New Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (1 Viewer)

jedku · May 25, 2006

Tilling,
If you realy will be using these bins alot with a kayak, keep in mind that they dont have as robust a construction as marine bins. The yosemites are "waterproof" by virtue of their rubber "O" rings under the ocular housing. They are still vulnerable to the ocular arm being banged out of alignment and they may not be truly immersable.
Individual focus marine bins, are very sturdy because their is no arm supporting the ocular lenses. They screw right into the housing and will stay waterproof longer. Most important, they will not go out of alignment easily if banged against the boat or while stored roughly in a gear bag.
Individual focus is not a serious problem from a boat. 6x will put alot in focus once you are just 25' away from your boat. Unless you try to use them in the woods or at a backyard feeder, you won't be refocusing them very much.
If you want something with central focus for use on land as well as water, roof prism designs are more suitable for true waterproofing and sturdier for being knocked around.
Eagle optics has a 6x, you will also do well with 7x, the marine standard magnification.

All of this is not to say you can't be happy with the Yosemites. It just depends on how rough you expect to treat them and whether you really want them to survive occasional full immersion. As a kayaker myself, I only take roofs or marine style porros out with me. Marine bins with scales etched on the glass are useful for navigation but annoying for birding....
Marc

tilling · May 25, 2006

ceasar said:
I believe Fujinon discontinued the 6 x 30's. They also had Individual focus rather than center focus and would have been much more inconvenient to use from a canoe than the Leupolds.

Fuji discontinued the Polaris 6x30s, but they still make the Nautilus 6x30s.

I disagree that IF makes a binocular inconvenient, especially at 6-8 magnification. If you set the two eyepieces right (so you can focus at anything closer than infinity, and juuust focus at infinity) then you should never need to refocus until somebody else wants your binoculars. For my kayaking binoculars that's not going to happen much.

ceasar · May 26, 2006

optics4birding.com sells the Fujinons for $195.00. They look pretty rugged and weigh 12 ounces more than the Leupolds. Their ER, as you noted, is 8mm shorter at 12mm than the Leupolds at 20mm. Their higher price probably reflects their heavier construction and what looks like, from their picture, larger prisms. Ultimately the choice is up to you. Personally, I prefer center focus. The optics of the Fujunons would have to be far better than the Leupolds to make me choose IF. It's OK on a large boat, where you have alot of views at infinity. But down low and close to shore in a Kayak, I'd much prefer the Center Focus Fujinons. (Make that "Leupolds!")
Bob

FrankD · Aug 25, 2006

I just had to bring this thread back up to the top because I just received a pair of the Yosemites. I initially bought them for my 5 year old son to use in a year or two but may just keep this pair for myself for now. I am totally surprised not only by the build quality but also the optical quality of these bins. These just go to show the optical quality one can obtain out of an inexpensive pair of porro prism binoculars. Bob's initial evaluation of them is spot on for both the build quality and optical quality. I just cannot get over how small and lightweight they are. That is the first thing that struck me. The second is how flat a field of view they have. There must be a good 90% of the field of view (420 feet) in focus. You can hardly see the very outer most edge being out of focus. Add to that an excellent depth of field and these inexpensive little bins provide a trully superb view.

Downside? The resolution isn't top notch (but then for under $100 it has to be one of the best, if not the best bins in regard to this.) Colors appear very well represented and the image certainly is bright. These bins truly are great "all around" bins. I could easily use them for anything from a backyard feeder bin to an extra bin to keep in the car. Their wide, well focused field of view would be excellent for hunting down warblers in densely wooded patches. I could even see their benefit in scanning the sky for hawks. They do not have the power to isolate differences in plumage but you could easily use them to locate the birds and ID them based on silhouette or behavior.

For anyone that has a spare $100 (or less) laying around and wants an inexpensive bin with very good optical quality I highly recommend them!

Picture below is of the Nikon Venturers, Leupold Yosemites and Pentax 8x32 DCF-SPs. Look how small the Yosemites are!

Tero · Aug 25, 2006

I initially bought them for my 5 year old son to use in a year or two but ...

Sounds familiar. I got my wife some compacts. I am using them now. Had to get her another pair. I wanted the same model but it is now sold out, Minoltas...

ceasar · Aug 25, 2006

I'm pleased to read Frank's confirmation of my original report. I keep mine on the kitchen table next to the door to the deck where I can grab them quickly. Today it is raining so I'll take them in the car with me. They are waterproof and essentially worry proof; built like the proverbial tank, yet lightweight, bright and very sharp. Viewed as a complete package, they are BY FAR the best, most versatile binocular I have ever used that cost under $100.00. Believe me, you can learn to love 6X!
Bob

FrankD · Aug 25, 2006

Bob,

They definitely are everything you said they were. I would even go out on a limb and say that these are a better value (optical and build quality) than the Nikon Sporters. The image certainly is brighter and offers better resolution (assuming we could compare both at the same power) than the Sporters, not to mention the fact that they are considerably lighter and just as waterproof. If a person can get over the 6x versus 8x issue then I think these would be an excellent choice.

