Minox HG 10x43 or Nikon SE 10x42?

[Glimmer]

Hi!

Yesterday I spent the day on stores looking for a pair of adequate bins for me...

I'm hesitant in only these bins: Minox HG 10x43 BR (630Eur) and Nikon SE 10x42 (770Eur).

I only had the chance to test the Minox, it's impossible to me here in Spain test the Nikon ones.

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only searh for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!

[ThoLa]

Hi!

Yesterday I spent the day on stores looking for a pair of adequate bins for me...

I'm hesitant in only these bins: Minox HG 10x43 BR (630Eur) and Nikon SE 10x42 (770Eur).

I only had the chance to test the Minox, it's impossible to me here in Spain test the Nikon ones.

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only searh for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!


Hi!
How about a Swarovski Habicht 10x40?
Porro, water-proof. Supposed to have excellent optics. And light-weight.

I am considering this but have not found a dealer yet.

Tom

[Glimmer]

The option of Habitch is more expensive (they cost 1000 Eur. - at least here in Spain-)

I'll recommend that you test the models I said; they seem to be the best option in porro / roof nowadays (in all shops told me the same)

[ThoLa]

The option of Habitch is more expensive (they cost 1000 Eur. - at least here in Spain-)

I'll recommend that you test the models I said; they seem to be the best option in porro / roof nowadays (in all shops told me the same)

Hello!
The price for the Swaro H 10x40 is 750-800 E in Germany, so it would have been close to the 770,- you mentioned.

Minox are technically VERY INFERIOR. Several models have been tested by a state-funded consumer organisation in 2004 and 2007. They all failed. In addition to optical mediocrity, they are contaminated with chemicals posing a health concern.

I'd rather spend 780 E (german price) on a Zeiss Conquest 10x40 ..... or a Habicht 10x40.

Maybe a Leica Trinovid is an alternative. They are not made anymore, and in Germany the sell-out starts at -25 to -30 % of the list prices.
I do not know the price level for these in Spain.

The Zeiss Conquest - according to independent, objective tests - has probably got the best value-for-price relationship.

It's a difficult decision ... I know.

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick-on]

Hi!

The fact is that I'm used to use porros bins, so that I found that Minox ones are too small for my big hands, it was a strange feeling having them in my hands.

I only search for IMAGE QUALITY. If they are hermetic, waterproof, or weight more or less is not important for me (I´m an user of Olympus 10x50 DPSR and really I want to buy something very superior)

What should I do?

Thanks in advance!!!

Hello,

The Nikon's are excellent binoculars. You will not be disappointed if you get them. The view through them is unsurpassed IMHO.

Nick

[Glimmer]

Hello,

The Nikon's are excellent binoculars. You will not be disappointed if you get them. The view through them is unsurpassed IMHO.

Nick

The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them

[ND2000]

Minox are technically VERY INFERIOR. Several models have been tested by a state-funded consumer organisation in 2004 and 2007. They all failed. In addition to optical mediocrity, they are contaminated with chemicals posing a health concern.

ThoLa -

When you say "VERY INFERIOR" exactly what are you referring to? They "all failed" in what respect. Optical mediocrity -- have you actually looked through a pair of HGs as yet? They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000. What chemicals are you referring to that pose a health concern?

ND2000

[ceasar]

The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them

Nick is right. The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled! I was using mine yesterday along with my new model Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid, which also has outstanding optics. Quite simply, optically speaking, the Nikon is better. It has a much bigger "sweet spot" in relation to it's FOV than the Leica has in it's FOV, and it has virtually no Chromatic Abberation under any lighting condition. It's sharpness and it's overall view is as good as it gets. And for a 10x they have a very large "depth of field."

The first day or so that I used the Nikon I had some trouble with black outs but when I correctly set my IPD and found the right place to position the eyecups under my brows the blackouts disappeared and have never returned. I earlier had the same problem with my older model 1990's vintage Leica 7x 42 Trinovid which had rubber eyecups like the Nikon has and I corrected it in the same manner. Eye position was the key for me in both instances.

Hope this helps.

Bob:hi:

[Glimmer]

Nick is right. The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled! I was using mine yesterday along with my new model Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid, which also has outstanding optics. Quite simply, optically speaking, the Nikon is better. It has a much bigger "sweet spot" in relation to it's FOV than the Leica has in it's FOV, and it has virtually no Chromatic Abberation under any lighting condition. It's sharpness and it's overall view is as good as it gets. And for a 10x they have a very large "depth of field."

