That's a good idea I did notice glare at sunset while using them last night. What I really like about the Trackers over the alpha roofs is thier 3D image and their bigger exit pupil which at only .5mm bigger makes them WAY less fussy to use. They are almost like a 32mm in that regard. Being a porro they are alot brighter than an Ultravid too. That 5mm bigger aperture makes a difference. They are the only compacts I have ever used that aren't a big PIA if you know what I mean.
-
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.
Cheap Compact question (carson, brunton, bushnell...) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BrightIdea
- Start date
That's a good idea I did notice glare at sunset while using them last night. What I really like about the Trackers over the alpha roofs is thier 3D image and their bigger exit pupil which at only .5mm bigger makes them WAY less fussy to use. They are almost like a 32mm in that regard. Being a porro they are alot brighter than an Ultravid too. That 5mm bigger aperture makes a difference. They are the only compacts I have ever used that aren't a big PIA if you know what I mean.
or the 8x25 prostaff or the 8x26 vanquish?
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
Jerry
Funny that I don't notice "Administrator" mentioned under your name, and I am wondering why as of late you have decided to become the "Forum Monitor" in this thread as well as some others, and have taken it upon yourself to try to determine the direction the threads should take.
Somehow, I thought this thread was about cheap compacts and was open to any member to post experiences and impressions on whatever bino they choose to discuss. Just because other members choose not to post anything on any other brands or models should not be construed as the fault of those who are currently posting and contributing to the OP.
Please feel free to jump in here and tell us what binos and experiences you have on the subject that would add value to this "hijacked" thread.
Tom
Last edited:
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
You can find info on both by doing an advanced search: In the advanced search box:
"Search by Keyword" - enter Vanquish or Prostaff
"Search in Forums" - scroll down and click on Binocular forum
"Show results As" - click on Posts
Hit search
It will bring up all older posts where these were discussed.
Just a quick look shows the Vanquish had some reporting bad stray light issues.
Tom
A while back I spent a winter's afternoon trying out all the compact pairs I could find. They included the Trackers (PCI) 8x25, Nikon Travelite EX 8x25, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon 8x20s, Bushnell 7x26 Elite and a dozen or so lesser pairs (IMO). I could rank them in all kinds of ways, but of course the main considerations for me were my own likes and dislikes. I really dislike veiling flare, CA and blurred edges, and like good contrast, a medium focus speed, good eye relief and of course a really sharp view. Of course all my my comments are entirely subjective, and refer only to the samples I tested on the day. At the cheaper end of the spectrum I've noted quite a bit of sample variation, and probably accounts for some differences in opinions.
I really wanted to be won over by the alpha 8x20s. I liked their size and of course they were sharp with excellent build quality, but there were niggles about CA, veiling flare and eye relief, but the decider was that the 2.5mm exit pupil was too dim for the conditions, and the eye positioning too fussy, particularly with glasses. I didn't like them, so for me they were bottom of that group.
It's a good while ago, so I can't remember all the details I noted at the time, but certain negatives stick in the mind. All of the reverse porros suited me better than the 8x20s. None of them have a particularly wide field of view, but the port hole effect was most notable with the Nikons. The Nikons and the Olympus have a 3.1mm exit pupil and the Bushnells 3.7mm. The difference in brightness was obvious under the conditions. Both the Nikons and Olympus showed CA and some veiling flare, which were both virtually absent on the Bushnells. The focus action was acceptable on all of them, but again the Bushnells suited me best. There is this peculiar phenomenon which we call 3D-effect but is certainly a misnomer when it comes to reverse porros as the objectives are closer together than roofs let alone porros. What ever it is the Bushnells had the most and the Nikons the least. It was difficult to decide which was the sharpest. All three were good but the most dramatic difference between them was contrast. I could see much more detail with the Bushnells than the other two and the Nikons came a poor third.
Of course price is a consideration. In the UK the Olympus can be found for about £63, the Nikons about £80 and the Bushnells £195. For my individual tastes the Bushnells were clearly the best of the three, the Olympus the best value, and if waterproof is important the Nikons the only choice of that three. Take your pick.
Dennis, you have often said you strongly disliked the Bushnells. I would have put money on you having the same view on the Tracker as to my eyes they were pretty similar in most respects.... if not quite as good.( How does that work?
) Just shows the importance of personal preference I guess.
David
I really wanted to be won over by the alpha 8x20s. I liked their size and of course they were sharp with excellent build quality, but there were niggles about CA, veiling flare and eye relief, but the decider was that the 2.5mm exit pupil was too dim for the conditions, and the eye positioning too fussy, particularly with glasses. I didn't like them, so for me they were bottom of that group.
