gunut
Registered Offender
I have one of the 6x24 trinovids....and couldn't agree more....but I just like the old 60s/70s vintage trinovids period....
-
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.
Looking for a perfect pocket. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wachipilotes
- Start date
I have one of the 6x24 trinovids....and couldn't agree more....but I just like the old 60s/70s vintage trinovids period....
James, Thanks, another forum expert has now, in a private response, cautioned me about the tests in that thread. Nevertheless, to the majority of users (in reports on the internet including this forum) the Ultravid and Nikon HG pockets convey more detail (I avoid the word sharpness here) than the two Zeiss pockets which are replaced by the new ones and the small, now discontinued, Swaro. pockets, which are themselves pretty good in that respect.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I haven't seen many such comparisons. I guess I recall such a claim for the 10x25 comparison, but I consider the Zeiss 8x20 Victory (once it was updated with dielectric coatings) to be the optical equal of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. I do find the ergonomics of the Ultravid much superior.
--AP
AP, Before the advent of the new Zeiss and even after (because of its weight) I did much reading in this forum and elsewhere on the 3 premium 8x20s Leica, Nikon and Zeiss. There is high praise for the Zeiss 8x20 (some which I read might possibly have been by you!) I particularly remember the Scopeviews review. The Original Poster can read up on the Zeiss and on the Nikon 8x20s at that site here. But I found that more of the objective reports praised the Leica 8x20 over the Zeiss 8x20. (On this info I decided on the Leica. Then especially after the Cloudy Nights thread I reneged on my weight policy and am going for the new Zeiss 8x25.)
Really have to try the Zeiss old 8x20mm vs the Leica 8x20. I found the Leica exit pupil to be smaller for some reason and had to have very precise eye placement. Leica and and Zeiss did both give excellent images. But then when I got the Swarovski 8x25 CL Pockets, they were a new benchmark in terms of edge to edge sharpness and usability. Swarovski Eye placement wasn't as critical as the Zeiss and the Leicas. I haven't tried the new Zeiss 8x25mm Victory, which would interest me very much to see the differences.
It is a matter of what sells. The manufacturers don't make too many 6x or 7x magnifications anymore because they don't SELL. The majority of the people buying binoculars want an 8x or 10x. The market has spoken and most people feel 6x and 7x magnification is too weak. I have tried 6x and 7x and I always come back to 8x.
That's why Nikon offers their uncomfortable miniature anniversary edition porros in 6x15 and 7x15, and their excellent HG monoculars in 5x15 and 7x15.
They are a VERY small part of the binocular market. Monoculars often come in lower magnifications because they are harder to hold steady than a binocular.
edwincjones
Well-known member
I would add the $300 Zeiss Terra ED 8x25
maybe less quality but very good value
and how much does one want to pay for a pocket?
edj
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
Perhaps the perfect compact should be a 6/6.5/7x instead of shootin' for the stars w/8x. Easier eye placement and a tad brighter. I see comments on a 10x30 bin as being dim or too much X when a drop to 8x would afford 3.75 ep, which is right at the 15x56 vulture ep, but the compact world is crammed w/8x from 20-25mm objective.
Are all the buyers Bond, James Bond? Does one really need that 1/1.5/2x extra to read license plates on an international jewel thief speeding away in an Aston Martin? Mike Hammer cannot ease one step closer to read the matchbook cover the moll just pulled from her clutch purse; as she walked outa that two-bit dive dressed to the nines stinking of gin?
All the talk of optical compromise save the compacts. Is it sacrilege, are they lens of deity do you gotta kiss the Pope's ring for cryin' out loud?
Are all the buyers Bond, James Bond? Does one really need that 1/1.5/2x extra to read license plates on an international jewel thief speeding away in an Aston Martin? Mike Hammer cannot ease one step closer to read the matchbook cover the moll just pulled from her clutch purse; as she walked outa that two-bit dive dressed to the nines stinking of gin?
All the talk of optical compromise save the compacts. Is it sacrilege, are they lens of deity do you gotta kiss the Pope's ring for cryin' out loud?
A bit late to this thread but...
Ten years or so ago I tried out all the favourites looking for the "perfect pocket" and ended up with the Zeiss Conquest 8x20, sure the true alphas had a better view but the shear compactness of the Conquests swung it. The minimal armour and the Z fold made them truly pocketable.
