Brief encounter with the Kite Lynx HD 8x30 (1 Viewer)

[mooreorless]

Hi Pomp, Heavens no! I used the word mute instead of moot for moot point once and of course Brock noticed that and still posts about it once in a while, so just some teasing back and forth. Spell check is my friend. I am all for Christmas!!
It is -15°C here with windchill.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

looksharp65,
I have also investigated the Lynx 8x30 HD and there was no difference between right and left tube. As far as price is concerned: the Lynx 8x30 HD is listed for 520 euros in The Netherlands and Belgium and if shops give a 10% discount (often done by some binocular shops) then the price drops with 52 euros to around 470 euros and that is in these countries considerably cheaper then the Swarovski CL Pocket 8x25 Dennis.
Gijs

 

[[email protected]]

looksharp65,
I have also investigated the Lynx 8x30 HD and there was no difference between right and left tube. As far as price is concerned: the Lynx 8x30 HD is listed for 520 euros in The Netherlands and Belgium and if shops give a 10% discount (often done by some binocular shops) then the price drops with 52 euros to around 470 euros and that is in these countries considerably cheaper then the Swarovski CL Pocket 8x25 Dennis.
Gijs

Has anybody observed the "Smokscreen Effect" as talked about in the Nikon 8x30 M7 thread with these Kite's?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis,
No, no smokescreen at all.
Gijs

 

[pompadour]

I think a lot of people have observed the smokescreen effect in certain posts on this forum. Personally I'm okay with looking at just what's presented in front of it - nearly always pretty useful really - but others often see through it. Season's Greetings, Dennis!

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,
No, no smokescreen at all.
Gijs

They must have better baffling and blackening inside then. Interesting.

 

[ceasar]

Yes, the wider angle binoculars are definitely more prone to glare. That is a big reason the Swaro CL-P has less glare than the M7. The thing is the Swaro makes up for the smaller field by having a bigger sweespot. In fact a 100% sharp field right to the edge like the Swarovision. So really the size of the sharp field in the CL-P is the same as the Kite or the M7. Maybe having a smaller FOV with a bigger sweespot is a better solution for glare. My M7's did have fuzzy edges especially compared to the CL-P. The CL-P just seems clearer. I had the CL-P out this morning and it is very similar to my Swarovision. In other words very good. How are the edges on the Kite? Even though the Swaro doesn't have ED glass the CA control is as good as the M7 was because I compared them.

Why should wide angle binoculars be more prone to glare?

It is the design of the ocular lens that determines the FOV.

Bob

 

[mayoayo]

I Do find differences in glare depending on the eyepiece I use in some of my scopes,specially in the veiling/contrast type, so maybe the eyepiece coatings are not so well optimized on the Nikon version,perhaps in the coatings lies the difference ..I had two versions of the same binocular recently ,the Bresser Everest 8x42,...One was sold in USA , a disccounted version , and the other a Europe selling, upgraded and QUITE more expensive version...the difference in glare control and contrast was there,although not SO evident..the color Cast vs neutrality was VERY obvious...Coating colors were different..the Euro version SEEMED to be water-repellent/easy clean,as well...

 

[kabsetz]

Today we had conditions favorable for inducing veiling glare, so I went to the local shop that has the 8x30 Monarch 7. The sun was shining through some thin clouds and treetops, so I could point the binoculars right towards that diffuse light.

I noticed that I could very easily both have a lot of veiling glare or just about none, depending on how I held the binoculars to my eyes. As soon as they were too far from my eyes, there was glare, whereas when I had them placed a little closer there was none. Since the field of view is so wide in these, a mm or so too far still shows almost the entire field and this does not feel unnatural at all, but it bring the glare. The glare came a little more easily with eyecups fully in, but even then if I supported the binoculars against my brow bone it was rather easily possible to hold it at the right distance and almost entirely eliminate the glare. But I can see that especially glasses-wearers may get into a situation where with certain kinds of glasses getting the optimal distance would be hard or impossible.

Before making more generalized conclusions about this, I need to try them in more variable conditions, but thought it would be useful to share this. Assessing glare is, in my humble opinion, one of the most difficult aspects of binocular evaluation to do reliably due to the extremely variable conditions involved.

Kimmo

 

[[email protected]]

Today we had conditions favorable for inducing veiling glare, so I went to the local shop that has the 8x30 Monarch 7. The sun was shining through some thin clouds and treetops, so I could point the binoculars right towards that diffuse light.

I noticed that I could very easily both have a lot of veiling glare or just about none, depending on how I held the binoculars to my eyes. As soon as they were too far from my eyes, there was glare, whereas when I had them placed a little closer there was none. Since the field of view is so wide in these, a mm or so too far still shows almost the entire field and this does not feel unnatural at all, but it bring the glare. The glare came a little more easily with eyecups fully in, but even then if I supported the binoculars against my brow bone it was rather easily possible to hold it at the right distance and almost entirely eliminate the glare. But I can see that especially glasses-wearers may get into a situation where with certain kinds of glasses getting the optimal distance would be hard or impossible.

Before making more generalized conclusions about this, I need to try them in more variable conditions, but thought it would be useful to share this. Assessing glare is, in my humble opinion, one of the most difficult aspects of binocular evaluation to do reliably due to the extremely variable conditions involved.

Kimmo

"Before making more generalized conclusions about this, I need to try them in more variable conditions, but thought it would be useful to share this. Assessing glare is, in my humble opinion, one of the most difficult aspects of binocular evaluation to do reliably due to the extremely variable conditions involved."

I agree with you there. It is very difficult.
.

 

[Troubador]

Lee, hi, thanks - and commendation noted - but was thinking there more about the optical design and engineering than about marketing (which is no doubt an important aspect in this).

Yes Pompadour and so was I, so I am a little puzzled by your comment as I thought I had made it pretty clear that I think Kamakura was responsible for the optical design.

Lee

 

[pompadour]

Lee, sorry, misunderstood what you said! Didn't think it was that simple. Thought "on file" implied the possibility of other origins, as explained below.

Am rather shocked at the praise, even among people in Bf., for the "brand" co (in the present case Kite) when a bin is designed and made by one of the "central" cos. By this I mean Kamakura Koki and Light Optical Works, both of Japan, et al. They are rarely mentioned much less praised. Myself learnt of them only recently, in Bf. (Might be worth mentioning here that the name Kamakura normally refers to a historic city. The co. Kamakura Koki is situated in another city, in a different Prefecture.) So far gathered info. only on one other such co, Light Opt.

Still find it difficult to believe a "brand" co. of the stature of Nikon will pick a design "on file" at such a co. - obviously their new 8x30 model is basically the same as this Kite. So, I supposed Nikon may have had provided the design now on file at K.K. and Kite had licensed it from N. Similarly surprised by suggestions that the Zeiss Conquest HD has such an origin.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Pompadour,
"Mundus vult decipi" I learned during our Latin lessons at school : "the world wants to be deceived". I can imagine that you were shocked by the knowledge of Kamakura Koki and Light Optical as producers of many binocular types sold under different names (Bushnell is one of them for example). But Eschenbach and Bresser did not produce binoculars themselves, they had real binocular producers make binoculars and telescopes putting their names on it. In the eighties one could buy Rinck and revue binoculars in europe, which were made among others by the German company Beck. I was also shocked when I learned that the Leica Televid 77 telescope and its smaller sister was made for Leica by Meopta and, if I remember well, that was also the case for the previous model of the Zeiss Diascope.
It is no problem if the instruments are of high quality, but one feels deceived at first.
Gijs

 

[Troubador]

Nikon will pick a design "on file" at such a co. - obviously their new 8x30 model is basically the same as this Kite.

