• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Custom Compact 7x26 Needs Simple Part (1 Viewer)

aaakid

New member
I bought these binoculars in 1979, and have loved them. They are really a pleasure to use if you wear glasses. Because of their small size I would take them along when I might not have taken larger heavier binoculars.

Anyway, more than 30 years of use has taken their toll. This weekend the tiny eyescrew/eyebolt for the strap gave out. The other one is on its last legs.

I called Bushnell. After being on hold for 25 minutes, they told me this part is not available. Does anyone know the size, part number, or other identifying name? I thought I might be able to order a replacement part from a fastener company.

I went to a local sportman's shop, and they thought since the screw/bolt had come out, that "the nitrogen has leaked out and they will fog up". However, they thought one of their gun people might be able to rig something up.

I called a binocular repair person (that I had googled), and he said they would have to be taken apart because the screw/bolt has a nut on the inside that would need to be tightened up. My husband had already removed the broken part, and I can't hear any nut rattling so I'm not sure about that.

I hate to give up on these binoculars for want of an eyebolt. Can anyone help?
 
These aren't sealed and nitrogen purged, so that's not a concern.

If you want top notch repair, here's one of the favorites over on the Cloudy Nights Binoculars Forum:http://www.suddarthoptical.com/ Cory is a good guy, learned his stuff as a Navy Opticalman.

Otherwise, like the guy you talked to implied, a gunsmith could probably kludge something ugly but functional up, but be sure and talk to him personally.
Ron
 
aaakid - I can recommend a simple, inexpensive way to "fix" your problem of a broken eye bolt and the other one ready to go. First, Ron is correct. Your generation of the custom compact was never nitrogen filled. It isn't sealed and really doesn't need to be if kept out of the rain. Your thirty plus years of use is testimony to that.

Second, some brief history about the custom compact. It was introduced in time to be used in Nasa's Gemini program (1962-1966) The first generation model was conceived as a pocket model. There was no eye bolt to thread a strap. I know. I had one. Bushnell quickly realized that this was a mistake, and the following generations had factory installed eye bolts.

Third, what to do about your current situation? It is what I did to the first generation
custom compact. Ask your husband to purchase several black, heavy duty nylon cable
ties (preferably industrial strength) about 12 inches long. Thread the tapered end through the insert and make a loop and place it over the ocular and prism body diagonally and slowly tighten the loop until it is snug. Cut off the excess tie. Do this to the other side. Your braided nylon strap can then be pushed under the tie where the eye bolt broke and tied with several half hitches. This is improvising to be sure, but it will work just fine. Cost? Maybe a dollar.

Now you can send it to a repair person, but it will not be an inexpensive fix. Opening up the body of the binocular to get to the inside nut brings the risk of the unintended
"gunk" being dislodged. My suggested improvisation will not be as aesthetic as the original eye bolt, but it will be just as functional.

The reason you have loved your compact binocular is because it is really oustanding, regardless of its age.

John
 
I bought these binoculars in 1979, and have loved them. They are really a pleasure to use if you wear glasses. Because of their small size I would take them along when I might not have taken larger heavier binoculars.

Anyway, more than 30 years of use has taken their toll. This weekend the tiny eyescrew/eyebolt for the strap gave out. The other one is on its last legs.

I called Bushnell. After being on hold for 25 minutes, they told me this part is not available. Does anyone know the size, part number, or other identifying name? I thought I might be able to order a replacement part from a fastener company.

I went to a local sportman's shop, and they thought since the screw/bolt had come out, that "the nitrogen has leaked out and they will fog up". However, they thought one of their gun people might be able to rig something up.

I called a binocular repair person (that I had googled), and he said they would have to be taken apart because the screw/bolt has a nut on the inside that would need to be tightened up. My husband had already removed the broken part, and I can't hear any nut rattling so I'm not sure about that.

I hate to give up on these binoculars for want of an eyebolt. Can anyone help?

Find a good local hardware store and have the grey-haired very experienced hardware sales person look in the vast supply of small machine screws to see what might fit. Or look for an equally grey-haired owner of a camera repair shop.
 