Fast forward and after eight years of everyday carrying, the Conquests got lost (Not by me, no names) and was all set to go for a straight replacement only to find Zeiss had stopped making them! Again I looked through and handled all the usual suspects and took advice on here. The problem was against the Conquests even other 8x20s are huge, the top alphas especially so. In the end I went for the Leica Trinovids, sure the Ultravids have a better view but they are bigger all round and they would have a terrible view stuck back at home rather than in my pocket!
So after a year or so with the Trinovids as an EDC I am happy with them, they are not as pocketable as my old Conquests but the eyecups are better when swapping between me and my glasses wearing partner. They are small enough to carry in your pocket, just in case. 25mm and 30mm might be less than full-size but I have yet to see any that I would call pocket binoculars, most 20mm bins are not pocket binoculars.
If someone made a 6x20 that was as compact as the Trinovids or the old Conquests I would buy one tomorrow!
Ten years or so ago I tried out all the favourites looking for the "perfect pocket" and ended up with the Zeiss Conquest 8x20, sure the true alphas had a better view but the shear compactness of the Conquests swung it. The minimal armour and the Z fold made them truly pocketable.
Fast forward and after eight years of everyday carrying, the Conquests got lost (Not by me, no names) and was all set to go for a straight replacement only to find Zeiss had stopped making them! Again I looked through and handled all the usual suspects and took advice on here. The problem was against the Conquests even other 8x20s are huge, the top alphas especially so. In the end I went for the Leica Trinovids, sure the Ultravids have a better view but they are bigger all round and they would have a terrible view stuck back at home rather than in my pocket!
So after a year or so with the Trinovids as an EDC I am happy with them, they are not as pocketable as my old Conquests but the eyecups are better when swapping between me and my glasses wearing partner. They are small enough to carry in your pocket, just in case. 25mm and 30mm might be less than full-size but I have yet to see any that I would call pocket binoculars, most 20mm bins are not pocket binoculars.
If someone made a 6x20 that was as compact as the Trinovids or the old Conquests I would buy one tomorrow!
Last edited:
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
My compact is the discontinued Sightron SIII 8x24 double hinge made in Japan that's a dead ringer, or vice versa perhaps, of the Opticron BGA T PC Oasis 8x24. The diopter adjustment is a spring loaded ball indent, so no worry of it accidentally changing.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/sightro...e-coated-roof-prism-binoculars-siii824pc.html
Comes w/leather rectangle w/velcro lid case and if you had large pockets they would fit sans case. Cargo shorts work even better. The four individual lens covers would be nicer if paired. A bit much PC, but a narrow fov at 328' helps veil the distortion.
The only glaring spec difference twixt it and the Oasis is er. The siii claims a whopping 12.8mm. They are as the view a compromise. Three mm ep is not much and I would gladly give up 1.5X for a 3.69.
I've never peered through the 8x20 Trini. Folks say it's nice at 2.5mm ep. In part I'm sure due to the ultra slim size. I think a 6.5x20 w/3.08 would look even better. Some little Galilean glasses run 2.5/3/4X. Half of that isn't much to give up I'd think for a brighter view w/easier eye placement.
A lot of companies are not interested in walking out on that compact limb.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/sightro...e-coated-roof-prism-binoculars-siii824pc.html
Comes w/leather rectangle w/velcro lid case and if you had large pockets they would fit sans case. Cargo shorts work even better. The four individual lens covers would be nicer if paired. A bit much PC, but a narrow fov at 328' helps veil the distortion.
The only glaring spec difference twixt it and the Oasis is er. The siii claims a whopping 12.8mm. They are as the view a compromise. Three mm ep is not much and I would gladly give up 1.5X for a 3.69.
I've never peered through the 8x20 Trini. Folks say it's nice at 2.5mm ep. In part I'm sure due to the ultra slim size. I think a 6.5x20 w/3.08 would look even better. Some little Galilean glasses run 2.5/3/4X. Half of that isn't much to give up I'd think for a brighter view w/easier eye placement.
A lot of companies are not interested in walking out on that compact limb.
Just wait for the next OpticsPlanet 10% off sale as I did.
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
I suppose the asymmetrical design is to allow one barrel to fold under the other in attempt to provide the smallest footprint. Were it a 6.5x25 it would boast a 3.85 ep. I can see how a single hinge would provide ease compared to a dbl hinge.
From reading others opinions the consensus appears to draw the line for pocket compact at 20 or 22mm. Not quite sure of the std pocket size, but apparently by 24mm it's too small.
I still feel 6.5X is the magic pocket sz power regardless of objective. A 7x is too close to 8x and 6x is too much of a jump. For marketing purpose I could stand pat on 6.6. Top tier pocket compact 6.6x23 leaves 3.48 ep and second tier larger though still compact 6.6X26 for 3.94 ep or 28 at 4.24ep. Even a 6.6x22 is 3.33.
I like the idea of a 6.6x23 though if the odd digit causes problems I could go one mm either way. Or 6.7x23 3.43ep. Only 1.3x less, objectives straddling the compact line twixt 22/24 whilst sportin' almost three and one-half ep.
Pardon the drift but, the Yosemite 10x30 bin is in transit.
Cannot stick it in any pocket, save a full length wool Eastern Europe military surplus coat, though perhaps a start in going smaller even if it is a porro. Only 3mm ep though provides opportunity to compare against the little Sightron w/3mm ep as well.
From reading others opinions the consensus appears to draw the line for pocket compact at 20 or 22mm. Not quite sure of the std pocket size, but apparently by 24mm it's too small.
I still feel 6.5X is the magic pocket sz power regardless of objective. A 7x is too close to 8x and 6x is too much of a jump. For marketing purpose I could stand pat on 6.6. Top tier pocket compact 6.6x23 leaves 3.48 ep and second tier larger though still compact 6.6X26 for 3.94 ep or 28 at 4.24ep. Even a 6.6x22 is 3.33.
I like the idea of a 6.6x23 though if the odd digit causes problems I could go one mm either way. Or 6.7x23 3.43ep. Only 1.3x less, objectives straddling the compact line twixt 22/24 whilst sportin' almost three and one-half ep.
Pardon the drift but, the Yosemite 10x30 bin is in transit.
Cannot stick it in any pocket, save a full length wool Eastern Europe military surplus coat, though perhaps a start in going smaller even if it is a porro. Only 3mm ep though provides opportunity to compare against the little Sightron w/3mm ep as well.
mayoayo
Well-known member
6.5X is very nice,because you start feeling the control of shake free images and the added resolution extraction that this adds to the image..I have the Pentax Papilio 6.5X and really like it ,plenty bright in daylight even with the small 21 mm objectives..the old custom at 7x26 also offered a compact lens that delivered a bright image using less magnification..but the big manufacturers dont really go that way ,they prefer to compromise exit pupil gaining reach power..imagine a 6.5 or 7x version of these great new 25mm compacts,like the victory or swaro CL...a terra 6.5 x25 would also be welcomed,with the lower price tag!
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
The Papilio 6.5X is a perfect example of less power being more. And at extreme close focus operates at 8X according to edz.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/155747-pentax-papilio-65-vs-85/
The 7x42 was beloved though apparently lost out to the 8x. What I do not understand is the pocket compact attempting to emulate a larger bin in power albeit at expense of the view.
ETA: It seems to me that the pocket compact has shrunk the objectives to the point where the ep of 8x is now in line w/view of larger bins at 10x. The 8x20 is the 10x25 w/both being 2.5ep. A 6.7x20 comes to 2.985ep. How could the view not be better overall?
Not so much the half a mm, but the relationship of the half unto 2.5. Would one have desire for opera glasses at 8X?
ETA II: The top dogs are 8x25 of pull out the stops build/glass. The ep 3.125mm. A 6.7x w/same is a hair under 21mm. And a 6.7x25 is 3.73 ep.
Why not have a second shelf compact bin that's more affordable at 6.7X25 retaining the 8x for alpha line of compacts? Instead of everyone mixing and matching 8x at whatevah objective?
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/155747-pentax-papilio-65-vs-85/
The 7x42 was beloved though apparently lost out to the 8x. What I do not understand is the pocket compact attempting to emulate a larger bin in power albeit at expense of the view.
ETA: It seems to me that the pocket compact has shrunk the objectives to the point where the ep of 8x is now in line w/view of larger bins at 10x. The 8x20 is the 10x25 w/both being 2.5ep. A 6.7x20 comes to 2.985ep. How could the view not be better overall?
Not so much the half a mm, but the relationship of the half unto 2.5. Would one have desire for opera glasses at 8X?
ETA II: The top dogs are 8x25 of pull out the stops build/glass. The ep 3.125mm. A 6.7x w/same is a hair under 21mm. And a 6.7x25 is 3.73 ep.
Why not have a second shelf compact bin that's more affordable at 6.7X25 retaining the 8x for alpha line of compacts? Instead of everyone mixing and matching 8x at whatevah objective?
Last edited:
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
ETA III: Why not have a second shelf compact bin that's more affordable at 6.7X20 retaining the 8x for alpha line of compacts? Instead of everyone mixing and matching 8x at whatevah objective? Didn't the Victory move from 8x20 to 8x25? Why not a run of 6.7x20 to test the waters? Right now the auld 8x20 is going for $569. Why only offer 8x25 in Terra & Victory, other than the obvious ep?
The Victory 20mm chassis could easily be retro fitted to a 6.7x. Roughly 16% less power and a mite dimmer at 2.985 ep though retaining the same sleek design. One could pigeonhole it 'twixt new 25mm Victory and Terra, w/aging population, as the Kommodore.
The Terra 8x25 is three bills and this 6.7x20 could slide in at five/five and a half. I understand three different units in compact bins is crowding a small market for a single company. Would it take away more from the Victory or the Terra?
It would be interesting to see the sales numbers. If you demand 8x then either the Victory or Terra depending on available funds. Yet, if 6.7x is enough, you prefer the smaller asymmetrical design and the price point splits the difference.
Then we would see what sells, not just compared one bin to another, but total compact sales. You'll not lose the 8X high end buyer though the Terra could suffer a bit, but I'd predict more overall sales. Ideally, since the design is now 25mm it would be 6.7x25 promoting the lower power/brighter view.
The population is aging and nothing against the Victory or Terra except that I have a 8x24 dbl hinge though optically inferior will suffice. For 500 clams I'd have an interest in a 6.7x 20-25 in the Victory sleek design. If nothing else perhaps another company will venture into the compact market offering a lower price/power w/brighter view.
The Victory 20mm chassis could easily be retro fitted to a 6.7x. Roughly 16% less power and a mite dimmer at 2.985 ep though retaining the same sleek design. One could pigeonhole it 'twixt new 25mm Victory and Terra, w/aging population, as the Kommodore.
The Terra 8x25 is three bills and this 6.7x20 could slide in at five/five and a half. I understand three different units in compact bins is crowding a small market for a single company. Would it take away more from the Victory or the Terra?
It would be interesting to see the sales numbers. If you demand 8x then either the Victory or Terra depending on available funds. Yet, if 6.7x is enough, you prefer the smaller asymmetrical design and the price point splits the difference.
Then we would see what sells, not just compared one bin to another, but total compact sales. You'll not lose the 8X high end buyer though the Terra could suffer a bit, but I'd predict more overall sales. Ideally, since the design is now 25mm it would be 6.7x25 promoting the lower power/brighter view.
The population is aging and nothing against the Victory or Terra except that I have a 8x24 dbl hinge though optically inferior will suffice. For 500 clams I'd have an interest in a 6.7x 20-25 in the Victory sleek design. If nothing else perhaps another company will venture into the compact market offering a lower price/power w/brighter view.
Docter 10x25. Maybe not ideal for glasses, but the Trinovid 10x25 is ridiculous for me with the binocular hovering in the air in front of my face, moving everywhere.
And some double hinged binoculars just keep changing IPD. My 10x25 Docter maintains correct IPD over thousands of times used.
This involuntary movement of eyes and hands relative to the 2.5mm exit pupil is why I think people are unhappy with 2.5mm exit pupils. A really well fitting binocular remains almost steady.
With many binoculars I find that my eyes wander around a 4mm exit pupil with my pupil at 2.5mm.
Zeiss 6x20. Nice.
And some double hinged binoculars just keep changing IPD. My 10x25 Docter maintains correct IPD over thousands of times used.
This involuntary movement of eyes and hands relative to the 2.5mm exit pupil is why I think people are unhappy with 2.5mm exit pupils. A really well fitting binocular remains almost steady.
With many binoculars I find that my eyes wander around a 4mm exit pupil with my pupil at 2.5mm.
Zeiss 6x20. Nice.
Similar threads