I received a few PMs regarding my opinion of the bins' resolution. This is the first time I have tried or owned a pair of 6x bins so my impression of their "less than perfect" resolution may be entirely based on my lack of experience with lower power bins. The images appear sharp enough overall (I do not get that dull impression when looking through them) but they lack the ability to resolve some finer lettering I was using to check resolution. I am guessing this has more to do with the 6x magnification than it does the quality of the optics themselves.

Seriously folks, if you have some spare "change" laying around then I highly recommend picking up a pair of these to play around with. I doubt they will replace anyone's full sized 8x-10x bins but they make an excellent back-up/go anywhere type of bin.

**Only complaint with them thus far is that they make a "squishing" sound as the focus is adjusted. I am guessing this has something to do with the lubrication and O-ring style seals they use to make the bin waterproof.

Tero · Aug 25, 2006

Certainly should be included in the specs of any binocular.

Sporter
8x
FOV
Squishy? No

Leupold
6x
FOV
Squishiness? Yes

FrankD · Aug 25, 2006

I take that as funny Tero. Maybe we should have a squishiness category. ;-)

Just so that my comments weren't taken the wrong way. I think the Sporters are an excellent bin and a great value. I have owned both the 8x36 Sporter I and the 8x36 Buckmaster (basically the same bin). They are excellent roof prism bins for the price. I have yet to find another roof prism bin that matches their quality (build and optics) for the price that they are being sold for now.

Having said that though, the 6x30 Yosemites are an even better value in my opinion because they offer excellent image quality (that depth of field and flatness of field is very, very good for this price...they easily trump my 7x35 Action EXs in terms of overall image quality) in an even more inexpensive and lighter weight package.

No offense intended for Sporter owners. They are both great bins.

Tero · Aug 26, 2006

I have the 10x Sporter, though I looked at both 8x and 10x at the time. They have been fine for looking at ducks and things that are all far away. And I enjoyed the 10x, as I had to sneak in looks into other peoples scopes the first year. SO I had at least 10x in my hands for trying to make out distant ducks.

I use them without glasses, and my eyes are slightly different. I was adjusting the diopter continuously on birding trips with our group. It turned out to be because they are a bit dim. With my Monarchs I may adjust the diopter once or twice during a birding trip. With 8x there would not be as much a problem. With 6x, no problem at all. In fact, you can probably use the same focus setting for great parts of a birding trip.

If one is out there with a scope, a 6x binocular would offer a great overview of lakes and rivers, with the wide FOV.

FrankD · Aug 26, 2006

In fact, you can probably use the same focus setting for great parts of a birding trip.

If one is out there with a scope, a 6x binocular would offer a great overview of lakes and rivers, with the wide FOV.
__________________

Tero,

It just goes to show how much we think alike. The 6x mag. isn't going to be ideal for everyone in every situation. However, if used in conjunction with a scope I think it would be an extremely effective combination! I have no problem using the Yosemites for backyard birding (out to about 30 yards) and see no reason they couldn't be used for even more distant birding assuming that we aren't trying to ID the birds based on plumage. I am about to take them out and use them in the field, should this dreary weather clear up, and hope to post more then.

Probably the biggest compliment I can pay them is that they have the most relaxed view I have ever had the privelege to see. That 6x mag coupled with the greater 3D effect of the porro prism design gives these bins such a realistic and relaxed view. I can focus on feeders at 20 yards and basically have everything nearly in focus out to about 300 yards (keep in mind my eyes are fairly young at 34). It is truly an addicting image.

Now just imagine if Leupold put some serious R&D into building an internal focus porro prism bin with even higher quality glass and lens coatings. [

]

...and, no, the Cascade porros aren't that higher quality version of the Yosemites that I wish they were. :-( Maybe that is the 6x versus 8x magnification comparison coming into play though.

MacGee · Sep 21, 2006

I like the sound of the Yosemite, but I'm wondering if they'll fit. My IPD is about 60mm at distance, but I can't use binoculars with min IPD even as low as 52mm if they have 40mm eyecups (Zeiss FL 8x32). Can someone tell me what the outside diameter of the Yosemite's eyecups are?

Michael.

FrankD · Sep 21, 2006

I will try to remember to check it when I get home from work this evening. A translation into mm may be in order though.

MacGee · Sep 21, 2006

FrankD said:
I will try to remember to check it when I get home from work this evening. A translation into mm may be in order though.

Thanks. Any way it comes will be great.

Michael.

FrankD · Sep 22, 2006

The eyecups are exactly 4 cm across.

MacGee · Sep 22, 2006

FrankD said:
The eyecups are exactly 4 cm across.

Thanks, Frank. Well, that's another one to cross off the list. Is a list still a list when there's nothing left on it?

Michael.

