Best compacts for £120

[Simon Phillips]

Hi from a wannabee bird watcher... it is my birthday in a few days time and I'd like a good pair of compacts!

I know binocular sutiability varies from person to person but I'd really appreciate some advice on what would be a good pair to try - preferably no more than £120, although could stretch a little if it made a big difference.

(I don't wear glasses by the way).

PS Any advice on where to use them in the SE-London/NW-Kent/Epping areas next week would be welcome too!!!

[Simon Phillips]

I can't find which forum this is in!
Meant to put it in the Binoculars forum, please feel free to place as apporpriate.

Thanks!

[postcardcv]

Try the Opticron Taiga - the 8x25's retail for about £90 - having tested a wide range of compacts earlier this year I'd say they're the best you can buy for under £120. In fact the only way to get something better is to buy one of the top end compacts for £300+.

[scampo]

Hi from a wannabee bird watcher... it is my birthday in a few days time and I'd like a good pair of compacts!

I know binocular sutiability varies from person to person but I'd really appreciate some advice on what would be a good pair to try - preferably no more than £120, although could stretch a little if it made a big difference.

(I don't wear glasses by the way).

PS Any advice on where to use them in the SE-London/NW-Kent/Epping areas next week would be welcome too!!!Opticron and Nikon rule the roost here... but you've not logged into www.warehouseexpress.com (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/), obviously as the Nikon 8x32 Sporters are still on sale for £99-00. Nothing comes close for the price for birding - this binocular offers fine optics in a compact roof prism design that is also water resistant and very solidly made.

If you can push your budget for a better design, and want a lightweight pocketable binocular that matches the best available, the new 10x25 Leica Ultravid (used by my wife) is optically stunning and mechanically superb.

[Frogbad]

It's those half price Nikon Sporters for me as well. I recently made a purchase due to some of the good recomendations recieved on the forum and I am smitten. They are far superior to my Opticron Oregons. However I wear glasses so the problem with the fiddly eyecups do not affect me.

This is easily the best way that I have ever spent £100.

[scampo]

It's those half price Nikon Sporters for me as well. I recently made a purchase due to some of the good recomendations recieved on the forum and I am smitten. They are far superior to my Opticron Oregons. However I do wear glasses so the problem with the fiddly eyecups do not affect me.

This is easily the best way that I have ever spent £100.
The eye cups are loose feeling but they do work well and are anything but a problem in long term use. The long eye relief of the Sporters is something to be believed for spectacle wearers.

[postcardcv]

Yes the Sporters are a good buy at £99 - but they're not compacts.

I really don't think there's a sub £200 compact that can beat the Opticron Taiga. But Simon - best advice is to try before you buy, we all like different things.

[scampo]

Yes the Sporters are a good buy at £99 - but they're not compacts.

I really don't think there's a sub £200 compact that can beat the Opticron Taiga. But Simon - best advice is to try before you buy, we all like different things.
I know the Taiga is well considered but when I was looking for compacts, I'm sure there was a Nikon compact at that price point.

I know it's easy to say this having found the money to use for this purpose, but when I was looking with my wife for a pair of compacts all seemed reasonable in the Opticron and Nikon area until the salesman asked me to try the Swaro 8x20s -I then realised what a gulf in quality existed betwen cheaper and more expensive compacts. The Swaros offered a truly "walk-in" view akin to my Swaro ELs.

Thanks, then, to recommendations from BF, I went on to try out the Leica Ultravid 10x25s and now feel that they are an absolute bargain in terms of what they offer optically and practically. I often look through them and then my Swaros and am left wondering, can there be £700.00 worth of difference? The answer's clear enough.

[hornet]

Opticron Taigas - easily the best sub-£200 compacts I've ever seen. Optically they compare with the very best (including my 8x32 Leica's in most conditions). They're not waterproof or nitrogen filled, but what do you want for £80? The unusual reverse porro design also makes them very easy to handle.

They're so good I've just bought my parents a pair for Christmas - I struggled to hand the box over in the end cos I fancied them for myself.

Bins are a very personal preference, but make sure you at least check the Taigas out if you are looking for compacts. If not, then the Sporters are well worth the praise they are getting, a great pair of full size bins for the money.

[FrankD]

I know the Taiga is well considered but when I was looking for compacts, I'm sure there was a Nikon compact at that price point.