After 30 years, it's probably time for your old custom to get put on the shelf...next to the window for looking at birds in your backyard.

For what it's probably going to cost for repairs, you might be better off buying a "new and improved" Bushnell Elite 7x26 for going 'out and about'.
 
After 30 years, it's probably time for your old custom to get put on the shelf...next to the window for looking at birds in your backyard.

For what it's probably going to cost for repairs, you might be better off buying a "new and improved" Bushnell Elite 7x26 for going 'out and about'.

I Could not disagree more!

Brock, I do not know if you have taken a real hard look at the 30-45 year old custom's, but they are a very, very nice piece of glass. I have 2 pairs of 6x25 Bushnell Custom compacts from about the mid 60's and a pair of 7x26 Custom from about the same era. When I compare them to my "new and improved" Bushnell Elite 7x26's ( I know I am a fan of these little compacts) I can not believe how good the older ones are. I know that the older ones maybe do not have have the latest and greatest coatings, but that does not prevent them from competing very well with the new ones. In this format, I am not so sure that the coatings make a huge difference.

Kind of like when you look at a nice pair of 50 year old B&L Zephyr's and you think to yourself-how can these old binoculars be that good? Well, the older custom compacts are just like that. If they are in good shape with no significant scratching/dust etc.-the view can be superb. And the focus can be like butter. They have a very pleasing relaxed view. I am in complete agreement with what John Dracon said above concerning the quality of this glass-especially when you consider the age.

In fact my 40 + year old 6x25 Bushnell Custom compact with a 8 deg. ( 420 ft./ 1000 yards ) FOV (with a very good edge to edge in that view) gives the new Leupold Yosemite that I have a very good run for its money.

Plus, you can still have work done on the old compacts. Bushnell consider's the new ones almost throw away's. Because of the way they have been made lately with first the poly carbonate body and now the metal enclosed body they do not want to get inside them to fix them if something happens to them. They usually just offer a replacement pair at an added cost to the purchaser.
 
Last edited:
Well said, Stephen. I own both the 7x26 Custom (c. 1962), and the 7x26 Custom Elite. The former resides in my precious bin bin and the latter in my car's glove box—or it did last time I looked.

Since aaakid's binocular still has a surviving eyebolt to use as a model, I'd suggest sending the instrument to Nicolas Crista (http://www.nrcoptics.com/). Nick is not only a master optical repairman, but he also has a complete shop to make missing parts. His prices are very modest, as most people would testify, and he's as honest as they come. A fine and precious instrument, in my opinion, is worth repairing. Nick has done several of mine.

Ed
 
Last edited:
I Could not disagree more!

Brock, I do not know if you have taken a real hard look at the 30-45 year old custom's, but they are a very, very nice piece of glass. I have 2 pairs of 6x25 Bushnell Custom compacts from about the mid 60's and a pair of 7x26 Custom from about the same era. When I compare them to my "new and improved" Bushnell Elite 7x26's ( I know I am a fan of these little compacts) I can not believe how good the older ones are. I know that the older ones maybe do not have have the latest and greatest coatings, but that does not prevent them from competing very well with the new ones. In this format, I am not so sure that the coatings make a huge difference.

Kind of like when you look at a nice pair of 50 year old B&L Zephyr's and you think to yourself-how can these old binoculars be that good? Well, the older custom compacts are just like that. If they are in good shape with no significant scratching/dust etc.-the view can be superb. And the focus can be like butter. They have a very pleasing relaxed view. I am in complete agreement with what John Dracon said above concerning the quality of this glass-especially when you consider the age.

In fact my 40 + year old 6x25 Bushnell Custom compact with a 8 deg. ( 420 ft./ 1000 yards ) FOV (with a very good edge to edge in that view) gives the new Leupold Yosemite that I have a very good run for its money.

Plus, you can still have work done on the old compacts. Bushnell consider's the new ones almost throw away's. Because of the way they have been made lately with first the poly carbonate body and now the metal enclosed body they do not want to get inside them to fix them if something happens to them. They usually just offer a replacement pair at an added cost to the purchaser.

