Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the "Alfa" mfrs do everything right..... they've wet the bed on few occasions. And the driving factor seems to be how small they can make a bino that'll work. The ease of use thing Alberto mentioned is, to me, quite a big deal. Over the 50 yrs I've been an avid bino user, I've found one of the most annoying things when you're trying to get a quick look at something is having to find the center of a very small ep. I think that 3.2-3.3mm is just about the minimum for this, then up to about 6mm. Conversely, I've never seen a real advantage to a 7x50 (except on a boat) over a 7x42 or 8x50. That is MHO and certainly an open gate to disagreement.
-
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.
Best non alpha Compact binocular ? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AlbertoJ
- Start date
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Interesting question, something in a sense, that I have wondered about at times.
My guess:
The Alpha compacts first arose in the European hunting market. They would be used for quick looks over quite a distance, by a person not wanting to pack a full size model. They still are to come out with their own "new" design for birds/butterflies. Given their excellent mid-sized 8x models, they may never do it.
Bausch & Lomb traditionally optimized for three basic customers:
Inexpensive general purpose
Boaters
Birders.
We often forget, that B&L dominated birding optics prior to the 1970's. While the Alphas (exspecially Zeiss) had a following with birders in the 20th century, the Euro Alphas started out primarily catering to hunters. Then in the 1980's really started to design for the birding/bird study market.
Disclaimer: i use the bushnell/B&L only for compacts. Otherwise, i use Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Swift. It ain't a brand thing for me.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
For me, in terms of exit pupil, "ease of use" means the bins come up and you have the view with little or no fiddling around to line up the exit. I'm guessing it's harder to achieve for those of us wearing glasses because there's no natural way to line up the bins, i.e. no eyesockets to settle them in. So with little exit pupils, you find yourself fiddling around with them, bouncing them around to get the view.
I've always found 3mm to be about my minimum, and it just gets easier as you go up from there. I have always used 8x25's and never had any problems.
But, some exit pupils are easier than others. I recently found a Nikon 10x25 (2.5mm) that had an easier view than the Leica 8x20 (also 2.5mm). I bring it up and have the view immediately. With the Leica, four out of five times I'm juggling them. Whether it's because of eyepiece design, eyecup design (my best guess), subtle differences in eye relief--I don't know.
Similarly, my Zeiss 8x32 is fussier than my Pentax 8x32, and even my 8x32 SE. Again, I'm not sure which factors are involved.
I had stopped using full-size for awhile, but recently picked up the Zen 8x43. Man, the view is big and easy! The view just sits there like you're looking out a picture window or something.
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
To me, that means both the ergonomic aspect, and the "easy view" as Aficionados of the Swift Audubon series or Zeiss 7x42 BGATP users often term it,
.Not only are they simple and swift in the hand, but they "get out of the way" optically. It is like your eyes relax when you look through them.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Alberto,
I guess the word "compact" is a bit fuzzy, so one might be led to consider a whole range of products. Inevitably this leads to "size creep," however, and before you know it the whole idea of a true compact has been abandoned.
All I can say is that I started birding with a Swaro 10x25 SLC, and observed a goodly percentage of my life list with them. Much of that was shore birding, so the 10x was ideal. The optics are superb and it's always available for unscheduled events. Due to an oversight, for example, they turned out to be my only binocular on a Costa Rica trip, where they performed beautifully, even in rain and heavy overcast.
Since compacts are typically folded for easy carry, they do require deployment, but once done are as responsive as any other binocular. Eyeglasses can be a problem unless there is adequate eye relief (true for any binocular), but in my case the small exit pupil has the added advantage of allowing me to view without glasses. The 2.5 mm EP optimizes my far-sighted vision by increasing depth of focus and also minimizing the adverse effects of visual astigmatism. Finally, the somewhat narrow field limits both true and apparent color fringing.
Ed
Last edited:
Right now the the Pentax 9x28. I used one side by side text to an 8x32FL and it had much smaller FOV but image wise it held it's own. One test I was even able to outresolve the FL on a tv about a block away on a 10th floor building window while snowing during dusk.
The SMall FOV is the weak poink. The sharpness and compromise are hard to beat.
The SMall FOV is the weak poink. The sharpness and compromise are hard to beat.
I have to agree here; with the exception of the Bushnell 7 x 26 Elite, a reverse porro, which is discussed at length in threads above.
I have a Pentax 9 x 28 DCF LV. My wife considers it her binocular now. She wears eye glasses and it's eye relief is perfect for her and she likes it's compactness and light weight, especially when it is around her neck. It fits into her purse easily. (No mean feat, if you have seen her purse!) I agree with Nessus's comments on it's sharpness; it is quite sharp. The FOV is adequate as far as I am concerned.
