Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 22 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 3rd December 2008, 22:10   #101
Sollas
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 102
Hello Huang Lingyun,

Sounds like you work in the development department. Maybe you could let us know what market these bins were originally aimed at. I take it the OEM agreement with Hawke must have been designed to punch a hole in some of the bigger players markets.

Last but not least I wonder where one could view them in Scotland, any ideas?

Last edited by Sollas : Wednesday 3rd December 2008 at 22:14.
Sollas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th December 2008, 01:40   #102
orbitaljump
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 287
I guess you have to buy to try these.

Last edited by orbitaljump : Thursday 4th December 2008 at 01:51.
orbitaljump is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th December 2008, 17:14   #103
MacGee
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bridge of Allan
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollas View Post
...I wonder where one could view them in Scotland, any ideas?
Black & Lizars in Shandwick Place in Edinburgh has them in stock.

Michael
MacGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th December 2008, 18:00   #104
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
 
bitterntwisted's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Posts: 4,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell View Post
Odd. With my corrected vision (glasses on) my Hawke will close focus down to 5ft from objective to target. Way closer than I really need.
Same here with my Hawkes. Stand on tiptoe and I can focus on my toes, making it around 5' 8". Have to breathe in to see my toes, mind!

Graham
__________________

bitterntwisted is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th December 2008, 00:34   #105
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,393
"Have to breathe in to see my toes, mind!"


Graham,Thanks for the laugh.

No making fun or trying to be mean intended.

Regards,Steve
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd December 2008, 17:47   #106
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticl2184 View Post
.. how the hell can Hawke produce a binocular to challenge the Zeiss FL at such a low price ?

Tim
Lousy payment for the workers on the factory(maybe).
Less quality control.

Anyways, should I go for the Nikon E2 or the Hawke? Maybe I get more depth of field with the Nikon?

Last edited by keithdrengen : Tuesday 23rd December 2008 at 17:59.
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd December 2008, 18:56   #107
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithdrengen View Post
Lousy payment for the workers on the factory(maybe).
Less quality control.

Anyways, should I go for the Nikon E2 or the Hawke? Maybe I get more depth of field with the Nikon?
Do you have any evidence for those statments? Didn't think so.

OK, back to your question.

A few things to consider:

0. Eye relief. The E2 is pretty short. I think this is a killer for eyeglass wearers without a trial. Judging by the numbers for my eyeglasses it would be marginal. The Hawke ER is plenty for eyeglasses (though not quite enough for the whole field for me and my glasses but very close).

1. The porro view. I've been looking through my porros again. Especially with good to excellent porros there is a transpancy that I still don't see with roofs. I have ABed the Hawke and the Nikon SE and the SE wins by all opticl measures (sharpness; contrast; stray light). I suspect the E2 might be the same (though I've not tried it). Plus there is the "3D effect" which some people find very helpful -- I rather like it.

2. Waterproofing and fogproofing. You can dunk the Hawke. You can't dunk the E2. In Danish weather I would think you have to be a little protective of the E2 (not like the devil may care attitude with a waterproof bin). That said I think I over-baby my porros.

3. How important is resale value to you? I suspect the E2 will be sort after for a while. The Hawke not so much.

The DOF argument swings back and forth around here. Some say it's only magnification. I still don't buy that argument (for real bins). I suspect the E2 might have it here but I'm not sure.

Last edited by Kevin Purcell : Tuesday 23rd December 2008 at 19:01.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd December 2008, 19:43   #108
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
No evidence.. its China..
anyways, someone earlier in this thread I believe talked about varying shortfocus. Long term endurance no one can know about yet.
Thanks for comparing it with the Nikon SE ( though I know its maybe not fair, but informative!).
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd December 2008, 19:57   #109
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
There is a thread of mine comparing (in a bit more detail but not much!) Promaster, Hawke and SE. Take a look!
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th December 2008, 13:02   #110
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,365
Kevin hit on some excellent points. In my opinion the E2 should have better depth of field. I have found many of the porro prism bins I have owned exhibit better depth of field (probably because of the objective spacing) than their roof prism counterparts.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th December 2008, 15:09   #111
Tero
Master Naturalist, NE
 
