porro or roof?

[smallblueplanet]

I keep meaning to find an idiots guide to explain the difference (minus the physics!) in types of bins (porro/roof) and therefore why buy one sort rather than the other.

Can anyone tell me the idiots guide? with or without pictures!!

Thanks. (sorry if I've missed an faq somewhere)

[scampo]

Roofs are easier to waterproof - that's about all. And they're usually heavier. If you have small hands, you might prefer a roof prism design because it is less wide and more compact. But the Nikon E is a compact porroprism (http://www.acecameras.co.uk/asp/web/ph/cat/prodtype/1284/prodtype.asp) and seems to be as good a binocular as you'll get optically, yet are not fully waterproof (would it ever matter in practice, I wonder?). A similar quality waterproof roof prism would cost far more, and not necessarily be any better optically - the Nikon 8x32HG for instance is £500-00 or thereabouts.

[Leif]

I keep meaning to find an idiots guide to explain the difference (minus the physics!) in types of bins (porro/roof) and therefore why buy one sort rather than the other.

Can anyone tell me the idiots guide? with or without pictures!!

Thanks. (sorry if I've missed an faq somewhere)

In simple terms:

Porros tend to be more bulky, each optical assembly has a dog leg shape producing a shape that some people do not like, they are cheaper to make for a given optical quality due to lower tolerances of the prisms and no mirror coatings required. They tend to use external focussing which is hard to waterproof. Because the objectives are further apart, the image has a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects can be hard. The near focus distance is often quite large. The eye tubes tend to be rubber which are inconvenient to use.

Roof prism binoculars tend to be more compact, less bulky, expensive to make due to high tolerances on the prisms, and the need for phase and mirror coatings on the prisms. They tend to use internal focussing which is easier to waterproof. Because the objectives are close, the image does not have such a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects is easier. The near focus distance is often quite small. The eye tubes tend to be screw-in screw-out which are convenient in use.

So in brief, the typical porro prism binocular is cheaper for a given optical quality, is not waterproof, does not focus very close and is somewhat bulky and thus less comfortable to hold. A typical roof prism binocular is expensive for a given optical quality, is waterproof and nitrogen filled, and is comfortable to hold. The above are generalisations and your milage may vary depending on your physiognomy e.g. the size of your hands.

I think the fashion these days tends to be for roof prism binoculars, presumably because they tend to have all the 'features' some considerable desirable: waterproof, nitrogen filled, compact and screw in screw out eye tubes.

I'm sure I've missed out important points ...

[alan_rymer]

http://www.optics4birding.com/basics1.aspx

The website above shows the prism/mirror layouts.
Basically in a Porro the light path is deflected 4 times, in a Roof 5 times.
Porros are brighter because less light is lost
HTH

[smallblueplanet]

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay ;) - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

[Leif]

Roofs are easier to waterproof - that's about all. And they're usually heavier. If you have small hands, you might prefer a roof prism design because it is less wide and more compact. But the Nikon E is a compact porroprism (http://www.acecameras.co.uk/asp/web/ph/cat/prodtype/1284/prodtype.asp) and seems to be as good a binocular as you'll get optically, yet are not fully waterproof (would it ever matter in practice, I wonder?). A similar quality waterproof roof prism would cost far more, and not necessarily be any better optically - the Nikon 8x32HG for instance is £500-00 or thereabouts.

Just to reinforce what Steve has said, the well known write Stephen Moss reviewed binoculars in the BBC Wildlife magazine a few years back, and he concluded that the Nikon 8x32 EII (~£270) porro prism binocular was the optical equal of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) roof prism binocular. Obviously the Leica is far more robust.

[smallblueplanet]

Oops the reply above was to steve's post (in jest obviously).

Thanks for that Leif I understand now, what I don't understand now is why buy the Leica's if the E's are as good optically?

And thanks for the picture link, the words will have to wait until the morning.

[Leif]

Oops the reply above was to steve's post (in jest obviously).

Thanks for that Leif I understand now, what I don't understand now is why buy the Leica's if the E's are as good optically?

I think others should answer that one ... I'm too biased. :)

[Bill Atwood]

Just to reinforce what Steve has said, the well known write Stephen Moss reviewed binoculars in the BBC Wildlife magazine a few years back, and he concluded that the Nikon 8x32 EII (~£270) porro prism binocular was the optical equal of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) roof prism binocular. Obviously the Leica is far more robust.

Well the Nikon is a good bino for the price, I have looked through both of these and the Nikon was noticeably inferior in every way.

[Bill Atwood]

Well, OK maybe the above is a little harsh, but the Leicas I have seen were still better than the EIIs optically. I have had a pair of the Leica 8x32 BAs for several years and like them a lot except in low light conditions. I have seen prices in the US for the EIIs as low as $250 and have been tempted to pick a pair up just to have around.

As many have said on these forums, probably the best 8x bino (optically) is the Nikon 8x32SE (porros).

Why choose roofs?

I like roofs because of their more compact size (I have small hands) and that they are usually water/fog proof. I came to the decision to purchase my first roofs when I signed up for a Costa Rica trip. I have heard more than one first hand horror story of birders missing neotropical lifers because of fogged up bins. Had I not had roofs I would probably of been one of them. While backing our boat into a landing area on the Osa Peninsula a bit of a freak wave washed over the bow, of which I somehow caught the brunt of and was soaked in seawater from the chest on down. Our guide was disgusted because he thought he had ruined (and his outfit would have to replace) a second pair of bins in as many days. He was relieved when I told him not to worry, and washed the saltwater off of the bins in a freshwater stream.

I guess it boils down to why gamble on ruining a $2,000 (or more) birding trip to humid and wet tropical regions with $200 porros? Especially these days when several decent mid-priced roofs are available.

BTW, perhaps the best deal on low priced roofs is the Bushnell Legends. Several of the guides at Asa Wright Center in Trinidad are using these. They appear to be very durable and optically are very nice. I would highly recommend these to a new or young birder. I have seen the 8x32 version prices as low as $199 on ebay, and $230 or so from more well known optics dealers.

[pduxon]

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay ;) - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

probably in absolute terms the answer is no. There is a diminishing scale of returns. That said the he more you pay you get something less likely to let you down. This winter I walked through a massive torrential downpour only to discover I had left the rainguard off (what a wally) but the bins were fine.

I think though that if you are a good weather birder or one who watches in hte middle of the day then spending that sort of money is a waste.

I wonder how many of us buying bins are influenced by the fact that certain designs and brands are perceived as "cool".

[smallblueplanet]

Pete - I wonder about the "coolness" factor too. Many moons ago I used to be into Hi-fi (until my hearing got less than 100%!!) and I used to love the "it has a better sound" arguements from the "clean electricity" brigade users.

Is there a binocular optical equivalent of "clean electricity"?

[william j clive]

Well the Nikon is a good bino for the price, I have looked through both of these and the Nikon was noticeably inferior in every way.

Bill

I suppose Leica 8x32 BA/BN are OK, if you dont mind soft edges and vignetteing. ;)

Clive

[Leif]

Bill

I suppose Leica 8x32 BA/BN are OK, if you dont mind soft edges and vignetteing. ;)

Clive

You forgot to mention the strong chromatic aberration in contrasty situations ... ;)

[Leif]

probably in absolute terms the answer is no. There is a diminishing scale of returns. That said the he more you pay you get something less likely to let you down. This winter I walked through a massive torrential downpour only to discover I had left the rainguard off (what a wally) but the bins were fine.

I think though that if you are a good weather birder or one who watches in hte middle of the day then spending that sort of money is a waste.

I wonder how many of us buying bins are influenced by the fact that certain designs and brands are perceived as "cool".

Pete: I agree that most 'Sunday afternoon' birders do not need waterproofing, and nitrogen filling. After all, most still and motion cameras are not waterproof.

Personally I don't think it is a waste to pay ~£440 for the Nikon 8x32 SE: the view is so natural that if you have the money then IMO it's well worth it. But if you don't have the mazooma to hand, then a cheap porro such as those from Opticron and others will provide years of enjoyment.

[scampo]

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay ;) - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.
I managed for years with a cheaper pair of bins (Zeiss-Jena Jenoptems) - but the extra quality from good bins does seem well worth the extra. My son still has my first "good" pair, Optolyth Alpins 10x40. They are excellent.

[John Cantelo]

Pete: I agree that most 'Sunday afternoon' birders do not need waterproofing, and nitrogen filling. After all, most still and motion cameras are not waterproof.

..... waterproofing sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure what nitrogen filling would do to the innards of 'Sunday afternoon' birders!

