• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Mid-size shootout, Pentax 9x32 vs Celestron Granite 9x33 (1 Viewer)

Yea, I'm reminded of that regularly. :D

Honestly, after reading the few "less than glowing" reviews on the Granites that can be found, I'm wondering why so little is written about these. I mean, the optical quality is just superb for the price point. I'd compare them to the Viper HD or even a little better, which are easily 2x the price.

I had looked at these before buying my Blue Sky's, and if not for the reviews being greatly in favor of the Blue Sky's (in sheer number, and in rating) I would have bought them then.

Do you suppose the QC is sketchy on the Granites, and I just got a good copy?

Why so few good reviews of them? I don't get that.

Oh, and the Pentax's are on the UPS truck on the way back. Sorry Pentax fans, but I don't regret that decision a bit.
 
I agree that I may not be the most tactful. But then again, I'm an engineer, not a politician.

I believe it's worse to give incorrect information, than no information at all.

The ISO's and shutter speeds were different between the view photos. If the photos are intended to show the relative brightness... well then they are misleading, because the EXIF data shows that the exposure was not held constant.

If one is doing comparative testing, one should eliminate variables as much as possible. For comparison photos, that would include keeping aperture, shutter speed, and ISO constant.
 
I agree that I may not be the most tactful. But then again, I'm an engineer, not a politician.

I believe it's worse to give incorrect information, than no information at all.

The ISO's and shutter speeds were different between the view photos. If the photos are intended to show the relative brightness... well then they are misleading, because the EXIF data shows that the exposure was not held constant.

If one is doing comparative testing, one should eliminate variables as much as possible. For comparison photos, that would include keeping aperture, shutter speed, and ISO constant.

Learn something new every day. I never knew engineers werent expected to be civil. :t:
 
Bob, I think the Pentax is a good buy for $220. Great? Not compared to the $179 Sightron Blue Sky in my opinion. I'd rather look through my old Blue Sky's than these Pentax, I think. But they sure did figure out the weight, balance and ergonomics. I almost didn't want to put the Pentax down!


I probably would get along well with the Sightron Blue Sky. I've read enough good reviews of them to come to the conclusion that they are the real thing. I know that they have long eye relief which is important to me and I know that their FOV is not as wide as it is stated but 7.5 degrees is plenty IMO.

In fact, I bought the Pentax after I convinced myself that it was basically a clone of the Sightron and made in the same factory in the Philippines and because I wanted a good, inexpensive 9x binocular and I wasn't disappointed. I bought mine at Camera Land. I have enough good 8x32s; a Nikon 8x32 SE and a Nikon 8x32 LX L and a couple of other ones so I don't need the 8x32 Sightron.

I look at the Pentax 9x32 as a "poor man's 10x32." It has long eye relief and a FOV about the size of those found in Alpha 10x32 binoculars and a larger exit pupil than they have. Its "sweet spot" is big enough to suit me. It is very light weight and I find it easy to use; no problems with glare or blackouts.

Bob
 
I agree that I may not be the most tactful. But then again, I'm an engineer, not a politician.

I believe it's worse to give incorrect information, than no information at all.

The ISO's and shutter speeds were different between the view photos. If the photos are intended to show the relative brightness... well then they are misleading, because the EXIF data shows that the exposure was not held constant.

If one is doing comparative testing, one should eliminate variables as much as possible. For comparison photos, that would include keeping aperture, shutter speed, and ISO constant.

Nothing wrong with asking "do you know whether the same exposure was used for each photo, since that could affect the relative brightness?" ;)

Better yet, there's nothing wrong with taking my word for it when I said the images represented what I saw. Digging into the EXIF data as if it's some kind of lab test? Really?

I'm also an experienced photographer and know well how different aperture and shutter speed settings could affect the end result of a "test" like that, however - what's important here is that to my eyes, the images above illustrate the relative brightness that I saw. If they had not, I wouldn't have posted the images.

