7x42 roofs < $1k, 6x-7x bins for kids, IPD (1 Viewer)

My boy is turning 7 next month... I decided to use my tax refund to equip him and my daughter (9) and me (long overdue) with some new binoculars. I really want them to love the experience and get into birding, so I researched quite a bit. And I decided I would go ahead and spend some extra money on better quality if I could find something great for them. Hopefully they'll enjoy them for a long, long time. Here's what I found.

For me, I definitely wanted some 7x42 roofs, so you'll see pretty much everything I could find under $1k in the list below. I put the Zeiss FL's in there just for reference (nice to dream...).

For the kids, my top priorities were light weight, field of view (FOV), brightness, and close focusing. I also decided to keep it 7x and below for ease of use. My boy also has an IPD (distance between his pupils) of about 52mm, so that was an issue too. He says he can see fine through my old Nikon Venturer II 8x23's, which have a min IPD of about 55mm, so I was hopeful other 55mm IPD bins might work for him as well (plus he'll grow...).

Compacts: I know my boy would love the Pentax Papilio 6x21 which focuses down to 1.6 feet (!!!!), but I fear he'd be so enthralled with the bugs that I'd never get him to look up in the trees! The Bushnell Elite Custom Compact 7x26 also gets great reviews, but I wanted to find something with a much wider and brighter view, so I ended up ruling out the compacts.

Porros: The Leupold Yosemite 6x30 was almost the hands-down-no-competition winner, but the close focus only goes to 16.4 feet... I remember when I was a kid, close focus was a big part of the fun with binoculars. I know there are a ton of other excellent porros out there with good close focus, but I like the roofs (heh heh heh ), so there you go.

My search started from Birdwatching.com's excellent mid-priced roundup from Nov '07 http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2007roundup/binoculars_midpriced.html but they didn't have many listed for 7x or 6x, so I started adding in data to my own table as I found it.

Click the chart to see a larger version:


I really had a hard time finding IPD info, and in fact I couldn't in many cases. I wish this was part of the standard list of specs.:C The data I did find was the main reason I wanted to post this summary here for you all.

For me, I ended up ordering a pair of brand new Bushnell 7x42's for $221 (free shipping). Not bad at all! These went out of production some time ago, but they're fully multi-coated, BaK4 prisms w/ PC-3 phase-correction coating, waterproof & nitroget purged. And I've read good feedback on them, so it looks like a great deal to me. Still a few left out there it seems, and I wanted to save some money for the kid's bins... The Meade Montana is rumored to be the same design as this older Bushnell, but I don't know details on the coatings, etc.

For my 9 year old girl I'm getting the Leupold Katmai 6x32's in natural finish. (She has a wider IPD). Wow, I'm jealous. I know she is going to love these. Maybe she'll let me borrow them some time...

And for the birthday boy... I really, REALLY wanted to get him the Vortex Fury 6.5x32's, but I was still concerned about the 55mm IPD, and with the weight... but I ordered 'em anyway! along with a backup - Yosemite 6x30's! And now that I've done it, I've really come around to liking the idea of having the Yosemite's as a spare in case they want to bring a friend out. Can't beat it for $90. I don't want to jinx it, but maybe I'll even get my wife to come out to the woods with us now and then.

So if the Fury's don't fit him, my boy can use the Yosemite's and I'll just hang on to those Fury's for him until he gets a little bigger...

They should all arrive next week some time. Snow's melting and I'll be taking my kids out soon... I'm so excited, I can hardly wait !!!

- Dave

Dave,

I would like to hear all about your experiences with the various bins you purchased when the time comes.

I had the Meade Montanas for a time. For the price they offer very respectable performance. My only two "knocks" on them are their weight (30 oz or so IIRC) and the excessive distortion around the outside of the image. Brightness, sharpness and overall build quality were very good though.

dave_in_michigan said:

....- Dave

Click to expand...

Let us know about the preferences once they are all in use. I would not be surprised if you'd all start fighting for those Yosemites!

You may very well be right on the Yosemites! I'm reading great things about them. They are also the lightest, which can be especially important for young kids.

I'll post feedback after they arrive, and possibly again later after a couple times out with the kids. I don't have any experience with high-end optics, but I can at least compare the three relative to each other and give my impressions. I'm very curious to see how they perform side by side.

- Dave

Dave,

Re: Yosemites

If you can give up the close focus of the Yosemite's then I think you will be supremely happy with them

The 6x30 will be brighter and have a wider field of view than the 8x30.

