Minolta 7x35 Standard MK - thoughts (1 Viewer)

I was looking for a wide field binocular a couple months ago and this came up:

7x35
11 degree field of view
Multi-coated

Minolta have a decent reputation for their camera lenses so I picked it up to see what it would be like in the flesh. Some observations after using it several times:

The view:

- My main reason for this purchase was the very wide stated field of view. I found this binocular can in fact be used with glasses, but (as expected) doing so cuts down the field of view quite considerably. I mainly used them without (as I do with my 8x30 Oberkochen and most other porros), rubber eyecups folded down to let my eyes as close to the oculars as possible. Unfortunately for me, this binocular when used without glasses would not focus past infinity enough to get the left barrel as sharp as I would like at the distances I was observing over (240 to about 700m), although the right barrel could be got sharp with the diopter adjustment. NB. I have had the same issue with two Opticron porros (HRWP and SRGA) and much to my regret, the Nikon EII.

- At the closer of my observing distances (240m) the image was just sharp enough to observe but at this distance appeared to suffer from noticeable distortion, enough that I'd often feel I was struggling against the optics. I have to note, though, that this seemed to be an issue only at the extreme end of focus as I tried it at shorter distances of between 3 (indoors) and about 40-50m and did not experience the same difficulty. At those distances the image could be got nice and sharp and the sweet spot seemed larger/edge sharpness seemed better than it did at distance. Brightness was noticeably superior to the single-coated 8x30 Oberkochen and (from memory) a little superior to the multi-coated 8x30W Jenoptem I used to own. The Oberkochen I felt offered more contrast.

- Field of view itself was certainly pretty wide and along with the 5mm exit pupil made it very easy to capture the flocks of pigeons I wanted to see. Recently, however, I was able to test it alongside a 7x42BGAT*P Dialyt and, putting both binoculars on landmarks, found the Minolta's actual field of view to be pretty much the same as the Dialyt's. I haven't tried to measure apparent or true field of view more exactly but strongly suspect the stated field of view is shall we say optimistic. That, of course, is by no means unknown and a field of view of some 150m or so at 1000m is still pretty respectable... but not what I was looking for. If the field of view had been as stated I'd have kept it and sent it for adjustment (sacrificing close focus for more focus past infinity) but that not being the case was the major reason for my moving it on last week.


Handling:

- I found the Minolta a pleasant enough binocular to use, with my hands taking readily to the rounded edges and thumbs resting quite naturally under the bridge bars. It's not a small binocular, but not really large either and if it really could offer an 11 degree field of view it would have achieved it in a compact package compared to things like the wide angle Swifts. Weight (measured on my kitchen scale) was 880g.

- Focus wheel position was fine, the focuser itself having a bit of resistance to it but I prefer focus resistance to be on the stiff side. No problems here.

- The overall impression of build quality was positive - not massively refined, but solid. Diopter tension could be stiffer. The rubber armouring looks and feels fit for purpose, although I don't think I would risk it in any precipitation heavier than a light drizzle.


All in all I found this to be a decent binocular - not outstanding, but better than "chum for a plastic-chewing shark" (to quote WJC). Field of view is wide, although not as wide as stated, and image quality at distances below about 200m or so is again not outstanding but perfectly adequate. It feels quite solidly built and for those not as myopic as me, should give a combination of decent view and solid build at a very reasonable price.

I have a 8x40 example.....also one of Minoltas auto focus models.....both from back when trying 2 figure out what other bins were decent, besides the $$$ big brands, was kind of word of mouth or a shot in the dark.....these are OK bins from back in the 80s but nothing to write home about.....

I have been using a pair of Bausch & Lomb 7x42 for the last 15 yrs or so.fov 140mtrs at 1000mtrs. not too bothered about fov . bought them at the british bird fair for their outstanding clarity. I have always used 8x bins but these 7s give me a very good depth of field and as I do much of my birding in woodland I feel this is where they score. if I,m sea watching I use my Swarovski 65 ed scope.

Patudo

1. Sticking to independently measured fields of view, per Binastro (18 November 2016):

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=335238

The Minolta 7x35 Standard MK has a measured field of 11.05 deg.

The 8x40 Minolta Standard MK. Marked 9.5 degrees, measured field 9.4 degrees, but I think that it may be actually 8.1x40.

Click to expand...

An earlier poster on Cloudy Nights measured the field of view of the Minolta 8x40 as 9.05 degrees*.

I own both binoculars. I supplement your review.

I add a brief note in passing upon the the Minolta 8x40.

2. Horses for courses!

3. I use the Minolta 7x35 Standard MK for laying on and tracking, or scanning for, little birds in trees in leaf. I don't wear spectacles. I fold back the eyecups (like you do). The bridge of my nose is narrow, and Inter Pupillary Distance, approximately measured, 64mm (per a table in Wikipedia, the male mean for the sample considered). I get the full field of view.

I bought earlier in the year, but have not yet managed to do much birdwatching in the field. Instead I keep frequent watch on a large Cherry tree some 15-25 yds/m away from my bedroom window.

Recently excited flocks of little birds have started coming through the tree and through the bushes in the garden where I have located my feeders.

