[bh46118]

If you could design a new ultimate Porro from scratch, what would it look like, how would the spec sheet read, and who would the manufacturer be ? Do you think you could make a significant advancement optically over anything that has been done before ?

Bruce

[ceasar]

I really don't know how to go about this. There are two problems that would have to be addressed: Optics and Ergonomics.

I don't know enough about optics to speculate on that part of it. It seems that Nikon and Swarovski have taken the lead there and what can be done to improve it is above most of the reader's "pay grade" here; certainly my own. For instance, putting something like IS in them would likely contribute more weight and bulk to them.

As for the ergonomics part of it, I think that the market has pretty well established that buyers of binoculars clearly prefer using Roof Prism binoculars when they can get similar performance from them at the same price as they would get from Porro Prisms. So something rather revolutionary would seem to be needed to get the buying public's attention.

Bob

[Torview]

I don`t know much about optical design either, but I`d like it to look like the leather Habicht, just beautiful to my eyes.

Keep the external focus but have user interchangeable eye piece bridges so you could have 7,8 & 10 power in one waterproof body !

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by bh46118

If you could design a new ultimate Porro from scratch, what would it look like, how would the spec sheet read, and who would the manufacturer be ? Do you think you could make a significant advancement optically over anything that has been done before ?

Bruce

Maybe ED glass and longer eye relief (especially for the Habicht). Waterproof the SE make it a bit more rugged.

[bh46118]

That's what I'm getting at. A cost no object Porro for Porro lovers who are willing to live with the format to get the superior image. If a $600 Porro is as good as or better than a $2500 roof, then how good of a $2500 Porro can be made. I know it won't happen, but I think it's an intriguing idea. Maybe the Fuji, Docter, or SE are already as good as can be made.

Bruce

Originally Posted by ceasar

So something rather revolutionary would seem to be needed to get the buying public's attention.

Bob

[bh46118]

I sometimes wonder if ED glass hurts resolution ? I say this because the non ED Porro I have is much sharper than two ED roof's I have owned. That could just be a Porro attribute, or maybe a pure coincidence.

A waterproof SE would probably make me spend some money.

Bruce

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

Maybe ED glass and longer eye relief (especially for the Habicht). Waterproof the SE make it a bit more rugged.

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by bh46118

I sometimes wonder if ED glass hurts resolution ? I say this because the non ED Porro I have is much sharper than two ED roof's I have owned. That could just be a Porro attribute, or maybe a pure coincidence.

A waterproof SE would probably make me spend some money.

Bruce

If the SE was waterproof, I would have bought it long ago. My Nikon action extreme is waterproof.

A good porro is pretty scary. Even my Steiner will scare many a roof in terms of center sharpness. It has "high definition optics" printed around the objectives- ED glass?????

To me the ideal porro would have Steiner waterproofness and toughness with SV flatness and edge sharpness, Leica/Nikon contrast and color and Zeiss brightness. Any company builds this, I will buy it.

[ceasar]

The modular construction of the SE certainly has something to do with their low cost. All 3 use the same eyepieces and prism housings. What is different are the objectives and the lengths of their tubes which screw into the prism housings.

I don't know if this modularity (is that the right word?) could be designed into 3 equivalent waterproof SE's and still retain their low cost.

Bob

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

If the SE was waterproof, I would have bought it long ago. My Nikon action extreme is waterproof.

A good porro is pretty scary. Even my Steiner will scare many a roof in terms of center sharpness. It has "high definition optics" printed around the objectives- ED glass?????

To me the ideal porro would have Steiner waterproofness and toughness with SV flatness and edge sharpness, Leica/Nikon contrast and color and Zeiss brightness. Any company builds this, I will buy it.

A couple of companies already build such binoculars....only problem is that they're IF.

Steve

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

A couple of companies already build such binoculars....only problem is that they're IF.

Steve

Not sure why they still make IF. Even when I star gaze, I find myself tweaking the focus depending upon what part of the sky I am in.

I hear the Fuji are nice as well as Nikon's star gazing glass.

IF is what stopped me from buying Steiner's top model the commander xp.

My Steiner wildlife pro has IF but it also has a center focus. Just set one barrel like a diopter then just use center focus.

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

Not sure why they still make IF. Even when I star gaze, I find myself tweaking the focus depending upon what part of the sky I am in.

I hear the Fuji are nice as well as Nikon's star gazing glass.

