Binocular ramblings [Archive]

Tero

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 01:37

I have pretty much what I need for routine birding, but I always shop a bit.

My local sports store had some Zeiss lower end models. Very nice, bright roof prisms. They were even on sale, but none were really set up with eye glasses. They had the rubber cups.

There were Nikon Monarchs and a few other roof prisms of that sort. I was sort of surprised the store quit carrying the Sporters. Is Nikon phasing them out? I had planned to get them in 8x36 as well, and they are available on line.

I looked at some 10x50s. I did not like the Nikon Actions, though the Action EXs would have been OK. Most 10x50 porros they had focused only to some 8-10m. I have a 8x pair of Action EXs, I like those for the wide field, and they are fairly bright.

Bushnell 10x pairs were some odd roof prism models, 10x40 and 10x27. The smaller one was almost as good as the bigger.

This was all inside the store, I was looking at shoes on a wall 100m away!

In the last week, saw the Swift Audubon porros, 8.5x44. They were beautiful, and the new model has nice eye cups. I was quite interested in them, but now I am thinking the porros are not all that rugged.

I came home mostly cured, I realize I have two fairly useable pairs, and a cheap 10x50 I sometimes use, which is much better than the lowest price Bushnell.

Your Binocular Experience this week?

Chris Oates

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 02:53

If you like the Swift porros have a look at the Swift 828 HHS 8.5x44 roofs
19mm eye relief for us specs wearers, excellent dioptre adjustment, glorious view - I don't feel jealous of anyone.

Tero

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 04:42

Sure, I will. I only found one Swift roof prism model, a smaller one, so far. It was pretty good. Better than my Sporters. Will get to eagle Optics maybe in the spring, in person.

FrankD

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 13:04

Sorry Tero, nothing new this week for me. I am still experimenting with the different Nikons in my stable. I am trying to find an E series model either "locally" or on the net. Haven't had much luck yet. ;)

ceasar

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 23:54

Well Tero, I have something new. Like Frank, I've been experimenting with my Nikons. I have both model EII's and I've been comparing them to my old model trinovids, My Eagle 6 and 10 x 32's and my Swift 8.5 x 44 porro's. Then I got an idea to compare them with a Nikon Roof Prism, so I got myself for christmas a Nikon 8 x 32 LXL. They arrived about a week ago, in time for the bad weather here. I can't go into details at this time but I can mention that they are holding up, optically speaking, very well when compared with the 8 x 30 EII's. One thing I noticed very early is that the image given by the LXL's is noticably larger than the one given in the EII's. I believe the reason for this was discussed in another earlier forum by Henry Link, but I can't remember why it is so.

Anyway, when I have vetted them out, I'll have a report on them.

Bob

FrankD

Thursday 26th January 2006, 00:07

One thing I noticed very early is that the image given by the LXL's is noticably larger than the one given in the EII's.

I know it was discussed previously as well but I just wanted to say that it is very easy to notice if you have the porros and roofs side by side. I was tinkering with the SEs EIIs and LXs just this afternoon and it continues to surprise me just how noticeable that effect is. Where did you get the LXLs from ceasar?

ceasar

Thursday 26th January 2006, 00:20

I know it was discussed previously as well but I just wanted to say that it is very easy to notice if you have the porros and roofs side by side. I was tinkering with the SEs EIIs and LXs just this afternoon and it continues to surprise me just how noticeable that effect is. Where did you get the LXLs from ceasar?

Eagle Optics. They are polite, patient, knowledgeable, helpful and fast.
Bob

Tero

Thursday 26th January 2006, 01:22

Stopped by camera store
http://www.cccamera.com/products.html
thry were not too terribly pushy. Mostly Nikons and Pentax's. The ProMaster roof prisms at $200 were surprisingly good, 10x45 with a fairly wide view. It is some wstore brand for a number of camera stores. Not sure who really makes them.

One Nikon pair of Porros, 8x36 or so were $500. SOME BETTER GLASS AND COATINGS, BUT I'M NOT PAYING THAT MUCH FOR porros with rubber fold down eye cups. The Action 7X35s are almost as good in the field as far as I'm concerned. Only the 8x40 Nikon Porros I have already have impressed me so far in 8x porros of medium price up to several hundred.

The Swift Audubon 8.5x44 roofs are not at all in my town.

Nikon Roof Prism, so I got myself fo.r christmas a Nikon 8 x 32 LXL.

I did actually have some 8x36s in my hand today, possibly Pentax, that were pretty wide, much wider FOV than my Sporters. I had to pass, not really needed, I have that use covered.

Here are some of the Promasters
http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatName=Binoculars%20and%20Spotting%2 0Scopes&CatSM=C_Binoculars&SubCatName=Binoculars&Page=SubCat&CatID=60&SubCatID=1&sm=sm2_601
http://www.helixphoto.com/binoculars/promasterbino/promasterbino.htm

They are not fancy, but better than the Wal Mart Bushnells for sure, and some thought went into all the features. The glass is coated in some..maybe all.. models:
Every optical glass surface is fully broadband multicoated. This is not true of many far more expensive binoculars. The prisms are specially selected BAK-4 glass that has been silver coated for the maximum light transmission. The ocular of every model has the maximum eye relief possible. This enhances the brightness and viewing ease. In addition, they all feature twist up eyecups for maximum ease of use. Every Infinity model has been designed with an extra wide field of view so that your customers will never miss the action.
In particular, I think the Promaster 10x45 roof prisms compare favorably with Nikon Monarch and cost less. Warranty is supposed to be good.

ceasar

Thursday 26th January 2006, 06:54

Tero,
Nikon 8 x 36 porro's for $500.00 bucks? Are you sure they weren't 8 x 32 Superior E's? If so, you should have tried them out and seen what the view from a great binocular looks like! $500.00 is their usual list price.
Bob

Bob

Tero

Thursday 26th January 2006, 13:17

I think so, they were Es. I kind of gave up testing at that point as the sun had gone down. I tried the view across the store. It was pretty clear, but as I said the hand feel and the eye cups surprised me.

The overall look matched these
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=782
but have they redesigned the the cups? I may have loked at an older version.

ceasar

Thursday 26th January 2006, 16:28

Those are the one's. They have rubber eyecups which really aren't bad. I used them for 15 years on my Leica Trinovids and recently replaced them for $25.00, but those are Leica prices. I understand Nikon's replacements cost $3.00. Anyway, next time you get a chance spend a bit of time checking them out and check out their big brother, the 10 x 42 SE. They are the best porros made. Try to get outside when you vet them out instead of staying in the store.
Bob

Tero

Thursday 26th January 2006, 19:28

Nikon 10 x 42 SE

Sounds like the thing for me. Someone can give them to me as gift when I turn 55. ;) In three years.

Tero

Saturday 28th January 2006, 23:49

Tero

Tuesday 7th February 2006, 18:01

I've borrowed my wife's Minolta Compact II pocket porros, 10x25. I put them to the test looking for an eagle that has spent weeks across our big river. I found the brown blob in the tree. It took a while to convince myself it had a white head. I know the Bushnell Trophys, 8x25, I use on casual walks would not have worked.

Found another flying Bald Eagle no problem, but no white head on that.

I guess I need better compacts. The IN CAR bins I have do work, but too big to carry on nonbirding walks.

FrankD

Tuesday 7th February 2006, 20:10

Tero,

Speaking of new compacts, have you been following the discussion on the Nikon Sportstars over in the main binoculars forum? Worthy of consideration especially considering the price.

Tero

Tuesday 7th February 2006, 22:37

Yes, and just as it comes up, there does not seem to be a pair in town. We have a Cabela's moving in, though. I like REI for outdoor stuff, but they have like 3 models of odd binoculars.

elkcub

Wednesday 8th February 2006, 03:09

...
One thing I noticed very early is that the image given by the LXL's is noticably larger than the one given in the EII's. I believe the reason for this was discussed in another earlier forum by Henry Link, but I can't remember why it is so.
Bob

Bob,

The larger apparent image of the roof LXL is due to an increased magnification without any corresponding increase in the stereo base (i.e., the distance between the objectives). The brain compensates by behaving as if you were closer to the subject. But, keep in mind that it's only a perception and has nothing to do with the ability to see detail.

Ed

Tero

Thursday 9th February 2006, 02:00

Ok, now I don't need the compacts so bad. I guess I would like some small bright 10x pair eventually, but I seem to have two of these Minoltas. One we got from an insurance company as replacement for pocket bins stolen, along with the camera in whose bag they were. Both are 25mm porros, one is 8x and one 10x. As the 10x was not too terribly dim, I am trying them for a while. I can switch to 8x if needed. My wife uses these once in a while, but does not care which.

I got the extra pair when we went to look at eagles once and we did not all have a pair. Found them marked down to $25.

Had a chance to see the one remaining eagle on the river. Had with me 3 cheapos. Bushnell 7-15x porro zooms, used at 15x, ancient Bushnell 12x roof prisms, Minolta Compact II 10X porros. The Minoltas were the only ones that worked 500-600m away, across the river. The zooms did give me a decent view and even a tiny white head at 7x.

Drummer

Saturday 11th February 2006, 02:24

I've really been interested in the new Vortex/Stokes 8X42s. I've seen and handled one pair and was very impressed. Some folks are thinking it may be the best glass out there under $1,000 U.S.

Anyone have an opinion?

Tero

Saturday 11th February 2006, 14:12

Looks pretty good from the specifications
http://www.optics4birding.com/vortex-stokesdls-8x42-9143.html

not sure if it priced right, but you will have to decide. The weight is a bit high, should be about 20-23 oz for a 8x42 if I were to go by weight alone.

Tero

Tuesday 14th February 2006, 03:59

Swissboy

Tuesday 14th February 2006, 12:31

Have been having a slight eye problem lately. I have a left dominant eye, so focusing with the left is fine and even if the right is not quite on the mark, I do not always adjust the diopter for every bird. But, if I do, I adjust that separately for the right eye. Then I look agian, with both eyes. Soemething is still not right, so I refocus. There never seems to be a perfect focus setting for both eyes. Looking with just one eye, there is. It is not so bad in bright light, but on cloudy days. And I do not have any easier time with close objects with 8x than 10x. Far away objects are fine.

Is there something funny with my eyes?

Tero, have you tried to find out when you have this problem. I notice I have more problems focussing them both when my eyes are tired. (That does not necessarily mean I am tired as a person, but I have strained the eyes a lot.) I had been told by an optician that I have what he called slight hidden cross-eyes. Normally my brain compensates for that and all is fine, but when the eyes (or that part of the brain) are tired, I have problems focussing both eyes. To me, it usually does not show up when I use binoculars, but when I am reading, which, of course, also means being in the close range where it all is more critical.

Tero

Tuesday 14th February 2006, 14:25

Thanks, sounds a bit similar. Duh, the brain, of course, it must be the brain. It is not a constant effect, just like you described, depends on when.

trashbird

Thursday 23rd February 2006, 20:42

These are interesting binocular ramblings. I have some eye problems myself. Most notably, my eyes are not properly "collimated". An optometrist verified this and recommended adding a prism to my prescription, but I didn;t like it because it made my eyes feel weird. So I never got that done on any glasses since then. So basically, since my eyes are not properly aligned, I have some problems drawing the binocular images together into one image. This is especially noticable from 10 ft. in, and in binoculars that have wide spaced objectives -- like porros. Even full sized roof prism models do this to me. The only binocular not to do it are the B&L Custom Compact 7x36 and the Pentax Papilios. Both of these are reverse porro designs that have very close set objectives. Plus the Papilios have convergent objectives that narrow down with close focusing. To tell you the truth, I am thinking of returning the Alpen Apex 8x42s I purchased recently because I am getting slightly dual image from 10 ft in -- plus, the IPD is barely adequate. I can see just about everything I want with the Custom Compacts. They have 26mm objectives but seem as bright as any full-size bincular except when twilght approaches. They have very good optics, a relatively wide field and sharp images out to the edge. They focus down to 7 ft. They need to be treated more gently than a fully armored waterproof roof, but the benefits seem to outweigh the advantages of a roof prism I can afford.

Rambling on, I have a theory that if you experiment with any binocular, you are going to start seeing little things wrong with it. You might start having some nagging doubts that you need a better bin. Yet whenever I have been actually out birding with any decent binocular, I have paid much less attention to the binocular and much more to the birds. Most of us like to take out our binocs and fondle them and look at things across the room, read the contents list from cereal boxes, and look at mountains to see what the resolution is like and so forth, but I think it might be asking for trouble if I do this too much.

Sancho

Thursday 23rd February 2006, 23:06

Well said, Trashbird. I think we're all victims of the Great Marketing Con, as much with our bins as with our cars, freezers, PC's, shoes etc. One used to say "hey, I'm out watching birds, having a great time. For this I use my binoculars". Now we say "hey, I'm out birding, but I'm not completely satisfied, because I feel my bins might not be perfect in all respects, and there may be a better pair out there on a website/in a store/etc.". And the con is, as there's an ever-increasing range of similar products out there all infitesimally differentiated, of course the pair we have aren't absolutely perfect, because, as you say, if you fiddle with your bins for long enough, you'll find something about them that may be improved on an alternative pair. I'm not preaching, I've been daft enough to spend a small fortune on bins, and have now got two pairs of top-ends which are far more than anyone really needs, and which I certainly didn't need. The birds remain the same. So now I merely laugh at myself, resolve not to spend anymore hard-earned moo-lah on unnecessary optics, and enjoy the birds. Off to try and find a reported Laughing Gull this weekend. We don't get a lot of them in Ireland. Can't wait.

Tero

Friday 24th February 2006, 15:24

Pinewood

Friday 24th February 2006, 16:34

The reverse porros have worked well for me as well. I should look to see if any 30mm models are available. Are these reverse porros?
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=63

I noticed that I am actually more comfortable with my glasses when viewing close objects through binoculars. With disant birds, makes no difference, glasses or not. My glasses are about 1.0 0r so, so I see distance pretty well on a bright day without the glasses. I need them mainly to read.
Tero,

Yes it is a reverse Porro design. There is less sense of depth with a reverse Porro than with a roof prism glass, which is less than with a standard Porro.

I am going to propose that above $300, improvements in binocular features become harder to discern as the price rises. A $600 glass may not be twice as good as a $300, however you may try to quantify it, but it is most certainly better. Your optimization of features, your purse and your physical needs meet the design compromise of the manufacturer. That is your sweet spot.

I would add that a $100 binocular, good for the price, is not a good binocular.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

Tero

Friday 24th February 2006, 16:38

I did not find a lot of 8x30 or 10x30 reverse porro models listed by any makers. The smaller roof prisms are popular, lots of 30-36mm models but not as wide FOV as porros.

Pinewood

Friday 24th February 2006, 16:53

I did not find a lot of 8x30 or 10x30 reverse porro models listed by any makers. The smaller roof prisms are popular, lots of 30-36mm models but not as wide FOV as porros.
Tero,

For any given power, and objective size, increasing the FOV requires larger prisms. For the sake of fashion, roof prism binoculars have slim lines and smaller prisms. The advantages of roof prism binoculars are that the design lends itself to waterproofing, shock resistance, shorter length and lighter weight, but at greater expense. Close tolerances in the manufacture of the roof prism, phase coating, and more difficulty in assembly add to the cost.

The bottom line is you get more optically for your money with a Porro prism binocular, but they require more care and are larger.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Tero

Friday 24th February 2006, 16:58

Yes, I have a large clunky favorite porro for winter, 8x40. Mostly I like it as it is easy with glasses on. Many porros ignore glasses wearers, mine are Nikons, Action EX.

I have some compacts as well, both 8x25 and 10x25 reverse porros, but neither works for me with glasses. They require an eye glass much closer to the eye.

trashbird

Friday 24th February 2006, 18:02

The B&L Custom Compact 7x26 are the best reverse-porros I know of. 7x26 gives you an exit pupil of 3.7mm as opposed to a 3.75mm of an 8x30 (which is a pretty popular configuration). The Bushnell Natureview 8x30 are a reverse porro-prism design, but the optics nowhere near the Custom Compacts. But other than the Natureview, I know of no other reverse-porro designs in an 8x30 configuration. The intended purpose of the reverse-porro is to make the binocs more compact. They just happen to be good for people like me with wonky eyes. ;)

I used to have a pair of Pentax 7x35 PCF III that I sold to my Dad. I still enjoy birding with those when I visit him (the fact that he lives in Portal, AZ next to Cave Creek Canyon probably helps too). The Pentax porro design puts the objectives lower and closer together -- so that may be why I like them. It also may very well be that my wonky eyes do better with lower powers rather than 8-10x. And the Pentaxes have a better inner IPD than most.

Anyway, that's the view from here. :)

elkcub

Friday 24th February 2006, 20:10

...
These are interesting binocular ramblings. I have some eye problems myself. Most notably, my eyes are not properly "collimated". An optometrist verified this and recommended adding a prism to my prescription, but I didn;t like it because it made my eyes feel weird.

Hmmm. Sounds like you have difficulty with convergence, which is a muscle control problem.

<klip>

Most of us like to take out our binocs and fondle them and look at things across the room, read the contents list from cereal boxes, and look at mountains to see what the resolution is like and so forth, but I think it might be asking for trouble if I do this too much.

I do it too, and draw the same conclusion. My wife calls it Binocular Attention Disorder (BAD).

Ed

Tero

Friday 24th February 2006, 21:46

Cont. with my eye/brain problem, see above:
I did some testing with my porros. I think I can live with the problem, though I think I don't get it with roof prisms.

IT TOOK ME HALF A YEAR, but I figured I need to adjust the diopter at an average distance and leave it there. Then I focus on the bird etc with my POOR eye, my worse eye. The good eye will then work out some slight adjustments. It works OK for 5 minutes, then I need to take a break and go back to looking after half a minute.

Tero

Sunday 26th February 2006, 01:40

OK, did some more testing, with porros and roof prisms. To my eyes the roof prisms are definitely easier on the eyes for close viewing and long viewing. To me the roof prism view appears "flat", but not sure what that means to others. It looks similar to my old SLR camera 50mm lens. But the 8x40 porros are unbeatable at finding the bird first, mine anyway. Field of view is quite a bit more than my 10x36 roofs. So with warblers, once we get some, I will go with the porros.

Tero

Monday 6th March 2006, 17:41

OK, another Binocular purchase has been made. Not that I need any, 2 pairs of decent ones plus some pocket versions are enough for anyone. ;)

No info will be given on what, as this is going to be a gift to me. I don't really get to test them till May. The kids get to wrap them once I check that there is no need to return the product.

But for summer, and perhaps winter, I have gone back to the 10x side, and roof prisms. I will use porros for warblers, I have a bigger FOV.

eetundra

Tuesday 7th March 2006, 03:12

Tero

Tuesday 7th March 2006, 04:04

Pileatus

Tuesday 7th March 2006, 05:25

Yes, that occured to me, the porros are not perfectly aligned. When you look to a far away object, the image is a better round shape, and close by the parts separate. It does not bother me except when required to look at things for long period. At some point I will look at warranty service.
Perfect collimation of oculars is, IMO, more important than any other characteristic. Even marginal optics look pretty good when collimation is dead on. Regardless of optical quality, poor collimation will strain your eyes, exhaust the brain, and ruin the image.

Next in line is an effective diopter that compensates across the entire viewing range. My aging eyes can detect a difference as small as 1/8 diopter and I dare say many reviews are negatively skewed by an improperly adjusted diopter.

John

Tero

Saturday 11th March 2006, 01:18

trashbird

Saturday 11th March 2006, 20:10

I have checked all my binoculars for roundness of image. As I have never quite seen badly collimated bins, lately, I have not mastered any collimating tests. I understand the tests, but my results are inconclusive.

Anyway, all of mine give a perfect round image at long distance, except the 8x Nikon Action porros. It is not that badly off, so I may use them for a while. If I complain to Nikon and they agree, all they will do is replace them with another pair. It may improve things, may not. It would probably not get worse with a new pair.

I can’t really complain about eye strain, but there were some focusing issues at close distance (see messages earlier above).

Nearly all my binoclulars give a slight figure 8 image (the standard binocular silhouette in movies!) at close distance. It is the most obvious with the Nikon porros. And the least, or none at all, with some small inverse porros. The lenses are so close together, that I would not expect it there.

I read somewhere and have observed myself that the "roundness" of the individual image in a binoc differes from porro to roof prism. Porros give slightly oval images that are wider than they are tall, and roofs give slightly oval images that are taller than they are wide. I think this has something to do with the prism itself -- but I can't remember. It's possible that it's an illusion like how roof images sometimes appear larger than porros of the same configuration.

I have also noticed that binocular images look better when each individual image has better edge sharpness. I think this is because when the individual images merge, the "center" of the binocular image is not the exact center of the individual images.

Tero

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 12:26

Just to compare, my Barska porros even are round, looking at 30 ft away, the Nikons are not. Just checking with each eye separately, collimation is OK in the Barskas, slightly off in Nikon Actions.

Tero

Friday 28th April 2006, 00:41

I still am not sure what if anything was the problem with the Nikon 8x orros. I seem to have adjusted to them by now.

I am now comparing 10x Nikons. I use the Sporters quite a bit, but now I have the Monarch 10x42 as well. I just got to check them out quickly, but will need to hide them away a few weeks as they are a present ..to me. "rolleyes icon"

Anyway, I needed to check them out, they were mail order. I first noticed that the Monarchs are brighter as expected. On bright days there seemed to be an added bonus. I don't need to adjust the diopter as much as with the Sporters. With the brighter image my eyes adjusted to an average diopter setting for my eyes, near and far.

I have other binoculars that are 8x. I don't need to adjust the diopter as much as with any of the 10x pairs.

I will be using the Monarchs as my main binocular for years, and the decision was made to go with the 10x. The 8.5x just did not seem to add to anything I have, I can go between 8x and 10x on any birding trip.

All plans to look at Zeiss etc have been postponed till my life list is some 400. ;)

Tero

Wednesday 3rd May 2006, 03:08

COMPACTS

I have been hassled by neighbors so I have been walking around with compacts in the pocket in neighborhood walks. They are Minolta II, 8x25. Not bad. But I started to look at other compacts. I was very tempted with the 9x Travelites as all around back up and casual bin. Then I ran across these
Nikon ProStaff ATB 10x25
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=4125

they may be just a bit better with optics, at least they were equally good to Travelite 10x25. The FOV is less than the 9x Travelite, but these are waterproof. I could go rafting etc.

The eye cups screw out, fairly good. I can even see more than 2/3 of the field with my glasses on, cups in. The cups are nut as comfortable as my 10x42 roof prisms. But close.

I am very impressed. The box shows a cutaway to demonstrate the inside workings. It is a good design, you can't waterproof full size porros this way. I am impressed.

So do I need a 4th pair of Nikons? They are good at getting the product out in stores anyway...

FrankD

Wednesday 3rd May 2006, 18:42

So do I need a 4th pair of Nikons? They are good at getting the product out in stores anyway...

Absolutely. One can never have too many bins...'specially if they are mostly Nikons...;)

I have not seen the 10x Prostaff ATBs but the 8x's are excellent for the price. I believe, in the Nikon catalog at least, they are considered to be in the same "line" as the Monarchs because of the ATB designation (possibly because of the waterproof design?).

Tero

Wednesday 3rd May 2006, 22:25

I was thinking that the number of binoculars should never exceed the number of life birds. ;) That way you can reward yourself for each new bird found.

So do need the 9x, or the 8x AND the 10x?

Tero

Monday 15th May 2006, 01:08

FrankD

Monday 15th May 2006, 17:43

Thanks for relating the experience Tero. I was out on a birding excursion with the local audubon group on Sat. morning. Lots of great warblers and vireos with 8 new life birds to add to my list. I had the 8x42 Venturers with me but I was wondering how the 10x42 Monarchs would have faired. I tend to prefer 8x but I really cannot find any fault with the 10x Monarchs. Their ergonomics more than makeup for the lack of a great depth of field or the relatively narrow field of view. Warblers in the thick wood probably would have been tough though.

Tero

Thursday 25th May 2006, 03:03

Some low light tests today. Both my ProStaff 10x compact and Action EX 8x40 lost a lot of clarity as the sun was going down. The 10x Monarchs held out the longest with a clear view.

In the woods in low light, I will use the Actions nevertheless. They are my best tool to follow moving birds. For shorebirds ducks and gulls, will use the Monarchs.

FrankD

Thursday 25th May 2006, 13:33

Tero,

An interesting experience. I wish I had two pairs of equally configured Monarchs and Action EXs to compare. I have always thought the Monarchs would be noticeably better than the EXs as I have always held the Monarchs in high regard. Now that I own a pair of the EXs though I am not so sure that perspective is true. It is tough to make that determination though when the bins I am comparing are of different configurations. Center field resolution on the EXs is easily the equal of the Monarchs but the sweet spot (or lack of distortion) is better on the Monarchs. Though it may be obvious to some folks I think one of the significant improvements we pay for when going from one grade of binoculars to the next is the reduction of visible distortions. Going from the EX to the Monarch to the LX in direct comparison makes me believe as much.

Tero

Saturday 3rd June 2006, 22:06

I went out again, with 10x42 Monarchs and 8x40 Action EX porros. I like the porros for all of its features, including the eye cups, except one feature. The porros weigh 30 oz, the Monarchs 21.5. The 22 is pretty much my comfort level with a regular neck strap. I can walk 5 miles, stand around 2 hours, no problems. There are lighter porros out there, and I may look for some at some point. Now I just carry the both with me, the heavier in the back pack part of the time. The other solution I have is to use the 8x porros but carry a pocket pair of 10x in the bag with my field guide.

The porros, wide FOV, are definitely the ones to use for birds in flight.

There is a DISTRACTION out there, BIRDS. When some interesting birds come, I forget all about binocular testing. Found Redstarts, and one female Parula, first female for me.

Sancho

Monday 5th June 2006, 21:39

COMPACTS

I have been hassled by neighbors so I have been walking around with compacts in the pocket in neighborhood walks. ..
Are you serious? Why were you hassled by neighbours? Are we talking about Mugger-Neighbours who wanted to relieve you of your bins? Or anti-birder neighbours who think your presence will devalue their property? My neighbours have gotten used to seeing me wandering around the ´hood with bins, some of them have gotten great views of jays, buzzards (the European hawk-type, not the U.S. vulture-type), sparrowhawks, etc. when they´ve been talking to me and something appears in the sky behind them.

Tero

Tuesday 20th June 2006, 14:27

Well, the one neighbor, a few blocks away, got in his large SUV and lectured to me about pointing binoculars in the general direction of his house. I showed him a bird book. No peeping tommery involved. I don't walk that route anymore with binoculars.

Tero

Saturday 24th June 2006, 03:48

I'm packing for a business trip for 5 days. I may spend a few hours each day in a city park or maybe a glimpse of the Pacific. First I packed Kaufman, though I expect to see just a few year birds and maybe a Rufous hummingbird. I have assorted compacts, so had to take a look at all. One is a Minolta II, 8x25. It turned out to be maybe the second best optics I own. I took along another reverse porro, 10x and a little bulkier and a different brand*. Never got around to finding those ideal compact roof prisms under 200. The best ones I found had too narrow a FOV.

*Carrying two identical looking pairs, 8x and 10x, can be confusing as well! I need to grab them in the bag and know which pair they are!

Tero

Thursday 20th July 2006, 02:15

Still in search of wide FOV
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63254

Looked at a few stores. Not many 8x roof prisms to se, and no 8x30 at all. In fact my 8x25 Minolta II porros with 6.7 deg FOV beat all but two Nikons in town, Action 7x35 and the most expensive porros, as far as FOV goes. My porros were also brighter than the Pentax 8x36 roof prisms I saw. I paid 25 dollars on them, discontinued item.

So I may just go with my 8x25 porros for now. Will look for small 8x roof prisms if the opportunity comes. Cabela’s opens here sometime next spring. Bass pro shop, I called them, had mostly porro Bushnells and Nikons. The Nikons I am more than familiar with. The Travelites and Pro Staffs are well on display in several stores.

FrankD

Thursday 20th July 2006, 03:23

Cabela’s opens here sometime next spring.

When it does then I think you should take a look at their new XTs. I believe they come in both 8x42 and 10x42 configurations. Not exactly what you are looking for but their overall size is very similar to many of the 8x30s on the market. They are noticeably more compact than the Nikon Monarchs and have a look and feel similar to the Bushnell Discoverers. I played with a set last night and was impressed with their ergonomics. Optical quality was fairly impressive as well. Their field of view was a tad narrower than the 8x Monarchs by a few feet. Center field resolution may have been a tad bit better though I believe there was about equal levels of distortion around the outer edge of the image. The only optical characteristic that the Nikons clearly beat the XTs in was brightness. The XTs weren't dim but the Monarchs were brighter. At $250 (somewhere around there) I would seriously consider them.

Tero

Thursday 20th July 2006, 14:18

Since you brought up Bushnells, how are these?
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=4487

I have a sort of distrust of Bushnells, as most of their stuff has been a bit of a disappointment. I think I like their reverse porros, though:
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=63

My Minoltas are pretty much the same as those for specs.

FrankD

Thursday 20th July 2006, 22:51

Since you brought up Bushnells, how are these?
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.as...urch=1&pid=4487

I am sorry to say that I have not actually tried this configuration though they do intrigue me. I have tried the 42s and found a few things interesting about them. The field of view is very wide though there is more than an average percentage of distortion around the outer edge. The view was a bit soft as well. I would be curious to see if the 28s suffered from the same issues.

Tero

Friday 21st July 2006, 02:30

OK, I will let those be, unless I get to see a pair. I ran across the 10x version of the Pentax
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=3978
as the store did not have the 8x, I could not guess how much wider the FOV will be. But there is only one small Pentax that has my 400ft goal, the Pentax DCF SP 8x32, and they did not have it.

This camera store has gone to Pentaxes mostly, a few Nikon Actions still on the shelf. The small Pentaxes, 25mm, were all pretty good too, including the 8x21,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/pntx-bino-62209.html
an improvement on the Jupiter. I might get those for my wife for her birthday, whether she wants them or not. She has some Wal Mart 8x mini bins in her camera bag on vacations.

The 8x30 project is pretty much on hold till December. Let's see if I can be a good boy and get some then.