I'm extremely happy with my 6x30's

I agree with you ScoutMan about the Yosemite 6x30. It's a great binocular with a high class coating and a sharpness on-axis rivalling the high-end roof models. I don't even consider to loose the Yosemite despite I recently purchased the Swarovski SLCnew 7x42.

Regards, Patric

Don't know if my 6 x 30 Yosemite is an anomaly but I get a close focus of about 10 feet with it. Outstanding little binocular BTW! I loaned it to my brother and can't get it back now.
Bob

I'm with Ceasar. My Yosemite 6x30 will also close focus to 10 feet. There is really no practical need to focus closer than that.

Steve

10 feet close focus on the Yosemite 6x30s is a huge difference from the published 16.4! Especially with 6x, the best views they will ever get of birds is going to be in that 10-16foot range! (Feeder out the window and chickadees to start, and others as their skills improve.)

I agree under 10 is not really needed for birding, but I still predict fun-factor points for closer focus... we'll see.

I'll measure my Yosemites when they arrive and post.

I certainly agree that 10vs 16+ ft is a difference. My experience with kids is to get them a binocular they can use as a first priority. Since they do not need high x #'s a 6x is good, so is a 5mm exit pupil. Give them one they can use by themselves and with good effect and they will quickly grasp that a good binocular is a pretty neat tool. As they get used to binoculars they will develop their own particular preferences. I think close focus is waaaayyyyy over emphasized. Start getting much closer than 8-10 feet and the barrels of the glass each start to give a seperate view and it gets to be a pain. You are essentially using a dominant eye monocular. That is a distraction we don't need to have kids contending with from the start. The Katmi may well me as good for kids as the Yosemite. All I can say is I would have given much to have the Yosemite as a ten year old.

Steve

I agree that the Bushnell is on the heavy side (I have the RSPB version) but it has a big bright view. In this it's very like the Yosemite. Comparing the two, I was inclining, just, to give the RSPB first place for sharpness, but that may only have been because of the bigger image. Both are noticeably inferior to my Opticron HR WP 8x42. This is the same as the porro Leupold Cascades. Looking out of the window at the label on a recently planted tree, I could almost make out the label price through the RSPB and Yosemite. But through the Opticron I could read the price quite clearly (How much!?). The Opticron doesn't have the combination of wide FOV and wide eyepiece diameter that make for a relaxed and easy view, of course, but it's the one I mostly use. Clarity trumps everything else.

Michael

Well I just received the Bushnells today and all I can say is that these are head and shoulders above anything I've owned until now. I wish I had done this a long long time ago.

We're spending a long weekend near some of my favorite woods and I'll be giving them a spin. Unfortunately the Yosemites and Katmais won't be here until next week.

Steve, thanks for the tips on pitfalls of close focus. I didn't know this.

Steve C said:

All I can say is I would have given much to have the Yosemite as a ten year old.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I remember carrying around cheapos that were essentially unusable as a kid first starting out. My parents realized pretty quickly and upgraded me to Jason Clippers 7x35's (with 578 ft FOV). I loved them and put many many hours in the field with them all through high school. Just pulled them out of an old box today...

If the Yosemites and the rest are in the same league as these Bushnell's, then I am absolutely thrilled for my kids. Maybe I'm going overboard with the Furys and Katmais (and maybe I'll exchange them), but if they really are worth the extra cost, I'll have been glad to do it.

OK, I've had them all for a few days now. Here's my long-winded run-down.

Design Quality, Robustness (subjective feeling)
The Yosemite clearly falls behind the others here. No fault with them at all, but the other 3 are all in another category -- much better built (and heavier). Pick up each of them, and there's no question that the Yosemite is cheaper. Still nice though, and perfect for their intended purpose. The other 3 are all very nice, well made binoculars.

In photos, the Discoverer looks plastic-y (shiny), but they are fully armored in a strong, semi-hard rubber. Much better than I expected. This particular Katmai is the "natural" color version, which actually has a bit of greenish tone to it. A little surprising, since the advertising photos look very neutral/sandy colored. They have a cool feeling to the touch, almost like metal, but is indeed a hard rubber coating. The Fury has a green, matte-textured coating. Also very nice, and I'm guessing a good grip in wet conditions.

Package Quality (straps, case, box...)
The Discoverer wins this category for me, and was the only reason I bring this up. Very classy setup in all regards (well, except for the case strap). The case is soft but very sturdy zippered leather pouch, nice padded strap for the binoculars, and a very nice box. This is a presentation-worthy, sturdy box here, where the others all come in thin, cheap, fold-open boxes. Really not a big deal, but if you're giving them as a gift, the Discoverer package does makes an impression. I was pleasantly surprised, and made all the more happy with this purchase.

