• 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.

End of list? (1 Viewer)

Kevin Purcell, my previous post reveals I am quite conservative-minded when it comes to binoculars. Still I am highly aware of the velocity by which new technologies spread out and into our every-day life.
The development rate is not linear but rather exponential. The expression "technological singularity" as explained by Ray Kurzweil et al is an utmost interesting theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

But that's another story.


My odyssey to find the last binoculars has lead me back to a place where I once was - the Garrett Signature 10x50 with very good 14-point QC and extremely high transmission of 92%. The eye relief could be better but wth. Pity they are heavier than the Minox 10x58.

But they are individually-focused which would probably be less suitable for birding. But I read more than once that IF's are sort of "set and forget" and I can't really get that into my mind.
Are they supposed to give a deeper depth-of-field than CF binoculars?
Anyone here who owns one?
 
Last edited:
technological singularity == religion for techno nuts ;)

See Jaron Lanier for his critque.

And another point most technological progress follows something like a logistic curve. People mistake the first part of that growth curve for an exponential curve (and so make wild predictions based on it).

Anyhow back to the bins ...

But I read more than once that IF's are sort of "set and forget" and I can't really get that into my mind.
Click to expand...

They're set and forget for the military and hunters who are interested in big targets beyond the hyperfocal distance (typically 50m or more). So you can see things in focus from 50m out to infinity. Not much good for birds that are observed at 50m and less distance and are prone to move about. Hence birders use CF.

Are they supposed to give a deeper depth-of-field than CF binoculars?
Click to expand...

DOF depends only on the magnification (and apparent DOF perhaps on field curvature too) not the focusing system.
 
Thanks Kevin,

just like I supposed with the IF. There is no reason that the focusing system itself could have impact on the DOF. I just thought that some other design feature commonly used together with IF might simplify the focusing.
You write that only the magnification decides the DOF. Given the actual focus distance and aperture are equal, I assume you mean?

Because DOF in meters or centimeters is decidedly shorter in a close focus situation. And in photo lenses, it is actually the size (not f/ number) of the aperture that decides the DOF. Thus, a 1,4/50 mm will have identical DOF to a 2,8/100 or 5,6/200 on their largest apertures if focused to the same distance.
I am not sure whether this applies for all formats, i.e. if a wide 2,8/50 mm for 6x6 has identical DOF to a 2,8/50 for 35 mm cameras or not.

Anyway, thanks for stopping me buying the non-birding Garrett.:hi:
 
By DOF I mean the relative (fractional) DOF. So at close distances it will be smaller in absolute terms than at distance but the absolute DOF/distance will be a constant.
 
Thanks Kevin!

My photo lenses are marked with DOF for different apertures, so focusing at hyperfocal distance can be set. Would you agree that it is the aperture that decides the DOF? If so, a 10x25 should have markedly better DOF than a 10x50, but at the same time transmit only 25% of the light compared to the bigger bin.

Vortex Razor 10x50 or 12x50, anyone? It is similar to the Meostar in price, size and weight but has "XD glass", argon filling (as opposed to nitrogen) and supposedly better lens coatings.

Seems like it is easier to find 8x32 and 10x42ish bin models that are close to perfect, while the range of 10x50 and above always seem to have some flaw or at least beauty spot. Not that I don't understand why - CA, SA become more observable with big front lenses, wide FOV needs larger prisms and so on. But the quest for the "Holy Grail" (lightweight alpha performance for Wal-Mart price;)) continues.
 
Last edited:
Off topic again... well I am no techno nut. Regarding technological singularity, the average human intelligence quote might be almost constant, whilst artificial intelligence will come into the race and eventually prevail. Apart from human intelligence, it may :
1) Develop rapidly by creating new generations or levels of AI
2) Not have the boundaries of getting tired or lazy, getting content with present circumstances, or humanitarian regards.

Technologies with super-human intelligence might easily solve many problems connected to the relative low-tech of the 20th century.
I would hope some dystopic predictions won't come true, but we cannot dismiss it all as being nonsense.
 
Seems like it is easier to find 8x32 and 10x42ish bin models that are close to perfect, while the range of 10x50 and above always seem to have some flaw or at least beauty spot. Not that I don't understand why - CA, SA become more observable with big front lenses, wide FOV needs larger prisms and so on. But the quest for the "Holy Grail" (lightweight alpha performance for Wal-Mart price) continues.
Click to expand...

I suspect that 10x50 (which was a standard bin in the older lower transmission days: with modern coatings not so much) is now rather less popular especially as other parameters (weight, for example) seem to be foremost and that seems to have an impact on the design of the 10x50s. I suspect they don't make "the best" 10x50 they could but more of a compromise. Wide field 10x50 are like hens teeth and that's a shame.
 
