• 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.

Porro or Roof ? Your choice. (1 Viewer)

Henry,

You remember this better than I, but didn't B&L for a short time have an 8x50 porro where the objectives were underhung so that the objective spacing more or less equalled the eyepiece spacing? And Minolta has had a similar range of porros. The former I have never handled, but the Minolta felt quite good and natural in my hands. The design was not as streamlined as in the Perger prisms, but looked and felt more compact than traditional wide porros. Additionally, it is less tiring to hold a binocular if your hands can be held even a mere inch lower.

As to the original posters' question, I have no preference by prism type any more. Roof prism coatings and production technologies/tolerances have developed to a level where the best roofs have for some while not given up anything of visible importance to porros, and now even medium-priced roofs are getting there.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,

Yes, the B&L 8x50 Elites were done that way. I never saw a pair. They were tempting, except the FOV was too narrow for me.

Henry
 
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=415489&d=1353533757

The B&L objective barrels kinked upward with respect to the eyepieces. I suppose that would have made it harder, not easier, to hold.

I prefer the roof for its compact physical form and advanced engineering features. From a design point of view, straight is better than crooked.

To my eyes, the best roof is at least plenty good, optically. Although I was used to it at one time, now the exaggerated 3-D of the typical Porro seems strange. I'm glad we have Porros though, because objectives larger than 60mm require the Porro's big kink or the lenses will collide.
Ron
 
henry link said:
I seldom use Porros for birding anymore because I often bird at close range in woodland settings. In that situation I dislike the effects of the wide objective spacing. The "enhanced" stereopsis at mid distances from widely spaced objectives doesn't look more natural to me; it just looks like more stereopsis. I find the effect neutral by itself, but it comes with the disadvantage of excessive parallax at close distances. I begin to notice a problem at about 25', where an object centered in one barrel of an 8x Porro (with objective spacing twice the eye's IPD) is about 7º of apparent field off-axis in the other barrel. At 12' the difference between the two sides is around 15º of apparent field. Some Porros with good off-axis performance handle the displacement better than others, but all suffer at close range from poorer field overlap and increased exit pupil vignetting compared to binoculars with objectives placed in-line with the eyes.

For long distance uses, like astronomy, I don't have any preference as to prism type.
Click to expand...
Porro's look more natural to me at any distance they will focus at than a roof. Roof's have a flat one dimensional view that is not natural. Nature is three dimensional.
 
ronh said:
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=415489&d=1353533757

The B&L objective barrels kinked upward with respect to the eyepieces. I suppose that would have made it harder, not easier, to hold.

I prefer the roof for its compact physical form and advanced engineering features. From a design point of view, straight is better than crooked.....
Ron
Click to expand...

Large hands/narrow bins do not a match make.

Or as the French tightrope walker on TV used to say: Wider is Bedder.

And those "crooked" prisms 'don't need those "advanced engineering features" of phase coatings and dielectric coatings to deliver sharp, bright images.

<B>
 
Last edited:
I like to look at and through my Porro.
But for carrying around when size matters (e.g. hiking) I prefer a roof.
 
Leif said:
Adding to Henry's point, porros are not good for insects such as butterflies and dragonflies, due to the wide spacing of the objectives. I had forgotten that, and I am sure many birders and wildlife watching users watch insects.
Click to expand...

Leif makes an excellent point here. My bins are used for nature observation, I'm not a specialist birder, and close-focusing roofs have opened many new opportunities that simply wouldn't be accessible by normal porros. Reverse porros is one answer but then we are back to strangely-shaped bins again.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Troubador said:
... My bins are used for nature observation, I'm not a specialist birder, and close-focusing roofs have opened many new opportunities that simply wouldn't be accessible by normal porros. Reverse porros is one answer but then we are back to strangely-shaped bins again.

Lee
Click to expand...

I've long wondered why neither Leica, Nikon, Swaro nor Zeiss has offered a binocular designed for close-in birding and insect-watching. Right now all we have is the Pentax Papilio and various monoculars.

Roof, porro or whatever – but I'm thinking a close focus distance of less than a metre, possibly 50-70cm.

Don't they think there's enough of a market for such an instrument?
 
Last edited:
Brigadier said:
I've long wondered why neither Leica, Nikon, Swaro nor Zeiss has offered a binocular designed for close-in birding and insect-watching. Right now all we have is the Pentax Papilio and various monoculars.

Roof, porro or whatever – but I'm thinking a close focus distance of less than a metre, possibly 50-70cm.

Don't they think there's enough of a market for such an instrument?
Click to expand...
Probably not enough of a market. Most birders bird beyond 10 feet or so.
 
Brigadier said:
I've long wondered why neither Leica, Nikon, Swaro nor Zeiss has offered a binocular designed for close-in birding and insect-watching. Right now all we have is the Pentax Papilio and various monoculars.

