Minox APO HG 10x43 BR asph. due in July 2009 (1 Viewer)

The Minox APO HG 10x43 BR asph. is their FL/ED/HD/XD/etc update of their old HG glass.

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=3305&L=1

I'm not sure if the design truely is Apo. It probably is. The term used to mean something but now I'm not so sure it's just like ED or any other panacea. Or maybe all the Chinese ED designs (with three elements in the objective including the focuser) are Apo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromatic said:

Achromatic lenses are corrected to bring two wavelengths (typically red and blue) into focus in the same plane. Apochromatic lenses are designed to bring three wavelengths (typically red, green, and blue) into focus in the same plane.[1] The residual color error (secondary spectrum) can be up to an order of magnitude less than for an achromatic lens of equivalent aperture and focal length. Apochromats are also corrected for spherical aberration at two wavelengths, rather than one as in an achromat.

Click to expand...

But that's just a marketing/branding thing that focuses on the design goal rather than the specific glass. It'll be interesting to see how good they are and if they're competition for the "Top Four".

The other interesting thing to note about Minox today is their web pages all have three language options: German, English and Chinese. I think that says something about their market placement.

And their logo "Minox Germany". Like Steiner they have Germany in their logo. The bin may not be "Made in Germany" but that seems to be brushed over. You can't be sure where it was made.

http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/bilder/logo.gif

My hat is off to Minox for actually revealing the type of ED glass they use in this binocular, however Schott PK52 is a minimal ED glass, equivalent to Ohara FPL51 with an Abbe number of 81.6. It couldn't be used to make a "real" APO objective at binocular focal ratios, no matter how many elements or what mating glasses are used. By "real" APO I mean all colors focused within the Airy disc or very close to it. But then a 10x binocular doesn't need to be a real APO. APO sure sounds good though.

You learn something knew every day.

Henry,

Can I ask where you get the info on the Abbe number for the different types of ED glass?

Glass maker catalogues. You can Google them.

Two years ago, in a thread titled "Minox HG 10x43 or Nikon SE 10x42?," "ThoLa" from Germany reported a study that showed Minox uses chemicals in its armoring that are harmful to humans.

He posted the link to the study, but the Webpage is no longer available.

However, he did explain some of the German terms used in the study and gave the name of one of the harmful chemicals found, which was "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons".

In addition, he said that Minox binoculars were rated "inferior" to ten other 10x42/43s in the study, coming in last place!

Here is the thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=84218

Regardless of the type of ED glass used in the upgrade, I have questions about the safety of Minox binoculars (his wasn't the only post that I've read about this concern) and the quality of the optics.

Even though Minox HG's are less expensive than the current offerings from the "Top Four" (am I correct in assuming that Nikon is now the fourth member of the optics elite club?), for the high price Minox is charging, I would expect their HG series to offer 90% of the optical quality of the Top Four and be as safe to use as other binoculars.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Two years ago, in a thread titled "Minox HG 10x43 or Nikon SE 10x42?," "ThoLa" from Germany reported a study that showed Minox uses chemicals in its armoring that are harmful to humans.

He posted the link to the study, but the Webpage is no longer available.

However, he did explain some of the German terms used in the study and gave the name of one of the harmful chemicals found, which was "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons".

In addition, he said that Minox binoculars were rated "inferior" to ten other 10x42/43s in the study, coming in last place!

.....
Brock

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not spreading swine flu!
Just ask ....

here the comparative measurements* are again (for those you might be interested).
*actual measurements according to ISO protocols. Very few of them are available.

I have no knowledge if there has been any improvement (optically and materials-wise) in the Minoxes.

Tom

They've been out on this side of the pond since the second half of last year. I tried a pair when prospecting for my new bins, and compared them side by side to Leica Ultravid HD, Swarovski EL, and Zeiss FL. I don't know about older Minox bins, but these really impressed me! Very light, very compact, very holdable - they didn't feel toxic! [I'm trying to resist the urge to wash my hands now... ] The image was very impressive, certainly 90% of the others, with superb close focus and wide field of view. Only real disadvantage was the lack of hydrophobic coatings, and to a lesser extent the diopter adjustment - on the eyepiece not the focussing wheel, though it was a very secure 'lift up and click into place' affair. Assuming they no longer poison their customers [Is this really true, or an internet legend?] and you want something for under a grand, I'd unhesitatingly recommend them.

