[RJM]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Mayoayo
You really should try the Zeiss 8x20 Victory or the Leica Ultravid or Trinovid 8x20's. I compared them head to head with the Bushnell Elite 7x28 and there was no question in my mind that I preferred the view through the little 8x20's ...The little alphas are twice the price of the Bushnell Elite and they are definitely better optics with only a 20mm aperture.

Just wondering if you have any emperical evidence on the optics to back this up? The Bushnell's 6mm aperture advantage is just too large to overcome. The difference in brightness, resolution, and FoV sharpness between these would be quite obvious, especially comparing a porro to a roof. The Elite you looked at would have to be either mechanically out of whack (un-collimated, aperture restricted) or of just generally poor quality. Since it is considerd a "flagship" model we can assume it is among the best Bushnell makes.

You also described the Elite optics to be "SE-like" in another thread. So I suspect what you REALLY seem to be praising is the Zeiss ergonomics.

thx,
Rick

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by RJM

Just wondering if you have any emperical evidence on the optics to back this up? The Bushnell's 6mm aperture advantage is just too large to overcome. The difference in brightness, resolution, and FoV sharpness between these would be quite obvious, especially comparing a porro to a roof. The Elite you looked at would have to be either mechanically out of whack (un-collimated, aperture restricted) or of just generally poor quality. Since it is considerd a "flagship" model we can assume it is among the best Bushnell makes.

You also described the Elite optics to be "SE-like" in another thread. So I suspect what you REALLY seem to be praising is the Zeiss ergonomics.

thx,
Rick

You know it surprised me to. Maybe the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite I got from Amazon.com was defective. I didn't think to try and exchange it. I think I will go over to Sportmans Warehouse and compare one to my Zeiss 8x20 Victory. I previously had compared the Bushnell to a Pentax 9x28 and that's when I said it was SE like. I had not compared it to the Zeiss or Leica 8x20 yet. This is what I said then:

"I went over to Sportman's Warehouse and compared the Pentax 9x28 and the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite and really there was no comparison. The Bushnell is smaller, it's focus way superior being amazingly smooth. The Pentax focus is WAY to hard! In fact I could barely turn it. The eyecups on the Bushnell work like silk. The ER on the Pentax is better or longer. When it comes to optics the Bushnell really is way superior to the Pentax. It is brighter, has a larger FOV, sharper on-axis, way sharper at the edge and has superior contrast. The build quality on the little Bushnell's really is good. The Bushnell comes with nice straps and really a nice case. In fact the Bushnell's optics are like a little Nikon SE. Sharp as a tack right to the edge and bright as heck like most porro-prisms. For about the same money the Bushnell is really a better bargain although they are not waterproof like the Pentax's. It depends how important that is to you which you would choose.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

Second that. The 8x25 reverse porro strikes me as the ideal compact, although maybe an alpha-quality 8x25 roof would do--the quality is getting close these days.

I generally prefer my cheap (and at $57 I mean CHEAP) Olympus 8x25 Tracker reverse porro to my Ultravid 8x20. Sounds crazy but the view is as good, the exit pupil is easier, the size/weight are nearly identical, and no dopey double hinges. No WP, though. An easy fix.

I agree with you on the advantage of the reverse porro, I have a Nikon Travellite V 8x25, and I think they offer some advantages over the compacts, they provide a nice bright view.
I had a Trinovid 8x20, and I found the double hinge a nuisance, and problems handling difficult lighting conditions.
I have not seen much on the newer Nikon Travellite EX series, but they are waterproof, so they may fit those looking for waterproof.
For me, unless it is a shirtpocket desire, I do not see usefulness of the compacts, compared to a normal sized bin.

[Kammerdiner]

I tried the Nikon 8x25 ATB which is WP, but returned it because it was bulkier, heavier (12.5oz v. 9.9oz), and not as sharp as the Olympus. For me, tack sharp is at the top of the priority list (having an SE and an FL will do that to a person. If it doesn't "snap" you find yourself tweaking and tweaking, looking for it).

