are popular but they are just lifeless compared to alpha glass when it comes to contrast. For alot of people if you aren't too picky they are a good inexpensive choice for hunters for a few hundred bucks.
Can't believe you aren't impressed by the Swarowski EL's and the Leicas. That and the Zeiss are some of the best in there is in my opinion. I really don't put Steiner's in the same group and Nikon Actions have terrible edge resolution. I can not stand them!

Dennis

Wouldn't mind a PM with the name of the ebay seller of those Ultravids... ;)
GenEv

[UTCbirder]

Interesting discussion! Maybe the following fits in here? I had alluded to this on another thread, and know that there are some other discussions about IS bins in the Canon forum. Hope this doesn't break any rules... As you can see I'm kinda new around these parts, but man am I pumped about IS and want to try and spread the word!

Right now, I am willing to compromise a lot of things to get image stabilization, including EP, Twilight performance, wt., handling, even to a certain extent pure optical performance. It really does, for me, make that much of a diff!

The following illustrates where I'm at with all this...

Earlier in November, 4 members of our local Audubon Society avicationed in Costa Rica. I brought both Zeiss 7X42 FL's and Canon 10X42 IS L bins. I used the Canon's almost exclusively. On one very early morning walk at Villa Lapas, I felt like I really ought to pull out the FL's... after all why tote them around if they weren't going to make their way out of the knapsack at least once? Two other members of the group went along- one of these folks called our attention to a pair of birds just barely illuminated by the rising sun, at the top of a huge tree some distance from our position. Thru the 7X's, they were just small, bright, dancing dots. The birds really looked to be Toucan-like in silhouette, as the duo flew high-up, across our position and to another impossibly large tree-crown far on the opposite side of the trail. Once again, nothing but shake, rattle and roll; I know that the caffeine and excitement of the moment didn't help any!

One of the birders toted two bins- a pair of older Pentax roof 8-bys, and a Canon 12X36 IS's- "want to try thru these?" was the offer, and indeed the little (compared to the 10X L's...) Canons clearly steadied/magnified the image to the point we could confidently call the ID- Fiery-billed Aracari, a lifer for us and the only ones we found on the trip.

My sense is that even the extra reach of 10X 'nocs would've not have helped us tag the critter any easier.

Needless to say, the Zeiss are about as good as it gets optically, but back in the pack they went. I had several other instances along the same lines. With a near focus of around 8+ feet, and a nice wide linear FOV, there were no conditions we experienced, from deep rain forest to paramo, where the Canons did not absolutely excel- they were indispensible for tagging birds in fast moving roving flock as well as for getting good (read "steady") looks at species at the limits of conjecture.

I am not saying IS is for everyone, maybe esp. a cinder-block like the Canon 10-L. But if you are not put off by the weight and at least on some models the boxy feel and look, every birder owes it to themselves to at least try out some iteration of image stabilized bins.

Right now I am desperately pleading the fat dude in the red suit to toss a pair of Nikon 12X32 Stabileyes my direction, and I think i just might have his (her!) ear...

Sorry if this did not fit in with the discussion...

Kindest of regards,
UTC

[Sancho]

I´m with you on that, UTC...time and time again, I see more birds and more detail when I pack my Canon IS 12x36. I only use 8x non-IS bins for close-quarter work, and to an extent I find I don´t really need IS at 8x mag. In fact I tried the IS 8x25 and didn´t like it for various reasons. I tried the 10x IS in a store too but found them too chunky and heavy. The 12x36 weigh about the same as my EL 8x32, and I find them very comfortable. I´ve never seen another birder in this country with them!

[denco@comcast.n]

I´m with you on that, UTC...time and time again, I see more birds and more detail when I pack my Canon IS 12x36. I only use 8x non-IS bins for close-quarter work, and to an extent I find I don´t really need IS at 8x mag. In fact I tried the IS 8x25 and didn´t like it for various reasons. I tried the 10x IS in a store too but found them too chunky and heavy. The 12x36 weigh about the same as my EL 8x32, and I find them very comfortable. I´ve never seen another birder in this country with them!
I just picked up a pair of Canon IS 12 x 36 II and I really like them. Not quite as good optically as my Leica 7x42 BN's but you can make out more detail with them because you are not shaking. A really good pair of binoculars for getting that positive ID on the bird. I have tried the 8x25 IS and the 10x30 IS and I too prefer the 12 x36 IS II. I think the 15 x50 IS would be getting a little too heavy. Those are my two binoculars right now.

