• 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.

Dielectric Prism Coatings (1 Viewer)

fishinmonkey,

End the confusion by getting the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD for under US$200 after rebate. You'll have a better optic than any of these sub-$1000 Nikons.

Rick:

Always the pusher for the Bushnell, I have been looking for a binocular
in this price range for some time, and have looked at the Legend, but every
time I have tried it in the store, I just cannot get to liking it, although
with discount pricing these are tempting.

You need to get out more, Nikon sub $1,000. you can get the Premiere, very much the superior to the Legend Ultra.
And I found the Prostaff 7, to be better.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Jerry, I am one of the few here that actually do objective measuring and testing of my optics. Eyeballing it in the store is really not a test other than to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Easy to see differences between poor and good optics, but impossible when looking thru optics of similar quality without measuring.

I KNOW the measurements I have for the 8x42 Legend Ultra HD puts it in the top tier optically and absolute optical quality is my primary concern. Ergonomics and build quality are secondary and I am willing to work around if the price is right. In this scenario, the Nikon Premier and Monarch flavor of the day are inferior.

fishinmonkey, not only does the Bushnell have a $50 rebate, if you buy before the end of 2011 you have a year to try them and if you are not impressed Bushnell will buy them back.
 
Last edited:
fishinmonkey,

End the confusion by getting the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD for under US$200 after rebate. You'll have a better optic than any of these sub-$1000 Nikons.

I assume you are referring to roofs. The Nikon SE line of porros is in a whole other league.
I have not had an opportunity to look through all the variety of Nikon / Chinese manufacture roofs. But i did have an opportunity to compare you apparent glass of choice to its competing Monarch model.
The resolution was a tad higher in the very center than the Monarch. But the rest of the field of view was to my eye was better corrected in the Monarch. I think the Bushnell was slightly brighter. But despite its HD moniker, the CA at the edge (probably due to the generally poor edge correction) was notable. Wide, blurred green/lavender edges.
 
Jerry, I am one of the few here that actually do objective measuring and testing of my optics. Eyeballing it in the store is really not a test other than to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Easy to see differences between poor and good optics, but impossible when looking thru optics of similar quality without measuring.

I KNOW the measurements I have for the 8x42 Legend Ultra HD puts it in the top tier optically and absolute optical quality is my primary concern. Ergonomics and build quality are secondary and I am willing to work around if the price is right. In this scenario, the Nikon Premier are inferior.

fishinmonkey, not only does the Bushnell have a $50 rebate, if you buy before the end of 2011 you have a year to try them and if you are not impressed Bushnell will buy them back.

Rick:

I would like to see the "measurements" that you "know", and what models
you can compare to. The top tier is well known, and I am interested in how they compare. I suppose resolution and transmission are important here. Test results can be found for many of the mid to top rated binoculars.
However, I have not yet seen much on the Legend Ultra.

Let us "know" ?

Personal opinion is important with any binocular preference, and I have a
feeling that is mostly about which you are talking. ;)

Jerry
 
Jerry, surely you understand resolution measurements of modern binos are mostly irrelevent "fun with numbers" since we can only use them at relatively low mags and for resolution measurements to even begin to have relevance we need to boost magnification by 2x-3x (min 18x+ in the case of a 42mm optic) and by doing that we introduce even more optical surfaces that have their own influences? Then there is the optical quality of the eye making the measurement!

Moreover, if you try to take the human eye out of the system and photograph it the resolution measurement is usually pixel limited, rather than aperture limited. For example, at a distance of 3m (accuracy would demand infinity focus but we have to be practical!) an 8x42 optic has a linear resolution = ~0.049mm. The linear resolution of the very tiny pixels in my 14mp compact digicam is still larger until I zoom to an effective focal length of 62mm where 1 pixel = ~0.047mm. But by zooming the lens I have now reduced the camera iris to ~3.2mm effectively turning my 42mm optic into a ~25mm optic.
See the problems? Frankly, it boggles the mind, at least mine!8-P

Anyway, when I see folks say the Ultra HD sweet spot is small (its nearly the same size as the entire FoV of the 8x SE) or it has excess distortion (average for an ultrawide FoV) I have to wonder what their baseline is.

If you want to start a new thread about optical testing and measurements and can contribute new information I will be happy to participate.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone point me to web published tests of either of the two binos (Monarch ATB/ Bushnell HD). I mean test with data charts on resolution, brightness, things like that. I have compared the basic stats that each company publishes for their binos.
 
Rick:

Your response is just what I expected. A big boast of the Bushnell but nothing to back
it up.
I do like your analogy however, about separating the wheat from the chaff. I am a farmer and I grow wheat, and each year with my combine I separate the wheat from
the chaff. The good wheat goes into the marketplace and eventually a loaf of bread, but the chaff is blown onto the ground behind the combine.

I evaluate optics the same way, and that affects my purchasing decisions.

Jerry
 
Can anyone point me to web published tests of either of the two binos (Monarch ATB/ Bushnell HD). I mean test with data charts on resolution, brightness, things like that. I have compared the basic stats that each company publishes for their binos.

Jerry, I am glad to have met your expectations. Sorry I have no data for you that you feel is relevant.

fishinmonkey,

Not even allbinos.com, which many here feel is the best comprehensive source of objective data, publish resolution measurements probably because it is an exercise in futility. Resolution in a modern optic is almost entirely dependent on the objective lens size and even the smallest binocular can resolve detail well beyond what the eye can at the magnifications used.

