ED models - how do they compete ? (1 Viewer)

I noticed that mayoayo pricked now to sell a pair. Wanting $600. Bad timing ;(

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=122500

Err, dupe (simultaneous post!).

Got the 8x32 DCF ED yesterday, but have not had much time with them. Conditions have been ideal for viewing today, which is actually not a good thing for bringing out the differences.
My initial impressions are:
-they handle a little differently, in spite of being almost identical. The weight feels a bit more centered. I believe they actually have a bit more eye relief, too, as I don't press them into my eyes quite as much as the SPs for comfortable viewing.
-they do have better contrast between colors, and colors are "deeper" or more saturated.
-they do suppress glare better in some ways(more on that later, after I've tried a few things). The best way I can describe this is that with say, foliage in bright sunlight, the SP looks like a monitor or tv that has had the brightness turned up a little too high, causing the view to look a little washed out in comparison to that of the ED.
-CA is suppressed, but not eliminated. It is much less noticeable in the 8x SP than the 12.5x SP. Still, with the 8x SP, a distant ridgeline typically shows a small band of color when viewed off-axis. As if the edges had been gently highlight in greenish yellow or violet depending on the angle, with a small band of color just above the treeline. With the 8x ED there is a barely visible fringe of color just at the treeline.
-Finally, there is a bit of difference in focusing. I'm not sure if this is a matter of the focuser's mechanics or the optics. They do seem to snap into focus better than the SP, with which I frequently overcompensate by a hair and nudge the focus back. With the ED it seems more immediately obvious when optimum focus has been reached. Again, this is a small difference, but another one that adds to ease of use, and viewing comfort.

The ED does give a more relaxed view with the impression of greater depth. The difference in CA is not enough to matter to me, since I have to try to see it with the SP to begin with. Perhaps related, though, it that resolution does seem better, with things like markings on birds, discolored spots on leaves, and distant mailbox numbers being a bit easier to discern.

I guess the real question is whether the ED glass and different coatings are worth the price difference. At this point I can't give an opinion on that(for the price I paid, sure, but at the normal selling price, with a $300-450 premium, I'm decidedly less sure). Once I've used these bins side by side under more varied and challenging conditions, perhaps I'll see a more pronounced difference....or perhaps not. Remains to be seen.
I'll probably start a thread dedicated to this comparison in the general binoculars forum after I've had a little more time with them.

Sounds good.

They do seem to snap into focus better than the SP, with which I frequently overcompensate by a hair and nudge the focus back.

Click to expand...

Sounds familiar. I also fiddle with the diopter a tiny bit on the 10x. It is not exactly the same at near and far.

When I say that, I am not implying a lack of DOF, or that everything suddenly jumps into focus. DOF is actually better with the ED. I'm saying that it does present a sharper image without effort, so I'm not bumping the focus thinking "is this the best focus, or do I need to...?".
I believe I'd read a comment somewhere that the close focus might sacrifice DOF for whatever reason, but it isn't so. The ED actually gets "binocular vision" at closer distance than the SP, yet focuses down closer, too. Under 8-10 feet, I find myself closing one eye. I'm 5'6", and the ED focuses on my shoes when bent over so the objectives are waist high. With the SP, I have to raise up another 6-8 inches.

After several days and nights' use with both binoculars side-by-side at home and work, under sunny, cloudy, rainy, clear, hazy, plus nighttime with and without ambient/side light, I'll say that the ED is visibly, and usually noticeably, better in every respect(a very high def viewing experience), except what I suppose is stray light. For example: Viewing a streetlight at night from a distance, and moving the bins away from the light toward a barely lit house to one side so that the light is outside the FOV-with the SP there will be a moment where the light coming into the objective forms a dim halo on one side of the view. With the ED in the same circumstances, a strong "starbust" of light radiating outward from the light source impedes the view. I'm sure this is indicative of "something" that the coatings are doing to incoming light, or reflection due to some extra internal element, etc. Whatever, it's beyond my ability to explain. This effect is not mirrored by the sun in daylight use-have only seen it at night.
The SPs doing better in darkness with strong light sources to their front actually works out pretty good, since the only time this really matters to me is at work, where I don't want to be tempted to bring the EDs, anyway!
Was also afraid another 8x32 would be redundant, having already given my dad my Browning 8x32 after liking the SP much better. I don't regret these EDs at all, though, and have no intention of getting rid of the SP. I'd rather my best bins stay at home or in the truck while the SPs ride in my bag as my (very good)spare/work binoculars.

