best bins ?

[ingle1970]

hello , can anyone simply tell me which is the best all round binocular , regardless of price ? .

[rogerk]

hello , can anyone simply tell me which is the best all round binocular , regardless of price ? .
I'd OPTICRON 8x40, obviously depends on you, but I looked through a new pair today and I own a pair. Avoid the 'wide angle' though, a bit gimmicky for my liking, too much distortion. Nice bins.

[pburgers]

I did a lot of comparison shopping before settling on Leica 8x42 ultravids. In my opinion you will not go far wrong, optically speaking, with any of the high end binoculars on the market today. I chose the ultravids because, for me, they were the most comfortable to handle and I liked the way they "flew" into focus for me. You may well find that swaros, nikons, bruntons or some other top brand suits you better. The only way to know for sure is try as many as you can before making up your mind. There really is no such thing as "best" binoculars, though each have their proponants. I prefer Leica, have two pair and love both.

[pduxon]

No such thing as the best bin. It depends on your eyes (you'll see things differently to me) and how they feel in the hands.

I have two bins one 8x(Nikon) one 10x (Opticron) and I like both alot..

[Ragna]

If price is not a limiting factor then Leica Ultravids,Nikon HGs,Swarovski ELs are all optical the best on the market.You have to try them to see which ones suit you best.Most optical dealers have field days at their local bird reserve where you can compare the different makes.8 times magnification is the most popular because its easier to hold steady.

[alan_rymer]

Up to now I have been using a pair of Sirius 10x25, probably bought from Dixons many, many moons ago. I have just bought a new pair of cheap bins which arrived on Friday and so far I am ecstatic about them, optically they are so much better and brighter.
They are 10x42, Waterproof, Roof prism, and cost £28.99 from 7 Day shop.
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_3_307&products_id=90464

[Leif]

As other have said, which is best is very subjective and really depends on the intended use, the users physical attributes, and how they see things.

My favourite binocular is the Nikon 8x32 SE: it's light, compact and IMO optically beats anything else on the market.

[Ragna]

Ingle welcombe to Bird Forum. Try Lamberts of Lancaster tel 01524 37384 they carry a very good range of binoculars at all prices.

[Jane Turner]

I went out to get the best bins a few years back... lined up all the usual suspects....

Despite hating the way they looked/felt I could see that the Leicas were conspicuously better.

[IanF]

I opted for Leica 8x30's as they are a nice comapct size to carry about and not too weighty. They fit in my hands quite nicely and I prefer the design to the other high end binoculars.

It really has to be own to personal preference and picking them up yourself to compare side by side.

[Ragna]

I have 8x42 Leica Ultravids and find them an excellent binocular.They are comfortable to hold,good size and dont weigh as much as some of the others,but optically i dont think there's anything to choose between the top end binoculars.

[henry link]

If you are planning to buy a cost-no-object binocular I would wait to see the new Zeiss FL Victories which are due out in May.
If done properly they should be a genuine advancement over the current generation of roof prism binoculars. The use of fluorite in the objective should noticeably increase contrast. The Abbe-Koening roof prism currently used by Zeiss in the Victories and some of the old Classics has inherently higher light transmission than the Schmitt-Pechan prism used by Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and everybody else; and Zeiss claims to be employing a new eyepiece design with edge sharpness superior to any they have used before. All of that appears to be combined in a new mechanical design with improved ergonomics.
A completely successfull optical design, however, would still probably only equal, but not surpass the optics of the Nikon SE series porros. Why won't Nikon do the birding world a favor and redesign the 8x32SE as a waterproof reverse porro with screw down eyecups? That would be a binocular!

[scampo]

The same reason Nikon won't give their in-every-other-way superb zoom scope eyepiece a wider FOV!

I think they should do a bit of market research myself - they certainly have the technical know-how to equal the best.

I was at a local lake yesterday and looked through someone's Nikon Fieldscope III 60mm with 30xW. It was a truly excellent view - for such a small scope it was clear and sharp, and of such a restful quality.

[Ragna]

Henry. Zeiss were the top binocular in the late 80s and early 90s but since then seem to have lost the plot.They are not as popular in Britain as in America.Possibly the new Victories might reverse this trend but i think Zeiss have lost a lot of ground to the others.