Dennis

[KorHaan]

By now I've tried all Canon IS bins and I'm still not sure which one I'd want. The small ones ( 8x and 10x ) are great for one-handed use when carrying a tripod/scope on the shoulder. 12x36 is the only one I was able to use in the field for some time ( thanks again, Peewee! ) and it outperformed my 10x42 non-IS roofs then.
The 15x50 I tried in a shop against 15x56 Swaro's were a little disappointing ( probably because the Swaro's were extremely sharp and well-balanced in the hand).
The 18x50 were fantastic and made me drool.
The most expensive one, the 10x42 L IS, was optically nice but ill-balanced and clumsy.

To get this on topic: the whole package is more important to me than only outstanding optics, and within that there are two major considerations for me: weight and waterproofness.
I found any bin heavier than 550-560 grams not suited to carry all day around my neck.
I want to use them in pouring rain if I have to, so they must be waterproof.
The optics must be pleasant for my eyes. My current all-round bin ( the only one I take out besides scope ) is Minox BL 8x32 BR. The weight is only 525 grams. It fits my hands like no bin before, just about everything seems right with this little miracle.

Weight seems to be the paramount factor now for me. Maybe I'll change my mind next year and buy some Canon IS's. The IS-feature is the only thing I'd sacrifice my spine for carrying them all day.

Kindest regards, great thread,

Ronald

[denco@comcast.n]

By now I've tried all Canon IS bins and I'm still not sure which one I'd want. The small ones ( 8x and 10x ) are great for one-handed use when carrying a tripod/scope on the shoulder. 12x36 is the only one I was able to use in the field for some time ( thanks again, Peewee! ) and it outperformed my 10x42 non-IS roofs then.
The 15x50 I tried in a shop against 15x56 Swaro's were a little disappointing ( probably because the Swaro's were extremely sharp and well-balanced in the hand).
The 18x50 were fantastic and made me drool.
The most expensive one, the 10x42 L IS, was optically nice but ill-balanced and clumsy.

To get this on topic: the whole package is more important to me than only outstanding optics, and within that there are two major considerations for me: weight and waterproofness.
I found any bin heavier than 550-560 grams not suited to carry all day around my neck.
I want to use them in pouring rain if I have to, so they must be waterproof.
The optics must be pleasant for my eyes. My current all-round bin ( the only one I take out besides scope ) is Minox BL 8x32 BR. The weight is only 525 grams. It fits my hands like no bin before, just about everything seems right with this little miracle.

Weight seems to be the paramount factor now for me. Maybe I'll change my mind next year and buy some Canon IS's. The IS-feature is the only thing I'd sacrifice my spine for carrying them all day.

Kindest regards, great thread,

Ronald
It would be hard to compare ANYTHING to the Swarovski 15 x 56 that is one awesome set of binoculars! You are talking about some seriously good optics there even though they are a might heavy. I was really impressed by the Swarovski 10 x 50's also even though they are a bit heavy. Great optics!
The Canon's are alot of fun but your right in that the lack of waterproofing makes them kind of a secondary tool. You never know when it is going to rain or you are going to encounter alot of humidity when birding, hunting, or just nature observation. I really like my Canon 12 x36 IS II though. If you look around you can pick them up pretty cheap and their edge clarity is among the best I have seen. Nice flatfield too. Pretty light too.

[orbitaljump]

I must admit, I like the ergos on the Swarovski ELs in the 32mm and 42mm objective sizes....the open bridges....I guess part of the whole package.

[John M Robinson]

Orbital, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Once you get up to a certain optical level, other issues come into greater play such as the open bridge ergonomics you bring up, way they fit the face, easy no black out view, light and compact carry, ect. I go back to those 1960-80s 7x35 Leitz Trinovids, if I had a mint pair, and if they were 85%+ as good visually as newer phase coated Alpha bins I'd take them in a heartbeat over a modern 42mm size Trinovid for example.

[trealawboy]

I must admit, I like the ergos on the Swarovski ELs in the 32mm and 42mm objective sizes....the open bridges....I guess part of the whole package.

