mfunnell
Registered Confuser
I've been using two pairs of the old-version Diamondback 8x28s for while now, one having spent most of it's time as the glove-box bins in my car and the other being the go-everywhere bins I've been throwing into whatever camera bag I'm taking with me. Because of this I was interested to see what the 2016 "refresh" of this model is like, and I've finally had enough use of the new ones to give my first impressions.
Note: my review of the old version can be found here, while some comments on build quality and suchlike can be found here.
Much of the reason for my delay (I've had them for a while now) is that they're really not that much different from the old ones. Rather less different that the spec sheet would suggest, in fact.
Looking at key differences in specification:
Field of view:
6.2°/332'/110m (new) versus 6.9°/360'/119.5m (old)
I believe this one, though the change isn't readily apparent. I've found the practical field of view difference more-or-less doesn't exist for me as eyecup extension is too short for the eye relief on the old version, while the new one has a somewhat better match. I couldn't really see the full field of the old Diamondbacks with or without glasses (I'm nearsighted) while I do see it with the new ones.
Eye Relief:
18mm (new) versus 19.3mm (old).
As noted above, I found the eyecup extension a poor match to eye relief with the old Diamondbacks, leading to "fiddly" eye position, difficulty seeing the full field of view, and blackouts, unless very careful with eye position. The much better match of ER to eyecup extension makes the new Diamondback 8x28s a little easier for me to use, while 18mm of eye relief hardly seems restrictive. (Note: it's the ER that's changed, the eyecups seem the same.)
Inter-Pupillary Distance:
55mm-74mm (new) versus 56mm-74mm (old).
The 1mm improvement in minimum IPD is there, as near as I can tell with a ruler, though it has no impact on my personal use.
Dimensions:
4.6"x4.4" (new) versus 4.8"x4.5" (old).
This seems (ahem) inaccurate to me. Physical comparison shows they're exactly the same size, with the 4.8"x4.5" figures appearing to be the accurate ones. This matters in a set of compact bins (compactness often being their primary point). Inability to measure the bins, write the measurements down, and publish them accurately seems almost unfathomable and yet very, very, common among those selling binoculars.
Exit Pupil:
3.6mm (new) versus 2.8mm (old). ROTFL!
Total BS. Utter, total, BS. See above.
Close Focus:
6.5'/2m (new) versus 13.1'/4m (old).
This seems real to me, and is important. While, being nearsighted, I'm able to focus closer than spec with the old version, the long minimum focus distance occasionally irritated me. I can focus closer than 2m with the new ones, so I'd say that's something of a problem solved (especially for those with normal or longsighted vision).
--
As noted above, the old and new Diamondbacks are the same size and the new ones are otherwise almost (but not quite) physically identical to the old model. There have been some changes to the rubber armouring which seem mostly cosmetic but maybe, perhaps, make the new ones slightly better protected (it's hard to tell). The focus wheel on the new model is ribbed rather than "crosshatched" for traction and the word "waterproof" is absent from the plate on the wheel. A slight change to the hinge geometry seems to make for a 1mm improvement in minimum IPD. The " - .. v .. + " markings near the dioptre adjustment on the old have been replaced by a single "dot" with no direction indicator on the new. The strap, objective covers, rain guard and case appear identical between old and new. Resistance on the focus wheel seems "better" to me, being slightly stiffer (in a way I like) and without the trace of play I found in the old model.
Optically, the old and new versions are quite similar (while noting my field-of-view comments above). Otherwise, I'd say the new model has improvements in sharpness on centre, improved contrast, slightly better resistance to direct flare and slightly worse resistance to veiling flare. All of these are pretty marginal, though. Somewhat larger improvements seem to be in control of chromatic aberration and size of the sweet-spot, and also somewhat sharper edges (though the latter is probably the result of a reduced field of view). Colour seems better to me - perhaps because of improved contrast and CA but also, again perhaps, a slightly more neutral colour balance, as I see it, might help.
All in all I'd say the new version of the 8x28 Diamondback has minor but useful improvements on the old version, though really not enough to be worth upgrading if you already have the old one (unless the much better close focus matters enough to you). I'm keeping the new one since I have a good home the old one can go to. The relatively inexpensive price means I'm not too fussed about having a surplus of Diamondbacks, despite having substituted another (much more expensive!) compact bin for most of my regular use.
