Opinions of top-range compact roofs

[Robert Ellis]

Is there any of the top compact roofs that stand above the rest? I have been looking at the following list. All 8x20s: Leica Trinovid and Ultravid, Nikon Premier, Swarovski, Zeiss Victory and ClassiC (new model). Because I have a tough time justifying any compact at these prices I am leaning toward the Nikon and Zeiss ClassiC, both available under $300 US. Is there a large advantage to the more expensive Leicas or Swaros? I am quite fond of the way the ClassiCs fold up but the Nikon has the better eyecups.

I have very limited experience with this class of bins.

[Atomic Chicken]

Robert,

For high-end compact models, please do yourself a favor and consider purchasing a 10x25 version instead of the 8x20. I own a pair of each - a Zeiss Victory 8x20 and a Nikon HG 10x25... and the optics of both are superb. However, my Nikon 10x25 gets MUCH more use than the 8x20, something about the overall image quality is just more pleasing, bright, clear, and sharp on the 10x25. As anyone on this board will tell you, I'm an outspoken fan of low-power optics (my favorite binoculars of all time are 7x42's). However, for compact models the 10x really are better all-around instruments... at least to my eyes.

As for brand, I've found the Zeiss is the best in the 8x20 configuration, while the Nikon is better in the 10x25 configuration. I found the Swarovski to be equal in all respects to the Nikon offering, with the exception of price - the Nikon was less expensive so it's the one I bought. I found the Zeiss Victory 8x20 beat out even the Swarovski in image quality, I still haven't yet found a better 8x20.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[kabsetz]

Robert,

I have not yet done a systematic test (one is in the works within this year), but based on plenty of trials and some testing, I have a couple of opinions to offer. Firstly, compact roofs require exceedingly precise manufacturing tolerances, so sample variation is likely to be more of an issue with them than with 32--50mm binoculars. The need for precision comes from the tiny size as well as the fact that a 20-25mm objective will have to work much closer to its theoretical diffraction-limited maximum performance to provide an image that appears truly sharp to the eye. As for 8x/10x, unlike Bawko I prefer eights but readily admit that I generally prefer 10x and have not used 10x25's in the field. All this said, my favorites thus far have been the Leica Ultravid and the Nikon HG L (8x20). The Leica is brighter and I really like its focus knob, while the Nikon I tried for a few days at home and in the field had better contrast and its right barrel exhibited textbook-perfect diffraction patterns of the level I thought I would never see in any binocular, period. Had the left barrel been equally good, I would have bought it in a wink, but unfortunately it had a little bit of astigmatism, and after having seen the right barrel image I was unable to forgive it, especially since my left eye is dominant.

As for general differences, the Nikon has a wider field and somewhat better eyecups (more solid, twist-out rather than pull-out) while I like the Leica's handling better in other respects.

Common to all of the models discussed here is their narrow 2.5mm exit pupil, which makes eye-placement and IPD-setting quite critical and for me makes them less pleasant to use by a fair margin compared to 8x32's or larger binoculars. That is the price of compactness, however. The Zeiss and Swarovski compacts I have not tried as much, but thus far my impressions have been that the Zeiss Victories I liked quite a lot although not as much as the Nikon and the Leica, and that the Swarovski impressed me somewhat less, although the ones I have tried may have been the pre-Swarobright models.

Hope this helps,

Kimmo

[iporali]

Is there any of the top compact roofs that stand above the rest?
I think the usability of the Leica Ultravids is superior to the others because of its correctly placed, large (enough) focusing knob. OTOH I agree that the Nikons have great eyecups. Optically I am unable to put one above the others. Waterproofness may be important in the long run (ClassiCs ?).

If you feel comfortable with the Nikons focusing and find an optically good sample, you won't lose anything compared to the Leicas & Swaros.

Ilkka

[hinnark]

I think the usability of the Leica Ultravids is superior to the others because of its correctly placed, large (enough) focusing knob. OTOH I agree that the Nikons have great eyecups. Optically I am unable to put one above the others. Waterproofness may be important in the long run (ClassiCs ?).

If you feel comfortable with the Nikons focusing and find an optically good sample, you won't lose anything compared to the Leicas & Swaros.

Ilkka

The 8x20 Zeiss Victory is most suitable for my hands due to its asymmetric hinge construction. The fokussing wheel is just at the place where the forefinger comes down naturally. But beware, this works only with right handers. With the Nikon (which I own) and the Swaro (which have the shortest eye relief among these top pockets) pockets I don´t like the placement of the focussing knob. The little finger which you have to use for focussing with them isn´t just as strong and precise as the forefinger. If you want to use the pocket bino in cold weather a complete armouring is more comfortable. With the Nikon HG only the barrels are armoured with leather (which I like more than rubber/plastic material). The hinge is of pure metal that as to been touched when using the bino. You can´t avoid cold thumbtips when using it in cold weather. On the other hand I bought the Nikon because its image quality and closest focus was the best (fov, sharpness all over the field) but this was before the Leica Ultravids pockets were on the market. If I have to decide again I would probably choose the Leica. Not only because they are a bit brighter and have slightly more contrast than the Nikon but because of their beauty. I know it´s a matter of taste but in my eyes the 8x20 and 10x25 BL Leica Ultravids are little jewels, a nearly perfect combination of form and function.

