• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Opticron MMS 160 - Image stabilized handheld scope (1 Viewer)

Frank,

Thanks for taking the time and providing the data. The brightness is what it is with only a 26mm objective at 15x. I'm glad to hear you find the IS effective all the way up. Now I just have to find someone who has it in stock.

Thanks Again,
Alan
 
Alan,

Good luck with that at the moment. ;)

I was told that stock wouldn't be arriving in the US until closer to the end of this month.
 
Hi,

interesting news - the new german distributor has just answered after I mailed him yesterday, the offer sounds good and promises a speedy delivery. I agreed and am waiting for payment details...

Will let you know when it's in my hands and I can take it for a test drive with the SDLv2. I'm especially interested in how well the field flattener in the SDLv2 can cope with FC in such a short focal length instrument - in my Kowa it's pinpoint stars to the edge - but at 2.5 times longer focal length...

Joachim
 
Bit more aperture would give a brighter image, but like my 12x35 which is my "one device" selection when
I don't want scope and bins. Which of the opticromnlenses has the greatest apparent field of view... I don't like looking down a long thin tube.

PeterW
 
Bit more aperture would give a brighter image, but like my 12x35 which is my "one device" selection when
I don't want scope and bins. Which of the opticromnlenses has the greatest apparent field of view... I don't like looking down a long thin tube.

PeterW

Hi,

see this table of focal length and afov information for most Opticron EPs (and bodies). The latest models might be missing though...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=326955

Joachim
 
Alan,

Good luck with that at the moment. ;)

I was told that stock wouldn't be arriving in the US until closer to the end of this month.

I heard the same timing from Michaela at Opticron USA. I just ordered it from B&H. I figure they will get stock as soon as anyone, and I've had good luck doing business with them.
 
I got an email this morning from B&H that the MMS 160 will be shipped directly from Opticron in NC when available. I will report back when I have it in hand.
 
The price in the Uk is recommended £299 for the body so possibly likely to see it for sale around £280. The body weighs just 11 ozs and is 4.5 inches long.
I have been using the Acuter 8-24mm 20x-60 eyepiece which weighs 7 ozs and makes the scope plus EP 8 inches overall. This zoom costs £66 so I'm impressed with the instrument and esp at £346 complete.
Have been comparing it with my Canon 10x30IS and the image stabilising is the same.
Even at full zoom the 26mm OG is bright enough. Not used at dusk yet. The judder occurs if you hesitate when switching on the IS . I shall try it out on the boat but it is not water proof, nor is the Canon 10x30 IS which I have been using on my boat for many years. Just have to be careful.
 
The Canon 10x30 MkII IS has stunningly good IS. At least my sample. But the Canon IS binoculars do vary sample to sample.
I wonder how the MM160 IS compares with a good Canon 10x30 MkII IS.

A recent Canon 8x25 IS is a lemon. Very poor sample even though made in Japan.
 
Hi,

my MMS 160 arrived today. I had some time for a quick walk along the river in partly cloudy weather plus some views from the balcony over the evening at varying levels of illumination.

The eyepiece used was my SDLv2 for 7-20x, couldn't find the HDF 5mm EP (40861) but 32x with an exit pupil of 0.8mm would not have been a lot fun anyways during daylight... will try it when I find it.

The image with the SDLv2 is quite sharp to the edge for my eyes at all magnifications - this might be partly caused by the not very wide true field at low magnification in the zoom (field curvature is seen most at the edge of the maximum true field).

Close focus at 10 feet seems real.

Image brightness at max magnification is fine in bright sunlight and ok when the sun is behind clouds. If it gets too dark, zooming out a bit to 16x or even 12x will make the image bright enough most of the times.
At dusk mother nature is unforgiving and even an 8x30 is fabulously bright in comparison.

