-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Minox 15x58 ed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squidge
- Start date
brocknroller
porromaniac
No, bro. According to the binomaniacs:
"Commissioned to the Japanese was produced in three sizes: 8x58 with a bright optical "normal" [glass] and a 10x58 and 15x58 with goals that included the use of a synthetic fluorite lens."
friar brock
squidge
Wha Whassssat
I used the Minox for birding today, here is my experience.
These are big bins, Very heavy for wearing around the neck(which I didnt do). I used them on a monopod which is ideal for a pair this size. I did try them without the monopod and they had a nice grip on the rubber armouring. However the rubber armouring is smooth and as my hands started to sweat they became quite slippy. Although in fairness it was a hot day which is like hens teeth here in Ireland.
Focussing was easy enough however a couple of times I accidently switched the diopter which is situated next to the focussing wheel. After a while once I got used to focussing I didnt switch it again. Depth of field was quite good as I didnt have to focus again on birds that were in front of my original target.
It was a bright sunny day so there was a bit of glare but there would be glare on any bin on the day that it was. Image was bright, clear with a neutral to cool colouring hue. I was surprised how wide the view was. I could clearly make out feather detail on a Whitethroat that I didnt know was there with the naked eye. Looking out to sea I picked up a single Gannet diving offshore. It was clear, bright and the Gannets detail was easily identifible. There was nothing else out to sea. I picked up on a few birds in hedges and was able to see their feather detail without any trouble whatsoever.
There was no sign of Ca but I'm not susceptible to it. Image was clear to the edge.
These binoculars will work really well when static birding like sea watching. I found the view very relaxing and easy on the eye when using with the monopod. I'm slightly worried that my scope will become redundant as it never left its bag today. Time will tell though as I think they both have their place whilst birding.
IMO they need to be used with a monopod or tripod as there weight would leave them unusable after a few minutes use, unless of course your training for a strong arm competition.
I'm really happy with this purchase(cough3
) I think I'll use them more during the autumn/winter at coastal and sea watching spots. Definitly one of the better binoculars I've looked through.
Ger.
These are big bins, Very heavy for wearing around the neck(which I didnt do). I used them on a monopod which is ideal for a pair this size. I did try them without the monopod and they had a nice grip on the rubber armouring. However the rubber armouring is smooth and as my hands started to sweat they became quite slippy. Although in fairness it was a hot day which is like hens teeth here in Ireland.
Focussing was easy enough however a couple of times I accidently switched the diopter which is situated next to the focussing wheel. After a while once I got used to focussing I didnt switch it again. Depth of field was quite good as I didnt have to focus again on birds that were in front of my original target.
It was a bright sunny day so there was a bit of glare but there would be glare on any bin on the day that it was. Image was bright, clear with a neutral to cool colouring hue. I was surprised how wide the view was. I could clearly make out feather detail on a Whitethroat that I didnt know was there with the naked eye. Looking out to sea I picked up a single Gannet diving offshore. It was clear, bright and the Gannets detail was easily identifible. There was nothing else out to sea. I picked up on a few birds in hedges and was able to see their feather detail without any trouble whatsoever.
There was no sign of Ca but I'm not susceptible to it. Image was clear to the edge.
These binoculars will work really well when static birding like sea watching. I found the view very relaxing and easy on the eye when using with the monopod. I'm slightly worried that my scope will become redundant as it never left its bag today. Time will tell though as I think they both have their place whilst birding.
IMO they need to be used with a monopod or tripod as there weight would leave them unusable after a few minutes use, unless of course your training for a strong arm competition.
I'm really happy with this purchase(cough3
) I think I'll use them more during the autumn/winter at coastal and sea watching spots. Definitly one of the better binoculars I've looked through. Ger.
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Nice report, i really want a higher power bin for viewing off my deck i find it less fatiguing than using a scope. I had the Pentax 20x60 and found it ok. I think a good 15x binocular mounted on a tripod would be ideal! The Swarovski and Vortex models are the only current ones i have an interest in but, both are a little spendy! I'm really hoping another vender comes out with a servicable binocular for less$?! These are more geared towards hunters but i think birders could benefit as well. To bad Minox discontinued these! :-(
I'm really hoping another vender comes out with a servicable binocular for less$?! These are more geared towards hunters but i think birders could benefit as well. To bad Minox discontinued these! :-(
squidge
Wha Whassssat
Yep, I found them very easy on the eye compared to my scope which has me worried a little. If a pair do pop up secondhand my advice would be to snap them up as they really are an excellent bin for long range birding. I'm not too sure about the night sky though as every time I went to use them it was either raining or cloudy.
