• 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.

Elite's - manufacturer? (1 Viewer)

James
I would think they would only do this if it threatened their own market position, for example if it was priced just under the Leica. For example anyone considering buying a $2,000 bin wouldn't normally consider a $500 copy to be a candidate for their cash, but if it was priced at $1500 with the right quality then that might be different.

I am sure this is why Swaro has tolerated open hinge bins from other brands at much lower price levels. And before anyone chimes in about SF, that has a triple bridge design so is significantly different.

Lee

Lee

Lee, as Henry pointed out, the Elites were very pricey and [in their day] were likely the best selling alpha in the US and Canada. Reviews often ranked them at or near the very top as well. For a few years they were everywhere. Even now, at hotspots like Niagara or Pelee [and even in the tropics] I still see lots of people with early Elites.
 
James,

No, That's not true. Uppendahl has the same six internal reflections as Schmidt-Pechan and, just like S-P, one of them has to be mirror coated. The one advantage Uppendahl has over S-P is that it can be cemented rather than air spaced. A-K has four reflections, like Porro 1 and 2, and can be cemented. I've read that Uppendahl is more expensive and difficult to make. One of the recent Geovids still uses it.

Henry


Thanks again Henry. I pulled that info. from a bino. collectors flickr page and should have known better to take it on faith as it seemed dodgy.
 
Lee,
I think that the Bausch and Lomb 10x42 Elite had a higher list price than any competitor, although it may have been sold for less.

I still use the 10x42 often. It is very nice to use but has a small field at 5.6 degrees.

Binastro,

I have the 7x36 Elite and have a question for you regarding the close focus of your 10x42 - I owned two versions but no longer have them and can't compare.

Anyway, with my 7x36, as I approach close focus, most of the field outside of the centre FOV becomes very distorted and blurred, far more than when focusing at a distance and the usable sweet-spot becomes quite tiny. I know some would say this is typical of many binoculars of vintage but, to me, it is a very extreme example and I certainly don't recall it from my previous 10x42's. The areas outside the small sweetspot almost seem to be swimming underwater such is the blurring. These areas are in the same focus plane as the centre, so it isn't just normal DOF effect.

Does the 10x42 do the same? Just wondering if mine have a problem or this was representative of the model.
 
Hi James,
I don't think I can help you on this one, as there is and was a mechanical focus problem on this old 10x42 Elite.
It was listed at £250 secondhand as well used from a store that normally has high prices.
Because it hung around a long time I only paid £100. I had not seen one before and took a risk, but it has proved to be most useful.

As I rarely use close focus the focus problem is of no consequence for me.

It has sat on my desk ready for instant use for several years and when I want to look at something it is usually at least 50 feet away.

The binocular is also good near the streetlight at night, where many other binoculars are very flawed, and the long slim barrels give it very nice handling.

It seems to have very good coatings but I have no idea what type of prisms.

So I can't give you a reliable answer to your post 23.

P.S.
With many optical instruments, they usually have only one distance of best performance.
For instance SCT or Maksutov telescopes only perform at their best for one separation of the elements.
The compromise for other positions is usually good enough.

An extreme example is the complex Sigma 500mm f/4 mirror lens. It only performs reasonably at one distance. It becomes very poor at other distances.
They were cleared at fire sale prices.
I used it as a 50x125mm telescope using a monocular converter.

(I just looked up internet comments on this lens, and the posters who haven't used this lens are so way of the mark in their statements it is like a comedy show. One really has to use an optic to know what it can or can't do.)

I would think that binoculars also are a compromise at most distances, but good enough.
 
Last edited:
James,
I actually just had a go, and the focus problem has vanished, at least at present.

I focused as close as I could, about 14 feet. I am far sighted and others can probably focus quite a bit closer.

There are no problems at all with the 10x42 Elite as I focus closer. The edge is not sharp, but depends on the position angle with some positions sharper than others. I find this with most binoculars.

The view is good at 14ft approx.

I am not an expert at close focusing, as I seldom use binoculars close up.

Maybe your 7x36 is not typical?
 
Lee, as Henry pointed out, the Elites were very pricey and [in their day] were likely the best selling alpha in the US and Canada. Reviews often ranked them at or near the very top as well. For a few years they were everywhere. Even now, at hotspots like Niagara or Pelee [and even in the tropics] I still see lots of people with early Elites.

Thanks for posting James, I had no idea they were so well regarded.

Talking of which, over here Tamron's SP series of photographic lenses were held in a similar high regard, giving manufacturers' lenses a run for their money. At one time I had 4 of them ranging from macro 90 to 500mm mirror lens. The SP90 macro lens in particular was a beauty. I believe they had (and perhaps still do) a high reputation as a make of TV camera lenses.

Lee
 
Last edited:
10x42 Elite.
Close focus for me 4.28m or 14ft.
Weight exactly 800g or 28.2 ounces.
Field marked and from memory correct 5.6 degrees 295ft at 1000 yds.
Although edge slightly unsharp still good.
No problems at close focus.
 
James:

There is a good review of the original waterproof, B&L Elite on "Better View Desired".

It is from 10/96, and Steven Ingraham placed it very high, and was a reference standard.
I enjoy his review style, they are all well done.

Lots of good reading about the binoculars of the past, and I'm pleased it has been
preserved and still up.

Jerry

As a subscriber to BVD in the newsprint and paper days, I must say that I really enjoyed Steve Ingraham's reviews in those early days...except that one. I don't know what inspired him to write "The image remains perfectly sharp right to the edge as well." Absolutely untrue. What most baffles me is that he says nothing about the strong off-axis astigmatism of that model, which renders the sweet spot smaller than in most competitors. I think the review would have been much better (i.e. more accurately critical in the negative sense) if he'd used the Leica 8x42 Ultra/Trinovid for comparison rather than the 8x32. That Elite also has fairly strong warm (orange) color bias and inferior contrast. I've handled a lot of them. Later production improved over earlier. Still, it's not a model for which I've ever had much enthusiasm except as a butterfly glass. Excellent for that with its ~4.5 ft close and rapid focus.

--AP
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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