Inside the box, Katmai also presents very classy package. The case is actually a soft neoprene(?) fold-over velcro affair, with a belt loop. There is no strap on the case -- you would use the binocular straps if you wanted to carry it that way. Reminds me very much of Orvis fly-reel covers, if you've seen those. My guess is that they are targeting directly at the Orvis-type customers with this. This binocular is the perfect fit for that group. High class all the way.

Fury has a more modern-looking, no-nonsense functional synthetic case. Looks sturdy and useful, and has a handy zippered net pouch inside.

Yosemite has a flimsy, thin, barely padded vinyl looking case. I imagine this will be cracked and ripped after a year or two, if it does actually get used. Oh well. It'll more than likely just be a place to store the objective caps anyway.

Flaring
For this I used a small incandescent flashlight with the top removed (candle mode) in a mostly-dark room. First I focused directly on the light from ~15 feet away to look for stars and ghosts with the light in view. Then I stood up close to the light and tried to look past it into dark areas, scanning back and forth past the light, both above and below and all around, looking for off-center flaring.

The Katmai and Fury seemed very similar to my eyes, and were definitely the best performers here. A very thin star 'X' was visible with both of these while looking directly at the light. Noticeable if you look for it, but pretty insignificant I'd say. No direct ghosting that I saw. Up close and off-center, I saw some flaring with the light about 20 degrees up and down from the light. Similar overall performance for both of these two.

Both the Discoverer and Yosemite had no visible star or ghosting in direct light. The Discoverer has more noticeable flaring than the Katmai or Fury, with the light shining in the lens, yet out of direct view.

The Yosemite fared worst in my opinion, with brighter flaring and in more / wider positions. Some areas also showed some fog-like flaring, which I find more insidious. I think you're more likely to notice direct flaring, and shield your view when you see it. That fog-type flare is just going to look like a slightly muddier view if you encounter it in the field, and you might not think to shield the light. Also found a couple tiny rainbows up in the corner with the Yosemite in very narrow specific positions.

Close Focus
Yes, Yosemite focuses down to about 10.5 feet! Leupold should really fix their documentation, since the "16.4 feet" in their literature was the only thing that kept me looking at other options for my kids... I measured the others as follows: Discoverer: 8.5', Katmai: 5', Fury: 3'(!). I did notice the separated-barrel effect that Steve C warned about. Down to 5' on both the Katmai and Fury it didn't seem to bother me too much, but focusing from 5' down to 3' on the Fury it gets pretty uncomfortable. 10 feet is just fine for me.

Eyecups
The Bushnell Discoverer have easily the best sturdy, quality feeling eyecups of this group, but operate poorest for me. (Ha ha!) As it happens, the Discoverer also have the most eye relief, and full down is too low for me with glasses on. They are well greased and have very smooth operation, but will not stay in place at any intermediate setting. As a quick solution, I placed some blue rubber bands around the outside of the cups as spacers and they function just fine now. No biggie.

Best function goes to the Katmai. They have an actual 'dip' in the screw-up ramp, so you must lift the cup to continue turning it off the mid position. Very effective. I'd like to see them add a few more intermediate landing positions though. There certainly is room for them, and I doubt it would add any cost.

The Fury utilizes some kind of detent (hard to tell exactly) at the mid position, which seem to work, but I haven't spent any time in the field with them to see if they really stay in place. I have my doubts.

Yosemite definitely feel flimsiest, with a dry, slight rattle-y feel. But they seem to work just fine. They do not have any mid-position detent, but they seem to hold their position pretty well, probably due to the dry friction. I suspect it could be bumped off pretty easily in the field though.

Plenty of eye relief in all of these for eyeglass wearers. A bit too much on the Discoverer for me, but that is easily remedied. (Better that than too little).

Ease of Focus
I like the Furies best. Smooth, easy motion, and they always seem to snap right into focus. Done. The other three were all struck me as quite similar; smooth action, a bit stiffer, and I always felt I needed to move back and forth once or twice to be confident I was right on. I'm not sure if it was because of the focus action, or because the Fury was ever-so-slightly more sharp. I think it may be the latter.