FrankD

Friday 21st July 2006, 03:10

I owned a pair of those Pentax XP 8x33s up until about a year ago. Great little bins in my opinion. The image was comparable to the Monarchs, Bushnell Legends, etc.. both in terms of overall quality and field of view. They have a very neutral color cast (if a "cast" can be neutral". Though their optics are good I think their ergonomics are their selling point. They are extremely short and compact. In fact they are actually shorter than many of those cheapy 8x21 roof prisms that everyone owned at one time or another. I really enjoyed mine but eventually sold them to a good friend who was in need of a major upgrade.

I have the 8x32 SPs on order and hope to get them by Monday. More comments to come I hope.

lucznik

Friday 21st July 2006, 06:53

I have a sort of distrust of Bushnells, as most of their stuff has been a bit of a disappointment.

While the low-end Bushnells can indeed be quite dissapointing, their higher end lines are nothing short of amazing.

The Legend line is very good. At least as good as anything else in their class and better than most. What's more, this line has all the bases covered; roofs, porros, full size, mid-size, compacts, the works. BTW, the reverse porro compacts in this line are really superb.

The Discoverer line is (IMO) the best value going in full-size binoculars. They are an absolutely wonderful glass. I would take them over many higher priced bins (including Pentax SP, Leupold Pinnacles, Kahles, Minox, etc.) anyday. In fact, the only binocular I really would want above a Discoverer would be an Elite.

The Elite line is every bit the equal of the top European glass at a much more affordable price point. Under the Bausch and Lomb badge (though still made by Bushnell) the Elite was the first binocular ever to break the $1000 price point which was supposed to ensure that they wouldn't sell very well. And yet, despite their high cost, they still sold like hotcakes. The Elite is not the most expensive binocular on the market today (not by a long shot) and yet their higher priced competition has yet to offer design improvements that would justify their ever-increasing price tags. People who deride this binocular are generally just suffering from "badge-envy."

Tero

Friday 21st July 2006, 14:59

OK, the Legends may be worth a look
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=3237

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=3236

If somebody made a 9x30, I might get it right now. I have a pair of 9x Travelites, and I am still more comfortable at 9x and 10x than 8x. My porros are 8x, I like the wide field. some 400ft.

Tero

Tuesday 25th July 2006, 15:25

Those shopping for binoculars in the US may wish to try Yahoo
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

You can just Google your model or format you are looking for, but Yahoo gives you a shorter list to go through. Sometimes they have some bargains.

Tero

Friday 28th July 2006, 14:30

INVENTORY

I seem to have ended up with a lot of small binoculars. Some, such as the 9x Travelite, were definitely an experiment. If someone came up with a decent 9x roof prism, FOV about 400ft, I am still interested. But, I seem to need both 8x and 10x as it is.

1. First serious binocular: Sporter 10x36
I am still very comfortable with it, got some 100 or more life birds with it. It is slightly dim, but even on a cloudy day, I can ID a Eurasian Tree Sparrow at a greater distance than with any 8x.

2. 8x40 Action EX. Water proof, pretty good eye cups. I use it for warblers in the woods and to bird from my car with glasses on.

3. Monarch 10x42. I use it as much as I can, very bright for 10x. My best bins.

4. ProMaster 10x25. Very nice feel, like big bins with the eye cups part, but narrow FOV. I use it to back up an 8x on birding trips. I don't want to carry both the Actions and Monarchs, too much weight. Have gone out with these as my only bin, out of town, and it was a little work, but did not miss any birds.

5. 9x Travelite. The eye cups not as comfortable as ProMaster. I take this on non birding trips out of town. This and Kaufman, my minimal supplies. I came by these when a store agreed to take back Nikon 10x25 Sportstars I did not like. But not cash refund.

6. Minolta Sport Mini 8x25. These are on my belt or coat pocket at all times outdoors when I have no other bins with me. I have caught nice views of birds in the air. Equivalent or better would be Pentax 8x25 roofs.

7. Minolta II reverse porros, 8x and 10x. Pretty good optics for the price, not manufactured anymore, wide FOV. My family members use these, I bring them on trips. Then when they demand a better view I give them the Monarchs and I use these.

Uhm, so is there really a need for 8x30, or is just luxury? Other than that, I would critisize myself for net getting more use of the scope.

clschmalz

Saturday 29th July 2006, 04:23

One can never have too many binoculars. You never know when you'll be called on to outfit all your relatives or deliver a lecture on the evolution of binocular design :-)

Charlie, a confirmed binocoholic
(My wife thinks I have 24 pairs, but I think there may be a few more in various corners).

INVENTORY

Uhm, so is there really a need for 8x30, or is just luxury? Other than that, I would critisize myself for net getting more use of the scope.

Tero

Saturday 29th July 2006, 05:17

Speaking of too many, where is a good place to donate some bins kids could use, but that really are not worth the postage to ship somewhere? I will have to ask by local Audubon people.

I had a chance to compare my reverse porros in the yard. I have two Minoltas, 8x and 10x, no longer sold. I comaped the 10x and a Nikon 9x. In my habd they have the same FOV. The Minolta is pretty good, but at 10x did not give any sharper an image than the 9x. The 9x was slightly brighter and had more contrast, the 10x had a slightly washed out look. If these were photographs, the 9x would win. With both of these, my hand was equally shaky. With my big 10xs I have less shake.

The eye cups on the Minoltas have never been my favorites, and though screw out style, take some adjustment to get best FOV. The Nikons would then be almost my ideal reverse porro, except with the rubber eye cups in the Travelite, I would have been happier with the ProStaff version. These binoculars came froma a return and trade, the store had no 9x ProStaffs.

Tero

Monday 7th August 2006, 15:20

Took some shoes back to a sports store. They had a Tasco 7x35 porro they wanted to get rid of for 10 bucks. It was better than Simmons and several other cheap 7x35s. Amazing how placing half way decent lenses in cheap plastic gives a binocular that actually works. It won't last long, but, hey, I was impressed. Best optics under 20 dollars I have seen for years. I would not pay the 29.99 orig price for them, as then I could just spend 59 dollars for Nikon Action 7x35. ;)

The teenage Kenn Kaufman would have found hundreds of birds with these. Actually, so could I. I struggled with a cheap 12x25 roof prism for the first 80 species. |^| I would have done better with 7x35.
***

Getting quite itchy to birding with ANY bin, but with a number of people. Our local trips start late Aug and September. Not as much fun alone.

Tero

Friday 25th August 2006, 14:20

I took out some rejects. I have a Barska made NorthPoint 10x50. I tried it with my 10x42 Monarchs. It was not bad, but obviously dimmer. I never use it in the woods, as 20 ft close focus is sometimes a bad situation. Looking at ducks etc, I don't need it as I have the Monarch. Looks like it goes to the local nature center. I hope their bird feeder is at least 20 feet away from the window.

The Tasco 7x35 however, a 15 dollar purchase, is very pleasant for casual birding. The reflections from the sun were easily handled by this pair, as they were not handled by some of my compacts. I guess I will not hack saw it open after all, not till it goes out of collimation.

I guess what we learn here is that cheap porros may be OK at 7x and 8x, not at 10x.

Tero

Monday 25th September 2006, 03:03

I happened to go buy SOCKS and just accidentally looked at some binoculars. No, I did not buy any, though they were cheap, Excursion 10x28. I do not need any more 10x right now. But I was impressed with the optics, and the 8x32 in the Excursion series would get my approval.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-excursion-8x32-binocular-240832.html
FOV is slightly small, you should get some 370 ft easily, up to 400 in some models out there. Otherwise the 10x pair was well made. The 10x28 format is a little too dim for me, I will stick to 10x42.

I do have a pair of reverse porros that are 10x25 that are a bit dim too, but as they are compact I can live with that. These small end Excursions, 8x and 10x, are as bulky as some 10x36s.

Bushnell also has some 10x40 pairs out there in plastic packages that may indeed be decent, I think they were Scout, for 100 dollars. Did not have time to look.

These might work well for "glove compartment" bins
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-excursion-8x28-binocular-240828.html
good FOV.

Had a peek at the Scout 10x40 roof prisms by Bushnell, not that impressed. They might be OK if there is an 8x version. The 12x50 Scout porros I did not get to see as they were in a plastic package. New Bushnell porro model.
***

Meanwhile, disposed a pair of 10x porros. It is quite clear that a poor pair of 7x is not quite as unpleasant to use as a similar pair of 10x. The blurry parts of the field are really unpleasant at 10x. Even if there is a small sweet spot. At 16x the effect is even more obvious.

Tero

Tuesday 26th September 2006, 21:46

OK, the dead wood, or DARK MATTER of the binocular world, is going to the nature center today. Both are 10x porros. One a reverse porro, one a Barska 10x50.

matt green

Wednesday 27th September 2006, 00:19

how are the leupold green ring cascade porro's rated in the states?

I'm curious as I purchased a pair of opticron HR WP 8x42 internal focusing
porros a few months back,I believe the two are identical (apart from the badge) and sourced from the same factory?

apart from the painfully slow focus I thought they were flippin marvelous,I'd even go as far to say that they are the equal of some mid/top end roofs!

in the uk they retail at just under £200..complete give away.

matt

Tero

Wednesday 27th September 2006, 15:27

ceasar

Wednesday 27th September 2006, 15:50

Have not tried but one Leupold porro so far, they were OK. I have Nikon 8x40s so I am not in need of 8x. However, always looking for a good 10x porro, with close focus less than 20 feet. So Leupolds might do.

I know you don't have much use for 10 x 32 Roof Prism's and I tend to agree with you there, but if you are looking for a good CLOSE FOCUSING 10X Roof Prism keep your eyes open for the now discontinued Eagle Raven Platinum Series 10 x 32. They are an excellent close focus bin, focusing down to 6 feet. Take them out to 100 feet and further and they get pretty pedestrian though.
Cordially,
Bob

Tero

Wednesday 27th September 2006, 16:33

I have been looking for a Leupold Cascades 10x42mm just to see how it is, but I can wait for Cabelas to open here.

I can easily go from 10x roof prisms to some other format as a favorite, and I do have most porros to explore yet. The 10x porros would not have as much use in the woods as 8x.

Tero

Friday 29th September 2006, 15:25

some amusement or entertainement for you optics guys
http://research.amnh.org/users/nyneve/dragonflies.html

design a Dragonfly Binocular with FOV 360 degrees

Tero

Monday 9th October 2006, 14:45

Tried birding with 8x40 Nikon Actions, and they worked OK. An hour into the trip I switched to Monarch 10x42 and RedHead Epic 8x32. The RedHead compared well with the Monarchs, and most of the time used them to locate the birds. If the bnird stayed still long enough I used the Monarchs.

If I really wanted to go compact and light, I could use the 8x32 and carry a reverse porro 10x25 in one pocket. However, it would not be nearly as bright as the Monarch.

In any case, I seem to have settled onto 2 binoculars needed for each outing. I just don't seem to feel comfortable with 8x alone. It will be even more so with ducks, but if the scope is along, I can go with the Actions and a scope.

FrankD

Monday 9th October 2006, 17:50

In any case, I seem to have settled onto 2 binoculars needed for each outing. I just don't seem to feel comfortable with 8x alone. It will be even more so with ducks, but if the scope is along, I can go with the Actions and a scope.

It is funny you have come to that conclusion Tero (said in a good way ofcourse). I was just using the little Yosemites again and still feel that they are excellent little binoculars in terms of optics, size and overall build quality. I barely notice the 6x magnification. On Saturday I used them more than adequately for close quarter birding in fairly thick deciduous woods. Just now I was peeking out my office window easily watching two Turkey Vultures circling about a quarter mile away. I sincerely wish you would give them a try. I think you would enjoy them as much as I do.

Tero

Monday 9th October 2006, 19:10

Yes, they seem quite irresistible and fun. For a binocular nut. Like us. Will try next time I see some. We are still waiting for our Cabelas.

But if I had the 6x Yosemites, I would then have to think what to bring as small 10x back up.

Tero

Monday 16th October 2006, 19:55

nctexasbirder

Tuesday 17th October 2006, 03:41

DO YOU KNOW WHERE ALL YOUR BINOCULARS ARE?

Three of mine are at my desk at work. They have been bad I guess to desereve that. From there they go to donations or garage sales. The one that has survived longest there is a Bushnell reverse porro zoom. I still like it at 7x, and just last looked at pigeons in the rain with.

At least three are in the trunk of the car, they work hard and shake around the rest of the time. One is up front near the driver, a cheap 8x25.

The rest are at home, for birding weekends.

Where are yours?

my Tasco 8x30s are actually retired, the glue for the eyepeices evaporated and they come off beyond min. focusing. also the focus screw came out....i had these for only a few months for $5 at a estate sale, nice little binos :-C

my bushnell powerview 10x50s just dont hold up my birding anymore...cheap $60 porros....conclusion....NEW BINOCULARS :king:

Pinewood

Tuesday 17th October 2006, 03:48

DO YOU KNOW WHERE ALL YOUR BINOCULARS ARE?

Where are yours?

Tero,

All but one is at home. The other is at the desk of my part time job, which isonly steps away from Central Park. That binocular is a Nikon 8x30 EII but it may get replaced with an Audubon 8.5x44.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

FrankD

Tuesday 17th October 2006, 12:56

At least three are in the trunk of the car, they work hard and shake around the rest of the time. One is up front near the driver, a cheap 8x25.

The rest are at home, for birding weekends.

Where are yours?

The newest one is here with me at work. One is on its way via UPS while another is coming via DHL. Another is at Nikon getting some work done and all the others are at home.

You asked. ;)

Tero

Tuesday 17th October 2006, 13:22

At least the binoculars get to travel at this time of year, even if we don't. ;)

I had forgotten to list my Minolta 8x25 compacts, my favorite ones from this year. They are either in my coat pocket or briefcase at all times, so they take lots of short trips. When going out of town, they have some other binocular pal to travel with, usually a reverse porro if it is not a birding trip. They hang out with the Kaufman field guide, old edition. I have not carried my new Kaufman to the field as it is autographed. ;)

Tero

Wednesday 18th October 2006, 15:25

WHERE YOUR BINOCULARS ARE, continued

Now my Tasco 7x porro is homeless. I tried to give it to someone at work, no takers so far. It is sitting in a spot where someone might want to claim it.
***

OK, it has a happy home now.

Over the years, these were abandoned/adopted by someone/sold
Meade 10x roof prism, or was it an 8x mislabeled 10x? the eye cups fell apart
Bushnell 16x porro
Orion something reverse porro
Barska 10x porro, went to nature center
Bushnell 12x roof prism, gave to my son, never seen since (the binocular, not the son)

nctexasbirder

Thursday 19th October 2006, 02:10

Tero

Thursday 19th October 2006, 04:05

I made a Finn stick today, intended for long staring at ducks and gulls. It does not attach to the binoculars so I need at least one hand up there to hold it. It is pretty steady. One problem: does not fit into the trunk of my car, it needs to inside, so I may have a problem with passengers. I do have a ski hole from the trunk to the inside, will try that. I have a monopod, I would need to rig a piece of wood at the top to use IT as aFinn stick.

richard866945

Thursday 19th October 2006, 17:47

Trashbird - it is possible for a binocular technician to deliberately mis-align your bino to suit your eye alignment. I know, 'cos I have done it for three customers this year. Means it is difficult for anyone else to use your bino b ut the alignment can be reset if you decide to sell the bino. You will have to visit the workshop and keep checking the alignment as it is slowly adjusted. Safe to give you my web site as we don't live close enough and I can't be accused of touting for business. It is www.actionoptics.co.uk Good luck.