If you're looking for conclusive tests of relative brightness between optical systems, I'm not sure why you'd expect to find that from a member on a bird forum in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I probably would get along well with the Sightron Blue Sky. I've read enough good reviews of them to come to the conclusion that they are the real thing. I know that they have long eye relief which is important to me and I know that their FOV is not as wide as it is stated but 7.5 degrees is plenty IMO.

In fact, I bought the Pentax after I convinced myself that it was basically a clone of the Sightron and made in the same factory in the Philippines and because I wanted a good, inexpensive 9x binocular and I wasn't disappointed. I bought mine at Camera Land. I have enough good 8x32s; a Nikon 8x32 SE and a Nikon 8x32 LX L and a couple of other ones so I don't need the 8x32 Sightron.

I look at the Pentax 9x32 as a "poor man's 10x32." It has long eye relief and a FOV about the size of those found in Alpha 10x32 binoculars and a larger exit pupil than they have. Its "sweet spot" is big enough to suit me. It is very light weight and I find it easy to use; no problems with glare or blackouts.

Bob

Bob, if you like the image from the Pentax, I implore you to find a pair of Granites and give them a go. ;)

I was quite enjoying mine again on the drive in to work (not literally while driving though. LOL), stopping to view some white-tailed hawks, red-winged blackbirds and some sparrows. I can find nothing really distracting to me about these Granites. They just deliver a very nice sharp bright view in a compact package. The more I use them, the more I appreciate them.
 
Once again, I took the 9x33 Granites out for a walk and in bright light and low light they really performed. I don't know how these aren't "best buy" binoculars on a lot of reviews. So far, these are the only Chinese made bins I've chosen to keep. Every other one had an issue that caused me to sell or return it.

Bravo Celestron for a quality product at a more-than-fair price.

I wasn't really looking to "replace" my 8x32 Blue Sky's, but I think I just might have.
 
I'm happy to report the focus wheel issue has only gotten better with use. Either that, or I've just gotten used to it. In the field now, it's a non-issue.
 
Justabirdwatcher,

Thanks for the review, and the pics as well. This has been especially helpful to me, because I have the Celestron Granite 9x33's as well, and I was thinking of purchasing the Pentax, but reading your review probably has saved me the trouble.
I had the Pentax AD 9x28 WP, and I returned them because they had the same "problem" for me that you described. They were nice little binoculars, and very well built, but I felt that I was looking through the middle tube of a roll of toilet paper that was painted black, and it became too much of a distraction.
I'm new to binoculars, but I have looked at a few, and others that I've seen don't seem to have that same problem.
 
Glad you're enjoying yours. I still love mine.

I finally found (my wife finally found) my lost Sightron Blue Sky 8x32's. As much as I love those little binoculars, and I still do love them, the Celestron Granites kick their butt in image quality. Not sharpness necessarily, as the Blue Sky's are as as sharp as my eyes can resolve, but brightness and field of view are without a doubt better on the Granite 9x33's.

Honestly, I'd put my Granites up against the Monarch 7's, Vortex Vipers, or just about any $500 mid-sized binoc I've ever seen. They are that good.

My Sightrons just got demoted to living room window binoc, and my Granites are now my everyday truck bin. This will allow me to keep my Swaro SLC's locked up in my safe where they probably belong!
 
I am one of a few that didn't think the reply was rude. I have seen some rude replies here and that wasn't one! The point, yes. One thing to keep in kind when posting to this forum is that many of the people here know the fine points of optics, whether it is because of their profession or years of experience. They are sticklers for precision and can disect the function and attributes of a binocular to the smallest part/function. You will get a variety of opinions, retorts, questions, etc. if you post here!
 
Because if you're that rude over a binocular review, how rude are you when it comes to things that really matter? I can't even imagine.

The reply was terse and ill mannered for sure. But some folks don't realise how rude they can appear when nobody can hear their voice, or see their expression or body language etc. Most of the time it doesn't mean they intend rudeness.