The first day or so that I used the Nikon I had some trouble with black outs but when I correctly set my IPD and found the right place to position the eyecups under my brows the blackouts disappeared and have never returned. I earlier had the same problem with my older model 1990's vintage Leica 7x 42 Trinovid which had rubber eyecups like the Nikon has and I corrected it in the same manner. Eye position was the key for me in both instances.

Hope this helps.

Bob:hi:

Thanks Bob, very helpful advices, but, what is "IPD"? (sorry for my english!)

[Glimmer]

MINOX "They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000"

NIKON "The optics of the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are unexcelled"

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhh What a difficult decision!!!!!

In other hand, I prefer porros (big hands), but the weight, impermeability and easy-to-carry of Minox compensate the balance.

[ThoLa]

When you say "VERY INFERIOR" exactly what are you referring to? They "all failed" in what respect. Optical mediocrity -- have you actually looked through a pair of HGs as yet? They are the closest view I have seen to my Swarovski ELs under $1,000. What chemicals are you referring to that pose a health concern?

ND2000


The whole test can be downloaded from here, for instance:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/downloads/binoculars_for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

Leica were so proud to have won the contest that they have put it online.

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

Optically, the Minox achieved a meagre 3,2 (on a scale from 0,5 to 4,5).
"Detailerkennbarkeit" (= resolution / resolving power) insufficient (= less than 4,5).

"Schadstoffreiheit" (being free of harmful contaminants): 4,5. Comment: Significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Out of 10 models (10x42/43) tested it struggled hard ........ and ended up as No. 10.
Not exactly luring me into a shop to test it .....

In 2004 the same foundation tested compact binoculars and included two slightly different Minox models. Want to guess their ranks?

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

Even top end companies like Leica (http://www.leica-camera.de/nature_observation/ultravid_binoculars/ultravid_32/) or Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033D63E/Contents-Frame/F5252D3014569C94C1256EEE00404819) are very proud of the results they achieve in the tests of this highly reputed consumer organisation and boast the results.

Regards, Thomas

[Glimmer]

That's very interesting... but I can confirm that quality of viewing of new Minox HG is superior to the cheper model BL that appear in the comparative (brighter, sharper)

[ND2000]

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

ThoLa -

Thanks for the info on the chemicals. I can confirm the softness of the rubber on the HGs. I also appreciate the translation as I don't speak German.

However, I could also argue that testing binoculars in a lab setting with artifical light staring against some standard resolution chart is irrelevant compared to actual user experience in the field.

Glimmer -

Best of luck with your purchase!

ND2000

[ceasar]

Thanks Bob, very helpful advices, but, what is "IPD"? (sorry for my english!)

IPD means Interpupilary Distance: That is the measurement of the distance between your two eyes pupils in millimeters. You will find the measurement gauge on the rear of the hinge of the Nikon SE, it goes from 60mm to 72mm. For example, my correct separation for use with binoculars is 68mm.

Good birding,
Bob

[chartwell99]

The only thing that make me not purchase the Nikon bins is the supposed blackout issues... and that I cannot test them

In my experience, the 8 x 32 SE is much harder to use from a blackout perspective than the 10 x 42 SE, even though the exit pupil is identical for both. Beats me why, but as a consequence I reluctantly sold my 8 x 32 SE a while back but still have and continue to be impressed by the 10 x 42 SE. Optically, I found the 10 x 40 Swaro Habicht to be closest to the Zeiss 10 x 40 Classic for image quality (including identical FOVs) but not comparable to the Nikon 10 x 42 SE in terms of brightness, intensity of colors and flat field performance.

[Timedrifter]

The whole test can be downloaded from here, for instance:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/downloads/binoculars_for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

Leica were so proud to have won the contest that they have put it online.

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

Optically, the Minox achieved a meagre 3,2 (on a scale from 0,5 to 4,5).
"Detailerkennbarkeit" (= resolution / resolving power) insufficient (= less than 4,5).

"Schadstoffreiheit" (being free of harmful contaminants): 4,5. Comment: Significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Out of 10 models (10x42/43) tested it struggled hard ........ and ended up as No. 10.
Not exactly luring me into a shop to test it .....

In 2004 the same foundation tested compact binoculars and included two slightly different Minox models. Want to guess their ranks?

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

Even top end companies like Leica (http://www.leica-camera.de/nature_observation/ultravid_binoculars/ultravid_32/) or Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033D63E/Contents-Frame/F5252D3014569C94C1256EEE00404819) are very proud of the results they achieve in the tests of this highly reputed consumer organisation and boast the results.