[Cubbsy]

Alan_rymer, i'm actually waiting for mine to arrive have been told told they compare with bins costing over £200

[martinrobinson]

I recently bought a pair of Swarovski 8 x 32 EL's. I tried a lot before finally parting with the money. I got them from Leighton Moss RSPB centre. They're having another binocular and telescope demonstration weekend next weekend ( 13/14 March ). It's worth a visit and great to be able to test them all out in the hide.

[scampo]

Alan_rymer, i'm actually waiting for mine to arrive have been told told they compare with bins costing over £200If you like, Cubbsy, for a fiver, I'll tell you that your £30 bins will compare with bins costing £899-00. That doesn't mean they are as good as those, though.

I looked at the ad on 7dayshop.com - it's fascinating to think they really are as good as an expensive pair - certainly they are waterproof and nitrogen purged, which suggests something at least a little bit special!

Hope they work out okay.

[Ragna]

The Bushnell Birders 1/2 price (£30) from Wharehouse express look a better buy than the 7 dayshop ones.

[Tim Allwood]

I use Nikon 8 x 30 Hg. Mates have Swarovs and Leicas....no real difference

I also have Zeiss 7 x 42 dialyt classics from years ago....they are as good as the three popular makes, have a brighter image, seem to resolve more detail, and are as well made too.

I would happily use all four the Nikon and Zeiss are 'better-made'. The focus on the Leicas and Swarovs is not as well engineered - something readily agreed by my Leica and Swarovski using friends

[Cubbsy]

Hold on there Scampo, I only get 3 quid a week pocket money!! so can't afford a fiver, What i was told, was not the reason i ordered these binoculars, I think the reason was... (Selfish, I know) i got a pair of there 8x40's for my 7 year old, and was blown away by how good they were so ordered the 10x waterproof, However, point taken

Take care.

[henry link]

Ragna, I wouldn't sugggest waiting till May to see the new Zeiss FL's just because they're Zeiss, but because they have interesting new design features which could produce real improvements over any of the current roof prism crop.
BTW the reigning fashion in birder neckwear over here is the Swarovski EL. I use them myself, but must confess to being less than totally in love. The Ultravids did not succeed in turning my head so a new infatuation in May might be just the thing.

[scampo]

Hold on there Scampo, I only get 3 quid a week pocket money!! so can't afford a fiver, What i was told, was not the reason i ordered these binoculars, I think the reason was... (Selfish, I know) i got a pair of there 8x40's for my 7 year old, and was blown away by how good they were so ordered the 10x waterproof, However, point taken

Take care.
I hadn't thought of them for a youngster - a really good idea for a Christmas present or such like.

Make sure you post to let us know how good they are when they arrive.

[Leif]

Ragna, I wouldn't sugggest waiting till May to see the new Zeiss FL's just because they're Zeiss, but because they have interesting new design features which could produce real improvements over any of the current roof prism crop.
BTW the reigning fashion in birder neckwear over here is the Swarovski EL. I use them myself, but must confess to being less than totally in love. The Ultravids did not succeed in turning my head so a new infatuation in May might be just the thing.

Henry: Out of curiosity, what do you not like about them?

[henry link]

Leif, My main objection to the EL is brightness or lack of it. I'm sure you've seen the same thing compared to your Nikon 8x32 SE. It's just not possible to achieve state of the art light transmission with Pechan prisms, even with the dielectric mirror coatiings Swarovski and Leica are using now. Pechans will always have one extra reflection compared to porro and two more than Abbe-Koening. Then, of course there is the infamous slow focus. Henry

[Birdbrain]

I use leica duovids i think thay have to be one of the best around as thay are three bins in one with a little practise hope that helps.

[scampo]

Leif, My main objection to the EL is brightness or lack of it. I'm sure you've seen the same thing compared to your Nikon 8x32 SE. It's just not possible to achieve state of the art light transmission with Pechan prisms, even with the dielectric mirror coatiings Swarovski and Leica are using now. Pechans will always have one extra reflection compared to porro and two more than Abbe-Koening. Then, of course there is the infamous slow focus. Henry
Now - as an arch defender of Nikon, I am a touch confused. Are you saying the Swaro 8.5x42ELs do not produce a bright image?

[postcardcv]

Having changed last year to Leica Duovids I'd have to say that they win out for me. Tried just about everything before going for them - a fantastic 8x binocular for general use and then the extra bit (12x) when you need it.
That said if weight is an issue the new Ultravids are amazing and well worth a look.

