Revisiting the classic porro (1 Viewer)

Frank & John - I went back into my binocular brochure archive and found a booklet from Canon on its binocular line. Canon. which began in 1933, was a maker of quality cameras and other electronic equipment. When it began its binocular line, I don't know exactly, probably in the 1970s. The 8 page brochure lists the folowing binoculars: 6x30, 7x35, 8x30, 7x50 and a 3x opera glass. The binoculars were all porros and came with a quality cow hide (not veneer) case. The early ones were finished in black; the later ones in brown. One of the best cases for porros ever made.

The specifications are as follows: 6x30, angle of view 8.0, 420 ft, weight 660 gr.( 22 oz);
7x35, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 675 gr. (24 oz.); 8x30, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 600gr. (22 oz.); 7x50, angle of view 7.1, 376 ft, weight 1,150 gr. (41 oz)

I believe they were single coated. As you can see by their weights, the Canons had some heft - glass and metal. They came with removable eye cups, one for regular use and the other for eye gass use (shallow cups)/ They are all very well made, although I prefer the 7x35 over the others. Hope this info is useful to you and others.
Yellowstone John

John Dracon said:

Frank & John - I went back into my binocular brochure archive and found a booklet from Canon on its binocular line. Canon. which began in 1933, was a maker of quality cameras and other electronic equipment. When it began its binocular line, I don't know exactly, probably in the 1970s. The 8 page brochure lists the folowing binoculars: 6x30, 7x35, 8x30, 7x50 and a 3x opera glass. The binoculars were all porros and came with a quality cow hide (not veneer) case. The early ones were finished in black; the later ones in brown. One of the best cases for porros ever made.

The specifications are as follows: 6x30, angle of view 8.0, 420 ft, weight 660 gr.( 22 oz);
7x35, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 675 gr. (24 oz.); 8x30, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 600gr. (22 oz.); 7x50, angle of view 7.1, 376 ft, weight 1,150 gr. (41 oz)

I believe they were single coated. As you can see by their weights, the Canons had some heft - glass and metal. They came with removable eye cups, one for regular use and the other for eye gass use (shallow cups)/ They are all very well made, although I prefer the 7x35 over the others. Hope this info is useful to you and others.
Yellowstone John

Click to expand...

Thanks John, its very useful. Probably hard to find but the 6x really intrigues me. Also the 7x35. Will keep an eye out.

John

John - I had a Canon 6x30 and it was an excellent glass. Got talked out of it, much to my regret. They don't come up for sale often anywhere. Pawn shops may be a source beside ebay.
John

This made me think that I have a Canon 7x35 somewhere in my stuff. Along with a couple of Carl Zeiss 8x30 Jenoptems. So I went looking. Found the Canon and one of the Jenoptems. Still looking for one of my Swift Nighthawks too . The Canon was so cold it was impossible to move the focus or IPD. So I brought it inside and will see how it fares tomorrow. It does have a nice heft and a good appearance. It has some internal flecks that need to be removed. So with some more 7x35 and 8x30 glass on the way, I might have to send some stuff for a cleaning to get everything on good optical footing.

John Dracon said:

Frank & John - I went back into my binocular brochure archive and found a booklet from Canon on its binocular line. Canon. which began in 1933, was a maker of quality cameras and other electronic equipment. When it began its binocular line, I don't know exactly, probably in the 1970s. The 8 page brochure lists the folowing binoculars: 6x30, 7x35, 8x30, 7x50 and a 3x opera glass. The binoculars were all porros and came with a quality cow hide (not veneer) case. The early ones were finished in black; the later ones in brown. One of the best cases for porros ever made.

The specifications are as follows: 6x30, angle of view 8.0, 420 ft, weight 660 gr.( 22 oz);
7x35, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 675 gr. (24 oz.); 8x30, angle of view 7.5, 393 ft, weight 600gr. (22 oz.); 7x50, angle of view 7.1, 376 ft, weight 1,150 gr. (41 oz)

I believe they were single coated. As you can see by their weights, the Canons had some heft - glass and metal. They came with removable eye cups, one for regular use and the other for eye gass use (shallow cups)/ They are all very well made, although I prefer the 7x35 over the others. Hope this info is useful to you and others.
Yellowstone John

Click to expand...

John

I'm not for sure when Canon started manufacturing their binoculars but it was earlier than the 1970's. The 8x30 Canons I purchased on ebay were originally bought by a US serviceman at a px in Vietnam in 1968. One of his pics showed the original receipt from the px at Long Binh dated 1968 and the price he paid--27.50.

I'm curious since you have seen several of the older Canons if you remember what the Canon logo was like. I've heard the older Canons were Canon Camera Co. Inc and after 1970 or so they were simply labeled Canon Inc. Any idea if this is truly the fact or simply more binocular "urban legend"?

Steve

John Dracon said:

John - I had a Canon 6x30 and it was an excellent glass. Got talked out of it, much to my regret. They don't come up for sale often anywhere. Pawn shops may be a source beside ebay.
John

Click to expand...

Yes, I bought one of those in near-mint condition about 8 yrs. ago, but it was out of alignment. It had a narrow FOV but was truly a beautifully made instrument, with an extra set of phenolic eyecups for use with glasses.

So I sent it off to Mirakel Optical in West Coxsackie, NY for adjustment, and it came back totally ruined. They had crumpled one of the objective end pieces with some sort of wrench, stripped screws and buggered up flat screw slots on the focus control. I figured a monkey could have done better, or maybe a young gorilla. It was so bad that I threw the damned thing away because I just couldn't stand looking at it. Mirakel denied doing anything wrong, or course, and didn't refund one penny. They are still in business and I hear horror stories like mine from reputable people every once in a while.

So, the moral is be careful when sending classic binoculars out for cleaning or adjustment. I still mourn the loss of that Canon 6x30. :-C

Ed

Steve C - May I make a recommendation to you? If the internal flecks do not interfere with the picture, i.e., you don't see them when looking at something, leave it be. At one time in my life, I obsessed over any little kind of internal spec (viewed from the objective end), and just knowing it was there bothered me. But not anymore.

When one breaks into a binocular, amateur or professional, it is almost impossible not to introduce some kind of minute piece of stuff into the body, unless you are operating in a specialized filtered environment and are surglically clean in your habits and use of tools.

Now if the "crud" in under a lens in the oculars, that is another matter. I once sent a Zeiss binocular to Germany to be cleaned, and after cosiderable expense, it was returned with the spec still floating around. We all have those kinds of stories to relate.

Ed - your experience with Mirakel is a bad one. A properly used strap wrench should remove the "beauty" ring without any damage whatsoever. Buggered up screws is a sign of improper tools and an incompetent repair person. A little tip for inexperienced users who like to tinker. Most people like to unscrew the rings for cleaning purposes or whatever. More rings are cross threaded by forcing them to turn when the alignment is off a smidgen. When screwing them back, if you feel any resistance, back off slightly and try again and make sure the threads match when you do.

John

I just updated the Flickr page with some new additions. One is a classic 6x30 Extra Wide Angle Tasco model. The other is not a classic or vintage porro but is interesting regardless.

Sweeeettt! I just lucked into a Swift Holiday Mark 2 via the bay. Buy It Now is a beautiful thing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190630092811?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

This thread got me thinking about my first pair of binoculars that I got in about 1981. I just pulled them out of the closet where they have been for years. I remember visiting the display case and drooling over them when I was about 10. They are a pair of Kmart Focal Wide Angle 7x35. Made in Japan with a 10 degree fov (525 ft at 1000 yards), and coated optics. I think they were about $50 back then which would be $123 today. They also say 20-20-35S on them which could be a model #.

I was watching the bird feeder with them and honestly they are very pleasant to look through. I think they will get a spot on the windowsill. : )

John Dracon said:

Steve C - May I make a recommendation to you? If the internal flecks do not interfere with the picture, i.e., you don't see them when looking at something, leave it be. At one time in my life, I obsessed over any little kind of internal spec (viewed from the objective end), and just knowing it was there bothered me. But not anymore.
...

John

Click to expand...

John

Sure you can make the recommendation. It is one I fully agree with it, and I would not normally consider servicing for some flecks. This thread forced me to go drag the Canon out. It has to be serviced (I've been into it as far as I am willing to take my limited skills) or trashed. There is either fungus or some sort of oily smudge internally that prevents clear focus. Collimation is fine. The grease in the focus knob and diopter is so hardened it can barely be adjusted. It also reminded me that regardless of what the pictures in the bay site look like, service is always something that may be necessary when buying used older porro prism binoculars. I think what happened with this on is it got dropped on the floor in packing . The outer objective ring on one side is so dented it will be a project in and of itself to even get off to try and straighten or replace. I think the cleaning and new grease is pretty minor. The sellers pictures clearly showed two undamaged objective rings. That could be ignored too if the internal contamination issue did not exist. This was an inexpensive "as is no returns" item and I did not press the issue at the time. Some things are worth no hassle. I sometimes think some sellers are aware of that attitude and they got a ferw bucks and got rid of a problem.

I have picked up some older porros off the bay lately and I am having some rotten luck so far. Got a Tasco that was advertised in fully functional working order that had a faulty diopter and collimation issues. In this case I got the money back. Just got a nice Swift 8x30 from England that is hopefully not beyond even the capapbilties of Nicholas Crista to ressurrect. I'm waithing for response from the seller. They have many items and a 99.5%+ positive rating, so I think that will sort out as well. As of now I'm not worried. I should get a couple of more in the next couple of days and a half dozen more by next week. Hope the bad luck is behind me here. I have bought a bunch of binoculars off ebay and until the last two, the Canon was the only issue I had. I did send a couple in for service, but I purchased them with intent on doing that anyway.

Frank,

Nicholas Crista is pretty close to you. Send him that Swift and deal with the fungus. Since I have a porro project drawer building, the fungus issue on that Swift backed me off. I was within a millisecond of hitting the buy it now as it was.

Wuchak,

I think I recently purchased that model. Will have to check.

Steve,

That was my plan if I couldn't deal with it myself.

I will update the Flickr page with more porros shortly. I did just update it with a Sears Discoverer 7x50 that is much more massive than any of the other 7x50 Extra Wide Angle porros I own or did own so far.

Image quality is very good overall. A more thorough description is on the Flickr page.

Frank regarding JB JE numbers, I THINK that they are the same.

Simon,

Thanks. Someone else mentioned that as well. It sounds unusual to have one location that is capable of doing both the body work and the optics/final assembly and yet the binocular is put together in two locations. I guess that, at the time, it was cost effective.

FrankD said:

I will update the Flickr page with more porros shortly. I did just update it with a Sears Discoverer 7x50 that is much more massive than any of the other 7x50 Extra Wide Angle porros I own or did own so far.

Image quality is very good overall. A more thorough description is on the Flickr page.

Click to expand...

Wow, you have been very busy!!! How many arrived with serious problems? And do you plan on getting them serviced?

I agree with Frank. Time for a sticky "Vintage and classic binocular" thread!
I love old Porro binoculars.

Simon,

Nice. I want to know how you fit all of those binoc pics into one collage? Impressive! I must admit that I love looking through your selection on Flickr and do use it as a reference for items I need more information on. Case in point, I just used it today to decipher a bit of Swift Triton confusion.

Please do keep up the excellent job!

Bryce,

Yes, I have been a bit busy with grabbing many vintage 7x35/7x50 porros. There are some absolutely outstanding models out there that don't get any recognition because they aren't a roof and/or they aren't waterproof. Yes, updated coatings would make a noticeable difference to their performance but it isn't necessarily the "be all, end all" criteria that should be used to evaluate optical performance.

As for the issues....Jerry asked something similar earlier on in this thread. My percentages look like 50% are completely usable upon arrival. 25% are servicable after some minor repairs. 25% are beyond my meager ability and are typically turned into parts for other models that may need them...and to experiment on of course.

I haven't sent any in for service yet but may with one or two that are beyond my abilities.

FrankD said:

As for the issues....Jerry asked something similar earlier on in this thread. My percentages look like 50% are completely usable upon arrival. 25% are servicable after some minor repairs. 25% are beyond my meager ability and are typically turned into parts for other models that may need them...and to experiment on of course.

I haven't sent any in for service yet but may with one or two that are beyond my abilities.

Click to expand...

My experience is very similar to Frank's. I got a nice compact Swift 8x30 that I bit on too quickly. Nicholas Crista is going to need about $70 to fix. So watch yourself or you can get expensive real quick. Nicholas is about as reasonable as anybody but he wants $50 for a non issues clean, lube, and collimate job. So when you can get a really good quality older porro delivered to your door for $25 the service charge can really up the ante. I sure hope I like that Swift . I have two prime candidates for a do it myself because I can't mess it up any more.

I specifically ask a nice question asking them to focus the binocular and do a quick collimation check on a power line. The last guy said I'd have to research that online. He'll get no bids from me. Most people do it and respond back. Some never respond at all.

Most people who sell optics on ebay have no clue either. So be real sure to ask questions. Be patient too.

After buying my 7th or 8th old binocular and having most serviced locally (and quite capably) for about $60 a pop, it dawned on me that if I wanted to pursue this hobby any further I'd better start fixing them myself which I did and don't regret at all. It has greatly added to my enjoyment of this hobby. Also, I don't have to worry too much about the condition of the binoculars I buy on eBay because if a binocular's out of collimation, is so dirty you can't see through it or has seized focus and diopter mechanisms, the price is lower which I like. And bringing such a binocular back to serviceable condition is very rewarding.

Nicolas Crista, by the way, is great. I have dealt with several binocular service people when repairing a binocular that has been beyond my abilities, and he's the only one I can recommend.