• 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.

SV's didn't really blow the little BN's away! (1 Viewer)

"I find that I can instantly get the bird in focus, whereas with the HGs I have to tweak the focusing knob back and forth slightly to get perfect focus. No such fidgeting with the BN."

That's probably due to the BN's excellent DOF. I noticed that too. Yes and the mechanics work good too. Simple and rugged and I agree on the diopter.

That's probably due to focus speed. The Minox and Zeiss are both very fast. One turn from min to infinity for the Zeiss. About the same, as I recall, for the Minox. And both probably focus closer than the Leica. Dennis, what does the Leica do? If it's more than one turn, or if it doesn't focus down to 6 feet or so, it'll probably be easier to tweak.

Mark

PS: Let me rephrase that: "That may be due to focus speed." I know conventional wisdom says DOF depends soley on configuration (in this case 8x32) but I'll go to my grave believing that the 8x SE has a deeper DOF than the FL.|:S| Is there a definitive answer to this question? Is it just field curvature and sharp edges?
 
Last edited:
I think one of the reasons why I find it easier to get onto a bird with the BN is that, unlike the Minox, it focuses in the clockwise direction, which still seems more natural to me. However, if I am scanning across a view I find that I have to continually refocus the Minox a tiny amount but this is required less frequently with the BN. I had put this down to a deeper DOF but whether this is correct or not I don't know.

Ron
 
Dennis, as I recall you've already gone on record (years ago) as being a fan of the 8x32BN. In this latest romance with it, I think you've lost some perspective though. Few would dispute that the Leica 8x32 BA/BN is a great binocular, indeed one of the all-time greats. But your latest statements imply that it might have qualities that make it superior to the latest crop of alphas. I would disagree with that assessment (despite being a big fan of the 8x32 BN myself) unless the argument is about the ergonomics or rugged build, either of which might appeal more to a particular user more than other alternatives regardless of their vintage. I own and have compared the 8x32 BA side by side with the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, Nikon SE, Nikon EII, and several lesser 8x32 models. I don't think there is anything exceptional about its depth of field. It does have better edge sharpness than some others (once you correct for curvature of field by refocusing) and it has an easier view than the FL from the standpoint that eye positioning is less critical to get a high quality view. Maybe you're mistaking the field curvature for better DOF since it helps bring the foreground into focus.

When it comes to optics, I think you'll find that all the latest alpha compacts are significantly brighter and have better contrast (especially affecting ability to see into shadows) than the 8x32BN. And anything you like about the optics of the BN ought to be true of the 8x32 Ultravid HD, which has essentially the same optical design but with better glass and coatings, and is more compact to boot. Sure, the BN is a great bin, and it is cheaper than a new alpha. But if you want better brightness, contrast, close focus, eye-relief (at least in the case of the Zeiss and Nikon offerings), and rain-shedding coatings, the latest alphas offer these benefits without giving up anything to the BN (except as noted above about ergonomics).

--AP

P.S. Corollary to what I'm arguing here: If the SV doesn't blow away the Leica 8x32 BN, then it shouldn't be judged to blow away any of the latest crop of alpha 8x32 models, or for that matter any of their full-sized equivalents, ... or for that matter the full-sized alpha contemporaries of the 8x32 BN.... Dennis, it's just not like you to make any other claim than that your latest binocular acquisition blows everything else away, and so it is hard to compute the implications of what you are saying here (unless it is just that you still put the SV on top but you want to acknowledge that a person might legitimately use something else, such as the 8x32BN in some situations when its size was advantageous over the SV and cost attractively less than the latest better 8x32 models. For our sanity and yours, don't go there! :)
 
Last edited:
I agree with everything Alexis did write. That said, I have to say that no other 32mm bin including the Leica Ultravids does feel so comfortable in my hands (with 8x32 Swaro being the only exception) than the good old Trinovids. I do love the small ribs. Eyecups when used without glasses are also the most comfortable ones I've ever experienced. The Trinovid series could surely regarded as an archetype for all the modern roof binoculars came out after them.

Steve
 
I agree with everything Alexis did write. That said, I have to say that no other 32mm bin including the Leica Ultravids does feel so comfortable in my hands (with 8x32 Swaro being the only exception) than the good old Trinovids. I do love the small ribs. Eyecups when used without glasses are also the most comfortable ones I've ever experienced. The Trinovid series could surely regarded as an archetype for all the modern roof binoculars came out after them.

