Hi,
I'm brand new to this forum and I'm planning on buying new binos for a birding trip to the Andamans. So I'd like to ask the many experienced birders here a few questions:
1. I can afford to buy one of the top-3 binos (Zeiss, Leica, Swaro), but I'd like to know whether they are really worth the significant extra cost as compared to high-quality mid-priced binos (like Vortex Viper/Razor or some Pentax models). Where I live, I don't have the opportunity to try out these side-by-side with mid-priced binos to see for myself. I don't want to buy one of these purely because of their brand-name - I want to see some real difference in the image quality. Some sub-questions I'd like the answers to:
a) Are the differences between the mid-priced binos and the top-3 very plainly obvious when looking thru them or are they only measurable using standardized/scientific tests?
b) If visible while viewing through them, are the differences very subtle, so that they don't matter most of the time? For example, if these binos offer pretty much the same quality of optics as mid-priced binos most days under most lighting conditions, but would allow me, say, about 15 minutes of extra birding late at dawn/dusk, I would not consider the cost worthwhile. On the other hand, if they will allow a whole extra hour or two of birding, then I would consider that appealing.
c) I don't expect the price/performance to be linear, ie, if cost is 5x, I don't expect the image quality to be 5x - but is the image quality atleast 1.5x for a 5x cost (granted, this is all very subjective)? For example, if the Zeiss offers only a 5% better image than a Vortex Viper/Razor, I'm not convinced it justifies the 4x or 5x cost.
2. THe Vortex Viper has rave reviews everywhere including this forum. But when I tested it out at a local store, it wasn't able to focus all that sharply - focus wasn't bad, but not as good as I expected it to be. Is it just the specimen I tested, or has anyone else noticed this? I did notice that it was somewhat brighter than the Razor (surpisingly) - this despite the fact that the Viper was a 10x42 and the Razor was an 8x42!
3. I realize that most birders seem to prefer 8x42 or 10x42 and almost never a 10x50. All comparison reviews of binos I find on the web also only seem to review the 8x42 & 10x42 models of various brands. I'd like to know why that's the case. 3 reasons I can think of - weight, FOV & close-focus - seem to have largely been addressed in mid-priced to high-priced binos these days. For example, the 10x50 Leica Ultravid HD offers 352ft FOV (larger than that of the 10x42 part), is only about 35 ounces (8 ounces more than the 10x42 part) and has a close focus of 10.8 ft (only 1 ft more than the 10x42).
Besides the above reasons, are there any image quality issues with the 10x50 models of mid-to-high end parts compared to their 10x42 parts? I'd like to buy a 10x50 part because of the extra brightness it offers, but not if the 10x50 part offers relatively inferior image quality.
I'd really appreciate it if one (or more) of you experienced birders in this forum could answer the questions above.
Thank you for your time!
I'm brand new to this forum and I'm planning on buying new binos for a birding trip to the Andamans. So I'd like to ask the many experienced birders here a few questions:
1. I can afford to buy one of the top-3 binos (Zeiss, Leica, Swaro), but I'd like to know whether they are really worth the significant extra cost as compared to high-quality mid-priced binos (like Vortex Viper/Razor or some Pentax models). Where I live, I don't have the opportunity to try out these side-by-side with mid-priced binos to see for myself. I don't want to buy one of these purely because of their brand-name - I want to see some real difference in the image quality. Some sub-questions I'd like the answers to:
a) Are the differences between the mid-priced binos and the top-3 very plainly obvious when looking thru them or are they only measurable using standardized/scientific tests?
b) If visible while viewing through them, are the differences very subtle, so that they don't matter most of the time? For example, if these binos offer pretty much the same quality of optics as mid-priced binos most days under most lighting conditions, but would allow me, say, about 15 minutes of extra birding late at dawn/dusk, I would not consider the cost worthwhile. On the other hand, if they will allow a whole extra hour or two of birding, then I would consider that appealing.
c) I don't expect the price/performance to be linear, ie, if cost is 5x, I don't expect the image quality to be 5x - but is the image quality atleast 1.5x for a 5x cost (granted, this is all very subjective)? For example, if the Zeiss offers only a 5% better image than a Vortex Viper/Razor, I'm not convinced it justifies the 4x or 5x cost.
2. THe Vortex Viper has rave reviews everywhere including this forum. But when I tested it out at a local store, it wasn't able to focus all that sharply - focus wasn't bad, but not as good as I expected it to be. Is it just the specimen I tested, or has anyone else noticed this? I did notice that it was somewhat brighter than the Razor (surpisingly) - this despite the fact that the Viper was a 10x42 and the Razor was an 8x42!
3. I realize that most birders seem to prefer 8x42 or 10x42 and almost never a 10x50. All comparison reviews of binos I find on the web also only seem to review the 8x42 & 10x42 models of various brands. I'd like to know why that's the case. 3 reasons I can think of - weight, FOV & close-focus - seem to have largely been addressed in mid-priced to high-priced binos these days. For example, the 10x50 Leica Ultravid HD offers 352ft FOV (larger than that of the 10x42 part), is only about 35 ounces (8 ounces more than the 10x42 part) and has a close focus of 10.8 ft (only 1 ft more than the 10x42).
Besides the above reasons, are there any image quality issues with the 10x50 models of mid-to-high end parts compared to their 10x42 parts? I'd like to buy a 10x50 part because of the extra brightness it offers, but not if the 10x50 part offers relatively inferior image quality.
I'd really appreciate it if one (or more) of you experienced birders in this forum could answer the questions above.
Thank you for your time!