Transmission data is interesting, but again almost irrelevant since the data always falls within the expected range of the bell curve of human perception in practice with only those folks with 2 sigma vision able to consistently see differences in the SAME SIZED optics, and only then it is when comparing an aging aluminium coated prism bino with a spanky new dielectric coated prism bino. Moreover, people tend to confuse "brightness" with perceptions in hue and tint.

Anyway, you can find my Legend Ultra HD data in the Bushnell forum and in other threads if you do a search and slog your way thru it. The skinny is you would have a hard time finding a better optic without paying 10x more. But no matter what you buy make sure the dealer offers a good return policy that gives you at least a month to try it out under varying conditions and make sure you use it for several hours at a stretch so that your wonderfully adaptive eye can "adjust" itself to the view.
 
Last edited:
Rick,

Jerry knows optics and how measurements are made, etc., and probably agrees with most of what you said in general about optical measurements since I've said the same things myself (though less technically) in my many debates with Henry.

I think Jerry reacts as I do when Dennis starts pushing his 8x32 FL (or whatever the bin de jour is at the time) anytime someone asks about a choice btwn certain bins and instead of responding to the choices in question offers his fav as an alternative. Even fishinmonkey seemed to pick up on this.

I must confess that I've done this myself at times. Popped in with a porro alternatives I thought were better than the roof choices given and it was usually an SE or EII.

I agree with your assessments of boosted resolution numbers and hints and hues being interpreted as brightness. I wouldn't use the word "confused" since color contrast affects the perception of brightness and "brightness" in itself is a subjective word, as Ed pointed out on a thread where Henry and I debated this issue.

Plus there is sample variation to consider. Most reviewers only test one sample, and as most of us know who have tried or owned a number of bins know that sample variation can ran rampart, particularly in Chinese-made bins.

Your might have a "cherry" sample Ultra with the edge sharpness of an SE, others may not. Or you might be able to accommodate field curvature better than others who reported lesser edge performance in their samples.

I know the edge sharpness percentages that others state for their 8x30 EIIs are usually less than I find mine to be.

Having said all that, I do like when reviewers provide numbers to back up their claims, not because they are necessarily definitive, but because it gives me a baseline to work from to at least decide if a bin is worth checking out further.

For example, if you use eyeglasses with bins and a reviewer measures the useable ER as 12mm when the optics company states 18mm, that's useful information.

However, when it comes to some measurements (light transmission comes to mind!) even the experts don't always agree on the numbers let alone the weight they assign them in their subjective values.

So I've learned not to take numbers as gospel, but use them as base to start my own inquiries.

In the spirit of the Thanksgiving Holiday, I think we should give thanks for what we have instead of hotly debating who's bins are better. One man's turkey is another man's sweet potatoes.

Even though you don't celebrate the holiday in Japan, you own property in the US and I'm sure are familiar with the holiday tradition. The Pilgrims and the American natives sat down to dinner and enjoyed a feast and gave thanks for their bounty(or so they tell us!).

To all a Happy Thanksgiving! I cleaned the oven tonight and the da&*^% "Oven-Off" can clogged so I had to run out to Walmart and pick up another can at midnight. I'm thankful for Sam Walton! -:)

Brock
 
Brock, this thread would never have been revived if Nikon USA Sports Optics were not managed by what appears to be ex-mattress salesmen. Shame on them for promoting model confusion among their customers. That said, I have never looked thru a Monarch of any flavor that really optically whoa-ed me anyway (I do admire the model known as the III in the rest of the world, but only for its light weight) so I rarely give them a glance anymore.

Sorry if my hearty recommedation of the Legend Ultra HD ruffles a few feathers. I think I have posted all measurable data that I have on it over the 2yrs I've owned my samples including clear aperture, exit pupil/magnification, FoV/sweet spot, significant distortions, useable eye relief, size and weight, not to mention a 1yr follow up on its robustness.

I have explained why I don't bother with binocular resolution tests but I have tried to measure "brightness" using a digital camera's histogram and have even snapped hundreds of pics looking for significant differences in exposure, all of which have been inconclusive since I can't figure out a way to quantify the data under the curves.

Frankly, I think I have provided all relevant measurable objective data if one looks for it. But I refuse to regurgitate it in "Cliff Notes" form on demand, especially on a web forum that can monetize this content without compensation or even publication credit flowing back to me. I would want a little more back for my efforts than just an ego massage from my peers.8-P
And FWIW Brock, I am firmly in Henry's camp when it comes to testing and really appreciate his unique ability to simplify and explain complex issues with easy DIY visual aids. But I also appreciate the difficulties of the subject that still puzzles folks with PhDs in optics/ human visual perception so don't totally discount subjective reports either. Everyones opinion has value since when summed we can at least get a feel of what to expect from an optic. But that does not mean we should be lazy and not bother AT LEAST verifying the OEMs specs with a few easy-to-do measurements.
 
Last edited:
Well, I went to Cabela's and took the Monarch ATB and Bushnell HDs both outside to do some side-by-side comparisons. It seemed to me, and to the Cabela's salesperson who went out with me (a confirmed Leupold fan) that the ATB's had better edge to edge clarity. The ATBs also seemed brighter to me both in and outside. Seeing as I've used them in the field for a day in very rugged conditions (cold, rain, fog) and liked them, they'll definitely make me happy.

Too bad, the Bushnell's rebate makes them 50 bucks cheaper, but they just didn't do it for me.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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