[kristoffer]

And yes, it is very nice to be able to wash the bin under the tap. Scratch free optimal lenscleaning.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

You know it surprised me to. Maybe the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite I got from Amazon.com was defective. I didn't think to try and exchange it. I think I will go over to Sportmans Warehouse and compare one to my Zeiss 8x20 Victory. I previously had compared the Bushnell to a Pentax 9x28 and that's when I said it was SE like. I had not compared it to the Zeiss or Leica 8x20 yet. This is what I said then:

"I went over to Sportman's Warehouse and compared the Pentax 9x28 and the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite and really there was no comparison. The Bushnell is smaller, it's focus way superior being amazingly smooth. The Pentax focus is WAY to hard! In fact I could barely turn it. The eyecups on the Bushnell work like silk. The ER on the Pentax is better or longer. When it comes to optics the Bushnell really is way superior to the Pentax. It is brighter, has a larger FOV, sharper on-axis, way sharper at the edge and has superior contrast. The build quality on the little Bushnell's really is good. The Bushnell comes with nice straps and really a nice case. In fact the Bushnell's optics are like a little Nikon SE. Sharp as a tack right to the edge and bright as heck like most porro-prisms. For about the same money the Bushnell is really a better bargain although they are not waterproof like the Pentax's. It depends how important that is to you which you would choose.

I took my Zeiss 8x20 Victory over to Sportmans Warehouse and compared it again to the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite Compact and I stll say I prefer the optics of the little Zeiss to the Bushnell. The resolution is better in the Zeiss and it is definitely superior to the Bushnell. I mean you are comparing a $600.00 Zeiss to a $250.00 Bushnell. Even though it is roof against porro the roof is superior. Bushnell just doesn't have the optics the Zeiss does period. Sorry!

[James Bean]

I don't think I could ever bring myself to wash a binocular under a tap, no matter how water-proof it was supposed to be...!

[dalat]

Originally Posted by James Bean

to wash a binocular under a tap

is just following the instructions given in the manual (at least in Leicas). But well, who reads manuals for simple things like binoculars :)

[Fernando np]

James,
I've put my 8.5X42EL under the tap more than one hundred times for sure. Running water is an excellent first step in the cleaning process, high volume of flow, low pressure... Last Monday I enjoyed birding in the first dam of the river Ebro with the mentioned binoculars and the Diascope85. During the morning rain was strong, from midday it turned to continuous shower. I think were're so used now to gore-tex and similars as for making us to forget the idea of the rain as a problem strong enough to change plans. On the other hand, I had to say than I've used the 8X32SE into blizzard and under snow. Their short barrels fix inside my hand and under the cover of the parka hood. In the ages of the non-sealed optic I had to send the zeiss 10X42Classic to the dealer for drying the inside.

Fernando

[spyglass]

Dennis, send the little Elite to Bushnell in Kansas City and explain the trouble.....they'll likely replace it. I have one and have compared it to the Nikon LX and the Swaro 8x20, and much prefer to either. Not WP, but if it's rainin' I'm inside, or at at least in the car. To me, the only advantage to WP is that it's also dust-proof, which in the long run will be a plus. Didn't get to try beside a Leica (which is supposedly the best of the 8x20's) or the Zeiss, but with my big mitts, I find all the teeny little roofs difficult to use. So, I've become an Elite booster ('specially at $250).

FWIW, in my 50 yrs of bino usage, and having owned over 75 of all kinds, I've never had one get wet or fogged inside, and only 6 of them were sealed.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by spyglass

Dennis, send the little Elite to Bushnell in Kansas City and explain the trouble.....they'll likely replace it. I have one and have compared it to the Nikon LX and the Swaro 8x20, and much prefer to either. Not WP, but if it's rainin' I'm inside, or at at least in the car. To me, the only advantage to WP is that it's also dust-proof, which in the long run will be a plus. Didn't get to try beside a Leica (which is supposedly the best of the 8x20's) or the Zeiss, but with my big mitts, I find all the teeny little roofs difficult to use. So, I've become an Elite booster ('specially at $250).