The new Nikon Prostaff ATB 8x25s are priced right at $125 US. They are basically a more durable upgrade of the Travelite series. Nitrogen purged, fully multicoated with a wider field of view. The next level up in Nikon compacts would be the Premier LXs.

[pduxon]

The Nikon Prostaff ATB 8x25s mentioned above are known as the Travelite EX range in the UK I believe. Warehouseexpress have the old version non waterproof version for sale at £50 in the special offers

I'd have to agree that the Taiga's are the best compact I've tried under £200. If you want to push the boat out then ignore those expensive Leica's ;) and look at the Nikon HGL £260 for the 8x20 on Warehouseexrpress.

The Nikon Sporters are excellent value for money at £99 and given how well reviewed they are I guess the Opticron Aspheric WA at £69. In the special offers section there is also an Opticron Imagic TGA Porro Prism ZCF.AG 8x32 for 99 and an Opticron Countryman 10x42 for £49 both are the older model and neither is waterproof.

[scampo]

The Nikon Prostaff ATB 8x25s mentioned above are known as the Travelite EX range in the UK I believe. Warehouseexpress have the old version non waterproof version for sale at £50 in the special offers

I'd have to agree that the Taiga's are the best compact I've tried under £200. If you want to push the boat out then ignore those expensive Leica's ;) and look at the Nikon HGL £260 for the 8x20 on Warehouseexrpress.

The Nikon Sporters are excellent value for money at £99 and given how well reviewed they are I guess the Opticron Aspheric WA at £69. In the special offers section there is also an Opticron Imagic TGA Porro Prism ZCF.AG 8x32 for 99 and an Opticron Countryman 10x42 for £49 both are the older model and neither is waterproof.
These things are personal but I think the 8x20 bins are better suited to other purposes than birding and are really oversmall. The extra size and light gathering power of the 25mm objective makes a whole lot of difference in use.

[pduxon]

These things are personal but I think the 8x20 bins are better suited to other purposes than birding and are really oversmall. The extra size and light gathering power of the 25mm objective makes a whole lot of difference in use.

we'll have to agree to differ Steve ;) Although I don't understand why Leica, Nikon et al don't use the 25mm body for all their compacts. Would make sense to have one body size. They do it with other 8x and 10x models.

[scampo]

we'll have to agree to differ Steve ;) Although I don't understand why Leica, Nikon et al don't use the 25mm body for all their compacts. Would make sense to have one body size. They do it with other 8x and 10x models.
These things do seem quirky. My large hands are the issue with tiny bins, I suppose. The Ultravids are a delight to have in the hand and are shockingly bright for their size. It's difficult to think of a logical reason for spending an extra £700 on a pair, really.

[Simon Phillips]

Yes the Sporters are a good buy at £99 - but they're not compacts.

I really don't think there's a sub £200 compact that can beat the Opticron Taiga. But Simon - best advice is to try before you buy, we all like different things.

Thanks everyone! How big are the Sporters?
I don't need anything minute, but something just about crammable into a coat pocket etc. - not tiny but noticiblysmaller than my other pair - 8x42 Bushnells (775g).

Looks like it is between them and the Opticron Taiga for me to look at.

[pduxon]

Sporters are full size bins and weigh 720g

[Simon Phillips]

Sporters are full size bins and weigh 720g

Thanks, sounds like a great deal but it is a smaller pair I'm after for now.

Does anyone know where I can buy and/or try the Opticron Taigas?

[Simon Phillips]

I found a few places online selling them at £89, then Sherwoods for £81.50 inc p&p.
BUT I've found them online here for just £57.85 inc p&p ( and VAT):

http://www.focusonprice.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=5799&substring=taiga+2

Do I have the right ones here? It isn't even described as an offer.
(They are in Scotland so I can't try them of course.)

[pduxon]

Thanks, sounds like a great deal but it is a smaller pair I'm after for now.

Does anyone know where I can buy and/or try the Opticron Taigas?

they should have them at the London Wetlands centre at Barnes

[postcardcv]

I found a few places online selling them at £89, then Sherwoods for £81.50 inc p&p.
BUT I've found them online here for just £57.85 inc p&p ( and VAT):

http://www.focusonprice.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=5799&substring=taiga+2

Do I have the right ones here? It isn't even described as an offer.
(They are in Scotland so I can't try them of course.)