Tero's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 8,372
Quote:
...E2 should have better depth of field.
Frank, we can't use that term anymore, because of the theorists. We have to say perceived, or apparent, so perceived depth of field.
__________________
humorblog
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/ Blackbirds:https://flic.kr/s/aHskVgyDYs Nebraska birds: https://flic.kr/s/aHskVe3cgw
ABA list: 356 black-bellied whistling duck
Tero is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 25th December 2008, 02:42   #112
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,365
Ahh, I slipped up Tero. That is my fault for not reading any of the theoretical threads.

:-p
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th December 2008, 05:36   #113
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
Frank, we can't use that term anymore, because of the theorists. We have to say perceived, or apparent, so perceived depth of field.
Tero, I know you're trying to be funny, but for the record I'd like to point out that the claim that magnification is the only significant determinant of DOF in binoculars (and conversely, that all binos of the same mag have the same DOF for all practical purposes) comes not only from the "theorists" but also from those empiricists/experimentalists who have done careful observations/tests.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th December 2008, 11:33   #114
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
 
bitterntwisted's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Posts: 4,843
Keith,

I do a whole lot more re-focusing with my Hawkes than with my EIIs. That's a combination of two things - the percived depth of field and the focus-wheel gearing. I can live happily with either - the Nikons are definitely better at getting very quickly focussed on a bird - the shorter perceived DoF and the slower focussing of the Hawkes can help 'pull' a bird out from it's surroundings and creates a more intense image.

I don't understand the physics of DoF - but the impression feels very real - the Hawkes definitely seem to blur objects at other distances much more than the Nikons.

Graham
__________________

bitterntwisted is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 28th December 2008, 21:01   #115
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
Arent there an extra lense or two added inside a roof prism binocular, moveable, to adjust focus. Maybe that system makes a difference in terms of DOF, compared to Porro prism binoculars.
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 28th December 2008, 23:15   #116
Tero
Master Naturalist, NE
 
Tero's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 8,372
We are just talking perceived dof here, not real. We add poor optical qualities easily to the feeling of poor dof. Porros and roofs work the same way, I was able to convince myself, with dof. Power is the main criterion, and the only one to our theorists.

The porros focus with the eye piece part moving and the roofs have a lens inside that moves. In 8x20 pocket binoculars from Wal Mart, it was actually the objeective lense that moved.
__________________
humorblog
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/ Blackbirds:https://flic.kr/s/aHskVgyDYs Nebraska birds: https://flic.kr/s/aHskVe3cgw
ABA list: 356 black-bellied whistling duck
Tero is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 2nd January 2009, 18:57   #117
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
How is DOF on The hawke ED compared to others, like Nikon Monarch.
Has there been any issues with "bad" units in general?
CJ
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd January 2009, 01:35   #118
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,365
Good question on the DOF. I don't have mine on hand anymore. Maybe Kevin can comment. I seem to remember the depth of field being comparable to something like the Monarch and a bit better than the Promaster in this regard.

My unit did not have any quality control issues that I was aware of.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd January 2009, 08:33   #119
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
Thanks for the answer FrankD.

Once I read that Nikon E2 is nearly on par with Zeiss FL and others.
Another place I read that The Hawke Frontier ED is nearly on par with Zeiss FL and others.
Then I read that the Nikon E2 is better in almost every optical aspect than the Hawke frontier ED..

Taste and preferences I guess
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 4th January 2009, 00:31   #120
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,365
Keith,

I think your last statement speaks volumnes. It really does tend to depend on what you prefer for optical characteristics. In my opinion the Promaster and Hawke were closer to the high end Alphas optically than any of the mid-priced roofs so far. The E2 is an animal in a different category entirely. It is probably my favorite bin optically. My only gripe was the short eye relief coupled with the wide eyecups made it nearly impossible for me to get a single field of view. I had to remove them on my unit. After that I don't think there was a bin that touches them optically. Beautiful bins.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 19th January 2009, 20:19   #121
keithdrengen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 208
Is the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43 better than Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro?
CJ
keithdrengen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 19th January 2009, 22:06   #122
Tero
Master Naturalist, NE
 
Tero's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 8,372
Comparing similar ED bins and Legend.