Ger.
Ger.
I had a Pentax 20x60 for a while, but sent them back. The view was bright and crisp, the handling easy as they were light and compact for a "big" bino, but I found the FOV so narrow as to render them useless. I now use a Canon IS 15x50 for those "no scope" days, or when seawatching to relieve the strain of one-eye scoping, and there's no going back. The Canon IS are small and light for a 15x bino, and the IS system is the ultimate deal-breaker. The Minox are very, very nice, though, and have better optics than the Canons.
Highway Dog
Well-known member
Steve,
The way I have tested the extra Low dispersion glass is to look at the nearly full moon. The regular glass has enough chromatic miss-focussing to make the moon look like a wide green marker has written on one side of the edge of the moon and a wide red marker has lined the opposite side. When I use a Swift ED 8x44 or a Promaster Infinity LX ED 8x42, the edges look like they were lined in colored pencil, very thin color.
Does anybody agree that this is a good test?
Thanks,
Rob.
The way I have tested the extra Low dispersion glass is to look at the nearly full moon. The regular glass has enough chromatic miss-focussing to make the moon look like a wide green marker has written on one side of the edge of the moon and a wide red marker has lined the opposite side. When I use a Swift ED 8x44 or a Promaster Infinity LX ED 8x42, the edges look like they were lined in colored pencil, very thin color.
Does anybody agree that this is a good test?
Thanks,
Rob.
It seems to work.
The BR 15 x 58 ED tested is an almost mint or mint used binocular.
I think they are now discontinued.
It contains fluorite glass although it states fluoride.
The binocular is heavy at 1550 gm but well balanced.
I found the focussing control position a bit odd and difficult to find in the dark.
There is a central click stop dioptre control.
It has a lot of glass. Nearly all elements including the prisms seem to be multicoated.
It has multielement eyepieces with a very long eye relief. The adjustable eyecups may actually be a little short.
There is very little distortion.
However, as is typical of low distortion eyepieces the is a sudden change of magnification at the edge.
The full Moon suddenly became very elongated near the edge.
The central resolution in the day is exceptionally good.
The edge resolution is also very good but the sudden change of magnification is a bit disconcerting.
Compared with the 18 x 50 Canon IS which has little if any magnification change.
The binocular is made in Japan for Minox. the stated field of 4.1 degrees was measured as 4.2 degrees.
What I find strange though is that in the daytime looking at a bright white pillar there is false colour at the vertical pillar edge, despite using fluorite glass. I don't know if this is chromatic aberration or spherochromatism or what.
The amount of false colour is similar to the 18 x 50 Canon which uses 'UD' glass.
The 1960s ? Swallow Japanese 20 x 60 porroprism has much more false colour and severe pincushion distortion compared to the almost distortion free 15 x 58 Minox.
The Swallow weighs 1300 gm.
I am testing these binoculars from an astronomers viewpoint but also as terrestrial binoculars.
I viewed a chimney top at 400 ft. There is a tiny triangular pimple on the top and all three binoculars resolve this clearly hand held. This detail is usually invisible in a 12x glass. However, the 18x Canon and 20x Swallow suffer from excessive hand held magnification. I am testing the Canon here without the stabilization on.
It is at night on stars that the differences show.
As with most binoculars even top end ones the star images are far too large.
The Minox star images are good but again too large, The stars are central discs surrounded by a blur that seems to be due to spherical aberration.
The Swallow star images are considerably smaller although more ragged.
The Canon star images are much smaller still.
As far as I can tell none of the many binoculars I have tested come anywhere near the tiny Canon IS binocular star images.
Canon seem to have started with a clean slate and designed almost perfect binoculars.
For bird users the Canons are mostly not waterproof and maybe not rugged enough, but for astronomers even the best of the competion don't seem to equal them.
This is with the stabilizer off.
I think I am average in my ability to hold high magnification binoculars steady. A sportsperson such as an archer with extreme control of breathing and also pulse will do much better, but those not used to many years of handholding high magnification binoculars may do worse.
With the stabiliser on the Canon are in a different world.
In daytime the small pimple on top of the chimney is not only resolved but shows a lot of detail.
With the stabilizer on the Canon 18 x 50 IS resolves at least twice as well as with the 3 binoculars here unstabilized.
There is a skill in using a Canon stabilized binocular. If the prisms are locked at the end of their travel they give prismatic star images. One has to release them and immediately lock them centrally again.
At night with the stabiliser on, again the Canon 18 x50 are unmatched. The only thing to equal them is another fine stabilized binocular.
I use the unequal double star Mizar at 14.4 arcseconds as a fine binocular test. Even well braced the 15 x 58 Minox struggles to split it. The ancient 20 x 60 Swallow is much better and is about equal to the Canon 18x 50IS braced or with stabilizer on.
I can just split Mizar with a good Soviet 12 x 45 porroprism binocular and an ancient beat up 12 x50 Pentax porro.
The lowest power binocular I have split Mizar is with the Canon 10 x 30 IS.
Hand held for astronomy this resolves as well and reveals faint stars as well as any unstabilized 10 x 50 binocular I have tested regardless of price.
There are two questions that I still find unanswered.
Why do nearly all binoculars have such large star images?
And why do fluorite binoculars show false colour?
Thanks.
The BR 15 x 58 ED tested is an almost mint or mint used binocular.
I think they are now discontinued.
It contains fluorite glass although it states fluoride.
The binocular is heavy at 1550 gm but well balanced.
I found the focussing control position a bit odd and difficult to find in the dark.
There is a central click stop dioptre control.
It has a lot of glass. Nearly all elements including the prisms seem to be multicoated.
It has multielement eyepieces with a very long eye relief. The adjustable eyecups may actually be a little short.
There is very little distortion.
However, as is typical of low distortion eyepieces the is a sudden change of magnification at the edge.
The full Moon suddenly became very elongated near the edge.
The central resolution in the day is exceptionally good.
The edge resolution is also very good but the sudden change of magnification is a bit disconcerting.
Compared with the 18 x 50 Canon IS which has little if any magnification change.
The binocular is made in Japan for Minox. the stated field of 4.1 degrees was measured as 4.2 degrees.
What I find strange though is that in the daytime looking at a bright white pillar there is false colour at the vertical pillar edge, despite using fluorite glass. I don't know if this is chromatic aberration or spherochromatism or what.
The amount of false colour is similar to the 18 x 50 Canon which uses 'UD' glass.
The 1960s ? Swallow Japanese 20 x 60 porroprism has much more false colour and severe pincushion distortion compared to the almost distortion free 15 x 58 Minox.
The Swallow weighs 1300 gm.
I am testing these binoculars from an astronomers viewpoint but also as terrestrial binoculars.
I viewed a chimney top at 400 ft. There is a tiny triangular pimple on the top and all three binoculars resolve this clearly hand held. This detail is usually invisible in a 12x glass. However, the 18x Canon and 20x Swallow suffer from excessive hand held magnification. I am testing the Canon here without the stabilization on.
It is at night on stars that the differences show.
As with most binoculars even top end ones the star images are far too large.
The Minox star images are good but again too large, The stars are central discs surrounded by a blur that seems to be due to spherical aberration.
The Swallow star images are considerably smaller although more ragged.
The Canon star images are much smaller still.
As far as I can tell none of the many binoculars I have tested come anywhere near the tiny Canon IS binocular star images.
Canon seem to have started with a clean slate and designed almost perfect binoculars.
For bird users the Canons are mostly not waterproof and maybe not rugged enough, but for astronomers even the best of the competion don't seem to equal them.
This is with the stabilizer off.
I think I am average in my ability to hold high magnification binoculars steady. A sportsperson such as an archer with extreme control of breathing and also pulse will do much better, but those not used to many years of handholding high magnification binoculars may do worse.
With the stabiliser on the Canon are in a different world.
In daytime the small pimple on top of the chimney is not only resolved but shows a lot of detail.
With the stabilizer on the Canon 18 x 50 IS resolves at least twice as well as with the 3 binoculars here unstabilized.
There is a skill in using a Canon stabilized binocular. If the prisms are locked at the end of their travel they give prismatic star images. One has to release them and immediately lock them centrally again.