Regards, Thomas
It's a great shame that the production quality doesn't match these obtained results. There are so many examples of poor Leica workmanship getting onto the market these days that I don't consider Leica to be anywhere near the top position they once held; all in all fairly substandard. When you hear of coatings peeling off for instance it's almost unbelievable. If I was given them as a gift I'd sell them immediately. Stories of very rough focussing abound, and I have felt this myself in a pair I tried.
Timedrifter

[APSmith]

That's very interesting... but I can confirm that quality of viewing of new Minox HG is superior to the cheper model BL that appear in the comparative (brighter, sharper)

So, it's not the HGs which got the bad marks?

Alot of the Minox criticism I've read on BF has come from Germany. Are they considered second rate there partly because of Japanese manufacture?

APS

[Glimmer]

So, it's not the HGs which got the bad marks?

Alot of the Minox criticism I've read on BF has come from Germany. Are they considered second rate there partly because of Japanese manufacture?

APS

Yes, the Minox who got the bad marks were the more basic series BL. I tested both outside a shop in near sundown (BL 10x42 and HG 10x43) and I found significant differences.

I prefer japanese manufactures too (also in cars, I'm very happy with my Toyota compared to my previous VW haha)

[Glimmer]

So, as a conclusion:

What should you do if you CANNOT test the Nikon ones? Minox HG or Nikon SE?

[Glimmer]

In my experience, the 8 x 32 SE is much harder to use from a blackout perspective than the 10 x 42 SE, even though the exit pupil is identical for both. Beats me why, but as a consequence I reluctantly sold my 8 x 32 SE a while back but still have and continue to be impressed by the 10 x 42 SE. Optically, I found the 10 x 40 Swaro Habicht to be closest to the Zeiss 10 x 40 Classic for image quality (including identical FOVs) but not comparable to the Nikon 10 x 42 SE in terms of brightness, intensity of colors and flat field performance.


AS i've read, 8x42 SE has an exit pupil of 4,0 instead of 4'2 mm of 10x42 ones.

[ThoLa]

So, it's not the HGs which got the bad marks?

Alot of the Minox criticism I've read on BF has come from Germany. Are they considered second rate there partly because of Japanese manufacture?

APS


My question, I suppose.
Why should that be?
In the test I was referring to Nikon and Pentax got top (N) or very good (P) marks. They are made in Japan, the Pentax probably in China.
Zeiss has production facilities in Hungary; many of the Leicas come from Portugal.
No nationalism whatsoever involved.
Some people just do not understand the MediocriNOX Hype.
no good value for money - no good deal.

As regards distinctions between different models I would be hesitant. Four Minox models have been tested in 2004 and 2006. They all were the worst of their respective classes (see tests).
We are talking about lab measurements according to ISO standards.
And the results have not been challenged by any manufacturer.

Tom

[ThoLa]

However, I could also argue that testing binoculars in a lab setting with artifical light staring against some standard resolution chart is irrelevant compared to actual user experience in the field.

ND2000


Objective, user-independent, standardized, reproducible measurements in the laboratory are the ONLY way to reach reliable comparative results.
This is called "the scientific method". Unfortunately very few lay people are familiar with it.

"User experience in the field" is always and only peronal prejudice grounded on unmeasurable (unquantitable) vagaries.

Tom

[Nick-on]

So, as a conclusion:

What should you do if you CANNOT test the Nikon ones? Minox HG or Nikon SE?

Hi,
Same advice as before...get the Nikon's. The Minox will not be as good!
HTH

Nick

[ND2000]

Objective, user-independent, standardized, reproducible measurements in the laboratory are the ONLY way to reach reliable comparative results.
This is called "the scientific method". Unfortunately very few lay people are familiar with it.

"User experience in the field" is always and only peronal prejudice grounded on unmeasurable (unquantitable) vagaries.

Tom

Of course, the non-lay people are also the ones who quote terms like twilight factor, exit pupil and relative brightness as if they mean something on a stand-alone basis. For instance, most people assume that a 7 x 35 and a 10 x 50 binocular will be equally as bright, based on the exit pupil, and the scientific method would come to this result as well. I can assure you that the 10x50 will be brighter in almost every situation in the field.

ND2000

[APSmith]

My question, I suppose.
Why should that be?
In the test I was referring to Nikon and Pentax got top (N) or very good (P) marks. They are made in Japan, the Pentax probably in China.
Zeiss has production facilities in Hungary; many of the Leicas come from Portugal.
No nationalism whatsoever involved.
Some people just do not understand the MediocriNOX Hype.
no good value for money - no good deal.

As regards distinctions between different models I would be hesitant. Four Minox models have been tested in 2004 and 2006. They all were the worst of their respective classes (see tests).
We are talking about lab measurements according to ISO standards.
And the results have not been challenged by any manufacturer.