It's a good while ago, so I can't remember all the details I noted at the time, but certain negatives stick in the mind. All of the reverse porros suited me better than the 8x20s. None of them have a particularly wide field of view, but the port hole effect was most notable with the Nikons. The Nikons and the Olympus have a 3.1mm exit pupil and the Bushnells 3.7mm. The difference in brightness was obvious under the conditions. Both the Nikons and Olympus showed CA and some veiling flare, which were both virtually absent on the Bushnells. The focus action was acceptable on all of them, but again the Bushnells suited me best. There is this peculiar phenomenon which we call 3D-effect but is certainly a misnomer when it comes to reverse porros as the objectives are closer together than roofs let alone porros. What ever it is the Bushnells had the most and the Nikons the least. It was difficult to decide which was the sharpest. All three were good but the most dramatic difference between them was contrast. I could see much more detail with the Bushnells than the other two and the Nikons came a poor third.
Of course price is a consideration. In the UK the Olympus can be found for about £63, the Nikons about £80 and the Bushnells £195. For my individual tastes the Bushnells were clearly the best of the three, the Olympus the best value, and if waterproof is important the Nikons the only choice of that three. Take your pick.
Dennis, you have often said you strongly disliked the Bushnells. I would have put money on you having the same view on the Tracker as to my eyes they were pretty similar in most respects.... if not quite as good.( How does that work?
) Just shows the importance of personal preference I guess.David
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I had the Olympus side-by-side with the Nikon 8x25 Prostaff/ATB for about a week. I returned the Nikon. Why? The glare was considerably worse in the Nikon, which was surprising because you'd think Nikon could (or would) handle that. The Olympus was sharper. The Nikon was also bigger, heavier, bulkier. When compacts get to a certain size/weight you find yourself saying "Why bother, I'll go midsize."
OK, I'm a cynic, but I suspect Nikon et al. intentionally keep their little reverse porros in the dark ages because a) people just think roofs are better, and b) profit margins are better that way. I've said this before, but if someone would make an alpha 30mm reverse porro they could walk away with best midsize. Like an 8x32 SE only smaller, lighter, cheaper.
I haven't tried the Bushnell 7x26. It's been on my radar screen for a while, though. I suspect the size/weight/why bother question might come up, but after I take care of last night's hail damage--geez, two vehicles dinged, siding full of holes, four windows busted, all my wife's tulips trounced, what's with this weather??--anyway, after that I might try it.
Mark
OK, I'm a cynic, but I suspect Nikon et al. intentionally keep their little reverse porros in the dark ages because a) people just think roofs are better, and b) profit margins are better that way. I've said this before, but if someone would make an alpha 30mm reverse porro they could walk away with best midsize. Like an 8x32 SE only smaller, lighter, cheaper.
I haven't tried the Bushnell 7x26. It's been on my radar screen for a while, though. I suspect the size/weight/why bother question might come up, but after I take care of last night's hail damage--geez, two vehicles dinged, siding full of holes, four windows busted, all my wife's tulips trounced, what's with this weather??--anyway, after that I might try it.
Mark
I think that back in the early 1980's Nikon did make a 9 x 31 reverse porro which was expensive (over $300.00) and good but it did not sell well. I believe the line was called "Executive;" there also was a 7x too, I believe. About the same time Swift made a 9 x 36 IF reverse porro that I had occasion to try. It was quite good and surprisingly compact. I'd be surprised if they sold 100 of them though.
We got some hail here last night too. Today I have someone coming in to repair my fence which blew down during the storms 2 weeks ago.
Bob
We got some hail here last night too. Today I have someone coming in to repair my fence which blew down during the storms 2 weeks ago.
Bob
Last edited:
A while back I spent a winter's afternoon trying out all the compact pairs I could find. They included the Trackers (PCI) 8x25, Nikon Travelite EX 8x25, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon 8x20s, Bushnell 7x26 Elite and a dozen or so lesser pairs (IMO). I could rank them in all kinds of ways, but of course the main considerations for me were my own likes and dislikes. I really dislike veiling flare, CA and blurred edges, and like good contrast, a medium focus speed, good eye relief and of course a really sharp view. Of course all my my comments are entirely subjective, and refer only to the samples I tested on the day. At the cheaper end of the spectrum I've noted quite a bit of sample variation, and probably accounts for some differences in opinions.