Sharpness, edge to edge
As I just mentioned, I think the Fury might be ever-so-slightly sharper on center than the rest. Others all very good though, and they are really all on par with each other. I must say it took a long time A-B comparing to draw any conclusion at all. In all fairness, I'll have to call this a 4-way tie on center sharpness -- which is really saying something for the Yosemite at 1/3 the price of the more expensive models! Edge to edge is where they start to separate. To my eye, the Katmai and Fury are about equal with only a small edge around the perimeter turning fuzzy. Big sweet spot on both of these (though I still give the Fury a wink on the sweetness of that center). The Yosemite is no slacker, but not as good as the leaders, with some loss of clarity a bit further in. The Bushnell Discoverer comes in last in this category, but for me personally, not a big deal. Plenty of clear center here for me. (I'm used to much worse).

Summary
Well, to each their own here. The Yosemite is truly remarkable at the $89 price point (shocking, really), and a hands-down winner for my kids. Even though the Katmai is a smaller overall package, the Yosemite is a better fit for small hands. Great, great binoculars. I expect Leupold will sell boatloads of these.

The Katmai wasn't my favorite, but I'm sure they will be for many. I haven't really mentioned it up to now, but these are small! The 32mm size keeps them from being labeled true 'compacts' I suppose, but they are much shorter than most 32's you'll ever handle. A fantastic performer if small size is a priority for you.

The Fury is probably my pick as the best of this bunch. Nice size, down-to-business feel about them, and probably the best view of the lot (by just a touch).

The Bushnell Discoverer? Not much to say here, since they're discontinued, but I'm happy-happy-happy to have picked them up at this price. I like 7x42's & these will work just fine for me.

One thing all 4 of these have in common is big, bright, wide, comfortable views. Just how I like it.

- Dave

Dave,

Good summary. Thanks. I spend some time on another optics forum and will have a Fury 6.5x32 for review purposes from that sponsoring dealer in my hand probably by the first of nest week. Some chance I might see them tomorrow. I have a Yosemite 6x30 and another binocular I'm really looking forward to compare the Fury to. That is Swift's 7x36 Eaglet. I'll post that review someplace in this forum when I'm done. Frank D also posted some 6.5 Fury info from the same place here too. FWIW I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Yosemite.

Steve

I had the same experience with the HG's eye relief, as you can see.

I've seen a few comments that the Yosemite's CF is less than advertised, but not in my case. Mine is exactly the 16.4' I was expecting. When there's a range of CF, I think the producer is wise to publish a figure at the far end of the range. That way nobody feels cheated and some lucky people get a freebie.

Michael

MacGee said:

I had the same experience with the HG's eye relief, as you can see.

I've seen a few comments that the Yosemite's CF is less than advertised, but not in my case. Mine is exactly the 16.4' I was expecting. When there's a range of CF, I think the producer is wise to publish a figure at the far end of the range. That way nobody feels cheated and some lucky people get a freebie.

Michael

Click to expand...

Makes sense, but it doesn't seem likely to me that there would be that much variation. Also since some others measured very similar to mine makes me wonder about how big the distribution curve could be... I'm wondering if perhaps they've made a running change in the design, but kept the documentation the same so as not to cause confusion with binoculars already on the shelves. If everyone reports either 10-11 feet or 16-17 with nothing inbetween, that would tell the story.

Good idea on the O-rings! Thanks for the tip! Looks much neater than my rubber bands, though I didn't mind the blue color...

Steve C said:

Dave,

Good summary. Thanks. I spend some time on another optics forum and will have a Fury 6.5x32 for review purposes from that sponsoring dealer in my hand probably by the first of nest week. Some chance I might see them tomorrow. I have a Yosemite 6x30 and another binocular I'm really looking forward to compare the Fury to. That is Swift's 7x36 Eaglet. I'll post that review someplace in this forum when I'm done. Frank D also posted some 6.5 Fury info from the same place here too. FWIW I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Yosemite.

Steve

Click to expand...

Thanks, Steve.

I had seen FrankD's already when I was shopping. Very helpful. The Swift Eaglet also looked very interesting to me. We have some early Swift Audubon's that have been great through the years, and I have a soft spot for the brand. I look forward to hearing your comparisons.

Dave

Correction: sorry, but I misquoted the price I paid for the Bushnell Discoverer 7x42 in my write-up. It should be $221, not $121. (I can't edit the post for some reason...). FYI, all those prices include shipping costs.

Lol! Sorry 'bout that Marcus!

But hey, I think even $221 is a pretty good deal myself. There's no hype about 'em 'cuz they're on their way out, but they aren't too shabby. (Original MSRP was something like $520...).

Dave