btw, the strap and rainguard are standard fare for Pentax-fit for the garbage can. I'll be getting a Bushnell or EO rainguard and Op/Tech Classic strap for these, like I have on the SP(just a different color strap so I don't mix them up when I'm not paying attention!).

Something about the 8x32 format is addictive to me. I was 100% satisfied with the SP. I'm ecstatic about the ED. For some reason I still want to try the new Meopta 8x32, even the much less expensive Promaster Infinity Elite, and even having a strong preference for roofs, am still extremely tempted by the Nikon Premier SE still available for $550. This just never seems to end...

It will probably be November before I get to try the EDs alongside the upper echelon 8x32s like the Swarovski EL, Leica Ultravid, and Zeiss FL, but I'll be really stoked about getting to see how they stack up.

edited to add that there is a review of the DCF ED series, and comparative comments about the SP in the optics4birding review here:
http://www.optics4birding.com/pentax-dcf-ed-binoculars-review.aspx

Yes ,i bought a pair of the ED 8x32 at an incredible price,and decided to sell them and use the money for another purchase(ED50)..Well, i sold them,made a couple hundred dollars,and REALLY regret it....I though ,well,i can buy myself a pair of 8x32 SP ,for half the price,and probably not notice much difference..I didnt get the SP,but i bought a pair that suppose to be even a bit better,the Minox BD 8x32..Well...NO COMPARISON...Perhaps the ED glass doesnt really gets that much advantage in CA correction,or doesnt really makes that much of a difference in sharpness,BUT,the contrast..The contrast,the overall contrast ,based on the control of flare,..THERE is the name of the game for me right now...I wasnt able to let the ,otherwise excellent ,image in the BD impress me ,because i was constantly in check,avoiding flares or repositioning the glasses..I think the image was (in the BD)as sharp as the ED ,and color fringe was not much of a problem for me(the ED had only nominal amounts of it in the 90% outer edge),but the contrast that THE NEW COATINGS brought to the image was impressive,NO FLARE,..perhaps a small shine ,in the most horrible light conditions,did creep slightly into the most outer edge of the image and created a small crescent at the edge ,but NEVER fully flared...look at the pictures of the coatings,they look JUST like the HIGH-HIGH end binoculars out there....AND i can guarantee you that even a 600-700 they are worth the money...I didnt know HOW GOOD they are ,until i sold them!!!!!!

I have a greater appreciation for the EDs now that I've used them with a rest, and mounted on a monopod. These are clearly sharper than the SP models, and the difference in resolution is much more obvious from a solid support.
I recently compared the 8x32 SP, 8x32 ED, Meopta 10x42, and 12.5x50 SP from a supported position. The Meopta had better color saturation, and a bigger, brighter overall view than the SPs, but was no better(if as good) at controlling CA, and the amount of detail resolved was directly in line with magnification when comparing between the three.
However, I am seeing the same level of detail at long range with the 8x32 ED as with the 12.5x50 SP, in spite of the significant difference in magnification. That's really impressing me. The fact that I think it also has even better color than the 10x Meoptas, much less CA, and better resolution resulted in their return to Cabelas(never got completely comfortable with the eye relief, and they had a speck on some internal part that showed up in the view, too). I'm even questioning my need for the 12.5x, but as the weather cools, and mirage becomes less of an issue, I expect the 12.5x50s to come into their own for the uses that I bought them for.