Steve

It's not just the optics that I like about the BN although they are good if not the best. It's the ergonomics, the feel of the binocular, the build quality and the comfortable relaxed view it gives you say compared to the almost on edge view I got through the SE series . I guess it is hard to pinpoint one reason why it is such a nice binocular to use. The optics to me seem very natural to me. Could be a combination of contrast,DOF, sharpness, color saturation or more factors. It just seems like you are moving 8x times closer to the bird without a bunch of lenses in between you and the bird. Interesting that the people in the Cornell Study felt that way also scoring it higher than the Zeiss 10x42 FL and some other more modern highly touted binoculars.
 
8x32 BNs have an obvious characteristic that one would think would be rejected nowadays, particularly by the OP: sizeable pincushion distortion and an unflattened field. I can remember the day well when I took one outside Camera Land, NY to look up at buildings, only to see the most remarkable (and intolerable) fun-house view of the Big Apple. I wound up buying a 10x42 SLC that day to compliment my precious 8x30 SLC. And I never regretted it.

This thread is a breath of fresh air, though, since it provides insight into our abilities to quickly set aside one set of evaluation criteria for another. It's called "reversion to original learning," which is a standard wisdom in the operator training field. Personally, I've come to believe that older model equipment is 95% as effective optically, 125% as effective mechanically, and 2-300% more cost-effective than the current offerings. (Here I'm only talking about "Alpha" manufacturers.)

My advise to newcomers is to always consider buying used equipment in top condition.

Ed
 
The numbers quantify nothing and my query was 100% non-ad-hominem. I've seen the 95% used many times, by many posters, and I find it rather pointless. It sure sounds good, which I guess is the point.

Indeed, many of these numbers are stupid. I've used the 95% figure myself. The numbers do not "precisely convey the idea," but they do "mostly convey the impression."

Nothing ad hominem about that, however. In many cases it's the best we can do.

Mark
 
8x32 BNs have an obvious characteristic that one would think would be rejected nowadays, particularly by the OP: sizeable pincushion distortion and an unflattened field. I can remember the day well when I took one outside Camera Land, NY to look up at buildings, only to see the most remarkable (and intolerable) fun-house view of the Big Apple. I wound up buying a 10x42 SLC that day to compliment my precious 8x30 SLC. And I never regretted it.

This thread is a breath of fresh air, though, since it provides insight into our abilities to quickly set aside one set of evaluation criteria for another. It's called "reversion to original learning," which is a standard wisdom in the operator training field. Personally, I've come to believe that older model equipment is 95% as effective optically, 125% as effective mechanically, and 2-300% more cost-effective than the current offerings. (Here I'm only talking about "Alpha" manufacturers.)

My advise to newcomers is to always consider buying used equipment in top condition.

Ed

Fun-House! Interesting opinion. I guess that's why binoculars are such a personal thing everybodies got a different opinion. I certainly don't agree having looked through the SLC Swarovski's and although I thought they were very good I didn't think they measured up to the BN. In the Cornell Study the BN's were 4th among alphas the Swarovski 8x30 SLC were 15th and the Swarovski 10x42 SLC were 18th which is about where I would place them although I haven't tried all the binoculars in the test. I guess I like the Fun-House view and the testers did too but I can understand liking a flat field it's all in what we personally like. I certainly agree with buying used equipment in top condition. You sure get more for your money.
 
Dennis, as I recall you've already gone on record (years ago) as being a fan of the 8x32BN. In this latest romance with it, I think you've lost some perspective though. Few would dispute that the Leica 8x32 BA/BN is a great binocular, indeed one of the all-time greats. But your latest statements imply that it might have qualities that make it superior to the latest crop of alphas. I would disagree with that assessment (despite being a big fan of the 8x32 BN myself) unless the argument is about the ergonomics or rugged build, either of which might appeal more to a particular user more than other alternatives regardless of their vintage. I own and have compared the 8x32 BA side by side with the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, Nikon SE, Nikon EII, and several lesser 8x32 models. I don't think there is anything exceptional about its depth of field. It does have better edge sharpness than some others (once you correct for curvature of field by refocusing) and it has an easier view than the FL from the standpoint that eye positioning is less critical to get a high quality view. Maybe you're mistaking the field curvature for better DOF since it helps bring the foreground into focus.

When it comes to optics, I think you'll find that all the latest alpha compacts are significantly brighter and have better contrast (especially affecting ability to see into shadows) than the 8x32BN. And anything you like about the optics of the BN ought to be true of the 8x32 Ultravid HD, which has essentially the same optical design but with better glass and coatings, and is more compact to boot. Sure, the BN is a great bin, and it is cheaper than a new alpha. But if you want better brightness, contrast, close focus, eye-relief (at least in the case of the Zeiss and Nikon offerings), and rain-shedding coatings, the latest alphas offer these benefits without giving up anything to the BN (except as noted above about ergonomics).

--AP

P.S. Corollary to what I'm arguing here: If the SV doesn't blow away the Leica 8x32 BN, then it shouldn't be judged to blow away any of the latest crop of alpha 8x32 models, or for that matter any of their full-sized equivalents, ... or for that matter the full-sized alpha contemporaries of the 8x32 BN.... Dennis, it's just not like you to make any other claim than that your latest binocular acquisition blows everything else away, and so it is hard to compute the implications of what you are saying here (unless it is just that you still put the SV on top but you want to acknowledge that a person might legitimately use something else, such as the 8x32BN in some situations when its size was advantageous over the SV and cost attractively less than the latest better 8x32 models. For our sanity and yours, don't go there! :)

"Dennis, as I recall you've already gone on record (years ago) as being a fan of the 8x32BN. In this latest romance with it, I think you've lost some perspective though. Few would dispute that the Leica 8x32 BA/BN is a great binocular, indeed one of the all-time greats. But your latest statements imply that it might have qualities that make it superior to the latest crop of alphas. I would disagree with that assessment (despite being a big fan of the 8x32 BN myself) unless the argument is about the ergonomics or rugged build, either of which might appeal more to a particular user more than other alternatives regardless of their vintage"

I don't think I implied that the BN was superior to the latest alphas. What I meant was that it is closer than you think to the top alphas for a lot less money and it comes in nice small rugged quality built package. If you are looking for something compact and do not want to spend alpha level money it is a good alternative for a second binocular. I think it does offer a combination of features not found on all the latest alphas. Simple rugged construction, great ergonomics for me, nice simple eyecups, and maybe not the best but very nice optics for a 32mm all in a super compact package. In fact does anyone know of a smaller 32mm out there. For the money it represents a good bargain.
 
Ed,
Leica does have a ton of pincushion distortion. Not so nice on right rectilinear objects like skyscrapers! Okay for birds among the leaves though.

I agree with your advice to get a last-generation alpha over a contemporary poseur. That is the way to develop snobbish taste on a budget! I miss my 8x42 BA. The view was very pretty, and it felt about like Pasteur's microscope must have. Woah, solid.
Ron
 
Ed,
Leica does have a ton of pincushion distortion. Not so nice on right rectilinear objects like skyscrapers! Okay for birds among the leaves though.

I agree with your advice to get a last-generation alpha over a contemporary poseur. That is the way to develop snobbish taste on a budget! I miss my 8x42 BA. The view was very pretty, and it felt about like Pasteur's microscope must have. Woah, solid.
Ron

I would take the Leica 8x32 BN over any of the Chinese ED glasses anyday just for the quality build even if it does have a little more CA.
 
...In fact does anyone know of a smaller 32mm out there. For the money it represents a good bargain.

Again, as I mentioned before, the Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD is smaller, and optically superior to the 8x32 BN as well. I don't think we disagree on the merits of the 8x32BN, I'm just a little surprised that you're willing to settle for anything less than the best in your choice of a second binocular given how much effort you've put into having the best for your primary bin. It seems like you're boosting the 8x32BN a bit rather than just owning up to having settled for something less than the optical best. Given the range of ergonomic configurations that you've accepted in your choice of primary bin in the past, you must really be connecting to the 8x32BN for the ergonomics to make up for or trump its optical deficiencies. :) Optically, I'd say that the 8x32BN is as much a step down from the current alphas as most other bins that have been blown away in your past rankings, so I don't understand how they mustered a pass.