Steve

[lvn600]

Well I've got a pair of cheap ones. They are pretty clear and only 100 bucks.
They sure come in handy when you have to hike a lot and don't want the extra weight-just hook them on your belt and off you go. Nikon travelite v. 8x25.

[Robert Ellis]

I think the usability of the Leica Ultravids is superior to the others because of its correctly placed, large (enough) focusing knob. OTOH I agree that the Nikons have great eyecups. Optically I am unable to put one above the others. Waterproofness may be important in the long run (ClassiCs ?).

If you feel comfortable with the Nikons focusing and find an optically good sample, you won't lose anything compared to the Leicas & Swaros.

Ilkka

The ClassiCs are indeed waterproof. Turns out the older Zeiss stuff was so well sealed to be waterproof, but that was never stated in the warranty. The newer ClassiC compacts are warranted fully as such.

[hinnark]

The ClassiCs are indeed waterproof. Turns out the older Zeiss stuff was so well sealed to be waterproof, but that was never stated in the warranty. The newer ClassiC compacts are warranted fully as such.

Robert,

the ClassiCs aren´t waterproof (and the Leica Trinovid aren´t either) but probably waterresistant. With Zeiss only the Victories are waterproof. And to answer your first question: the differences of optical quality between the bins mentioned above aren´t realy remarkable. So I would try some of them and purchase the one that fits best to my eyes (glasses), hands and - purse.

Steve

[Robert Ellis]

Robert,

the ClassiCs aren´t waterproof (and the Leica Trinovid aren´t either) but probably waterresistant. With Zeiss only the Victories are waterproof. And to answer your first question: the differences of optical quality between the bins mentioned above aren´t realy remarkable. So I would try some of them and purchase the one that fits best to my eyes (glasses), hands and - purse.

Steve

The new made classics are, as told to me by Zeiss, waterproof. Also I was told that the older classics, though not originally warrented to be so, are well sealed, and when Zeiss changed the warranty to say such on the new models a few years back they grandfathered in all the bins from the mid 70s forward. This is what I was told. Same goes for the 7x42 Classics, again as I was told.

[Alexis Powell]

My favorite roof-prism pocket binos are the Leica Ultravid and the Zeiss Victory. I think their optics are superior (especially when it comes to brightness) to the Zeiss Classic, Leica Trinovid, and Swarovski pocket models, and I especially like their ergonomics, which is a particularly important consideration when choosing among tiny binoculars. The Ultravid and Victory designs allow for a secure, firm grip on the binocular body while at the same time allowing one to use the focus knob comfortably with the first or middle finger. The Leica Ultravid is my favorite in these regards--it fits the hand almost like a full sized binocular, and can be focused easily with either hand. The Zeiss Victory is designed to be held most firmly and focused with the right hand, so beware if you are left handed (or prefer to use your left hand to focus).

When it comes to choosing between the Leica Ultravids and the Zeiss Victory, I guess my preference is for the Leica for its wonderful focus knob, its metal construction (not that it is more durable, I just like the look and feel of metal) and its twist-up eyecup design, but I honestly don't have a strong inclination towards one over the other. I must say that the Zeiss Victory are by far the better value, since they can sometimes be had for as little as $329 ; the Leica Ultravid, on the other hand, are the most expensive of pocket models, usually costing $470 or more.

I would strongly advise against buying the Zeiss Classic pocket models. I find their optics (both brightness and sharpness outside the center of the view), build quality, and design to be inferior to the others. Among these categories, it is their design that I find least appealing. Of greatest concern is that they have a annoyingly thin, permanently attached, nylon cord for a strap, which is not adjustable for length except by cutting or knotting (there are no eyelets on the binocular body to allow for strap replacement). They also have traditional rubber fold-down eyecups rather than the type that twist or slide in and out. To me, the Zeiss Classics have a cheap, plasticy feel, and their focusing/diopter mechanics seem inferior to the others with regard to durability and smoothness of operation.

I don't like the Swarovski pocket models because they are noticeably less bright than the other brands. I also don't like the Swarovki models and the Nikon Venturer LX models (The Venturer have optics which are nearly as bright, and as sharp or sharper than the Victories and Ultravids) because I don't like to focus with my pinkie or ring finger (I don't focus any of my other binos this way!) and I find that doing so makes having a firm yet relaxed grip on the binocular body difficult. The Leica Trinovids are fine in most respects, except that they aren't waterproof, and yet aren't any cheaper than the others.