Tom

Thanks for the reply. Good point about the other Japanese mfgs. Does the review categorize based on price? (Are the BLs being compared to Leica and Zeiss?)

It just seems like the German reviews of Minox are particularly critical, and not exaclty in agreement with the common field impressions which are reported. Out of curiousity, how do the Steiners do in such reviews? There seems to be somewhat of a concensus (unlike with Minox) that they are sub-par "German" binoculars.

I do not own a Minox - just been strongly thinking about either the BD BR or the HG.

APS

[ceasar]

Curious about the German reviews on Minox versus Leica. Leica does the Minox repairs here in the USA. If Minox is so inferior why would Leica bother to do so?
I have a Minox BD 10 x 32 BR Aspheric. I purchased it from Camera Land as a Demo at about a 15% discount. It's a darn good binocular; compact, sharp, bright, with a nice big "sweet spot." Well worth the $390.00 I paid for it. It's not in the class of my Nikon 10 x 42 SE, of course, but then, no binocular is! It is handier to lug around with my Leica 7 x 42 BN Trinovid than the Nikon is though.
Cordially,
Bob

[ThoLa]

Thanks for the reply. Good point about the other Japanese mfgs. Does the review categorize based on price? (Are the BLs being compared to Leica and Zeiss?)

It just seems like the German reviews of Minox are particularly critical, and not exaclty in agreement with the common field impressions which are reported. Out of curiousity, how do the Steiners do in such reviews? There seems to be somewhat of a concensus (unlike with Minox) that they are sub-par "German" binoculars.

I do not own a Minox - just been strongly thinking about either the BD BR or the HG.

APS

Hello APS!
I don't know whether german reviews are particular critical about one or another brand.
Most appear in hunter's magazines and similar periodicals. I am doubtful about their impartiality, though. They usually get their test items directly from the manufacturers, so they will probably be pre-selected.

I was never impressed with Steiners' when I encountered one in a shop and tried it. They seem to have some reputation with hunters and boating people.

As regards the tests I mentioned previously I can send you pdfs if you like.
The results are in neat tables giving numbers and +/-, respectively, so language should not be much of a problem.
Categorization was according to size (compacts, 8x, 10x, others).

"Are the BLs being compared to Leica and Zeiss?"
Yes.

Some of the measurements have been critisized by another contributor to be too far away from "the real world". Maybe ..........
But it would be hard to put the impression that an image leaves in the eye of the beholder into numbers and tables.
And the test takes into account aspects never mentioned in other, more conventional ones (like unpleasant chemicals oozing out of our beloved toys ......... Swarovski got very good marks here, so it can be done without too much of a challenge for the liver).

The Minox Br10x25 BRW was found not to be waterproof ... in addition to poor resolving power and lots of unhealthy chemicals evaporating out of it.

I would like to see the "real field" people who reject lab experiments coming into a shop, carrying a bucket full of water to test for waterproofing "in the field" ....

Cheers, Tom

[hinnark]

The report in the September issue of "test", the magazine of the German consumerism organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about binoculars covers only one sample of Minox BL 10x42 BR. The BL series of Minox is their cheaper production line. The HG series wasn´t under test there. I wouldn´t recommend to jump to conclusions from results of only one sample of a special binocular. BTW the only binoculars in that test report which were assessed in respect of hazardous substances as "good" or "very good" were made by Swarovski.
I think even when the older optics of Minox weren´t that good we should give them a chance to make it better. The HG series could be understood as an answer of the manufactorer to the consumers criticism. Personally I really appreciate manufactorers who do listen to their costumers.

Steve

[iveljay]

I must have picked a good Minox BD 8x25 BRW, or they picked a bad 10x25, vast improvement over a similarly priced 8x25 I'd been using before. Very sensitive to adjust particularly the dioptre adjustment, but rewarding once set up OK. Can't comment on chemicals and havn't tried drowning them. Not as good as my Nikon EII's but what 8x25 is?

John

[APSmith]

"Are the BLs being compared to Leica and Zeiss?"
Yes.

The Minox Br10x25 BRW was found not to be waterproof ... in addition to poor resolving power and lots of unhealthy chemicals evaporating out of it.


Tom,

It seems strange that they reviewed the BL as such.

Also, I just never have thought of hazardous chemicals being an issue with binoculars - first time I've seen it mentioned. It seems odd that a company would be so careless in that regard. On the other hand, if the chemicals and/or levels are truly dangerous, wouldn't/shouldn't they be banned from use in consumer products?

Nonetheless, the information you present certainly casts some doubt on Minox value in general. Thanks for sharing!