IF is what stopped me from buying Steiner's top model the commander xp.

My Steiner wildlife pro has IF but it also has a center focus. Just set one barrel like a diopter then just use center focus.

I actually prefer IF for astronomy use, set the focus once for infinity and you're done. With a center focus you have to continually adjust focus when looking at or near the zenith...a real PITA.

I think they will always make IF's for marine/shipping applications. All you need are infinity focus and the most rugged binocular available which is where an IF shines.

If you never use an IF you'll never get to experience what many consider the best view in binocular astronomy (milky way through a 10x50 FMT SX) or the best edge performance by far of any binocular ever made (Nikon 7x50 SP).

Steve

[etudiant]

The issue with porros has been mechanical stability rather than optical performance.
The design appears to be much more difficult to keep collimated and of course has waterproofing challenges. The Habicht and the Action Extreme show that the latter is not insoluble, but loss of collimation seems to be a chronic problem. The disaster with the military M22 glass shows it is not easily solved.
There has not been any proposal afaik for a more durable porro. Imho the design will continue to loose market share unless that can be corrected.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by etudiant

The issue with porros has been mechanical stability rather than optical performance.
The design appears to be much more difficult to keep collimated and of course has waterproofing challenges. The Habicht and the Action Extreme show that the latter is not insoluble, but loss of collimation seems to be a chronic problem. The disaster with the military M22 glass shows it is not easily solved.
There has not been any proposal afaik for a more durable porro. Imho the design will continue to loose market share unless that can be corrected.

The porro can be made as tough or tougher than any binocular. The
Steiner proves that. You may have seen the video of it getting run over.
These are built with armored military specs. and are not made with
birders in mind.

That is surely not the reason. It is about the market and the sleek roof
prism types. For optics, the porro has a natural advantage, and is often
mentioned as being a very good value.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by bh46118

I sometimes wonder if ED glass hurts resolution ? I say this because the non ED Porro I have is much sharper than two ED roof's I have owned. That could just be a Porro attribute, or maybe a pure coincidence.

A waterproof SE would probably make me spend some money.

Bruce

A porro doesn't really need ED glass as much as a roof.It is just naturally sharper than a roof because it is easier to make an excellent one with it's simple design

[Alexis Powell]

Optically, the SE is fine by me. To make it a better birding binocular, I'd like to see the strap lugs moved to improve the "hang", the focus ratio sped up a bit, and a focus lubricant used that doesn't stiffen so much in the cold. Personally, I've never had much need for completely waterproof bins, but I wouldn't mind addition of easyclean coatings even if full waterproofing couldn't be accomplished. Twist up eyecups would be nice, so long as the oculars could be kept the same size as they are currently.

--AP

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

The porro can be made as tough or tougher than any binocular. The
Steiner proves that. You may have seen the video of it getting run over.
These are built with armored military specs. and are not made with
birders in mind.

That is surely not the reason. It is about the market and the sleek roof
prism types. For optics, the porro has a natural advantage, and is often
mentioned as being a very good value.

It may be that toughness and durability are different parameters. The M22, a mil spec glass, built super tough, was a case in point.
The loss of collimation is not driven by damage to the housing, but is internal and unpredictable, as was noted (my paraphrase) by Bill Cook, a very experienced optics man, 'sometimes a glass will fall off the bridge and be perfectly ok and another one will fall over on the chart table and be messed up'. The M22 had that problem but the design precluded opening the barrel. The fix was to replace the entire barrel, which was not economic.
For whatever reason, porros don't stay collimated. To illustrate, of the 50 odd used porros that I've acquired over the years, at least a third were badly out.
That lack of durability hurts their public reputation, deservedly imho. If it is inherent, it may help explain why manufacturers are not investing in porros any more.

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

I actually prefer IF for astronomy use, set the focus once for infinity and you're done. With a center focus you have to continually adjust focus when looking at or near the zenith...a real PITA.

I think they will always make IF's for marine/shipping applications. All you need are infinity focus and the most rugged binocular available which is where an IF shines.

If you never use an IF you'll never get to experience what many consider the best view in binocular astronomy (milky way through a 10x50 FMT SX) or the best edge performance by far of any binocular ever made (Nikon 7x50 SP).

Steve

Steve, do you need to adjust the focus going from the stars to the moon?