FWIW, in my 50 yrs of bino usage, and having owned over 75 of all kinds, I've never had one get wet or fogged inside, and only 6 of them were sealed.

I wanted a compact to take to Costa Rica and the Monteverde Rain Forest tends to be kind of wet so I wanted something waterproof. If I get a chance at a Rainbow Toucan or a Resplendent Quetzal I don't want my binoculars fogged up or worried about getting water in them. Can you imagine missing a bird like this because your binoculars are fogged up. NO WAY!

[spyglass]

Well, I spose I should try to get to the Banana Republics at least once.....my doctor & his daughter have gone a couple times and had a blast. Unwillingly, guess it's best to leave the little 7x26 and even the 8x32SE at home & take the FL's. The Costra Rican jungles/rain forests are supposedly the best for birding exotica....does that sound right?

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by spyglass

Well, I spose I should try to get to the Banana Republics at least once.....my doctor & his daughter have gone a couple times and had a blast. Unwillingly, guess it's best to leave the little 7x26 and even the 8x32SE at home & take the FL's. The Costra Rican jungles/rain forests are supposedly the best for birding exotica....does that sound right?

Costa Rica is about the size of West Virginia but has more bird species than all of North America! Over 850 species. I am studying them now so I can try to identify at least some of them when I am there in February.

[Kevin Purcell]

Dennis (and all):

Add John Kricher's "The Neotropical Companion" to your book list and start reading it. Understanding the habitat ("rain forest" is more complicated than you think) and the other animals of the Neotropics is half the fun. Don't forget to take it with you.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6179.html

I recommend the downloadable chapters 2 (Rainforest structure) and 12 (Neotropical birds) and the appendix ("And Let's Be Careful Out there").

It changed the way I think about habitats (even the temperate ones!). And it's a fun read too as Kricher has a good sense of humor (e.g. see the provided appendix in particular).

OK, back to the original argument already in progress

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Dennis (and all):

Add John Kricher's "The Neotropical Companion" to your book list and start reading it. Understanding the habitat ("rain forest" is more complicated than you think) and the other animals of the Neotropics is half the fun. Don't forget to take it with you.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6179.html

I recommend the downloadable chapters 2 (Rainforest structure) and 12 (Neotropical birds) and the appendix ("And Let's Be Careful Out there").

It changed the way I think about habitats (even the temperate ones!). And it's a fun read too as Kricher has a good sense of humor (e.g. see the provided appendix in particular).

OK, back to the original argument already in progress

Thanks for the tip. Kevin.

[sless13]

Dennis,

Off topic but...

When you stated that Costa Rica with 850 species of birds had more species then all of North America it looks like you were not including Mexico as part of NA because as per Mongabay.com which provides a list of countries with the most species of birds, Mexico alone has 1026 (with the USA with 888/Canada did not make the list) while Costa Rica has 838.
Although south of the border, Mexico is a not so distant neighbor of the US/Canada and is part of NA and has awesome birding throughout the country.

Hope you have a fantastic time in Costa Rica and I really regret not being into birding when I visited Guatemala a few years ago.

Les

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by sless13

Dennis,

Off topic but...

When you stated that Costa Rica with 850 species of birds had more species then all of North America it looks like you were not including Mexico as part of NA because as per Mongabay.com which provides a list of countries with the most species of birds, Mexico alone has 1026 (with the USA with 888/Canada did not make the list) while Costa Rica has 838.
Although south of the border, Mexico is a not so distant neighbor of the US/Canada and is part of NA and has awesome birding throughout the country.

Hope you have a fantastic time in Costa Rica and I really regret not being into birding when I visited Guatemala a few years ago.

Les

Yes. I meant North of the Mexican border. Mexico has ALOT of species that people are not aware of. Guatemala, I have heard from some birding friends is quite the birding paradise with alot of species down there also over 720. They have the Collared Aracari. Which I have always wanted to see. It is cheaper to go on a birding trip to Guatemala also and the climate is supposedly great.