• 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.

Is the premium ~200 g binocular dying? (8x20) (1 Viewer)

I also prefer the 10x25.
The Docter 10x25 is excellent for me. Simple and the hinges stay put after thousands of uses.
Short eye relief, perfect for me.
Easy eye placement although one eye sometimes slightly off centre but no real difference.

I also have some Nikon 10x25s which are fine.

But 10x25s with loose hinges and massive eye relief are useless to me.

I like 8x21 and 8x22 less.
The Zeiss 6x20 is fine.
 
Declining demand is likely driving the decision to drop 8x20 bins. I find there is just too much fiddling to get them aligned with both eyes.
 
But why would demand be declining just as technology has finally achieved approximately full transmission and sufficient eye relief despite short focal length objectives? That’s a puzzler!

At first glance, you’d expect the format to be more useable today than ever.
 
The benefits of an improved optical design are forgotten when one misses a bird or other critter because it took too long to align both tiny barrels of an 8x20 roof. Too fiddly to be useful.
 
Why do you prefer the 10x25 to the 8x20? Just curious.

Actually, I started birding in the early 90's using this 10x25 SLC, primarily for shore birding. Unlike the 8x20 SLC, the barrels are long enough to grab, which allows enough stability to match the image quality of a vibrating 8x20 (in daylight). This particular pair has gone around the world with me several times. But, as mentioned earlier, the eye relief is insufficient. Now that I use eyeglasses the Leica 8x20 BR is sufficiently stable when placed against my glasses. No pocket binocular, of course, can match a full sized instrument, but it beats the hell out of one that's not available. And that's no BS.
:king:
Ed
 

Attachments

  • Swaro 10x25 SLC old.jpg
    Swaro 10x25 SLC old.jpg
    478.5 KB · Views: 115
The benefits of an improved optical design are forgotten when one misses a bird or other critter because it took too long to align both tiny barrels of an 8x20 roof. Too fiddly to be useful.

Whether for birding, sightseeing, sporting events, bulls-eye spotting, or concerts I set them up once and hang them around my neck on a short tether. Of course, if they flop around on their hinges they would need repair, but they don't have to be fiddly.

Ed
 
...they don't have to be fiddly.

Agreed. With very firm hinges, smooth focuser, and two hands, there's nothing fiddly about the Leica 8x20 Ultravid when used the way I do (see image below). Seriously, these 8x20 are so comfortable and so good optically, I'm not sure what they can't do. I've taken a few trips to the Colorado Rockies and deserts of New Mexico where I selected them as my only bins for butterflying and birding, and they always delivered. I like their handling and optics better than the B&L/Bushnell 7x26 Custom despite its much larger exit pupil.

I think the biggest problem of pocket roofs for most users who don't wear glasses is that their eyecups are too small in diameter. The little cups push against the eyeball, causing eye misalignment, distorting vision, making the bins uncomfortable, and making them hard to hold steady since they aren't firmly anchored to one's face. But if the market for premium pocket roofs is small, the market for accessory fat eyecups has got to be too small.

--AP
 

Attachments

  • 4_two hands.jpg
    4_two hands.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 133
Well, never having used them before without my glasses I just gave it a try. Sure enough, the darn things hurt my eyeballs and then wobbled around for lack of something to hang onto. With my glasses on they are the little champs that I've come to love. As I've mentioned on several threads before, eyeglasses can be an excellent interface for binoculars, even full sized ones.

:t::t:
Ed
 
Fazalmajid,
Have you handled the Ultravid 10x25 and if so would you call it "pocketable"? I ask because I have found that it can be managed (though just) in a pocket of regular (not outdoor) pants and would like to know how the new Zeiss, which is the same in length, compares with it in that respect. (Actually I have committed myself to this Zeiss but it will be 1 1/2 months from now when I receive it and am impatient to know this!) Thanks.

I haven't handled the 10x25 Ultravid but I would still guess it's pocketable, Leicas tend to be more compact than other alphas in their class. I prefer some heft and inertia in my 10x binoculars (Leica Ultravid 10x50 BR and Canon 10x42L IS).

The Zeiss is significantly thicker than the Leica, in part due to the single hinge, but also due to the thicker barrels, and that's what impairs its pocketability.

You’re right: it’s too expensive for something that looks like it was designed in a factory. I am sure the optics and mechanics are great at that price, but you’d never guess from looking at the generic industrial design. This is what Leica got so right with the entire Ultravid range.

More importantly to me, the Kowa is 315 g and bulky with it.

I often kept my Trinovid 8x20 BCA in the front pocket of a Billingham Hadley day bag. There were times it felt too big and heavy to be worth taking. Nowadays I’d like a compact binocular to carry in a jersey pocket while riding a bicycle. Something the size of the Kowa would be unworkable. Maybe I should be looking at monoculars instead.