But honestly justahunterindisguise :)-O) this is a binoculars forum. On here binocular reviews do matter. Are binocular reiviews a matter of life or death? No, they are more important than that. :eek!:

Lee
 
celestron granite 9x33

Hi!
I am half a year late with my comment on this thread, but felt anyway that I wanted to share some of my experience with the Granite 9x33 as it does not often appear in the forum.
After having sold my Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 and my Leica UV 10x25 I used the money to buy a pair of Granite 9x33 and a pair of Nikon 8x30 Eii.

The Leicas may due to their compact size not be directly comparable to the other, but I gave up on them due to the narrow FoV.
The HDs were nice in format, quality feel, and FoV, but I did not like the kind of blueish haze I felt in the views. They were very bright, but it felt artificial somehow, like it was pushed up on the expense of contrast.
I did not expect the Granites to be anywhere near the level of the HDs. But after using them for some time I felt I rather had them than the HDs. The Granite have a slightly warmer tint without giving the feeling of any wrong colors. Indeed, they give a more true white than the slightly greenish tint I had in my HDs. The 9x magnification gives a narrower FoV, but it is comparably wide for the magnification, and the "view" feels just as good as in my HDs (i.e. no tunnel). With so good binoculars as the Granites I would not have needed to buy any other. However, I am weak and gave in for my curiosity of the Nikon Eii. They are certainly a wonderful pair of binoculars once you adapt to the feeling of holding a pair of grandfather´s porros again in your hands. And one adapts swiftly. The Eii have a similar warm color as the Granite, but you notice the somewhat brighter overall view. They are noticeably better than the Granite, but not much. The Granites are remarceably good. I think both are better in both CA control and flare than my HDs. I use the Eii for good weather birding, and the Granites in case of bad weather, where I want a little more reach, or on rough fieldwork where I do not want to risk damaging the Eii. They complement eachother.
I also own a pair of Bushnell ultra HD 10x36 and the Granites are clearly better, especially the darkening of the tubes, which gives a perfect black outside the image.
The Granite 9x33 gets a good review in bestbinocularsreview.com. They write that the focus wheel is plastic, but it is of metal. Most is metal on the Granite 9x33, the body is magnesium.
In one of the first posts the initiator of the thread mentions that the focus wheel could need some tightening. If you are not afraid of affecting any eventual warranty it is possible to do this after carefully removing the cover plate on the focus wheel to expose some screws below. It is fairly easy, and the plate can be attached again without any trace.
I see there has been some hot feelings on this thread, and I hope I have not upset anyone by claiming I prefer a 300E Celestron over a 700E Zeiss. That the Nikon Eii is beating most anything sub-alfa I guess most agree upon.
 
Last edited:
I've only looked through 2 pair of later year Celestrons but the construction and materials of the lesser models is what I can't get past...some are almost toy-like looking to me... The obvious use of plastics were visible in one model I handled. I could never dismiss this to be happy with the optics.
 
I think the Granite is their flagship serie. It has quality feel. It shares all the specs with much more expensive binoculars: magnesium body, dielectric coating, etc. My granite has a nicer interior look than my HD had, better blackening of the tubes. If I would find one single thing to complain about then maybe it would be the focus wheel, which is not bad, but I have seen better on similar priced binoculars. But I have also seen worse on more expensive ones.
And I must add that the lens covers on the Granite actually stay in place! I cant say that about my Zeiss HD and many other much more expensive ones.
Yes, I agree that Celstron to me was equal to plastic (my son has a toy telescope from Celestron. Pretty good optically, but all plastic). But I had to change that view after buying the Granite 9x33. But certainly, a pair of Celestron will not impress on anyone in the birdtower...
 
I should add that as reference to the quality feel of the Granite I have my Eii and my Dialyt 7x42. I think the Granite beat also the Conquest HD in quality feel. As said the blackening of the tubes is noticeably better, and the eyecups are metal vs plastic on the HD. But the Eii and the Dialyt are in a league higher.
 