As for the reasons why folks opt for roofs, I'm convinced it's largely a matter of ignorance and fashion. The assumption being if it's more expensive, it must be better and then this being reinforced by people seeing all their peers sporting roofs. We smug types who use Nikon 8x32 SEs merely smirk to one another at the foolish spendthrift types who insist on paying so much more! As for waterproofing, my bins have been out in some pretty foul weather and have not yet let me down,

John

[normjackson]

.... We smug types who use Nikon 8x32 SEs merely smirk to one another at the foolish spendthrift types who insist on paying so much more! John
You're a hard man John.
Don't forget though that tastes can change. Even Mr. Nikon Superior E himself, Steve Ingraham of the Betterviewdesired site, suggested somewhere on his site that he was "coming round" to seeing the virtues of good WP roofs. Still, as our American friends know, BVD is pants :
www.bvd.com o:D

[smallblueplanet]

..... waterproofing sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure what nitrogen filling would do to the innards of 'Sunday afternoon' birders!

Yeah filling 'em with helium would be much sillier!

Trouble is Nikon SE/E2 's don't look as pretty as some!

[jebir]

Hi,

I just went through this and compared high quality porros and roofs. In real life comparisons, it turned out that both the 8x32 and the 10x42 Nikon SE-CFs have as good (or even better) image regarding contrast, colour, and sharpness (to the edge) as the high end roofs. The only thing that is VERY different is the price... roofs being approximately 2x more expensive for a given optical quality.

When I first started these comparisons, I was determined to get a pair of roofs, mostly because I thought that they should be better (they definitely "look" better from the outside). However, after the tests and thinking a while about my own experiences with using porros since the mid 70:s without any fogging problems, I finally chose the Nikon 10x42 SE-CF. I have not regretted that decision for a second!

I can now almost see the same amount of detail in the bino's as I can in my old Kowa TS-1 - so I can (almost) leave that at home. On the other hand, having such good binoculars have triggered me to start looking for a new scope... luckily I saved a lot of the money by going for the best porros rather than roofs so I can maybe afford it...

My 2 "x", Jens (Sweden)

[scampo]

Trouble is Nikon SE/E2 's don't look as pretty as some!
Yes, they do look tough and well made rather than dinky, that's true.

[boyinthebush]

I am thinking of buying a pair of Bushenll H20 and am currently pondering the porro/roof debate. There's only £20 between them at Warehouse Express and my brain is stuck in a circle of "are the roofs better or worse for the extra £20"... has anyone used either of these or ideally both to compare?

I understand the porros got a good write-up in Bird Watching... I missed that (being a casual buyer)... don't surpose anyone could scan the review and mail it could they?? :)

Cheers fellows.

p.s. I'm probably looking at the 10x42

[mike60]

Re the roof vs porro design -
I find one great benefit in porro vs roof is the enormous depth of field of the porro, which leads to very little focusing and a much more natural 3d image, not to mention the quick response between seeing something with the naked eye, and having a focused bin view of the same.
Is this a general benefit of porro over roof, or an isolated case I have observed?

[mpedris]

mike,

I'm pretty sure that the DOF is a general property of the porro prisms. I think it's due to the greater distance between the two objectives. Of that I'm not sure. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jay Turberville]

I am thinking of buying a pair of Bushenll H20 and am currently pondering the porro/roof debate. There's only £20 between them at Warehouse Express and my brain is stuck in a circle of "are the roofs better or worse for the extra £20"... has anyone used either of these or ideally both to compare?


Leif already touched on this but maybe not in an explicit way. It is cheaper to make a binocular with a high quality porro prism than to make one with a high quality roof prism. The roof prism by design creates a phase problem. Top quality roofs use a special coating that corrects this. But this simply brings them up to where a porro prism already is. Leif mentione reflective coatings and alignment issues as well and I'll assume he is correct in this. So as a general rule of thumb, for a given price point, the porro prism binocular is likely to be a bit better optically - or at least the prism component is likely to be.

So given no other information, I'd assume a porro binocular that was only £20 cheaper than an otherwise similar roof probably is not quite as good optically. Of course it would be better to get specific information on the models rather than to use general rules of thumb.

I did a quick look on the Bushnell website and for a given magnification, all of the porro prism bins had a wider FOV (excepting the compact porros). And with the exception of the compact porros, they also had larger objective lenses. All of the prisms in this line use the less expensive BK7 glass and the roofs are listed as NOT using the phase correcting coating. So I think its fair to say that in this particular line that the prism sections of the roofs probably won't perform as well overall as the prism section of the porros. I'm not sure what you can assume about the rest of the optics except that the 8x42s should give a wider and brighter view. The conventional porros also have more eye relief. If I had to make a choice without doing further research, I'd go for the 8x42 conventional porros if I was looking for the best view. But its probably wiser to look for some specific review information and to also hold and use the bins first.