So, I got a number of most various suggestions but at the end of the day everything f***s up because of weight.
The most appealing things with my Zeiss Classic are its wide, sharp and bright image in a real lightweight package. "OMG!"-exclamations are usual when lending them away for a look.
But some reviewers put its performance below mid-priced Chinese bins. If they are right it would not be too hard to find something even better.
Right now I lean towards one of the greater Vortex's or Meoptas.

I couldn't be the first to look for this type of bin, right? Maybe I only got an idea that won't let go of my head, like a silly, annoying, bubblegumsticky pop tune.

As soon as I finished this project I will live by the device:

"Buy what you like - like what you bought"
 
Last edited:
I just stumbled upon a pair of new Romanian IOR Valdada 7x40 for £110. Even though ridiculously heavy and with moderate magnification, they are irresistable offering a huge FOV of 8.5 degrees, ER of 20 mm, EP 5.7 mm and waterproof. Built to be run over by a tank and survive.
Reviewers are immensely impressed by their bright 3D-ish image. So I couldn't resist this temptation. They will do a wonderful job in the woods, while I will stick to my Zeiss for waterfowl on the shores.

Owls beware!
 
You must have good eyes!
The IOR 7x40 is an IF military glass. It relies on the viewers eyes to do much of the fine focus adjustment. Not a happy solution for us oldsters.
That said, it seems to be essentially a modern version of the East German Zeiss 7x40 "Checkpoint Charlie"binocular, a glass that was famed for its excellent views. IOR uses Schott glass, as did Zeiss, so this may in fact be the nearest approximation available to a modern all weather porro.
 
Yes, I am aware of the disadvantage of IF, especially in birding. Since I don't have the unit in my hands I am unable to evaluate it, but it is considered to have a deep depth-of-field. The IF itself might actually help to increase the DOF since the left and the right side barrels can be focused differently. In optometry this is called monovision.
I imagine using a light monovision should be advantageous for scanning in semi-dense forests where tree stems and similar confuse if the magnification is too big. Once something interesting comes into view, both barrels are re-focused to the target.
I also guess focusing is partly a matter of technique, however if they prove to be too annoying I will sell them away.
 
Monovision also (as the name implies) eliminates off stereopsis which is rather useful for target finding.

Given most passerine birding is done at under 50m (especially in a forest) I think you would find them annoying for that unless you have significant accommodation (i.e. are young!).

If you try monovision lets us know how it works for you.
 
Yes, monovision knocks off true stereoscopic vision, however I figured out that some slight defocusing of one barrel might serve to increase the depth of field, which still is considered to be quite good in this bin.
One could also try a kind of zone-focusing for general screening (standby position). When a bird is detected the first (most appropriate for the distance) eyepiece is rapidly focused. Then, while observing, the other (more defocused) eyepiece is being focused as well, to gain full stereoscopic vision.
My ocular accommodation is not what it used to be, though not yet totally erased with age.

Uhm...so it looks like I try to cover up a bad purchase? ;) Well, I will give it a try, at least. Even if I am a less experienced birder I am keen on finding new ways, by improvements of existing gear. This also means I will get into some less fortunate experiments. I hope this will not be one of them.

Among my ideas, I already have found a cheap and easy way to make my Pentax scope reasonably steadily handheld with 32x magnification. (By "reasonably" I mean that the image movements are on par with a 8x binocular). The device is now in use, but it still lacks one vital part increasing its usability. After thorough testing I will show some pictures.
 
So, I tried the IOR and have to admit I am puzzled over its properties. To say the least, they don't live up to my expectations. But the known cons weren't really an issue - the weight is actually very moderate IMO. The individual focusing does work with monovision, which I have found advantageous while observing smaller birds in the thicket of my backyard. When watching more isolated and distant objects monovision makes the bin feel miscollimated. But I really find the individual focusing easy to perform in a synchronized two-hand movement, because the design provides a good two-hand three-finger grip around the bin, while the thumbs and index fingers rotate the eyepieces.

On the other hand, I find it useless for birding because of its extremely heavy yellow tint, stray-light and poor light transmission. This is the downside of buying without trying... It may be useful for boating, very foul-weather wooden birding and possibly night use, where the tint won't mess up the colours.
And, it is really sharp too... I will try to sell it ASAP.

If I should buy another binocular to top up the line, I might opt for a Nikon Action EX 10x50. Soft edges are no issue for me, but restricted AFOV is. (Recently I looked through a brand bin with a 45 degree AFOV and I really can't understand how they can expect to sell such crap. To me, anything below 60 degrees is narrow)

Another possibility might be to exchange the 10x40 Dialyt for a weatherproofed modern bin with slightly larger objectives. The Hawke Frontier ED 10x43 or the Kowa Prominar 10,5x44 would make it and serve as the ultimate end-of-list item.
 
looksharp65 said:
Another possibility might be to exchange the 10x40 Dialyt for a weatherproofed modern bin with slightly larger objectives. The Hawke Frontier ED 10x43 or the Kowa Prominar 10,5x44 would make it and serve as the ultimate end-of-list item.
Click to expand...