That's an amazingly good deal, well worth snapping up. You'll probably find that you could return them if you weren't happy with them, certainly worth buying them unseen at that price. I wish you hadn't put that link up though, as now I'm tempted to a pair... must keep reminding myself that I don't need them.

[scampo]

That's an amazingly good deal, well worth snapping up. You'll probably find that you could return them if you weren't happy with them, certainly worth buying them unseen at that price. I wish you hadn't put that link up though, as now I'm tempted to a pair... must keep reminding myself that I don't need them.I'd still try those Sporters - they're half price on that WE offer. The Taigas must be good but they are an nusual design and not water resistant so far as I know - as in everything, you do get what you pay for in optics and Nikon is a top international brand and at half price at the moment.

[deboo]

Another vote for the 8x36 Nikon Sporters here!

*raises hand*

SimonC has a pair, and he found a Wryneck on his local patch with 'em!

dave...

[Simon Phillips]

I'd still try those Sporters - they're half price on that WE offer. The Taigas must be good but they are an nusual design and not water resistant so far as I know - as in everything, you do get what you pay for in optics and Nikon is a top international brand and at half price at the moment.

Thanks Steve - but are they vaguely compact?

I have a larger pair (which I doubt are as good as the Sporters) of Bushnell 8x42s (Natureview I think), so I want a good smaller pair - they don't have to be miniature, so if the Sporters are small I might be interested, though I notice the weights are similar (both over 700g).

[pduxon]

Dimensions : 131mm x 140mm

not at all compact. Nice good value full size bin. Although I note someone said in a thread here that they preferred there partners porro Imagics to the sporters optically

[Simon Phillips]

That's an amazingly good deal, well worth snapping up. You'll probably find that you could return them if you weren't happy with them, certainly worth buying them unseen at that price. I wish you hadn't put that link up though, as now I'm tempted to a pair... must keep reminding myself that I don't need them.

I was wrong about p&p, comes in at £7.65.
Total still comes in at £65.50, I'll probably go for them, just hanging on in case Steve, or some other helpful person, pursuades me that the Sportsters are compactish.

[Simon Phillips]

Dimensions : 131mm x 140mm

not at all compact. Nice good value full size bin. Although I note someone said in a thread here that they preferred there partners porro Imagics to the sporters optically

Thanks Pete. Seems a shame to miss out on a great deal, but I must stay focussed!

[scampo]

Thanks Steve - but are they vaguely compact?

I have a larger pair (which I doubt are as good as the Sporters) of Bushnell 8x42s (Natureview I think), so I want a good smaller pair - they don't have to be miniature, so if the Sporters are small I might be interested, though I notice the weights are similar (both over 700g).
They are not a full size binocular as they have 36mm objective lenses and that is smaller than, say, a Swaro 42mm. I would call them compact - they look and feel solid.

They are not overly light in weight, it is true, but that is a reflection of their solid mechanial construction as much as anything, I would say.

If you want something that is genuinely compact, as I suggested, the Ultravid 10x25 are quite outstanding in every way I can see.

[pduxon]

They are not a full size binocular as they have 36mm objective lenses and that is smaller than, say, a Swaro 42mm. I would call them compact - they look and feel solid.

They are not overly light in weight, it is true, but that is a reflection of their solid mechanial construction as much as anything, I would say.

If you want something that is genuinely compact, as I suggested, the Ultravid 10x25 are quite outstanding in every way I can see.

Hi Steve think you are being a little bit picky me old mate.

They are certain smaller than a Swaro EL or a Zeiss FL but they are not "something you would stuff in a jacket pcoket" really, now are they.

we are comparing to different types of bins. If you are after a cheap good main bin the Sporters should be on your audition list. For a glove box, jacket pocket, something to have on a cycle ride (not something I'm known to do ) the Taiga's should be on your audition list.

[scampo]

Hi Steve think you are being a little bit picky me old mate.

They are certain smaller than a Swaro EL or a Zeiss FL but they are not "something you would stuff in a jacket pcoket" really, now are they.

we are comparing to different types of bins. If you are after a cheap good main bin the Sporters should be on your audition list. For a glove box, jacket pocket, something to have on a cycle ride (not something I'm known to do ) the Taiga's should be on your audition list.Me, picky...? Nah.