The 11 degree field of view (coupled with the good depth of field associated with 7x magnification and a 'bright' 5mm exit pupil) was very useful when trying to lay on and identify as many as possible of the separate species of bird making up a flock (recently Blue tits, Great tit, Coal tit, Long-tailed tits, and Chiffchaff/Willow Warbler).

I did though manage one long birdwatching walk with the Minolta in pure, mostly deciduous, woodland earlier this year. The light was good. The trees were in leaf. They ranged in height from low bushy trees to tall canopy trees. The birds of interest were small to medium sized woodland birds.

The 11 degree field of view plus good depth of field came into its own. I had no points of objection to the binocular optically or ergonomically. I felt I could not have selected a more useful binocular to take out with me.

Other people might object to the bulk of the binocular, or the small 'blacks' that sometimes flash briefly into view when scanning carelessly or rapidly. I suspect that such points of objection are the price of using a binocular of 'extreme' design and performance. I was however personally little troubled by them.

On the other hand the geometry of the binocular is 'tight'. For my parameters, namely width of bridge of nose, and Inter Pupillary Distance, even with the eyecups rolled down, and my eyes close to the surface of the ocular lenses, I was only just able to achieve the full 11 degree field of view.

The weight of the binocular is approximately 28oz (794g).

Definitely not a binocular for everybody!

4. I have found comparatively little use for the Minolta 8x40 Standard MK.

The near focus distance is not sufficiently close for my garden view.

Christophe17 modded his Minolta 8x40 to focus more closely:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=298923

Given the success in my hands of the Minolta 7x35, I have not attempted the mod.


Stephen


* https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/492651-a-bunch-of-tfovs-measured-part-2/

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your observations! I should have tried to measure field of view more accurately and am sure Binastro did, but when lining up the field stops against landmarks I found could not see much, if any, more with the Minolta than with the 7x42B Dialyt (the latter used with glasses, at that). Possibly the IPD that best suited me did not allow me to see its full field of view. It's been commented upon that large prisms and consequently large binocular housings were required to obtain the really wide fields in the 10-11 degree class (and the Minolta is indeed significantly smaller/lighter than things such as the Bushnell Rangemaster), and it's not unknown for binoculars' field of view to be less than stated, so that was my assumption. In any case the binoculars' inability (really a fault of mine rather than theirs) to focus past infinity to accommodate my left eye was the ultimate deal breaker, if you'll pardon the Americanism. If I'd found their field of view visibly wider than the Dialyt's I'd have considered sending them in to get the focus mechanism adjusted (my needs are the exact opposite to Christophe's) as an 11 degree field of view in a modestly sized package would have been nice to have, but I didn't. I'm glad you do, though, and when I was using this binocular its performance did seem best at treetop or across-the-garden distance. Possibly these were the typical birdwatching distances that it was optimized to be best at.

Veering slightly off-topic: shortly afterwards, I acquired a Swift Holiday Mark II (stated field of view also 11 degrees) - an older, single-coated binocular, significantly larger/bulkier and heavier than the Minolta. The first thing I did on taking it out of the package was to put it against the same features I had been using and I found that to my eyes at least, it did have a wider field of view. I'm still familiarizing myself with it and will put up some more in-depth notes when I get the chance.

Best regards
patudo

The field was measured accurately at 11.05 degrees using star separations.
I am long sighted and don't wear glasses.
For closer distances the field may be less.
And different people with different sight and different facial features may see different size fields.

I find the Minolta Standard MK 7x35 to be comfortable to use.

The Bresser Super Wide 7x32 has a field in excess of 13 degrees but has horrible images for me with little accommodation.
A young person might find them to be O.K.

Patudo

I probably have the advantage over you. Earlier this year I entered into the controversy whether the Chinese Komz 6x24 lookalike (Comet AX19 6x24 CF) had a comparable field of view to the 11.5 degree FOV of the original. I learned how difficult it was to compare the fields of binoculars in the claimed 8.25 (Opticron 8x32 SR.GA) to measured 9 or 9.4 (Minolta MK Standard 8x40) or greater degree range. So I gratefully looked up Binastro's actual measurements of the FOV of the two Minoltas before sticking my neck out in what was otherwise meant to be essentially an ergonomics centred contribution by another user to supplement your welcome review.

Indeed I have just now tried a comparison of the Comet AX 19 6x24 CF and a Bedel 6x24 IF (also Chinese) with the Minolta MK Standard 7x35 on a roof line some 50yd (46m) away from my house, and cannot distinguish between their fields of view. The problem may be that at about 9 degree FOV the field stops are located on the boundary between central and para-central vision, or some such informed explanation -- Optics though is not my field!

My impression is that horse racing may have been Minolta's target market for the extra wide angle binoculars of the MK Standard series. That would explain the distant close focus distance of the 8x40. It was meant to compete with the Swift Saratoga.

I look forward with interest to impressions of the Swift Holiday Mark II.

Apropos my local flock, it looks like the Chiffchaff has 'come to stay' a while. Binoculars have nothing on the difficulty of trying to hold a bridge camera in position upon a foraging leaf warbler for long enough for it to find focus! It took maybe an hour yesterday to bag a satisfactory i/d shot of the bird.


Stephen