...Mike
Note: my review of the old version can be found here, while some comments on build quality and suchlike can be found here.
Much of the reason for my delay (I've had them for a while now) is that they're really not that much different from the old ones. Rather less different that the spec sheet would suggest, in fact.
Looking at key differences in specification:
Field of view:
6.2°/332'/110m (new) versus 6.9°/360'/119.5m (old)
I believe this one, though the change isn't readily apparent. I've found the practical field of view difference more-or-less doesn't exist for me as eyecup extension is too short for the eye relief on the old version, while the new one has a somewhat better match. I couldn't really see the full field of the old Diamondbacks with or without glasses (I'm nearsighted) while I do see it with the new ones.
Eye Relief:
18mm (new) versus 19.3mm (old).
As noted above, I found the eyecup extension a poor match to eye relief with the old Diamondbacks, leading to "fiddly" eye position, difficulty seeing the full field of view, and blackouts, unless very careful with eye position. The much better match of ER to eyecup extension makes the new Diamondback 8x28s a little easier for me to use, while 18mm of eye relief hardly seems restrictive. (Note: it's the ER that's changed, the eyecups seem the same.)
Inter-Pupillary Distance:
55mm-74mm (new) versus 56mm-74mm (old).
The 1mm improvement in minimum IPD is there, as near as I can tell with a ruler, though it has no impact on my personal use.
Dimensions:
4.6"x4.4" (new) versus 4.8"x4.5" (old).
This seems (ahem) inaccurate to me. Physical comparison shows they're exactly the same size, with the 4.8"x4.5" figures appearing to be the accurate ones. This matters in a set of compact bins (compactness often being their primary point). Inability to measure the bins, write the measurements down, and publish them accurately seems almost unfathomable and yet very, very, common among those selling binoculars.
Exit Pupil:
3.6mm (new) versus 2.8mm (old). ROTFL!
Total BS. Utter, total, BS. See above.
Close Focus:
6.5'/2m (new) versus 13.1'/4m (old).
This seems real to me, and is important. While, being nearsighted, I'm able to focus closer than spec with the old version, the long minimum focus distance occasionally irritated me. I can focus closer than 2m with the new ones, so I'd say that's something of a problem solved (especially for those with normal or longsighted vision).
--
As noted above, the old and new Diamondbacks are the same size and the new ones are otherwise almost (but not quite) physically identical to the old model. There have been some changes to the rubber armouring which seem mostly cosmetic but maybe, perhaps, make the new ones slightly better protected (it's hard to tell). The focus wheel on the new model is ribbed rather than "crosshatched" for traction and the word "waterproof" is absent from the plate on the wheel. A slight change to the hinge geometry seems to make for a 1mm improvement in minimum IPD. The " - .. v .. + " markings near the dioptre adjustment on the old have been replaced by a single "dot" with no direction indicator on the new. The strap, objective covers, rain guard and case appear identical between old and new. Resistance on the focus wheel seems "better" to me, being slightly stiffer (in a way I like) and without the trace of play I found in the old model.
Optically, the old and new versions are quite similar (while noting my field-of-view comments above). Otherwise, I'd say the new model has improvements in sharpness on centre, improved contrast, slightly better resistance to direct flare and slightly worse resistance to veiling flare. All of these are pretty marginal, though. Somewhat larger improvements seem to be in control of chromatic aberration and size of the sweet-spot, and also somewhat sharper edges (though the latter is probably the result of a reduced field of view). Colour seems better to me - perhaps because of improved contrast and CA but also, again perhaps, a slightly more neutral colour balance, as I see it, might help.
All in all I'd say the new version of the 8x28 Diamondback has minor but useful improvements on the old version, though really not enough to be worth upgrading if you already have the old one (unless the much better close focus matters enough to you). I'm keeping the new one since I have a good home the old one can go to. The relatively inexpensive price means I'm not too fussed about having a surplus of Diamondbacks, despite having substituted another (much more expensive!) compact bin for most of my regular use.
...Mike
Last edited: