Binocular advice please (1 Viewer)

typo said:

Janice,

It is quite usual for surgeons to wait 'till their patients visual acuity is really quite poor before operating. Normally the only compensation for that is increased magnification, and while changing to an 8x or even a 7x will usually give you a steadier, wider view with a greater depth of field, they won't give you a more detailed view.

With normal eyesight increasing, magnification often has marginal advantage as the shake from the hands is amplified as well. With poorer eyesight this reduction is somewhat reduced, so your 12x50 probably isn't a bad hoice, but it can't be much fun to carry around.

It sounds like your use is mostly in good weather and good light, and your need is for higher magnification. I'm wondering if something like the image stabilised Canon IS 12x36 might be a good choice. It might show you 30-50% more detail than your current model and close to twice that of an 8x.

The Canon IS models are not particularly pretty, generally not waterproof, and potentially more delicate than conventional designs, but the 12x36 isn't very heavy, and might just have the best view for your current needs.... until it gets dark.

David

Click to expand...

Interesting. Quite another angle on it.

Maybe there is something in this 12x36is idea if her vision is really quite opaque already and if so then perhaps the op is best or a spotting scope on a tripod?

I'm not sure it's a good idea to confuse her further with ever more and more options but if what you say is true about her visual eye condition then maybe it could be the ideal thing?

What do you think of that one Janice? How cloudy is your eyesight at present and how long before you expect to not put off the op any longer?

Would a clear big wide view or a narrower more magnified close in view work best for your eyes? If close in then Typo could indeed have the very ideal solution for you.

It's another choice. I'm sure you are cheering but I assume you would know what he is referring to eyesight wise and it sounds as though there might be something in it. A special binocular for a special circumstance. Possibly a very good idea.

Next we will move onto the Zoom binocular options........ Ok just kidding but wait, maybe......

This is a curious situation no doubt. I often wonder how people with vision difficulties actually manage to get much or any benefit out of these small monoculars I have from Specwell as I find them difficult enough to use with their tiny exit pupils and small eyerelief.

If the problem is cloudy vision then wouldn't transmission and contrast of the image be very important, perhaps even moreso than magnification but the two together might be the absolute optimum? I imagine the Canon contrast is reasonably good. Certainly any modern well coated bin should have good contrast and transmission.

I wonder does Janice wack up the brightness and contrast on her TV/Computer screen and does she move in real close to it to see anything?

I think these close focus monocualrs are actually used by people when using computer screens etc and they do work well for that as I can see the pixels with them.

I, too, have cataracts but I cannot afford surgery. Apparently they aren't bad enough for the NHS to do anything about it: maybe before I die

However, in post 3 Janice said she wears specs. The longest eye relief on the Canon IS bins is, AFAIK, 16 mm,which would likely not be long enough for me. So, Janice, make sure before you make an irrevocable decision!

I think Janice says that she does not need glasses with the 12x50.

squamish5 said:

I have the Viper HD in 8x42...as good as it gets for the money! Not well liked by the Alpha crowd to be sure. But rugged, with good glass. Made in Japan is an added bonus.

Click to expand...

The Vortex Viper HD 8x42 has a 347 foot FOV compared to the Zeiss 8x42 SF which has a 446 foot FOV. That is why the Vortex Viper's are not well liked."Tunnel Vision"

[email protected] said:

The Vortex Viper HD 8x42 has a 347 foot FOV compared to the Zeiss 8x42 SF which has a 446 foot FOV. That is why the Vortex Viper's are not well liked."Tunnel Vision"

Click to expand...

And decent eye relief at 18mm too (vs 20 on the Vortex). Of course for 4 times the cost they should be better.

Allow me to recommend the Fujinon 7x50 MT-SX

I gave one a couple of years ago and I'm excited: rugged, military specifications, waterproof high quality!

How much does the Fujinon weigh?

About 1300/1400 grams

My husband's eyes are much better than mine and I just asked him if he thought the brightness and contrast were set too high.

He said they were fine for him so I don't think I have them set too high.

I find that my left eye is better than my right eye and I also have a couple of floaters in my right eye that bother me from time to time. I don't think anything can be done about that.