Err...tough. Maybe. I sort of enjoy the look and the feel in use of roofs over porros. So if they were actually equivalent, it might be hard to be objective here.
__________________
humorblog
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/ Blackbirds:https://flic.kr/s/aHskVgyDYs Nebraska birds: https://flic.kr/s/aHskVe3cgw
ABA list: 356 black-bellied whistling duck
Tero is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 19th January 2009, 22:09   #123
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD View Post
Good question on the DOF. I don't have mine on hand anymore. Maybe Kevin can comment. I seem to remember the depth of field being comparable to something like the Monarch and a bit better than the Promaster in this regard.

My unit did not have any quality control issues that I was aware of.
I don't have a Monarch to compare it with. I think the DOF is OK. Not astounding but perhaps (if DOF depends only on magnification and they keep the aberrations down) about what you'd expect from a 8x. I suspect it's the sam or better than the Monarch though it might feel different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithdrengen View Post
Is the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43 better than Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro?
I haven't actually ABed these two but my first guess is the Chinese ED would have it. It is sharper (IIRC ... which may be a bad idea). I suspect the Legends are good but not that good.

I'll see if I can try it but I have a whole stack of ABs to do but I'm focused on the Zen-rays right now.

Last edited by Kevin Purcell : Monday 19th January 2009 at 22:14.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 20th January 2009, 00:43   #124
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,365
I cannot do the comparison anymore so I will defer to Kevin on that one.

Comparing the Legend porros to the Zen Ray really isn't a fair comparison though I guess you could make the case that they both have some similar specs (eye relief...field of view, etc...). The Zen Ray's image is marginally brighter and a tad sharper with less field curvature. The Legend porro has slightly more field curvature and though sharp isn't as sharp as the Zen Ray. As the Zen Ray and the Hawke are similar in many aspects I think you could make a bit of a case that my comments might apply to them as well.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 20th January 2009, 02:18   #125
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD View Post
I cannot do the comparison anymore so I will defer to Kevin on that one.

Comparing the Legend porros to the Zen Ray really isn't a fair comparison though I guess you could make the case that they both have some similar specs (eye relief...field of view, etc...). The Zen Ray's image is marginally brighter and a tad sharper with less field curvature. The Legend porro has slightly more field curvature and though sharp isn't as sharp as the Zen Ray. As the Zen Ray and the Hawke are similar in many aspects I think you could make a bit of a case that my comments might apply to them as well.
I'll probably comment on the Zen Ray evaluation thread too but after posting the comment above I went out with the Zen-ray 10x43 and the Eagle Optics Raptor 10x42 porro. Not the same as you ask but in the same ball park.

And the results are similar to FrankD's (except I didn't look at the field edges).

The Chinese ED (I generalize but the Hawke and ZR ED are very similar at 8x) is perhaps slightly sharper and is better with color saturation and presentation. I was watching Ring-necked Ducks and Mallards in the sun when doing this: great targets for color at ranges from 10m to 100m. There were times when the color could be seen in the ED bin clearly but not being nearly so apparent in the non-ED (a porro).

I still think the porro might have had the "clarity" thing I keep going on about but I think the Chinese ED may have been sharper.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hawke Frontier loud robin Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 1 Monday 6th April 2009 11:16
Hawke Frontier ED: another open bridge ED bin from China Kevin Purcell Hawke Optics 104 Thursday 22nd January 2009 04:17
Pentax 8X43 DCF ED or 8X43 DCF SP? jmepler Pentax 2 Saturday 6th September 2008 01:22
Hawke Frontier 8x42 sf01457 Hawke Optics 2 Sunday 11th March 2007 10:40
Pentax DCF SP 8x43 vs. Swift 8.5 x 44? 19cal91 Pentax 6 Monday 12th February 2007 19:52



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25352693 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:17.