IS is certainly Canon style in that it only fixes small tremors and still works when panning, unlike Fuji. It is a distinct improvement to non stabilised and hand-held and is usable up to 20x.
When activated the image freezes instantly and on the spot, when switching off some offset could be seen at times, which is not a big problem since one usually doesn't switch off IS while still looking through the instrument.
I don't have a direct comparison to the Canons since I don't own one, but got to test the 15x50 last weekend on a telescope convention - from memory it seemed a bit more stable - not sure if this was due to better IS or higher weight though.

I also found that my 16mm ES 68 deg astro EP without the 1.25" barrel can be mounted - the threads do not quite fit but after some careful trying back and forth it went in without force, held tightly and could be easily unscrewed. Very nice and fairly wide view (as with my telescopes) - some field curvature could be seen here which is expected, the true field is quite a bit wider than the zoom at 7x.
Not sure if I find this useful - my SE 10x42 show a flat field which is not a lot smaller and I can hold them well w/o IS. Something around 10 or 11mm would be ideal, unfortunately 16mm is the shortest focal length in that EP series - and most other short focal length wide field EPs have elements in the 1.25" barrel which thus cannot be removed.

Star testing must wait due to no bright star visible between the clouds...

Joachim
 
Got back from a week in DC late last night, and my Opticron MS 160 was waiting for me. I was very thankful that Opticron included two CR2 batteries so that I could start playing with it immediately. My immediate impression was that the ergonomics were good and balance was decent with the HDF zoom eyepiece. Close focus of 10 feet seems about right. The focus is very quick, and unlike any other instrument I've tried, but it was not difficult to get used to it. Setting the eye-relief and getting the right eye position was more tricky than I expected even at low power.

The build quality seems good except that the neck strap attachment point concerns me. It appears to be nothing but a tab in the rubber housing material. I did not intend to use the neck strap anyway, and will look for some other sort of suspension.

The IS reminds me of the Canon, but I don't think it works as well. The image just does not seem as "locked in," and there is definitely vibration (judder?) as it adjusts to any motion, whether panning or just trying to hold it steady enough. I'm sure this is very much a personal equation, but I find it difficult to hold the MMS 160 steady enough to let the IS do an optimal job. Perhaps I have to get used to holding a monocular vs. binocular.

I know it really isn't fair, but I hate to have that eyepiece removed from my MM3 60mm scope. The view through a tripod mounted scope is superior in every way. My scope/tripod setup is only 5 lb., and it is fine for easy paths not far from the car, but I'm thinking the MMS 160 would be a go anywhere option.

I've learned to not judge too quickly, especially before having some field experience. I will probably have the MMS 160 out over the weekend to see how it plays with my binoculars and other gear. I'll report back later.

Alan
 
Hi Alan - the neckstrap attachment hole is actually part of the metal chassis underneath the rubber covering. If you pull the rubber back slightly, you'll see the metal underneath.

HTH

Cheers, Pete
 
Hi Alan - the neckstrap attachment hole is actually part of the metal chassis underneath the rubber covering. If you pull the rubber back slightly, you'll see the metal underneath.

HTH

Cheers, Pete

Pete,

Thanks for the clarification and correction.

I do want a connection point to point the MMS 160 on a harness or bandolier strap of some sort so it is readily available in addition to binoculars.

Alan
 
I had the MMS 160 with HDF T zoom eyepiece out a couple times this weekend. I found it most convenient to just keep it in hand using a wrist strap as a safety. Surprisingly, field of view was not much of a problem since low power is <7x. The little image stabilized scope felt good and was in no way burdensome to carry. I am used to older style Canon IS binoculars where you hold a button down for IS. I found myself leaving the IS switched on longer than I intended and I fear I will have to adjust my habits or run through a lot of batteries.