Its a shame they have thumb grooves though. That spoils them for me.

:-(

[Kevin Conville]

The whole package, absolutely. I've been barking up that tree for awhile actually. Here on BF when talking bins, the topic often focuses on the hair splitting of optical differences, and that's OK but I'd never buy bins based solely on the view. Besides, the "view" is also up for grabs.

Though I get why some are fans of image stabilized binoculars, to me they fail meeting that overall package criteria. The several Canon I tried had the ergonomics of a toaster. Add to that their complexity, marginal warranty, and need for batteries and those are deal breakers for me. I have no doubt that one can see more with them however.

The other one I'll pick on in the premier class is Zeiss. I've tried various FLs a number of times. They are very very good optically, and may be the best of all but I don't see myself buying them. To me they don't have the air of mechanical quality of some others, kind of plasticky. I don't much like the molded-in ridges which make them feel bulkier than they are and probably don't do much to improve grip. 2 of 4 I recently looked at/through had tight spots intermittently while running the focus wheel. They are great to look through though!

[orbitaljump]

Orbital, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Once you get up to a certain optical level, other issues come into greater play such as the open bridge ergonomics you bring up, way they fit the face, easy no black out view, light and compact carry, ect. I go back to those 1960-80s 7x35 Leitz Trinovids, if I had a mint pair, and if they were 85%+ as good visually as newer phase coated Alpha bins I'd take them in a heartbeat over a modern 42mm size Trinovid for example.

I with you John.

Im also a fan of vintage binos.

[KorHaan]

It would be hard to compare ANYTHING to the Swarovski 15 x 56 that is one awesome set of binoculars! You are talking about some seriously good optics there even though they are a might heavy. I was really impressed by the Swarovski 10 x 50's also even though they are a bit heavy. Great optics!
The Canon's are alot of fun but your right in that the lack of waterproofing makes them kind of a secondary tool. You never know when it is going to rain or you are going to encounter alot of humidity when birding, hunting, or just nature observation. I really like my Canon 12 x36 IS II though. If you look around you can pick them up pretty cheap and their edge clarity is among the best I have seen. Nice flatfield too. Pretty light too.

That's right, the 15x56 Swaro's are outstanding binoculars. You'd have to put them on a tripod, though, and that's were I normally keep my scope. The big Canons seem attractive when you don't want to be bothered with the pod/scope combo. Besides, for the price of one Swaro15x 56 I could have two Canons.

But I think it will be 2010 earliest I can afford to buy another pair of bins.
The Canon 12x36 IS II I've seen listed for 499.- Euros and even that price is too much. The 18x50's IS are 988.- Euros and that is even more unthinkable right now.

Fortunately I appreciate my 8x32 Minox's more and more each day, to the point I ignore binocular shops. Up until now I couldn't pass one without popping in for elaborated views through all the attractive looking bins including the prohibitively expensive ones.
This could mean I'm a cured binocuholic ( hmm... am I? ) or I have found a perfect pair of bins. For my taste, for my hands, for my eyes.

This may sound boring, but I'm actually quite satisfied with what I have at the moment.

Regards, Ronald

PS : I'm struggling to resist looking on the Minox website and deny another brand loyalty virus to invade my brain. Fever....

[Sancho]

Up until now I couldn't pass one without popping in for elaborated views through all the attractive looking bins including the prohibitively expensive ones.
This could mean I'm a cured binocuholic ( hmm... am I? )
It´s a tough question...I thought I was cured until all this talk of 8x42 ED bins started off. Now I´ve again seen your appraisal of Canon IS 18x50, and I´m wondering if I want that instead....the virus was dormant, but I think it´s active again! BTW, did you find the Canon IS 18x50 usable without a tripod,and was the FOV too restrictive? A note on my 12x36 IS....they look odd, but they´re very comfortable in the hand.

[KorHaan]

It´s a tough question...I thought I was cured until all this talk of 8x42 ED bins started off. Now I´ve again seen your appraisal of Canon IS 18x50, and I´m wondering if I want that instead....the virus was dormant, but I think it´s active again! BTW, did you find the Canon IS 18x50 usable without a tripod,and was the FOV too restrictive? A note on my 12x36 IS....they look odd, but they´re very comfortable in the hand.