But, and I hate to say it... you're right.

(-;

But the Nikon Sporter is still a smallish full size bin, wouldn't you say?

[beachloveriow]

Just joined the forum looking for a nice set of compacts to compliment my full-size bins and got my answers in 5 minutes!
Cheers folks!! :D

[ceasar]

I've got a peck basketfull of small binoculars purchased over the last 25 to 30 years. Most are reverse porro's with a few roofs thrown in. Sadly, most of them weren't very useful except for hurried glimpses when no other bins were available. The only 2 decent ones I have used were the Nikon 9 x 25 Traveler and the Bausch and Lomb (now Bushnell) Custom 7 x 26's. The latter is an outstanding bin but at 225 bucks probably exceeds your parameters; nevertheless, I would urge you to seriously consider it. It is compact enough to fit into a large shirt pocket or jacket pocket.

Cordially,
Bob

[eliaszuniga]

Me, picky...? Nah.

But, and I hate to say it... you're right.

(-;

But the Nikon Sporter is still a smallish full size bin, wouldn't you say?

"Smallish full size bins" is a great description for the Sporters. I bought my brother the 10X for Christmas and they are great. (I know, the 8X are rated much better, but he's a magnification nut and hates 8X.) The are heavy for their size, though, but at least it seems that their weight is due to good, solid construction. They feel very solidly built. I agree with earlier posts - not bins I would carry around in a pocket, they are small, but not yet "compact." Oh, and the view is nice (and I hear even MUCH better) on the 8X.

[joycemillar]

Hello
Like the sound of the Opticrons Taiga and went to have a look in my local Lizars - they only had the 10x25 and I wondered does anyone have any views on how good these are - I am just starting out and don't know all that much about binoculars, so help would be appreciated. They felt really good and seemed to have good clarity and good close up (better than the same priced Olympus pair- £79.99).

[nickb]

Hi Simon,

Have you thought about the Nikon Travelite V.

They are also on a really good offer at Warehouse Express for £49.99 (normally £109). I got the Nikon Sprint III 8x21 for Xmas as they were only £25 as opposed to £89 and are very sharp but I wish I'd seen the Travelite V 8x25 at same time and opted for these.

See below.

Nick

8x25 Travelite V - Special Offer £49.99

Aspherical lenses for minimising distortion and providing a sharp image up to the periphery • Long eyerelief design for clear field of view, even for wearers of eyeglasses • Multilayer coated lenses for a bright image • Special rubber armour for shock resistance and firm, comfortable grip • Carbon fibre in the body material improves durability • Small, lightweight and ergonomic design • Click-type dioptre adjustment ring (0.5 dpt. step) prevents unwitting rotation.

• Magnification : 8x
• Dia : 25mm
• Exit pupil : 3.1mm
• Weight : 255g
• Dimensions : 118mm x 115mm
• Type : Porro prism
• Field of view : 98m @ 1000m
• Closest focus : 3.0m

Hello
Like the sound of the Opticrons Taiga and went to have a look in my local Lizars - they only had the 10x25 and I wondered does anyone have any views on how good these are - I am just starting out and don't know all that much about binoculars, so help would be appreciated. They felt really good and seemed to have good clarity and good close up (better than the same priced Olympus pair- £79.99).

[scampo]

Hello
Like the sound of the Opticrons Taiga and went to have a look in my local Lizars - they only had the 10x25 and I wondered does anyone have any views on how good these are - I am just starting out and don't know all that much about binoculars, so help would be appreciated. They felt really good and seemed to have good clarity and good close up (better than the same priced Olympus pair- £79.99).
Ask to look through a top pair - say a Leica, then look through the Taigas and the Olympus. I think you'll choose the Taigas.

[hornet]

Hello
Like the sound of the Opticrons Taiga and went to have a look in my local Lizars - they only had the 10x25 and I wondered does anyone have any views on how good these are - I am just starting out and don't know all that much about binoculars, so help would be appreciated. They felt really good and seemed to have good clarity and good close up (better than the same priced Olympus pair- £79.99).

I have tried the 10x25 and they are every bit as good as the 8x25 - the choice is really down to personal preference.

You make a slight trade off between the higher magnification and a narrower field of view (how wide and bright the image is). Personally I prefer a wider field of view, but the difference is marginal, and many people prefer the extra magnification.