I have found some Zeiss Conquest 8x42s that, with the rebate would cost me $800, which is my limit.

I am not sure if I am paying more for a not much more increase in built and optics.

Hope that makes sense.

Any opinions?

glm2006ITALY said:

Allow me to recommend the Fujinon 7x50 MT-SX

I gave one a couple of years ago and I'm excited: rugged, military specifications, waterproof high quality!

Click to expand...

Individual focus.

Given a limited budget and eye problems, would JaniceAnn not be better served with an inexpensive porro such as the Nikon Aculon or the Action Extreme series if waterproofing is a concern?
Their optics are more than adequate and they cost a fraction of the Zeiss.

Otherwise, I think Typo's suggestion of an image stabilized glass such as the Canon 10x30 or the newer 12x36 makes the most sense and fit her budget.
JaneAnn will see more thanks to the stabilization, which is what she has indicated she wants.

One of the binoculars I was interested in is the Vanguard Endeavor ED II.

Right now there is a rebate of $80 on both the 8x42 and the 10x42.

I would assume that the Zeiss Conquests are in another class?

JaniceAnn said:

My husband's eyes are much better than mine and I just asked him if he thought the brightness and contrast were set too high.

He said they were fine for him so I don't think I have them set too high.

I find that my left eye is better than my right eye and I also have a couple of floaters in my right eye that bother me from time to time. I don't think anything can be done about that.

I have found some Zeiss Conquest 8x42s that, with the rebate would cost me $800, which is my limit.

I am not sure if I am paying more for a not much more increase in built and optics.

Hope that makes sense.

Any opinions?

Click to expand...

Hi again Janice :hi:

You have received lots of good and sometimes even seemingly :cat: conflicting and overwhelming advice! :eek!: The dreaded paralysis by analysis can't be too far away ...... |:S|

Us folks here are sifting through what you have said your requirements and useage will be and pretty much guessing the rest! :-O

To summarise: what I think I heard you thought you say! was .....
* Having cataracts mean that maximum brightness, contrast, glare control, clarity and resolution are paramount
* You want a generalist useage bin, but are thinking higher magnifications?
* Eyeglasses mean that good Eye Relief (ER) is important
* You want low weight, big Field of View (Fov) for a given format
* Your budget is up to $800 for something top notch and worth it, but would prefer to spend half of that ......

First up, your current format bin (12x50) has a 4.2mm Exit Pupil (EP). A better 50mm objective bin seems out of your budget range, or would be too compromised (narrow Fov etc), so a new 10x42 bin won't be any brighter, save if it is very high quality. A new 8x42 bin will offer a 5.2mm EP and thus maintain its brightness when under canopies, peering into dense vegetation or shadows. A larger EP also offers more 'ease of eye placement' which is handy in snap off hand viewing situations, or tiny birds that hardly ever sit still (gee-whizzits! and especially with eyeglasses on.

Secondly, in general, higher magnifications are harder to hold steady and thus don't always show more detail. About 8x is the accepted maximum handheld magnification, though some are lucky enough to find good enough ergonomic fit to allow 10x ..... :cat: The 12x36 Canon Stabilised bins David recommended are a good solution, but I think that the 3mm EP will prove too dark some of the time (for this reason I wouldn't recommend the 8x32 format either), and the ER may be too short for your glasses. I'm short-sighted so I always leave my glasses on or else I'm making like a bat and trying to locate things by sound! 3

More money gets you better quality, but returns diminish so that $800 is not twice as good as $400 .....

I think that after distilling all of that, your choice is going to come down to the following (any of which you won't go wrong with) .....

$415 Zen-Ray ED3 8X42, 422ft Fov, 16.8mm ER, 770grams http://www.adorama.com/ZRED3843.html
$506 Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED porro, 432ft Fov, ~16mm ER, ~800grams http://www.adorama.com/SW820ED.html
$580 *Leupold BX-4 McKinley HD (Gen 2) 8x42, 422ft Fov, 20mm ER, 822grams http://cameralandny.com/spec-sheet.html?catalog[name]=Leupold-BX-4-Mckinley-HD-8x42mm--%23119281-Binoculars-and-Scopes&catalog[product_guids][0]=1116211
$609 *Zen-Ray Prime HD 8x42, 422ft Fov, 20mm ER, 825grams http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/binoculars/prime-hd/prime-hd-842.html

In a 10x I always feel you have to go to (an arguably) higher quality level .... [EDIT] I haven't included the:-
$400 Vanguard Endeavour II 10x42, 340ft Fov, 18mm ER, and 770grams http://www.allbinos.com/279-binoculars_review-Vanguard_Endeavor_ED_II_10x42.html
since it is quite lacking in transmission % (brightness) compared to the others I have listed in both formats, though is otherwise a very fine view and might be a possible budget choice ....
$800 (Demo) Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42, 345ft Fov, 17mm ER, 750grams http://cameralandny.com/spec-sheet.html?catalog[name]=Zeiss-Conquest-10x42-HD-Binoculars-%28Demo-Unit%29-Binoculars-and-Scopes&catalog[product_guids][0]=1125884

I'd also throw in for consideration the lightweight magnesium and truly excellent (and Conquest HD beating) Vortex Razor HD APO which would be well worth the slight stretch in budget if you were really set on going 10x :-
$1021 Vortex Razor HD APO 10x42, 362ft Fov, 16.5mm ER, 700grams http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/852113-REG/Vortex_RZB_2102_Razor_HD_10x42_Binocular.html

The more expensive ones handle glare better, the ED3 is ok, and the Swift can be so-so at challenging times, however these two have superb Chromatic Aberration (CA) or colour fringing control. *NOTE: The Leupold McKinley and Zen Prime HD are pretty much clones of each other - black or green - take your choice!

Honestly, you could be very happy with any of these binoculars. They are not heavy to hold (even the heavier ones listed here do not feel all their listed weight, and all the ones feel about the same in the hand, except the Vortex Razor HD which feels noticeably lighter). You should however, also get a sling (much faster and my favourite) or binocular harness of your choice so that you don't have 3/4 of a kilo hanging around your neck all day .......

Now, ........ VERY Important !! ....... you must try these before you buy, as the fit to your hands and importantly eyeglasses /eyes /facial characteristics, and optical processing /brain preferences are the most crucial thing of all. Try all these formats /bins and see which one you like best! Make sure you buy from a reputable retailer (as are the ones I've linked) with a good return policy. There may also be better prices around than those I've listed.

Time to act now in preference to more info overload :t: Good luck!!


Chosun :gh:

JaniceAnn said:

I would assume that the Zeiss Conquests are in another class?

Click to expand...

You could argue that either way depending on your priorities.

The Vanguard has a flatter view, sharper edges and appeared to have a better effective resolution than most samples of the Conquest HDs I've tried. I also thought the contrast was deeper under blue skies. However it's quite possible that these advantages are low or zero priority to you.

The Conquest HD probably has slightly more refined engineering, it looks better, worked better ergonomically for me. In poor light, particularly around sunset, the better blue transmission made it appear brighter and sharper, and it's also rather more forgiving on eye positing. The blue badge definitely has more cachet.

I personally wouldn't pay twice the price for the Conquest with my priorities but there are many testimonies from those on the forum 'see' things differently. Your eyes are going to be very different from mine but from the little I know about cataracts and your needs I'm not sure I would put either at the top of a shortlist as I've suggested previously.

David

JaniceAnn said:

My husband's eyes are much better than mine and I just asked him if he thought the brightness and contrast were set too high.

He said they were fine for him so I don't think I have them set too high.

I find that my left eye is better than my right eye and I also have a couple of floaters in my right eye that bother me from time to time. I don't think anything can be done about that.

I have found some Zeiss Conquest 8x42s that, with the rebate would cost me $800, which is my limit.

I am not sure if I am paying more for a not much more increase in built and optics.

Hope that makes sense.

Any opinions?

Click to expand...

Hi Janice (my sister's name also but it's ok, she's far away in Oz 8-P)

Looks great so why not. The HD version of course, there was and older non-HD not so long ago but I think that's gone now.

I wouldn't mind owning one. Apparently they are difficult to destroy even if you shoot them! I suppose just in case you ever get caught in the middle of a gun battle?