Stephen,

I haven't tried a 7x26 Custom that old. I have looked through a B & L 8x36 Custom from the early to mid 1990s, and it gave very nice views.

Being a porromaniac, I know that when it comes to certain models, the adage "they don't make 'em like they used to" applies.

I've owned 804 Audubons (still have one) and a CZJ 8x50 Octarem, and in many ways, they are as fine or better than most roofs I've tried.

However, when it comes to contrast and color saturation, the newer coatings make a noticeable difference.

For example, when I compared a 501 (~1998) 8x32 SE with a newer 505 model (~2002), the contrast and color saturation was noticeably better in the later model.

Comparing them both to the Nikon 8x32 LX, which was made around the same time as the 505 SE, but has more advanced coatings (and perhaps more advanced glass), the contrast and color saturation is even more vivid.

So generally, the advanced coatings on premium quality bins today provide better contrast and color saturation than older porros.

But those newer bins might show more CA. Why this is so has never been determined to my satisfaction. I proposed that earlier lead glass (in the Nikon LX L, for example) was inferior to latest lead free glass made, and I have a document by OHARA, an optical glass maker, in which in the company states that their earlier attempts at making lead free glass were not up to par with their lead glass (another document from the same company states that lead free glass shows more CA at the extreme ends of the spectrum). They state (and provide the numbers) that show their latest lead free glass is "almost as good" as their best lead glass, but it took them time to find the right combination of lead substitutes.

So in contrast to some opinions voiced elsewhere, not all manufacturers hit the mark with their first generation of lead free glass, and I doubt if OHARA is a lone exception.

But the latest quality lead free glass has the same properties as lead glass, so if you still see excessive CA in new porros or new roofs w/out ED glass, something else is up.

Ed (elkcub) also had a theory that greater light transmission in modern bins creates more CA (hope I'm not misquoting you ed).

Whatever the reason, some newer models such as the Ultravids seem to show more CA than older models such as the Trinnie BA.

The fact that everybody's jumping on the ED bandwagon to lower CA in their bins shows there was something not quite up to par with some contemporary glass even at the top tier, which goes counter to what you would expect as glass and coating technologies advanced.

The bottom line is that I find the images more vivid in the top roofs I've tried vs. my old porros. Otherwise, the porros hold up quite well and most show less CA than more recent roofs I've tried. I also prefer the porro 3-D views over roofs and the ergonomics of most porros vs. closed bridge roofs.

So I understand your perspective and have espoused the same POV on BF many times. As an example, I have a Nikon 8x35 WF Action from the late 80s that is almost as good as my 8x32 SE in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color even though it has single blue coatings and was made more than a decade before the SE. Go figure!

Ideally, I would prefer the "latest and greatest" AR coatings on my old porros, but since that isn't possible, I have to compromise with a combo of my more advanced coated WP/FP roofs and older sharp-as-a-tack non-WP porros.
 
Last edited:
(Brock) ... Ed (elkcub) also had a theory that greater light transmission in modern bins creates more CA (hope I'm not misquoting you ed).

Hi Brock,

I don't recall saying there would be more CA, since CA is an aberration that results from the optical design. I may have speculated, however, that awareness of color fringing may increase with improved coatings, simply because fewer frequencies are selectively reflected (i.e., filtered) at the various glass surfaces. That, in turn, might lead the average observer to be more annoyed with of the effects of the aberration and to justify the use of ED glass in new designs, — so as to actually reduce CA. If that's what you meant, I plead guilty.

It's an optical variant of "no good deed goes unpunished." ;)

Ed
 
Poor AAAKID - perhaps getting more advice than she wishes. Mine was only offered as an "emergency fix." A bit of trivia about the custom compact. The early generations had ultra violet filters, according the Bushnell's advertising. One can look at the objective lens and see the distinctly blue reflections. When that feature ceased, I do not know. My only experience with ultra violet filters was with a camera with a screw in glass filters over the objective lens. How Bushnell achieves such a filter with the custom compacts I have not a clue. Perhaps a reader has the answer. The custom compact is one of the few older binoculars over the years I haven't disassembled.