[Tim Allwood]

check the info posted by Henry on the old 7 x 42 Zeiss and the prisms they use on the Old bins versus new bins thread.....I had not been aware of this but always knew there had to be a reason they are soooooo good.

[scampo]

I think we are entering Wonderland if we start to believe that the Swaro ELs do not produce a very bright image. That said - the image through my brother's Nikon HG 8x42s continues to impress me every time I look through them.

[henry link]

Steve, Actually I think the Swarovskis and the Leica Ultravids are the brightest of the binoculars using Schmitt-Pechan prisms. That type of prism, however, has inherently lower light transmission than porro or Abbe-Koening. It's not chosen for it's optical quality but because it produces the most compact binocular. The Swarovskis probably have light transmission of 85-90%. The brightest binoculars would be 90-95%. Henry

[Leif]

I think we are entering Wonderland if we start to believe that the Swaro ELs do not produce a very bright image. That said - the image through my brother's Nikon HG 8x42s continues to impress me every time I look through them.

I've looked through the Zeiss 7x42 several times but never for more than a minute or two. What struck me on each occasion was the incredible brightness of the image. I've always assumed that this was due to the 7x magnification i.e. more light per unit area of exit pupil. Presumably competing Leica and Swarovski 7x glasses show an equal brightness?

As said by others Zeiss full sized binoculars use Abbe Konig prisms which IIRC have the property that each reflecting surface achieves a 100% level of reflection without the need for any mirror coatings. (Abbe-konig prisms and porro-prisms both employ a phenomenon known as total internal reflection.) The net result should be a brighter and more contrasty image. Of course in practice how good the optics actually are depends on the quality of the design and manufacture of all components in the optical system. The early Zeiss 8x42 and 10x42 Victory were said to have a slight loss of contrast that was subsequently rectified by the addition of improved baffles. (The improved versions are marketed in the States as the Victory II.) According to Steve Ingraham they do indeed have excellent sharpness and brightness but not noticeably better than the competition.

Schmidt-pechan prisms, used by Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and others, require coatings on the prisms to achieve a mirrored surface. These coatings were traditionally silver (or even aluminium in cheap binoculars), but these days even more expensive dielectric coatings are becoming popular. These are known under various trade marks such as Swaro-bright in the case of Swarovski and High-Lux in the case of Leica. Like anti-reflection coatings, they are made by depositing in a vacuum many molecule thick layers of metal compounds onto the glass surfaces. Dielectric - or interference - coatings have higher transmissivity and should produce higher apparent brightness and contrast. (The actual increase in brightness is too small to be seen directly.)

Incidentally, all exposed optical surfaces on Leica instruments are protected by a thin very hard layer of silicon dioxide aka quartz! Does anyone know if similar coatings are used by other manufacturers? I remember that someone pointed out that top end kit tends to use anti-reflection multi-coatings that are tougher than those on cheaper kit.

Anyway, back on the ranch, I agree that the image through my Swarovski 8.5x42 does not seem to have quite as much contrast as my Nikon 8x32 SEs. I think Scampo has seen the same thing in comparison with his brother's Nikon 8x42 HG. IMO one characteristic of Swarovski binoculars and scopes is a very slight and subtle drop in contrast compared with e.g. Leica and Nikon.

Phew.

[scampo]

Steve, Actually I think the Swarovskis and the Leica Ultravids are the brightest of the binoculars using Schmitt-Pechan prisms. That type of prism, however, has inherently lower light transmission than porro or Abbe-Koening. It's not chosen for it's optical quality but because it produces the most compact binocular. The Swarovskis probably have light transmission of 85-90%. The brightest binoculars would be 90-95%. Henry
I understand - thankls for the information. It's all new to me and very interesting. I suppose, though, that the type of prism counts "all else being equal"; but is the prism the central defining aspect of brightness?

[iporali]

Incidentally, all exposed optical surfaces on Leica instruments are protected by a thin very hard layer of silicon dioxide aka quartz! Does anyone know if similar coatings are used by other manufacturers? I remember that someone pointed out that top end kit tends to use anti-reflection multi-coatings that are tougher than those on cheaper kit.

I have claimed something like that, but not based on very hard evidence. That general claim was presented on some online birding site and this is copied from Swarovski advertizing material: "All glass surfaces are multi-coated for maximum light transmission and exterior lenses employ the exclusive Swarodur® coating for durability."
I don't know what this coating is, but technically there could be several coating materials - from quartz to diamond. I doubt that any high-end manufacturer would leave this kind of design/marketing advantage to competitors.