Bob
Just a word on the comparison of the Alpha bins to the Bushnell Elite 7 x 26 Custom Compact Alpha (-). I have a pair of the Bushnell 7 x 26 about 10year old. While they were very good and I used them a lot they are not as durable as my Zeiss Victory. My Bushnell started to decline after about 7 years(focus wheel has some skip, some fogging, and coatings disapated) while the Zeiss are about 7+ years old they are still going strong. You could argue that with the Bushnell's lower price you could just by another pair.
I would say the Pentax 9x28 provides an alpha quality image with the only exceptions being the small AFOV ( circle you see) and they have some stray light and ghosting/flare issues like just about every other Pentax I've ever tried. But brightness and clarity are excellent, for their size they are hard to beat. Especially with that 9x giving just that little extra bit of power over the 8 and that little edge in brightness over a 10. If only they folded all the way closed.
They seem plenty durable also. Good rubber armoring and well made eyecups.
They seem plenty durable also. Good rubber armoring and well made eyecups.
An alpha quality image! I don't think so! I much preferred the image through the small alpha's. IMO they aren't even close to alpha.
Last edited:
No. An alpha with a 2.5 mm exit pupil out performs Bushnell's and Pentax's with a 3.0 mm exit pupil so what's the big deal about having a 3.0 mm exit pupil. If a 3.0 mm exit pupil was such a performance advantage Zeiss or Leica would make one in a compact. I mean they make a 10x25 so it would be easy to make 8x25. Not that much of a gain in performance.
Dennis,
Ask him. Don't ask me. I'm just trying to suggest binoculars that meet his criteria!
Bob
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I think Zeiss are going for the smallest compact they can make when they make the small Victory with the constraint that 2.5mm is the smallest usable exit pupil hence the 8x20 but 10x25. I guess they want to make a 10x as people want it but think the 2.5mm exit pupil is critical.
Just a guess but you never this constant at larger bin sizes.
It´s probably there isn´t any 3 mm exit pupil binocular with nearly alpha quality.
The minimal optical quality I can admit is like Leica Trinovid.
I have looked through Zeiss Conquest 8x20 and I wasn´t enough satisfied with its sharpness and contrast (I´m used to the awesome image of my Zeiss FL 7x42).
Perhaps, if I can stand a 2.5 exit pupil (critical with eye point but not with brightness in alphas ), I think I´ll buy Zeiss Victory, Leica Ultravid or Swarovski 8x20.
But the perfect binocular for me would be 7x25 (or at least 8x25) Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski.
The minimal optical quality I can admit is like Leica Trinovid.
I have looked through Zeiss Conquest 8x20 and I wasn´t enough satisfied with its sharpness and contrast (I´m used to the awesome image of my Zeiss FL 7x42).
Perhaps, if I can stand a 2.5 exit pupil (critical with eye point but not with brightness in alphas ), I think I´ll buy Zeiss Victory, Leica Ultravid or Swarovski 8x20.
But the perfect binocular for me would be 7x25 (or at least 8x25) Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski.
Last edited:
The answer is simple--Just buy a Leupold Katmai 6x32 and call it a compact.
Bob
Kentucky, USA
Poor contrast! Monarch's are better!
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
No ... it would have bigger lenses so it would be bigger
Seriously.
In fact it would be 25% bigger. Bigger objectives and a matching bigger prism if you want to keep the same FOV would bump the weight. They mitigate this in the 10x by not needing to bump the prism size (and deal with a smaller FOV in the 10x).
And to keep the same f/number of the objectives you would need to make the focal length 25% longer making the bins a bit under 25% longer. Do they do this in the 10x? Or does the 10x have slightly worse CA properties?
Like most companies Zeiss doesn't want to muddy the waters by adding a model slightly similar to the others so it makes the smallest bin people want and if they don't like that one they can move up to an 8x30 or 8x32.
Seriously.
In fact it would be 25% bigger. Bigger objectives and a matching bigger prism if you want to keep the same FOV would bump the weight. They mitigate this in the 10x by not needing to bump the prism size (and deal with a smaller FOV in the 10x).
And to keep the same f/number of the objectives you would need to make the focal length 25% longer making the bins a bit under 25% longer. Do they do this in the 10x? Or does the 10x have slightly worse CA properties?
Like most companies Zeiss doesn't want to muddy the waters by adding a model slightly similar to the others so it makes the smallest bin people want and if they don't like that one they can move up to an 8x30 or 8x32.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
It seems companies often (always?) keep the same exit pupil when different magnifications of the same model are made by putting different objectives on the same ocular + prism assembly. Is there a design constraint, or is this just a design convention?
--AP