At night with the stabiliser on, again the Canon 18 x50 are unmatched. The only thing to equal them is another fine stabilized binocular.
I use the unequal double star Mizar at 14.4 arcseconds as a fine binocular test. Even well braced the 15 x 58 Minox struggles to split it. The ancient 20 x 60 Swallow is much better and is about equal to the Canon 18x 50IS braced or with stabilizer on.
I can just split Mizar with a good Soviet 12 x 45 porroprism binocular and an ancient beat up 12 x50 Pentax porro.
The lowest power binocular I have split Mizar is with the Canon 10 x 30 IS.
Hand held for astronomy this resolves as well and reveals faint stars as well as any unstabilized 10 x 50 binocular I have tested regardless of price.
There are two questions that I still find unanswered.
Why do nearly all binoculars have such large star images?
And why do fluorite binoculars show false colour?
Thanks.
I read the nice comparison test by binomania of the Minox 15 x 58 and Zeiss 15 x 60. This was most useful.
On looking at the list of other tests by binomania I read the test of the Canon 18 x 50 IS.
I have used this binocular extensively for many years and I wonder if the 18 x 50 tested by binomania was not working properly.
The original 15 x 45 IS did have some problems, but by the time the 15 x 50 and 18 x 50 came out I think the reliability was better.
I also think that more care may have been given to these early examples.
The original 12 x 36 IS was good but heavy and is now replaced by the lighter 12 x 36 Mk II.
The 10 x 30 has had I think many variations. The manner of stabilization has changed supposedly to reduce power consumption.
But more modern examples that I have tested are not as good as my early 10 x 30 IS.
I agree that as a general use binocular the 15 x 50 is better than the 18 x 50, but for astronomy I prefer the 18x.
Also binocular users have different parameters when testing and birdwatching needs different charateristics to astronomy.
In my opinion a good 15 x 50 or 18 x 50 Canon completely outclasses any hand held unstabilised binocular for astronomy but also for aircraft spotting and other uses.
I can clearly see most of the individual windows of aircraft at night at quite a distance once I lock the stabilizer on. These windows are just a continuous blur of light in even top end non stabilized binoculars.
And sometimes you need to unlock the prisms and quickly relock. To me this is automatic as I use the binocular so much.
It is true that if you mount binoculars on a tripod then other binoculars may be better than the Canons. But for hand held use at a reasonable weight I know of nothing that beats them, except may be other stabilizer binoculars, which are usually heavier.
Being electronic and complex they will not stand up to heavy use compared to a top end normal binocular, but in the many years I have used the Canons none have broken, although I have seen well used ones that are broken.
The Canons only have a year warranty, but there are fixed priced repairs for any faulty ones, at least there were when I last checked.
I use solely throwaway Lithium AAs, which last a long time and are very lightweight.
In my opinion the Canon 18 x 50 IS, at least my one, is better optically than the Minox BR 15 x 58 ED.
For me the size of the star images is most important and the Canon has mucher smaller star images. This means the light energy is in a very compact area and fainter stars are seen.
The resolution is also better even without the stabilizer.
The false colour is similar and the apparent field wider.
There is little eye relief but I don't use glasses.
Regards.
On looking at the list of other tests by binomania I read the test of the Canon 18 x 50 IS.
I have used this binocular extensively for many years and I wonder if the 18 x 50 tested by binomania was not working properly.
The original 15 x 45 IS did have some problems, but by the time the 15 x 50 and 18 x 50 came out I think the reliability was better.
I also think that more care may have been given to these early examples.
The original 12 x 36 IS was good but heavy and is now replaced by the lighter 12 x 36 Mk II.
The 10 x 30 has had I think many variations. The manner of stabilization has changed supposedly to reduce power consumption.
But more modern examples that I have tested are not as good as my early 10 x 30 IS.
I agree that as a general use binocular the 15 x 50 is better than the 18 x 50, but for astronomy I prefer the 18x.
Also binocular users have different parameters when testing and birdwatching needs different charateristics to astronomy.
In my opinion a good 15 x 50 or 18 x 50 Canon completely outclasses any hand held unstabilised binocular for astronomy but also for aircraft spotting and other uses.
I can clearly see most of the individual windows of aircraft at night at quite a distance once I lock the stabilizer on. These windows are just a continuous blur of light in even top end non stabilized binoculars.