ThoLa said:

Hey, I'm not spreading swine flu!
Just ask ....

here the comparative measurements* are again (for those you might be interested).
*actual measurements according to ISO protocols. Very few of them are available.

I have no knowledge if there has been any improvement (optically and materials-wise) in the Minoxes.

Tom

Click to expand...

Danke! Herr ThoLa.

Mein Deutsch ist sehr rusty, aber mein broken Englisch ist just fein.

In their Optics Test 2009, the reviewers of "Outdoor Life" in the latest issue rated the Minox 10x43 APO-HG in 6th place out of the 14 binoculars they reviewed.

The binoculars that beat the Minox for the #5 spot was the Pentax 10x36 DCF NV, which costs only $229! Ugh.

Here's the entire list and ratings:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting/2009/05/optics-test-2009?photo=26

Here's the mini-review of the Minox 10x43 HG:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting/2009/05/optics-test-2009?photo=7

They faulted the Minox for only having an "average resolution" score.

Looking at the specs, the APO-HGs seem to be identical to the HG, with an added ED element.

I don't know about the materials, but if they had changed them, you would think they would have announced that, just as Nikon did when they changed the materials in the armoring of the LX L.

From the photo in the Outdoor Life review, the HG's armoring seems to scuff like the Nikon LX L's. The original LX's armoring is tougher and doesn't show scuff marks easily like the LX L's, which has smooth brownish rubber on the top of the bin.

One obvious change from the HG is the anodized black metal in the focuser and diopter ring. This may have been the result of criticism from the hunting community, which claimed that the shiny metal would catch the attention of prey.

I'm not a hunter, but I do like the anodized black metal better myself.

As far as The Kerreran's comment about the Minox's "wide field," I assume he must be referring to the 8x33 model.

The 8.5x43 model has the same FOV as the 10x43 model - 6.1*. Good for the 10x model, but under par for an 8xish model, particularly at this price point.

If Minox really wants to compete with alpha roofs or even "second tier" roofs like the 8x42 "Premier LX," they will need to expand the FOV in the 8.5X EPs to at least 7*.

Even the under $500 Zen Ray/Frontier Hawke/Promaster Infinity ED roofs, which some owners claim give 90% of the performance of alpha roofs, have a FOV btwn 7.5*-8*, which is more suitable for birding, IMO.

If they detoxed the armoring, I might go for the 10x42 APO-HG used or as a "demo" if it sold at a decent price (one BF member said he bought an 8.5x43 HG on eBay for $500), but I would not buy the 8.5x model even for $500 because of its narrow FOV.

Brock

Mein Deutsch ist sehr rusty, aber mein broken Englisch ist just fein.

Click to expand...

That sounded like Pennsylvania Dutch actually....saaay noowww?

Even the under $500 Zen Ray/Frontier Hawke/Promaster Infinity ED roofs, which some owners claim give 90% of the performance of alpha roofs, have a FOV btwn 7.5*-8*, which is more suitable for birding, IMO.

Click to expand...

Actually I think the number was closer to 99%.



So when can I send you my Zen EDs to check out Brock?

If you are interested.

brocknroller said:

Danke! Herr ThoLa.

Click to expand...

Bitte sehr, Mr. Brocknroller, Esq.

brocknroller said:

.
They faulted the Minox for only having an "average resolution" score.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Weak resolving power was a complaint in four out of four Minoxes tested by the Stiftung Warentest (Foundation for Consumer Goods Testing).
Resolving power is one of the most critical properties of a good bino, isn't it?

And what's the problem.
I've got 40 yrs old japanese binos called Apollo (to watch the man on the moon) and they are as sharp as any Zeiss of the day and as any Pentax out there today.
Grinding lenses so they yield a sharp image is not a miracle that still has to be invented.

brocknroller said:

I don't know about the materials, but if they had changed them, you would think they would have announced that, .....

Click to expand...

Which would mean to publically admit that you've been unpleasant stuff in the past.
Which company would like to do that?
The offensive chemicals are plasticizers. All rubber armourings have some of it. The polycyclic aromatics .... well that's nothing but the soot that is put into the rubber to render it black.

Get one with non-black rubber is a first step.
Leather-covered instruments do not ooze any plasticizers!

Tom

brocknroller said:

As far as The Kerreran's comment about the Minox's "wide field," I assume he must be referring to the 8x33 model.

Click to expand...