I alternate between the 8x20 Ultravid and the Monovid as my everyday-carry optics (in my jacket right breast pocket). The Nikon 7x15 High Grade monocular is another great option. The Zeiss 8x25 are destined to live in a bag.
 
I haven't handled the 10x25 Ultravid but I would still guess it's pocketable, Leicas tend to be more compact than other alphas in their class. I prefer some heft and inertia in my 10x binoculars (Leica Ultravid 10x50 BR and Canon 10x42L IS)....

I failed to mention that the 10x25 BR has a somewhat shorter eye-relief than the 8x20, which made it unsuitable for me (I tested them with eyeglasses). Otherwise, I would have gone for one.

Ed
 
I haven't handled the 10x25 Ultravid but I would still guess it's pocketable, Leicas tend to be more compact than other alphas in their class. I prefer some heft and inertia in my 10x binoculars (Leica Ultravid 10x50 BR and Canon 10x42L IS).

The Zeiss is significantly thicker than the Leica, in part due to the single hinge, but also due to the thicker barrels, and that's what impairs its pocketability.

I now find that I asked nearly the same question in the "Zeiss Victory pockets" thread and you kindly responded, and then forgot that it was you there. Maybe I am looking for reassurance and getting a bit desperate!

The two reasons you give do explain why the new Zeiss (which, BTW, has the same size body in 8x25 or 10x25) is bulkier than the Ultravid 10x25. In the Uv. 10x25 compared with the Uv. 8x20 the barrels become noticeably wider only at the objective end.
 
Last edited:
I think the biggest problem of pocket roofs for most users who don't wear glasses is that their eyecups are too small in diameter. The little cups push against the eyeball, causing eye misalignment, distorting vision, making the bins uncomfortable, and making them hard to hold steady since they aren't firmly anchored to one's face. But if the market for premium pocket roofs is small, the market for accessory fat eyecups has got to be too small.

--AP

I agree. I think it would be better for users who don't wear glasses to use compacts wiht the eye-cups fully collapsed.

If you hold the bins like Alexis showed in his photograph, although:
> a bit looser (tips of thumb resting on the underside of the binoculars instead of the knuckles);
> and the bins more away from your face so you can rest your forefingers between your brow and the bins,
then you can finely and intuitively regulate the position of your pupils to the exit pupils by pressing the bins more into your forefingers and brow or by relaxing them a bit and bringing them a bit further from your face, all the time supporting the bins via your forefingers to your brow.

This grip allows you to focus with your middlefinger (on top) and the tip of your thumb (from below). I find this very natural and comfortable enough.


George
 
Last edited:
. Now that I use eyeglasses the Leica 8x20 BR is sufficiently stable when placed against my glasses.
:king:
Ed

Ed, Are you able to see the entire field with your eyeglasses on? The stated ER on the 8x20 is only 15mm. Oddly enough, the B&H website shows the same ER for the 10 x25, as does the Leica Sport Optics site.
 
Last edited:
Ed, Are you able to see the entire field with your eyeglasses on? The stated ER on the 8x20 is only 15mm. Oddly enough, the B&H website shows the same ER for the 10 x25, as does the Leica Sport Optics site.

Hi,

Yes. Here are Leica's specs for the two pocket models when I purchased the 8x20 BR a few years ago. The 1.3mm difference in 'exit pupil longitudinal distance' made all the difference.

Note that even 15mm would be rather short for me, but, in use, I push the eyecups back against my glasses to prevent sliding and vibration. This effectively gains another 1-2mm in ER.

I'm not sure what to say about the Leica Sport Optics site, but it wouldn't be the first time that a rounding error was introduced for sales purposes, from which an inaccuracy was propagated among the retailers.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Leica BR specs.jpg
    Leica BR specs.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 83
Last edited:
...Are you able to see the entire field with your eyeglasses on? The stated ER on the 8x20 is only 15mm...

Keep in mind that when eyecup diameter is small, less eye relief is generally needed because the eyecup fits flat against the glasses, bringing the ocular very close to eye. With full-sized bins, the large eyecup usually contacts the glasses at the top, such that the lower part of the eyecup and ocular are held farther from the eye.

--AP
 
Keep in mind that when eyecup diameter is small, less eye relief is generally needed because the eyecup fits flat against the glasses, bringing the ocular very close to eye. With full-sized bins, the large eyecup usually contacts the glasses at the top, such that the lower part of the eyecup and ocular are held farther from the eye.

--AP

... in addition, less ER is needed for those who are myopic than those who are hyperopic. The former experience a smaller image size and larger field of view than the latter. So, all other factors being equal, a myope has an advantage.
Just sayin'.

Ed
 
3.5 years later. Just ordered my first 8x20. Ultravid, that is.:cool:
They're great little bins. Grab mine whenever I go for a walk or if out for the day. Went away the other night to Llandudno and was watching the seals coming into the shores. They are just grab and go and easily fit in my jeans pocket with no issues.

Luckily I also have zero problems looking through them, I get a perfect image straight away.

1VabugM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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