In actual use I found the scope somewhat fiddly at higher magnifications. From low power (7x) to about 10-12x it was easy to get on target and focus either with or without the IS. Turning on the IS added to the visible detail especially in the 10-12x range. From 13-20x I found it more difficult to get a good focus, either without the IS or with the IS turned on. Unless the scope is held quite steady, there is a vibration to the IS mechanism that makes sharp focus difficult. This is most noticeable at higher magnification, so some of the advantage of the IS is lost where you want it most. If one is panning at all, it seems that the vibration and loss of detail will be present. Also, as the magnification increases there are issues with losing contrast unless it is quite bright, and I have been using it in both bright and overcast conditions. Getting the eye cup adjustment just right with changing magnification is also a small challenge. This is a bit more critical for a hand held scope. OTH, to me having a range of magnification is part of the appeal of the MMS 160. The sweet spot size is good although the edge rolls off and quickly goes out of focus once it starts to go. I haven't noticed any serious optical aberrations other than field curvature. I don't find the edge performance a problem at all in the field.

Perhaps I need more experience, but I'm still finding the monocular harder to hold steady even compared to a relatively light binocular. I'm also trying to figure just how it would fit into my kit. It's neither a binocular nor a spotting scope replacement, but it does a little of both. It's not much more compact than my 8x30 binocular, which is a much better performers at low magnification and/or low light. It is much more compact/lighter than my scope+tripod combination (1 lb vs. 5 lb), but the MMS 160 is just not the right tool for viewing seabirds at a distance.

I had thought it would be a "spotting scope light" to bring along to supplement my 9x45 binocular. Now I'm thinking I would like to use it as a compact all purpose instrument. The question is whether the range of magnification and IS is enough displace the excellent performance of my 8x30 binoculars.

More Later,

Alan
 
I returned the MMS 160 after about two weeks. After several outings I decided that while it is nifty technology, it just didn't work for me. It was most effective for me at a magnification of around 10-12x. But at that magnification I could use my 10x30 IS with only a small penalty in weight/compactness and with better performance. And I rarely bring along the 10x30 IS either.

For now I'll stick with my MM3 GA 60 and lightweight tripod when I want more magnification than 8x-9x.

Alan
 
I had high hopes that it could satisfy my need for a lightweight and quick to utilize optic to fill the gap between a binocular and a lightweight tripod mounted scope. But after a couple of weeks with both zoom and fixed EPS I have returned it. As a handheld device it is no better than a 10x binocular, and probably not as good. About 10 years ago in Peru I carried a Nikon ED50 with the DS16 eye piece and a carbon monopod. It was excellent, considering its inherent limitations. I was hoping for something more compact with nearly as good resolution. I don’t think such a device exists yet.
 
I had high hopes that it could satisfy my need for a lightweight and quick to utilize optic to fill the gap between a binocular and a lightweight tripod mounted scope. But after a couple of weeks with both zoom and fixed EPS I have returned it. As a handheld device it is no better than a 10x binocular, and probably not as good. About 10 years ago in Peru I carried a Nikon ED50 with the DS16 eye piece and a carbon monopod. It was excellent, considering its inherent limitations. I was hoping for something more compact with nearly as good resolution. I don’t think such a device exists yet.

Agreed, I found the idea interesting but could not find one situation where this would be my choice over a binocular or a proper scope. And if you happen to carry a superzoom camera, there would be just no reason to carry the portable scope.

Blue sky...if it had longer reach whitout impacting the brightness and weight it would be a consideration, but I dont think the technology is availble to defeat physics.
 
Agreed, I found the idea interesting but could not find one situation where this would be my choice over a binocular or a proper scope. And if you happen to carry a superzoom camera, there would be just no reason to carry the portable scope.

Blue sky...if it had longer reach whitout impacting the brightness and weight it would be a consideration, but I dont think the technology is availble to defeat physics.

Interesting comment. I recently got a compact superzoom (30x) camera that fits in my pocket, and while it doesn't really compete with a scope, it does accomplish much of what I wanted the MMS 160 to do and then some. With all the automated bells and whistles and taking burst photos, I most often get a picture with sufficient detail to tease out features. An added bonus is that I can show it to a more knowledgeable companion after the fact and ask for their help.

I've also discovered that as with boats and large telescopes, it is much better to have a friend with a birding scope than to own (carry) one yourself.

Alan
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top