'Fraid not, Brocknroller. The title of this thread is "Minox APO HG 10x43 asph. due in July 2009", and that was the model I was referring to. I've not seen the specs, just the glass, and called it as I saw it - a comparatively wide field for a 10x43.

ThoLa said:

The offensive chemicals are plasticizers. All rubber armourings have some of it. The polycyclic aromatics .... well that's nothing but the soot that is put into the rubber to render it black.

Get one with non-black rubber is a first step.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, they also do one in green! I like green bins [my old Bressers were olive green], and after years of gazing covetously at those wonderful green Trinovids, I was somewhat let down to discover Ultravids only come in black now.. :-C

ThoLa said:

Leather-covered instruments do not ooze any plasticizers!

Tom

Click to expand...

And they smell nicer. Unfortunately also get quite hot in the sunshine, and hurt more when they smack you in the mouth [not usually at the same time!]. Perhaps some sort of padded leather armouring might be possible?

ThoLa said:

Bitte sehr, Mr. Brocknroller, Esq.

Interesting. Weak resolving power was a complaint in four out of four Minoxes tested by the Stiftung Warentest (Foundation for Consumer Goods Testing).
Resolving power is one of the most critical properties of a good bino, isn't it?

And what's the problem.
I've got 40 yrs old japanese binos called Apollo (to watch the man on the moon) and they are as sharp as any Zeiss of the day and as any Pentax out there today.
Grinding lenses so they yield a sharp image is not a miracle that still has to be invented.

Click to expand...

Ihr Willkommen, Herr Tom,

I have 20-year-old Nikon porros that have better resolution and better edge sharpness than more expensive roofs.

Of course, they don't have 60-layer MC, but even so their old fashioned bluish coatings produce good contrast and color rendition.

The problem with sharpness in roofs doesn't seem to be with grinding, but rather trying to compensate for the inherent loss in image sharpness and brightness due to the inferiority of the roof prism design.

I think this is the reason why manufacturers are using ED glass and aspheric lenses today in roofs. They have reached the limit of what they can do with p-coatings and MC.

They need to make highly reflective roof prism coatings, which have evolved from plain jane p-coatings, to silver zoot and p-coatings, to dielectric coatings, to compensate for this design inferiority, and we, the consumers, pay through the nose to buy roofs that need improvements to make them as sharp and bright as cheaper porros!

After Minox and Leupold pioneered internal focus porros, I had hoped that other manufacturers would jump on board and develop internal focus porros with larger fields of view, but it didn't happen.

That innovation would have removed one of the two areas in which porros could not complete as well with roofs - submersible waterproofing sealing.

The other area where roofs excel is in their robustness. They rarely get knocked out of collimation like porros.

However, porros can be made robust. My SEs have taken some knocks and are still in proper collimation. And they are well sealed, though not submersible in water (nor do I need them to be for my purposes).

So I think manufacturers could make porros that are not only as good as roofs but superior to them, because of their more natural 3-D views and lower costs, but either the public demanded roofs (as manufacturers claim) or birders were coerced into buying them, because roofs are where the innovations in design have been happening.

Chicken and egg problem, as I see it.

Which would mean to publically admit that you've been unpleasant stuff in the past.
Which company would like to do that?

Click to expand...

Nikon, though they didn't admit that they made "unpleasant stuff in the past" but rather stated that they are now using healthier stuff. This puts a good spin on it, without admitting to guilt.

They have this written in their ads for LX Ls ("Non-vinyl chloride body materials for comfortable, safe, secure touch"):

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Premier-LX-L-8x20-Binoculars/dp/B0002VAI0E

I gather what they mean is "non-POLYvinyl Chloride" (PVC), which is nasty stuff.

Companies who used PVC in their products have lawsuits pending against them:
http://www.weitzlux.com/pvcresourcecenter/learnmore/pvcalternatives_4309.html

Maybe I can persuade Nikon to send me an 8x32 EDG if I trade in my PVC covered 8x32 LX and agree not to sue them!

The offensive chemicals are plasticizers. All rubber armourings have some of it. The polycyclic aromatics .... well that's nothing but the soot that is put into the rubber to render it black.

Get one with non-black rubber is a first step.
Leather-covered instruments do not ooze any plasticizers!

Click to expand...

As stated above, the problem is more than "aromatics", but it's good to know that non-black rubber doesn't have them. Green rubber is found in many bins today.