Ilkka

[henry link]

Steve, Of course in light transmission it all matters. Glass type, coating quality, the number of glass/air surfaces, baffling, prism type. But at the moment, I think the Schmidt-Pechan prism is probably the weakest link in the high end binoculars that use it. Henry

[Tero]

The best binoculars for a particular user are still a compromise of weight, brightness, etc., as none are ideal. Relatively cheap porro binocs for about $100 are quite good, much too heavy for me.

[scampo]

... but technically there could be several coating materials - from quartz to diamond. I doubt that any high-end manufacturer would leave this kind of design/marketing advantage to competitors.

IlkkaWell... quartz is a crystalline form of silica (which is silicon dioxide, or SiO2). Sand is the same molecule and glass is made from molten and cooled sand. Diamond is a crystalline form of carbon (C). Both quartz and diamond exist only by virtue of their physical natures, which would change completely during the lens coating process.

I'm told that lens coatings are based on magnesium (and other metallic) fluorides which, luckily for photographers and birders, vaporise at low temperatures in a vacuum and adhere to any nearby glass surfaces, such as that of a lens. The "thickness" of the coating (a poor word in the circumstances) is far less than the wavelength of light.

[Leif]

Well... quartz is a crystalline form of silica (which is silicon dioxide, or SiO2). Sand is the same molecule and glass is made from molten and cooled sand. Diamond is a crystalline form of carbon (C). Both quartz and diamond exist only by virtue of their physical natures, which would change completely during the lens coating process.

I'm told that lens coatings are based on magnesium (and other metallic) fluorides which, luckily for photographers and birders, vaporise at low temperatures in a vacuum and adhere to any nearby glass surfaces, such as that of a lens. The "thickness" of the coating (a poor word in the circumstances) is far less than the wavelength of light.

I got the information about the quartz coatings on Leica optics direct from Leica, Germany, when I asked about eyepiece coatings. About 20 years ago it was all the rage for telescope mirrors to have a thin quartz layer deposited as protection of top of the mirror layer. I presume Leica apply the quartz on top of the anti-reflection coatings.

[scampo]

All sounds very odd as quartz is a crystalline mineral composed of silicon dioxide molecules. Once the molecular structure is broken down then it is no longer quartz, as I understand it.

One of the very major problems with mirrors in optical gear must be that they need to be reflective only on their uppermost surface - but most mirroring agents are too soft or reactive to allow this without some protective layer being added. I didn't know, and can't see how, this can be quartz, but maybe it is?

[mak]

Henry.
How many people know or are interested in the different types of roof prism which is the generic name.
The advantage of the Abbe Koenig roof prism against the Pechan / Schmidt is noticeable at dusk and dawn. The difference in daylight is minimal.

[henry link]

mak, Thanks for the information. The exact percentage difference is something I had not been able to track down. Can you tell me if this difference refers to silver or aluminum coating and how many reflecting surfaces of a Schmidt-Pechan require mirror coating? Henry

[mak]

mak, Thanks for the information. The exact percentage difference is something I had not been able to track down. Can you tell me if this difference refers to silver or aluminum coating and how many reflecting surfaces of a Schmidt-Pechan require mirror coating? Henry

The latest coatings reduce the amount of light loss on the reflecting surface (mirror) of the prism. Perhaps Henry it should be added that the figures you gave earlier of 85%-90% is the total light transmission through the entire binocular, and not just through the prism system. This takes into account glass to air surfaces, as well as the prism.

[gorank]

A quick calculation from an amateur (me..=) could look like this: Leica claims 99,5% reflection in every surface of the prism elements. Assume the same for transmission. Number of lens elements varies between 8 to 11 in the ultravid series. Lets say 9. Number of transmissions glass/air should then be 9x2 = 18. Plus 5 reflections in the prism makes 23. 0,995 ^ 23 makes 0,89. So about 89 percent of the light is tramitted.

[Darren Oakley-Martin]

Does anyone have a view on Minox 8x32? They were bought for me as a present and I just can't get on with them but can't pin down why exactly. I read a review which praised them, but can't vouch for the reviewers expertise/ objectivity.