If you can't get the 8x25 (have you tried online?), or compare them side by side, then be reassured that the 10x are a solid purchase. I'm sure you'll be delighted with them for years to come.

[orbitaljump]

Do not get 10 power compacts. Yuk! 8 power or 7 power in the 23-25 mm range. Peeping through the compacts stinks. Yuk! But if you really want a pair then these are my recommendations. I wouldnt even consider buying an expensive pair of compacts, unless I was obnoxiously rich. And these are limited to recent production models.


Nikon Sportstar III 8x25 Roofs. Make sure they are collimated and look through the pair you buy before you do. Great wide aparent 67 degree fov and 8+ degrees true fov. Plastic barrels and made in China. So so coatings. Nicest inexpensive thing Ive seen in a compact roof prism. I recently gave my pair to my brother in law for his glove box as he travels South Africa alot in his car. I had these to use for hiking, where compactness and being lightweigt are imperative and bino viewing is a secondary concern. I will be looking to get another. These are my favorite compacts...and I dont like compacts.

Pentax UCF 8x24 WR. Reverse Porros. Nice but bulky. Odd housing. Clunky in the hand. Weather resistant. Plastic body. The image is good though. These have a standard fov aparent 50+ degrees and wide true fov 395ft.

B&L Legacy 8x24. Reverse porros. Standard FOV. But the optics are good.

I dont like the Nikon Travelites. Standard FOV. But the optics are good. Try the 8x and 9x models.

I would like to try the Opticrons out.

I wouldnt spend over $50 US for a pair of compacts. No way!

[hornet]

I wouldnt spend over $50 US for a pair of compacts. No way!

I respect that view because I can see it's based on considerable experience, but I believe the Taiga's might well be the exception that proves the rule.

I still reckon they are worth the little extra - not quite Leica / Swaro / Zeiss build quality, but close on optical quality and considerably better than the NIkon, Pentax and B&L's I've tried.

They'll certainly be my next compacts.

Let's face it - as always it's a 'try before you buy' message.

[scampo]

Do not get 10 power compacts...
Hmm? The 10x25 Leica Ultravids are a delight in every way.

[medinabrit]

I got my girlfriend the minox 8x25 bd brw,s they were around $190 & are an exellent pocket bino.
brian.

[orbitaljump]

Hmm? The 10x25 Leica Ultravids are a delight in every way.

I do love the 7x26 B&L Customs. But they are too rich for my blood. For the same money I would rather have bigger glass.

That may be so....I prefer wide FOV over power. It is so much more pleasant. And I dont do expensive compacts. Cant afford to. :stuck:

[trealawboy]

I do love the 7x26 B&L Customs. But they are too rich for my blood. For the same money I would rather have bigger glass.

That may be so....I prefer wide FOV over power. It is so much more pleasant. And I dont do expensive compacts. Cant afford to. :stuck:


Bushnell/Bausch & Lomb Legacy Compacts are pretty good too. Try Warehouse Express or Ace in Bath. They come in 8x24 or 10x24.

[Nick Elliston]

I agree with Scampo. I got a pair of 10×25 Leica Ultravids a week ago and they are b****y marvellous.

[lucznik]

Peeping through the compacts stinks. Yuk!... I wouldnt even consider buying an expensive pair of compacts, unless I was obnoxiously rich....
I wouldnt spend over $50 US for a pair of compacts. No way!


Those are pretty strong statements, considering your experience appears to be primarily with the cheapest end of the available spectrum on compacts. This would be like someone saying that because the furniture they bought at Walmart didn't stand up to serious abuse, that no furniture could possibly be worth more.

The fact that some people might choose to afford higher quality offerings than you do does not make them "obnoxious" nor "rich." Rather it might just indicate that they are too poor to waste money on items of inferior quality.

Peeping through compacts stinks only when the compact in question itself stinks. The view through many compacts is truly wonderful, giving up little if anything to their full-size brethren except in very low light. They are also far easier to carry around. Granted you do have to spend a good deal more than $50 to get this kind of performance, but it is there and in reality is not as expensive as you might think. You can get very good optical performance in a compact for as little as $100 (e.g. Bushnell Legend 8 or 10X26.) Then if you really want a fantastic view, look at the top offerings from Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski which are truly magnificent. Yes, they do cost as much as some very good full sized binoculars and bigger glass (assuming comparable quality) is admittedly, always going to be theoretically "better" than smaller glass in terms of raw optical performance. However, the degree to which this truth is applicable and whether or not it is significant (or even visible) to the human eye is dependent on a large number of other variables. These are matters that can be (and have been) debated quite extensively here.