FrankD

Thursday 19th October 2006, 18:35

WHERE YOUR BINOCULARS ARE, continued

An update, the Leica 8x32 BNs arrived that afternoon, my Nikon LXs are due back on Friday and the third pair should show up on Monday. I must say I am absolutely stunned by these little Leicas. They really are everything that everyone has been touting them to be. I cannot believe the resolution, and even brightness, levels considering how compact they are. My short term impression is that they are going to be keepers and will be added to the collection.

Tero

Thursday 19th October 2006, 19:20

My simple resolution test is how far I can distinguish Eurasian Tree Sparrows from House Sparrows. We have both. Those binoculars that just were not up to that simple task are gone. They are good for close up views of bird feeders 30 feet away.

So, are you going out in the field with the Leicas this weekend?

Tero

Monday 23rd October 2006, 03:05

For those of you that sell binoculars, what can you expect to get for binoculars in the under 400 range? I am guessing about half price, less if worn looking.

FrankD

Monday 23rd October 2006, 17:05

Are you asking what you can get for a binocular which is used but originally sold for $400? I think your summary of the actual physical condition of the binocular would, in large part, determine what I would expect to receive for it. That coupled with how popular the binocular brand name is and the respected price range. Many folks are only willing to spend a specific amount....say $300 or so.

Tero

Monday 23rd October 2006, 17:54

Well, just wanted to give a range. The over 400 binoculars, probably, retain more of the original value, especially if warranty transfers.

FrankD

Monday 23rd October 2006, 20:24

In that case I think half price is a fair amount. I sold a pair of Monarchs last year for just over $200 when they originally went for about $300. The brand name coupled with the popularity of that particular model is what probably moved them for better than 2/3rds their original price. You have to watch though. The more expensive the bin the more folks tend to look for any imperfections in it....be it optical, mechanical or cosmetic.

Pinewood

Monday 23rd October 2006, 21:14

For those of you that sell binoculars, what can you expect to get for binoculars in the under 400 range? I am guessing about half price, less if worn looking.
Tero,

I would expect two thirds of the original price or even current price, if the binocular is in almost perfect shape. Although, perusing the world famous online auction site, which I shall leave unnamed, may give a better idea of what something is worth.

I recently sold a $575 binocular for $405, shipping included, through Astromart's classified. The buyer was quite pleased, so I might have squeezed another $20 or $25 on the price, but Astromart does not take a per centage on the sale. He did not use that well known online payment service which takes another 3% of the total price. The buyer, who was not a collector, did not mind the used strap and case, nor the worn box but the finish, optics and mechanics of the binocular were like new. In fact, I do not want to deal with collectors, but that should not be problem in the under $400 range.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Tero

Tuesday 24th October 2006, 01:06

OK, thanks. I will ask for slightly over half, selling in local free press, no postage to send, and no checks, cash only. Otherwise, if it does not sell, I can list it here.

It is now listed right above this, in the "sports" section:
$100, Left Handed Professional Hockey Sticks
it was the closest section I could find, and hunters read it.

Tero

Wednesday 1st November 2006, 01:15

I took the 10x25 Prostaffs for a last lunch time walk. I was able to follow a flying gull, despite the narrow 260ft FOV. I also had the 9x25, saw as much gull an FOV was an improved 290 something. Also brighter. If you are used to 10x and need something compact, I still recommend these for a "glove compartment" bin, either 9x Travelite or ProStaff.

The 10x25 are in a box waiting for a buyer. In the winter I will take my old 10x36 Sporters for the luch time walks to look for eagles. They are usually on the other side of the Mississippi. The Sporters have spent weeks in my trunk with no problems yet. I never keep them there in hot summer weather.

Tero

Tuesday 7th November 2006, 15:20

I have now sold the ProMasters, I got 60 dollars, 43% of what I paid. I did not want to post it for a second week.

I tested brightness last night:
1. Monarch 10x42 brightest
2. Nikon Sporter 10x36 dimmer, not bad
3. Pro Staff 10x25 reverse porros
It was even a bigger step down in brightness.
They are good for medium distance on a bright day, but at long distance the Monarch clearly beat them at image clarity.

FrankD

Tuesday 7th November 2006, 16:56

I would really love to see what a phase coated version of the Sporters would be like. Though the Monarchs are lighter I think that a phase coated Sporter with click-stop eyecups would be preferable to me in terms of design. The eyepiece design of the Sporter seemed superior to me for some reason. The width of the ocular lens and the bins overall build seemed similar to that of the Venturer. It would have been interesting had they not been discontinued.

Tero

Tuesday 7th November 2006, 17:53

Yeah, I still like the Sporter, other than the eye cups. I have rubber bands holding them, actually from tire inner tubes. The Monarch eye cups are slightly better.

The Sporter is probably among the best non phase coated roofs out there.

Tero

Thursday 9th November 2006, 01:44

I now have only two 10x in use, the old Sporter and Monarch 10x42. That one is still my happiest purchase. But it also my best kept bin, so it is home a lot. I had some dim 10x Bushnell roofs. Tried to keep them at work, but in the end, I could see less with them than the Travelite 9x25 reverse porro. So the Travelite works for casual walks. I can get to the Mississippi at lunch time, walk a bit. May see a few eagles through the winter. I watched a distant flock of Starlings or blackbirds today, and one red tailed hawk.

In the car I have a 8x32 roof prism that works for birding in city parks. I guess I could replace it with something better, but then I would not keep it in the car.

For local Audubon birding trips I bring the Monarch and some other 8x. I tried a few pair in the sunset today at a nature center. The 9x25 did as well in the dim light as the 8x32 roof, but has smaller FOV.

I had some 7x porros to check out for a while, just to see how 7x works for me. The small apparent FOV bothered enough that I gave them away. This is not to say that 7x40 would not work, if it was a good bin. But not for me right now.

FrankD

Thursday 9th November 2006, 14:16

Tero,

I find it amusing when I visualize you out on an Audubon trip switching back and forth between two sets of bins to see which serves you better for that particular situation. I am sure you probably do not do that but it is the image I conjure when I read posts like the last one you made. I shouldn't laugh though as Mr. Traynor and I have spent quite a bit of time doing much the same thing when we are up sitting on the local hawkwatch. We often joke about it afterwards. Many of the other birders there must think we are amusing at times as well. ;)

Tero

Thursday 9th November 2006, 15:18

I have been known to walk around with even two pairs of porros around my neck. If they ever make a decent 7x-10x zoom, I am the ideal candidate to test it out.

Tero

Monday 20th November 2006, 02:04

Pinewood

Monday 20th November 2006, 02:24

Went to see Spamalot on stage. We were in the balcony. 8x binoculars were all that was needed, 10x is not needed for theater, you see just part of the stage with most of those. Even 7x would be OK. I don't care for 4x theater glasses. Pocket 8x25 roofs was quite bright in theater lighting. My wife had the Sportstars.
Tero,

I use either an 8x32, an 8x20 or a 6x32, all roof prism binoculars for concerts or for opera. I usually supply my companion with one, as well. Those 4x opera glasses are Gallilean and have a rather narrow field.

This painting by Mary Cassat

http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=31365&coll_keywords=loge&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=1

shows someone using an opera glass, but if you look closely someone else is observing her.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Tero

Monday 20th November 2006, 03:38

Those are cool zoomable paintings, I liked Elijah in the Desert
http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=30844&coll_keywords=&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=2670&coll_start=1
I presume it has a raven

nctexasbirder

Monday 20th November 2006, 03:46

lol! of course!

ceasar

Monday 20th November 2006, 04:47

I recently took my Leica 8 x 20 Trinovids with me to a concert that featured Thomas Hrynkiew playing Saint Saens 3rd Piano Concerto with the Northeast Pa. Philharmonic. I was 2/3rds back in the Orchestra seats and was able to focus in on the Pianist and the keyboard of the piano. This Concerto is somewhat of an athletic endeavor, especially in the last movement which is furiously fast and very loud. It was fascinating to see the pianist take breathers where the music let him do so, relax his body, shake out his arms shoulders and hands and attack the music again.

Those little binoculars gave me a perspective on the performance that I never knew existed. They are going with me to every concert, opera and athletic event I attend from now on!

Bob

Tero

Friday 24th November 2006, 18:37

New test. I am hanging out in rural Nebraska, hoping for Horned Larks etc. So I have just the 9x25 reverse porros. But we are going to a football game. One of thrare times I wished for a 7x35. Why are there so few 7x pocket size binoculars? A 7x25 reverse porro would be good enough for sports.

ceasar

Friday 24th November 2006, 19:19

Sout Fork

Friday 24th November 2006, 20:40

Why are there so few 7x pocket size binoculars? .

Why are there so few 7x in any size?

I would buy a high quality 7x28 in a heartbeat if there was such a thing.
And why not a 7x32? It seems so logical to me.

SF

ceasar

Friday 24th November 2006, 21:20

Within the last year Eagle Optics discontinued their inexpensive (Under $100.00) 7 x 32 Denali Roof Prism. I saw some nice comments about it. It probably didn't sell well. No Phase Coating. Or maybe it was a 7 x 31 or some odd configuration like that.
Bob

Tero

Monday 27th November 2006, 01:16

The custom classic would do for sports. I only go to about one game a year, so I never think of it beforehand.

Tero

Friday 1st December 2006, 04:40

Have not had much chance to use binoculars. The weather has been on one had awful and on the other hand not cold enough for eagles to come down the river. I have seen some dark shapes in the trees, but no adult eagles, downtown where I work. Up 20 miles there are plenty of eagles and ducks.

In winter, I use mostly the 10x42 Monarchs. The birds are further away, even the sparrows. In my pocket I carry the 9x25 reverse porros which are bright enough for winter. I'm still thinking of some 10x40 porros as well, but have not gotten too excited at what I have found. The birds are not sharper and brighter than with the Monarchs.

Tero

Tuesday 19th December 2006, 15:08

Ok, I am done shopping for a while. Discarded most of my printouts of all kinds of binoculars.

The trouble is, Cabelas is coming here. Once I have 200-300 saved up and am actually holding a nice piece of binocular in hand, say a Celestron 8x32 porro, it will be difficult to leave the store whether I need the thing or not. So this store here is not helping me save up 800-1000. Eagle Optics is good. I tried two, kept the third.

ceasar

Tuesday 19th December 2006, 16:03

Tero,
You stopped shopping!!? And with 5 shopping days left till Christmas! Say it isn't so!
Bob
"I came, I saw, I shopped till I dropped!"

FrankD

Tuesday 19th December 2006, 19:07

The trouble is, Cabelas is coming here. Once I have 200-300 saved up and am actually holding a nice piece of binocular in hand, say a Celestron 8x32 porro, it will be difficult to leave the store whether I need the thing or not. So this store here is not helping me save up 800-1000. Eagle Optics is good. I tried two, kept the third.

A Cabelas retail outlet truly is the downfall of the pocketbook. ;) Once they open up I greatly look forward to hearing your experiences there. I have decided to save up now as well. Two of my bins are going up on Ebay shortly and I am going to pay off the bills and save up for something this summer. ;)

nctexasbirder

Wednesday 20th December 2006, 04:41

the sporting good stores have a heavy sway....

Tero

Sunday 24th December 2006, 16:31

I went out for a walk, I try not to drive on Christmas. Went to the drug store 2 miles away, took 8x bins with me. It as quite pleasant to view familiar birds with 8x. Thes are fairly cheap 8x32, phase coated though. I find I look less threatening in suburban areas witha a smaller bin.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=20723

Most times a 25mm compact is enough. I did see a Bald Eagle over the suburbs one year.

With some cloudy day testing, the sports store 8x32s are definitely a bit dim, about the same as my best 8x25. I will be anxious to see the Leupold 8x30, if it is better, I can somehow dispose of these.

Tero

Saturday 13th January 2007, 17:56

Well, the sports store 8x32 isstill in my desk at work. It is not like they are worth selling, they are worth more as a spare.

AND, we cleaned up enormous piles of junk in our basement this morning. Roads were frozen no birding. But I was reminded tha compared to books toys etc, binoculars are not such a bad hobby, I could store 10 pairs in a plastic box that we have piles and piles of back there. Containing grade school art work and who knows what. No living things found so far in the junk.;)

Tero

Thursday 18th January 2007, 18:55

I've been thinking. Perhaps I will not name any of my binocualrs in discussions anymore, other than the 10x42 Monarch. It will have to do that they are not BIG 3 binoculars. So they will be 9x25 porro, 8x32 roof etc.

Of course if someone asks about some cheap model I will say if I have seen one and remember something about it.

Tvc15_2000

Thursday 18th January 2007, 20:31

The quality of the cerebellum the binoculars are connected to is far more important than the make or price of the binocular. While we tend to seek out every possible image improvement we can get, in my case it is an admission that I need all the help I can get when it comes to birding.

I have learned not to make any judgements about a birder based on their binoculars. Time and time again I have had knowledgeable birders with inexpensive binoculars pinch my ear and give me an education on bird identification, while I was holding binoculars that embarrassingly cost more.

I would choose a field trip with birders I could learn from with no binoculars before I would choose a trip with birders who have the finest equipment in the world, but could not tell a finch from a sparrow.
.
It is far more productive to go out and bird (which costs nothing) than it is to join the throng of mall zombies, foraging for some meaning in their life. I am sure your fellow birders are thinking (as I have thought on every outing) “imagine what this guy could do if he had better binoculars” as they scratch their head and wonder how you made that difficult identification.

nctexasbirder

Thursday 18th January 2007, 20:51

how well you see the bird in question is important as well.

As Jack Conners said in The Complete Birder:

Its the birder AND the binoculars...

chartwell99

Thursday 18th January 2007, 21:31

Why are there so few 7x in any size?

I would buy a high quality 7x28 in a heartbeat if there was such a thing.
And why not a 7x32? It seems so logical to me.

SF

I could not agree more. Some of us old guys remember when 7 x 35 porros (mostly B & L Zephyrs and imitators) were the gold standard for birding binoculars in the U.S., and for good reason.

nctexasbirder

Thursday 18th January 2007, 21:54

Indeed.

Alexis Powell

Friday 19th January 2007, 16:51

The quality of the cerebellum the binoculars are connected to is far more important than the make or price of the binocular.

I suppose a good cerebellum is important for getting the most steady image and tracking birds in flight, but an awesome cerebellum still needs to be connected to a well functioning and trained cerebrum! I'd say it's the complete package (including good optics) that sets the limits of the capabilities and enjoyment of any birder. :)
--AP

Tero

Friday 26th January 2007, 01:40

I've been thinking. People come here and ask recommendations for this and that. And these days my recommendation is always Nikon Monarch 8x36. Maybe I should get one...

matt green

Friday 26th January 2007, 01:50

I've been thinking. People come here and ask recommendations for this and that. And these days my recommendation is always Nikon Monarch 8x36. Maybe I should get one...

