-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Zen-Ray Compact (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Penwolf
- Start date
mooreorless
Well-known member
Not a compact, but light wt. Leupold 6x30 Yosemite. The only compacts I know you can stick in your pocket are the 8x20 etc. I don't see the ZR Vista 8x26 listed on ZR site.
Regards,Steve
Regards,Steve
Any compact under $100.00 is not worth owning. A compact has to be quality to be good because you are dealing with smaller apertures. The cheap ones are JUNK!
spitfiretriple
Well-known member
I can see it...along with quite a few other new(?) models. Don't remember seeing any of them before. Is Zen-Ray may be turning into yet another "me-too" importer of rebadged generic Chinese? Shame if so. I had seen Zen-Ray as something a bit different from the herd, more concerned with getting excellent value on a handful of carefully-chosen and carefully-specced models than with offering a barrow-load of everything China turns out.
Still, maybe the new additions are good too. No doubt someone will test some of the new models soon, and we shall find out.
PS I myself don't have an automatic problem with a cheap (reverse/)porro; it's easier to make a reasonable-quality cheap porro than it is to make a reasonable-quality cheap roof.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Gotta disagree. I'll be backpacking ~170 miles of the Muir trail in the Sierra Nevadas this summer and I'm seriously thinking of taking my little Olympus 8x25 Tracker reverse porro instead of my Leica 8x20 UV. Had 'em both out again over the weekend. Guess what? It's close, but the Olympus is brighter and sharper, and the bigger exit pupil eases the view. In the case, it weighs 1 oz. more. Not waterproof, but if I'm slogging through the backcountry in the rain, with a 50 lb. pack, well, the Clark's nutcrackers can wait.
I snagged the Olympus on Ebay for $27. The Leica set me back a tad more as I recall.
I find that unbelievable! I had a pair of Olympus Trackers 8x25 for a short time because I wanted to see what they were about for such a low cost. They aren't bad for a $25.00 binocular but they don't deserve to be in the same sentence with the Leica UV's. It makes me wonder what people are looking for through their binoculars. Wow!
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Uh, that would be: "brighter and sharper, and the bigger exit pupil eases the view."
I get the same with the Opticron Taiga 8x25 (which is, I think, an Olympus Tracker inside). Compared to my Leica Ultravid or Victory 8x20´s, chunkier, narrower FOV, not waterproof, but equally bright and sharp. (Well maybe the Ultras are sharper by a hair´s breadth). Cost about 70 euro on e-bay.
Strange! Hmm. Your lucky you are happy with such inexpensive optics. I wish I were satisfied with such.
spitfiretriple
Well-known member
Hmm. I hesitate to say this, as birdforum is pretty much the most polite forum I visit but...
Dennis, when you say, "You're lucky you are satisfied with such inexpensive optics. I wish I were satisfied with such", you don't really mean it do you? You mean something else...
Dennis, when you say, "You're lucky you are satisfied with such inexpensive optics. I wish I were satisfied with such", you don't really mean it do you? You mean something else...
LOL! Not always, spitfire...sometimes cudgels are wielded and blood spilled in defence of fave optics, possibly-extinct woodpeckers, RF spats, and whether there´s such a thing as a "British-Irish" list.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Well, for me cost isn't much of a factor. My allegience is to the view. I'll say this: if I had had the Olympus with me when I bought the Leicas, I would have said what's the point and walked (I was in NYC and the Leica was a bit of an impulse purchase). The two are damn near indistinguishable in the field. The Leicas have a bit more FOV and maybe a bit less glare; the Olympus has the edge in sharpness and ease of view. The Olympus is brighter, too, but only in low light. I like them both a lot, but the edge goes to Olympus. I have noticed that I worry less while traveling with the Olympus. If something happens (lost, stolen, whatever) I can get another pair for $60 inside of a week. Nice.
Mark
spitfiretriple
Well-known member
There's a lot to be said for the "keep it cheap" argument. As well as saving money in the first place. I rode my motorcycle on a 6,000 mile trip to Turkey and back. I left my £200 carbon fibre helmet at home, and took instead a £20 job I bought from Lidl. I took a supermarket £5 sleeping bag instead of my £50 down bag, and a £12 tent. Why? I've seen friends (and myself) get paranoid about fear of theft of expensive kit to the point where, for example, they won't stop for a swim because the gear might get nicked while they're in the water. Expensive kit can thus sometimes be a disadvantage not an advantage.
Of course, leaving the expensive kit at home and taking the cheap stuff does lead inexorably to the question, "Why buy the expensive stuff if you're going to use the cheap stuff?" Not sure I have an answer to that!
Of course, leaving the expensive kit at home and taking the cheap stuff does lead inexorably to the question, "Why buy the expensive stuff if you're going to use the cheap stuff?" Not sure I have an answer to that!
Last edited:
I´ve done that once, Sptifire. Took a cheap Kowa TS501 travelscope to France. Left the Nikon ED50 at home "in case I lost it". Why have an expensive travelscope if you don´t take it travelling? Damned if I know.