APS

[Tero]

The report in the September issue of "test", the magazine of the German consumerism organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about binoculars covers only one sample of Minox BL 10x42 BR. The BL series of Minox is their cheaper production line. The HG series wasn´t under test there. I wouldn´t recommend to jump to conclusions from results of only one sample of a special binocular. BTW the only binoculars in that test report which were assessed in respect of hazardous substances as "good" or "very good" were made by Swarovski.
I think even when the older optics of Minox weren´t that good we should give them a chance to make it better. The HG series could be understood as an answer of the manufactorer to the consumers criticism. Personally I really appreciate manufactorers who do listen to their costumers.

Steve

Sounds like our Consumers Reports. Many plastics contain this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate
so don't let your babies chew your $500 binoculars.

[ThoLa]

Tom,

It seems strange that they reviewed the BL as such.

Also, I just never have thought of hazardous chemicals being an issue with binoculars - first time I've seen it mentioned. It seems odd that a company would be so careless in that regard. On the other hand, if the chemicals and/or levels are truly dangerous, wouldn't/shouldn't they be banned from use in consumer products?

Nonetheless, the information you present certainly casts some doubt on Minox value in general. Thanks for sharing!

APS


Hi APS!

"It seems strange that they reviewed the BL as such. "

Does it?
Maybe it was the only one that was available in the shops. I was slightly puzzled that they had a Pentax HR II against Zeiss Victory and Swaro SLC, but given the fact that there are hardly any dealers for Pentax binos anywhere in this country, the selection may just reflect availability at the time of testing.

As regards chemicals in the materials used I don't know if manufacturers can be trusted to care too much (on avarage). If money is an issue, who can be trusted?
Or maybe they simply did not know themselves?
Optics manufacturers will not produce the rubber themselves. So they may have trusted the chemicals companies to supply "clean stuff".
And as long as no wise guy puts them under a hood and sucks out the air to put it into a gas chromatograph .........
The chemicals mentioned all emanate from the rubber. A simple way to avoid them would be to use the old-fashioned leather armouring. Personally I like it much better anyway, but hardly anyone uses it anymore.
The polycyclic aromatics (PAHs in the chemist's jargon) are components of soot, and soot is used to colour the rubber black. Maybe that's the simple explanation why the SLC was so much better. Its green rubber does not contain soot particles.
The PAHs feature prominently in the ultra-fine dust particles of the exhausts of Diesel engines as well.
The amount coming from a small gadget like a pair of binos may not be harzardous in itself, probably not even after prolonged use. But it adds to the overall "consumption". And it would clearly not be necessary.
The softeners (Phthalic acid derivatives) from a pair of binos may not be harming anyone as such, too. But this type of chemical is in every plastic bottle to prevent them from being too brittle (and many other items such as steering wheels and all the other plastic in a car). A little bit from the binos, another "spoonful" from the soft dring container we take on an outdoor trip, ....

No-one will be able to prove that your binos made you sick. These contaminants build up in bodies over years or even decades. Why bother as a manufacturer if the smoke from the gun has long since been blown away?
Rubber is the fasion of the day. And black it must be. Pitchblack is even better.

It will be a matter of time until the top end designers will discover "carbon fibre". Formula 1 race cars use it, so it must enhance optical gear, too, mustn't it? :cool:

Fact of the matter is that some companies seem to be using more soot and more softeners than others.

The "Leatherman"

[ThoLa]

The report in the September issue of "test", the magazine of the German consumerism organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about binoculars covers only one sample of Minox BL 10x42 BR. The BL series of Minox is their cheaper production line. The HG series wasn´t under test there. I wouldn´t recommend to jump to conclusions from results of only one sample of a special binocular. BTW the only binoculars in that test report which were assessed in respect of hazardous substances as "good" or "very good" were made by Swarovski.
I think even when the older optics of Minox weren´t that good we should give them a chance to make it better. The HG series could be understood as an answer of the manufactorer to the consumers criticism. Personally I really appreciate manufactorers who do listen to their costumers.

Steve


What's "consumerism"?
Something like communism?



"I wouldn´t recommend to jump to conclusions from results of only one sample of a special binocular."


Tested were:

In 2004:

Minox BD10x25BR (rank: 8th out of 9)

Minox BD10x25A (9th out of 9)


In 2006:

Minox BD10x25BRW (4th out of 4)

Minox BL 10x42BR (10th out of 10).



You may pick ONE "odd one" - but odd ones all the time?

I don't think there is any need to jump myself, as the conclusion seems to jump right into my face.


If they were horses, would you bet on them?