Though the specs and eyecups are the same, the 8x32 ED does seem to have a bit more eye relief than the SP, which isn't a good thing for me. I can't hold them tight against my face like I'm used to with the SP, and this allows some light in from the side at times, plus some minor blackout when panning if careful positioning isn't maintained. While the view is wonderful, this does keep them from being effortless in use.

OwenM said:

However, I am seeing the same level of detail at long range with the 8x32 ED as with the 12.5x50 SP.

Click to expand...

Owen,

That is a very controversial statement. According to my experience not even the best available optics can compete to neither a budget optics with 50% larger image sale. And here you are talking about two binoculars both in the midpriced area. I really think you have not compared to really small details...
When I compare my Swarovski SLC 7x42 to my Bresser 10x50 though the Swarovski is clearly sharper it can not beat the Bresser with less than 1/20 of the price when it comes to resolution. Ok, the Bresser is a non waterproof porro with very sharp image corresponding to some several times more expensive waterproof roofs. But anyway. The basic rule of binoculars is that the magnification rules. A sharper image can compensate to such a level, but not THAT much. The best 7x glasses hardly can compete to a 1/5 priced 10x model of similar design and size. In my opinion.

Regards, Patric

Swedpat said:

Owen,

That is a very controversial statement.

Click to expand...

Not really. You just ignored the fact that I specifically stated "long range", and mentioned mirage.
It's more about atmospheric conditions than anything. I'm not indoors reading printed pages in a lit room here.
The 8x32 ED deals with CA, glare, haze, mirage, etc. better than the 12.5x50 SP whose extra magnification serves to make all of those things much more noticeable. Presumably due to its ED glass and different coatings, it also deals with them better than the indentically spec'ed 8x32 SP, which is what I'm really comparing them to.
Like I said, right now I see as much detail at long range with the 8x32 ED as with the 12.5x50 SP. That will change as the weather cools, and the challenges presented by heat and humidity coupled with terrain features disappear, and for this comparison was only noteworthy in that the 8x32 SP does not show that same level of detail.

The 8x32 ED deals with CA

Click to expand...

I think that is an interesting point. The reduction of color fringing on any object should provide for a sharper image...both apparent and actual. In which case it would stand to reason that an 8x ED binocular might outperform a 12.5x assuming the 12.5x does not control color fringing very well and the 8x does.

My experience with the 7x42 Trinovid BN and the 10x50 Meopta Meostar was similar to Owen's. I utilized both for hawkwatching a year or two ago. In such a situation there wasn't a single instance I can remember where the 10x actually showed me something that the 7x did not. Now the 10x50 did show notably more color fringing than the 7x in that particular situation. I am now left wondering if CA was the sole contributor or if Owen's atmospheric conditions comment also play a significant role.

This is an interesting discussion. I have always been fascinated by the reasons users choose binoculars with less magnification over binoculars with greater magnification.

Some users mention sharpness, ease of handling, CA, color rendition, and/or contrast.

Are there other reasons we find the view through binoculars with less magnification more satisfying than the view through binoculars with greater magnification?

--Bob
Kentucky

OwenM said:

Not really. You just ignored the fact that I specifically stated "long range", and mentioned mirage.
It's more about atmospheric conditions than anything. I'm not indoors reading printed pages in a lit room here.
The 8x32 ED deals with CA, glare, haze, mirage, etc. better than the 12.5x50 SP whose extra magnification serves to make all of those things much more noticeable. Presumably due to its ED glass and different coatings, it also deals with them better than the indentically spec'ed 8x32 SP, which is what I'm really comparing them to.
Like I said, right now I see as much detail at long range with the 8x32 ED as with the 12.5x50 SP. That will change as the weather cools, and the challenges presented by heat and humidity coupled with terrain features disappear, and for this comparison was only noteworthy in that the 8x32 SP does not show that same level of detail.