Only if you really like them,haven't tried any monarchs yet myself.

Surprises me how much of a price difference there is between the 8x36 and 8x42 model?,in the uk the 36's can be had for £199 while the 8x42 model is £339..too late and too much wine to work out what that is in dollers?

Matt

Tero

Friday 26th January 2007, 01:59

I have the 10x42, and have looked at 10x36 (did not like, dim) and a few others but not all at the same time. I think the 8x36 is a compromise. They did not want to make a 8x32 and the 8x36 and 10x36 share parts. If I had the two side by side, I might go 8x42 instead of 8x36.

FrankD

Friday 26th January 2007, 14:35

I think you should. It should provide an interesting comparison to the EO 8x32 you currently have. My only "complaint" with the Monarch 8x36 is that the tension in the focus is much to fast for my current tastes. If it was just a bit stiffer I could live with it.

Tero

Friday 2nd February 2007, 01:58

I was out today briefly with my oneDIMHOLE (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63915) pair, no, not the Eagle Optics one. I discovered that this cheap 8x32 was actually pretty good with my regular glasses on (bifocals). Threre were three Bald Eagles on the river close to downtown. Also diving goldeneyes. Did not see if there were any Barrows amongst them, but, hey these are just 8x. ;)

Have not discovered which 8x32 is the best overall, as the EO is a tiny bit sharper in the middle, but the other pair has a smaller area of edge softness.

Tero

Saturday 24th February 2007, 04:58

Came across an ad or two for 9x20 Pentax
http://www.binoware.com/show_bino.php?47096720
http://www.shop.com/op/~Pentax_9x20_DCF_Binoculars_USA_-prod-27530800
just curious, is this some old model no longer made?
Lists for 50 buck at another site
http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=57&sku=PEN920DCF

If it had a decent fov I might be interested. Ah, found info
Multicoated UV eliminating optics.
# Focus from just 8.2'.
# With case, strap.
# Field of view @ 1000 yds: 325'.
# Exit pupil: 2.2mm.
# Eye relief: 10mm.
# Relative brightness: 4.9.
# Size: 3.6 x 4.2".
# Weighs 7.4oz (210g).

OK, so not phase coated. It is not worth more than $60 to me, even with super lenses.

nctexasbirder

Saturday 24th February 2007, 06:24

9x20! arrrghh! thats like binocular suicide.....lol

Tero

Saturday 24th February 2007, 14:28

Well...maybe. It sounded cool to me. I have seen and used 8x20s, and tossed them aside. But if you did it right....all you would lose is eye relief.

eetundra

Sunday 25th February 2007, 05:58

If you invested enough in the optical design you would not have to give up eye relief either. We'll get Nagler on it, though they'd probably come out quite heavy...

Tero

Sunday 25th February 2007, 22:17

These small binoculars of various formats are mostly curiosities for me, though I like to have a pair of pocket binoculars in my coat at all times. As you know, I prefer up to 42mm lenses. Many 36mm and 32mm are fine. The 9x I have found that are useable are both 9x25. But I really would like to see someone attempt to make a decent 9x32. The fov of a 10x32 is generally smallish, often no different than a 10x42. In that case I will take a 42. But with a 9x32, you would have a chance to make a fov of some 350ft or more. Nobody has offered one yet. My reverse porro 9x25s are about 290ft.

I have tested my two 9x25s, ProStaff and Travelite. Strangely I have come to think that the cheaper Travelite, a very light piece when traveling, is a tiny bit sharepr. But it has quite a bit of glare when looking toward the sun at all.

Most often in use: 8x25 roofs, Minolta. Cheap but pretty good overall.

eetundra

Sunday 25th February 2007, 23:44

You can get a 10x32 with a 360' fov.

Tero

Monday 26th February 2007, 02:39

Yes, with $$$
I'm thinking more Eagle Optics SRT but 9x32. For $300.

Tero

Wednesday 7th March 2007, 02:58

Bird ID is a difficult test for binocular comparison. I settled on my SHAMPOO BOTTLE test. It is in good light in a bath room some 30 ft away. The smallest print on the front was the test, "doctor tested, medicated" etc.

10x42 Monarch did well
10x new bin, yet to be announced here, did very similarly
next best was, ta daa, EagleOptics SRT 8x32
very bright and sharp in middle, soft toward edges
Nikon Travelite 9x25 not as bright, but passed test well
Nikon Action 8x40 did well, very bright, not as relaxed as EO bin above
with some trouble Nikon Sporter 10x36 also allowed me to read the text, a little dimmer now
Bushnell 10x40 roof prism Wal Mart special, struggled..I could just read the text but by now I had memorized it as well..should have tried the worst pair first

Tero

Sunday 18th March 2007, 00:22

There was some discussion of ergonomics in another topic. I was thinking that it almost never bothers me where my hands are. Roofs are different from porros, that is about it. Eye cups are way more important to me than where my hands are. My hands can MOVE! The focus knob needs to be in the normal place: In front.

Tero

Wednesday 21st March 2007, 14:39

Will do a couple days of backpacking. Weighed a few items: Bird book 480g, binocular 370g, Nikon Travelite series, ProStaff 9x25. Taking it because it is waterproof. I have some lighter ones, but not waterproof.

The book may stay at the car, we will see.

ceasar

Wednesday 21st March 2007, 16:46

Tero,
You need the Bird Book. Save the weight by cutting the labels off your underwear and hiking clothes!
Bob

Tero

Thursday 22nd March 2007, 00:11

We will try. However I am making a BOLD DECISION: I will go two days with only the Eagle Optics 8x32. It is significantly lighter than all my other roofs, and is very sharp in the middle. The 9x I have probably will not be superior for bird ID.

I am hanging on to my two 9x bins till someone makes a 9x32.

ceasar

Thursday 22nd March 2007, 01:17

9 x 32 is a tough format. Eagle made one but they discontinued it last year. It wasn't very good. No phase coating and a 275' FOV. They sold the last few of them for less than $100.00.
Bob

Tero

Saturday 7th April 2007, 02:51

The Eagle Optics 8x32 did well on my two days with bins only, and pen and paper. But I was happy to see my 10x42 again for the rest of my Arizona trip.

I was looking at some hiking boots today. While I walked around the sports store with them, I asked the staff to show me some Bushnells. The 10x25 roofs were truly awful. Dim, blurry. These are well below the level of the H2Os even. They looked like the typical one hinge 10x25 externally. THey also had some 80 dollar 10x40 Bushnell. They too were pretty awful. You could find a race car on a track with them. Or a bird or two if you had nothing else. My EO 8x32 seem like a relly good buy compared to these.

The store is a chain, but does not have these on the web site, the closest in price is a Bushnell 10x42 Scout Binoculars. But this was something like Night and Day. I have a better pair of Bushnells for 30 dollars from Wal Mart. My only really cheap one still left in a forgotten drawer at work.

There are all these cheap models out there, Simmons etc and only now do I see how poor the roof prism ones are. Five years I would have been happy to find 100 birds with them. You have to start somewhere. ;)

Tero

Saturday 28th April 2007, 13:30

Interesting article on Cat scopes
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Cats.html

Tero

Friday 1st June 2007, 13:54

My first Nikons, 10x Sporters, are now on eBay.They are the only 10x Sporter there right now. I have two other 10x, so they became unneeded. I have memories, got at least 100 life birds with these.

They were quite sharp, but a bit dim. Field of view of 293ft was almost as good as the standard 315ft of typical 10x42s. Weight was OK, about 25oz. I think 29oz is a bit too heavy, even for 10x. I need a birder harness for long periods at 29 oz. I have also slung a pair over the shoulder for 29oz.

Tero

Thursday 5th July 2007, 17:39

Question for FrankD

I have lost track of where you are with binoculars. Do you still have the Votrexes?

I have not put the Conquests to any difficult test. About half the time I carry the Monarchs as they are lighter. But in fall, with ducks, will put Zeiss to test.

Tero

Monday 16th July 2007, 16:06

Tero

Tuesday 7th August 2007, 16:33

Not much birds to find, and it is 36C temperature today here.

But I tested some binoculars at home for shake. All shake a bit in my hand, but I am able to see images in the part of the holding that shake the least. I was surprised to find the heaviest 8x40 porros shake the least. This comes into play when the bird you are trying to see is far away. there the shake is most obvious. On the river I have often leaned on the car hood or roof with my elbows to use 10x, before I get the scope out. But the 10x usually tells me enough and I do not get the scope out at all stops.

Tero

Saturday 25th August 2007, 19:05

Well, now I have sold the sturdy 8x40s.

Meanwhile, I seem to be addicted to brightness. I ralize it was the brightness more than anything else that got me to buy the Eagle Optics 8x32. I have 10x42 Monarchs that are reasonably bright, but as I have 10x40 Zeiss now, they beat the Nikons in brightness.

Years ago I was happy to "advance" to Nikon Sporters fro Wal Mart binoculars. So, I may yet "advance" to 7x some day, but not yet. Maybe someone will make a 7.5x by then?

Tero

Tuesday 28th August 2007, 02:22

BINOCULAR TIP:

When you have the next pair of junk binoculars, totally gone, save the strap. I have a strap from something I gave away.

What do you need this for? When you get a new pair to try out, and maybe return, you put on your old strap and leave theirs in the nice little plastic bag. When you decide to keep them, then you put on the real strap.

BUT inspect the old strap carefully, it is not covered by the new warranty!

marcus

Tuesday 28th August 2007, 03:22

Hey, Tero, I liked reading that! About the neckstrap, because I have done exactly that. I bought one of those good Pentax, but the neckstrap that came with it was not great, the thin, old-fashioned kind. But luckily I did save one from a pair that I must have thrown out. That one was perfect.

Tero

Wednesday 29th August 2007, 03:04

Tip for Tuesday (I don't have one for thu or Fri)

You need to spend $250 on some binocular. And your spouse says: Don't you already have several pairs? You say: It's not any more than
a. two sweaters from Eddie Bauer
b. a set of golf clubs, without the cart

Now, you need a $800 scope. You have to say: I won't need a new car yet, it only has 150 000 miles.

Tero

Sunday 9th September 2007, 15:57

I went to see some terns and shorebirds yesterday. For the shorebirds, I needed a scope. For the terns, I was happier with 10x than 8x binoculars. The 8x were bright enough, but I can actually see more detail at 10x. I also could follow the flying terns at 10x, they were not very close, medium distance. Three species.

Tero

Saturday 20th October 2007, 00:47

I have reached a milestone in my binocuholics anonymous program. I returned a pair. I did not exchange it for anything. I can probably hold out, oh..two three months till I need some small fix again.

ceasar

Saturday 20th October 2007, 01:26

I have reached a milestone in my binocuholics anonymous program. I returned a pair. I did not exchange it for anything. I can probably hold out, oh..two three months till I need some small fix again.

Very good, Tero!

Be sure to visit your counselor when you are subject to temptation and attend your meetings.

Bob
Founder: Accipiters Anonymous.

Tero

Saturday 7th June 2008, 03:53

What a long strange trip it has been.

I checked out two pairs today, ProSTaff 9x25 and Eagle Optics 8x32. It was clear to me the Eagle Optics was sharper at all distances. It goes on the next trip, a canoe trip. I might be still looking for 28mm binoculars, to be a litte lighter.

Boomer

Saturday 7th June 2008, 04:26

Way to go Tero! You actually held out for almost eight months. Now, how long will it be before you get those 28mm? Is that what you meant when you said (post #154), "I can probably hold out, oh..two three months till I need some small fix again." ('small,' as in 28mm)? Keep up the good work.

Ron

Tero

Sunday 8th June 2008, 00:08

No, I was into buying and disposing all kinds of useless binoculars those days. I still have an almost usable Winchester 8x32, no phase coating.

Boomer

Sunday 8th June 2008, 01:19

Hi Tero,
I was joking. Anyway, I also have purchased many bins that I later realized were not good purchases; and like you, I am also an active member of 'Binocuholics Anonymous' (I cracked up when I read that in your post). Unfortunately, I have lately been using poor judgement in purchasing tripods & heads (but that's for another thread). Maybe someday I will come to my senses. Until then, it's nice to be able to read all of the posts on the different threads on BF. I hope that you will post which small bins you end up getting. Best Wishes. :t:

Ron

Tero

Sunday 8th June 2008, 02:34

I bought a light weight tripod, the head snapped off the stem testing it in the yard. I got a refund. My scope does need to travel this year, though. My full size tripod is teady.

Tero

Saturday 14th June 2008, 14:18

I am going canoeing. Chose an older pair of 8x25 reverse porros. They are not water proof, but did not cost much. My Nikons are 9x25 and are not quite as sharp. If I could go back I would get the Vortex 8x25 reverse porros or a similar Pentax pair. The 10x25s are too dim for all around use.

Though, the 8x32s are still an option. A bit heavy for all day in a canoe.

pete seaman

Wednesday 18th June 2008, 22:09

Can anyone in the UK help?I would like some lightish 8x bins for use when walking over the local moors all day,I have a mini pair as well as a pair of 12x50's but think something like 8x30 would be better,any suggestions at a reasonable price?

bosun

Sunday 22nd June 2008, 12:32

Try a pair of Nikula 8x42 roof prisms. Available on e bay for £29.99 + £7.99 postage. They are waterproof & fogproof, Nitrogen purged and rubber armoured.

Tero

Wednesday 25th June 2008, 03:55

The 8x32s were pretty much what I needed in the canoe, and while camping. Even 7x would have been OK on the water.

I heard a ton of birds in Northern Minnesota, and saw only a small number of them. First time for a Swainson's Thrush singing, several of them.

In the watery environment and having to carry all, 8x42 would have weighed more.

Tero

Monday 30th June 2008, 04:04

I use a 10x Monarch routinely, and have gotten used to it. At some point I got a 10x40 Zeiss Conquest. The optics are pretty good, but it has gotten little use. They are heavy and also the eye cups are not that comfortable.

I am thinking of selling or trading it and getting a Pentax 10x42..I think SP..or a Vortex Viper 10x42.

Thoughts?

I use a Bushnell Legend 8x32 if I do not use 10x, and am quite happy. No plans to get a 8x42. But I could always have one more 8x32!

The problem is really too many choices. I would happily bird with the Zeiss if it was the only thing I had.

I am also thinking that the Pentax 8x32 SP might satisfy all my needs. I would still want a 10x for shorebirds, gulls and ducks. But a scope is usually handy and ready then.

CMB

Monday 30th June 2008, 23:34

Seriously consider the Stokes DLS 10x42 at this time. Compare them side by side because the fit of each is a little different in terms of the eye cups.

The Stokes DLS is currently on sale for $599 and has very nice optics (better than the Viper in that CA is better controlled, and slightly better edge to edge clarity) and has great build quality. It is an amazing price for these bins.

Tero

Tuesday 1st July 2008, 03:08

Thanks, will check it. Vortex makes all the Stokes ones too. Bit heavy after my 21 oz Monarchs. I have 29 oz Zeiss for which I got a harness, my only one.

Tero

Tuesday 1st July 2008, 20:14

So much for binocular shopping. I may have to wait a few months. Just replaced my tripod. My old one had too much play. This one is not fancy, but a step in the right direction. Should cover me for a year or two. Or five. I don't see upgrading the scope before that.