When it comes to choosing 8x or 10x in a pocket roof, I prefer 8x. Why? I like the closer focus that they offer for viewing butterflies and close-approaching birds. The Zeiss Victory, Zeiss Classic, Leica Ultravid, Nikon Venturer, and Swarovski 8x models focus down to 5-7 feet (depending on the model and individual unit), whereas their 10x equivalents rarely focus closer than 12 feet, and 13-16 feet is typical. Incidentally, I have found the close-focus specs supplied by the manufacturers to be bewilderingly inaccurate, at least in the past. For example, every unit of the Swarovski 8x20 I have handled has focused down to about 7 feet, but the manufacturer specs say 13 feet, if memory serves me. With regard to other considerations, I don't find the optics of the 10x to be much better, if at all, than the 8x, and I don't find them any easier to hold (they are slightly longer, so people with especially large hands might prefer them, but being bigger is contrary to the point of buying a pocket bino in the first place!).
--AP

[Leif]

I have a Swarovski 8x20 B (bought) and a Zeiss 8x20 Classic (inherited) and side by side the optics are very close. I have posted reviews on BF, and there are a few other reviews too which should help give some balance.

When I decided to buy a compact bin, I tried a Swaro 8x20 B, a Leica 8x20 (old model), a Zeiss 8x20 Victory and a Nikon 8x20 HG. IMO all had very similar optics though the Nikon was marginally better due to slightly higher contrast and a slightly better FOV. The forthcoming review by Kimmo will no doubt be far more thorough and worth reading. I made a choice on the basis of size and build quality as I wanted a pair to take on runs. In terms of ergonomics the difference that stood out (IMO) was size: both the Swaro and Leica (and Zeiss Classic) are very small, whereas the Zeiss Victory and Nikon HG are noticeably bigger. As I valued compactness and I didn't like the build and feel of the Leica (or the Zeiss Victory), I went for the Swaro.

However, for eyeglass wearers all have too little eye relief for comfort, and all have a slightly restricted FOV. In the UK Opticron market an 8x21 DBA Oasis which I think is worth consideration. It has huge eye relief and hence I can use it with eyeglasses. It also has a decent FOV (same as the Nikon I think). Build quality looks good, contrast and sharpness are good, the focus is a bit stiff, but there is significant distortion, but for eyeglass wearers that might be a fair price to pay.

Do you really need compactness? If not then a Bushnell 8x inverted porro should give most of the optical quality for a fraction of the price, in a small-ish package.

Leif

[Swissboy]

The 8x20 Zeiss Victory is most suitable for my hands due to its asymmetric hinge construction. The fokussing wheel is just at the place where the forefinger comes down naturally. But beware, this works only with right handers. With the Nikon (which I own) and the Swaro (which have the shortest eye relief among these top pockets) pockets I don´t like the placement of the focussing knob. The little finger which you have to use for focussing with them isn´t just as strong and precise as the forefinger. If you want to use the pocket bino in cold weather a complete armouring is more comfortable. With the Nikon HG only the barrels are armoured with leather (which I like more than rubber/plastic material). The hinge is of pure metal that as to been touched when using the bino. You can´t avoid cold thumbtips when using it in cold weather. On the other hand I bought the Nikon because its image quality and closest focus was the best (fov, sharpness all over the field) but this was before the Leica Ultravids pockets were on the market. If I have to decide again I would probably choose the Leica. Not only because they are a bit brighter and have slightly more contrast than the Nikon but because of their beauty. I know it´s a matter of taste but in my eyes the 8x20 and 10x25 BL Leica Ultravids are little jewels, a nearly perfect combination of form and function.

Steve


I have had a pair of Leica 8x20s for years as a back-up and to be sure I had a pair along. But for my normal use, I prefer something in the 32-42mm range. However, when I recently evaluated many types, I just could not resist those new Leica Ultravid 10x25s. They simply felt right in my (smallish) hands. I did not even care to wait for a chance to try the 8x20s (which were the only model missing) as well. Calling the compact Leica Ultravids "little jewels" just about sums it up! Those models with the focus up front were very awkward for me, and while being right-handed, I nevertheless did not like the asymmetric Zeiss.

Thus, as others have said before, as all the top brands have very good optics, handling must be a major aspect for the personal selection!

[Humboldt Jim]

In shopping around, I find the euro-bins do not have the real FOV and eye relief that I want and the Asian brands (Nikon & Pentax) do. The new Pentax 8x28 looks particularly promissing, though not a super compact model, its handy and is easy to look through.

[Donzo98]

Is there any of the top compact roofs that stand above the rest? I have been looking at the following list. All 8x20s: Leica Trinovid and Ultravid, Nikon Premier, Swarovski, Zeiss Victory and ClassiC (new model). Because I have a tough time justifying any compact at these prices I am leaning toward the Nikon and Zeiss ClassiC, both available under $300 US. Is there a large advantage to the more expensive Leicas or Swaros? I am quite fond of the way the ClassiCs fold up but the Nikon has the better eyecups.

I have very limited experience with this class of bins.

Robert...

Where did you find the Nikon 8x20 LX for under 300.00?? I have not seen the newer LXL for under 399. If you have a source please enlighten us... I will be first in line.

Thanks, Don Krieff

[Robert Ellis]

I can't be sure if the last time I was quoted that price it was for the LX or LXL, but it was within the past two months from Eagle Optics.

Now that I think about it more, I think you may be right, I was probably quoted $379. I call around for prices on so many bins it is easy to get confused.