Click to expand...

Ok, I can understand it if comparing the resolution during circumstances when the atmospheric conditions limit the visible information. Excuse for the misunderstanding.

Regards, Patric

Some reasons, IMHO:

• Easier to use by novices for locating targets especially moving targets. Related to FOV.
• Reduced shake in normal handheld use. Very useful for either younger people or older people who are finding even x8 too much of a pain.
• Reduced shake especially on a moving vehicle or a boat hence the WW1 and WW2 standards being 6x and 7x and this persists in the military (e.g. current US Army M-22 is 7x50 porro and the M-24 is 7x28 roof prism). Everyone who intends to go on a pelagic trip should have a low mag (< 8x) bin. Even birding from ferries can be helped by a x6 or x7.
• Larger exit pupil for a more relaxed view. Easier to line up with the eye's entrace pupil. Less fiddly especially when wearing eyeglasses.
• Larger exit pupil for more light. This is not needed for most people in the USA because twilight is so short but if you are looking for birds in especially at northern latitudes in twilight in winter (e.g Canada and Northern Europe) this can help.
• Habitat . This goes with wider FOV but I often find in woodland or similar habitats (including urban and parks/gardens) where you are "close to the action" a bin with less than x8 can be useful.
• Reduced aberrations. Reducing the magnification often improves the image too by reducing aberrations. The converse is also true compare any bin that comes in x8 and x10 and see the difference ... thing what it would look like in x6.
• Wider field of view. This used to be more important a decade or more ago. We're seen more bins with wide FOVs at 8x but especially with roofs but 8 degree fields seem to bring more stray light issues.
• More eye relief. Another more historical reason but a lower magnification require a longer focal length eyepiece and you can design those with longer ER.
• Historical reasons (e.g. "A 7x35 was good enough for my Dad ...") but they were mostly associated with FOV at the time.

I'd love to see more smaller objective lower magnification bins to keep the size of the object pupil up. This would make smaller, lighter bins that are no so fiddley to line up with the eye (especially if you wear eyeglasses). e.g. 7x28, 6x28, 6x24. They've all been made in the past even the 6x24 was a standard German military glass (from WW1, I believe but used in WW2 too).

But a problem with moving to these smaller magnifications is "shopping by numbers". Bigger is better. It's the American Way. So they sell less well because people "know they need the magnification".

BTW, I keep seeing Steiner imply that their 8x30 is the M-22 but not according to the people at army.mil (though their temp spec is amusing ... -400F to 1580F ... that's liquid nitrogen fogging the bins ). I see their Steiner 8x30 has the US Army M-22 reticle and is in service with Special Forces sniper/observers but not the general Army. They also make a 6x30.

http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_CSW_M25.pdf
http://www.steiner-binoculars.com/binoculars/law/481.html

Kevin Purcell said:

I'd love to see more smaller objective lower magnification bins to keep the size of the object pupil up. This would make smaller, lighter bins that are no so fiddley to line up with the eye (especially if you wear eyeglasses). e.g. 7x28, 6x28, 6x24. They've all been made in the past even the 6x24 was a standard German military glass (from WW1, I believe but used in WW2 too).

But a problem with moving to these smaller magnifications is "shopping by numbers". Bigger is better. It's the American Way. So they sell less well because people "know they need the magnification".

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I completely agree! I use to say that I think compacts in general are overpowered. (it's much more difficult to find a 7x version of a compact than a 7x fullsized, why? ) As well when taking in consideration the advantages of a larger exit pupil and the fact that lightweight small glasses are more shaky than full sized models.
Some years ago I mailed Leica and asked them why not manufacture a 6 or 7x25 model, and explained the advantages in comparison to 10x. The answer I received was something like such a configuration would not be enough attractive.
Of course it's understandable that the manufacturers cannot produce models if too few persons will by them. But if a 4x28 model had been very attractive as well Leica and other companies had offered it.
I am really convinced that many binocular users don't know what's really the ideal! They think: the higher power the better. And I don't think that is typhical american thinking.