Heh, it took 2 years. The old scope is no longer used. The tripods I continue to have trouble with. I hate tripods.

I actually am shopping again I think I want 10x42 in about 21-24 oz weight. Reasonable optics, good eyecups, sturdy.

FrankD

Sunday 6th July 2008, 05:47

That 8x32 SP is a very nice package Tero. I had one two summers ago and still think it represents one of the best sub-$1000 bins out there. After our discussion the other day I ordered some new models/configurations to play with. I have an 8x43 SP on the way from Doug as well as a Legend 8x26, Diamondback 8x42 and Ultima DX 8x32 on the way from Eagle Optics. There are some very nice deals out there right now.

ceasar

Sunday 6th July 2008, 12:00

Frank,
I love bargains! That Celestron Ultima DX 8 x 32 is interesting. I would think it should be better than the Leupold Yosemite which costs the same. Keep us posted.
Bob

Tero

Monday 7th July 2008, 01:49

Frank, I had the 8x32 SP in my hand last week. Wish I had it instead of the other two I have.

You will find the 8x42 Diamondback pretty sharp, but comparing to the top under 1000 dollar models, you will see the colors are not as bright, a slightly washed out view.

Legends are good, but the availability of different sizes fluctuates strangely.

FrankD

Monday 7th July 2008, 03:38

Bob,

I have been eyeing up those DXs since the day you and I received that Time and Optics catalog. The specs and price always intrigued me so when I say EO had them on sale I just could not resist.

Tero,

A fair summary....I read your Diamondback comments on a thread from last year so I am not expecting too much for the price. Still, the specs are pretty appealing at least on paper. The 8x26 Legend is a configuration/model I have been waiting to try out for some time.

More updates as I get my hands on these bins.

Tero

Monday 7th July 2008, 14:47

The 8x26 looks like a typical reverse porro, but fov is small. The Natureviw 8x30 is something I would like to check out. But, all in all, the Vortex reverse porros are the best bet. I saw the 10x Vortex, but it was dim, as expected. The 8x Vanquish has a decent fov
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4833

FrankD

Monday 7th July 2008, 15:30

Yes, I remember the fov specs being fairly narrow but I liked the build quality and the overall feel in my hands. They weren't "dainty" for a set of compacts but rather sturdy feeling.

I did see several Pentax reverse porro compacts on sale at EO as well for some silly cheap prices. I know nothing about them so I backed off ordering any of them.

Tero

Monday 7th July 2008, 15:52

The Pentax is quite good at 8x. I think it is water proof, now one of my criteria for reverse porros. I had the 10x, of course, for a week, but returned it, finally deciding I only will touch 10x42s and 10x32s in the 10x size. 10x in a compact is too shaky.

FrankD

Monday 7th July 2008, 22:24

The 8x43 SPs arrived today and I am quite pleased. Image quality is most certainly a step up from the Monarch level. I have been comparing a pair of Swift Ultralite 8x42s with the Pentax SPs. The Ultralites actually seem to be a hair brighter than the Pentaxs but with the Pentaxs offering slightly better contrast. I have only just begun to compare so hopefully I will have more comments shortly.

...and the EO order should be here on Thursday. The wife will be gone for the day shopping and I have the boys so there should be plenty of time to tinker with the new arrivals.

Tero

Tuesday 8th July 2008, 02:22

...and the EO order should be here on Thursday. The wife will be gone for the day shopping and I have the boys so there should be plenty of time to tinker with the new arrivals.
I like to play with new stuff too, but i usually take them to some natural area. I hate to judge a pair only by looking at distant parked cars and reading license plates. But I have returned one pair solely on that test. ;)

FrankD

Tuesday 8th July 2008, 03:48

I live in a semi-rural area Tero. There is a fairly nice sized field behind my home where I spend countless hours looking at birds or other wildlife. I also live within site of the local "Blue Mountain". One of the hawk watch sites is actually visible from my back deck. On a good day I take the bins out and try to view the turkey vultures that circle that point on the mountain. It has to be a good 3 or 4 miles as the crow flies.

I spent a good portion of the afternoon/early evening comparing the Swift and Pentax to my Zeiss Conquests. I do not like to make hasty comparisons but my initial impressions are that the Swift compares very favorably to the Pentax. That was a bit of a surprise to me as I considered the Swifts at "Monarch level" because of the price. I shouldn't have though because the Swifts looked "better" than the Monarchs when I compared them side by side at the "store".

I should have more to post as time allows.

Tero

Tuesday 8th July 2008, 04:12

It does seem confusing at first. When you own too pair for a while, you can get used to both and see the faults of each. I originally insisted that my Monarchs were better than the same size Zeiss Conquest, simply because I was used to them, like you get used to a car. They both do have the same amt of CA and sharpness in the middle is similar. Toward the edge, in good conditions with no light coming in from behind, the Zeiss are better. I like the colors of the Zeiss. In backlit conditions nothing I have works, all objects are too dark.

Tero

Wednesday 9th July 2008, 03:06

Have been trying to sell or trade 2 pairs. It seems almost impossible without eBay and PayPal. I used to be able to sell on eBay with PayPal only for the fees, or maybe it was a credit card.

Tero

Thursday 10th July 2008, 13:27

Ok, the Zeiss are going in for a trade. I only get half the price I paid. I did not list them here, since nobody has ever responded to my ads here. Astromart got one reply, but the guy was too lazy to go buy a postal money order. I do not do PayPAl.

Tero

Friday 11th July 2008, 00:49

OK, the Zeiss are gone. The good part of trading in this over $500 category is that you can hardly tell a difference in optics. And YOU CAN'T COMPARE cause the old pair is gone, so everybody is happy.

FrankD

Friday 11th July 2008, 03:32

So what is next Tero?

Tero

Friday 11th July 2008, 04:10

FrankD

Saturday 12th July 2008, 02:29

That is funny. I thought much the same thing about Zeiss at one point and Pentax too...and for the same reasons. I would have to pop for one of those new ED models if I eventually wanted to go through with it though. ;)

Tero

Saturday 12th July 2008, 23:50

I went and burned up about two gallons of gas to look at 2 stilts. They were very pretty, never seen them before. But I think I would have seen less at 8x. In fact I would have walked back to get the scope if I only had 8x. Now I was satisfied.

Tero

Tuesday 22nd July 2008, 15:44

Now I have two pocket 8x25s, one is showing some wear.

Have my eye on Nikon 8x20 L series. Mainly because it may disappear with the LX series and then all we have in the 300-400 range is the fine Zeiss 8x20 which however has rubber eye cups.

J. Moore

Tuesday 22nd July 2008, 15:57

I get the Pentax 10x43 and use it about 20% of my birding. The rest of the time I use a Bushnell Legend 8x32. Still need that ideal comact. Maybe the 8x28 Pentax. Maybe I will sell all that are not Pentax and go totally Pentax. ;) I have the 65mm scope.

I went and burned up about two gallons of gas to look at 2 stilts. They were very pretty, never seen them before. But I think I would have seen less at 8x. In fact I would have walked back to get the scope if I only had 8x. Now I was satisfied.

Have you considered the Leupold switch ring binoculars? They have a 7-12 x 32 model that is lightweight and has good eye relief. Like having two binoculars in one.

Best,
Jim

FrankD

Tuesday 22nd July 2008, 16:05

then all we have in the 300-400 range is the fine Zeiss 8x20 which however has rubber eye cups.

Tero,

The Conquest compact might have the rubber eyecups but the Victory compact does not...and it usually sells around $400.

..ppsssstt..psssstt....those little Nikons are flippin' awesome!

Tero

Wednesday 23rd July 2008, 01:04

Yes, it has somehow become urgent now that it may disappear. Earlier I was toying with a 10x25, now I do not want a 10x pocket size anymore.

Tero

Wednesday 23rd July 2008, 04:33

ceasar

Wednesday 23rd July 2008, 16:29

Frank, what was the deal with the Furys? If I want to throw 300 or 400 at something, the 8x32...I have many of those, it would be a family...seems worth waiting for.
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4837

They had problems with their new diopter mechanism which is integrated with the focusing wheel (much like the Leica diopter adjustment) rather than being the more traditional separate adjustment ring off the right eye ocular. It appears to have been a QC issue which they are now working to correct.

Bob

FrankD

Wednesday 23rd July 2008, 20:49

Bob nailed it. From what I have read from SteveC it appears the issue has been addressed and modified Furys are on the way out in limited supply.

I might find the 8x32 appealing if it has much the same characteristics as the 6.5x.

Steve C

Thursday 24th July 2008, 18:53

Tero,

The diopter ring of the original Fury was integral to the focus knob. To use it you pulled the focus knob toward you and then you could adjust the diopter. When that was done you pushed the dial back into place. Their problem, at least on the two I had, wsd that these two operations required some serious effort on the part of the user. I would venture to guess that kids and others with weakened hands/fingers would perhaps have found diopter adjustment beyond their physical capability. I think that the gist of the problem was, as has been suggested a QC problem. When the force necessary to adjust the diopter was applied, something was bound to give. The mechanism is probably OK on the original Fury if you can adjust it easily. It is very easy for me to see why both the diopter and focus would have problems. The new ones have a seperate diopter on the outer end of the focus knob which is pulled out for diopter adjustment. Just like is typical of that common sort of adjustment. I liked the original setup better, but this one now seems just fine. Image quality still right up there. The diopter/focus is the only visible change. The center hinge is tight, won't move unless you make concerted effort to move it. The focus wheel moves pretty easily when you decide to make the effort to move it, but does not seem to be inclined to wander on its own.

vkalia

Friday 25th July 2008, 10:54

Slightly related but as we are rambling anyway... I've been birding for the past few weeks with the Vortex Fury 8x28 and I really have to say - it is a mighty fine compact bino for $200... exactly what I was looking for.

Spending $600 for Leica/Zeiss on a compact was not something I was willing to do, but I did want something better than the $50-100 roofs. The Furies are superb, and surprisingly easy on the eyes as well.

Vandit

Tero

Saturday 26th July 2008, 16:25

I have a sort of wish to get some pair 0f 8x28s as well, I really do not enjoy 8x25s that much, I have three pairs ro try. Ignoring th optics, they are just more work than an 8x32 or 8x26 single hinge model.

Had my 10x43 Pentax DCF SPs out for a weekend. Well, they are just binoculars. I am not willing to carry 29 oz around, so this 23oz is my best compromise. But looking objectively, I do not see a great difference in optics to the 10x42 Monarchs. Both are fine. The Monarchs will not last quite as long, but I expect to get 5 more years out of them, and if the eye cups go, they have warranty.

My 10x use is more limited these days. I am working towards using the small scope more and more. There the game is tripod arrangements and weight. The scope weighs nothing in a back pack. But the tripod is bulky.

ceasar

Saturday 26th July 2008, 16:59

The new Pentax 9 x 28 DCF LV is a very nice small (not compact) binocular. It's better than I expected it to be when I got it back in March or so. FOV is 294' but it is OK for me. It's sharp enough and bright enough to be quite useful as a back up and "carry along" binocular.
Bob

Tero

Saturday 26th July 2008, 21:17

This is the thing. Though that looks really good to me, I still have a 9x25 reverse porro witht the same fov. So the 8x28mm with a wider fov is starting to look attractive.

The Nikon 8x20 LX is 356 ft./1000 yds. But, I really would prefer a single hinge 8x28.

In reverse porros, the Vortex Vanquish 8x26 best fits the bill for my pocket bino
Field of View 352 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 15mm
Close Focus 7.6 ft.
Weight 12.7 oz.

vkalia

Sunday 27th July 2008, 11:23

Tero, interesting comments about the 10x43 Pentax SPs and the Monarchs. I compared the SPs to the Vortex Razor 10x42s and ended up selling the Razors (couldnt tell a difference under normal viewing, and the Pentax had a better focus knob).

That makes the Monarchs really good value. I've only looked through a pair of 8x42s, and didnt find them to be as bright or detailed as the SPs or the Minox BDs.

Vandit

Tero

Sunday 27th July 2008, 21:37

Vkalia, you are aboslutely right, there is clearly some improvement in the Pentax over the Monach. At early morning poor light they were similar, but in good light you can tell. I would always pick the Pentax in a blind test. But the difference, over 300 in price, is not a quantum leap. If you cannot ID the bird with one, you can't ID it with the other one.

Happy birding, forget the binoculars, send me some birds. Twitched a Scissortailed Flycatcher this morning. So, one lifer for the new Pentax, 100 or so for the Monarch.

PS, I did compare a Bushnell Legend 8x32...why did they discontinue?...and the pentax, and I liked the 8x better. Same clarity but of course the 8x was all around smoother and forgiving of any faults I might see. As is typical of 8x.

Bottom line> I do not really need another pair.

Tero

Sunday 3rd August 2008, 15:54

My roofers family now
8x28 Bushnell Excursion
8x32 Bushnell Legend
8x32 Eagle Optics ranger
10x42 Monarch
10x43 Pentax DCF

I was in search of maybe the ideal reverse porro, but the 8x28 with its over 400ft fov has it beat. At 8x, these have enough resolution, compared to all small bins I have seen.

Tero

Tuesday 12th August 2008, 03:21

I am starting to think a little like Frank. I have an 8x28 Excursion, had a 10x28 fora few days..it was poor. Now I see they have a 10x36. I was not thrilled with the 8x36 Monarch, compared to 8x42 or 10x42. Now I am extremely curious about the 10x36 Excursion. Did Bushnell get that straight?

If I buy one, I will probably play with it for a week and then exchange it for something else. It sells for about 170, and interesting part also. I already know you can make a half way decent pair for $250. For less, I have little expectations.

Typical offerings in that price range
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4819

I would have been happy with those as a beginning birder, but...

FrankD

Thursday 14th August 2008, 01:02

Tero,

If you play with it for a week and then sell it then you really will be starting to think like me. ;)

I know everyone has their own tastes but I really have a hard time warming up to any 10x smaller than 42 mm. Granted I haven't tried any of the high end stuff in this configuration but it just seem that the smaller exit pupil coupled with the smaller size/weight would make the binocular less comfortable to use. I could easily be proven wrong ofcourse. ;)

Tero

Thursday 14th August 2008, 01:40

This is true, I have not held a 10x smaller than 40mm I liked. 9x maybe.

The thing with the returns is, after 4 exchanges I end up buying something just out of guilt for all the fun I had for a month.

FrankD

Thursday 14th August 2008, 20:55

The thing with the returns is, after 4 exchanges I end up buying something just out of guilt for all the fun I had for a month.
__________________

I hear ya. After my third or fourth return at Cabelas they started lookin' at me funny. It wasn't even hunting season so it wasn't like I was using them and then returning them like some folks do.

So here is one you will just love (I am ready to kick myself). I just received a "gift card" from Cabelas. Spend over $500 and you get a $150 gift card to use on your next purchase. I just bought the Swaro SLCs four days ago. Do you think they will still give me the $150?

:(

Tero

Monday 18th August 2008, 02:46

Took out the 10x42 Monarchs for a test, where I usually use 8x40 porros. No year birds, other than Common Nighthawk, and I IDd it with plain eyes. I did get it in the binoculars too.