--AP
 
Last edited:
Ed,
Leica does have a ton of pincushion distortion. Not so nice on right rectilinear objects like skyscrapers! Okay for birds among the leaves though.

I agree with your advice to get a last-generation alpha over a contemporary poseur. That is the way to develop snobbish taste on a budget! I miss my 8x42 BA. The view was very pretty, and it felt about like Pasteur's microscope must have. Woah, solid.
Ron

Hi Ron,

Yup, a ton of pincushion. Of course, I agree, high levels of distortion mainly make a difference looking at rectilinear objects, but I had the 8x32 in mind for travel and those pesky buildings always seem to get in the way. I really didn't realize the extent of the effect until I looked up at those skyscrapers.

About 6 mos. ago I came across an 8x42 BA selling for $1000. It was brand new and had a valid Leica warranty. Oh, that was a challenge to pass up. I liked it better than the 8x32 BN that I had owned briefly in 2004, but ... what could I do with yet another binocular? If I had only known you might be interested...

Ed
 
Last edited:
I would take the Leica 8x32 BN over any of the Chinese ED glasses anyday just for the quality build even if it does have a little more CA.

After reading your post, thought i would get the old 8x32BA out and have a look, my eyes are so used to the stunning 12x SVEL though i quickly put them back in the cupboard, another pair heading for the classifieds!!.

Agree with you on the Chinese bins though, personally i wouldn't have a pair given me. :cat:
 
Again, as I mentioned before, the Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD is smaller, and optically superior to the 8x32 BN as well. I don't think we disagree on the merits of the 8x32BN, I'm just a little surprised that you're willing to settle for anything less than the best in your choice of a second binocular given how much effort you've put into having the best for your primary bin. It seems like you're boosting the 8x32BN a bit rather than just owning up to having settled for something less than the optical best. Given the range of ergonomic configurations that you've accepted in your choice of primary bin in the past, you must really be connecting to the 8x32BN for the ergonomics to make up for or trump its optical deficiencies. :) Optically, I'd say that the 8x32BN is as much a step down from the current alphas as most other bins that have been blown away in your past rankings, so I don't understand how they mustered a pass.

--AP

Part of it is I just like the type of view they give. I have tried the Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD's and I just don't like the view as well as the BN's. It is hard to put my finger on it but the Ultravids just don't do it for me and I don't think there is much difference in the optics between the two. There is just something I like about the BN's and I always have. I think they give a more natural relaxed view than the Ultravids. The Ultravids don't fit my hands as well either. Sorry, but I don't think they are worth the difference in money.
 
Dennis:

Lots of posts here about the Leica and how nice they are, and compete well.

I guess it simply goes to show, that there are many great binoculars out there to choose from.

It seems personal preference is very important, and that one size does not fit all.

I know I am making things seem too simple. But, you do know they are just tubes with glass!

Jerry
 
Dennis:

Lots of posts here about the Leica and how nice they are, and compete well.

I guess it simply goes to show, that there are many great binoculars out there to choose from.

It seems personal preference is very important, and that one size does not fit all.

I know I am making things seem too simple. But, you do know they are just tubes with glass!

Jerry

On post #26 I mentioned the concept of "reversion to original learning," which sometimes allows vehicle designers to anticipate potentially fatal mistakes by vehicle operators.

Although much less critical here, the notion is that every user has had original learning experiences with binoculars, which remain with him over time. As the theory goes, new binoculars modify or overlay old neuro-behavioral pathways, but never become quite as comfortable as the originals because adaptive effort is required to inhibit originally learned responses. A corollary is that unless one takes account of original learning, which most of us probably don't do, preferences can appear to be somewhat mysterious simply because certain devices are more similar to those we were originally weaned on.

In my case, original learning primarily occurred with Swaro products and I definitely have a tendency to revert to them. Leica owners have similar tendencies, which they refer to as the "Leica View." Fortunately, most early learnings transfer across manufacturers, but new or improved products face a gauntlet of re-adaptations, e.g., focus controls, open frame construction, distortion induced percepts, flat field eye movements, product shape, texture, grip, weight and balance, and so forth. All of these require relearning to some extent.