I should add that as reference to the quality feel of the Granite I have my Eii and my Dialyt 7x42. I think the Granite beat also the Conquest HD in quality feel. As said the blackening of the tubes is noticeably better, and the eyecups are metal vs plastic on the HD. But the Eii and the Dialyt are in a league higher.

Nice review 6130.What about ER? Have you tried it with glasses?
 
Hi Tom666!
First I did not know what you meant by "ER", but then I recalled it means eye relief, the distance between eye and ocular lens. I do myself not wear eyeglasses (yet) so I rarely think much about ER. In all my binoculars I use winged eyecups (usually Field Optics Research). I have attached winged eyecups also on the Nikon Eii, which has the more "old fashion" foldable rubber eyecups. They make the eyecup a little less narrow in the material and thus more comfortable against the eye socket (plus that they shield stray light, of course). On my Dialyt I have attached a pair of winged eyecups from Steiner. I just pulled them over the existing foldable ones and secured with a little vulcanizing tape (not damaging the original eyecup, I have checked). The Granites have modern twist-up eyecups of metal and rubber. They are pretty wide, which I find comfortable. The winged ones can be stretched over the eyecups and fit well into the "trench" that emerges between the rubber part of the eyecup and the binocular body when you twist them up.
I would like to add that I have also found an (to me) aesthetically attractive way of making a slight rubber armouring of my Nikon Eii to protect them from some bumps and abrasion. I noticed that the majority of the minor bumps to the binoculars, and abrasion when putting them down on a rough surface, occurred at the front end of the tubes and the angled body just behind the front lenses. I went to a plumbing shop (The plumbing department of Leroy Merlin) and bought one set of black, flat, 4mm wide, and maybe 40mm (not sure exactly) diameter o-rings, as well as a pair of more conical-shaped o-rings (made to seal tubes of different diameters, I guess). First I slid down the flat o-rings over the cm-wide front end of the lens tube. Then I secured it with stretching the conical o-ring over the end of the tube. This causes the front end of the binocular tube to be "rubberized", and also providing a slight "bumper" with the flat o-ring sticking out a little. The modification is hardly noticeable. Looks like it could have been original from factory. It does not rubber-coat the whole binocular, and does not provide any water proofing, but together with the winged eyecups in the other end the binoculars are now to great extent protected from all smaller wear and tear. It also actually makes the porro-type binocular a little easier to hold (its short lens tubes otherwise can make it a little awkward in large hands). And this without any glue or making any major change to the aesthetics of the classic look of the Eii.
Sorry for this side track, and not being able to actually answer your question!
I´d like to emphasize that the Conquest HD are pretty good. I did buy them after having tried many binoculars and read many reviews. However, much is happening in the mid-range segment, and I run into the Granites. Whatever the price, and what one may feel about the brand, I found them better. But the Nikon Eii is optically another step up. Above that are only the alphas IMO. And they are so crazy expensive for that little extra.
 
Last edited:
Er

I found the following decsription of the ER of the Granite 9x33 on bestbinocularsreviews.com

"The twist-up mechanism has one fixed stop in between fully extended and fully retracted so they don't give you as much flexibility as some which have more and the 14.1 mm (0.56 in) of eye-relief is a little on the short side and is often the small price you have to pay for such a wide field of view. So if you wear glasses and want to keep them on whilst glassing this may be a consideration, but will depend a lot on how far your glasses sit from your face.

I used my sunglasses to test the eye-relief, and I was just about able to get the full field of view, with only a slight hint of a dark halo around the edge of the view with the eye-cups fully retracted. So for me and my "glasses" the 14.1 mm of eye-relief is just on the cusp of being enough."
 
Thank you for your review. Very often when considering a new bino purchase the Granites seem to find their way onto my shortlist but I have never purchased them. Your review makes me more likely to do so!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top