As Stephan says the edge to edge view is very good with the 6x25, more so than with many binoculars today. The old reverse porros are little dandies.
John
 
Hi Brock,

I don't recall saying there would be more CA, since CA is an aberration that results from the optical design. I may have speculated, however, that awareness of color fringing may increase with improved coatings, simply because fewer frequencies are selectively reflected (i.e., filtered) at the various glass surfaces. That, in turn, might lead the average observer to be more annoyed with of the effects of the aberration and to justify the use of ED glass in new designs, — so as to actually reduce CA. If that's what you meant, I plead guilty.

It's an optical variant of "no good deed goes unpunished." ;)

Ed

Hi Ed,

Here's what you wrote:

"Improved transmission, given identical optical designs, i.e., lens curvatures, spacings, and glass properties, should make fringing more apparent. As transmission approaches 100% the distribution must flatten out and colors reveal themselves to their full extent."

I understand the clarification you made in your reply, however, the final result is the same - users see more color fringing in newer bins, which garners complaints, which in turn causes manufactures to add ED glass to their new bins, which greatly increases costs (except in ChinBin ED clones), whereas the older models with lesser coatings didn't need low dispersion glass, because the CA was tolerable.

The case I mentioned exemplifies your point, the 501 lead glass SE had low CA, but also less vivid colors across the board whereas the 505 lead free glass SE has more vivid colors, but also more vivid CA.

You can bench test the two to see if there really is more spurious color at 64x, but even if there wasn't, that doesn't change the fact that I see more at the EP in the newer model at normal power.

So now I want Nikon to add ED glass to the next gen of the SE series (if there ever is one) to reduce the color fringing. And if they do, I'm going to pay for it through the proboscis.

The CA in the 505 is not horrible by any means, but it takes less high contrast to bring it out, and it starts closer to the center than my older 501s.

In the 501s, I was rarely aware of color fringing except in the winter, such as looking at a crow against snow. But with the 505s, it's more noticeable even in the warmer months.

So it seems there's a price to pay for those more vivid colors, which is more vivid CA!

However, in individual cases, I still think the lead free glass itself might have been the culprit or at least partly to blame such as the full sized LX Ls. Some expert measured the light transmission between the LX and LX L (I had it bookmarked, but that died with my old computer), and I'm fairly certain the light transmission was the same or very close between the two models even though the image looks brighter through the LX L.

So that leaves coatings and glass, and if the transmission is the same, that eliminates coatings.

When I look through the LX L, it has a warmer bias like the lead free glass EII. Reds are a bit organey, blues a bit purplish, yellows are eyegasmic day-glo. Very bright lit objects can overwhelm the contrast and detail on the LX L.

The overall effect with the LX L is brighter looking images, but with colors that are not quite true to life, and also increased CA (the Venturer LX already had more CA than some people could tolerate).

So my theory was that Nikon didn't get it right the first time around with their lead free glass just as OHARA didn't get it right their first time around with lead free glass.

Others on the "Why Lead and Arsenic Are A Good Thing" thread made the similar comments about lead glass vs. lead free glass in the updated model of the same bin.

For some reason, this frazzled some people, not only you, but also Ron H, who had unfathomable faith in "science" to the point where he believed that a manufacturer wouldn't put out a glass that was inferior to its previous model.

That's "faith" all right, but it ain't in science! There are economic pressures at work here that puts the "science" on the back burner (actually "technology", despite the myth, science doesn't always precede technology).

Competition causes companies to "rush to market" sometimes before a product is read for "prime time". The first gen EDG is a good example. Early pre-production models were reviewed by experts who complained about the cap coming loose, but Nikon went ahead and produced the first run with defective caps anyway.

Why? That's anybody's guess. Here's mine. Whether it was corporate espionage or an "accidentally on purpose" information leak (like that Valerie Plame's name by Scooter Libby, aka "The Fall Guy"), somehow Nikon got wind of the SV EL, which has many of the same features as the EDG.

Not to loose its "edge," Nikon rushed the EDG to market while they worked on an aftermarket solution to the loose cap problem.

As it turned out, Swaro delayed production of the SV EL so there was no need to rush the EDG to market. So now the original Nikon EDGs are selling for $1,300 on the refurb market, which has got to sting Nikon.

They shot themselves in the foot with this one. I know I'm speculating, but Nikon is not stupid, if they rushed to market, there was a good reason for it, and it may well have been to beat Swaro.

I'm not sure what Nikon did differently to the EDG than it did with the LX L, besides adding pincushion to eliminate the extreme "rolling ball" on the full sized LX/LX Ls, but the colors are more true to life in the EDG than the LX L. More like the Venturer LX. In fact, I compared the 8x32 LX to the EDG and the contrast, color saturation, and color rendition were very similar, but with less CA in the EDG.

So it was a case of two steps forward and one step back with the LX L.

The EDG is the bin that the "Premier LX L" should have been had Nikon taken its time to make a full redesign, but again, with Leica, Zeiss, and Swaro coming out with new models, and comments that the Venturer LX was too heavy and not as bright as the competition, Nikon need "something" to market on short notice.

Lots of less picky people than I like the LX L, so it wasn't for naught, but the LX L also wasn't all that it could have been, had Nikon "reinvented the wheel" instead of merely putting softer rubber on it. :)

The irony is now that lead glass can be made with the same properties as lead glass, people are expecting ED glass.

I recall comments on the Monarch X about the price they're asking "and it doesn't even have ED glass".

Now that good quality ED glass bins can be purchased for under $300, there's no going back.

Low dispersion glass, whether it's called ED or by some other proprietary name, is going to be considered "standard equipment" for here on in on quality binoculars.

And it's all your fault, Ed, for asking for higher light transmission optics. "-)
 
Last edited:
Hi Brock,

Sorry to take so long to respond; I was birding so BSing on BF had to wait. As it turns out I was using my 8x32 LX L, — color fringes and all. ;)

...For some reason, this frazzled some people, not only you, but also Ron H, who had unfathomable faith in "science" to the point where he believed that a manufacturer wouldn't put out a glass that was inferior to its previous model.

I'm innocent! I've always been open concerning the effectiveness of glass substitutes. Your info from OHARA is certainly very interesting, but I think it's a leap to assume there is a net CA increase in a highly engineered complex instrument. When it comes to ascribing blame, unfortunately, glass and coating changes are clearly confounded, as you've mentioned already. I think to really understand the causative situation one would need (both): (1) computer design results for CA, which the manufacturers will never release, and (2) full spectrum transmission results, which could be measured but are expensive.

Although transmission has systematically "improved" over the years, I think there is a tendency to believe that increasing brightness (which is a perceptual response) was the primary purpose. That is certainly the most obvious effect. As you noted, brightness perception is also confused by coatings that favor frequencies the eye is more sensitive to. However, increasing retinal contrast that was lost from internal light scatter was no doubt the underlying purpose, since that is directly deleterious to visual acuity. The eye is well able to adjust to a wide range of brightness variations. Along that line, incidentally, logic suggests that the use of good quality neutral density sunglasses with binoculars makes sense because scatter within the instrument is not reintroduced by simply limiting the overall flux — and it does reduce eye strain and prevent retinal saturation just like it does with normal vision. (I don't get practical too often, but I'm starting to use this idea to good effect.)

...When I look through the LX L, it has a warmer bias like the lead free glass EII. Reds are a bit organey, blues a bit purplish, yellows are eyegasmic day-glo. Very bright lit objects can overwhelm the contrast and detail on the LX L.

The overall effect with the LX L is brighter looking images, but with colors that are not quite true to life, and also increased CA (the Venturer LX already had more CA than some people could tolerate).

So my theory was that Nikon didn't get it right the first time around with their lead free glass just as OHARA didn't get it right their first time around with lead free glass.

Others on the "Why Lead and Arsenic Are A Good Thing" thread made the similar comments about lead glass vs. lead free glass in the updated model of the same bin.

Although I don't have an early LX to compare it with, I do see more or less the same things you do with the LX L in daylight. You've described it very well, — leaving aside that things change in low light, where the LX L all of a sudden becomes super-effective. However, these color attributes distinguish the LX L from all the other binoculars that I own, independent of the glass used. Hence, I'm fairly confident that the primary cause of these effects is the coatings, rather than the glass.

Finally, the LX L has taken quite a beating for having "excess" optical CA (evidenced by observer awareness of color fringing), which I suspect is really due to the shape of the transmitted frequency curve and the observer's visual sensitivity function. In other words, it results from a successful effort to increase transmission — but with less sophistication applied to the perceptual effects of the output. Time and energy don't permit going into detail, but I believe several known facts about how retinal/foveal anatomy evolved to deal with the eye's own internal CA supports this conclusion. In fact, it would be remarkable (to me) if this were not the case. The instrument is optically coupled to the eye, after all, and the results of the combined system are projected onto a biological retina that evolved to optimize a somewhat different kind of image.

Maybe we should start another thread if this goes on.

Thanks for your comments, as I always enjoy reading them. :t:

Ed
 
Last edited:
Brock,
Just a note here, to show glass charts for a very common flint that's been around for I reckon at least a hundred years, F2, and its modern day non lead eco "equivalent" NF2, from Schott.

leaded:http://www.vpglass.com/optical_glass/f2_optical_glass.html
unleaded:http://www.vpglass.com/optical_glass/nf2_optical_glass.html

There's staggering detail here, but I'd like to call attention to the chart immediately below the transmittance graph. You can see that, for example, what Schott calls NF2 is supposed to match Ohara's TIM2. Underneath the line containing these name equivalences, is a short table showing the target values in bold, which must be met to call the glass a certain type. And just beneath, measurements of those parameters, to an additional digit of accuracy. You can see that the target specification is met by both the leaded and unleaded type.

In order to compete, the players recognize the universality of the specifications for "F2", and must toe the line. An inaccurate equivalent of such a cheap and commonly used glass for achromats, undoubtedly one of the best sellers of all optical glasses, would be a very bad mark against a company.

So, what if it's all made up, bogus, and the Ohara glass is out of spec. People who manufacture achromats using F2 test them. Cutthroat economic would then take over.

Need a latin quote here!

I wonder what the OP thinks of this thread!?
Ron
 
The Bushnell 7x26, the subject of this thread, had dark blue single layer coatings, most likely magnesium fluoride. Color fringing is minimal by comparison with current multicoated binoculars, but they did use leaded glass.

Cum progressu euntis.
 
I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful replies. I tried the zip ties suggestion this weekend. We went on 2 hikes, and they worked fine. I ran them through the strap's split rings. It does look a little Frankenstein, but worked and felt secure.

If I weren't totally happy with these binoculars, this strap problem would be a good excuse for getting new binoculars. But these binoculars are great. My husband admired them so much that he got the same ones a year later (with the Audubon insignia). To get new binoculars because of this insignificant part is akin to junking a car for want of a windshield wiper blade.

I'll look into the 2 people mentioned for repair.

I'll let you know what happens.

Thanks again.
 
Ed, you are SO marginally on topic. But I am starting to suspect you and Brock of co-owning a lead mine.

What oh what became of poor aaakid and her aging Custom Compact? We tried so hard to help. How could she get advice from us and just turn her back? Ah, the newbie with a hard question who disappears syndrome. Once again, I am left sad and empty feeling.....
Ron
 
Time that levity shows its face on this thread. AAAKID ran into a practical problem. She appealed to BF to get some information on what to do to fix her broken strap attachment. I gave her a practical, temporary solution, and she followed my advice. This suggests she is a pragmatist. She wants to use her binoculars and the "fix" works for the time being.

A number of respondents, including myself, have added additional information having nothing to do with a broken strap fixture. This brings to mind a story. A little boy rushed home from school one day with a burning question for his mother. She listened with interest and then said, "Son, why don't you wait until your father comes home and ask him. He knows more about that topic than I do." The little boy responded quickly and said, "I know that, Mom, but I don't want to know that much."
 
aaakid,
My apologies for thinking you had disappeared. In fact you reappeared before my post came up and I didn't even notice! I'm glad you are on your way to a fix, and thanks for letting us know.
Ron
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top