Hi Sancho,

The Canon IS 18x50 is perfectly usable without a tripod IMO. There are occasions I only carry my 8x32's and regret that I left the scope at home, not being able to ID a distant bird. This is where 18x50's IS would come in handy. As a back-up pair in a bag or rucksack they would be great.
12x36's IS are not enough, is my guess. A scope is still required then.

Last october I went for a week to Texel, a great birding spot, but I didn't take the scope/pod combo. I just wanted relaxed bicycle rides. All went OK until I picked out with my 8x32's a juvenile Rosy Starling in a flock of 300 common Starlings. I put the bins on the saddle of my bike, sat on my stool and cursed myself quietly for being stupid to leave the scope at home. The views would have been great.

The thing that I like about the Canon 18x50's is that they have a tripod attachment point underneath. So you can use them on a tripod if you feel like it, or on a monopod. I've experimented with two tripod adapters last summer to mount my 10x42 non-IS roofs and 10x50 Chinese porro's. Both bins had threads on the far end of the hinge. The little pedestals ( the adaptors) screwed on caused considerable vibration, due to the fact gravity was working on a 90 degree angle this way, and with my hand on the focus wheel at the front end of the hinge it was clearly noticeable. Attachment points underneath the housing are much more stable ( I think ).
Ergonomics over optics, to keep to the topic.

The field of view in the 18x50's was surprisingly good, maybe because I expected a narrowish FOV with 18x mag. I believe it's 66 m./1000m.
Not to be used as an all-round pair of bins, where the 12x36's IS could be used that way.

A scope on a tripod though allows for more relaxed viewing than a handheld heavy IS bin.
My kind of birding is a need to see details. I'm a total tw*t if it comes to JIZZ.
I envy others who can nail an ID at 2 kilometers. I can't; I need the details on the bird.

BTW, I fully agree with you that the Canon 12x36 IS's are very comfortable to hold!

Regards, Ronald

[etc]

Considering pure optical performance, I love Leica 8x42 (Trinovid and imagine Ultravid is even better)

However, what I actually have and use and take in the field is Swarovski EL 8.5x42. Even thought it has a slightly different view impossible for me to define.


Some day I hope to own a Ultravid HD but will have to send it in for them to adjust the focus past infinity distance, at the expense of close-up focus distance.

[catmouse]

I looked through a pair of Swarovski EL 10x32 in a store I loved the 360 F.O.V. for a 10x the binoculars fit my face and eyes perfectly,the size was perfect too light weight and great feel. The only problem is the price "IF" I could afford them I would buy them. I compared them to a Leica Ultravid 8x32 and I prefer the Swarovski 10x32 EL,in my opinion a excellent binocular for all day carry and hiking anyone who can afford one is truly lucky.

[Fireform]

The ergonomics of a bin are very important, especially if you use them a lot. I've had very good binoculars optically that I wasn't comfortable enough holding and got rid of for that reason. That said, though, optical quality trumps the feel of a binocular up to a point. The purpose of a binocular is to show you what you want to see, and if it doesn't do that as well as it should it's really not much use.

[John M Robinson]

The ergonomics of a bin are very important, especially if you use them a lot. I've had very good binoculars optically that I wasn't comfortable enough holding and got rid of for that reason. That said, though, optical quality trumps the feel of a binocular up to a point. The purpose of a binocular is to show you what you want to see, and if it doesn't do that as well as it should it's really not much use.

Am I wrong to assume that, barring black out or eye relief issues, most or all of the Alpha bins in normal birding size and power are good enough optically to show you what you want to see? Or put a different way, aren't they so close that any optical difference is trumped by ergonomic issues? In my case I prefer the absolute view of my 8x42 Ultravid over all others, but my need to line my eye up perfectly to get that view, wears on me and I'm starting to wonder if the more relaxing, but slightly less sharp view of the 8.5x42 EL might have been a better choice for me.

John

[Steve C]

Am I wrong to assume that, barring black out or eye relief issues, most or all of the Alpha bins in normal birding size and power are good enough optically to show you what you want to see? Or put a different way, aren't they so close that any optical difference is trumped by ergonomic issues? In my case I prefer the absolute view of my 8x42 Ultravid over all others, but my need to line my eye up perfectly to get that view, wears on me and I'm starting to wonder if the more relaxing, but slightly less sharp view of the 8.5x42 EL might have been a better choice for me.

