Good theory, Henry. It sounds reasonable to me. Sort of like a magnifying glass focusing it's beam creating a hot spot. That's what it looked like a plastic field stop melting because it changed and got worse. It almost looked like something dripping or melting. No more real cheap binoculars for me. Even though some of them produce a good image there build quality is cheap and they are not going to last as long as a better constructed higher quality binocular. So in the long run cheap binoculars are actually false economy. Exactly where is the field stop? Can I look at the Nikon Prostaff and tell if it's field stops are plastic or metal? Does anybody that has a Nikon Prostaff know if it's field stops are made of. You know another thing I think the Olympus Lenses are actually made of plastic. If light became focused on them why couldn't they melt?
-
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.
Cheap Compact question (carson, brunton, bushnell...) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter BrightIdea
- Start date
Good theory, Henry. It sounds reasonable to me. Sort of like a magnifying glass focusing it's beam creating a hot spot. That's what it looked like a plastic field stop melting because it changed and got worse. It almost looked like something dripping or melting. No more real cheap binoculars for me. Even though some of them produce a good image there build quality is cheap and they are not going to last as long as a better constructed higher quality binocular. So in the long run cheap binoculars are actually false economy. Exactly where is the field stop? Can I look at the Nikon Prostaff and tell if it's field stops are plastic or metal? Does anybody that has a Nikon Prostaff know if it's field stops are made of. You know another thing I think the Olympus Lenses are actually made of plastic. If light became focused on them why couldn't they melt?
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Actually, I think the melting fieldstop theory doesn't work. It does appear to be some kind of glue/sealant that slowly, mostly under the influence of gravity, starts to run/drip. That's why it starts at the top. Heat undoubtedly makes it worse, but as I said I always try to keep bins out of the sun.
I just checked my 2 year old Tracker and sure enough the fieldstop is starting to sag in spots. Haven't used them much in close to a year so neither heat nor sun is the culprit.
Oh well, as I said a drippy fieldstop doesn't change the view. That 10 year old pair works just fine. Even if you assume the working life of a Tracker is 5 years then you can get 60 years worth of Trackers for the price of a Leica. We'll all be dead by then so I'm not sure that's false economy.
The Olympus has one aspheric resin lens in the eyepiece, so far as I know. The view is as sharp as day one, so the lenses seem immune to any problems.
Mark
I just checked my 2 year old Tracker and sure enough the fieldstop is starting to sag in spots. Haven't used them much in close to a year so neither heat nor sun is the culprit.
Oh well, as I said a drippy fieldstop doesn't change the view. That 10 year old pair works just fine. Even if you assume the working life of a Tracker is 5 years then you can get 60 years worth of Trackers for the price of a Leica. We'll all be dead by then so I'm not sure that's false economy.
The Olympus has one aspheric resin lens in the eyepiece, so far as I know. The view is as sharp as day one, so the lenses seem immune to any problems.
Mark
That's a good theory too. That's what I initially thought it was. I think they glue the fieldstops in with some kind of sealent instead of using a retaining ring that screws in. Just guessing though. It's weird it started only after using them for a few hours though. C'mon! It bothers you though because you can see it in the FOV.
BrightIdea
Well-known member
I had a chance to play around with them quite a bit this weekend.
I retract my comment that minimum IPD is borderline... it is just fine for me, its just that the Trackers a little more particular about eye placement than my other (larger) binocs.
I had them around my neck all day fishing and hiking. While they are light, the "tilt" is annoying and unfortunate. Not shirt-pocket small, but certainly jacket-pocket small.
The 8x Trackers FOV (6deg) is a bit smaller than I am used to. I typically use 6x30 and 7/36 binocs which are generous in this regard, so I am a bit spoiled. Completely usable FOV, and I had little trouble finding and following tree swallows and catbirds in flight and a Baltimore Oriole skittering around in a high treetop.
They dont have quite the same "easy view" that my Yosemites have, however from what i can tell the sweet spot as a function of overall FOV is larger. The edges seem sharper.
Optically, the much earlier comments by others in this thread hit the nail on the head. The Trackers are in a completely different league from any of the small compacts I have tried (whether purchased or tried in store).
I'll leave a more detailed optical review to those with more technical knowledge & experience. Suffice to say these are keepers as a nice small packable lightweight bino.
Pity they arent a little thinner and waterproof. :-O
Try the Nikon Prostaff's 8x25. Thet are 12.5 oz. about the same size , nice rubber armour, waterproof and fogproof and have a 330 FOV and sell for about $100.00. I think they are a little more durable and have equivalent optics. All the little reverse porro's are going to tilt when around your neck because of the design.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Here's a photo of that 10 year old Minolta/Tracker's field stop. It's been that way for years so I doubt it will get worse. The sliver of light in the upper left (in the black) is actually a bubble that can be seen clearly through the objective end. The 2-year old Tracker isn't this far along but has a couple slight lumps. I really don't know the cause. Maybe I'll put the Minolta out in the sun and see what happens.
For me, it's a small price to pay for the best view out there. I prefer the Tracker to the 8x25 Prostaff because it's smaller, lighter, and a bit brighter and sharper. The Prostaff is quite nice, but it's getting close to my "why bother, I'll take a mid-size" threshold.
Enjoy those Trackers, BrightIdea.
Mark
For me, it's a small price to pay for the best view out there. I prefer the Tracker to the 8x25 Prostaff because it's smaller, lighter, and a bit brighter and sharper. The Prostaff is quite nice, but it's getting close to my "why bother, I'll take a mid-size" threshold.
Enjoy those Trackers, BrightIdea.
Mark
Attachments
That looks exactly like mine so that is what happened to mine after 2 hours of use. I really don't agree that the Olympus Tracker 8x25 is sharper and brighter than the Nikon 8x25 Prostaff. The Nikon has a bigger FOV which I like. The extra 2.5 oz. of weight is noticeable but I will pay that price for I think a more durable and waterproof binocular. I explained the problem to Nikon with the Olympus and the dripping fieldstops and they said they have never had that problem with the Prostaff or any of there binoculars and all the lenses in the Prostaff are glass with no plastic used. I still agree that the Olympus are excellent optically but that defect in the FOV from the melting fieldstop bothers me too much to put up with them. Maybe I am anal retentive. It's funny that Olympus doesn't correct the problem because they probably know it exists.
BrightIdea
Well-known member
Thanks! I have been, and see no reason why this would change. I am still going to try out some smaller/waterproof/more compact glass, including monoculars, but the Trackers are staying with me. I really do like them.
Greg
