Four budget bins: a comparative review (1 Viewer)

Day 0

I recently been slowly getting back into birding (since Sibley was published) and decided after some research to get some new binoculars.

Until now I've been limping along with Minolta Compact 8x25 (compact reverse porro , Made in the Philippines, fully coated) and Orion Explorer 10x50 (full-size porro Made in Japan, fully coated from the late 1990s. The former for general birding duties, and the latter, bought for astronomical use, for shorebirds, hawks and ducks which match it's close focus of about 30 feet. Neither were expensive at around $100 (plus or minus) and neither has great eye relief.

In addition to those I have a Chinese Meade 10x50 from 2002 that was $30 form Amazon (an OK cheap loaner bin). An old Practica 10x25 roof prism made somewhere in Eastern Europe in 1990 - my reference standard for a terrible murky roof small prism. And a Chinese 8x21 roof prisms ("Binolux") that I got as a freebie and is sold for $15 for promotional use. Better than the Practica it was carried around in my backpack for several years and now has part of the left tube in soft focus in the bottom of the field. Still it's small and light so I carry it when birding to let strangers use when they want to see what I'm looking at. My teenage years birding (in the UK) were done with a Chinon 10x50 from Dixon's.

You can see I don't own any great bins. I think the best bin I have looked through was when a serious birding colleague let me look through his mid-size Nikon porros in the 1980s. I remember being amazed by how big the oculars were and then how bright, sharp and wide the apparent FOV was!

After some research on the net (and reading a lot of threads here) to get a feel for the current state of the art and the market I came up with the following goals and requirements:

1. Waterproof and fogproof bins. Neither of my bins are waterproof or fog proof which is a bit of a limitation in the Pacific North West in fall and winter.

2. Better eye relief. I can't see the whole FOV in the Minoltas so it wastes the 6.7° field they have. The 10x50s are a bit better but I still don't have a full field. I'd like the new bins to give me full FOV through my eyeglasses.

3. Larger aperture. To get a larger than 25mm aperture. For fall and winter birding in the PNW I suspect I'll need at least 32mm and probably 40mm aperture

4. Larger exit pupil. The Minoltas have a 3.125mm exit pupil and I prefer the pupil to be larger than that.

5. Compact or light bins. My current birding field equipment is a belt/hip pack with a copy of Kauffman, a notebook and pen, a loaner 8x21 bin with my birding bins carried on the belt in their own bag. This gives a convenient "grab and go" bag that will go with a lot of clothing especially on casual walks. I find this to be a workable system and I'd like to keep using it.

6. Porro or roofs? To get a first hand feel for the relative quality of porro bins versus roof prism bins. Of course my research show that for my budget that porros were going to give the best optical performance for a given price and any roof prism bin must have phase coating to get close to a porro.

7. Entry-level bins. What can entry-level bins can offer today, at around $100 to $200. The first rung on the ladder. I'm sure I'll buy better bins later but what can I do with a smallish outlay.

Of course the requirements are contradictory. They can't all be satisfied in one binocular. The last two seemed to rule out roof prism bins too. The decent ones seemed to be out of my price range. So I decided to spread my bets.

The first one was an easy choice given the great reviews it's been getting. An inexpensive, good quality lightweight, mid-sized porro with great eye relief.

Leupold Yosemite 6x30 Porro Prism Binocular (Natural) $90
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4584
Field of View 420 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 20 mm
Close Focus 16.4 ft.
Weight 17.0 oz.
Dimensions (HXW) 4.6 x 6.3 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof

The remaining choices were somewhat influence by "a good deal" plus good reviews here.

Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 Binocular $90
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=5434
Field of View 429 feet/1000 yards
Eye Relief 16.0 mm
Close Focus 10.0 feet
Weight 30.0 ounces
Dimensions (HXW) TBD
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

A more classic, heavier, mid-sized porro.

The two roof prisms I decided to try because they were heavily discounted and both were phase coated so they have a chance of competing against the porros. The Diamondback replaced the Sidewinder that got good reviews. The Hurricane was a bit more of an unknown quantity but it fit the requirements for waterproofing, compactness and eye relief better than any of the compact reverse porros I had looked at.

Vortex Hurricane 8x28 Binocular (Coyote Brown) $90 (normally $140)
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4830
Field of View 360 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 19.3 mm
Close Focus 13.1 ft.
Weight 14 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 4.8 x 4.5 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

Vortex Diamondback 8x42 Binocular (Coyote Brown) $140 (normally $200)
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4819
Field of View 420 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 18 mm
Close Focus 4.5 ft.
Weight 25.2 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 5.9 x 5.6 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

The Vortex Diamondback 8x42 Coyote Brown (with "blemishes") were on sale when I ordered this for $139 rather than the normal $199. It looks like they've now sold out of these so the link is to the green full-price model. The 10x42 Coyote Brown (with "blemishes") are still available.

So with that decided, I placed the order for these four bins at Eagle Optices and waited for UPS to do their job.

More tomorrow.

Kevin,

Thank you for taking the time to put together this post. I find your choice of models for comparison interesting because as I was reading through your thread these were pretty much the same models I was going to suggest you consider. I did think of the 8x30 Yosemite as opposed to the 6x30 though if you were looking to try to cover as many "bases" as you could with just one binocular.

...the Celestron is a great value and has excellent image quality. I would not necessarily think of it as small or compact though considering its weight and general dimensions. It is a bit "thicker" than the Yosemite.

Out of the four you listed and the criteria you came up with I think Diamondback would probably suit most of your needs. It is a full-sized bin though so size may be an issue. After thinking about it further I think the 8x30 Yosemite would probably fit most, if not all, of your criteria.

The Diamondback is good value for the money. At the time I saw them, I was a bit spoiled with better models, so I returned them. But for a beginner, they sure beat anything I had 5 years ago.