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by etudiant

The issue with porros has been mechanical stability rather than optical performance.
The design appears to be much more difficult to keep collimated and of course has waterproofing challenges. The Habicht and the Action Extreme show that the latter is not insoluble, but loss of collimation seems to be a chronic problem. The disaster with the military M22 glass shows it is not easily solved.
There has not been any proposal afaik for a more durable porro. Imho the design will continue to loose market share unless that can be corrected.

I thought the Steiner m22 or military retical was really tough? I purposely stepped on, dropped and submerged my Steiner wildlife pro porro. No damage, no, colimation problems. I would never do this with any other glass.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....ht=Porro+myths

[ceasar]

Re: Etudiant's post:

Bill Cook is one of the last of a long line of Binocular Technicians who could repair porro prisms which lost collimation. You could find them in many places. Most of them, like him, got their expertise from experience repairing them in the Armed Forces. For a reasonable price and a wait you could get your damaged binocular repaired and returned in fine working condition. Now, except for a few like him who remain, these experts have disappeared.

There are even fewer who can repair a damaged roof prism binocular with prisms out of alignment. If you damage yours in this manner by accident you will probably have to write it off unless you have one that has a no fault warranty covering this kind of damage. The price of this warranty likely was factored into the original purchase price. You send it back to the company and, if you are lucky, they will send you back a new "or equivalent" model replacing your damaged one. The alternatives to this are more costly than repairing a damaged Porro Prism in most instances.

Our Military is now into this "use and throw away" culture. Does anyone remember when Army's had their own Cooks and "K P?" Now that is all contracted out. It's more efficient.

Bob

[LPT]

I have collected over 150 mostly vintage binoculars over the years and service them myself including using Rafael Cobos' sun image technique to collimate (https://sites.google.com/site/rchamo...-of-binoculars). I have found that generally speaking: 1) Binoculars made by better manufacturers f.ex. Zeiss, Leitz, Nikon, B&L retain collimation better than those made by lesser ones f.ex. many circa 50's - 70's Japanese makers, 1920's-30's French makers; 2) Porro I's retain collimation much better than Porro II's often because of separation problems in Porro II's; 3) Well-made Bausch & Lomb type body Porro I's retain collimation extremely well and are far superior in this regard to Zeiss type body Porro I's. F. ex. my WW II B&L Mk 28, numerous REL 7X50's, Zeiss (blc) U-Boat 7X50, Spencer Mk 30, Sard Mk 43 6X42 have retained almost perfect collimation despite some showing heavy use and many indicating no signs of servicing since the war; 4) Regarding the lesser number of roof prisms in my collection - several Hensoldts (AK prism) required collimation, 2 of 3 Leitz Elcans (SP prism) required collimation, both my Zen Ray 7X36 and US army M24 7X24 (SP prisms) show some surprising deviations (although still within international standards) at various IPD settings whereas some of my other more modern "alpha" type binoculars such as the Nikon 8X32 SE, Nikon 10X35 EII and Zeiss B/GAT's 7X42 and 8X56 are absolutely perfect at every IPD setting. Essentially, I think a well-made Bausch & Lomb type body Porro is capable of retaining collimation as well as any roof and that some of the roofs being marketed today especially the middle and lower priced ones may not be collimated as well as the buyer thinks they are. Food for thought.

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by etudiant

It may be that toughness and durability are different parameters. The M22, a mil spec glass, built super tough, was a case in point.
The loss of collimation is not driven by damage to the housing, but is internal and unpredictable, as was noted (my paraphrase) by Bill Cook, a very experienced optics man, 'sometimes a glass will fall off the bridge and be perfectly ok and another one will fall over on the chart table and be messed up'. The M22 had that problem but the design precluded opening the barrel. The fix was to replace the entire barrel, which was not economic.
For whatever reason, porros don't stay collimated. To illustrate, of the 50 odd used porros that I've acquired over the years, at least a third were badly out.
That lack of durability hurts their public reputation, deservedly imho. If it is inherent, it may help explain why manufacturers are not investing in porros any more.

I've looked through/handled two M22's and was not impressed at all. You have to remember that a binocular made under contract for the military is usually made by the manufacturer who submits the cheapest bid....certainly not conducive to high quality.