Warblers were located, about 3 species. I was surprised that first spring American Redstarts are not orange, but they do sing already.

Tracked down a Swainson's Thrush in the woods. Here my 10x Sporters would be struggling. I think 8x Sporters would be OK in the woods. The 10x Monarchs did quite well ona a cloudy day in the shade. Thrush had clear eye ring.

I tried to find the CA, but only saw it looking at dark tree trunks against a relatively bright sky. Luckily I never look for tree trunks with these. Birds were fine, no CA. ;) A few birds were a dark silhouette, but they would have been dark with any bins.

Just looking at the early history of me birding here. My recent post had a summary:

I started birding with a dreadful 12x25 pair of pocket binocular. They were awful, but I developed a skill to point them just right, as they had a very narrow field of view, some 200-250ft in our units.

Later on I got a 10x36. ( I turned 50, a present to myself) It just opened up a world for me, to see so much at one time. The magnification was less, but I actually saw more, due to the quality.

Then I moved to a Monarch 10x42, another quantum leap. It was brighter, sharper.

Finally, I had a hard time finding warblers, so I moved to 8x32!

At this rate I will end up at 6.5x.

Pinewood

Monday 18th August 2008, 03:01

Tero,

I know everyone has their own tastes but I really have a hard time warming up to any 10x smaller than 42 mm. Granted I haven't tried any of the high end stuff in this configuration but it just seem that the smaller exit pupil coupled with the smaller size/weight would make the binocular less comfortable to use. I could easily be proven wrong ofcourse. ;)

Hello Frank,

I had a hard time holding a 10x40 and reverted to less powerful binoculars. I do use a 10x32, when I need a little more reach than I get with a 7x42, so I carry both. Today, the ten was useful for the details of a Baltimore Oriole high in a tree. Ten days ago, it was good for identifying a Louisiana waterthrush.

No doubt a 10x42 has advantages, especially at dusk, but I found the 10x40 unwieldy and I am not going to carry around a 10x40 and a 7x42. Your milage may differ!

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Tero

Monday 18th August 2008, 03:46

I had a little of the same problem with the 10x40 Zeiss, never with the Pentax or Monarch. Mostly a weight isssue. Plus I did not need all that weight on the neck either. So you may be right, 10x32 and 10x36 may be steady enough.

Pinewood

Monday 18th August 2008, 03:58

I had a little of the same problem with the 10x40 Zeiss,

Hello Tero,

Just so, even though the Zeiss 10x40 was recommended as easy to hold. There may be a lot of personal ergonomics to explain our issues with a rather popular bird watching glass.
I will still choose a good quality 8x32 as an all rounder binocular but every binocular is a compromise and there is no perfect binocular, and certainly not one perfect for all occasions and uses.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Kevin Purcell

Monday 18th August 2008, 04:27

I do use a 10x32, when I need a little more reach than I get with a 7x42, so I carry both. Today, the ten was useful for the details of a Baltimore Oriole high in a tree. Ten days ago, it was good for identifying a Louisiana waterthrush.

Of course this leads on to the Leupold Switchview (and similar Leica Duovid?) switchable bins. The 7 or 12 by 32 looks interesting. The price is a lot less interesting at $899.

Anyone tried them?

Anyone else carry a high magnification and a low magnification bins?

How do you carry them? Both around the neck? One around the neck and the other bandolier style? Neck and harness?

Curiously,
Kevin

ceasar

Monday 18th August 2008, 04:41

The only review of them that I have seen is in thread 11 here:http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99815

Bob

Tero

Monday 18th August 2008, 14:45

Kevin, Joanie, expert at
http://www.opticsplanet.com/msgboard/forum-1.html
was not recommending the Leupold Switchview.

I carry a 10x42 areound the neck and maybe a 8x28 in the hand. It goes in the shoulder bag when I use the 10x42. Or the coat pocket.

The alternative, 8x42 around the neck and some 10x compact in hand does not work as well.

For short walks, a tripod mounted scope on shoulder, 8x32 around neck.

Steve C

Monday 18th August 2008, 17:16

I have talked to this Joannie at Optics Planet and have gotten what I consider backwards sort of advice. On the other hand I have talked to three Eagle Optics people who say the resolution of the 7-12x Switch Power is very good. Nearly as good as the Leupold Gold ring and better than either the Mojave, Katmi or Pinnacles. Their combined opinion was the 7x was outstanding and the 12x, while not as good as the 7 was "better than expected". Whatever that means.

So, who knows. Leupold seems to have a love/hate relationship with not many in the middle. I've had Leupold products for years with nary a problem and complete satisfaction. They, along with Vortex can teach most companies about the definition of "customer service". I understand Swarovski is very good as well, but I will never know.

I am mostly in the market for another binocular and will top spending out in the $850 or so range. I am looking at the Leupold Gold Ring 8x42, the Vortex Razor 8x42, Meopta Meostar in 7 or 8x 42 and I very likely will try a 7-12x Switch Power just to see for myself.

Pinewood

Monday 18th August 2008, 17:26

Of course this leads on to the Leupold Switchview (and similar Leica Duovid?) switchable bins. The 7 or 12 by 32 looks interesting. The price is a lot less interesting at $899.

Anyone tried them?

Anyone else carry a high magnification and a low magnification bins?

How do you carry them? Both around the neck? One around the neck and the other bandolier style? Neck and harness?

Curiously,
Kevin

Hello Kevin,

I use a Duluth Pack canvas haversack which can hold the 7x42 Dialyt and a 10x32 FL binocular, as well as a Peterson's guide, although the guide is usually left at home. Generally, I have the 7x42 around my neck and the other binocular is in the bag until I need it. I regard the ten power as a last resort because it is work to keep it steady and because of its narrower field of view. I do not find it dim, even in shade.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Tero

Monday 18th August 2008, 18:03

To be truthful, I am surprised none of the regulars went for it yet
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4848

Problems are
1. It is not Big 3, therefore the price is a lot even for people who would pay for a Big 3 product.
2. Price, again. I am enough of a fanatic I might save up $500 for a 7/12x, half way expecting to send it back. But I do not have 900 to spend.

Steve C

Monday 18th August 2008, 18:21

Problems are
1. It is not Big 3, therefore the price is a lot even for people who would pay for a Big 3 product.
2. Price, again. I am enough of a fanatic I might save up $500 for a 7/12x, half way expecting to send it back. But I do not have 900 to spend.

Tero,

I'm in complete agreement with you here. It took me a long time to get to the point whare I'm finally willing to go to the $8-900 level. Even then I am halfway expecting to send them back. The 7-12X Switch Power will have to whack my Swift 7x36, which I'm not at all sure it can do. The others mentioned will have to beat the Swift and my Vipers. This is with a noticeable in-the-field-difference, not with boosted resolution, and/or finely measured resolution tests from charts. While I realize the resolution tests and boosted magnification and other optics tests are necessary to ultimately segregate differences among binoculars which I have no doubt are real, if I can't see the difference in the way I use glass in the field, I really do not care. I've long thought that $500 should buy all the binocular that 95% or more of all people can use. I am mostly curious as to how my long held opinion will hold up with 2x more expensive glass. The high end Nikon and Euros are safe, because I do not think the improvement they offer me is worth what it would cost me. I've spent enough time comparing those to be pretty firm in that opinion. The $750-1,000 class is not something I've looked at much except for the Leupold Gold Rings, and some time with the Vortex Razor, which I do like. So I will see.

I'm with you in that I have only so much money and will spend it cautiously,

ceasar

Monday 18th August 2008, 19:58

Look at it this way. The Leupold 7/12 x 32 Switch Power is basically the 7 x 30/32 binocular that so many people have pined for since the demise of the Swaro 7 x 30, which did not have phase coatings. It appears to be, in it's 7x conformation, optically, at least as good as Leupold's Gold Ring roofs, and is lighter to boot. It's 7x FOV is about the same as the Swift Eaglet 7 x 36. Now, consider this! Leupold has also added a 12x flip switch to it, basically as a convenience factor to the purchaser, who is either a birder or a hunter. AND, you can buy one for about $1400.00 less than the Leica Switch Power!

Why so many doubts about this binocular? Very few birders or hunters will use the 12x as their primary power choice. It's there if, and when, you need it. Brace the binocular with your elbows, if you need to, on the nearest available support. For hunters, that is likely the ground, or knees. For birder's the best thing would likely be a combo walking/finn stick.

When you think about it, it's really a remarkable binocular being sold at a remarkably reasonable price!

Cordially,
Bob

Kevin Purcell

Monday 18th August 2008, 20:11

The only review of them that I have seen is in thread 11 here:http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99815

Bob

Thanks for the link, Bob.

From that thread:

I first tried zoom binoculars about 40 years ago. (I forget the brand). I thought they were actually fairly good, and really thought zoom was a neat and potentially useful feature. I have been disappointed that more progress has not been made along these lines, and am hoping that Leupold will succeed in bringing this into the mainstream. These are not technically zoom binoculars of course, but the effect is almost the same.

Precisely!

I think the typical initial response is the birder reflex that "zoom bins are bad". Well, they are. But these aren't zoom bins, AFAICT. Zoom bins use a zoom lens in the eyepiece so all the zoom lens compromises come along with it including size, weight, poor(er) AFOV and poor eye relief.

I suspect Leupold are inserting a Barlow Lens (or similar divergent) optical assembly

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

to increase the effective focal length of the objective keeping the same (non-zoom) eyepiece. Another route is the switch replaces a + (convergent) lens assembly with a - (divergent) lens assembly but keeping the focal point the same. I suspect the former would be "cleaner" at low magnification (which would be most used) and so might be preferred. Though I'm pretty sure it's not quite that simple given both the objective and the eyepiece are in fixed positions ;)

Or perhaps they're adding a teleconverter.

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

Or perhaps they are modifying the eyepiece slightly - the specs do say the eye relief changes. Not by a lot but by 3mm.

This gets rid of all the regular zoom eyepiece issues and the problem comes down to how do you do this reliably without adding too much weight or compromising other features (CA, acuity, sharpness, contrast, stray light, ... it is at least two probably more glass-air transitions though good multi-layer coatings make this possible today).

The product seems to match how users actually use the product too. Most of the time at low mag but on those occasions that need it (is that a eyering?) they can use the higher magnification.

I suspect they might sell more (or even have people experiment with them) if they tried this in a lower price point glass (say $500, as many people seem to have that as an upper bound) then migrate it up. Of course there would be some compromises (e.g. perhaps I would expect something like a Katmai or Mohave class bin).

Still it's nice to see them innovate at any price point.

One other issue I guess is that bin buyers are even less technical than other hobbies I'm involved in (e.g. amateur radio, astronomy) where the internal details of the designs of products are discussed in technical detail, admittedly by a small minority. With bins the internal designs (and design issues) are never revealed so people don't talk about the design and it's compromises directly. The reviewing is either by precise measurement (by a few) or by "black box" testing (looking through it and describing the outcome of various ad hoc tests, or, in the worst case, by just listing specs.

This state of affairs reminds me of amateur radio in the 1960s and 1970s where fashions and biases ruled the roost and important parameters (strong signal behavior) were ignored for pointless increases in sensitivity. When hams started looking for better strong signal behavior the manufacturers started to respond and build better radios.

OK, enough rambling ... need to write the rest of that review.

Tero

Monday 18th August 2008, 20:55

If I were totally commited to 7x, I think I would go for a 7x42. But even there, I am not finding any that weigh less than 30oz.

I think Leupold should add more 7x models. A Golden Ring 7x32 or 7x42 would sell well. 6x I am not interested in.

As it is, I will settle for the 8x32s, the best compromise out there.

Steve C

Monday 18th August 2008, 21:34

ceasar

I don't doubt that I'll like the switch power binocular. I really am most interested in whether it will top the Swift at 7x (the Swift is very good and I have no problem with the fov). I intend to use it 80-90% of the time at 7x with the occasional look at 12x. The comparison will be switch power at 7x against 7-8x of the opthers I want to look at. SO it depends how the 12x stacks up and how the whole Switch power optics system is against the other fixed magnification glass. And how the fixed optics I have (Swift and Vipers) stack up against the next step up. Which is why I'm halfway expecting to return all them. I will have to see for myself if whatever improvement exists is worth it to me.

MacGee

Monday 18th August 2008, 22:22

I don't doubt that I'll like the switch power binocular.Steve, are you at all concerned that the eye relief changes between the two powers - from 18.7 to 21.8mm?

Michael

Steve C

Monday 18th August 2008, 22:39

MacGee

No, I guess I'm really not worried about that. I do not wear glasses when using binoculars, and have not been plauged with eye-relief problems as yet. However it is something I will evaluate, because all of my binoculars are 3.7 or better in exit pupil, while the 12x32 is less than that. If it proves to be a problem, I can either live with it or not I guess. For example there is no problem for me going between the 6x Yosemite and the 8x Yosemite with a 21vs 14 mm ER. If nothing in this search of mine pans out, I'm really OK with what I have.

Tero

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 02:28

Let us know how it works out, start a new thread.

What sort of advantage do you get with the 7x35 Swift over an 8x32? I only had a 7x35 porro once. It had a wide field, but smaller apparent fov than my 8x of course. So it looked smaller.

FrankD

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 03:17

Hello Frank,

I had a hard time holding a 10x40 and reverted to less powerful binoculars. I do use a 10x32, when I need a little more reach than I get with a 7x42, so I carry both. Today, the ten was useful for the details of a Baltimore Oriole high in a tree. Ten days ago, it was good for identifying a Louisiana waterthrush.

No doubt a 10x42 has advantages, especially at dusk, but I found the 10x40 unwieldy and I am not going to carry around a 10x40 and a 7x42. Your milage may differ!

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Arthur,

Wow, this thread really took off since you last posted. My apologies for not replying sooner.

I can definitely see the benefit of how you utilize your two bins and after having read your comments in this regard in the past I have often considered giving a 10x32 a hard look. Heck, after reading some of the Leica 10x25 comments I even considered giving one of them a go. What I realized always holds me back is that I truly get enjoyment from a binocular when I look through it and get an "experience". For that to happen for me I really like wide true and apparent fields of view, bright images and larger exit pupils to let me eyes wander around the image. A few 8x42s and several 7x42s give me that experience. I keep a few 8x32s because they are handy but short of the 8x32 FL (and maybe the 8x32 Trinovid) they don't "move me" like their larger siblings.

Don't get me wrong I can see where the 10x32 would have a strong practical use in the applications you mentioned.

To add to the rest of the discussion, I have to admit that I have some curiousity in the 7/12x32 GR. I think I would be more interested in it if it was a 7/10x32 or possibly a 7/12x42 but 12x with a 32 mm objective? I don't know if I could use a 2.5 mm exit pupil to pull out fine detail. If I only used it occasionally then maybe but then if I only use it occasionally then is it really worth having?

Just thinking out loud.

Tero

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 04:36

Good point. 7-10x would be enough for a 32mm. I saved so much money once more.

Just get me the 7x32 and 9x32 and then I am all set. Forever. ;)

Alexis Powell

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 04:48

Just get me the 7x32 and 9x32 and then I am all set. Forever. ;)

Personally, I'm holding out for a 7.8x34 -- now that would be PERFECT! :) --AP

Tero

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 05:01

I was going to hang the cases of the 7x32, 8x32 and 9x32 on my belt and whip out a pair at random. Eventually I would probably quit using one, but hang on to two.

Steve C

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 05:07

Tero,

The Swift, with its larger exit pupil seems to me to have an advantage over the 8x32 glasses I have experience with in the dawn and dusk hours. The resolution seems better to me as well. If there is a resolution difference with an 8x such as a Ziess Conquest or even a Minox Hg 8x33 for that matter, I don't see it. I also don't see an image size difference between 7 & 8x either. The 7x view is something I think my own optical system "likes", for lack of a more explanatory term. In short a 7x seems to have, for me anyway, what we see people describing as more relaxed image. The 6.5x32 Fury is much the same for me as the Swift. I'd take either one over any 8x32 of similar optical quality that I have so far had any experience with. Those who wish for a top tier 7x30ish ought to try the Swift.

I will post an update when I try the switch power. You're right, we've really rambled in this thread, so when I do it, I will use a new thread.

Frank, to be honest, I have some 12x misgivings, but IF, the 12x is good enough for my purposes, and IF the 7x is at least the equal (preferably the better) of the Swift I might decide it's worth the $900. If not significantly better than what I have, I'll likely loose interest. I am probably somewhat more iterested in a good full size 7-8x, which about the sole gap in my inventory.

Pinewood

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 05:16

Hello Frank,

My decision to use two binoculars is akin to the photographer who carries two lenses: an understanding of the limits of one optic and of my own abilities. If I enjoyed using a 10x42, then the other binocular would be something like a 7x32, if it existed. In fact, such a combination would provide more disparate twilight abilities. However, my 10x32 was cutting edge, two years, ago, and probably delivers as much light as a 10x40 of twenty years, ago.
I would suggest that you look through the 10x32FL or another 10x32 HD or EDS glass and decide if it provides an "experience." In matters of contrast and colour, I certainly had an experience.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :brains:

Tero

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 15:01

Tero,

I will post an update when I try the switch power. You're right, we've really rambled in this thread, so when I do it, I will use a new thread.

I have no doubt the 7x will be pretty good. That in itself is worthy of note, there is no other 7x32. But it is really the 12x part we want to hear about.

I would actually pay up to 400 for a decent 7x32, just to see how it looks. Ideally a fov over 400ft, as I always go for the biggest apparent field available in any format. Thus the Excursion 8x28 and not the Fury 8x28.

Steve C

Tuesday 19th August 2008, 17:41

Tero,

The Swift 7x36 Eaglet is $410 at Eagle Optics. Trust me its more than decent. It is also the same size as the typical 32mm family member in spite of its larger objective. The only thing it doesn't have is a 400'+ fov. The 6.5x32 Fury has your big fov @445' and I can see no difference in image size. $299 at Eagle Optics. Not quite as sharp as the Swift but darned, darned close. Also bigger than the Swift. If you don't like the 6.5x just exchange it for the 8x version.

Kevin Purcell

Wednesday 20th August 2008, 04:42

The Swift 7x36 Eaglet is $410 at Eagle Optics. Trust me its more than decent. It is also the same size as the typical 32mm family member in spite of its larger objective. The only thing it doesn't have is a 400'+ fov. The 6.5x32 Fury has your big fov @445' and I can see no difference in image size.

Swift 7x36 Eaglet
Field of View 374 ft./1000 yds.
or 7.1 degrees gibing a 49.9 AFOV

Vortex Fury 6.5x32
Field of View 445 ft./1000 yds.
or 8.5 degrees giving a 55.1 AFOV

Only 5 degrees in the AFOV so you won't really notice that. But the real field is rather different.

Still the Eaglet is getting a lot of good press here!

Interesting too that the "preferred" format is a lot cheaper than the others in the same model range.

Swift Eaglet 7x36 Roof Prism Binocular Our Price: $409.95
Swift Eaglet 8x42 Roof Prism Binocular Our Price: $479.95
Swift Eaglet 10x42 Roof Prism Binocular Our Price: $489.95

Obviously we know something they don't. ;)

Here's hoping we see more x6, x6.5 and x7 compact and mid-sized bins in the near future.

Tero

Thursday 21st August 2008, 02:33

So much for my optics budget. Spent 160 on an iPod. A bit late for birds songs but...

My curiosity now came back, can I find a decent 8x42 with 400ft fov. The Diamondback is the only candidate, and I had it once and sent back. I have some 8x32s with 400ft. fov.

ceasar

Thursday 21st August 2008, 02:57

Don't know if you consider it to be "decent," but the Bushnell 8 x 42 Excursion has a FOV of 426 feet. Phase coated and inexpensive too. Costs about what your IPOD cost.;)
Bob

Tero

Thursday 21st August 2008, 03:00

Very tempting. As I will have a good 10x42 with me as well. Slight price difference to the Meopta 8x42, also over 400ft.

FrankD

Thursday 21st August 2008, 03:17

There still are a few places that have the 8x42 Bushnell Discoverers in stock for around $300 discounted.

Other than that and the Excursions you would have to jump up to the Meostars at $800+ or one of the few Alpha bins that go 400 feet or better.

Tero

Thursday 21st August 2008, 04:17

Frank, I had the Fujinon 10x42, and I did not like it somehow, I thought I would not like it in 8x42 either. I was led to believe the Discoverer and Fujinon were the same.

The Diamondback was very close to what I wanted. But not quite. I have not actually seen the Excursion 8x42, but it may be slightly better in brightness and contrast.

I sort of gave up on 400ft. I have it in a 8x32. So I guess the only issue remaining is that if I EVER get an 8x42, brightness, contrast and sharpness are the main points. If I can also get 350-370ft fov, fine.

Kevin Purcell

Thursday 21st August 2008, 20:52

Tero,

Though I haven't posted these results on the "4 budget bins" thread (lots more to come!) I did twilight test the four bins and the Winchester 8x32 (i.e. a Vanguard VDT-8320) I bought from you.

For others, the Winchester has no phase coating but is fully multi-coated. It's OK with more obvious CA than the other bins. As Tero said: a sort of Sporter class bin or "just acceptable".

I looked at relative brightness of the bins in twilight in solid overcast in Seattle (from sunset to sunset+15 minutes -- 2015 to 2030 on Aug 17). I was sitting in the Thomas Street P-patch and viewed three different targets: blooming flowers in the open; a green watering can in the shadows underneath a raspberry bush; covered dense shrubbery (where the Bewick's Wrens like to hang out).

Leupold Yosemite 6x30

Brighter than the Winchester. Good in the open viewing flowers. OK looking at the watering can. Brighter than the others but still too dark to be usable in the shrubbery.

Celestron Ultima DX 8x32

Darker than the Yosemite. Brighter than the Winchester. About the same as the Diamondback. Good in the open viewing flowers. OK looking at the watering can. Too dark to be usable in the shrubbery.

Vortex Diamondback 8x42

Darker than the Yosemite. Brighter than the Winchester. Good in the open viewing flowers. OK looking at the watering can. Too dark to be usable in the shrubbery.

Winchester 8x32

Brighter than the Hurricane. OK in the open viewing flowers. Usable looking at the watering can. Too dark to be usable in the shrubbery. Fine for use against birds in tree tops (CA isn't that bad).

Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Usable in the open viewing flowers. Just barely OK looking at the watering can. Too dark to be usable in the shrubbery. Stray light was especially noticeable with dark targets and a big angle of overcast "brightness".

So the brightness ranking at twilight was:

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
2. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Winchester 8x32
5. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

So some observations:

The largest aperture isn't the brightest bin.

This was a bit of a surprise as it was one of the main reasons for getting an 42mm aperture bin for fall and winter use in the Pacific Northwest.

Clearly other factors are more important for these budget bins seems of be most significant seems to be transmission of porros versus Schmidt Pechan roofs i.e. total internal reflection versus reflection off three aluminum surfaces makes a big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt-Pechan_prism

To get over this you need dielectric mirror coatings (not at this price point, yet). Silver would be better but not good as TIR or dielectric mirrors.

An aluminum mirror coating has a reflectivity in the range 87% to 93% but you get one reflection of the bottom of the first prism and two reflections off the roof (one for each side to rotate the image) of a Schmidt Pechan prism. So to the total loss from reflection in the prism is the cube of the reflectivity of the coating. So for Al that's from 0.66 to 0.80. That loss in reflection is like having an aperture (area) that fraction smaller. Or a diameter the square root of that (i.e. the square root of the cube of the reflectivity).

So for this range of reflectivities the roof bins are equivalent to porros with objective diameters 0.81 and 0.90 smaller. For a 42mm roof that's equaivalent to a 34mm to 37.8mm porro.

Not far from the results I get.

I conclude ... Porros are brighter!

OK. Nothing new here but it's true, especially at the low end (i.e. for roofs that doesn't use silver or dielectric mirror coatings).

Smaller magnifications work better at twilight.

Not because the the exit pupil is larger -- your eye's pupil is still stopped down to around 2 or 3 mm at this point but because more light is hitting the cones in your fovea to perceive color and detail. Not new but perhaps a different twist.

So perhaps the Diamondback would not be a significant difference for you. You'd have ot spend a lot more and get dielectric mirrors for it to work. And I know you don't like porros. Hmmm.

Food for thought at least.

Pinewood

Thursday 21st August 2008, 21:29

Smaller magnifications work better at twilight.

Not because the the exit pupil is larger -- your eye's pupil is still stopped down to around 2 or 3 mm at this point but because more light is hitting the cones in your fovea to perceive color and detail. Not new but perhaps a different twist.

Food for thought at least.

Hello Kevin,

Very interesting but contrary to the standard method of computing the twilight factor, which is the square root of the multiple of magnification and aperture. It also seems to be contrary to what hunters seem to find.
However, I will write that Twilight Factor may be too simple to describe twilight perception. Zeiss derived this term for users at a much higher latititude, where twilight is more extended than in areas most people inhabit in the continental USA.
As the binoculars you mentioned were three 8x32's and a 6x30, are you referring specifically to the Yosemite?
As for the light output of Porro's vs. roof prism binoculars, it takes a lot of high priced engineering to overcome the inherent faults of the Schmidt-Pechan prisms.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Tero

Thursday 21st August 2008, 21:40

Kevin, you need to add some more field to the field testing. The twilight test on flowers is fine, but it is actually birds we are normally after. I tried to look for hummingbirds in Seattle, did not find any. There should be more than one species. I had some 8x25 pocket binoculars with me then. There is a marshy shore by the university, down by the University parking lots and a mall. It is a listed wildlife area. I found a Marsh or Sedge wren there. Also a Bewick's Wren on campus. Some shore birds at the marsh. And some insects that bit me. Chiggers? We have them here.

Anyway, with the Small Bird ID test, you will see if the 6x30 Yosemites work for you , or maybe you need 8x30.

Kevin Purcell

Thursday 21st August 2008, 21:43

Hello Kevin,

Very interesting but contrary to the standard method of computing the twilight factor, which is the square root of the multiple of magnification and aperture. It also seems to be contrary to what hunters seem to find.
However, I will write that Twilight Factor may be too simple to describe twilight perception. Zeiss derived this term for users at a much higher latititude, where twilight is more extended than in areas most people inhabit in the continental USA.
As the binoculars you mentioned were three 8x32's and a 6x30, are you referring specifically to the Yosemite?
As for the light output of Porro's vs. roof prism binoculars, it takes a lot of high priced engineering to overcome the inherent faults of the Schmidt-Pechan prisms.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Yes, just considering lower magnification (x6) bins compared to the others.

I now what the twilight factor says but that's not what I saw both brightness and acuity seemed better. I speculate that's because its putting more light on the fovea.

But ....

The only way to test it though is to control for all the tens of other variables here. The differences were small between the two (2!) data points of the DX (x8) and Yosemite (x6). So I'm not going to claim anything new.

BTW, is there a decent cite for why we should believe the Twilight Factor numbers? What's the model behind it? Why should it work?

The dimmness of the roofs were a much bigger surprise.

I'd love to encourage other people to try twilight testing. Do you see differences in your bins?

Thanks,
Kevin

Pinewood

Monday 25th August 2008, 03:29

After some thought, I realize that twilight factor cannot account for differences in light transmission. The roof prism binoculars were rated, by you, as dim, probably for loss of light on the mirrored surfaces, while the Yosemite, a Porro, has no mirrored surfaces.
An 8x32 has a twilight factor of 16 while the Yosemite 6x30 has a twilight factor of 13.4. If you assume, just as an example, 50% more light output, the equivalent aperture would be 37.5 mm, giving a twilight factor of 15. Should the Yosemite have fewer air to glass surfaces or better coatings, differences would disappear.
Comparing twilight factors of binoculars with differing coatings and constructions would sees riddled with pitfalls.
Therefore twilight factors may be suited for comparison within the same line of binoculars, like the 8x30 and 6x30 Yosemites.
Finally, twilight factor does not trump important contributors to image quality. Zeiss puts it this way:
The twilight factor is only one parameter among many, it does not say anything about the image quality which is a determining factor in detail recognition in twilight (twilight performance)! Twilight performance is mainly determined by as high a transmission as possible in the right spectral range, as low a straylight portion as possible, as high contrast as possible and as high a resolution as possible. Only if all these requirements are met at the same time - and only then - can the twilight factor be used a measure of the twilight performance in binocular viewing.
http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/2f74e36875a2227785256df1006e6bbf
Even Zeiss understands the limitations of using twilight factor. If you don't have light transmission, high resolution, contrast and blocking of stray light, you don't have twilight performance; you just don't have that swing; you don't have a thing!
Look at: http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/7c0c4ce74a32e9ed852571cb00499727
Also look at the binocular material by Roy L. Bishop in the annual Handbook of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, but remember he wrote about the needs of astronomers.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :egghead:

Kevin Purcell

Monday 25th August 2008, 18:51

[...]Should the Yosemite have fewer air to glass surfaces or better coatings, differences would disappear.
Comparing twilight factors of binoculars with differing coatings and constructions would seems riddled with pitfalls.

Yes, I assumed that all coatings were similar.

Obviously it's difficult to count the number of glass/air transitions without pulling the bins (how many eyepiece elements each on has) but at this price point I do not expect major differences in designs or coatings.

Between roofs and porro designs there are two potentially significant differences:

1. the three reflections from mirrored surfaces in Schmidt-Pechan roof prism

2. an extra pair of glass/air transitions from the internal focuser (not a moving eyepiece). With typical multicoatings that might loose perhaps 0.5%, maybe 1% for a poor multilayer or for a doublet. It was probably worse in the past (perhaps 2% with a single MgF layer). Not much compared to the mirrored surfaces.

FYI, bins that use a Abbe-Koenig roof prism rely on total internal reflection not mirrored surfaces so they don't have this problem though they need phase correction.

Therefore twilight factors may be suited for comparison within the same line of binoculars, like the 8x30 and 6x30 Yosemites.

Yes, twilight factor (if it's useful) would only be useful with everything else controlled for: same coating, same number of glass/air transitions. Bins in the same range are the only ones that meet this requirement (even the next range up you might not be getting the same design, coatings, etc).

So aside from understanding twilight factor model it doesn't seem particularly useful.

And all this for an extra 10 or 15 minutes of birding in twilight ;)