John

John,

I tend to agree that most alpha binoculars are probably just about equal in being able to show detail. While I've been comparing my Promaster to the various alphas, all of the alphas seemed to be able to pull very close to the same level of detail from the resolution chart.

What I do see as different is the way the image "looks". Each of the alphas image has its relatively distinct appearance. To me the Zeiss is brighter, with a tad of a blue or white bias, the Leica is nearly as bright, but seems to have a better, or at lest more neutral color. The Swaro and Steiner XP are "maybe" not quite as bright and have a bit of a greenish tint to them. So I can see that people will take to the "look" of one image over another. One particular image may well be more suitable (for a particular user) for viewing done in forest and another over grassland, etc. That perceived difference will be viewed as pretty significant to some, and hence that might trump other factors.

Personally, I can live just fine with any of the images presented. So in my case, it would come down to an ergonomics issue, where the Steiner XP would win for me.

[John M Robinson]

Steve, actually it was that slight color bias and a ring of color around the very edge of view of the ELs, coupled with better Leica case and rain guards, that pushed me to the Ultravids.

[Fireform]

Am I wrong to assume that, barring black out or eye relief issues, most or all of the Alpha bins in normal birding size and power are good enough optically to show you what you want to see? Or put a different way, aren't they so close that any optical difference is trumped by ergonomic issues? In my case I prefer the absolute view of my 8x42 Ultravid over all others, but my need to line my eye up perfectly to get that view, wears on me and I'm starting to wonder if the more relaxing, but slightly less sharp view of the 8.5x42 EL might have been a better choice for me.

John

I would have agreed with this once upon a time, but I do find that differences even among the Alphas are visible to me sometimes. I couldn't begin to tell you why that is, but I've compared Alpha roofs among each other and seen distinct differences in the image. Not that one is categorically better than another, but that one looked distinctly better to my eye.

The obvious example for me is the Nikon SE porro. They aren't waterproof and they have those antique fold-down eyecups--two big strikes against them in the total package view of things. But the view through them is so good, and they excel so much at resolving subtle textures and colors, that I'll take them almost any time over any roof bin you can name. The only exception being if I know for sure that I'm likely to get soaked or snowed on--then I might take my roofs, but I won't always be happy about it.

I've gotten rid of highly regarded glass because it wasn't right for me ergonomically, too, like the 7x42 zeiss classics I once had. Everyone raves about how comfortable they are to use, except me I guess.

[Steve C]

Steve, actually it was that slight color bias and a ring of color around the very edge of view of the ELs, coupled with better Leica case and rain guards, that pushed me to the Ultravids.

John,

With your mention, here and on other forums, of sometimes preferring the view of one binocular at times over another. I have gotten to wondering if there is not something to another post here by Bob in Ky about using different binoculars in different seasons. Also the post by Marys1000 wondering about what affects color perception in binoculars.

So, purely as a matter of curiosity, when you have the "I wish a had a Swaro" or "wish I had a Leica" moments; I wonder if those are times when you are in a particular environmental condition, ie, light and bright, vs dark and gloomy. Maybe for a particular user there are Zeiss times, vs Leica, vs Swaro times (lord that sounds expensive ;)) where a different image fits a different circumstance.

[FrankD]

So, purely as a matter of curiosity, when you have the "I wish a had a Swaro" or "wish I had a Leica" moments; I wonder if those are times when you are in a particular environmental condition, ie, light and bright, vs dark and gloomy. Maybe for a particular user there are Zeiss times, vs Leica, vs Swaro times (lord that sounds expensive ) where a different image fits a different circumstance.

I think you are on to something here Steve. I said something to a similar effect recently as well. I tend to prefer the warm-color of the Meopta 8x42 on snowy winter days. The image just looks so relaxed to my eyes under these circumstances.

[etc]

Steve, actually it was that slight color bias and a ring of color around the very edge of view of the ELs, coupled with better Leica case and rain guards, that pushed me to the Ultravids.


I've never seen that in the latest generation of 8.5x42 ELs.. and I looked.