I really wanted to be won over by the alpha 8x20s. I liked their size and of course they were sharp with excellent build quality, but there were niggles about CA, veiling flare and eye relief, but the decider was that the 2.5mm exit pupil was too dim for the conditions, and the eye positioning too fussy, particularly with glasses. I didn't like them, so for me they were bottom of that group.
It's a good while ago, so I can't remember all the details I noted at the time, but certain negatives stick in the mind. All of the reverse porros suited me better than the 8x20s. None of them have a particularly wide field of view, but the port hole effect was most notable with the Nikons. The Nikons and the Olympus have a 3.1mm exit pupil and the Bushnells 3.7mm. The difference in brightness was obvious under the conditions. Both the Nikons and Olympus showed CA and some veiling flare, which were both virtually absent on the Bushnells. The focus action was acceptable on all of them, but again the Bushnells suited me best. There is this peculiar phenomenon which we call 3D-effect but is certainly a misnomer when it comes to reverse porros as the objectives are closer together than roofs let alone porros. What ever it is the Bushnells had the most and the Nikons the least. It was difficult to decide which was the sharpest. All three were good but the most dramatic difference between them was contrast. I could see much more detail with the Bushnells than the other two and the Nikons came a poor third.
Of course price is a consideration. In the UK the Olympus can be found for about £63, the Nikons about £80 and the Bushnells £195. For my individual tastes the Bushnells were clearly the best of the three, the Olympus the best value, and if waterproof is important the Nikons the only choice of that three. Take your pick.
Dennis, you have often said you strongly disliked the Bushnells. I would have put money on you having the same view on the Tracker as to my eyes they were pretty similar in most respects.... if not quite as good.( How does that work?
David
There was something about the Bushnell's I didn't care for. I think it curvature of the field. They had a strange view to my eyes. I guess I should try them again sometime. Maybe my pair was a bad sample.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
No, I think there's something to be said about the "gestalt" view of binoculars. They either have it or they don't. The 8x25 Olympus have it. The 8x32 SE have it. The 8.5x42 SV have it (for those not succeptible to rolling ball?). What it is, is another question. I suspect it's a question of sharpness, perfect collimation, big sweet spot, and equal focus between the barrels. I think the Euro alphas often get criticized for "notchy" focus mainly because they are trying to keep both barrels perfectly synchronized. One way to do that is to keep tolerances tight, hence "dry" and "notchy." How Nikon and Pentax and other Japanese companies do this with real smoothness, without notchiness, I don't know.
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
Dennis
I also figured you would not like the Trackers based on your many negative posts on the 7x26 Customs previously. I have a 7x26 B&L Custom (pre 2004) and a new 7x26 Bushnell Custom Elite, and while the Customs have a very slight softness and field curvature at the edge, I would suspect that is due to their much wider FOV. They also have a little better contrast and color fidelity than the Trackers. I did some testing in Dec/Jan with the two Customs, 8x23 Nikon Venturer II, 8x23 Nikon Diplomat AS, 8x26 Bushnell legend, and the 8x25 Trackers. After about a month I decided to keep the Trackers and Customs as the best of the lot and sold the other 3. For anyone unable or unwilling to spend the $$ on the Customs, then the Trackers are "the poor mans/wise mans choice".
Given the choice between the Customs or Trackers, I would keep the 7x26 B&L (pre 2004) or the Bushnell model (12-0726)that came out in 2004 and was discontinued in 2007).
Tom
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
Mark
I think your assessment of the 8x25 Columbia/Kruger Backcountry roof is spot on. I also bought a pair but after comparing them to the Trackers and a pair of 8x28 Bushnell Excursion roofs (discontinued) that I had just picked up, I sent them back. Hard to beat the older 8x28 excursion roofs.
Since you mentioned 8x30 reverse porros, there are a couple of pair that I have always been curious about. Leupold had one under their Windriver brand that I see come up on ebay about once every 6 months. Bushnell had an 8x30 Natureview that was marketed in their "Birding series" line. It was introduced in 2004 and discontinued about 2008/9 ?? I see Opticsale is still selling them for $74.99 shipped but when I talked to them today they said they were out but they would be getting more in June. They explained that even though they are discontinued, that Bushnell sends them 4 to 10 units every 2 months as Bushnell receives them back from delaers as unsold merchandise.
http://www.opticsale.com/bushnell-132030-natureview-11998-prd1.html
I got the Pentax Papilio's 6.5x21 today so I compared them to the Olympus 8x25's and found some small differences but mostly they are pretty close being both reverse porro-prism binoculars. The Papilio's definitely seem higher quality with a smoother focus and a nice rubber armour sheathing protecting the binocular. The nice thing of course about the Papilio's are there bigger FOV @396 feet but that is to be expected with 6.5x magnification and their close focus of 1.6 feet is awesome for butterflies and bugs. The optics on the two are very close or in other words they are both excellent. The Papilio's have a little nicer case and strap I would say but the Olympus's are fine. The Olympus 8x25's are $50.00 and the Papilio's are $80.00. I would say for a bargain basement value the Olympus deliver a similar view. They both weigh about 10 oz. which is very nice to carry in the field let me tell you. I am getting hooked on these little reverse porro prism binoculars. They deliver a beautiful view for very little money. Either one is better than any of the alpha roofs being more comfortable to use and just as sharp and a little brighter. Amazing little binoculars.
Tom,
I can't be certain now, but I'm pretty sure I tested the Nature Views straight after the Trackers that day. If I'm right I felt they were better than the cheaper roofs I'd been testing but no match for the Trackers or the Bushnell Elites.
I'm curious about your preference for the older Customs. After testing the Elites I ordered the 12-0726 in error. I only tried them for an hour and sent them back. I might concede that the colours may have been more neutral but they lacked the colour contrast from the new coatings on the Elite that had really wowed me. I also liked the metal housing and the twist-up eye cups. For me it was worth the couple of oz. weight gain and the few extra £. I guess it's down to personal preference, but I've compare the Elites to about 50 other pairs now and, but I haven't found an affordable big brother that will match the Elites for contrast.
David
I can't be certain now, but I'm pretty sure I tested the Nature Views straight after the Trackers that day. If I'm right I felt they were better than the cheaper roofs I'd been testing but no match for the Trackers or the Bushnell Elites.
I'm curious about your preference for the older Customs. After testing the Elites I ordered the 12-0726 in error. I only tried them for an hour and sent them back. I might concede that the colours may have been more neutral but they lacked the colour contrast from the new coatings on the Elite that had really wowed me. I also liked the metal housing and the twist-up eye cups. For me it was worth the couple of oz. weight gain and the few extra £. I guess it's down to personal preference, but I've compare the Elites to about 50 other pairs now and, but I haven't found an affordable big brother that will match the Elites for contrast.
David
"but I've compare the Elites to about 50 other pairs now and, but I haven't found an affordable big brother that will match the Elites for contrast."
Wow! I think you are worse than me.
Dennis,
I'm definitely not in the same league, I didn't buy them.
David
I didn't either. I returned most of them or sold them. I am just testing them! I only have three pair of binoculars now.
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
I like the older style with the rubber eyecups, because I do not wear glasses with binos and they are a perfect fit with no fiddling around and twisting eyecups out and having them collapse in.. Additionally, they are smaller and I like the grip feel better. The newer Elites feel too blocky to me.
About 7 months ago I was talking to Bushnell on the Customs and Elites and differences. I was curious why in 2004 after losing the B&L name, that they chose to bring the Custom out with a model # 12-xxxx which would indicate the cheaper Legacy line rather than 61-xxxx which was always used for the high end Customs and Discovers. After deciding there was no logical explanation, we moved on to the differences in the new Custom Elites as I was curious if they had changed the optical system. The answer was no, and that the change was to the housing with twist up eyecups, and the addition of an additional AR coating which they claimed upped the brightness by about 2%. No mention was made about increased contrast.
I have both models, and I really don't notice any difference in brightness or contrast between the two, although I can see a difference in the colors of the reflective coatings. Even if I could notice a slight difference, I would give up a couple of percent performance in optical quality for better fit and usability - in any bino. But, either model is an absolute gem.
tom
Tom,
Very interesting. The contrast thing seemed quite striking to me. I've only seen comparable contrast with a Zeiss Conquest and the Opticron Imagic but not tried the top tier pairs yet. Colour sensitivity varies quite a bit between individuals so it's probably down to my eyes. I haven't got enough samples yet but AR coating colour might be a clue. Whatever the reason, I agree they are a gem.
David
Very interesting. The contrast thing seemed quite striking to me. I've only seen comparable contrast with a Zeiss Conquest and the Opticron Imagic but not tried the top tier pairs yet. Colour sensitivity varies quite a bit between individuals so it's probably down to my eyes. I haven't got enough samples yet but AR coating colour might be a clue. Whatever the reason, I agree they are a gem.
David
UPDATE:
Last night I compared the two in more depth especially at dusk and I decided I actually like the view on the Olympus better than the Papilio's. So for less money the Olympus tracker's 8x25 are better optically and a much better bargain. I sent the Papilio's back to Amazon.
