-
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.
Roof or Porro - Which view do you prefer. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bh46118
- Start date
14Goudvink
Well-known member
I find close range viewing through the HR WP 8x42 more relaxing if I move the bins a little bit away from my eyes. I get the impression they provide more eye relief when focused at close range.
Bramberg
Active member
Porro, no doubt!
The view is more to my liking. The porros "3D effect" or "the depth of field separation effect" is something I just love and I think porro's are easier to hold still. I got my new Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W last week and have been using it for many hours while hunting since then. I'm surprised that not more people buy this gem instead of all the other binoculars in the same pricerange (or above for that matter). It has got the view of the best, great grip, it is waterproofed, it is available and made by a company who offers fantastic customer service. It just oozes quality and the view is up there amongst the best but the price is mid range. Can't believe I fooled around for so long before I got this. Only one con, if you have to wear glasses then this is not the greatest choice.
The view is more to my liking. The porros "3D effect" or "the depth of field separation effect" is something I just love and I think porro's are easier to hold still. I got my new Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W last week and have been using it for many hours while hunting since then. I'm surprised that not more people buy this gem instead of all the other binoculars in the same pricerange (or above for that matter). It has got the view of the best, great grip, it is waterproofed, it is available and made by a company who offers fantastic customer service. It just oozes quality and the view is up there amongst the best but the price is mid range. Can't believe I fooled around for so long before I got this. Only one con, if you have to wear glasses then this is not the greatest choice.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Bramberg,
Glad to hear you found the Habicht to be to your liking. As to why more more people don't buy this "gem," as you pointed out the ER is too low for eyeglass wearers and even for some non-eyeglass wearers who can't see the entire FOV w/out pressing their eyes hard into the eyecups.
Another reason is the stiff focuser, which wouldn't present a problem for hunting where you are looking at longer distances, usually at large animals, but it would for birding close-in where a lot of quick focusing is required to "chase" small birds.
Several members who tried or owned the 8x30 Habichts remarked on their exceptionally high resolution. Some said even a bit higher than the reference standard in this class, the Nikon 8x32 SE.
So there's a lot to recommend it, and I prefer Porros, too, but I'd have to try the Habicht to find out if I could live with the low ER and stiff focuser.
Brock
Bramberg
Active member
The ER make it a no go for spectacle wearers I would say. The "stiff" focus wheel is something that I think have been exaggerated. The focus wheel is not really stiff per say. I would describe it as -not very easy turning. If you are constantly chasing focus in the 10 to 50 feet range maybe it would get tiresome after a while. I have had little difficulty with this but I've only tried it down to 50F. so far. It is a fantastic feeling when watching through brush at closest focusing. This is where i think these shine the most. The very sharp optics and the 3D effect from the porro design open the doors to a new world. I was wowed when I was able to focus travel between tiny but perfect spiderwebs only ½ inch in diameter. Very sharp and alive. All things considered, I would crown these the Best Buy of currently manufactured binoculars. And yes, they are Porros!
Sorry if off topic. But for everyone out there who is considering betwen buying roof or porro, do have a look at the Habicht 8x30.
bh46118
Well-known member
The very same kind of thing I see with my Minox BP, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why no one else can see it. This "real" factor was missing in the 12X and 10X SE which I spent almost a month each with. The only thing ever mentioned about the BP is the narrow FOV. If the ER was more generous I am almost certain I would own the Habicht 8X30. WHY do they not have more eye relief ? Would 18mm of relief have a negative effect on the view ? Imagine how many more would be sold if glasses wearers could use them.
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Unless treated VERY poorly, the EII will last longer than you, and provide very quality service all along the way.
All that glitters is not gold; all that is shaped like a bino is not a quality bino.
And, as long as the, "Just get a jeweler's screwdriver and start turning" method of "collimation" keeps going around as a viable solution, manufacturers have no impetus to pull up their socks and do it right.
Bill
brocknroller
porromaniac
Yep, that's it. There was ONE movie that got it right. I almost fell off the couch, but I forgot which move it was, I saw it on TV. If it comes on again, I will take note of the title, and I will award it the Uncle Tonoose Prize for Realism.
Brock
brocknroller
porromaniac
The EII I have that you collimated at Captain's Nautical is still "spot on" despite some lumps and bumps over the years. The SE appears more robustly built, but I don't know the internals, other than the EPs are not interchangeable (the eyecups are). The focuser, centerpost and the focuser rack appear to be the same on both models, but I'm not sure if both "Es" use the same type of prism seats. You might have insight into that.
Brock
NUMENIOS
Don't understand me too quickly, please!
The 3D Effect
I don't like the 3D effect in the cinema (too much effort to reproduce reality can give a very artificial result) but I find it very interesting when it comes with binos.
Where do you think does it come from? The greater barrel-distance of the porros is an explanation, but when the object is only a hundred yards away, the angle-difference between roof and porro should be minimal (one could calculate it, but I admit I'm too lazy).
I often read about the 3D effect in the Swaro-EL-context, and there another explanation suggests itself: It could be the result of edge performance, egde sharpness. It is true that human vision gets blurry soon towards the edges, but I think sharpness and detail in any image is often interpreted by the brain as a realistic representation.
What do you think?
Ivan
I don't like the 3D effect in the cinema (too much effort to reproduce reality can give a very artificial result) but I find it very interesting when it comes with binos.