[alan_rymer]

I know the Birdwatching Mags reviews have been panned, but,
Last year they reviewed the H2O Porro 8x42. This got a best buy, clear & very bright.
Earlier this year they did the H2O Roof 8x42. This was called dull and disappointing!.
Make of it what you will!. Try them both!.

[Doug Greenberg]

Well the Nikon is a good bino for the price, I have looked through both of these and the Nikon was noticeably inferior in every way.

Just to muddy the waters a bit: I have looked through these Leicas and also Nikon SE porros in a side-by-side test, and I MUCH preferred the Nikons. Different strokes, different folks.

[Doug Greenberg]

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay ;) - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

My argument here is that when you buy the very best binoculars you can possibly afford you get "returns" EVERY TIME you look at a bird! That's thousands and thousands and thousands of instances of definite benefit. Your binocs are your basic tool for birding; splurge there and then cut back on those things are aren't as fundamental.

As with many things in life, once you have used really good binocs, it's hard to go back to ones that aren't quite as good. Ignorance is bliss, etc.

[Tero]

Re the roof vs porro design -
I find one great benefit in porro vs roof is the enormous depth of field of the porro, which leads to very little focusing and a much more natural 3d image, not to mention the quick response between seeing something with the naked eye, and having a focused bin view of the same.
Is this a general benefit of porro over roof, or an isolated case I have observed?

That is sort of what I see as well. I have both porros and roofs, and can use both. If you buy under $100 binoculars, the safer bet is porros, they are harder to screw up designing. But overall I prefer roofs. My hand has gotten used to holding them, and I can pretty much line up the binos close to the bird even without looking. Its a hand feel thing for me.

[Leif]

I am becoming a porro fan after buying a used Nikon 8x32 SE. It really is like being 8x closer. (Maybe I should get a job promoting Nikon kit?) Are they worth £440? Well if you are like me then you will find that the more you bird, the more you notice optical faults. I want to concentrate on the birds rather than the defects of my optics. So the answer is that they are well worth it. If they last at least 10 years, that's only £44 a year, or less than £1 a week, which is an absolute a bargain. Turn them on the night sky, and you'll be even more convinced. For comparison a colleague pays £1500 a year to tap a small ball around a nicely manicured lawn.

Optically porros tend to be better at a given price point, and many top roof prism binoculars costing ~£800 have far too much chromatic aberration for my tastes. But it's what suits you that matters. If you find that you are more comfortable with a given design, then go for it. There's no point having something you don't like just because someone you don't know says that another model is better. The Nikon 8x36 Sporter's on offer at Warehouse Express for a bargain price seem to be getting good comments!

[scampo]

I thought depth of field was a feature, not of roof- or porro-prisms, but of aperture (i.e. the effective size of the objective lens and its relationship to the eyepiece lens.

[Leif]

I thought depth of field was a feature, not of roof- or porro-prisms, but of aperture (i.e. the effective size of the objective lens and its relationship to the eyepiece lens.

Steve: In a simple camera lens the DOF is a function of the F ratio and the image magnification. Thus DOF increases as the lens is stopped down, and decreases when you move really close i.e. in the macro range.

In a binocular things is a wee bit more complex. If we consider an 8x40 binocular i.e. one having a magnification of 8x and an objective of 40mm, then we could conceivably have the two following cases:

Product 1 has objectives and eyepieces with focal lengths of 200mm and 25mm. (200/25 = 8) The objectives are F5 = 200/40.

Product 2 has objectives and eyepieces with focal lengths of 160m and 20mm. (160/20 = 8) The objectives are F4 = 160/40.

Thus the objectives of product 1 have a larger F ratio and hence product 1 will give greater DOF. (At least I think that is how it works. There's an awful lot of mis-understanding about DOF in binoculars.)

FWIW the Nikon 8x32 has significantly more DOF than both the Nikon 8x32 HG and the Leica 8x32 BN. That suggests that it has longer focal length objectives. I suspect that were a roof prism binocular to be made with the same objectives and eyepieces as the Nikon 8x32 SE, it would be much longer as the roof prisms give less folding of the optical path. Porro prisms allow a greater degree of folding because a large part of the optical path is folded sideways. The Nikon 8x32 SE is quite wide! Therefore designers of roof prism binoculars are forced to use objectives with a small F ratio to get a compact form. This might also explain why roof prism binoculars esp. those in the 8x32 range seem to my eyes to have a lot of off-axis chromatic aberration.