And this is what will happen. After aquiring the stunning Vortex Fury 6.5x32 I rarely use the greater Minox, so I will try to sell that one to raise some funds for a modern 10x42 >> 10x52.
At present the Vortex Razor 10x50 leads the race. Does anyone know if it focuses clockwise to infinity or anti-clockwise?

I no more see the call for an 8x since the Fury always lets me see the same birds (not less), but much more rapidly and easier. Thus, the 10x is the substantial step up needed.
So I look for a clockwise focusing 10x wide angle (>6 degrees) with an eye relief of minimum 17 mm, preferably around 19 mm.

I am not in a hurry because the Zeiss Classic is great, but now I understand the reviewer that claimed a modern Chinese bin outperforms it.
Compared to the Fury it shows a lot straylight and ghosting, much less contrast and generally a duller image. But the ergonomics are superior and the focusing speed is quite fine.
 
This thread started in February and it's now September, and you still haven't made a decision. It's going to get colder than a polar bear's toenail by the time you sell your old bins and buy new ones.

So you might as well put off your decision another eight months until next spring, by which time, there might be other new bins on the market to chose from, and then we can start all over again. :)
 
@brocknroller,

you're absolutely right. Resurrecting this old thread may seem desperate. But in the meantime I have also bought and sold a couple of other binoculars, including my Pentax scope. I have also been a little busy birding - this year I have visually seen 140 unique species so far. Not so much, but I also have a work to do for my living. So, Brock, whatever it appears like, I am not completely uneducable :)

I try to keep my eyes open for older and newer offerings from the various manufacturers. Now that I have become much a more experienced binocular user/birder I have made some changes in my demands.
The combination of the clockwise focusing Zeiss and the anti-clockwise Minox has not been very successful, so clockwise focusing is now a non-negotiable requirement.
The same applies to an adequate eye relief combined with wide angle view.

The Razor seems to be one of the top contenders at present, but I will not consider it if it is anti-clockwise focusing. I have tried to contact Vortex US by email but they don't seem to watch their mailbox. Vortex Europe claims the focusing direction is "unequivocal", which of course does not help me forward.

Anyway, this project may take a lot more time. First I will buy a spare Fury and then I have to save enough $$$ to get a Razor or whatever the victor will be.

Oh, and I bought a mouth harmonica too :D
 
Last edited:
LS,

I was just bustin' your chops. :) I don't blame you for taking your time. A $1,000 is a lot of money to spend on a bin (or at least I think so).

If I were buying a $1,000 bin, it would only take me about two seconds to decide, because I know which one I want to buy, but it would take me a couple years to save up for it, by which time, the price would have doubled!

There was a Vortex rep haunting the "Other" forums, I corresponded with him about the Razor (the issue about the sticky focusers on the first gen being resolved or not). Since Vortex doesn't have its own forum, he might be hard to track down (odd that Vortex doesn't have its own forum, the co. has way more models than ZR).

Your best bet is to contact Doug at Camera Land. He carries the 10x50 Razor and could tell you which way the focuser turns. Not sure if he ships overseas, but he has the best price I've seen for this bin.

Here's the Website:

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortexrazor10x50

His user name on BF is gr8fuldoug. Type the name in the "Recipient Username" window in your private message box and send him a PM.

If the Razor's focuser turns anti-clockwise, then your only hope is to move to the Southern Hemisphere where it will turn clockwise. :)

I had the same issue with the Celestron Regal LX's anti-clockwise focuser. I plan to move to Australia next year to solve that problem!

Brock
 
Last edited:
Thanks Brock,

that's a really good advise. I actually bought my Minox from Doug through eBay. I will ask him.
As it turns out, when I calculate the custom fees and VAT, an item shipped overseas (to Sweden) will be circa 40% more expensive, and I can get the Razor cheaper than that from the UK or Denmark.

Oh, when clocks change direction, will you also become younger in the Southern hemisphere?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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.

Similar threads

J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
695
Patudo
P
L
Upgrade to mid-range price binoculars
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Rufus1401
R
P
Upgrade from Nikon 8x30 EII to Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL?
Replies
10
Views
1K
PedroP
P
A
Are aspherical lenses and other tech present in mid to high end binoculars?
Replies
6
Views
744
Maljunulo
M
dwatsonbirder
Compact comparisons: Low end vs high end
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Rg548
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top