[James Bean]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Being 'comfortable' with a binocular is perhaps the paramount consideration. Optical quality is always important, but super-sharp optics can be let down by poor ergonomics: stiff/sloppy or too fast/slow focusing; inadequate eye relief; clumsy handling/balance; unattractive/awkward body; difficult/loose dioptre adjustment; size & weight, etc. Most modern binoculars (and quite a few old ones) have good optics, some even superb, and the better ones have the benefits of ED glass and phase coating, so 'decent' optical quality is the norm. That doesn't stop us searching for the holy grail of the 'perfect binocular'. There is an old adage, "the best binocular is the one you are not conscious of using; you just see the view"; and another is "if it looks & feels right, it probably is..." which inevitably leads to the conclusion that choice is very subjective: what pleases me may infuriate you. Thus, the sound advice, "try before you buy" still holds true. However, this is not possible with mail order or eBay purchases, so it's doubly rewarding to discover your latest acquisition 'fits the bill' nicely. That happy experience came to me in the form of a Pentax 8x36 DCF HS which, as soon as the box was opened, fitted my hands perfectly and felt 'right'; I was 'at home' with it from the word 'go'; it may not be the 'best' of my binoculars in purely technical terms, but we go together so comfortably that I expect it will become my preferred 'daily user' choice. So I agree with 'Fireform': as long as the optics are good enough, 'fit & feel' win the day.

[FrankD]

That happy experience came to me in the form of a Pentax 8x36 DCF HS which, as soon as the box was opened, fitted my hands perfectly and felt 'right'; I was 'at home' with it from the word 'go';

That is most certainly something that the HS possesses....excellent handling. I have yet to see someone pick one up and not the like ergonomics of the bin. The killer price for very good optical performance doesn't hurt either....;)

[Kevin Purcell]

That is most certainly something that the HS possesses....excellent handling. I have yet to see someone pick one up and not the like ergonomics of the bin. The killer price for very good optical performance doesn't hurt either....;)

Another +1 for the HS (especially if you can get it cheap). Optically its the best of the $200ish bunch. But it's not the best optics period. Plus I do like the bit of extra red too ... stands out from the bluish bins in that price range (aside from the Legend which are neutral/white).

I wonder if the replacement (NV) will have as nice a body design as that was one of the things they changed.

The HS body feels rather like a piece of worn wood ... all the curves are in just the right place.

Pentax body designs I find very deceptive. I can remember looking at them (having never handled one) and thinking "Man, that looks odd. It can't be comfortable". But all the ones I've played with really worked very well even though they look rather odd.

[FrankD]

The HS body feels rather like a piece of worn wood ... all the curves are in just the right place.



That is a very accurate description of it. If I wanted to be really picky then I would say that I wouldn't mind seeing it with the same specs and shape but with a 42 mm objective.

;)

[Kevin Conville]

That is a very accurate description of it. If I wanted to be really picky then I would say that I wouldn't mind seeing it with the same specs and shape but with a 42 mm objective.

;)

Look at a Bushnell Discoverer. It's kind of like that.

[FrankD]

Kevin,

My comment was sort of a "what if" kind of statement. To utilize the larger objectives they would probably have to resort to larger barrels. In which case, the wonderful ergonomics would probably be lost. The beauty of the little HS is the contouring along the barrel right where your hand placement is. If the fatten the barrel they will probably lose that wondeful feel.

....plus the weight was a bit more mainstream in comparison to that of the Discoverer roof.

:-)

[Kevin Purcell]

Look at a Bushnell Discoverer. It's kind of like that.

As FrankD sold me his Discoverer I know he knows what the view is like. But you do raise an interesting point.

I do like the ergonomics of the Bushnell Discoverer 7x42. It's another bin (like the Pentax HS) that seems to have all the curves in the right places. My hand fits it very naturally and does hit any edges. Very pleasant. I'd say this was the second most ergonomic of the bins I have. But if you were to look at it, unlike say the "odd looking" Pentax bins, the Discoverer looks rather anonymous.

In fact when I got this bin from Frank I had a couple of other more expensive and clearly better optically bins that didn't get much use for quite a while. I really liked the feel and shape of the bin. And the 7x magnification helped too.

Curious how some features outweigh other (usually optical) features sometimes.

But if there are any bin designers out there reading this, I hope you have check out these bins. Optically excellent and great ergonomics makes a classic bin.