The reality remains that sometimes it just isn't convenient or even possible to carry a full-sized binocular around and at such times, even if you accept the premise that the view through your compact isn't quite as good as it would be with a full-size, that view is still far superior to not having any binocular at all. A second reality is that the view from good compacts can be truly magnificent, making the above premise very suspect except in very specific and limited circumstances.

Personally, I don't go anywhere without a binocular and due to my schedule and work conditions, this means that a good 70-80% of the time that binocular has to be a compact. I haven't (yet) purchased one of the very top end models but, I have spent enough to get good, high quality and the image quality I enjoy is very satisfying. I would never give up my compacts. I love 'em!

[orbitaljump]

The Nikon Sportstar III is a good low cost compact bino....not as good as a Leica or Swarovski but certainly 90% as good and a great bargain being that the Leica and Swarovski is 400% more expensive. Certainly there is a market for the best optical quality, but dont belittle people for opting for value. You sound like a BMW snob snubbing a guy for driving a Toyota Corolla.


considering your experience appears to be primarily with the cheapest end of the available spectrum on compacts

This is not so! There are many high end compacts that I do not like because of smallish FOVs and tight exit pupils, in fact most. I stated these biases up front.

Heres another bias for you. The edge of field sharpness is meaningless 95% of the time. Why worry about it? Id rather have a wider field than stop it down so the edge is sharp. What's the point? Why limit the useable field?

I never advocated buying a crappy compact, which includes many of the European manufacturers offerings. I advocated buying an inexpensive compact. That doesnt mean crappy or available at Walmart. Get a clue!

PS---Thanks for the tip on the Bushnell Legends...I usually dismissed Bushnell out of hand, at least in the compact category.

[lucznik]

The Nikon Sportstar III is a good low cost compact bino....not as good as a Leica or Swarovski but certainly 90% as good and a great bargain being that the Leica and Swarovski is 400% more expensive. Certainly there is a market for the best optical quality, but dont belittle people for opting for value. You sound like a BMW snob snubbing a guy for driving a Toyota Corolla.




This is not so! There are many high end compacts that I do not like because of smallish FOVs and tight exit pupils, in fact most. I stated these biases up front.

Heres another bias for you. The edge of field sharpness is meaningless 95% of the time. Why worry about it? Id rather have a wider field than stop it down so the edge is sharp. What's the point? Why limit the useable field?

I never advocated buying a crappy compact, which includes many of the European manufacturers offerings. I advocated buying an inexpensive compact. That doesnt mean crappy or available at Walmart. Get a clue!

PS---Thanks for the tip on the Bushnell Legends...I usually dismissed Bushnell out of hand, at least in the compact category.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here as I can't find substantiation for your claims. Smaller exit pupils are the nature of the beast with compacts but, as you go to the higher end of the spectrum the higher quality and quantity of lens coatings helps this tremendously. Far more in fact than most people realize.

FOV for compacts are often higher than many full sized binoculars in their same price range. For example the 8X20 Leica Trinovid @ $460, has a FOV of 345' @ 1000 yds. This is better than the full size 8X Steiner Merlin, Leupold Pinnacle, and Brunton Eterna, all of which sell for similar prices. It also is better than the Leupold Olympic, Bushnell Legend, and Nikon Monarch which sell for a bit less as well as the Kahles and Pentax DCF SP,which sell for more. Similar comparisons can be made with the Swarovski Pocket (345' & $600,) the Nikon Premier LXL (356' & $400,) the Zeiss ClassiC compact (330' & $290,) Bushnell Custom (363' & $225 - with an exit pupil of 3.7 even,) etc. What's better is that these Fields of View are sharp and clear right out to the edges.

Which brings me to disagreement #2 regarding "field sharpness." Once the image becomes distorted at the edge it is useless to me. I am a huge fan of large Fields of View but, only if that viewable area is sharp. I'll take a binocular with a sharp edge to edge view over a distorted one even at the expense of losing a bit of the total FOV anytime.