Roof, porro or whatever – but I'm thinking a close focus distance of less than a metre, possibly 50-70cm.

Don't they think there's enough of a market for such an instrument?
Click to expand...

At these short distances the eyes are forced to be boss-eyed. Leica, Nikon and Zeiss do have monoculars with good close focus, though. Swarovski offer closest focus of 1,5m with their 42mm Swarovisions. I can't understand why the close focus capacity of the 32mm SV is worse with only 2m. Anyway, these Papilios are quite fascinating. In a way one can explore a complete new world with their help.

Steve
 
hinnark said:
At these short distances the eyes are forced to be boss-eyed.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Have a look at this: http://www.squidoo.com/pentaxpapiliobinoculars.

hinnark said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss do have monoculars with good close focus, though. Swarovski offer closest focus of 1,5m with their 42mm Swarovisions. I can't understand why the close focus capacity of the 32mm SV is worse with only 2m. Anyway, these Papilios are quite fascinating. In a way one can explore a complete new world with their help. Steve
Click to expand...

If Pentax can make a 50cm (18in) close focus binocular that works very well, why can't Leica, Nikon, Swarovski or Zeiss?

Dennis is probably right, they could – they just don't choose to because they don't think they'd sell enough units to recoup their costs.

Yet many people I know would love a handy, all-round nature observation binocular to view things near and far.
 
Brigadier said:
Are you sure? Have a look at this: http://www.squidoo.com/pentaxpapiliobinoculars.



If Pentax can make a 50cm (18in) close focus binocular that works very well, why can't Leica, Nikon, Swarovski or Zeiss?

Dennis is probably right, they could – they just don't choose to because they don't think they'd sell enough units to recoup their costs.

Yet many people I know would love a handy, all-round nature observation binocular to view things near and far.
Click to expand...

Well, what I've written applies for normal roof binoculars. With reverse porros one could get a bit closer, of course. The Papilios are reverse porros with additional help for closest distance or macro observation, where the focussing is combined with the change of the needed distance of the objective lenses to each other. Yes, I think they assume the market is not big enough for high class close-up-binoculars. So the Papilios continue to keep their USP. Perhaps an expert should show them (and potential buyers) the wonders of nature one can find at all distances out there at a special guided tour. I would not be surprised, if they've never known and never heard anything about it.

BTW, I've found the Papilios also quite useful for household chores. I use them at a regular basis for inspecting the windows in order to tell my better half when it's time for a cleaning. They are very good at showing every little dust particle sticking at the glass.

Steve
 
Last edited:
hinnark said:
...........

BTW, I've found the Papilios also quite useful for household chores. I use them at a regular basis for inspecting the windows in order to tell my better half when it's time for a cleaning. They are very good at showing every little dust particle sticking at the glass.

Steve
Click to expand...

So..... How is this working out for you?;)

I believe if I used my binoculars to tell my wife how dirty the windows are- my binoculars would need to be going in for service; because of the trauma caused by their impact with the wall across the room.:eek!:
 
Hello all,

Regarding close observation.

My ophthalmic physician explained to me that close focus has a narrower pupillary distance, 2 mm shorter than distant pupillary distance. By close distance, he probably meant reading distance.I believe that the Papillo compensate for this mechanically. A reverse Porro apparently accommodates this by the spacing of the objectives. Roof prism binoculars with no extra spacing, are probably good for their close focussing of around 2.75 metres. Widely spaced Porro glasses are going to give trouble, which may be why they are designed with close focus of around 4.5 metres or more. With my glasses off, I can see as close as 4.5 metres without eyestrain. I suppose that if I narrowed the IPD on the binocular and the permitted focussing was closer, I might squeeze another meter. However, with an 8x glass are not 4.5 metres sufficient for bird watching, as opposed to watching moths?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
hinnark said:
BTW, I've found the Papilios also quite useful for household chores. I use them at a regular basis for inspecting the windows in order to tell my better half when it's time for a cleaning. They are very good at showing every little dust particle sticking at the glass.

Steve
Click to expand...

my GOD !!! your poor wife... I hope it's a joke (?)
 
In combination with white gloves and a laser pointer it will probably work quite well.
Keeps her at heel;)
 
oetzi said:
In combination with white gloves and a laser pointer it will probably work quite well.
Keeps her at heel;)
Click to expand...

Oetzi

You have been eating those Swabian wursts again and you know it makes you a bit crazy. Please stop it :)

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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

A
Do you use your Nikon roofs in the rain?
Replies
16
Views
1K
quincy88
Q
S
Got my first Nikon today…
Replies
0
Views
926
safaridreaming
S
L
Nikon Monarch M7, Hawke Frontier HD or Kowa BDII XD for the aged of sixty? All in 8x30
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Elkhornsun
E
J
A strange 8x32 choice.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Julian61
J
hopster
TIR, prism choice and its effect on image quality
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
5K
Trinovid
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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