1 I don't think the Kite 8x30 is the same design as Nikons as the FOV and close focus are different.

2 It seems Kamakura does a great job.

3 We will probably never get to know how much of a design is provided by the 'brand name' (with Kamakura just supplying the manufacturing) and how much of the optical design is supplied by Kamakura after the 'brand name' has specified things like the FOV and close focus they require.

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lee,
The Kite Lynx HD binoculars are certainly not of the same design as the Nikon Monarchs. The DDoptics Fieldstar 8x30 and 10x30, however do have the same design as the Kite Lynx binoculars both optics and body construction.
DDoptics gives a little more information about its optical construction than I could find for the Lynx, for example the use of specially for this binocular selected apochromatic low dispersion glass, dielectric mirror on the Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms for increased light transmission (more than 91%), PHC140 phase correction coatings on the roof prisms, top quality coatings etc.
Gijs

 

[ceasar]

Now we have 3 different wide field 8/10x30 Roof Prism binoculars appearing at the same time, more or less. AFAIK there were none last year and in 2011, the last one, the Swarovski 8x30 SLC was discontinued.

I wonder if these companies compare notes, or do they just spy on one another?:smoke:

Bob

 

[FrankD]

My guess is that one of the central manufacturing firms in Japan or China comes up with a new optical design and then advertises to the optical companies to see if anyone has an interest. They then rebrand them for the company with different customizations.

Or, my other suggestion is that one or two optics companies get together to finance a new design which is then created by one of the central manufacturing firms and sold exclusively to the optics companies that financed it.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Bob, Frank,
Life is probably simpler than you think. I will describe my analysis:
A binocular sales company identifies a need for a certain type of binocular and approaches for example Meopta or Kamakura to ask whether that type of binocular can be produced. Specifications for the binoculars are formulated by the binocular sales company and Meopta or Kamakura give an impression about the possibilities and the price. Zeiss did that with Kamakura for the Conquest HD, Leica with Meopta for the Apotelevid 77 telescopes etc. Zenray, Bushnell, Opticron etc. etc do the same with Japanes or Chinese producers.
The binocular sales company now has to decide whether it wants to pay the costs for the design and sometimes different companies choose the same design but with different specifications and in that way they can share some of the development costs. The binocular salescompany, who does all the investments can now, on demand for exampe of the British or Dutch Birding Association deliver binoculars with the logo of the Birding organisations on the instruments and then these binoculars receive other names but they are identical to the binoculars chosen by the binocular sales company.
DDoptics is an example of hat approach: it can have its logo on the Kite Lynx binoculars, but the price of the binoculars is a little higher because of the extra costs for the logo, the special cases with that logo etc..
I hope to have clarified the matter.
Gijs

 

[hinnark]

Frank, Gijs,

I think there is some truth in both of your assumptions. Here is my analysis: http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2891047&postcount=11
So I would advocate for spreaded offerings of OEMs like Kamakura just like the customer wants or needs. Of course it's hard to assess how the details are in every single case like here for instance with that Kite/Nikon/DDoptics products without insider knowledge.

I'd like to add that the provider or OEM of almost ready-made binoculars in Asia (I don't think the case of Meopta is really comparable because AFAIK they only made the scopes for Leica and Zeiss a while back and nothing more) do have some possibilities to diversify their offerings by vary some optical properties here and there. The optical properties most suitable for producing more or less marginal differences for diversify purpose seem to be FOV and lens size.

Steve

 

[Troubador]

Lee,
The Kite Lynx HD binoculars are certainly not of the same design as the Nikon Monarchs. The DDoptics Fieldstar 8x30 and 10x30, however do have the same design as the Kite Lynx binoculars both optics and body construction.
DDoptics gives a little more information about its optical construction than I could find for the Lynx, for example the use of specially for this binocular selected apochromatic low dispersion glass, dielectric mirror on the Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms for increased light transmission (more than 91%), PHC140 phase correction coatings on the roof prisms, top quality coatings etc.
Gijs

Gijs

Thank you for your clarification :t:

Dank u meneer.

Lee