Disagreement #3 revolves around your distinction between "crappy" and "inexpensive." I have yet to see any binocular (full size, mid size, or compact) retailing for $50 that I would not call crappy. At that price point you just lose too much in the way of the quality of the glass used, the quality and quantity of the coatings used, the overall build quality, the total lack of weatherproofing, etc. Too me, "Inexpensive" denotes total value, not just the numbers on the price tag. I would rather pay more and get something that will perform well and last for many years than buy cheap and be stuck with something that will quickly breakdown. Though I will agree that the Swarovski Pocket is overpriced at $600, The Nikon Sportstar III you mention is definately not 90% as good. It has only "multicoated" as opposed to "fully multicoated" lenses; the relative quantity of those coatings (# of coatings per surface actually receiving them) is far fewer; they are not phase correction coated; They will not stand up to the same knocks and bumps without losing collimation or just breaking apart completely. And the list goes on. (By the way, this particular Nikon is one of the models sold at my local Walmart.) :king:

p.s. I avoid driving cars alltogether in favor of my "planet destroying" SUV (currently a Nissan Xterra.) o:D

[orbitaljump]

Smaller exit pupils are the nature of the beast with compacts but, as you go to the higher end of the spectrum the higher quality and quantity of lens coatings helps this tremendously

Thats why I advocate for 7 or 8 power over 10. The exit pupil is larger. This makes finding the image less of a strain and is beneficial in low light. Coatings do help light throughput and thus brightening the image as well as contrast but the coatings on the Nikon Sportstars are 90% of the Swarovskis and Leicas. And coatings dont help in acquiring and keeping the image on the pupil.


FOV for compacts are often higher than many full sized binoculars in their same price range

And vice versa.


What's better is that these Fields of View are sharp and clear right out to the edges. Once the image becomes distorted at the edge it is useless to me. I am a huge fan of large Fields of View but, only if that viewable area is sharp. I'll take a binocular with a sharp edge to edge view over a distorted one even at the expense of losing a bit of the total FOV anytime.

What I am saying is that stopping down the FOV for edge of field sharpness is a bad tradeoff. This happens often. Its the nature of spherical ground optics that they lose sharpness and distort at the edge. Aspheric elements or more lenses in the optical system help correct this but they are more expensive to produce. The price performance trade off surpases the budget of the regular joe for aspheric lenses. More lenses to correct for edge sharpness and chromatic aberations causes light reduction as well as contrast reduction as well as costs more. I prefer the view through a erfle or similar aparent wide FOV eyepiece and its worth it to me, although an erfle doesnt correct for aberations and probably enhances them. BTW a smaller aparent FOV is also helpful in "faking" edge sharpness. The human eye on average is only sharp in a 50 degree conical field (not sure of exact figure, I actually think its smaller than 50, but it varies from person to person, Ill check into this). Anything larger than that is out of focus, read wide aparent FOV's, which I like for aesthetic value(this could be a personal preference that leads to our differing opinion) are not sharp on the edge when viewing the center of the field, no matter how sharp it is when you look over there. And another reason that edge of field sharpness is bogus is that these compacts are not mounted and stationary, people move them around to put what they want to look at in the center of the field, where it is sharpest. But having that extra field allows you to follow movement and acquire the target better, which you dont need sharpness and detail to do.


I have yet to see any binocular (full size, mid size, or compact) retailing for $50 that I would not call crappy

Well I have to concede this one to you.....I dont pay retail, ever. And I usually buy used.


Too me, "Inexpensive" denotes total value, not just the numbers on the price tag.

I understand this point. But it also means that it is affordable on an absolute scale.


I would rather pay more and get something that will perform well and last for many years than buy cheap and be stuck with something that will quickly breakdown.

Kudos. I agree. I have Nikon Prostar 7x50's and Fujinon Polaris 10x70's. But I dont put money into compacts that are likely to take abuse by there sheer nature of use. The reason you get them is so that you will have them with you....this usually means putting them in situations that are not ideal. Thus with an inexpensive pair...if they are stolen, which is less likely than a status brand, or they are ruined, who cares? ....just buy another.


The Nikon Sportstar III you mention is definately not 90% as good.

I beg to differ. Lets call it 89% as good.....feel better?