Alexis Powell · Sep 22, 2006

Michael,
Because of my interest in the problems faced by those on the short end of the IPD spectrum, I've followed your posts with some interest, though I cannot remember all the details. I seem to remember that you said that your IPD is 60 mm. I take it that you also have deep-set eyes and/or a large high-bridged nose. What I don't understand is why you need binos with a minimum IPD under 56 mm if your IPD is 60 mm. I know several people with IPDs in the 56-58 mm range and they use full-sized (large exit pupil) bins for birding w/o difficulties. Although it is helpful to be able to adjust the IPD down in close-focusing situations, most binos don't focus closely enough for this to much of an issue, and most that do cannot maintain a perfectly overlapping binocular view anyway (but they're still quite functional). Even when I am buttterfly watching, I rarely if ever adjust the IPD on my binos more than 2-3 mm below the setting that I use at infinity (62 mm).

Maybe you should start a new thread giving all your spec requirements and explaining what sort of binos you are looking for. The two categories of binos that I know of that meet your criteria of small IPD and small diameter eyecups are 1) pocket roofs, and 2) some older porros (before the advent of sliding eyecups). In the latter category, the Celestron Ultima line was very good to excellent optically and included a wide range of sizes and magnifications. Very similar were the previous incarnation of the Swift Ultralight porros. They had 8x32, 8x42, and 10x42 models, all with 51 mm minimum IPD and oculars ~35 mm in diameter. I doubt anything else in the full and mid-sizes will better those specs.
--AP

MacGee · Sep 22, 2006

Alexis Powell said:
Michael,
Because of my interest in the problems faced by those on the short end of the IPD spectrum, I've followed your posts with some interest, though I cannot remember all the details. I seem to remember that you said that your IPD is 60 mm. I take it that you also have deep-set eyes and/or a large high-bridged nose. What I don't understand is why you need binos with a minimum IPD under 56 mm if your IPD is 60 mm. I know several people with IPDs in the 56-58 mm range and they use full-sized (large exit pupil) bins for birding w/o difficulties. Although it is helpful to be able to adjust the IPD down in close-focusing situations, most binos don't focus closely enough for this to much of an issue, and most that do cannot maintain a perfectly overlapping binocular view anyway (but they're still quite functional). Even when I am buttterfly watching, I rarely if ever adjust the IPD on my binos more than 2-3 mm below the setting that I use at infinity (62 mm).

You're right that I've been too demanding. Perfectionist, even. I checked my IPD at various focussing distances and it ranged from 60mm to around 52mm at closest focus, so I was looking for something to accommodate that range. But thinking about it (after reading your post), even if I had binocs that would maintain an overlapping view right down to 1.5m, I wouldn't keep on adjusting them for every shift of focus - it would drive me mad. I would just accept some overlap and learn not to think about it. That's the problem about proceeding almost entirely on theory, with only occasional brief hand-on experiences.

So, I should really go back to the beginning and look at the possibilities with a more tolerant eye. Thinking back, I've tried a few that that would have been okay - if only it wasn't for...something or other.

Alexis Powell said:
Maybe you should start a new thread giving all your spec requirements and explaining what sort of binos you are looking for.

I was thinking of doing that, but now that I've decided on a radical rethink, I'll postpone for a bit.

Alexis Powell said:
The two categories of binos that I know of that meet your criteria of small IPD and small diameter eyecups are 1) pocket roofs, and 2) some older porros (before the advent of sliding eyecups). In the latter category, the Celestron Ultima line was very good to excellent optically and included a wide range of sizes and magnifications. Very similar were the previous incarnation of the Swift Ultralight porros. They had 8x32, 8x42, and 10x42 models, all with 51 mm minimum IPD and oculars ~35 mm in diameter. I doubt anything else in the full and mid-sizes will better those specs.
--AP

At first view the Celestrons doesn't seem to be available in this country. I did find a pair of the Swift 8x32, in one shop but at a fairly high price. I am/was/am considering the Pentax Papilios 6.5x21, but can't get my hands on a pair. Also I tried the Opticron DBA Oasis 8x21 and they were optically excellent, but I was put off by the fiddly double hinge. Being hypercritical again, maybe.

Thanks for your post, Alexis. It's been very helpful in changing my approach and given me a lot to think about.

Michael.

FrankD · Sep 22, 2006

Also I tried the Opticron DBA Oasis 8x21 and they were optically excellent, but I was put off by the fiddly double hinge. Being hypercritical again, maybe.

It has been my experience that one can never be too picky when it comes to choosing a binocular. If you have the slightest reservation of an issue when you are buying the bin then don't buy it because then it will nag at you constantly once you have them at home.

On the other hand, there have been several binoculars I have owned that I initially did not like for one reason or another but eventually "grew" on me. Not many though so trust your instincts....assuming you actually try all before buying.

henry link · Sep 22, 2006

The full sized binoculars with the lowest IPD I've seen are the Swarovski Habicht Porros which close to about 47mm, even though I beleive their official IPD spec is 56mm. The eyecups on the unarmoured versions are also quite small at about 32mm (too small for me). Of course the field overlap at close focus is no better than any other traditional porro with widely spaced objectives.

New Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (1 Viewer)

Marc

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Retired

Well-known member

Well-known member

Retired

Well-known member

Retired

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread