Midsize Binocular Shootout: Opticron Oregon 8x32 vs Sightron Blue Sky 8x32 vs MavenB3 (1 Viewer)

The numbers I gave are relative - if an Oregon were to cost us $100 ex-factory, an Opticron-branded version of the Sightron would cost us $90 (albeit from a different factory). Similarly, an Opticron-branded version of the Maven B3 would cost us 4.2 times as much as we pay for the Oregon. I can't really elaborate more on the forum without giving away too much information!!

The Sightron is phase coated, the Oregon is not which may account for much of the difference in optical performance. That also accounts for some of the difference in the price you can buy each one for.

Why would a better spec binocular cost less? That we can only speculate upon - maybe the guys at that particular factory negotiated their wages better or the boss is saving for a new Range Rover

Cheers, Pete

ads said:

After further testing, I think I should bump the center resolution rating that I gave the Blue Sky up to a 5. I may have a bad copy. I really have a lot of trouble getting the diopter setting set correctly with the Blue Sky. Sometimes the diopter adjustment feels like it has a detent... and sometimes it feels like it doesn't... odd.

Click to expand...

Your copy certainly seems to be worse than mine. You've also mentioned that it has a stiff focuser. My Blue Sky has a wonderfully smooth focuser. I wish all of my binos focused exactly like it. And my diopter adjustment is fairly good too, moves smoothly but a bit stiff. Easy to adjust and holds its setting. No detente'ish feel. It feels a little cheap and I'd like detentes or a lock. But it does the job.

Likewise for your observations about it having average resolution/sharpness. Mine is quite good, better than expected.

Pete, I look forward to the Oregon 5. Overall the Oregon 4 is a very likeable, relatively inexpensive binocular.

Tom Bombadil said:

You've also mentioned that it has a stiff focuser.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I used the word stiff to describe the focusing of the Blue Sky, but it definitely has more resistance than I prefer. I prefer little to zero resistance, but others may have a different preference. The focusing is also slower than I prefer.

A note on the transferability of 'sweet spot' measurements.
Because the common definition involves a standard which is in fact threshold someone can detect,
the error in measurement is oddly the same as the measurement itself, so it has little repeatability
and accuracy according to normal standards of metrology. As a result, this cannot be
transferrable from one person to another (30 arc-sec for one person, 60 for another),
or even for one person during the day or across days or different lighting.
By definition, it is not an accurate metric. Two different eyestrain conditions during
testing, for example, give a false impression.

I compare with 'usable sharpness', reading to the equivalent of 90 arc-seconds.
It is a zone a little wider than 'sweet spot', but much more transferable to different
people, times of day, and days, since the margin of error is less than the measure,
(for curves and stereo effects I can detect down to ~40 arc-sec apparent)
and because the steepness of the fall-off puts the number pretty close for two different people.
You may want a better focus, but it would be nearby and much more reliable to declare as well.

Using a more repeatable standard makes it a lot easier to compare and identify
'standard', 'improved', and 'advanced' fields in the historical collection, and tells
me what to expect inside for eyepiece design. "Sweet spot" fluctuates during a
busy day.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that the size of the sweet spots of the 3 models was pretty darn similar. (I can no longer edit the ratings in my original post.) I'm not sure if it was because I did not asses them carefully enough initially, or if it was of a difference conditions, or my perception changed because of something else.

The sweet spot size of all three is decent, but considerably smaller than my Kowa BD XD 8x42. I definitely prefer the flatter field of the Kowa and more expensive binoculars.

Very precise mechanical alignment
is a hallmark of earlier Kowas. The past lingers on.
This leads to a symmetric, flat field, where a solid focuser
and perfect spacing of the field lens give you something more.
Even a 1/2 degree wobble left to right loses sharp field width,
more than it loses L-R focal tracking.

It's usually clear what makes a Fujinon great.
What makes a Kowa is more subtle, mainly that lovely flat alignment.
I just tweeked in the alignment of some old Prominars this morning.
It's quite something when it all comes together.