And sometimes you need to unlock the prisms and quickly relock. To me this is automatic as I use the binocular so much.
It is true that if you mount binoculars on a tripod then other binoculars may be better than the Canons. But for hand held use at a reasonable weight I know of nothing that beats them, except may be other stabilizer binoculars, which are usually heavier.
Being electronic and complex they will not stand up to heavy use compared to a top end normal binocular, but in the many years I have used the Canons none have broken, although I have seen well used ones that are broken.
The Canons only have a year warranty, but there are fixed priced repairs for any faulty ones, at least there were when I last checked.
I use solely throwaway Lithium AAs, which last a long time and are very lightweight.
In my opinion the Canon 18 x 50 IS, at least my one, is better optically than the Minox BR 15 x 58 ED.
For me the size of the star images is most important and the Canon has mucher smaller star images. This means the light energy is in a very compact area and fainter stars are seen.
The resolution is also better even without the stabilizer.
The false colour is similar and the apparent field wider.
There is little eye relief but I don't use glasses.
Regards.
I recently got the 10x58 ed Minox.
I think this is a very nice binoculars for low light situations and star-watching.
Even if I use it at hands, it does not sway too much. It has good baｌance.
Bright, sharp, little distortion of the image. ×10 bino is higher power than ×8, clearly.
For middle, or more elder age’s pupil, 5.8mm would be efficient than 7mm at many low light situations, probably even at astronomical observation, if the view is not sway much.
This may be closer to the ideal of my binoculars.
Because I did not like the original objective lens caps, I bought two of the “BUTLER CREEK SCOPE COVER FLIP OPEN 54 OBJ”.
After cutting it in half the length, it is well fitted on the Minox.
I think this is a very nice binoculars for low light situations and star-watching.
Even if I use it at hands, it does not sway too much. It has good baｌance.
Bright, sharp, little distortion of the image. ×10 bino is higher power than ×8, clearly.
For middle, or more elder age’s pupil, 5.8mm would be efficient than 7mm at many low light situations, probably even at astronomical observation, if the view is not sway much.
This may be closer to the ideal of my binoculars.
Because I did not like the original objective lens caps, I bought two of the “BUTLER CREEK SCOPE COVER FLIP OPEN 54 OBJ”.
After cutting it in half the length, it is well fitted on the Minox.
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Nice report, i really want a higher power bin for viewing off my deck i find it less fatiguing than using a scope. I had the Pentax 20x60 and found it ok. I think a good 15x binocular mounted on a tripod would be ideal! The Swarovski and Vortex models are the only current ones i have an interest in but, both are a little spendy!
I finally found a like new in box Minox 15x ed! It will be here soon! Anxious to give it a go! Bryce...
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
I received the later version with diopter on right ep. Color and contrast are excellent. Build is really good internals are spotless and show good machining. Eyecups are firm with solid detents no play. Focus is smooth with no backlash, a little heavy on the tension but aids in finding perfect focus. They balance really well on tripod. Plenty of eye relief with no blackouts. Image isn't quite alpha sharp but, darn close! CA so far is non existent but, haven't had really bright conditions to test. So far I really like them definite keepers, these are for sure like new glad I finally found one and took the plunge! Good quality glass! Bryce...
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
I really think if somebody is looking to get a set of big eye's these are pretty good. They aren't as sharp as any of my Swaro's but, they are less than a third of the cost of an SLC used! The lack of CA provided by the use of ED glass is icing on the cake! They will see a lot of use. They seem to be very robust which is a plus, the image is more than exceptable, they provide a nice clean image with out any eye strain!
My big eye's mission is complete these will work for my intended purpose at a cost of much less than what I planned on spending! Bryce...
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I really think if somebody is looking to get a set of big eye's these are pretty good. They aren't as sharp as any of my Swaro's but, they are less than a third of the cost of an SLC used! The lack of CA provided by the use of ED glass is icing on the cake! They will see a lot of use. They seem to be very robust which is a plus, the image is more than exceptable, they provide a nice clean image with out any eye strain!
Bryce:
Good to hear your report on these. Have you mounted them on a tripod ?
They are big and heavy, and that helps to steady, and get a better look.
Jerry
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Yes Jerry, that's the only way to use these! They came with the Minox tripod adapter, though I had others I kinda like the Minox adapter very stable! Bryce...