Leather-coverings seem to have lost fashion. The Orion Vistas still have them (very luxurious feeling, but I'm sure they would show wear before rubber armoring and not protect the bins against knocks as well), and some of the old Swaro Habicht porros still have leather coverings even though the are waterproof. They must have some type of protective layer on the leatherette (perhaps made from plastic! .

Once oil prices hit the roof again (after China has gobbled up most the oil in Africa and elsewhere, or banks and brokers decide its time to bring the world to its knees again by speculating on oil futures), perhaps leather coverings will re-emerge, though it seems unlikely since they don't hold up as well, but perhaps a synthetic will be used that isn't petroleum based.

As we move away from oil, new materials will have to be developed, and they will need to be safe.

The real health threat today with plastics are those used to package and store foods.

The bisphenols in plastic act as estrogen mimics, which are harmful to ingest:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plastic-not-fantastic-with-bisphenol-a

Alles gut,
Brock

The Kerreran said:

'Fraid not, Brocknroller. The title of this thread is "Minox APO HG 10x43 asph. due in July 2009", and that was the model I was referring to. I've not seen the specs, just the glass, and called it as I saw it - a comparatively wide field for a 10x43.

Click to expand...

A FOV of 6* is fairly typical for 10x42 roof prism binoculars.

You will find a 6* FOV on premium 10x42 models such as the 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX and also on low-priced 10x42 models such as the 10x42 Monarch.

You have to go down to the bargain priced $200 Leupold Wind River Cascade roofs to get a lower FOV in a 10x42 (5.1*), which is more typical of mid-priced 10x50 roofs.

So the 10x42 HG with a 6.1* FOV is just a smidgen wider compared to other 10x42 roofs at the same price point, but sufficiently wide since it results in a 61* AFOV.

To get a wider FOV in a good quality roof, you have to step up in price to the Nikon 10x42 EDG (6.5*), Canon 10x42 IS L (6.5*), Swaro 10x42 SLC (6.3*), and Zeiss 10x42 FL (6.3*).

The 8x33 HG has a 7.5* FOV, which is also typical for that configuration.
OTOH, the 8.5x43, which has a bit more power but was designed to compete with good quality 8x42s, has only 6.1* FOV, which is comparatively low for that configuration. Even with the extra power, the AFOV still only amounts to 51.8*.

What other 8.5x40ish (45mm) has a 6* FOV? The $379 Bushnell 8.5x45 Infinity:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=Bushnell+8.5x45+Infinity+Binocular&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2Fproduct.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=20&Go.y=12&Go=submit

My 8.5x44 Audubon has 8.2* TFOV/69.7* AFOV.

My guess is that the reason Minox designed the 8.5x model with only 6.1* FOV was to save money in design and production costs since they can use the same EP in the 8.5x43 and the 10x43 models.

If Minox redesigned the 8.5x43 to provide a 7-8* FOV, it would need to add more lens elements and perhaps a field flattener to get the same level of edge sharpness.

That would make the 8.5x model more expensive, but since that would not be good marketing, Minox would need to spread the increased cost over both models, and the co. probably wouldn't do that since if they went any higher in price, it would put them too close in price to alpha roofs (though if you blink your eyes, this could change since alpha prices are quickly creeping past the $2K mark).

So if you can hold 10x steady, you would be better off with the "comparatively wider" 10x43 HG or APO-HG.

However, since they are not available in green, remember to hold your breath so you don't breath in those "polycyclic aromatics".

Brock

You raise an interesting point.

brocknroller said:

My guess is that the reason Minox designed the 8.5x model with only 6.1* FOV was to save money in design and production costs since they can use the same EP in the 8.5x43 and the 10x43 models.

Click to expand...

Except that isn't the case. You don't save much money by reducing the design phase.

If you use the same EP (same focal length) in the bin the only way to get higher magnification is to use a longer focal length objective but you need to use the same enclosure for both bins (one assumes). So that's not going to happen.

Note for example the ER in the 10x is 15mm whereas the ER in the 8.5x is 18mm. They're different focal lengths but probably the same number of elements. So more likley they're using two different EP designs but decided to make a design choice to give them the same FOV. Which like you I find rather odd but that's just a design choice.

Both the FOV and ER are the same as the previous (non-"APO") HG models so the EP design and probably the rest of the bin design hasn't changed much. The objective/focuser have the same focal length (same enclosure so same fl, I suspect) and are probably tweaked to make as good use of the ED glass for LCA correction they use in their "semi-APO" design.