[scampo]

I must get a look through those SEs, Leif - you speak so well of them so tirelessly! I'm truly intrigued.

[prairiemerlin]

I recently got 10x50 pair of binocs that are roof prism. I don'd have trouble holding them steady, and they are quite tough, as they have been used in drizzles and have taken some minor bumps. They are probably not the best bincoulars in the world but I'm happy with them.

[Tero]

Hey Brown Creeper, glad to see a happy birder. Who cares about all these details if it works for you!

Only real poor quality binoculars annoy me, some of them are roof prism.

[mike60]

Scampo, the first time I looked through 10x SE nikon porros in a shop in Japan on a whim, I was truly amazed. I wanted to swap my zeiss 10x roofs for them immediately. I went to a large store in Sydney and asked the 'snickering' assistant to compare the same 2 models. When he looked himself, he became very quiet and said this must be a 'well kept secret'. No one seemed to be aware of them as a serious contender to zeiss/leica/swaro. When I finally bought the 8x32SE, I found that although they were very good right away, it took me some time to appreciate how good the view really was. It was discovery by experience in a variety of situations rather than instant...... for me anyway. I would certainly not want them as my only bins...they arent perfect, but i am even growing to like their little 'flaws'. It all adds to their mystique :-)

[Jay Turberville]

My argument here is that when you buy the very best binoculars you can possibly afford you get "returns" EVERY TIME you look at a bird! That's thousands and thousands and thousands of instances of definite benefit. Your binocs are your basic tool for birding; splurge there and then cut back on those things are aren't as fundamental.

As with many things in life, once you have used really good binocs, it's hard to go back to ones that aren't quite as good. Ignorance is bliss, etc.

A few weeks ago I read the book, "Kingbird Highway" by Ken Kaufman. Ken spent a year hitching rides all over North America. He was attempting to set a record or recorded sightings in a year and had an absurdly small budget. As I recall, he had an inexpensive pair of department store porros that he had at one time painted gold for some reason when he was even younger.

Only the individual can truly answer what is the appropriate gear and whether it is worth the price. I'm sure its useful to hear other people's thoughts and their reasons for their choices, but that only goes so far. There are no clearly right answers.

Its a world of compromises and we have to pick those compromises that we think will work best for us. Money spent on one thing is money not available for another. And since we are all in different situations (financially and otherwise) to some degree, I think its pretty nifty that we live in a world where you can actually buy a functional pair of binoculars for around $20 - or you can easily spend 30 times that much for a pair that is an optical marvel. That's pretty cool.

[iporali]

Porro prisms allow a greater degree of folding because a large part of the optical path is folded sideways. The Nikon 8x32 SE is quite wide! Therefore designers of roof prism binoculars are forced to use objectives with a small F ratio to get a compact form. This might also explain why roof prism binoculars esp. those in the 8x32 range seem to my eyes to have a lot of off-axis chromatic aberration.

A very good point. I think the effect is even enhanced by the eyepiece (short objective -> short eyepiece), which is like a macro objective with an F ratio close to 1 (20/20). Close-up photographers surely know how lenses with large aperture behave with very short distances.

Ilkka

[jebir]

Porro prisms allow a greater degree of folding because a large part of the optical path is folded sideways. The Nikon 8x32 SE is quite wide!


I think the effect is even enhanced by the eyepiece (short objective -> short eyepiece), which is like a macro objective with an F ratio close to 1 (20/20). Close-up photographers surely know how lenses with large aperture behave with very short distances.


Right!

Note that "SE" means "Superior Eyepiece" in "Nikon 8x32 SE".

I have the impression that most binocular manufacturers have spent most of their efforts during the last decades on trying to make roofs catch up with porros optically. The roofs managed to pass the porros by using all means of technology - to any price - until Nikon revisited the porro design and gave it magnesium body, BAK-4 prisms, and eyepieces of the same caliber as the best roofs.

My perception of the standings between state-of-the-art (usually the most expensive) porro vs. roof binoculars are:

± equally high optical quality
± equal weight

Porros:
+ better DOF
+ better stereo sight
+ 1/2 price
- not water and fog proof (although splash proof)

Roofs:
+ water and fog proof
- shorter DOF
- less stereo sight
- twice as expensive

Fashion and shape are non-measurable matters of taste.

My formula: By buying a pair of Nikon 10x42 SE CF, I saved approximately £500, which then allowed me to get a second hand high end spotting scope within my original budget for a pair of state-of-the-art 10x42 roofs.

My 2 "x"

Jens.

[Leif]

A very good point. I think the effect is even enhanced by the eyepiece (short objective -> short eyepiece), which is like a macro objective with an F ratio close to 1 (20/20). Close-up photographers surely know how lenses with large aperture behave with very short distances.

Ilkka

Ilkka: I conveniently neglected to mention the effect of the eyepiece on DOF. Yes I think you are right.

[scampo]

It was discovery by experience in a variety of situations rather than instant...... for me anyway. I would certainly not want them as my only bins...they arent perfect, but i am even growing to like their little 'flaws'. It all adds to their mystique :-)
Thanks, Mike. I agree that the qualities of Nikon optics grow on you. Although my ED82 scope is still in for repair (and I am becoming rather unhappy about the delay at Nikon UK!)... the sheer natural or faithful quality of its image is what grows on you so much over time.

I am now using a Zeiss 85T* and that does not have quite the same faithful quality to its image but... the qualities of that scope have grown over time, too. Its zoom eyepiece offers so much more fov than either the Nikon or my son's Swaro that I now feel, as a birding optic, it is truly something special. If Nikon could produce a wider angled zoom, they would have a winner. It's odd how these things are not always apparent on first testing.

[mak]

Depth of Field (The basics).
Dependant on the magnification and the ability of the observers eyes to close focus (tech term: accommodation). Depth of Field without accommodation and focus set to infinity is only dependant on the magnification of the binocular.
Depth of Field with accommodation and focus set to infinity is dependant on the magnification of the binocular and the ability (dpt) of the observers eyes to close focus, and at a given focusing distance.

[mr red]

I recently looked through Leica roofs, swaro porros, some nikon porros (non se's, but compact 30mm), and swaro el 10 x 42.

The nikon's beat the leica roofs and swaro porros, but the swaro roofs "outshone" the nikons. Sharper, with more detail on a sign I was reading across the street. The nikons were getting there, the swaros went further. Plus, The swaro els were the only ones I could stand handling.


So I ended up getting swaro els (8.5 x 42). I wondered what I was missing in the Nikon SEs, but I've never had a chance to look through them or handle them. And then the rain came. We've had a ton of rain lately, and it's nice to go out in it without worrying about damaging the binoculars, so I'm glad I got roofs, since I'll be able to bird on more rainy days.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Nikon ses are better optically, I think the DOF o porros is better than roofs, but for now the swaros are everything that I need. I'll live with less DOF, still a great view, and fantastic handling.

An important question to ask is: "do I have the binoculars I need", not "are there better binoculars out there?"

[Steve-O]

I'm with mr red,

Is has rained all spring here in Minnesota, creeks are still rising and I'm loving it. I stay and bird while my dad runs for shelter. My dad has Nikon SEs (the best optics I have ever looked through BTW) and I have the Audubon Equinox bins. More than once I have been out, bins on the outside of my rainwear, when it poured and then let up, allowing me great looks at birds that are normally high in the trees.

It's also nice to come home after driving miles of dusty dirt roads and rinse the bins under the tap and set them off to dry.

For me, part of the fun is just being there, but if my equipment doesn't work, I'm not really there. I will never buy a non-waterproof/fogging set of bins again and will accept the lack of image quality in return for the extra field time and peace of mind that this provides.

Besides, I can't afford to spend money on something I'm too worried to use and leave at home. :)

Steve-O

[mpedris]

An important question to ask is: "do I have the binoculars I need", not "are there better binoculars out there?"
How do you know which cap fits you best if you haven't tried them all? ;)

[Tero]

In simple terms:

Porros tend to be more bulky...Because the objectives are further apart, the image has a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects can be hard. The near focus distance is often quite large. The eye tubes tend to be rubber which are inconvenient to use.

Roof prism binoculars tend to be more compact, less bulky, expensive to make due to high tolerances on the prisms, and the need for phase and mirror coatings on the prisms. They tend to use internal focussing which is easier to waterproof. Because the objectives are close, the image does not have such a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects is easier. The near focus distance is often quite small. The eye tubes tend to be screw-in screw-out which are convenient in use.

So in brief, the typical porro prism binocular is cheaper for a given optical quality, is not waterproof, does not focus very close and is somewhat bulky and thus less comfortable to hold. ..