T

[Chhayanat]

It's not in the class of my Nikon 10 x 42 SE, of course, but then, no binocular is! Bob

Since the prospective buyer of the Minox and the Nikon is clear that optical quality in a porro binocular is what matters to him, the choice is pretty clear as well:

The Nikon 10x42SE is the best all-round porro binocular being manufactured at present. Blackouts are not ruled out owing to limited adjustability of the rubber eyecups and the shared eyepiece with the Nikon 8x32SE, but most reports of blackouts relate to the latter binocular. Various homemade solutions have been proposed for setting the eyecups.
Chhayanat

[Glimmer]

Since the prospective buyer of the Minox and the Nikon is clear that optical quality in a porro binocular is what matters to him, the choice is pretty clear as well:

The Nikon 10x42SE is the best all-round porro binocular being manufactured at present. Blackouts are not ruled out owing to limited adjustability of the rubber eyecups and the shared eyepiece with the Nikon 8x32SE, but most reports of blackouts relate to the latter binocular. Various homemade solutions have been proposed for setting the eyecups.
Chhayanat

The matter is clear: I would prefer the Nikon ones; but it's just impossible to me to test them in a shop or from someone, so I'm afraid to choose them and suffer from blackout problems.

Other option is buy them and return them if they not fit well, but it seems complicated here in Spain... If I resell them in ebay I would loose money for sure...

Do the homemade solutions eliminate totally the problem? I think that not...

[Marko_]

Tested were:

In 2004:

Minox BD10x25BR (rank: 8th out of 9)

Minox BD10x25A (9th out of 9)


In 2006:

Minox BD10x25BRW (4th out of 4)

Minox BL 10x42BR (10th out of 10).

You may pick ONE "odd one" - but odd ones all the time?

I don't think there is any need to jump myself, as the conclusion seems to jump right into my face.


If they were horses, would you bet on them?

T

OK, so they have tried three Minox compacts + one BL ? And compared to what ? Leicas, Swarovskis etc.?

Leicas, Swarovskis etc. cost something like four times as much as these above mentioned Minoxes.

We should also perhaps keep in mind that the full -size Minox BD BR asph. and HG's are something quite different.

So I wouldn't necessarily jump to any conclusions based on this. Especially since I have some first hand experience from both the BD BR asph. and HG lines.

I have just purchased the BD 8x32 BR asph. and I must say it is one of the finest and nicest binoculars I have looked through. And I happen to know what good binoculars are, owning a Swarovski 8,5 EL, and having previously owned a Nikon HG and a Nikon E2.

The BD 8x32 BR asph. has an image which is wide, bright and really sharp. The ergonomics are great, and the overall feel is of VERY high quality.

The focus wheel is firm but smooth, with absolutely no play in the mechanism. Even a very slight turn causes a slight change in the focus.

I'm not saying it's as good as a Swarovski EL, but it cost a fraction of the Swarovski's price. (And I have yet to compare them). But I'm saying it's better than Nikon Monarch, Opticron Imagic, Kowa BD 8x32, to name a few.

The Minox HG I have briefly tested in a store, and that was even better. Outstanding image and ergonomics. Even brighter than the BD BR. Probably very close to the top four brands.

I haven't seen the Minox BL, which apparently was in the German test.

Marko

[ThoLa]

OK, so they have tried three Minox compacts + one BL ? And compared to what ? Leicas, Swarovskis etc.?

Leicas, Swarovskis etc. cost something like four times as much as these above mentioned Minoxes.

We should also perhaps keep in mind that the full -size Minox BD BR asph. and HG's are something quite different.

So I wouldn't necessarily jump to any conclusions based on this. Especially since I have some first hand experience from both the BD BR asph. and HG lines.

I have just purchased the BD 8x32 BR asph. and I must say it is one of the finest and nicest binoculars I have looked through. And I happen to know what good binoculars are, owning a Swarovski 8,5 EL, and having previously owned a Nikon HG and a Nikon E2.

The BD 8x32 BR asph. has an image which is wide, bright and really sharp. The ergonomics are great, and the overall feel is of VERY high quality.

The focus wheel is firm but smooth, with absolutely no play in the mechanism. Even a very slight turn causes a slight change in the focus.

I'm not saying it's as good as a Swarovski EL, but it cost a fraction of the Swarovski's price. (And I have yet to compare them). But I'm saying it's better than Nikon Monarch, Opticron Imagic, Kowa BD 8x32, to name a few.

The Minox HG I have briefly tested in a store, and that was even better. Outstanding image and ergonomics. Even brighter than the BD BR. Probably very close to the top four brands.

I haven't seen the Minox BL, which apparently was in the German test.

Marko

Compared to what?
Compared to all sorts of things .... most of them far better.
Download the test and have look:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/downloads/binoculars_for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

before dismissing the results.