Now that I think about it, that may be why I prefer to select top quality equipment to begin with, and then use it until it becomes second nature (and falls apart).

Backa is good.

Just some food for thought. :eat:

Ed
 
Last edited:
On post #26 I mentioned the concept of "reversion to original learning," which sometimes allows vehicle designers to anticipate potentially fatal mistakes by vehicle operators.

Although much less critical here, the notion is that every user has had original learning experiences with binoculars, which remain with him over time. As the theory goes, new binoculars modify or overlay old neuro-behavioral pathways, but never become quite as comfortable as the originals because adaptive effort is required to inhibit originally learned responses. A corollary is that unless one takes account of original learning, which most of us probably don't do, preferences can appear to be somewhat mysterious simply because certain devices are more similar to those we were originally weaned on.

In my case, original learning primarily occurred with Swaro products and I definitely have a tendency to revert to them. Leica owners have similar tendencies, which they refer to as the "Leica View." Fortunately, most early learnings transfer across manufacturers, but new or improved products face a gauntlet of re-adaptations, e.g., focus controls, open frame construction, distortion induced percepts, flat field eye movements, product shape, texture, grip, weight and balance, and so forth. All of these require relearning to some extent.

Now that I think about it, that may be why I prefer to select top quality equipment to begin with, and then use it until it becomes second nature (and falls apart).

Baka is good.

Just some food for thought. :eat:

Ed

Ed,

Trying to digest the concept of "reversion to original learning" but it's giving me some gas. :)

Is it age related? Are children's "neuro-behavioral pathways" more malleable than adults?

Perhaps not until they've reached a certain age. For example, "maturation levels". I remember one movie in my psych class that showed an adult pouring water from a tall flask into a short, wide flask. He asked the children, which has more water, the tall flash or the short. Most of the kids would say the tall one. They repeated the test with the same children a year later, and lo and behold, they all said that both flasks had the same amount of water. Some kind of "neuro-behavioral pathway" rewiring took place in their brains during that year that gave them a different perspective.

Children have less experience with everything than adults and have a natural curiosity about the world around them. They delight in exploring new surroundings, though the level of curiosity varies from child to child, as I recall from my own ability to stay in my seat from Kindergarten to sixth grade since I always found something more interesting going on out the window or in the clothes closet or on the floor.

Today, if a child won't stay in his seat and is more curious about what's going on outside the window or doodling in his notebook than what the teacher is writing on the board, they label him "ADHD" and give him a Ritalin capsule with his milk during snack time.

In seventh grade, we began changing classes after each "period" and were given a new teacher for each subject. My conduct marks improved and so did my grades, quite markedly, in fact.

I remember another movie in psych class where they left several children alone in a room filled with toys, and told them they could play with any of them, but under no circumstances were they to open the box on the table. Well, of course, it was only minutes before "Pandora" dropped the toys and went over to the box and opened it! Or was her name "Eve"? :)

Seems like as people get older they get more stuck in their ways (and perhaps corresponding "neuro-behavioral pathways").

I've bought and sold a fair number of binoculars over the years, though not nearly as many as some on these forums, and none of them were alphas, but I find myself going "backa" to the EIIs and SEs.

I primarily used porros for stargazing since they were preferred by amateur astronomers, and for the most part, still are since they are available in larger apertures and higher magnifications than roofs plus they are much less expensive.

Most amateur astronomers have a nice piece of change tied up in the telescope(s) and accessories so few can also afford to put out big bucks on an alpha bin that costs almost as much as their telescope, and they don't need bins that are waterproof down to 5 meters or that can be used as a javelin.

I never became "quite as comfortable" with roofs even though my first amateur astronomy bin was a Japanese made 9x63 roof with Abbe–Koenig prisms.

Porros always seem to fit my hands better and my expectations of what binoculars are supposed to look like (optics housed in a "dog legged body") and what the view through the optics should look like (good perception of depth and 3-D effect).

The first binocular I ever used was my father's 7x35 Sears porro, which was lost on a camping trip (somebody lost them, not mentioning names).

So it may be that my reversion to porros is due to my "neuro-behavioral pathways" or it could due to me wanting to get the best "bang for my buck". ;)

Chewbacca
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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