The compact 8x25 Porros are quite small, as the lenses look out from the middle. Also no 3D effect and they focus very close.

I tend not to look at the big and bulky porros but I quite like the small ones. My bigger binoculars are roof prism and cost more than the compact porros.

Really cheap 8x21 roof prism binoculars work if you have nothing else, but the image quality is pretty bad in most Bushnells and Simmons etc.

[Tero]

I seem to have very similar porros and roofs. I never had the two pairs with me at the same time before. Because they are both 10x, just never thought o compare.

Minolta Compact II 10x25L with 5.6 deg field of view.
Nikon Sporter I 10x36 5.6deg field of view.

The Minoltas, my wife's, need to have the eye cups screwed in slightly to get that field of view. Otherwise they do the same, as looking at a fence across a field and counting how many segments are in view.

I prefer the Nikons, the more expensive of the two, and heavier. For things far away, they seem to show more detail than the Minoltas. For birds in a nest right above me, the two were quite similar. I have not tested them together at sunset yet.

For new ones, I now have my eye on a 9x25 Nikon compact porro, which would give me a quality and bigger FOV. Need to save up $109 for it.

The Nikon Sporters are quite rugged and at least water resistant, so they will be used in rainy weather.

[Janshorty]

A few weeks ago I read the book, "Kingbird Highway" by Ken Kaufman. Ken spent a year hitching rides all over North America. He was attempting to set a record or recorded sightings in a year and had an absurdly small budget. As I recall, he had an inexpensive pair of department store porros that he had at one time painted gold for some reason when he was even younger.

Only the individual can truly answer what is the appropriate gear and whether it is worth the price. I'm sure its useful to hear other people's thoughts and their reasons for their choices, but that only goes so far. There are no clearly right answers.

Its a world of compromises and we have to pick those compromises that we think will work best for us. Money spent on one thing is money not available for another. And since we are all in different situations (financially and otherwise) to some degree, I think its pretty nifty that we live in a world where you can actually buy a functional pair of binoculars for around $20 - or you can easily spend 30 times that much for a pair that is an optical marvel. That's pretty cool.



I am so glad that I found this one as I was starting to feel like a 'cheap skate' as upto now I only have a really dodgy pair of bins that my husband found!!! I an currently looking for a 'budget' pair that I can afford to get with my birthday money.

I had a look on the RSPB website and thought the NIKON 8X25 Travelite 5 looked ok and affordable to me, but then I did a comparison on the Jessops website and found some called CENTON 10X25 MCF M/C which had more features and a 10 year guarantee for only 34.90!!!

I am confused but still skint!!! Any advice.

P.S. I am still pretty much a garden birder and a learner but as the kids get less dependant I intend to go a wandering :bounce:

[Chris D]

I can only hope that Ken Kaufman's book keeps coming up in as many threads as possible. It's that good. Along that line (his gold binos) whenever possible, check out the Minolta Activa 8 X 40 Water Proof - Fog Proof Binoculars which are about $140.00 in the States. Many of my friends who are the best birders I'll ever know have them. #1 in Consumer Reports magazine (although they didn't test expensive glass). Rugged, big eye pieces, bright, crystal clear, and very affordable. I know 140 dollars is a good amount of money, but it's not 1400. Just a thought..................

[JonMartin]

I am so glad that I found this one as I was starting to feel like a 'cheap skate' as upto now I only have a really dodgy pair of bins that my husband found!!! I an currently looking for a 'budget' pair that I can afford to get with my birthday money.

I had a look on the RSPB website and thought the NIKON 8X25 Travelite 5 looked ok and affordable to me, but then I did a comparison on the Jessops website and found some called CENTON 10X25 MCF M/C which had more features and a 10 year guarantee for only 34.90!!!

I am confused but still skint!!! Any advice.

P.S. I am still pretty much a garden birder and a learner but as the kids get less dependant I intend to go a wandering :bounce:

Jan - have a look on ebay, see what you can afford and then come back here and get opinions from the guys in the know on which to bid for.

You'll be amazed at what you can afford.

[pduxon]

I am so glad that I found this one as I was starting to feel like a 'cheap skate' as upto now I only have a really dodgy pair of bins that my husband found!!! I an currently looking for a 'budget' pair that I can afford to get with my birthday money.

I had a look on the RSPB website and thought the NIKON 8X25 Travelite 5 looked ok and affordable to me, but then I did a comparison on the Jessops website and found some called CENTON 10X25 MCF M/C which had more features and a 10 year guarantee for only 34.90!!!

