Thanks for reply. I wonder about these:
http://kalinkaoptics.com/binoculars-monoculars/bpoc-7x30-military-officer-binoculars.html
-
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.
And now for something completely different: The Habicht 7x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
Thanks for reply. I wonder about these:
http://kalinkaoptics.com/binoculars-monoculars/bpoc-7x30-military-officer-binoculars.html
That is the modern post Soviet version, with the tall rubber eye cups.
The original is seen here:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/images/bpo_7x30.jpg
as part of this discussion:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/edf7x40.html
Logically, the current version should have better coatings and presumably the optical formulas have not changed, as that would have been expensive.
So the only issue is quality control, which is an unknown.
Can you return them easily if they are duds?
PS Some years ago, Surveyor noted that +/- 10% variability was probably better than the norm for alpha quality glass, so non cherry specimens are apparently more the norm than the rule even for the market leaders. No reason to think things are better in Russia. :C
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
I've found that the later type, with the rubber eyecups, is marginally better optically than the first edition (just a bit less yellow). I can't say exactly why though, could be the field lens having been coated (my friend Ed (elkcub) couldn't find difference in optical quality between his two types, so if there's a difference it's small).
Note that there are in fact three types issued of the KOMZ 7x30 (there's only one type of the 10x42). The first edition has screw in/out eyecups and complete internal focusing (meaning that the oculars plus eyecups don't move when the focusing ring is turned). The last edition has rubber fold down eyecups which move along with the focusing ring. And there's an intermediate type where you'll find first edition eyecups mounted on top of the later ocular-focusing construction (so the eyecups move when focusing).
The ideal is to have type 3 optics (i.e. lenses) plus type 1 oculars. This is very well possible, but only when you're prepared to buy two and swap oculars.
The beautiful thing is that the KOMZ is built very old fashioned (as a friend used to say: they're probably made by the local blacksmith). Parts are screwed onto each other and held in place by tiny set screws. You can dismantle the binocular completely, clean lenses and prisms, remove the reticle in the process, and bring the instrument back to its original state. Or make small adjustments for your own convenience, for instance closer focusing. The stripping procedure also facilitates eye relief adjustment, if necessary. I mean, you can do anything with this little monster.
I even went so far as to mount two left oculars (type 1 of course but with type 3 lenses) on a type 3 body. And all this for a song and a dance (because it happened in the glorious days when there was plenty supply and very few people interested).
Renze
PS. Of course you'd want Fan Tao's groundbreaking review: http://web.archive.org/web/20070805080500/http://binofan.home.att.net/komz.htm
Note that there are in fact three types issued of the KOMZ 7x30 (there's only one type of the 10x42). The first edition has screw in/out eyecups and complete internal focusing (meaning that the oculars plus eyecups don't move when the focusing ring is turned). The last edition has rubber fold down eyecups which move along with the focusing ring. And there's an intermediate type where you'll find first edition eyecups mounted on top of the later ocular-focusing construction (so the eyecups move when focusing).
The ideal is to have type 3 optics (i.e. lenses) plus type 1 oculars. This is very well possible, but only when you're prepared to buy two and swap oculars.
The beautiful thing is that the KOMZ is built very old fashioned (as a friend used to say: they're probably made by the local blacksmith). Parts are screwed onto each other and held in place by tiny set screws. You can dismantle the binocular completely, clean lenses and prisms, remove the reticle in the process, and bring the instrument back to its original state. Or make small adjustments for your own convenience, for instance closer focusing. The stripping procedure also facilitates eye relief adjustment, if necessary. I mean, you can do anything with this little monster.
I even went so far as to mount two left oculars (type 1 of course but with type 3 lenses) on a type 3 body. And all this for a song and a dance (because it happened in the glorious days when there was plenty supply and very few people interested).
Renze
PS. Of course you'd want Fan Tao's groundbreaking review: http://web.archive.org/web/20070805080500/http://binofan.home.att.net/komz.htm
Attachments
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
I don't have the measures of the later model with rubber eyecups for you, but I can give you the depth measures of the first model. As the BPO hasn't been changed essentially I suppose these will be the same for the later model.
With the eyecups turned up the distance from eye lens to the eyecup's rim is 19.5 mm. With eyecups down it's 11 mm. If you need to get even closer to the lens you can remove the eyecup and get to 9.5 mm from eye lens to the tube's rim inside the ocular (but then you'll have to do some DIY to avoid scratches on your spectacles).
Anyway, the rubber eyecup can be removed and replaced with no trouble at all. As said, everything on the binocular, and so on the oculars, can be taken apart, and put together again.
Renze
Last edited:
Thanks for the help!
It's in good agreement with what I think I see the at the pictures of these binoculars: the eye lenses are extremely deeply recessed even with the eyecups folded down, and I have hard to believe that it works well with eyeglasses despite the huge lenses and long eye relief.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Here are the specs for the last BPO Renze mentioned. My BPOc (c = with reticle) are brand new with s/n 010421. The yellow image is "tolerable" and fairly easy to adjust to, but the armoring is held in place with vertical pins and flops loose at the slightest provocation. Pretty good for viewing field rats passing a fixed location in twilight, or similar stealth applications. :eek!:
Based on what Renze said in #65, the plane of the 22.5 XPD is probably 3mm beyond the extended eyecup. The rubber eyecups, however, are too stiff to roll over, and easily pull out of the grooves around the eyepieces.
The objective covers also pull off when opened.
So, all in all, I'd say the whole device is rubberphobic.
Ed
Based on what Renze said in #65, the plane of the 22.5 XPD is probably 3mm beyond the extended eyecup. The rubber eyecups, however, are too stiff to roll over, and easily pull out of the grooves around the eyepieces.
The objective covers also pull off when opened.
So, all in all, I'd say the whole device is rubberphobic.
Ed
Attachments
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Ed,
Phobia? Yeah, but remember, this is a DIY binocular!
I can imagine the rubber will become stiff with age and not behave nicely anymore. Now what happens if you take them off, can you see the full field with spectacles on? If the answer is yes, all we have to do is make the eyepiece' rim scratch free, which should be easy.
In case you can't see the full field, what happens when you take off the ring holding the eyecups as well? Or is the operation going a step too far now, because the binocular's internals become exposed?
Renze
Phobia? Yeah, but remember, this is a DIY binocular!
I can imagine the rubber will become stiff with age and not behave nicely anymore. Now what happens if you take them off, can you see the full field with spectacles on? If the answer is yes, all we have to do is make the eyepiece' rim scratch free, which should be easy.
In case you can't see the full field, what happens when you take off the ring holding the eyecups as well? Or is the operation going a step too far now, because the binocular's internals become exposed?
Renze
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
What puzzles me is Holger's statement under "Optical Performance":
Image sharpness: The image sharpness of both, the EDF and the BPO, is of highest quality. During daylight observations, they are hardly distinguishable, razor sharp over most parts of the field with some image degradation only very close to the edge
The EDF and Doctor's more neutral color version (actually, they are listed as being made by "Jena Analytic") both do not have phase coatings, so how could they be "razor sharp" as the 7x30 Porros?
Although I haven't seen him post in a while, we had a big fan of the Jena 7x40, Star Farmer, and he found that by repositioning his eyes, he could overcome the out of phase image problem, but having to keep your eyes positioned just so seems tiresome (true also of the Nikon SE for some folks).
I would prefer the BPO Porro, but without the yellow tint, if I could adjust to the RB like Holger. Since they took out the yellow element that turned black in the presence of radiation (seems like there must be a better way to detect radiation BEFORE it's bad enough to fog up your bin unless it's like the canary in the cage and reacts to small amount of radiation that won't harm you), why is the image still yellow? To cut through the din of Russian winters? IOW, for the same reason Swaros used to have a yellow tint?
Brock
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Brock,
Where'd you get the information that the EDF's prisms are not phase coated?
With respect to the BPO's yellow ocular lens element, I never believed the radiation theory. The Russian winters, yes.
Renze
Where'd you get the information that the EDF's prisms are not phase coated?
With respect to the BPO's yellow ocular lens element, I never believed the radiation theory. The Russian winters, yes.
Renze
Hermann
Well-known member
I'm not Brock, but that's what I've been told by the folks at Docter. It also shows when you do the usual test. They have no plans to introduce phase-coating to that model.
Hermann
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Thanks Hermann,
Quite remarkable I'd say. What could phase coating do wrong? Other than increase costs? But if this the consideration, I guess Docter stands alone here.
Renze
The Seeger Military Binoculars monograph did single out the BPO and the old Zeiss DF for exceptional optical quality. The EDF was just rated as very good. Unfortunately, there is no discussion of where the difference lies.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Like Hermann, I heard it straight from the horse's mouth. I wrote Doctor and that's what the rep told me. I posted his response a few years ago on a thread about the EDF by StarFarmer, who has the latest Jena Analytic version. You might be able to find it in the archives.
The radiation sensitivity of the yellow glass I read about in Holger's review,. Re-reading it now, it does seem as if it is a theory ("argumentation"):
Image color: None of the three binoculars has got a neutral color rendition. As it seems to be a mandatory feature among all Russian glasses, they provide a moderate (Kronos 10x50 and 12x40) or strong (Baigish) yellow tint. In case of the Baigish, the origin of the yellow color has been traced back to one single lens element of the eyepiece, as is nicely demonstrated on this photo by Fan Tao. Following Albrecht Koehler's argumentation (German language), the thick negative element could require Flint-glass (SF3) which usually turns black under radioactive radiation - the corresponding radiation resistant glass (SF3R) has got that yellow cast.
Review: Kronos BPO 10x50 vs. Kronos BP 12x40 vs. Baigish BPOc 10x42
Brock
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
For those who don't know Albrecht Köhler's website:
http://www.akoehler.de/
Some invaluable information on several old binoculars, including the Zeiss 8x40 Deltarem (AFOV 87,8 degrees, 198m/1000m).
You need a working knowledge of German for the website though ...
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Well ... As I wrote in some posts recently I've been off work for quite some time now, after suffering a mild stroke in February. So I spend a lot of time every day walking and birding close to the place where I live, so I have a lot of time to use my different binoculars in the field.
To my own surprise the binocular I prefer over all the others at the moment is the Habicht 7x42. Four reasons:
1. 7x magnification works very well for me. And in that area I don't need more magnification (plus I almost always carry a small scope anyway). The depth of field is very useful, and I can hold the 7x magnification perfectly still. Plus the large exit pupil is very convenient, even on bright days.
2. The Habicht is optically excellent. Transmission, clarity, resolution, no colour cast, no glare when viewing against the light. Plus the image is of course far more three dimensional than that of any roof. Enough said.
3. The Habicht is light (720 gr. with rainguard and strap), and I actually prefer the shape over most roofs. The shape simply works better for me than, say, an 8x42 roof.
4. The small field of view is something I don't find difficult to get used to. Sure, it could be larger but that the price you pay for the unique combination of large exit pupil and low weight.
Hermann
To my own surprise the binocular I prefer over all the others at the moment is the Habicht 7x42. Four reasons:
1. 7x magnification works very well for me. And in that area I don't need more magnification (plus I almost always carry a small scope anyway). The depth of field is very useful, and I can hold the 7x magnification perfectly still. Plus the large exit pupil is very convenient, even on bright days.
2. The Habicht is optically excellent. Transmission, clarity, resolution, no colour cast, no glare when viewing against the light. Plus the image is of course far more three dimensional than that of any roof. Enough said.
3. The Habicht is light (720 gr. with rainguard and strap), and I actually prefer the shape over most roofs. The shape simply works better for me than, say, an 8x42 roof.
4. The small field of view is something I don't find difficult to get used to. Sure, it could be larger but that the price you pay for the unique combination of large exit pupil and low weight.
Hermann
Hi Hermann,
First; I hope you will recover soon.
And I totally support your statement regarding the Habicht 7x42.
I sold mine since I had issues while using them with glasses, but until now I there are better than any pair of binoculars I used.
Currently I have a pair of SLC 8x56 which are awesome, but heavier and handle not as well as the Habicht.
And the design and quality is unbeatable. The Habicht is by far the most beautiful binocular I have ever seen.
First; I hope you will recover soon.
And I totally support your statement regarding the Habicht 7x42.
I sold mine since I had issues while using them with glasses, but until now I there are better than any pair of binoculars I used.
Currently I have a pair of SLC 8x56 which are awesome, but heavier and handle not as well as the Habicht.
And the design and quality is unbeatable. The Habicht is by far the most beautiful binocular I have ever seen.
I wish you a speedy recovery Hermann. I can’t think of any better medicine than optics and birds.
Question for you.... what, if any is the benefit of x7 magnification against the usual x8? Or is it just the design of the 7x42 Habicht that works so well?
Interested to know your thoughts....
Question for you.... what, if any is the benefit of x7 magnification against the usual x8? Or is it just the design of the 7x42 Habicht that works so well?
Interested to know your thoughts....
Similar threads