Maybe go onto the Zeiss thread and ask more about it there where I'm sure you will get a more specific response but I don't think your eyesight will have any problem with those from what you describe. In fact I'm sure your eyes will smile

Just be careful you don't lose the dogs when out by forgetting about them while totally absorbed with your new super bins and don't fight to much with hubby over them.

I see you are viewing currently. Must be the middle of the night there and some agonising going on

In my opinion my Hawke Sapphire is not a million miles behind the performance of a Swarovski and I have owned a couple of those and tried many and no doubting one of my favourite bins ever and the Hawke being something similar is one of the reasons I like it. I also liked the Leica HD and Zeiss FL I owned but I don't have such a budget nowadays and am very happy with all of my less expensive bins but I have indicated this several times already.

The Zeiss would be the bin I would probably prefer over the Vanguard (owned one of those once and it was rubbish a 10.5x44 or something but they have improved a lot apparently). I'm very happy with my Hawke and not searching for any alternative to that. The Zeiss won't be much if any of an optical improvement over the Vanguard but may be some improvement in some way but probably considering build quality and everthing you are getting something a bit more with the Zeiss.

If I had the money I would go with the Zeiss. If I wanted to save money I would go with the Vanguard or in my case the Hawke. Although one is twice the price of the other it could not be said to be twice as good is the simple answer. Engineers in Germany are paid more than in China so it's mostly a wages bill now that China are producing better quality optics and putting them in bodies that don't fall apart straight away any more but the Zeiss would still be ahead. The Chinese will no doubt continue to close the gap and may eventually or soon surpass the Europeans given how f***ked up this place is becoming.

Hi Janice,

if you can get a Conquest HD 8x42 within your budget, I'd say go for it. But make sure that it's the HD model.

They are a very good compromise (and all optics are - even the alphas for the price of a used car) and have only one weakness for some - too much (sic!) eye relief when not wearing glasses. This can be fixed by getting longer eyecups which Zeiss provides for free.

Regards,

Joachim

jring said:

Hi Janice,

if you can get a Conquest HD 8x42 within your budget, I'd say go for it. But make sure that it's the HD model.

They are a very good compromise (and all optics are - even the alphas for the price of a used car) and have only one weakness for some - too much (sic!) eye relief when not wearing glasses. This can be fixed by getting longer eyecups which Zeiss provides for free.

Regards,

Joachim

Click to expand...

Are the conquest good with glare handling? If so then that strengthens their case as I imagine that glare would not be helpful to Janice.

I read that many recommend binoculars 8x42

But is not it better a brighter 7x50?

glm2006ITALY said:

I read that many recommend binoculars 8x42

But is not it better a brighter 7x50?

Click to expand...

I think this is referring to a very common misunderstanding about how binoculars work.

Leaving aside minor factors like variation in coating and glass absorption, in normal bright conditions the apparent brightness of a 8x42 and a 7x50 will be exactly the same as an 8x20 a 10x25 or even a 20x50.

How much light enters the eye is regulated by pupil diameter. In very bright conditions the iris will constrict to produce a pupil of arounf 1.5mm with the iris blocking the residual light. As light levels reduce the pupil dilates and optimum visual occuity normally occurs at a pupil diameter around 2.5mm. Young children might have a maximum dilation of around 9mm in very low light, but this maximum decreases with age. There is quite a bit of individul variation but the average for a 60 year old is reported to be around 5mm.

For normal daylight viewing maximum brightness will be delivered by all binoculars with at least a 3mm exit pupil. 4.2mm will normally get you quite far into the evening. If you are young enough to have a 7mm pupil then you should do well by starlight.

If the cararacts have a more peripheral component, which is fairly common, I belive it is possible that larger exit pupils than required for the light levels might actually increase glare and reduce contrast, but you would need an opthalmologist to examine individual cases.

David

CliveP said:

Are the conquest good with glare handling? If so then that strengthens their case as I imagine that glare would not be helpful to Janice.

Click to expand...

Hi,

they are pretty good - there are better examples but these are either more expensive or have other faults (usually smaller field of view) or both - like Kowa Genesis, Nikon HGL/Premier LX (usually more expensive and smaller fov) or Steiner Discovery 8x44 (fov good but only 14mm ER - more expensive).

Joachim