I begin to think it is rather hopeless to induce any rudimentary amount of critical, scientific thinking in anyone.

Over a time-course of two years four different models ended up as also-rans.
And you are not willing to draw any conclusions?

Okay, it is up to anyone what to waste his money on.

Swarovski EL ....... nice but suffers from terrible concave distortion.
And spending four times as much on something that is really good may be better than wasting a quarter on something that is not even able to compete with things cheaper.

T

[Marko_]

I begin to think it is rather hopeless to induce any rudimentary amount of critical, scientific thinking in anyone.

T

Thomas,

Dismissing a whole BRAND based on a couple of tests, where only some of the brand's CHEAPER models were featured, may be YOUR idea of scientific thinking, but certainly isn't MINE!

Marko

[Glimmer]

Hey guys, peace!

They're only binoculars, aren't they? Hope all my problems were to take this decission...

Okay, that comparative does not help me in a right way, the model I'm asking for does not appear. Besides, lab resuts may very differentof day by day field watching.

Let's wait for a review of HG's.

Next week I'll test them again in the shpo against Zess Victory and Leica Ultravid... will post here.

[ND2000]

Glimmer -

Go to the Minox sub-forum. You can view an existing review that I posted a couple weeks ago. I compared them on a number of features directly against my Swaro 8.5 ELs.

Would also love to hear what you think of them against the Ultravid.

ND2000

[APSmith]

Compared to what?
Compared to all sorts of things .... most of them far better.
Download the test and have look:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/downloads/binoculars_for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

before dismissing the results.

I begin to think it is rather hopeless to induce any rudimentary amount of critical, scientific thinking in anyone.

T

To see for myself, I went ahead and downloaded the test. The language made it difficult, to be sure. I could only make out parts of it. Therefore, the conclusions (and means of arriving at them) were not clear.

Nonetheless, many of the models selected for comparison did seem strange (i.e. a Sportstar vs. an Ultravid, etc.). The particular measurements (if interpreted) would be interesting, but to talk about rankings doesn't quite seem fair. Keeping in mind that I couldn't read the writeup, it at a glance reminded me of the type of tests you see in hunting and backpacking magazines. If I had a translation, it might look different. It did not convince me that I should eliminate Minox from my short list. Sorry, Thomas.

APS

[Glimmer]

Another competitor has come! Zeiss Victory 10x42 T* FL for 1005 Eur!!! They're brand new, the price is special until finishing stock. A really good price for a superb binocular.

As I have read, Minox 10x43 HG view are NOT as sharp and contrast as Minox 10x42 BR. Could anyone confirm this?

[jimtrader11]

The whole test can be downloaded from here, for instance:

http://www.leica-camera.de/service/downloads/binoculars_for_nature_observation/ultravid_32/index.html

Leica were so proud to have won the contest that they have put it online.

Chemicals tested for were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic, and "softeners" that are put into the rubber armouring. Lots of brands are oozing out stuff like this, but the Minox seems to be a real "chimney".

Optically, the Minox achieved a meagre 3,2 (on a scale from 0,5 to 4,5).
"Detailerkennbarkeit" (= resolution / resolving power) insufficient (= less than 4,5).

"Schadstoffreiheit" (being free of harmful contaminants): 4,5. Comment: Significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Out of 10 models (10x42/43) tested it struggled hard ........ and ended up as No. 10.
Not exactly luring me into a shop to test it .....

In 2004 the same foundation tested compact binoculars and included two slightly different Minox models. Want to guess their ranks?

As these are objective measurements made in a laboratory they are extremely trustworthy. The foundation does not contact any manufacturer but sends out people who buy in shops like we all do. So there is no pre-selection bias as in hunter's or birder's magazines where "testing" and ill-concealed advertising frequently mix.

Even top end companies like Leica (http://www.leica-camera.de/nature_observation/ultravid_binoculars/ultravid_32/) or Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033D63E/Contents-Frame/F5252D3014569C94C1256EEE00404819) are very proud of the results they achieve in the tests of this highly reputed consumer organisation and boast the results.

Regards, Thomas

Just my two cents.
I few months ago, I purchased a used almost new, Minox 10x43 HG off ebay. The first thing I noticest was the incredibly strong odor of the rubber. It almost seemed as if they were dipped in gasoline.
They also had a focus wheel which had a very stiff spot in its range and the knob was not alighned straight. This appeared to be a poor quality assembly operation or poor fitting parts
Optically however, they seemed incredibly sharp and the equal or better of my Zeiss 8x30 Conquest.
However, I returned them because of the knob and the very strong solvent or gasoline type smell of the rubber.
Jim

[Steve C]

Glimmer,

Well were it not for your post, I might have gone quite awhile to learn of the discussed failings of the Minox. Don't have any, but I thought their image was quite good in relation to their price. However, as Thola correctly points out, user preferences in field use are certainly quite subjective. He's also quite correct in pointing out the failings of most people to grasp the science behind optical realities. I'm probably in this category most of the time. Although I do wander around in optics seeking knowledge. That's why there are so many binocluars out there to pick from (at least in the roof prism family).