Regards, Patric

And on another thread I added ...

I mentioned on another thread a long list of reasons why < 8x magnification is a good idea:

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1303666&postcount=32

One thing to keep in mind is that pretty much every military out there uses 7x bins as the general purpose binocular. So I presume they know something we don't.

The only counter argument, which I've made about IF versus CF bins before, is that soldiers, like hunters, are looking for other people (1m scale objects at greater than 100m range) whereas birders area liking for 5mm details at ranges less than 50m. The resolution of the handheld binocular/eye system is limited either by shaking (at about 10x for most people) or by the eye itself so the system resolution is the eyes resolution (typically 1 arc minute) divided by the magnification with most good binoculars not limiting the resolution (a binocular resolution of < 6 arc seconds or better). So with a magnification of less than 10x one throws away some potential resolution for a gain in other areas (bigger exit pupil for more relaxed view; wider FOV; less shake so a less tiring view; etc).

In fact that's one of the things I like about the Promaster 7x32 (despite the stray light issues and the too deep eyecups ... ) is it's a nice balance of resolution/shake/exit pupil/FOV/AFOV. If it was more compact, lighter and didn't have stray light issues it would be excellent.

I do like x8 especially at 40ish mm objectives. But for smaller objectives I'd love the option of lower magnification: 7x32 and 6x28.

I know there are a few of us here that think this way but very few in the bin business. Even 7x is becoming more uncommon for full size bins though the Euro 3 still seem to understand giving their continuing sales to x7 users (even when they need a different design from the x8 and x10 in the same range like the Zeiss FLs). But elsewhere ti seems 7x makers get punished like Bushnell when they released the Discovery 7x and 10x that former didn't sell so well and then they released a 8x to try to make up for it. I don't think Bushnell make any 7x today (except the 7x26 compact).

Like porros, 7x bins seems to be viewed as "old fashioned".

Kevin--

Thank you for the details you gave to my question--why users chose lesser magnification over greater magnification? You definitely put a lot of thought into this question.

And thank you for the U.S. Army Family of Binoculars Fact Sheet. I became so interested by this fact sheet that I located the following article (Army, Feb 2007) that gives a nice description of the M22, M24, and M25 U.S. Army binoculars.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200702/ai_n18622297

Thank you again.

--Bob
Kentucky

FrankD said:

I am now left wondering if CA was the sole contributor or if Owen's atmospheric conditions comment also play a significant role.

Click to expand...

I've been playing with some of those Pentax PCF WP 7x50s that are on clearance for $50, and while their resolution in the center of the field is pretty pleasing, and there is less CA than with my 8x32 ED, glare and a bit of internal reflection are still evident. While not doubting that CA is part of the issue, I think that is only part of the story.
I live on a ridge that parallels the sun's path across the sky, with direct sunlight throughout the day. This time of year, there is serious glare to the east first thing in the morning, to the west in late evening, and practically everywhere in between those times. It's noticeable just looking at foliage in my back yard ~30 yards from my deck.
In the morning, a series of ridges perpendicular to mine(where I watch hawks) is backdropped by the rising sun, and late in the day, the neighbor on the other sides yard(where a number of bird houses, feeders, and a garden attract a variety of species) is by the setting sun. Each of those perpendicular ridges to the east is outlined by waves of mirage, the entire scene saturated with glare(sometimes I can't even look east at all with the naked eye), and on really bad haze days(through the 12.5x) each ridge might feature its own swath of readily visible CA.
The good news is that I can take two steps out onto my deck, watch several hawks, make a half-turn and watch a couple of rabbits or woodpeckers, make another half-turn and sometimes have half a dozen different birds in the FOV at the same time.
The bad news is that the viewing conditions can be pretty challenging.