[FrankD]

In fact when I got this bin from Frank I had a couple of other more expensive and clearly better optically bins that didn't get much use for quite a while. I really liked the feel and shape of the bin. And the 7x magnification helped too.

..and here I thought I was the only one that had this experience. I seriously wonder if this is an underutilized aspect of the binocular buying experience. Sure, Swarovski put alot of attention to ergonomics with the EL series (and several others have come up with their own versions of it) but how many companies really spend alot of time coming up with a binocular design focused not only on optics but on ergonomics as well.

[James Bean]

Following the 'ergonomics' theme, it's sometimes a shame that a binocular doesn't quite live up to that first "ooh, this is nice" tactile delight. A while back I bought an Opticron Imagic 8x42 TGA porro which fitted my hands perfectly. Not only that, the rubber body was silky-smooth with ribbing and thumb indents ideally placed, to ensure a comfortable grip, with fingers resting nicely on the rubberised focus bar, and chunky body nestling in my hands: it felt "suits you, Sir" tailor-made for me. It's the comfiest bin I've ever held. But, the focusing goes the 'wrong way' (clockwise to close-up) and is 'a bit sticky', by which I mean you can 'hear' the grease as the focus is changed (irritating!) as well as the dioptre ring being finger-hurting stiff. The optics are pretty good, not the very best but competent, and otherwise the Imagic is fine to use. Maybe I should have it serviced?
It won't remedy the 'wrong way' focus, but it might cure that annoying 'stickiness'...

[falcondude]

I looked through a pair of Swarovski EL 10x32 in a store I loved the 360 F.O.V. for a 10x the binoculars fit my face and eyes perfectly,the size was perfect too light weight and great feel. The only problem is the price "IF" I could afford them I would buy them. I compared them to a Leica Ultravid 8x32 and I prefer the Swarovski 10x32 EL,in my opinion a excellent binocular for all day carry and hiking anyone who can afford one is truly lucky.

360 FOV for 10x binoculars? That's almost 70 degree AFOV. Is this the new EL everyone was talking about?

[iveljay]

Over the the past 50 years almost all of the bins I owned have apparently focussed the 'wrong way' - it came as a shock the first time I came across a pair that focussed the 'right way'.

I guess my current collection that I use must be about 50-50 in which way they focus and it wasn't until I read this thread that I checked which went one way and which the other. I seem to have got used to it and really dont notice the difference anymore.

Does anyone else have a preference or is it simply what you are used to?

[Kevin Purcell]

It won't remedy the 'wrong way' focus, but it might cure that annoying 'stickiness'...

The stickiness is the price you pay for a waterproof external focus porro. It's a feeling a know well from most of my external focus porros.

I suspect service for a Chinese OEMed may well be sending you a new one ;)

Though if you know a real bin optics man you might be able to get a lower viscosity grease (perhaps without compromising the waterproofing).

[FrankD]

A noticeably wider field of view is a bit of a trademark of the 32 mm bins in comparison to their 42 mm counterparts. It is one of the things we have come to accept without really thinking about it.

[Alexis Powell]

Does anyone else have a preference or is it simply what you are used to?

I prefer clockwise to greater distance, which is the way most top-end binos are designed. The reason I prefer this is that since eye comfort is greatest when focusing a bino near to far and because I focus with the fingers of my right hand, with that design I achieve "final" focus for a given bird via a "pull" on the focus wheel, which I feel is easier and more precisely controlled than a "push" of the wheel.

--AP

[KorHaan]

I prefer clockwise to greater distance, which is the way most top-end binos are designed. The reason I prefer this is that since eye comfort is greatest when focusing a bino near to far and because I focus with the fingers of my right hand, with that design I achieve "final" focus for a given bird via a "pull" on the focus wheel, which I feel is easier and more precisely controlled than a "push" of the wheel.

--AP

:t:

Thanks Alexis,

You found the right words! I do exactly the same, but I use my left index finger to focus and my bins go counter-clockwise to infinity. Perfect.
I suppose everyone with righthanded focusing has a preference for clockwise from near to infinity.

Regards, Ronald

[Kevin Purcell]

Recently (after hurting my right index finger) I've found that I have started using both index fingers to focus. There is a win to doing this especially for big changes ... it's easier to push than pull.