[henry link]

A quick calculation from an amateur (me..=) could look like this: Leica claims 99,5% reflection in every surface of the prism elements. Assume the same for transmission. Number of lens elements varies between 8 to 11 in the ultravid series. Lets say 9. Number of transmissions glass/air should then be 9x2 = 18. Plus 5 reflections in the prism makes 23. 0,995 ^ 23 makes 0,89. So about 89 percent of the light is tramitted.

Another calculation from an amateur. I think Leica and others are claiming 99.75% for lens coatings,99.5 for mirror coatings. Another wild card in this is light lost in travelling through glass. An old figure I've seen is 1% per inch of glass. In most binoculars light travels through about 5 inches (127mm), most of it in the prism. Is the most recent glass better than this?

[pduxon]

Does anyone have a view on Minox 8x32? They were bought for me as a present and I just can't get on with them but can't pin down why exactly. I read a review which praised them, but can't vouch for the reviewers expertise/ objectivity.

Nope, not a make you see about much over here. Goes to prove though that bins are something you really need to try for yourself.

[Ragna]

Darren Minox have been around for a while,Looked at some of their binoculars a the Rutland bird fair last year and considered them very goodfor the money.Also saw a review of Minox but cant remember the model but it got a good review.Dont you like the image or is it the feel of them that bothers you .

[marcus]

If you are planning to buy a cost-no-object binocular I would wait to see the new Zeiss FL Victories which are due out in May.
If done properly they should be a genuine advancement over the current generation of roof prism binoculars. The use of fluorite in the objective should noticeably increase contrast. The Abbe-Koening roof prism currently used by Zeiss in the Victories and some of the old Classics has inherently higher light transmission than the Schmitt-Pechan prism used by Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and everybody else; and Zeiss claims to be employing a new eyepiece design with edge sharpness superior to any they have used before. All of that appears to be combined in a new mechanical design with improved ergonomics.
A completely successfull optical design, however, would still probably only equal, but not surpass the optics of the Nikon SE series porros. Why won't Nikon do the birding world a favor and redesign the 8x32SE as a waterproof reverse porro with screw down eyecups? That would be a binocular!
Hello Henry. I was going to send this message this morning while at work, but I got too busy.
Can I go to Zeiss.com, or somewhere, to see those new Victories you mentioned? I don't suppose those are the Victory II's, are they?

[henry link]

Hello Henry. I was going to send this message this morning while at work, but I got too busy.
Can I go to Zeiss.com, or somewhere, to see those new Victories you mentioned? I don't suppose those are the Victory II's, are they?

Marcus, The new ones are called Victory FL. Just go to the top of the binocular forum here. There's a thread in the Zeiss section. Nothing at Zeiss.com the last time I checked. You can get information about them by phone from Zeiss-USA. Henry

[marcus]

Thank you very much, Henry. I'm goin' to the top of the forum right now.
marcus

[John Cantelo]

Thank you, Henry for some very informed and interesting comments.

I'd be grateful if you could clear up a couple of points:-
"If you are planning to buy a cost-no-object binocular I would wait to see the new Zeiss FL Victories which are due out in May"
- is there any info on the web about this new design?

"The Abbe-Koening roof prism currently used by Zeiss in the Victories and some of the old Classics has inherently higher light transmission than the Schmitt-Pechan prism used by Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and everybody else"
- interesting, but if this design is so clearly better, why doesn't everyone use it?

"Why won't Nikon do the birding world a favor and redesign the 8x32SE as a waterproof reverse porro with screw down eyecups? That would be a binocular!"
- as a Nikon 8x32 SE user you don't have to convince me that it's a great instrument. I'd agree re: redesigned eyecups and waterproofing (though mine have never leaked) plus I'd prefer a barrel style focus wheel. But reverse porro? Why? The current design is the most comfortable porro design I've ever used. What advantage would a reverse porro have?
John

[scampo]

The Nikon is 'showerproof', I think - whatever that means. I keep on the look oit for a s/h pair or, even better, a pair of Superior Es.

[henry link]

Thank you, Henry for some very informed and interesting comments.

I'd be grateful if you could clear up a couple of points:-
"If you are planning to buy a cost-no-object binocular I would wait to see the new Zeiss FL Victories which are due out in May"
- is there any info on the web about this new design?

"The Abbe-Koening roof prism currently used by Zeiss in the Victories and some of the old Classics has inherently higher light transmission than the Schmitt-Pechan prism used by Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and everybody else"
- interesting, but if this design is so clearly better, why doesn't everyone use it?