I now prefer 8x32, and there are severeal such models for under 600 dollars that are in fact better than a starter 8x42. And lighter than the 25 oz. But you will have to do your own homework on the 8x32s as my current Bushnell model is no longer sold.

The Celestrosn look like a good deal. As long as they are comfortable. With porros you get less choices, so go with what you get. I was never completely comfortable with Nikon EX series.

FrankD said:

Thank you for taking the time to put together this post. I find your choice of models for comparison interesting because as I was reading through your thread these were pretty much the same models I was going to suggest you consider.

Click to expand...

That's why I decided to write up this experience. I was rather inspired by the classic multi-day review thread "Compact roof binoculars: $500-$700 range?" on Cloudy Nights

FrankD said:

I did think of the 8x30 Yosemite as opposed to the 6x30 though if you were looking to try to cover as many "bases" as you could with just one binocular.

Click to expand...

And it would (and would make the evaluation easier if all the bins had the same magnification) if it weren't for one thing: eye relief.

Leupold Yosemite 8x30 Porro Prism Binocular (Red)
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4851
Field of View 393 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 14 mm
Close Focus 16.4 ft.
Weight 18.5 oz.
Dimensions (HXW) 4.5 x 6.3 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof

For a full-time glasses wearer like myself the 14mm ER is just not enough. Even a stated 16mm is barely enough. So that, unfortunately, ruled out the 8x30. I think that similar recommendation appeared in the Yosemite 8x30 review by ... FrankD. So you already know this but I include it for others. I guess I no longer want to do the "glasses flip" like Otto McDiesel. I can't imagine how many times a day he does that!

FrankD said:

Out of the four you listed and the criteria you came up with I think Diamondback would probably suit most of your needs. It is a full-sized bin though so size may be an issue.

Click to expand...

Tero said:

The Diamondback is good value for the money. At the time I saw them, I was a bit spoiled with better models, so I returned them. But for a beginner, they sure beat anything I had 5 years ago.

Click to expand...

Especially at it's reduced price it seemed like a good bet. You see how it works out as I post more of the evaluation. Plus there's nothing that says I can't have more than one bin.

Tero said:

I now prefer 8x32, and there are severeal such models for under 600 dollars that are in fact better than a starter 8x42. And lighter than the 25 oz. But you will have to do your own homework on the 8x32s as my current Bushnell model is no longer sold.

Click to expand...

I've been reading about those but decided that I'd start at entry-level bins at an entry-level budget and work my way up. I think I have to get a bit of hands on experience and set my expectations.

I've been rather influenced by your posts and FrankD's (and the other excellent reviewers here). I was lurking here for three weeks reading quite a lot of threads here and at Cloudy Nights before I signed up and meging that with what I already know about optics.

Tero said:

The Celestrosn look like a good deal. As long as they are comfortable. With porros you get less choices, so go with what you get. I was never completely comfortable with Nikon EX series.

Click to expand...

Yes, the fewer choices across the whole range is a big problem especially with good eyeglasses eye relief is a problem today. THough the manufacturers seem to have a lot of "equivalent" roof prism bins they'll sell for just a one or two of hundred dollars more.

If the Celestron's hadn't been such a good deal and hadn't got such a good write up from FrankD I probably would have gone with the Nikon Action EX ATB 7x35. After all Cornell liked them and for a long time they seemed to be the starter bin.

More "action" from Day 1 of the evaluation later.

If the Celestron's hadn't been such a good deal and hadn't got such a good write up from FrankD I probably would have gone with the Nikon Action EX ATB 7x35. After all Cornell liked them and for a long time they seemed to be the starter bin.

Click to expand...

FWIW I would wholeheartedly suggest the Celestron's over the Action EX based on image quality alone. I know I am going to tick alot of people off when I say this but I was just sitting on my back patio this afternoon looking at some of the Hummers at the feeders. I had the Ultima DX out along with a Swaro SLC. Now don't go thinking I am going to say they are similar in image quality. Overall they aren't as the Swaro has an almost perfectly flat, distortion free image in comparison to the Ultima DX. However, apparent centerfield sharpness on the DX appeared to be at least as good as that of the SLC and the DX had a more neutral overall image in terms of color representation.

For a full-time glasses wearer like myself the 14mm ER is just not enough. Even a stated 16mm is barely enough. So that, unfortunately, ruled out the 8x30. I think that similar recommendation appeared in the Yosemite 8x30 review by ... FrankD.

Click to expand...

I would be cautious of published ER figures. They are not always accurate for a variety of reasons. I was just reading a thread in the Zeiss forum recently where Zeiss listed all of their FL binoculars as having 16 mm of eye relief despite the fact that consumers have found varying amounts with the different configurations. Having said that I did just pull out both my 6x and 8x Yosemites. The 6x does offer slightly more eye relief. I know this simply because when I press my face firmly against the eyecups of the 6x model I begin to see the image start to blacken out around the edges. I do not get this with the 8x model when I attempt the same procedure.

FWIW, I get the same result (no edge blackout) with the 8x32 Celestron. Without actually measuring both I would say that the eye relief on the Celestron and the 8x Yosemite is very similar. I prefer binoculars with significant eye relief not because of wearing glasses (I do not) but rather because of the shape/size of my nose and inset of my eyes. Certain bins with short eye relief and wide eyecups (Nikon E2 for example) are unusable for me because of this. I do not have this problem with either the Celestron or either of the Yosemites. This may or may not be helpful in your situation but I thought it something worth mentioning.

Well, Kevin, Frank and I do some rading, Frank more. But we probably have handled 100 pairs each, Frank probably owned 100 and does not remember half of them.

The best test is you, though, we can't tell you what you prefer. Go bug a lot of stores. They don't sell any unless they show them to us. Camera stores are my least favorite, hard sell or bored salespeople.

Day part 1

Day 1

The box arrives by UPS Ground 7 days after placing the order. Opening it I find the each of the individual product boxes buried in peanuts. I'm surprised to find it not double boxed to prevent the peanuts from migrating to the edge of the box and taking a hit during rough handling.

Retail Box

I pull the product boxes out and line them up to look at them. I don't shop for this kind of geeky hardware much in stores much these days so the product packaging fascinates me. Companies like Apple, as anyone who has opened an iPod knows, make unboxing a product and experience. The product box is a work of art. And the procedure for unboxing the product slowly reveals the product in all it's object d'art glory. It seems this level of presentation hasn't reached binoculars yet.

The Celestron product box is most striking: black, white and ... orange. How retro! Oh, wait they're not being ironic. The orange Celestron logo and a orange starburst announcing the "NO FAULT lifetime warrenty". With six fonts and three color photos (a Saw-Whet Owl (cute!), Venice and a skier moguling) on the front of the box it appears to be designed by a graphic artist from the Ransom Note school of art. The back and sides don't improve the view though they seem functional. I guess shouting is one way to get yourself off the shelves at a retail store.

The two Vortex boxes are much more subdued. A gentle gray shale backdrop with vortex logo in pine green on a tan stripe. They gentle announced their VIP Warranty and even provide their address and 800 phone number. Much more relaxing. The model notation is a little confusing though with "Coyote" in larger type than the product name. Odd, as that's the color. Still it's a good attempt at style.

The Leupold box (the only one that's shrink-wrapped) is an elegant dark-maroon with sparse gold overlaid type announcing the company, the product name and it's three main features (Center Focus, Porro Prism and 100% Waterproof). A green line wraps around the bottom (these are Green Ring bins). A second glance shows the dark-maroon to be a black on maroon woodcut of a mountain scene. The back of the box shows the product and calls out some bullet features of the product. THe top of the box has the full binocular spec (in English only). Very tasteful.

I guess Leupold wins this round!

Ranking:

1. Leupold.
2. Vortex.
3. Vortex
4. Celestron.

Cases

I look at the cases more closely. Most people ignore the cases but they're an interesting area where a company can make something interesting for not very much money. Or not.

The Leupold Yosemite comes with a functional shoulder case (no belt loop) with a velcro closure (to scare the birds when you whip out the case). The bins are a loose fit. The untethered objective covers don't always fall off when removing the bin from the case. The case is sewn from PVC and looks a little cheesy but not too much.

The Celestron Ultima comes in a oversized (was this case made for an 8x40 bin?) sewn PVC case with a shoulder strap (and no belt loop, perhaps a good idea for a 30oz bin) that looks even more cheesy than the Leupold one. But the loose fit does mean the untethered objective covers never fall off when removng the bin from the case.

The Vortex Hurricane comes with a small nylon (Cordura?) top "flap" opening case with a Fastex closure. The case seems designed for belt mounting with a loop but also has two small loops for the provided shoulder strap. The case is divided in two. The bins fit very snugly in their side of the case. A little too snugly as I couldn't get them out of the case without removing a tethered cap from an objective. Perhaps the "quick-draw" is a feature? The other side of case is too small for any field guide but could hold a small notebook.

The Vortex Diamondback comes with the most interesting case. Vortex actually put some design effort into this one. It's a black rounded square 6 inches on side and about 4 inches thick with a zip closure over the sides and the top. The bottom acts as a hinge. The case opens like an alligators jaws revealing the bins on one side, a central divider with a zip closure and a space (for a field guide) on the other side. The case even has a small dimple molded into it on it's back side (the bins side) to prevent the bins from rattling around in an oversized case. Very nice design. There is no belt loop (perhaps not surprisingly for 24oz bins).

Ranking:

1. Vortex Diamondback - interesting design for semi-hard case
2. Vortex Hurricane - functional and quiet belt case (though a bit snug)
3. Leupold Yosemite - average PVC soft case
4. Celestron Ultima DX - somewhat cheesy and oversized

Objective and Ocular Covers

Both Vortex bins (the roofs) came with tethered objective caps. Both porros came with tethered objective caps. Perhaps binocular makers think porro users are more conscientious and less likely to loose their caps? Or perhaps roof users need them attached like their mittens? I'd prefer it if they were all attached (especially when the bin is out in a dusty or wet environment).

All the bins come with flexible rubbery plastic rainguards for the oculars. These fit with varying degrees of security from quite snug on the Vortex Hurricane to barely attached on the Vortex Diamondback.

Ranking:

1. Vortex Hurricane - nice snug fit rainguard and tethered caps
2. Vortex Diamondback - rather loose fit rainguard and tethered caps
3. Leupold Yosemite - nice fit rainguard and untethered caps
4. Celestron Ultima DX - rather loose fit rainguard and untethered caps

Smoke Testing

I work through the boxes pulling out each binocular and running it through my "quick in-store test" (partially stolen from edz at Cloudy Nights).

First is to shake it (anything loose?).

Second, look at the objectives, oculars and the prisms for scratches and internal junk.

Third is look through the bins for anything obviously bad (tilted optics, mis-matched focus or misaligned prism).

Fourth, check collimation. Set the bins to your IPD, center the bins on some small distant object then move the bins away from your eyes (as if you were going to examine the exit pupil) to but keeping them pointed at the object. Your eyes should keep the object you were looking at fused together in the center of the circle. If the two barrels are out of collimation you won't be able to keep the object centered in both at the same time. If that happens reject the pair.

Finally, look at the exit pupils for obstructions as you have the bins away from your eyes.

If a bin passes these tests then you can start looking at it more seriously.

All the bins passed these simple tests. So that's a good start.

More on Day 1 in part 2

Geesh, this type of review certainly leaves a person eagerly waiting for the next installment.

Come one...don't leave us hanging.

FWIW, I tend to agree with your evalutation. The Diamondback case is definitely the nicest of the group.