One thing that has always struck me about the Minox HG is that it is a relatively small binocular compared to other roofs of a similar configuration. In
this regard I'll suggest a couple of other directions. First look at a larger roof. Something like the 10x42 Vortex Razor. It is bigger than the Minox, and optically very similar. Although considering some of the Minox comments here, that might not be so good, but both give me what I consider very good images. (Note that's a subjective comment.) You may also consider a 50mm glass if, as it seems, you are more concerned with the ergonomics of the fit to your hands. Again, as an example 50mm family from the Vortex Razor. The open bridge design allows the hands to be individually wrapped around each barrel. These are very good optically and will not require the financial outlay of one of the elite lines. They cost $7-800 US. I have no idea of how easy they might be to come by in Spain. Optics Planet will ship overseas, but I have read some horror stories from people about them. Some people report no problem. I can't comment because I've never used them.

The really good porro prism binocular selection is sort of scarce these days. Nikon has discontinued the SE line. They're drying up here, but maybe the situation is different in Europe. I really like the Swarovski porro 10x40. Those seem discontinued too, although maybe only in the US. Don't hesitate on that one if you can find them. Another optically very good porro prism is the Swift 8.5x44 ED. This is about $450.00 US and is worth consideration if you want a good porro image. This has a 430' fov. They do not come in 10x. Again I do not know how easy they might be to find in Spain. Good luck in your search.

[Tero]

As far as ordering from the US, from any outfit, do not order refurbished or discontinued models. You want to be able to exchange if not happy. The issue was with paying customs.

[Fernando np]

Get the SEs. I own 8.5x42EL and 8X32SE and I've tested them against the 10X42SE. At long distance, the former give more detail than the Swaroskis, what is saying a lot. One time the SEs are out of production, I suposse in some years its price will be higher than when new, if in well condition, as it happened witch the zeiss 15X60porroprism.

[vkalia]

Personally, I find it hard to lend any credence to such arguments about Minox being a poor brand when the only products being tested are their lowest end models (all 4 of those reviews cited have reviewed the budget models) - and these models are then compared to other brands costing almost 10x as much.

Look at the budget Zeiss binos - overpriced pieces of c$$p, with atleast 25% of the price coming solely from the label. I prefer $350 Vortex Furies to the view from the $400-500 Zeiss binos. Does that mean all Zeiss binos are mediocre?

Taking the results of budget Minox binos (esp when compared to top end alternatives) and extrapolating it to cover all Minox models is not good science. Whether it is a deliberate desire to mislead, some kind of inherent bias or ignorance, I cannot say - but suffice to say, such arguments hold no merit with me.

I have a pair of Minox 8x32 BD BRs and they are *superb* binoculars - bright, sharp and very detailed. They, along with Vortex Viper 8x42s, are my main birding binoculars.

Vandit

[davem]

Not that it will make much difference to some on here, you may like to know that the BR-W compacts that didn't fare too well in the German SWT were officially discontinued BEFORE the test came out due to QC concerns. The publishers were contacted about this but chose to publish regardless.

Reviews will always be subjective, and even here in the UK, we have to be careful about the choice of binos we submit to magazines etc depending on the test 'requirements'. For example we would not wish to put a BL up against an HD / FL / EL - there's no point - against similarly price-bracketed optics around the £250 mark, yes of course.

Just keeping things sensible!

[Fireform]

You can spend as much as you want, but you won't get better image quality than the Nikon SE's. I personally have the 8x32's and 10x 42's and have compared them extensively with Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss (I also own the 8x32FL's). The SE's are the first string. I also have no trouble with the so-called blackouts and am not sure what all the fuss is about in that regard. They're not a hard bin to use in any way.

[ronh]

The 10x42 SE holds a special place in my heart. It's my brother in law's, actually. It's the first binocular I ever used that had that magic view that seems better than reality. For years, when I visited him, I'd ask to look through it and just sit there mystified, basically nonconversant. I finally caught on and started buying my own stuff!

If you don't mind the porro bulkiness, and don't need full waterproofing, get the SE. The optics is fabulous. Blackout is apparent if you look for it by gazing at the edge of the field, but nobody does that except to test a new binocular for blackout! In normal use, it's no problem.
Ron