• 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.

What would worlds best binoculars be? (1 Viewer)

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?
  • Brightness?
  • Resolution (detail)?
  • Vividness and color fidelity?
  • Field of view?
  • Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
  • Close focus?
  • Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
  • Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
  • Weight?


  • I'm behind the already mentioned 7x35 wide angle configuration.

    Of the items on your list I'd choose:

    *Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus
    *Handling (easy to hang onto, easy to focus with one hand, immediate full field of view without thought or deliberation)
    *Low weight

    All the other stuff you guys already know how to do and optically they are brilliant.
 
The US Army thought that they had that. The Steiner M22 binocular was built with sealed and unadjustable optics in a plastic shell. The Army reverted to conventional designs. I believe the German Army went through a similar phase.

So it is not so easy to make a good and robust binocular.

Especially, if it has to be cheap. That time, Hensoldt offered a successor of its DF to the Bundeswehr, but Steiner as a competitor was cheaper. We know how this story ends - today, Hensoldt is back to business ...

Cheers,
Holger
 
I'm behind the already mentioned 7x35 wide angle configuration.

Of the items on your list I'd choose:

*Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus
*Handling (easy to hang onto, easy to focus with one hand, immediate full field of view without thought or deliberation)
*Low weight

All the other stuff you guys already know how to do and optically they are brilliant.

Unfortunately, you can't have both at the same time: Wide angle and low weight. It is simple physics, a 7x35 wide angle implies wide light cones, therefore large prisms and eyepiece diameters.

Cheers,
Holger
 
... Have you heard of the wonderful one-hoss shay,
That was built in such a logical way
It ran a hundred years to a day,
And then, of a sudden, it — ah, but stay,
I'll tell you what happened without delay,
Scaring the parson into fits,
Frightening people out of their wits, —
Have you ever heard of that, I say?

...Now in building of chaises, I tell you what,
There is always somewhere a weakest spot, —
In hub, tire, felloe, in spring or thill,
In panel, or crossbar, or floor, or sill,
In screw, bolt, thoroughbrace, — lurking still,
Find it somewhere you must and will, —
Above or below, or within or without, —
And that's the reason, beyond a doubt,
A chaise breaks down, but doesn't wear out.

... Little of all we value here
Wakes on the morn of its hundreth year
Without both feeling and looking queer.
In fact, there's nothing that keeps its youth,
So far as I know, but a tree and truth.
(This is a moral that runs at large;
Take it. — You're welcome. — No extra charge.)

Verses taken from: The Deacon's Masterpiece by Oliver Wendell Holmes

B :)
Ed
 
Last edited:
The only binocular release that could tempt me back into the binocular market would be a 7x3X, or a 7x42 with improvement over the FL, although the former would be the biggest tempter with the wallet, as I am more than happy with the x42 FL and can't think of too many ways it could be improved to make it worthwhile stopping to use it.

A 7x3X would compliment my 7x42FL, and would be hard to resist!
 
Zeiss did earlier made a nice one.
zeiss Deltar 8x40 198m / 1000m weight 950 gram

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/carl-zeiss-jena-deltar-8x40-ultra-152213842

I once owned this 8x40 with 90 degrees AFOV - amazing view! It was the first binocular with aspherical lenses (which had to be shaped manually in those days). Compared with today's standards, the edge-sharpness was very poor, and the eye-relief of 12mm was a bit short even without glasses. My sample was uncoated - transmission about 60%, and the image was therefore lacking punch.

Cheers,
Holger
 
I just want to say one word to you, Mike. Just one word.

Are you listening?

PORROS.

Zeiss used to make the best porros in the world, but hasn't designed a new porro since 1960.

Brock

Have to echo Brock here, I have a new T-FL 8X32 Victory and personally cant fault it, but I also have an 8x30B Zeiss west Oberkochen, and love it, but I would really like to see a new Zeiss porro made using the latest coatings, modern glass, aspherical lenses, etc. Just the thought is exciting.
 
I'll add one more suggestion. If Zeiss (or anybody else) were to design a modern-day super-porro binocular to the joy of us afficionados and the horror of the marketing people, it should in my view have underhung objectives. Minolta used to make one that I have handled, and the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x50 is another model that could be emulated, although B & L, stupidly in my view, made the binocular to have its objectives above, not below the eyepieces.

With the objectives below the eyepiece line, you get to keep your hands rather close together like with a roof-prism binocular, but get the additional benefit of having your hands 3-4 cm lower, which makes a surprisingly noticeable difference in viewing comfort. The other advantage of this design is that the binocular appears, and actually also is, more compact than a traditional porro.

Kimmo
 
I'll add one more suggestion. If Zeiss (or anybody else) were to design a modern-day super-porro binocular to the joy of us afficionados and the horror of the marketing people, it should in my view have underhung objectives. Minolta used to make one that I have handled, and the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x50 is another model that could be emulated, although B & L, stupidly in my view, made the binocular to have its objectives above, not below the eyepieces.

With the objectives below the eyepiece line, you get to keep your hands rather close together like with a roof-prism binocular, but get the additional benefit of having your hands 3-4 cm lower, which makes a surprisingly noticeable difference in viewing comfort. The other advantage of this design is that the binocular appears, and actually also is, more compact than a traditional porro.

Kimmo

The 3D effect often cited as a porro benefit would suffer from this, but the gain in compactness might outweigh that.
However, there was also a claim on another thread that vertical misalignment is much harder to adjust to than horizontal, so there is a vulnerability.
 
I like to see; maybe a better service after , i heard very bad things about zeiss from people who can now , dealers and buyers.

My only experience with Zeiss US service was about 18 months ago and entirely satisfactory. They did an excellent job refurbishing my 8x30 Classic at no charge other than postage.
 
I'll add one more suggestion. If Zeiss (or anybody else) were to design a modern-day super-porro binocular to the joy of us afficionados and the horror of the marketing people, it should in my view have underhung objectives. Minolta used to make one that I have handled, and the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x50 is another model that could be emulated, although B & L, stupidly in my view, made the binocular to have its objectives above, not below the eyepieces.

With the objectives below the eyepiece line, you get to keep your hands rather close together like with a roof-prism binocular, but get the additional benefit of having your hands 3-4 cm lower, which makes a surprisingly noticeable difference in viewing comfort. The other advantage of this design is that the binocular appears, and actually also is, more compact than a traditional porro.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

I remember the British military Avimo 7x42 being built in this way. The design was not popular among the soldiers because they were easily shot in the head when observing from the trench. Guess that problem would be less notorious during birding :)

I would be missing the 3D view of the traditional design. Yet, your suggestion would allow for a closer focus.

Cheers,
Holger
 
If Zeiss (or anybody else) were to design a modern-day super-porro binocular to the joy of us afficionados and the horror of the marketing people, it should in my view have underhung objectives.

Isn't that exactly what Leica has done with the new Geovids? Looks comfortable to hold, I agree.
 

Attachments

  • 8144.jpg
    8144.jpg
    55.4 KB · Views: 66
Isn't that exactly what Leica has done with the new Geovids? Looks comfortable to hold, I agree.

Yes it looks like - the axis-offset of this Perger-prism is about half as much as that of a Porro. Are these new Geovids available by now? I never saw them in any Leica store I had recently visited ...

Cheers,
Holger
 
Holger,

I'm sure the smarter soldiers held their Avimos upside down.

But yes, a porro binocular with underhung objectives, designed as nicely as the Perger Geovid, could also be a pretty good looking binocular.

Kimmo
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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