"Why won't Nikon do the birding world a favor and redesign the 8x32SE as a waterproof reverse porro with screw down eyecups? That would be a binocular!"
- as a Nikon 8x32 SE user you don't have to convince me that it's a great instrument. I'd agree re: redesigned eyecups and waterproofing (though mine have never leaked) plus I'd prefer a barrel style focus wheel. But reverse porro? Why? The current design is the most comfortable porro design I've ever used. What advantage would a reverse porro have?
John
John, Excellent questions. I’ll be happy to climb on the soap box and try to answer them. I guess it’s obvious I’m an iconoclast about some of this, and an obsessive to boot
(my wife wishes binoculars had never been invented), so bear with me. Maybe I can stimulate some discussion.
I think the Abbe-Koenig prism has been used so seldom because it has one serious disadvantage in binoculars. It’s a long narrow prism configuration, with a light path that doesn’t reduce the length between the objective and the eyepiece very much compared to just a hollow tube, Some of the old Hensoldts using AK prisms look to be a foot long. Porro and Pechan prisms have light paths that absorb more length, so binoculars using them will always be shorter than those using AK, if the focal length of the objectives are equal. You’ve probably noticed that the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, which uses AK prisms, is an unusually long binocular for it’s aperture. I think it would be even longer if a typical F:4 objective had been used. To make it as short as it is, the focal ratio was probably dropped to some figure below F:4
At the other end of the size scale not even Zeiss uses AK prisms in really small binoculars, possibly because there just isn’t enough space between the objective and the eyepiece in such a short focal length binocular for an AK prism of the size required to handle the light cone.
In the current Victory Zeiss attempted to make a binocular using an AKprism just as short and compact as one using a Pechan. To do that the focal length of the objective had to drop even more than in the Dialyt,with the focal ratio probably approaching F:3, necessitating the use of a complex objective and eyepiece to try to achieve a reasonable degree of correction of aberrations (which get worse the lower the focal ratio). Most people seem to agree that the result, except for light transmission and contrast, was not a complete success.
On paper the new binocular looks like a contender. It’s addressing the weaknesses in the current design with a Fluorite objective, improved eyepiece and judging from the dimensions, an increase in focal length.

Now on to reverse porros, a sadly underutilized design in high end binoculars. So far the design has been confined mostly to small inexpensive bins, but it could work with 32mm objectives, or even larger with a more vertical offset between eyepiece and objective. The Bushnell 8x30 Nature View, The Bausch&Lomb 8X50 Elite, and the old Rollei 7x42 hint at the potential.
Reverse porro bins have the same advantages over traditional porros that roof prisms have. First of all, because of the close spacing of the objectives they have the same illusion of higher magnification compared to traditional porros that people like so much in roof prisms .
Second and more important for birders, the close spacing of the objectives allows for much better merging of the left and right fields at close distances. Try comparing the view through a traditional porro and a roof or reverse porro at 3 meters. The two fields in the traditional porro will show only a small area of overlap, a bit like the cliche movie version of a binocular view, two slightly overlapping circles. The roof and reverse porro will show much better merging, closer to a single circle, allowing both eyes to come closer to the ideal of looking straight through the center of the field. The effect gradually diminishes with distance so that at long range all three types show something close to a single circle.
Finally reverse porros have the same advantages over roof prisms that traditional porros have. Lower cost and all other things being equal, higher optical quality. If the optics of the Nikon 8x32 SE were placed in an ergonomically sucessfull reverse porro housing (something hand-friendly we haven’t seen yet in a reverse porro ) the result would be a binocular with the things we like about viewing through roof prisms combined with the advantages of porro prisms in the same binocular.

[Swissboy]

Henry, your elaborations are extremely interesting. Tell your wife that you are doing a lot of good with this, so maybe she'll be a bit more tolerant.

Now, one point that I think speaks against reverse porro constructions: As the objectives are closer together one is bound to lose a major portion of the 3-D effect that is better in porros than in the other types. I would assume that reverse porros must be worse than roofs in this respect.