For the 8x32 ED subject, I replaced the strap with the "compact" model from Vortex that is sold with the Hurricane 28mm models, after deciding that the Op/Tech Classic that I put on my SP is too wide and bulky. The Vortex strap sits more naturally on my neck than the Op/Tech, and offers better comfort than the plain one Pentax includes with their binoculars. I would call it a bare minimum strap for the 23.5oz. 8x32, but I like it.

Yes, me and a few others who are a little tired of the lack of innovation in the market

That is one of the best articles out there on the Army bins.

I've been meaning to start a thread on the US Army bins.

The M22, however, was too large to meet the needs of all warfighters. As a result, the Army procured a smaller version of the binocular system, which has been designated as the M24 mini binocular.

"The M24 is tiny-it just fits in the pocket of the BDUs or ACUs," Muldowney said. "The first ones came out in 2005."

Although smaller (5.31 inches x 4.92 inches x 2.68 inches) and lighter (1.26 pounds) than the M22, the M24 provides the same TX magnification with a 28 mm objective lens diameter. Northrop Grumman Corporation is also the prime contractor of the M24 system.

Click to expand...

The M-24 was a radical departure. A roof prism bin. For all soldiers. But I do find the offical name amusing: M-24 Minature binoculars. That's miniature as in weighing 20oz and about 5" x 5" in size. I guess it's all relative: the M-22 does weigh 2lbs 11oz.

And it's nice to see the "users" wanted the M-25 stabilized bin to be the same weight as the M-24. They're just like us really

Those military articles were interesting to read. My first experience with the Steiner M-22 was almost 18 years ago. I'd only had Jason Empire 7x35 bins before seeing those, and thought the M-22 was great. I wonder what I would think of it now that I have a few good binoculars, and have had a couple of chances to try out the real high dollar stuff.

Now really drifting off topic but one can't mention military bins on a birding forum without mentioning

http://birdingbabylon.blogspot.com/

Start here

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/151/

and work your way through or buy the book

http://birdingbabylon.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_archive.html

I also find this entry very interesting (there are lots of them but this is pretty big)

http://birdingbabylon.blogspot.com/2007/01/field-guide-to-birds-of-iraq-important_28.html

Birdlife International and Nature Iraq announced the publication of the first Arabic language field guide to the country's 387 recorded bird species. In fact the Field Guide to the Birds of Iraq is the first comprehensive, fully illustrated guide to any Arabic speaking country.

Click to expand...

Quite clearly we need more Arabic field guides and more Arab birders. One forgets that birding is very definitely anglophone (British, Commonwealth and American) past time (with of course the odd wacky European too).

He never mentions which bins he was using in Iraq (civilian or M-24). I should ask him.

Kevin Purcell said:

http://birdingbabylon.blogspot.com/2007/01/field-guide-to-birds-of-iraq-important_28.html "In fact the Field Guide to the Birds of Iraq is the first comprehensive, fully illustrated guide to any Arabic speaking country."

Click to expand...

Sorry to get further off topic, but I'm not sure the claim about the Iraq guide is strictly true unless it is narrowed to books in Arabic and restricted to a single country. A Field Guide to the Birds of the Middle East (by Porter, Christensen, and Schiermacker-Hansen) is comprehensive and fully illustrated, and it covers quite a few Arabic speaking countries as well as Turkey and Iran. It is my favorite by far, but there are many others worth noting. Birds of Britain and Europe with North Africa and the Middle East (by Heinzel, Fitter and Parslow) is comprehensive and fully illustrated with respect to covering all the Arabic speaking countries of the Levant, Mesopotamia, and the northern parts of north African countries like Egypt. The Birds of the United Arab Emirates (by Colin Richardson) is comprehensive and fully illustrated, though many illustrations are in black and white. Common Birds of Egypt (by Bruun and Baha el Din) is in English and Arabic, has color illustrations of only common species but does include a comprehensive list. I think the Birds of Oman is also comprehensive and fully illustrated, though it is a coffee table book and not as up to date as others.

--AP