Where do you think does it come from? The greater barrel-distance of the porros is an explanation, but when the object is only a hundred yards away, the angle-difference between roof and porro should be minimal (one could calculate it, but I admit I'm too lazy).
I often read about the 3D effect in the Swaro-EL-context, and there another explanation suggests itself: It could be the result of edge performance, egde sharpness. It is true that human vision gets blurry soon towards the edges, but I think sharpness and detail in any image is often interpreted by the brain as a realistic representation.
What do you think?
Ivan
brocknroller
porromaniac
I think you brought up an interesting point that I've often wondered about myself. For close to medium distances, the wider spacing of the barrels explains the reason for the better 3-D effect in Porros; however, users, including me, have reported seeing the 3-D effect with Porros at longer distances, too, where, in theory, there shouldn't be an advantage due overlap in the parallax angle with roofs.
Through roofs of the same configuration, looking at the same landscape, tree lines that appear separated at some distance with a Porro seem to be pressed up against each other with a roof.
Ed could perhaps shed some light on this (if has not already replied while I'm still writing this).
It might have something to do with Iconic_memory.
When you first look through a Porro, you see the 3-D effect, when you increase the distance, that spatial relationship is still in your memory and that relationship persists even at longer distances.
Brock
Another source for the perception of '3D' depth:
--Atmospheric perspective... this is a strong effect in the mind, used in games and movies.
Binoculars showing layers of tree at the same distance using this would have the trait
of finer contrast performance, less stray light.
I look out the window across a marsh and highways and woods at work with a recent purchase
sometimes. Today I tried the exotic Bushnell 4x21 / 900ft@1000yd binocs. They have gigantic
prisms, a bulging body like the old "Guppy" jets of old, and a weirdly sharp view (for 4x)..
I saw really strongly defined rows of trees at 150ft, 100yds, 200yds, 1/2 mile, and a mile.
You have to use them with glasses. They are fixed-focus, but they are in focus from 40 feet
to infinity. I can't blame the objective seperation: it's actually sort of reverse-porro.
I did check the relative haze...it was definitely the same in each set of trees
and different as the distance went up.
Many of my Porros have that strong 3D effect at great distances. A pair of Manon
7x35s with 6.5-deg field and a 2-stage baffling tunnel has the most potent 3D effect
of any pair, old or new. I'd blame the extremely low noise and high contrast of Porros.
--Atmospheric perspective... this is a strong effect in the mind, used in games and movies.
Binoculars showing layers of tree at the same distance using this would have the trait
of finer contrast performance, less stray light.
I look out the window across a marsh and highways and woods at work with a recent purchase
sometimes. Today I tried the exotic Bushnell 4x21 / 900ft@1000yd binocs. They have gigantic
prisms, a bulging body like the old "Guppy" jets of old, and a weirdly sharp view (for 4x)..
I saw really strongly defined rows of trees at 150ft, 100yds, 200yds, 1/2 mile, and a mile.
You have to use them with glasses. They are fixed-focus, but they are in focus from 40 feet
to infinity. I can't blame the objective seperation: it's actually sort of reverse-porro.
I did check the relative haze...it was definitely the same in each set of trees
and different as the distance went up.
Many of my Porros have that strong 3D effect at great distances. A pair of Manon
7x35s with 6.5-deg field and a 2-stage baffling tunnel has the most potent 3D effect
of any pair, old or new. I'd blame the extremely low noise and high contrast of Porros.
Last edited:
No, to your first question. Yes, to your second question. Exit Pupils are somewhat larger on the 10x42 but not enough to make a difference to most people.
As a practical matter it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make any definite determination of these issues from random comparisons of the 3 versions of the SEs.
All 3 of the SEs; the 8x32, the 10x42 and the 12x50 use the same prisms, the same prism housings, the same eyepieces and the same focusing mechanism. The only difference is in the sizes of the objective lenses and the overall length and width of their respective objective tubes.
Lens coatings were changed at various times during the period they were sold which was from 1995 through 2013. There has been much speculation here on when these changes took place but that is all it can be: speculation, because it would be impossible to prove that the 2 binoculars being compared came from the same "coating" era. Nikon never published when this happened.
These changes probably would have had some effects on the brightness of the binoculars, the newer ones being brighter and some people could see it and to others it would not make a difference. Sharpness would not be affected. Of course you could see more with a 10x than an 8x but that is to be expected.
Bob
500 series SEs are rather old and some of them may go back to before 2000. The 8x32 came out in 1998 I believe. (The 10x42 came out in 1995.)
I've often wondered whether sending SEs of this vintage to a good technician for cleaning would make a difference in their brightness and contrast.
Bob
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
It looks clean but no doubt there is some deterioration with age. Also I`v weighed them and the 550 is 9 grams lighter than the 500, lack of lead I guess.
That's about a 1/3rd of an ounce. Maybe with the prisms they might have had enough lead in their makeup to explain that weight difference.
A few people have argued that the touch of lead improved the early SEs CA resistance and color rendition. I have forgotten if it was ever concluded that Porro prism binoculars are less susceptible to CA than Roofs are?
bh46118
Well-known member
The SE is no doubt great in many ways, but the binocular itself didn't quite live up to the SE "Mystique" for me. I wanted to love it, but in the end I always found myself grabbing the BP instead. At the present time, and probably from now on, there is nothing available at any price that does all of the things I'm looking for in one unit. If the EL SV had 3D, then maybe so.