[henry link]

Swissboy, Thanks for the kind message. I’ll pass it along to my wife for whatever good it will do.
The 3-D effect you mention is, I suppose, one of those areas that makes life interesting. We all see the same two things but differ about which is preferable.
I can’t see any actual optical advantage coming from the “enhanced” 3-D effect of traditional porros. At closest focus, it results in the definite optical disadvantage of forcing one eye or both to move farther away from the center of the field, compared to roof or reverse porro. Enhanced 3-D as an advantage strikes me as one of those items of conventional wisdom that gets passed along until finally no one questions it’s basis anymore.
In any case, the 3-D effect is not completely absent in reverse porro. A reverse porro with 32mm objectives might have about 40mm separating the centers of the objectives. For my eyes roof has 60mm, and a 32mm trraditional porro about 120mm, so a reverse porro at 3m would show about the same 3-D effect as roof at 4.5m and traditional porro at 9m. You don’t hear users of traditional porros complaining that the images at 9m are too flat. Henry

[Swissboy]

Swissboy, Thanks for the kind message. I’ll pass it along to my wife for whatever good it will do.
The 3-D effect you mention is, I suppose, one of those areas that makes life interesting. We all see the same two things but differ about which is preferable.
I can’t see any actual optical advantage coming from the “enhanced” 3-D effect of traditional porros. At closest focus, it results in the definite optical disadvantage of forcing one eye or both to move farther away from the center of the field, compared to roof or reverse porro. Enhanced 3-D as an advantage strikes me as one of those items of conventional wisdom that gets passed along until finally no one questions it’s basis anymore.
In any case, the 3-D effect is not completely absent in reverse porro. A reverse porro with 32mm objectives might have about 40mm separating the centers of the objectives. For my eyes roof has 60mm, and a 32mm trraditional porro about 120mm, so a reverse porro at 3m would show about the same 3-D effect as roof at 4.5m and traditional porro at 9m. You don’t hear users of traditional porros complaining that the images at 9m are too flat. Henry

Henry, thanks for clarifying this aspect. Come to think of it, the 3-D effect would probably also suffer in any kind of type from the fact that sharp focussing is in a narrow zone only. Robert (Swissboy)

[Leif]

A completely successfull optical design, however, would still probably only equal, but not surpass the optics of the Nikon SE series porros. Why won't Nikon do the birding world a favor and redesign the 8x32SE as a waterproof reverse porro with screw down eyecups? That would be a binocular!

Screw in screw out eye tubes would indeed be nice.

Unfortunately the Nikon 8x32 SE are focussed by moving the eyepieces in and out relative to the prism housing. This means that the internal volume changes, and hence they cannot be nitrogen purged and waterproof. (Incidentally this is also true of the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT.)

Most roof prism binoculars are focussed by moving a small lens that sits between the objective and the prism. This internal focussing mechanism means that the volume is constant, and hence they can be purged and effectively sealed.

Quite why internal focussing cannot be applied to porro prism binoculars I know not. Maybe it would have a detrimental effect on the optical quality?

[henry link]

Leif, Apparently it is possible to waterproof and nitrogen purge CF porros. Two examples would be the Nikon Mountaineer and the Swarovski Habicht. There was an old Kern 7x50 porro that used internal focus. Like you I wonder why others haven't used it. Henry

[scampo]

And the new H2O series from I forget which manufacturer...

[pduxon]

And the new H2O series from I forget which manufacturer...
Bushnell

[scampo]

Thanks, Pete - those extra ten or so years take a toll on the memory cells like no previous ten years ever did.

[henry link]

A few more thoughts on waterproofing and sealing. It would seem that IF porros would be subject to the same changes in internal volume as CF. Perhaps the problem for CF has been making seals that work well with sliding tubes. The Swarovski Habichts have a rather stiff focus, perhaps as a result of the seals.
I wonder if the pressure imbalance from changing internal volume is any worse than what all sealed binoculars suffer from changes in altitude or barometric pressure. I have heard, for instance that sealed binoculars should not be shipped by air, where they might encounter an unpressurized environment. Anybody know anything about that? If it's true, that could happen before you even buy the binoculars. Henry

[AlanFrench]

hello , can anyone simply tell me which is the best all round binocular , regardless of price ? .

A bit of a late entry here, but I wanted to throw the Swarovski SLCs into the mix. After spending three years looking at binoculars, the 7x42 SLCs were my choice. I have had them for several years now, and I haven't regretted the choice one bit. They are the perfect "fit" for me, and the focus knob is, to me a real dream - easy and fast.

As others have mentioned, binoculars are a very personal choice, and you should always try before you buy. I absolutely hated some very popular models simply because they did not feel right in my hands.

Clear skies, Alan