If one third of the used porros you've acquired over the years have been out of collimation it makes me curious as to which makes/models. Many of the Chinese porros manufactured in the past for the astronomy market are notorious for collimation problems but the problems aren't because they're porros, it's because the binoculars were manufactured using the cheapest components in an environment where quality control is non existent. I've picked up around thirty or so vintage porros in the past few years and only two had collimation problems. An EWA Jason (loose prism assembly) and a Nikon 7x50 JB7 (VERY used), both were easily fixed and are still working great today.

I also enjoy BillC's posts on CN but if I remember correctly he always mentions the Fuijnon IF series, Nikon Prostar, and Nikon SE's (as well as Zeiss and Swaro roofs) when asked about examples of high quality/rugged binoculars. I think he finds it somewhat amusing (as do I) that people are surprised by their cheap binoculars lackluster performance under the very demanding and unforgiving optical challenges the night sky presents. Last time I noticed his personal birding binocular was a 8x32 SE and his preferred astronomy binocular was a 7x50 SP (Prostar).....can't imagine him choosing these two porros for his own use if he thought durability was an issue.

Steve

[bh46118]

It seems to me that if the Leupold Cascade form factor were developed further, a wide FOV and better CA control among other things, the resulting binocular could be an advancement. Maybe the design was already taken as far as it could be taken.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by bh46118

I sometimes wonder if ED glass hurts resolution ? I say this because the non ED Porro I have is much sharper than two ED roof's I have owned. That could just be a Porro attribute, or maybe a pure coincidence.

A waterproof SE would probably make me spend some money.

Bruce

ED glass should sharpen the image, not lessen it. ED glass increases contrast up to 15% (or so the experts tell me) and improves color fidelity by bringing more of the rays of each color to the same point on your eye instead of scattering them in CA. So the image should look sharper.

If the ED roofs aren't as sharp as your non-ED porro, it's because they are not as well made. You typically have to spend multiple the cost of porro to get as sharp an image in a roof. One reason why I never liked roofs. You have to pay $2K to get an image as sharp, bright and contrasty as a $650 8x32 SE or $450 8x30 EII. Fagetabouit!

Even with phase coating, most of the ED roofs I've tried don't look quite as sharp as my SE or EII. However, in the centerfield, the ZR 7x36 ED2 matched my Nikon 7x35 WF and was "sharper" from the ED glass cleaning up the CA.

The full sized LX's also looked almost as sharp as my SE (pretty close but the increased CA probably detracts from that subjectively). Somebody measured the resolution of the 10x42 LX vs. the 10x42 SE, and the results were closer than I had expected.

The SE is my "litmus test".

So here's my ideal porro.

1. Internal Focus. I don't need WP, and the trade-off that comes with it in a porro may not be worth it (stiff focuser). But I realize that people are used to WP in their roofs, and to be competitive with the premium roof market, a redesigned SE would need to have an internal focuser.

We know from the old Leica internal focus porro and from the more recent Minox and Leupold internal focus porros, that can be done (and done cheaply).

2. No image blackouts. Then they have to get rid of the SA of the exit pupil, but retain the field flatteners.

3. Wider FOV. Add FOV (8*) and increase the objective size. An 8x42 SE with no "image blackout" and internal focus fits the bill.

4. Keep distortion level the same. Not sure if this can be done if you enlarge the FOV .5*, but that's what I'm looking for.

5. Eliminate vignetting and "darkening at the edges". I'm not sure if these characteristics are related to the SAOTEP. They are not biggies, but needs to be addressed if they are going to make a truly world class glass.

6. Ergonomics. Despite having a wide body, relative to a roof prism bin, the chamfering on the SE's rounded prism housing allows for an "elbow's down" arm position, which is less fatiguing and more stable.

Small handed birders might still prefer roofs, but the SE's body design can accommodate a variety of hand sizes. So not much needs to be done in terms of ergos except to cover the bare metal strips under the prism housing near the center post and add some padding in those areas like Leupold Cascade had. Very comfortable and good support for the thumbs.

7. ED glass. Better quality than that employed in the EDG (the ED glass might be high quality on the EDG, but perhaps the roof design doesn't do as well with it as it would on a porro?). The ED glass in the Celestron 10x50 ED was superb, and that was made decades ago. They don't need new fangled uber expensive "HT" glass, they just need to make good quality ED glass. Japan can make that.

8. Color Balance. Keep it just as it is, slightly biased red. For heaven's sakes, don't boost the light transmission across the spectrum! The 8x32 SE is bright enough as it is, an 8x42 SE will be even brighter.

9. Eyecups. My biggest issue with the SE is long, oversized eyecups, which match the diameter of the EP housing instead of being indented like the Docter Nobilem series. When manufacturers add twist-ups to porros, they usually make them so they slide down over the EP housing. That would make them monstrous in the SE since the EP housing is already wide. So make the twist-ups so they don't ride over the EP housing but sit on top of it. For a clue on how to make the perfect eyecup - reverse engineer an SLC or EL eyecup. 'Nuff said.

10. Diopter. Right EP diopter like the LX with pull out ring and click stops would be fine. Whatever they do, please don't make a diopter like the EDG where it has to be pulled out to get to the diopter and then you have to feel for the flat diopter ring, which I can't turn with gloves. The best diopter I've tried was the SLCneu's. Push in, turn, and you're set. Never need to take your hands off the bin. Doesn't get simpler than that, folks. But an LX type focuser to save cost would be fine.

11. Price. Last but certainly not least...bundle this all up for the low, low price of $1,200 (about twice the cost of an 8x32 SE), and Nikon or whoever has got the balls to make this updated SE has got themselves a guaranteed customer - me. Zeiss, Swaro and Leica will be sweating bullets.

Pre-order one today! Expected delivery date: 2021 (by then the dollar might be strong against the yen again :-)

<B>

[LPT]

Contributors to the Leica sub-forum not infrequently lament the discontinuance of the old style Trinovids, ergonomically apparently one of the best binoculars ever, and suggest it should be resurrected but with modern phase and AR coatings. Great idea but I doubt it will happen. In the same vein, I can think of some vintage, wide-angle Porro binoculars which if likewise reintroduced but upgraded as required with modern AR coatings, center-focus, resdesigned eyecups for eyeglass wearers, better weatherproofing, and maybe field flattener lenses would give at the least wonderful and at the best spectacular views blowing the socks off most roofs being sold today. Some candidates: 1) Leitz Binuxit 8X30, 2) Zeiss Oberkochen 8X30, 3) Zeiss Dekarem/Jenoptem 10X50, 4) Bushnell (Fuji) Rangemaster 7X35, 5) Sard Mk 43 6X42, 6) Zeiss (blc) Kriegsmarine 8X60. A fantasy, I know. And no's 5) and 6) would be so bulky and heavy that only the most rabid binophiles would consider buying them.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

I've looked through/handled two M22's and was not impressed at all. You have to remember that a binocular made under contract for the military is usually made by the manufacturer who submits the cheapest bid....certainly not conducive to high quality.

If one third of the used porros you've acquired over the years have been out of collimation it makes me curious as to which makes/models. Many of the Chinese porros manufactured in the past for the astronomy market are notorious for collimation problems but the problems aren't because they're porros, it's because the binoculars were manufactured using the cheapest components in an environment where quality control is non existent. I've picked up around thirty or so vintage porros in the past few years and only two had collimation problems. An EWA Jason (loose prism assembly) and a Nikon 7x50 JB7 (VERY used), both were easily fixed and are still working great today.

I also enjoy BillC's posts on CN but if I remember correctly he always mentions the Fuijnon IF series, Nikon Prostar, and Nikon SE's (as well as Zeiss and Swaro roofs) when asked about examples of high quality/rugged binoculars. I think he finds it somewhat amusing (as do I) that people are surprised by their cheap binoculars lackluster performance under the very demanding and unforgiving optical challenges the night sky presents. Last time I noticed his personal birding binocular was a 8x32 SE and his preferred astronomy binocular was a 7x50 SP (Prostar).....can't imagine him choosing these two porros for his own use if he thought durability was an issue.

Steve

If Bill Cook just looks sternly at a recalcitrant porro, it immediately slumps back into proper collimation.
So he can enjoy their virtues in tranquility.
Unfortunately, I have neither his skills nor his equipment, so porros have been a bane for my optics collection.
The list of duds started with a Nikon 9x35 and ended with a CZ Nobilem Spezial, which got the priviledge of a double treatment by Dr Harald Ros, the man for CZJ optics.
In between were mostly extra wide angle glasses from the 60s or German/Russian/US military binocs.
They were wonderful when they worked, but that was too often not the case.
So now I distrust that design and so do many others. The threshold for failure is just too low, imho.

Despite that, my primary glass is still a porro, a Canon 10x42. I'm hoping the electronics will shame the collimation into holding.