[michaelboustead]

I own a pair of 8x32, but have been birding mostly with 7x42. I am pretty sure that I can squeeze more detail out of the 8x but find the 7x easier to use. I can be pretty sloppy with how I position my eyes and the depth of field helps. Less fatigue.

I can tell very little difference in brightness between either glass. I wear glasses and I am astigmatic to some extent. I have always wondered if the correction in my glasses is a limiting factor on the resolution I see through the bins.

Mike

[ScoutMan]

Mike,

Your statement makes me think, how important ER is to ergonomics.

[Kevin Purcell]

I have always wondered if the correction in my glasses is a limiting factor on the resolution I see through the bins.

For most decent (i.e. somewhat good bins) your eye's acuity (corrected or otherwise) is the limiting factor.

The bin can correct for the spherical component of your prescription but only your glasses can correct for the cylindrical portion.

I can see the difference between my two eye's: my dominant left eye has less astigmatism (-0.75D) and when corrected is quite good. My brain noticed which was the best eye -- I didn't wear glasses as a kid ;)

My right eye has more astigmatism (-3D) so getting the angle of the cylinder for correcting the astigmatism is more critical in my eyeglasses. And that eye always seems to be "worse". Setting the diopter setting is always a pain in the but for me as the "sharpest setting" seems to have a shallow bottom.

There are other forms of astigmatic aberration in the eye that are not corrected for. The new wavefront analyzers some opticians use in the "pre-test" can show these aberrations and how they vary across the aperture of the eye. You may perfectly correct the sphere and the cylindrical astigmatism but can't correct these higher order problems. And that'll give you the niggling feeling of "not quite sharp enough" especially if your eyes differ in acuity.

[Alexis Powell]

There are other forms of astigmatic aberration in the eye that are not corrected for. The new wavefront analyzers some opticians use in the "pre-test" can show these aberrations and how they vary across the aperture of the eye. You may perfectly correct the sphere and the cylindrical astigmatism but can't correct these higher order problems. And that'll give you the niggling feeling of "not quite sharp enough" especially if your eyes differ in acuity.

Tell me more! My corrected vision is quite good, overall ~20/12, and each eye is ~20/15 or better, but to my hypercritical mind, my right eye is clearly worse than my left due to some sort of complex aberration. Will they in the near future be able to diagnose, measure, and correct for these higher order problems?

--AP

[Kevin Purcell]

Tell me more! My corrected vision is quite good, overall ~20/12, and each eye is ~20/15 or better, but to my hypercritical mind, my right eye is clearly worse than my left due to some sort of complex aberration. Will they in the near future be able to diagnose, measure, and correct for these higher order problems?

See this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_in_optical_systems

particularly the bit about Zernike model of aberrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_in_optical_systems#Zernike_model_of_abe rrations

As you increase the oder of the polynomial you get a different aberration. I think the bottom five are the ones they can measure for the eye using a wavefront analyzer. If your optician doesn't show you the output ask to see it. It's rather fun in a geeky way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_in_optical_systems#Zernike_model_of_abe rrations

and this presentation is a good introduction

http://scien.stanford.edu/class/psych221/projects/03/pmaeda/index_files/ppt_presentation.ppt

this paper is a bit more focused

http://research.opt.indiana.edu/Library/Mopane2003/CampbellC2/Campbell_C_2.pdf

You can diagnose them but you will never be able to correct them with a simple lens or even a fancy shaped eyeglass lens. But contact lens might be a possibility (though I suspect you can't register them with the properly). It's possible laser eye surgery might go in this direction though right now some of the failures of laser eye surgery are due to higher order aberrations.

If you can using interesting systems (spatial light modulators ... they're not just for Loony Tunes cartoons ;) ) you might be able to correct some of these in the future. See this paper:

http://www.eurocongress.com.pl/do2005/DO_manuscript/lectures/L-044.pdf

Imagine an image stablizing, abberation correcting and user adapting binocular of The Future ...

[michaelboustead]

I really enjoy birding, but the idea of my eyes and laser beams sort of elevates my heart rate.

Frankly bins are important but just as important is my shoulder harness which is older than any bin I own by a lot. As I near 60 I would kill for a good pair of hiking boots. I have given up and basically wear trail shoes because they are water proof. They are too costly but no more than sneakers today.

Mike