Day 1 part 2

The "Out of the Box Experience"

Most reviews don't mention the out-of-the-box experience. That feeling that you get as you open the box for the first time and pull the product out and start to use it. It's a weird mixture of perceptions and expectations and involves a lot of the sense: smell, touch, and sight for bins.

Vortex Hurricane 8x28

I opened the Vortex Hurricane's first. Smallest box and lightest bin of the four. Pulling the bin case out of it's plastic bag and pulling the bin out the case in it's plastic bag. The smell of the rubber hits me when I open the bag. The touch of the slightly sticky rubber armor is interesting though I'm not sure about the roughened patches of armor on the sides of the tubes. Those patches aren't were my fingers land. Perhaps for grip against gloves? Or are they just "manly" decoration?

These are a "blemished" pair. At least that's what the Eagle Optics web page said. Cosmetic problems are not an issue for me - they're going to get dinged in use. I insoect the bins. I can't see any blemishes. I don't even see any molding marks. Oh, is that a little pit? And that one. I can't say I see anything I'd call a blemish. Do people just not like the color? The color is darker than on the web page but it's a non-descript light-brown not as sand colored as I thought it might be. It won't stand out. The only blemish I can see is a couple of scratches on the Fastex connector and the embroidered Vortex logo is looking a bit fluffy.

Pull the rainguard off (snug fit) and flip the tethered objective covers off and look through the bins.

Wow! Binoculars have come a long way in the past decade.

Big occulars. I can almost see the whole FOV with eyeglasses on.

A little fiddly to get the IPD and exit pupils lined up. The hinge isn't very stiff rather easy to move. Some of this setup is just me. I have the same problem with a lot of bins. My dominant left eye is set up just right but the right eye has problems getting set just right. But with the first look bright (a lot brighter than my Minolta Compacts) and sharp image. Pull the focus in to look at the blinds 3m or 4m away inside the apartment. The focuser action is smooth and perhaps just not quite stiff enough. The view looks reasonable. A hint of stray light when looking at the sunlit blind. Some stray light scatter around the exit pupil. I check out the diopter adjustment ring. Very, very stiff. Takes a finger and thumb to turn it. Move it back and forth and it loosens a little but it still rather stiff. With my corrected eyesight the best position is at zero.

Looking in the objective in the right barrel I see imperfections on the objectives, oculars or prisms. But the roof prism's ridge is visible when looking from the objective. Perhaps the roof ridge isn't as sharp as it could be. This would degrade sharpness and contrast.

The twist-up eyecups have soft(ish) rubbery edges but with rather little give to them (compare with the Diamondbacks).

The Vortex logo in silver letters on black is stylish. Underneath the bins they have "Vortex Optics USA" molded into the rubber and a "Made in China" stick on label.

Collimation may be slightly off. I need to check this against an target at infinity not one inside the apartment.

Bins go back in their case. Not a bad weight. Not too light and not too heavy.

Leupold Yosemite 6x30

Open the Leupold and I'm greeted with a blast of vinyl chloride monomer. The case is padded but looks rather plastic. Open the Velcro closure (ripppp). And pull out the Yosemites.

Cute. Cute. Cute. Now this is the binocular that should have a Saw-whet Owl in faux woodcut on the box. Small but perfectly formed porro bins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw-whet_Owl

In their Natural color (a sort of greenish tan) they look like a cross between a kid's toy and something Ernst Rommel might have used in the Western Desert. The surface is very slightly roughened. Pop the ocular cover off (nice fit) and grasp the binoculars to bring them up to my eyes. What a great fit for my largish hands: thumbs don't collide on the bottom of the case; ring and little finger wrap around the top of the objective "tube" and the first and index fingers fit nicely on the top of the prism housing. What a solid, natural grip for a small bin.

I look at the top of the bin. There is an IPD scale. Set it to about 65mm.

I look into the bin. Nice. I can easily see the whole AFOV. IPD scale seems about right. Image is bright. Brighter than the Hurricane, I think? Very little shake apparent too so x6 does make a difference. The focuser is big and the action is good. Not too stiff but doesn't drift. I find myself using my middle finger rather than my first finger to turn the focus as it naturally lies on top of it. I wonder how the works for kids? A slight modification to the grip and I can use my first finger too.

Diopter adjustment is stiff but usable with a finger and thumb. With my corrected eyesight the best position is at zero.

The twist-up eyecups have hard rubbery edges with no give to them.

The weight feels very nice. Rather light, in fact it feels lighter than the Hurricane (but it's 3oz heavier). That's probably due to the way the weight is spread out on my hands and not concentrated on the fingers and thumbs with the compact roof.

Check the exit pupil. Round with no intrusions. Pointing at the sunlit blind I can see rings and diamonds around the exit pupil. So there is some stray light bouncing around in there. Collimation looks good.

Very pleasant product. I can see why people like this bin.

Celestron Ultima DX 8x32

Reach over and grab the box. It's clearly heavier. Open the lid. Another blast of VC monomer. Pull out the faux leather case (more leather looking than the Leupold). It seems big and floppy. I has a belt loop which doesn't seem very sturdy but no way of removing the should straps. I suspect the belt loop is just to stabilize the bag. I wouldn't want this to swing whilst bending over and get hit in the face with 30oz of bins.

Open the Velcro closure. A blast of rubber armor smell to go with the monomer. Pull out the bins.

Heavy. Dense. There's a sense of gravitas (or perhaps just gravity) with these bins. They feel like very, very solid handful. The black rubber coated prism housing take up most of the binocular with stubby objective tubes. Perhaps Rommel could have used these.

Look at the top of the bin and I see 14 and 18 point Helvetica screen printing. Not very stylish. The embedded logos on the top are white and orange. And have a bright orange cap on the front end of the hinge. Rather like the retail box they're a bit retro. At least a hunter won't shoot me by mistake. And it might attract hummingbirds.

I pull off the ocular rain cover cover (snug fit) and notice the IPD scale on the hinge. I set the IPD to 65. Urghmpf. The hinge is very, very stiff. The old Bullworker comes to mind. Then raise the bins to my eyes. The weight seems to disappear. It doesn't seem like holding a bag of sugar up to my face. Very odd. Bring them down and they feel heavy away from me. I see the moment they have when I hold them away from like that. But at my eyes they just goes straight down my arms. They feel rather comfortable in my hands though the curvy prism housing don't quite match the curve of my thumbs. More of a whole hand grip seems to work best: it's big enough that there are a choice of grips.

The view is good and bright. I can almost see out to the edge of the AFOV but not quite to the field stop. Without eyeglasses I can see to the field stop and see the CA at the edge (yellow fringing).

The focuser action seems rather stiff too but I can use it with one finger. The close focus is not quite in the room. The diopter adjustment is rather stiff too but not as bad the the Hurricane. With my glasses on the best position is at zero.

The twist-up eyecups have hard rubbery edges with very little give to them.

Little bit of an intrusion on both barrels into the round exit pupil. Probably the edge of a prism; I suspect they're oversized and they might be just at the limit of occluding the light path. And one can see stray light outside of the exit pupils when pointed to the sunlit blind. Quite a lot of interesting patterns though if they stay where they are they won't actually get into the eye. I need to check collimation outside on a distant target.

Vortex Diamondback 8x42

Open the last box; the bigger of the two Vortex boxes. And pull out this odd, squarish, rounded-corner binocular case. The Vortex VX logo is embossed on the front of the case and the back has an odd dimple. No belt strap for these bins but shoulder strap attachments are provided. I've not quite seen anything like this before. The case is closed by a twin zipper around it's equator. Unzip the zipper and the case opens like a clamshell to 45° wide releasing a sweet rubber smell. The case has attachments to prevent it opening further (so the bins can't fall out) with a zipped center divider (for what ... it's very difficult to get things in and out of it). One side contains the bins. The other currently has straps but looks like a field guide might fit in there. What a good idea. I grab a (3rd ed) Peterson, a Kaufmann and a (small) Western Sibley and try to fit them in there. They're all too tall. So a field guide won't fit in there. Hmmm. A notebook then. So it seems the "novel design" is not as practical as I had thought.

I pull out the bins. There like bigger versions of the Hurricanes. The same color. I look for the blemishes. I can see some molding lines in the armor. Some of the rubber work around the lugs seems slightly raggedy. But nothing I'd call a blemish. Maybe these are really a closeout?

I pick them up. They feel quite dense (rather like the Hurricanes in that regard). Clearly heavier than the Yosemite but lighter than the Celestron. After handling the two porros they feel more cramped in the grip. I've noticed I've assumed an "asymmetric grip" with my right hand closer to the ocular and the left hand a little further down the barrels so the thumbs don't collide under the hinge.

I set the IPD. The hinge is stiff enough. Not as bad the over-stiff Celestron or the under-stiff Hurricane.

I raise them to my eyes and they seem quite well balanced though the weight doesn't disappear as dramatically as the Celestrons. The view is bright and I can almost see out to the edge of the AFOV but not quite to the field stop. Without eyeglasses I can see to the field stop, which is not that crisp, and see the CA at the stop edge (slight purple fringing).

The close focus can easily see the blinds 3m away. The focuser action is very light and fluid. I need to check the collimation outside on a distant target.

The twist-up eyecups have soft rubbery edges with significant give to them so they can seal against glasses.

Like the Hurricanes they have Vortex logo in silver letters on black is stylish. Underneath the bins they have "Vortex Optics USA" in silver and black and a "Made in China" stick on label.

Looking in the objective in the right barrel I see what looks like a very tiny chip off the edge roof prism (perhaps 1mm or less in size) and a tiny dark spot on the prism. The roof ridge is not visible at all when looking from the objective.

So far so good.

Lessons learnt:

• That inexpensive optics has moved on this the last decade or so. You get a lot more for $100 these days than you used to.
  
• Made in China doesn't seem as bad as bad as some make it out to be. They've been improving rapidly for the past decade. I remember terrible reports 10 years ago: swarf in the barrel, pinched optics, fingerprints on internal optics. But at least on the first view I see no major issues with these bins. And perhaps one minor one with the tiny chip.

Next ... Day 2 - take the bins to Volunteer Park and look through them. And about time too I hear some say.

I am betting the Celestron is the keeper. If that pair is not quite right, send for another pair. That or the Daimondback, whichever is most comfortable with glasses.

Cute. Cute. Cute. Now this is the binocular that should have a Saw-whet Owl in faux woodcut on the box. Small but perfectly formed porro bins.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling you should be at the store selling these, not buying them.

Tero said:

I am betting the Celestron is the keeper. If that pair is not quite right, send for another pair. That or the Daimondback, whichever is most comfortable with glasses.

Click to expand...

Tero said:

I have a feeling you should be at the store selling these, not buying them.

Click to expand...

It's not a sales pitch. That's actually what I though when I pulled it out of the box. I was rather surprised myself. I didn't think you could make porros that small.

Day 2 coming up ... it's been very hot in Seattle today so I haven't done the write up yet.

Day 2 part 1

There's not a great deal one can do to test bins in a small apartment so I took all of them to one of my local parks, Volunteer Park in Seattle. It's an urban (inner suburb) park designed by Olmstead with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees and ornamental planting.

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=399

Bird life in Volunteer Park is the usual mixture in a Western city plus some oddities. It's the daytime "roost" for a large number of American crows (unpaired males and females) which makes them easy test targets in the trees. There is a large reservoir where the crows and others occasionally gather: a bald eagle has been an occasional visitor and a saw a Spotted Sandpiper bobbing around the edge of the reservoir two weeks ago. I regularly see raptors there: a Red-tailed Hawk appeared the same day as the sandpiper; I saaw a golden eagle fly through just below tree top height today. There is a Coopers Hawk nest in the park with two adults and two juveniles. At least I think they're Coopers Hawks (they're just smaller than crow-like size but a guesstimate of a juveniles length puts them right at the upper-boundary of Sharp-shinned body length. But the tails don't seem as rounded as the guides say but that might just be me being picky and the time of day ... last time I saw one the tail looked rounded).

For the first day of outside testing I sat in the bench seat overlooking the reservoir on the south side in the morning. The sun was behind me and illuminating the reservoir and trees opposite me

Vortex Hurricane 8x28

First out of the bag was the Vortex Hurricane. The tethered caps always seem to come off coming out of the case. I'm still not sure about the texturing on the barrels. It's not where my fingers and thumbs hit with my usual "delicate" fingertip grip on a compact. But I could perhaps see it being useful with gloved hands.

I could get the full FOV on my left eye but not quite on my right eye. ER is "good enough" with eyeglasses. Some "kidney beaning" blackout was apparent when I was trying to check out the field of view by swiveling my eyes to look at the view. Hmmm, spherical aberration in the exit pupil. This was helped a bit by bumping up the twist-up eye-cups by one step though it mostly seemed to affect only my left eye.

These bins felt "fiddley" to use. Getting my eye's lined up to the exit pupil was much more of a chore than the other (larger exit pupil bins). One of the trade offs for a compact bin but this seemed rather worse than my old Minolta Compacts. I presume the (big) different in apparent FOV is part of the problem.

Depending on placement they seemed to show some CA or some "dirtiness" (not so much color as a hint of something) around crows in sunlight on the top of a tree against a blue sky.

These bins were much brighter, more contrasty and sharper than the Minolta Compact 8x25 (a small decade old reverse porro).

But compared to the others the view seems a bit "artificial". Like your watching remotely. I think the contrast is a bit lower than in the other bins in this review. I also go the feeling the view was a slightly different "color" but nothing I could quite put my finger on (for example, which direction was it biased). Overall the view was "like looking through a binocular" rather (as some of the others showed) "being there".

Some stray light generating veiling glare was apparent too.

Initial feel for depth of field is "not so bad". Seemed almost as good as the Yosemites at about 15m.

The focuser action was very fluid and didn't take much to change focus. Not a great deal of snap. The focus rate seems about right to me. The hinge to is easy to move. Perhaps a little too easy excess pressure when holding it causes the IPD to change.

Grip is as good as you'd expect from a compact roof more with the finger-tips and thumb-tips. I find my thumbs colliding underneath the hinge. Might have to change my grip to compensate for that.

The Hurricane has a threaded tripod adaptor mount that is covered by a screw in stop. I discovered this when I found a small thread and knurled part with the Vortex logo on the bench next to me. Hmmm, nearly lost that bit. I put it back in place and tightened it up and it didn't seem like it was going to fall off again but I can see why I'd prefer push on covers for this part.

Yes yes, very nice. But where's the beef, as the ad used to say. Lets get to the other three.

Day 2 part 2

Leupold Yosemite 6x30

Easy bins to get out of the case. Even the objective covers stay on this time. Outside it's clear these are brighter than the other bins. Views of ornamental flowers are bright and colorful with nice detail on the petals.

Full field of view is easily visible. No KB blackouts when I rotate my eyes. Doesn't feel tunnel-like to me (perhaps because of the biggish FOV) even though the AFOV is clearly narrower than the other bins.

Nice weight too at 17oz. Not too heavy. But no shake noticeable - the x6 and 17oz gives a steady image for me. I found the close focus (with my eyeglasses) was around three meters (10 feet) or so. Grip is very pleasant with thumbs kept apart, unlike the roofs.

Viewing crows in the trees opposite (25m) against a blue sky with some hight cloud I didn't see any obvious CA around the birds. They seem both brighter than the Hurricanes and have more contrast.

A little bit of "rolling globe" effect on panning but not a great deal. The image seems quite flat.

Celstron Ultima DX 8x32

Easiest to get out of the roomy case. Very, very stiff center hinge.

Views of ornamental flowers are bright (but not quite as bright as the Yosemite), colorful and sharpest of the bins with very nice detail on the petals. Much bigger AFOV than the other bins but I can't quite see the edges. The DX feels more like "I'm in the picture" with a bit of "This seems bigger". I was doubting this was x8 when comparing the other bins. So I suspect both bigger AFOV and better sharpness play a role in this.

Some field curvature noticeable as you rack the focus in and out. Plus distortion in the outer part of the FOV. This is particularly noticeable with a "rolling ball" effect when panning. It is the worst of the four bins for this.

The focus rate is rather very slow and so feels rather without "snap". And is made to seem slower (though I only realized this the next day) because the focus "direction" is reversed from the three other bins: turn focus clockwise to get to infinity.

Viewing crows in the tree tops against a blue sky I didn't see any blatant CA around the birds.

Grip is comfortable even though the bin is rather heavy. But the balance is good. And the finger and thumb placement works well. I suspect I like grip on porros better than I do on roofs.

Vortex Diamondback 8x42

Fancy case is a bit fiddley to open and extract the bins. Design looks nice but it seems less practical than a top-loading Cordura case. Objectve covers stay tether through the process though.

The bins come across as big, solid but not too heavy.

Views of ornamental flowers are bright and sharp but not as bright as the porros and not as sharp either but still very good. Center is FOV is sharp but with some softening to the edges but edge of FOV is sharper than he edge of FOV in the DX.

Focus action is fluid and the rate is fast enough (slower than the Hurricane but faster than the DX). Images come quickly and clearly into focus (more of a snap than the DX).

I can see not quite the full FOV with glasses on but AFOV is big (though not quite as big as the DX). AFOV is bigger in the Diamondback's than the Hurricanes.

When panning I don't see any hint of a rolling ball effect. Even less so than the Yosemite's.

Viewing crows in the trees against a blue sky here is some small amount of CA but less than the Hurricanes. They seem both brighter than the Hurricanes and have more contrast too. Rather less of the "looking at a picture feel" but not quite a "real" as the DX. Curiously the smaller Hurricane seemed "more colorful" in a artificial way I can't put my finger on.

Grips is a big roof prism grip with my thumbs colliding again. Not used to the roof grip but eventually I learn to move the thumbs so they don't collide with an asymmetric grip.

Ranking for a variety of tests coming up ...

Hard to use words to describe all the effects. But I took the Diamondback to have less contrast. Sharpness was OK, but colors a bit washed out. I did not have a whole lot of 8x pairs to compare it to then. But certainly my Eagle Optics 8x32 did not have that problem, whatever other problems it has.

So, does it look like you will keep any of these? Why not go straight to Monarch or equivalent 300 dollar roofers.

Day 2 tests: Ranking the bins

After this I moved to a bench just south of the entrance to the Seattle Asian Art Museum in Volunteer park. This spot provides a series of targets looking westwards to view at a range of distances from 3m out to the top of the Space Needle 5km or so away including several flower beds and boxes (with blooms with colorful and detailed patterns) and trees (both illuminated and in shade). Plus a couple of man-made signs (black on white lettering for both resolution and CA testing).

So I tried a series of tests and ranked the binoculars on each test.

Brightness

Looking at a colorful flowerbed in the sun at 18m. In this case the Yosemite and the DX tied as about equally bright in bright light light.

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
5. Minolta Compact 8x25

Sharpness/Acuity

Looking at medium contrast (mauve/purple) flower petal details in a flowerbed in the sun at 18m. The DX was clearly the best in this case both sharper and large magnification than the Yosemite gave it an edge.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

(Shallow) Depth of Field

Focusing on the flower bed at 18m then looking down the light of sight to the Black Sun sculpture (the "Doughnut") at 45m and checking the focus on the edges of the sculpture and on the white spots of bird poop on the sculpture.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
3. Minolta Compact 8x25
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
5. Vortex Diamondback 8x42

Shake

Looking at the top of the Space Needle (at infinity) to check for amount of shake generated by me holding the bins. I think the Hurricane fared worse than the lighter Minolta Compact because I tend to grasp the Hurricane with a fingertip grip instead of wrapping my hands around them. The Yosemites win by virtue of their lower magnification. Another example of why I prefer the porro grip.

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
2. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Minolta Compact 8x25 (6 oz reverse porros)
5. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Sharpness (middle distance)

Looking at a WA state license plate in bright light on the back of a car at 35m. I think the Yosemite loses out here because of it's lower magnification.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
3. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Sharpness (infinity)

Looking at a Space Needle though some heat haze. I think the Yosemite loses out here because of it's lower magnification. Diamondback and DX seemed about equal in this case (perhaps limited by the convection in the atmosphere). Yosemite again loses out because of it's lower magnification.

1. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Sharpness (close in and in shade)

Looking at a conifer bush at 11m. The exterior is well lit by direct sun but there are "holes" in the bush that let you see the gnarly trunk in the shadows. Looking at the trunk for bark details.

1. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
3. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Focusing "Snap"

Looking at a Space Needle though some heat haze. Vary the focus to see which image most "snaps" into focus. In truth I don't think any of these bins has a lot of snap. The form of snap I'm seeing seems to have more to do with focusing rate and the depth of field (or rather lack of it). Bins with the least DOF and fastest focus seem to snap most to me. But the DX certainly seems to be the least "snappy" with a slow focus rate and uncertainty (to me) when you've hit the correct focus.

1. Minolta Compact 8x25
2. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
3. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
4. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
5. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32

Viewing contrasts

Viewing a sunlit and shaded hedge at 40m. Looking at the shadows for maximum contrast and detail.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Viewing a shaded tree bark next to the same strees sunlight bark at 45m. Looking at the bark in the shadows for maximum contrast and detail. In this case I couldn't see much difference between the Yosemite and the Diamondback.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Distortions apparent during panning

Panning across at a solid stand of everygreens at 50m range. Noting the effects of "rolling globe" distorition and other edge of field distortions. Ranking from best to worst (least to most). The two Vortex roofs are tied here with minimal effects visible. The DX the most clearly apparent distortion.

1. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
1. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
3. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
4. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32

Chromatic Aberation (on axis/just off axis)

Looking at crows perched on the top of trees at 50m. These are small targets very close to the central axis. Not much CA noticed any any of these bins but some images looked slightly dirties than others. I noticed with these and other similar bins that placement of eye with the central axis o the binocular is critical for keeping CA down. If you place the eye off center you can see purple fringes on one side and yellow fringes on the other side of a crow like image. Moving the eye to the other side of axis reverse the fringe colors. The Yosemite and the DX tie for the least CA.

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Apparent FOV

How large is the apparent field of view seen when wearing eyeglasses.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
3. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
4. Leupold Yosemite 6x30

Stray Light

Viewing solid stand of everygreens at 50m range with blue sky above. Looking in the dark tree image for "veiling glare" from stray light (that compromises the image contrast). From best to worst. The Yosemite and DX tied for best.

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

Field stop sharpness

This is a ranking of the sharpness of the field stop as seen wearing glasses.

Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (sharp)
Vortex Diamondback 8x42 (soft; can't see whole AFOV)
Vortex Hurricane 8x28 (soft; can't see whole AFOV)
Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 (soft; CA fringing; can't see whole AFOV)

Focuser Action

How does the focusing action feel. This is just the tactile feel (not the rate or focusing). I think for all the bins with more use the focuser friction reduced. With the Hurricane the effect was such that I was feeling that it was turning too easily.

1. Minolta Compact 8x25
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
3. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
5. Vortex Diamondback 8x42

Hinge stiffness

In order of most to least stiff.

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 (unpleasantly stiff)
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
3. Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (just right)
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28 (too loose)

Grip and balance

How do the bins feel when you handle them raised to the eyes. I think I have a bias towards the porro bins for this.

1. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
2. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28

More tests (including night time tests) to come.

EDIT: if you've not read it Holger Merlitz paper on the Rolling Ball effect and pincushion distortion you should. It's why all modern bins have some pincushion distortion and the amount varies by manufacturers (so bins have their own distortion signature).

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf

Day 2: Night Tests

I noticed we had a clear night at 11pm with Jupiter just past the meridian and the moon just before it. The separation between the (almost) full moon and Jupiter was a bit over 10 degrees. Could make an interesting test.

So I took my bins outside (to a local P-patch). The local lighting is not bad (but there are several bright local lights but nothing along the line of sight.)

In addition to the usual test bins I also too my Minolta Compact 8x25, Orion Explorer 10x50 (a $100 astro bin, Made in Japan in late 1990s, 5.3 degree FOV, fully single coated, BaK4 porro, with rather a flat field, not great eye relief) and a Chinese Meade 10x50 (fully single coated, BK7 porro, $30 from Amazon but not that bad for a cheap bin). I've used both of the latter for binocular astronomy.

All the observations were made with handheld binoculars.

Jupiter Tests

All the binoculars resolved Jupiter into a disc. None revealed any banding on the disc.

Star Images

Not sure which stars I used (skyglow and moonlight were bad) but I suspect it was Sagittarius (to the west of Jupiter at about the same elevation). Results in order of sharpness (most to least).

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 (best crisp star points)
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (pinpoints)
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42 (not quite as crisp)
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28 (not as crisp as Diamondback and fewer of them)
5. Minolta Compact 8x25

The Orion Explorer 10x50 was about the same as the Diamondback.

Counting the Moons

1. Orion Explorer 10x50 - 3 moons
2. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 - 3 moons
3. Vortex Diamondback 8x42 - 2 moons (but perhaps 3 occasionally)
4. Leupold Yosemite 6x30 - 2 moons
5. Meade 10x50 - 2 moons
6. Vortex Hurricane 8x28 - 2 moons
7. Minolta Compact 8x25 - 1 moon

I didn't realize until I came back inside and checked Jupiter's moons on Sky and Telescope web site that Calisto was in shadow whilst I was doing the observations so the maximum number of moons I could see was 3 (and not 4).

As you can see from the attachment Europa and Io were close together on the lefthand side (east) of Jupiter making a close "binary". Ganymede was on it's own on the righthand (west) side of Jupiter with a rather greater separation from the planet. A rather useful configuration to test the bins with.

The Orion 10x50 easily found the 3 moons. The DX had a smaller aperture (so more skyglow) but better transmission and less shake helped. The Diamondback could easily see two moons but every once in a while I'd see the third moon. Not sure if this was a difference in shake or contrast oe brightness or a combination of those factors. The Yosemite was sharp but I think lacking in the magnification to "split" the moons plus it suffered most from skyglow.

Close to downtown Seattle the light pollution is rather bad and favors higher magnifications that "dilute" the sky glow compared to star-like targets.

Stray Light

Whilst looking at the moons for Jupiter it was clear that stray light was coming from the almost full moon around 10 degrees or so to the east. That's a pretty tough test but it showed differences in how the bins hadnle stray light more clearly than daytimes tests (with a reasonable dark background you can see the stray light more clearly).

1. Celestron Ultima DX 8x32
2. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x42
4. Vortex Hurricane 8x28
5. Minolta Compact 8x25

The DX was clearly the best though some stray light could be seen. The Yosemite and Diamondback were similar in the amount of stray light though it looked a bit different in each case. The Hurricane was clearly suffering badly. with a large almost half field cresent of light on the opposite side of the field to the moon. As I swung the Hurricane around the moon I could see the crescent rotate. Not good at all.

Once again I see the porros leading the testing with the Yosemite losing out at least partly because of magnification. The roof follow up. And my old Minolta is rather outclassed.

This is an interesting related thread on the blemished Vortexes (Vorticies?). Doug at CameraLandNY got a batch in June too.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2237859/page/1/fpart/1

One person even asks: "How does the Diamondback compare to the Leupold Yosemite?" Well, know we (I) know

Another says: "The Vortex 8x42 diamondbacks showed up today, and I am very pleased. Only minimal discoloration near the hinge." Which is the only place I saw as a blemish too.

Quite a lot of people seem happy with the Vortex Diamondback on this thread at this price.

Camera Land NY still has the Coyote Brown Diamondbacks for $129 or $139 with harness for either 8x or 10x

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortexdiamondback8x42
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortexdiamondback10x42

The x10 have a much narrower FOV of 345 feet @ 1000 yds which is a still respectable 6.0 degrees. So a slightly narrower AFOV. ER is a little shorter at 16mm. And are almost an ounce lighter.

I've hemmed and hawed about getting the x10. I thought about it before I placed the order so I'd have a balanced range of magnifications in my "collection" (x6, x8, x10) to get a feel for which on works best for me in what habitat.

Were you planning to keep several of these?

I think the 8x Diamondback is a better tool than the 10x. Get a more expensive 10x later. I have had three 10x, still have two. Settled to Pentax DCF 10x43 finally.

Kevin Purcell said:

The x10 have a much narrower FOV of 345 feet @ 1000 yds which is a still respectable 6.0 degrees. So a slightly narrower AFOV. ER is a little shorter at 16mm. And are almost an ounce lighter.

Click to expand...

Over 6.5*, and a slightly larger AFOV for the 10x. I've been debating these since the sale first started, as a "leave in the locker at work" binocular, but the weaknesses I've read about, which IIRC included reflections and glare don't go well with my work environment(night-time use from one lit area to another, with high output light fixtures randomly scattered about), so I've held off.
Still, either power is kinda tempting at the price the coyote brown models are currently available for.

btw, I'm enjoying your thread, and appreciate the time and effort you're putting into it.