I am confused but still skint!!! Any advice.

P.S. I am still pretty much a garden birder and a learner but as the kids get less dependant I intend to go a wandering :bounce:

Jan

like anything in life you get what you pay for. But there are some real bargains around. Warehouseexpress do some special offers.

For example the Nikon Sporters 1 8x36 are reduced from £199 to £99 and are very highly regarded by forum members. You getting a good bin for that money.

You can get Opticron Countryman 8x42 for £65 (reduced from about £130). I'd expect they'd outperform any pocket bins at a similar price.

The Bushnell H20 8x32 bins are £79 for the porro (trad) bins and £89 for the roofs. The porros imparticualr have been well reviewed.

I think you pay £7 postage. Small pocket bins are all well and good but the above are similar to the travelites (£85 or such aren't they) price wise and will outperform them.

The Nikons are worth that bit extra but any of the above should be worth buying. Hope that helps.

[scampo]

I am so glad that I found this one as I was starting to feel like a 'cheap skate' as upto now I only have a really dodgy pair of bins that my husband found!!! I an currently looking for a 'budget' pair that I can afford to get with my birthday money.

I had a look on the RSPB website and thought the NIKON 8X25 Travelite 5 looked ok and affordable to me, but then I did a comparison on the Jessops website and found some called CENTON 10X25 MCF M/C which had more features and a 10 year guarantee for only 34.90!!!

I am confused but still skint!!! Any advice.

P.S. I am still pretty much a garden birder and a learner but as the kids get less dependant I intend to go a wandering :bounce:Jan

I doubt the Centons will be up to it. Jessops make good gear but I have not liked their bins. For birding a pair of bins need to offer a bright and wide image.

A good site to check out is www.warehouseexpress.com (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/). They have extra special offers on the following models that will suit you down to the ground. The models are probably about to be discontinued, hence the lower price:

Bushnell Birder 8x40 @ £39-00
This one is especially light in weight and has a wide view. Bushnell are a respected manufacturer and these are designed for birding. They focus quite closely but not as close as more expensive makes (about 15 feet).


If you could push to £99-00, then the Nikon 8x36 Sporters are unsurpassed at the price - a top notch make that so many on this site have bought. 8x is the magnification - and this is spot on for your needs; "36" refers to the width of the front lens in millimetres. My wife uses these and they are just so very easy to look through. They focus very closely (down to less than 9 feet) and are unsurpassed to use if you wear specs; they are also showerproof. We paid twice this price three years ago. This company allow return if unhappy with no questions asked.

If money really is tight, and you don't mind buying a less well known make but one that has had a couple of people on this site raving about them, then the following are less than £28-00:

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_3_307&products_id=90464

These bins are fully waterproof and 10x42 which is the best they do on this site for birding. I would normally suggest 7x / 8x for garden use especially, but this particular model is such a low price. The supplier, 7dayshop, is well respected and dependable and offer a genuine no-questions-asked 14-day return offer if you're not completely happy. Frankly, at this price and from comments posted here before, I doubt you can go wrong - but the above makes are more well known. It's up to you. I have certainly bought quite a bit of stuff from 7dayshop and can say their service is very good. It also takes them about 7 days to deliver, too. (They do offer a more "standard" 10x42, also - but they are quite heavy. The above at 660g will be more comfortable to hold.).

If I were you, I would probably save up and get the Nikon Sporters as they really are a brilliant binocular at a genuinely low price. How long they will remain in stock, I do not know - but you could phone and ask. The company are well known for their helpfulness. But... if price was all for me, then the Bushnells would be my second choice. I just like to buy a well known brand when it comes to optics.

[Ragna]

Jan you could try a pair of Minolta 7x35 Active binoculars £49 well under half price a real bargain at this price try www.unbeatable .co.uk they are a camera shop in Crawley and they were offering these binoculars a month or so back. their has been another thead about these binoculars so if you check through you should find it good luck

[Ragna]

Also as Pete and Steve suggest Nikon 8x36 Spoertstar @ £99 from Warehouse express are a bargain

[scampo]

Hi Graham - hope you're well! Your link was mistyped and wouldn't connect: www.unbeatable.co.uk (http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/)

[Ragna]

Thanks Steve. Ive just checked their site and they are now advertising 7x35 binoculars £35 dont know if they are the Actives,if so they have got even cheaper.