All in all they look like an ED revision of an existing bin (like the Swift 820 and 820ED) than a new design.

Kevin Purcell said:

You raise an interesting point.

Except that isn't the case. You don't save much money by reducing the design phase.

Click to expand...

I don't follow you here, Kevin. Minox bins are designed in Germany, and Germany has the highest wages in Europe, so if they had to design another model, it would increase costs compared to using the same EP design throughout a series such as Nikon did in its SE series.

But granted, certainly not as much as it would the production costs if they had to make two different EPs, two different prisms, and two different objectives with different FLs.

If you use the same EP (same focal length) in the bin the only way to get higher magnification is to use a longer focal length objective but you need to use the same enclosure for both bins (one assumes). So that's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

That's what Nikon did in the SE series, but as you point out below, unlike the Minoxes, the ER is the same in the EPs in all three SE models.

Note for example the ER in the 10x is 15mm whereas the ER in the 8.5x is 18mm. They're different focal lengths but probably the same number of elements. So more likley they're using two different EP designs but decided to make a design choice to give them the same FOV. Which like you I find rather odd but that's just a design choice.

Click to expand...

Odd, yes, but there's got to be some logic to it. The only thing I can figure is that if they pumped up the FOV in the 8.5x model, they would need larger prisms and different FL objectives. By redesigning the 8.5x EP, perhaps they got away with using the same prisms, housings, and objectives, and that's where they realized the cost savings?

Both the FOV and ER are the same as the previous (non-"APO") HG models so the EP design and probably the rest of the bin design hasn't changed much. The objective/focuser have the same focal length (same enclosure so same fl, I suspect) and are probably tweaked to make as good use of the ED glass for LCA correction they use in their "semi-APO" design.

All in all they look like an ED revision of an existing bin (like the Swift 820 and 820ED) than a new design.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

The same appears to be true of the Pentax SP/ED series. They didn't change the specs, only added an ED element, and considering that the cost to upgrade from the SP to the Pentax ED version is more than $400, you could buy a Hawke, Zen Ray, or Promaster ED for that difference and get a larger FOV to boot!

I don't see the value/cost benefit to the Pentax ED. Seems like a ripoff, considering the alternatives available.

But just like with automobiles, there's "brand loyalty" in binocular purchases. Someone who owns an SP or more likely an older WP might upgrade to a Pentax ED rather than buy an ED bin from another manufacturer.

The other factor might be that there's a stigma attached to Chinese binoculars or anything made in China, for that matter.

When I was a child, "Made is Japan" was linked in people's minds as "cheap junk".

It took W. Edwards Deming and 10 years of learning quality control to turn that image around in the public's eye (well, the gas crisis in the 70s helped too).

China is going through their learning curve, but they have more help from foreign investment than Japan did, and they also have an almost unlimited workforce. So they should be able to come up to speed quicker, particularly if they start applying internationally recognized standards.

Poor safety standards have certainly influenced my purchases. I bought a Toshiba laptop last year, and the power cord came with a warning that the rubber might contain lead, and the warning advised that I wash my hands every time after I touched the cord or transformer.

I didn't see that until after I bought the laptop and opened the box at home. Had I seen that warning at the store on the display model, I would have looked for another computer (if I could find one without a lead contaminated cord and transformer!).

It made me wonder if there might be lead or melamine in Chinese binoculars?

Brock

brocknroller said:

.....................................................

When I was a child, "Made is Japan" was linked in people's minds as "cheap junk".

It took W. Edwards Deming and 10 years of learning quality control to turn that image around in the public's eye (well, the gas crisis in the 70s helped too).

China is going through their learning curve, but they have more help from foreign investment than Japan did, and they also have an almost unlimited workforce. So they should be able to come up to speed quicker, particularly if they start applying internationally recognized standards................


Brock

Click to expand...

So, who was W. Edwards Deming? See paragraphs 14 and 15 or so in the essay below.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329091386211372

Bob

brocknroller said:

.... and Germany has the highest wages in Europe, ...

Click to expand...

You're interested in reading 1960s history textbooks?

ThoLa said:

You're interested in reading 1960s history textbooks?

Click to expand...

:-O

Bob

ThoLa said:

You're interested in reading 1960s history textbooks?

Click to expand...

No, it goes further back to 1905-1906:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana