New Celestron porros (1 Viewer)

Anyone tried these yet?

http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=78&ProdID=600

They look rather familiar don't you think? Wonder how they compare to Leupold Yosemites and Vortex Raptors et al?

Better ER and close focus specs than the Yosemite 8x30s, and I sort of wonder how much aluminum there is in the Yosemite frame. Quite interesting.

Specs:

Aperture : 30 mm (1.18 in)
Magnification : 8 x
Optical Design : Porro
Prisms : BaK-4
Optical Coatings : Fully Multi-Coated
Weather Proof : Waterproof
Angular Field of View : 8.2 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 430 ft (131.06 m)
Exit Pupil : 3.8 mm (0.15 in)
Eye Relief : 18 mm (0.71 in)
Near Focus : 8 ft (2.44 m)
IPD Min : 52 mm (2.05 in)
IPD Max : 72 mm (2.83 in)
Weight : 17 oz (481.94 g)
Tripod Adaptable : Yes

So there are a few difference from the Yosemites (etc).

Bigger Angular Field of View : 8.2 °
and Tripod Adaptable too

As well as the features David points out

Closer Near Focus : 8 ft (2.44 m)
Larger Eye Relief : 18 mm

But retains the prorro features: narrow IPD (there are some here who will love that); light weight. And it really does look like it's using the same enclosure/diopter setting/eyecups as the other small porros.

A modern 8x30 porro for birding?

No pricing yet so I suspect they're not available yet. I suspect we'll see these and others at the SHOT show.

The Nature series also has some "open bridge"(!) full size 8x42 and 10x50 porros (that I've seen somewhere before) that are not so nearly as attractive.

e.g. 8x42

http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=78&ProdID=601

Aperture : 42 mm (1.65 in)
Magnification : 8 x
Optical Design : Porro
Prisms : BaK-4
Optical Coatings : Fully Multi-Coated
Weather Proof : Waterproof
Angular Field of View : 7 ° ;(
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 367 ft (111.86 m) ;(
Exit Pupil : 5.3 mm (0.21 in)
Eye Relief : 20 mm (0.79 in)
Near Focus : 15 ft (4.57 m)
IPD Min : 56 mm (2.2 in)
IPD Max : 72 mm (2.83 in)
Weight : 31 oz (878.84 g) ;(
Tripod Adaptable : Yes

I did notice on the Roof Prism models that it doesn't specify Phase Coated? HMMM! You think? No couldn't be? Bryce.

Send in the Clones, where are the Clones?

Lots of "cloning" going on these days. Makes Dolly look mundane.

Check out these Adorama Pro Optic open bridged 8x42s (literally, if you have $200 burning a hole in your pocket):

http://www.adorama.com/PRO842.html

and these look-a-like Vixen Foresta DCFs:
http://www.vixenoptics.com/binoculars/HRforesta.html

Different EPs, the Pro Optic has a wider FOV and one would assume fuzzier edges.

It looks like almost everybody's jumping on the open bridge bandwagon (except Leica), which is fine by me, I never could hold closed bridge roofs very steady with my Sasquatch hands.

Bring on the clones! What I would really like to see is a comparative review of all the new open bridged EL clones stacked up against each other on a scale of 1-5 for various categories, with 5 being the best.

List specs. Estimate how close or far from specs they are (estimates are okay except for ER, where you will need a micrometer to measure the eye lens recess and eyecup protrusion and then minus those figures from the measured ER to give us the usable ER).

Resolution?

Contrast?

Edge sharpness? (bench testing to within a thousandth of an arc second not required, an eyeball estimate will do for daytime use).

Color Rendition (how close are colors to what you see naked eye?)

Color Bias (what color is the snow on an overcast day?)

Color Depth: How vivid are the colors???

Chromatic Aberration Control?

Armoring (tactile? too smooth? too rough?)

Extra Credit Question for people who eat while birding aka The Wayne Mones Food Test (does food stick to the armoring? are the Leupold Gold Ring roofs really made out of chocolate?)

Ergonomics (list glove size or better yet, show photos of your hands holding the bins).

Wow! Factor? (1-yawn, 5-peed my pants)

Add your own tests...

Here are the candidates (under $1,000 EL clones only):

Celestron Nature Series roof, Bushnell Excursion, Elite e2, and Infinity open bridge models, Leupold Mojave, Pro Optic Birding Series, Vixen Foresta DCF, Promaster Infinity/Lexus/Acura ED, Hawke Frontier, Zen Ray ED2, Minox CB BL, Burris Euro Diamond, Vortex Razor, Nikon Monarch X (not sure these really qualify)... etc., et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad hoc.

Someone with deep pockets, please buy all these open bridged roofs (and more if you can find them) and let us know how they compare and which one is the true "Poor Man's EL"?

Thank you so much for the use of your time and credit card.

brocknroller said:

Lots of "cloning" going on these days. Makes Dolly look mundane.


Someone with deep pockets, please buy all these open bridged roofs (and more if you can find them) and let us know how they compare and which one is the true "Poor Man's EL"?

Thank you so much for the use of your time and credit card.

Click to expand...

Brock:
It is always fun to see your wish lists, large order here.
By the way, your PM mailbox is full.

Jerry

I was thinking those 8x42 open-bridge porros looked like a good argument for the end of the fad, but my mom always told me to be positive. Ugh.

Back to the 8x30s. The specs suggest more than just a "me too" knock-off, and perhaps a maturing of the design. I'm happy to see the basic platform get this much attention. I just hope they succeed like the Yo6x30s at the higher power.

Now when are they available? Whose card is burning?

There's an anomoly here:

Angular Field of View : 8.2 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 430 ft (131.06 m)

These figures don't tally.

I agree that 8.2* = 430 ft but that doesn't equate to 131 m

430 ft = 143 m

I wonder what's wrong.

131 m = 7.5* which is roughly on par with the Vortex 8.5x32s

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

David Swain said:

Back to the 8x30s. The specs suggest more than just a "me too" knock-off, and perhaps a maturing of the design. I'm happy to see the basic platform get this much attention. I just hope they succeed like the Yo6x30s at the higher power.

Now when are they available? Whose card is burning?

Click to expand...

I must resist my recently acquired 8x30 porro fetish. But if they really are a maturing of the design and have real 8.2* with 18mm eyerelief I may not be able to.

I assume they will be available in the US first so one of you will have to tell me all about them. Thanks in advance

Martin Fagg said:

There's an anomoly here:

Angular Field of View : 8.2 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 430 ft (131.06 m)

These figures don't tally.

I agree that 8.2* = 430 ft but that doesn't equate to 131 m

430 ft = 143 m

I wonder what's wrong.

131 m = 7.5* which is roughly on par with the Vortex 8.5x32s

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Click to expand...

Bummer. You are right there is at least one mistake in the specs.

arctan(430 / 3000) = 8.1568386 degrees

arctan(131.06 / 1000) = 7.4666282 degrees

And as you mention that is the same as the other 8x30 bins out there.

But I think the bug here is

430 feet = 131.06400 meters

but they forget that the US scheme is feet per 1000 yards but the SI scheme is meters per 1000 meters so you can't just to a linear conversion to convert the field width from feet to meters.

On the other hand perhaps the Chinese designers are working in SI and the markerters do the conversion badly.

But if they use the same EP design as the others (which is all too likely) then the latter is more likely than the former.

Their specs for the Nature Series roof 8x42s don't add up either.
The fov in m is wrong again. Should be about 122m.

Angular Field of View : 7 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 369 ft (112.47 m)

They've done the same thing, I guess.

Kevin,

would you explain your maths for me, please. I use a method that I worked out for myself.

That is, x/1000 yds = 3y/1000m therefore y = x/3

I then worked out from various specs that 1* = approx 17.5 m/1000m

Seems to work to a decent accuracy.

You obviously have a more accurate/scientific method.
I assume using a scientific calculator?

Or point me in the direction of a technical explanation somewhere else if it's too much to do here.

Thanks,
Martin.

Blast it. Glad you guys can do math. Now how did they cook the number on the ER? And get it from 18.5 oz to 17 (the weight of the 6x30)?

I'm guessing $139.95.

I wouldn't place much trust in Celestron's specs or claims. The Celestron "8x40" Outland Porros I tested a couple of years ago were actually stopped down to 32mm, the "Fully Multi-Coated" optics had no coating at all on the prisms and the "waterproofing" consisted of some grease applied to the eyepiece tubes.

henry link said:

I wouldn't place much trust in Celestron's specs or claims. The Celestron "8x40" Outland Porros I tested a couple of years ago were actually stopped down to 32mm, the "Fully Multi-Coated" optics had no coating at all on the prisms and the "waterproofing" consisted of some grease applied to the eyepiece tubes.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. Bad news indeed. Oh well. I'd still be interested in trying a pair for curiosity's sake. I mean in a shop without shelling out any money.

Thanks Henry, for the warning. caveat emptor.

131.06m x 3.28084ft=429.987ft...pretty close I'd say

52.4ft x 8.2*=429.68ft...again, pretty close

Kevin, forget my previous post.

Martin Fagg said:

Their specs for the Nature Series roof 8x42s don't add up either.
The fov in m is wrong again. Should be about 122m.

Angular Field of View : 7 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) : 369 ft (112.47 m)

They've done the same thing, I guess.

Kevin,

would you explain your maths for me, please. I use a method that I worked out for myself.

That is, x/1000 yds = 3y/1000m therefore y = x/3

I then worked out from various specs that 1* = approx 17.5 m/1000m

Seems to work to a decent accuracy.

You obviously have a more accurate/scientific method.
I assume using a scientific calculator?

Or point me in the direction of a technical explanation somewhere else if it's too much to do here.

Thanks,
Martin.

Click to expand...

Kevin,

forget what I wrote earlier.

I've just remembered my maths from college days. Trig. I don't have a scientific calculator (or tables- whose old enough to remember those? Do they still teach with them?) to do the calcs but I remember the principles.

Thanks,
Martin.

spyglass said:

131.06m x 3.28084ft=429.987ft...pretty close I'd say

52.4ft x 8.2*=429.68ft...again, pretty close

Click to expand...

Hi Spyglass,

I think Kevins calcs are right.

"arctan(430 / 3000) = 8.1568386 degrees
......................................................................................................................These should both equal the same number of degrees
arctan(131.06 / 1000) = 7.4666282 degrees"

There's definitely something amiss with their spec.

henry link said:

I wouldn't place much trust in Celestron's specs or claims. The Celestron "8x40" Outland Porros I tested a couple of years ago were actually stopped down to 32mm, the "Fully Multi-Coated" optics had no coating at all on the prisms and the "waterproofing" consisted of some grease applied to the eyepiece tubes.

Click to expand...

With companies that sell OEMed bins its not possible to generalize between bins. Just because one set was bad (or good) doesn't mean another different design will be bad or good.

Counterexample: Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 -- a very nice bin. FMC. Not stopped down (according to my measurements).

I'd take each on it's merits or demerits.

David Swain said:

Blast it. Glad you guys can do math. Now how did they cook the number on the ER? And get it from 18.5 oz to 17 (the weight of the 6x30)?

I'm guessing $139.95.

Click to expand...

They may not have cooked anything ... a new more complicated EP design would be the obvious upgrade as the AFOV in the Yosemite is not huge. A better EP should have both wider AFOV and longer ER.

Of course we'll see when they ship. They may be fibbing but we can't tell.

spyglass said:

131.06m x 3.28084ft=429.987ft...pretty close I'd say

52.4ft x 8.2*=429.68ft...again, pretty close

Click to expand...

You are making the same mistake they made

That's the point I'm trying to make ... you can't just convert the linear field of view that way.

When you do that conversion for 8.2° field you get 131.06 meters at 1000 yards (which is correct but not actually very useful as it mixes units) the better figure is the correct 144.102202 meters at 1000 meters as a metric person would expect.

You have to account for the difference in "distance" for linear field width too.

It Looks like this will replace the discontinued Ultima DX 8 x 32 which Celestron dropped last spring and sold at not much more than cost at that time. It was much heavier, about 33 ounces, had very thick rubber armor, but had in general about the same specs, like the 430' FOV at 1000 feet. And some others that they are pushing here. That 8 x 32 got good reviews here. I bought one for about 85.00 and I think it was a great bargain at that price. It is plug ugly but looks like it will hold up under any problem condition encountered while using them including Kayaking.

This new one, however, in comparison looks like it is fitted out in a Tuxedo!!

Cordially,
Bob

Yeah, that 8x32 Ultima was pretty impressive, if a bit of rolling ball effect.

The Yosemites and these others are fantastic handling characteristics. And if the prisms are chopped down a bit, so what!