-
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.
Porro or Roof? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kathystez
- Start date
I ordered a Leupold Yosemite 6x30 from Adorama. If it proves to be of good quality I will retract my junk statement.I just have to try one AGAIN. I got the last one in stock. Now they are backordered. Must be a hot seller.
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
When a certain big name telescope (largely importing) company launched their 3.5-inch, mostly plastic, Maksutov telescope, many folks said it was just as good as a Questar (They should stop drinking the cheap stuff). Aside from the fact that some of those claimants had NEVER LOOKED THROUGH a Questar, I knew intuitively that something was wrong with that picture.
In my research, I came across one who said that the first 100 optics set came from Cumberland Optics, oddly enough that's the company that produced the optics for the . . . QUESTAR! True or not, the word was being scatter from cost to coast and those who believed everything they saw and heard--and lacked critical thinking--bought into it. They could have a Questar at 1/6th the price. Whoopee!
And, a legend was born. Deserved? Well . . . . I just wonder who made the thousands of other sets.
Bill
PS Arthur: that wasn't an ellipsis; it was an ellipsis followed by a period. |
|
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
We know there are some manufacturers who sell optics to several brands. Take a look at Kowa YF, Opticron Savanna and Vixen Atrek. Very identical body design as Yosemite and with nearly same stated ER and FOV. I am very suspicious that these are all the exactly same optics under different brands.
Last edited:
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
No need to be suspicious.
We all know they come from the same verbiage, might be small differences in coatings,
body armor maybe even focus wheel.
Just put in an order check the boxes.
Bryce...
I finally got a respectable Leupold Yosemite 6x30 Black from B&H and I will agree if you get a good pair they are quite nice especially for their price. Very sharp, lightweight,bright and easy to use. The eyecups are a little sloppy but in this price range you expect that. Overall, I will agree they are a bargain and I retract my junk statement. Under $100 I would have to recommend them. I only paid $80(with free shipping) for mine. I think they are keepers.
I had these but sold them to friends for a 10-years birthday gift to their daughter but miss them, and consider to get either Kowa YF 6x30 or Opticron Savanna 6x30.
I bet these are the same binoculars under different brands.
By the way: today I picked up Nikon 12x50 SE from the post office. And therefore I think it would be nice to get some 6x30s again as a porro complement!
Last edited:
Those Nikon 12x50 SE's are awesome binoculars. Great for astronomy. The Kowa YF 6x30 and Opticron Savanna 6x30 are about the same but I still like the look of the Leupold's. The Kowa focus looks weird to me. They are perfect kids binoculars. Just the right size and small IPD. Shocked me how sharp they are! Almost like a small Habicht 8x30 except with an easier focus(Did Proud Papa hear that?). HaHa! At first I thought the focus wheel was defective on the Leupold's because the movement was limited but it was just stuck. Once I loosened it it was ok.
Last edited:
Absolutely Nikon SEs are awesome. The optical quality is excellent. While not offering the large eyepiece lenses and ease of view as the newest binoculars I find the eye relief to be adequate with my new eyeglasses, enable me to come a bit closer to the lens than the old eyeglasses.
I read in a review that Swarovski Svarovision 12x50s are slightly better, but: for 1/4 the price(I paid) the Nikon SEs are very good value!
Regarding Leupold 6x30s I really agree: on-axis sharpness is impressive, rivalling some 10 times more expensive roofs.
Last edited:
You can't beat the big 50mm Swarovision's in either 10x50 or 12x50 but the SE comes close for a lot less money. Those 12x50 SE's would be good for Raptors at long distance. They are not too heavy and I know they are sharp. A simple porro is transparent offering a nice crisp sharp unencumbered view even an inexpensive one like the Yosemite. Remarkable.
WJC
Well-known member
When the massive tankers leave the end of the pipeline at Valdes, Alaska, the oil that becomes the gasoline for everyone is exactly the same. Then, in the refining process, the Big Names drop in a few quarts of their own proprietary, pie-in-the-sky magic elixir into the massive tank and charge $.50 a gallon more than the less well-backed competition that doesn’t have the money to make their product seem so wonderful, even though surveys have shown the different blends are almost the same.
So it goes for those who MUST have the nutritional value of “organic” fruit when, at the last count I was aware of, 67 scientific articles revealed there is NO MORE NUTRITIONAL VALUE in “organically” grown fruit than any other. Some folks just like to spend money, unnecessarily. It just gives them a feeling of fitting in with the “right” crowd.
And, have some bottled water companies not found themselves in court for selling “tap” water that anyone can get from their kitchen sink? P.T. Barnum did not say, "There's a sucker born every minute." But, someone who worked for him did, and he was right.
But I guess as long as we’re a “kinder, gentler” world, with many of us prone to believe everything we read out of the unquenchable desire to be “fair” toward every concept that comes down the pike (even when diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom), we will be ripe for the pickin’s.
Bill
Last edited:
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Excuse me Mods but is crass mysogyny considered acceptable on BirdForum?
WJC
Well-known member
When my first girlfriend got older, she had to have a mysogyny. However, it wasn't on her crass! :eek!:
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Hi Bill
I don't wish to come across as a humourless killjoy but I just felt that this particular attempt at levity by Dennis was unnecessarily tasteless and disrespectful to women. We have few enough female contributors to this forum as it is and I personally do not think that such comments are likely to encourage more. If I am being too over-sensitive or politically correct on this issue perhaps the OP and/or the moderators could advise me.
At the risk of getting banned ... the word "prissy" came to mind, when I read your comment.
Graham I think you are right on with your comment. Well spoken.
Point here being that face to face with ladies that you know, you can be risquee and with some downright rude because they know you and can tell from your voice and body language that you don't mean to be offensive. On a webpage there are just the words and, in this case, they come across as offensive to women. I really don't think Dennis meant to be offensive but some care a sensitivity wouldn't go amiss here.
Lee
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Ok, I will lighten up. Here's my take on Dennis's contributions to the optic threads:
'Sexism, Lies and Videotapes'
Is that better?
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Thanks Lee