It has only "multicoated" as opposed to "fully multicoated" lenses; the relative quantity of those coatings (# of coatings per surface actually receiving them) is far fewer;

They are 90% as good though.


they are not phase correction coated

True.


They will not stand up to the same knocks and bumps without losing collimation or just breaking apart completely.

I agree. But I am only out $50 shipped if they get ruined from field abuse or are stolen. And its fairly easy to keep them well with a minimal amount of care.


And the list goes on.

Is that supposed to be persuasive?


By the way, this particular Nikon is one of the models sold at my local Walmart.

Oh the horror! :king:

Shame on me! :smoke:

[orbitaljump]

Peeping through compacts stinks only when the compact in question itself stinks.

Amen! And this includes many high dollar compacts from the status brand name companies that are designed poorly.

[FrankD]

Though I will agree that the Swarovski Pocket is overpriced at $600, The Nikon Sportstar III you mention is definately not 90% as good. It has only "multicoated" as opposed to "fully multicoated" lenses; the relative quantity of those coatings (# of coatings per surface actually receiving them) is far fewer; they are not phase correction coated; They will not stand up to the same knocks and bumps without losing collimation or just breaking apart completely. And the list goes on. (By the way, this particular Nikon is one of the models sold at my local Walmart.)

p.s. I avoid driving cars alltogether in favor of my "planet destroying" SUV (currently a Nissan Xterra.)

lucznik,

I always enjoy reading your posts and tend to find myself agreeing with your posts more often than not. I think we share many of the same viewpoints on optics. However, I must admit that I agree with OJ on one of these issues. The second most recent incarnation of the Sportstars (they just came out with a new one that has a narrower field of view) which has the exceptionally wide field of view trully does offer some very good optical performance for the price. I never would have thought that a $60 compact roof prism would be worth purchasing but they really are. Heck, I would probably pay $100 for these little buggers.

Take it with a grain of salt though. They do not have the contrast or brightness level of the premium, phase coated roofs but the exceptionally wide field of view makes them very relaxing to look through. The flatness of field is also fairly good. Twist up eyecups and a fairly ergonomic design also add to their appeal.

They may very well be the Sporters of the compact world. ;)

...oh, and my wife drives an Xterra. Great vehicle, especially in the snow.

[lucznik]

Thanks FrankD!

O.K. you've peaked my curiosity so I'll bite. I'll be in Salt Lake City in a couple of weeks and I will make a point to check out one of the Sportstars while I'm there. (Rural Wyoming offers very few opportunities to just go and check out optics.) I remember looking through an 8X25 Sportstar some time ago and I don't remember being very impressed, but I'm willing to give them a second shot. Assuming the majority of the 429 ft FOV is usable, that might be quite nice. We'll see.

[eliaszuniga]

Thanks FrankD!

O.K. you've peaked my curiosity so I'll bite. I'll be in Salt Lake City in a couple of weeks and I will make a point to check out one of the Sportstars while I'm there. (Rural Wyoming offers very few opportunities to just go and check out optics.) I remember looking through an 8X25 Sportstar some time ago and I don't remember being very impressed, but I'm willing to give them a second shot. Assuming the majority of the 429 ft FOV is usable, that might be quite nice. We'll see.

I agree with FrankD, the Sportstars are definitely worth at least testing. After much research, I spent $60 USD for a pair from Amazon this Christmas for my 8 year old son. He loves them, and I constantly find myself in disbelief that a compact could be so nice! Great build quality, nice ergonomics, overall a great pair!

[FrankD]

Definitely do. However, make sure you look through a few because at that price point the quality control is lacking. I look forward to hearing your impressions.

[Karl J]

i read in their advertising newsletter thingy today Nikon Sporters still on special offer

"last few left" or something along those lines

[orbitaljump]

However, make sure you look through a few because at that price point the quality control is lacking.

No truer words were spoken! Ive got to try out some Sporters....thanks for the tip.

Nikon Sportstar III---8x Magnification / 25mm objective / Water-resistant design / Multi-coated optics / Black or Silver or Camoflage finish / 8.2 feet close focus distance/ Eye Relief - 10mm / Size - Length 4.0 x Width 4.5 inches, 103 x 116 mm / Weight - 10.4 ounces, 295 grams

I see that Pentax now has a new version of the 8x24 UCF WP. Im referencing the older original model in my recomendation.