[FrankD]

I went back through the threads on this forum and only found two threads, from several years ago, really discussing these binoculars. Does anyone have any recent experiences with them that they would like to share? I recently owned the 8x42 Leupold Cascade porros which share the same internal focus design and approximately the same specs. I was very impressed with them optically and ergonomically. I am hoping to hear that the Minox BD BP offer a similar combination of performance.

Thanks ahead of time for any responses.

[iveljay]

I have the 8x and 10x44s And as the reviews of a couple of years ago report they do give a sharp bright image with a fantastic 3D feel missing on roofs.
While their close focus is not bad, getting their is slow as they have a very low geared focussing mechanism that makes fast focussing difficult, that said, in exchange, this does give you some of the best fine focussing adjustment on any binocular - critical if you are like me and are lacking the accommodation needed to overcome the problems of some of the faster focussing items out there. Zeiss 7x42 FLs also overcome this problem for me but lack the magnification.
They feel a bit big and tend to get used on the more hazardous trips where a Nikon EII could get trashed and where the birds or other wild life don't need rapid large changes of focus.
I focus using the fingers of both hands over the top.
They are used in preference to Nikon Action EX waterproof porros but would come as shock to anyone who just uses 8x30 roofs for all sorts of reasons!
It is possible to get similar specced items from other manufacturers - the Minox tend to be a bit more expensive (I have never tried the Cascades so can't comment on any differences) but at least one reviewer preferred the general feel of the Minox.
In summary the view is obviously very different to say an EII as you will gather from the published fov.
They are tough and give a fantastic 3D effect which makes picking a bird out of its background easy.
The biggest weakness/strength is their low geared but incredibly precise focus.
Some will love them - some will hate them.
Possibly the reason you hear little of them is a lack of advertising and the fact that their owners spend more time looking through them than worrying about how good they are, unfortunately it may be also be a lack of sales as porros aren't seen as positive fashion statements.

[John Dracon]

Frank D - I am a new contributor to bird forum, but an experienced user and collector of optics for over 50 years. And while I have roofs, I have a bias towards porros in some cases. I do have both the Leupold Cascades and Minox Porros in 8x42 and 8x44 respectively. They are excellent binoculars - in many ways comparable to the Nikon SEs which I also have and use. Lest the reader feels I don't appreciate the high end stuff, they are mistaken. I'm particularly fond of my Zeiss 8x32 FLs too. Now how do the Cascades and Minox porros compare? The Minox porros of course have 44 mm objective lens compared to the Cascade 42 mm. But at dusk I can tell no difference in brightness. Of course at age 73, my pupils can't expand beyond 4 mm anyway. FOV is identical. Slow but fine focus speeds are the same. Looking in from the objective end shows an identical chassis. Wouldn't be surprised if the same factory in Japan made everything. Same superior depth of field. The complaints about FOV are greatly exaggerated, something like the report of Twain's death. Different cosmetics of course. The real difference is in weight, with the Minox weighing four more ounces. This is undoubtedly because the Minox have more armor and 2 mm greater diameter of objective lens. I find the Minox to have a chunky feel (I have extra large hands) and the Cascades to feel more ergonomic, but both are very easy to handle. I can't see any difference in resolution, which is comparable to the best of the best, i.e., SEs and Fls. I don't get too excited about the outer third of the field since I move the glasses on the target. Minox claims great wonders about being filled with Argon rather than Nitrogen gas. Makes good advertising copy. Other than comestics, weight, and initial costs, these are twin sisters. Since both are water proof, (I don't habitually dunk my optics) they have to be considered very good buys. Even better buys are the Leupold Yosemites, if status and ultimate durability are not that important to you.

One of the most overlooked features favoring porros is the ease in which the objective lens can be covered by doodads such as Butler Creek scope covers. With the space between the objective barrels, the covers when open can be rotated inward, completely out of the way. Nothing is more irritating than having roofs with covers dangling down on your stomach or snagging on something, and they will. Porros eliminate that. (not the inverted porros, of course)

I can't figure out why the Nikon 10x35s E II don't get better press. Great field, resolution and reasonably handy How many of us bird at night?

I can afford any binocular out there today. If confined to one choice, it would be Nikon 8 x 32 SE. There I go again. Like Clifton Fadiman of What's My Line years ago, I'm expert on nothing and opinions on everything. Yellowstone

[FrankD]

iveljay,

Thank you for your comments. They are exactly what I was looking for. Your experiences with the Minox tend to mirror mine with the Leupold. So, as John referenced below, it would seem these two binoculars have much more in common than not. If you could please then would you be kind enough to clarify what you meant with this statement:

They are used in preference to Nikon Action EX waterproof porros but would come as shock to anyone who just uses 8x30 roofs for all sorts of reasons!

John,

I would like to start off by also saying thank you to you as well. Individuals such as yourself are invaluable to a forum like this. I sincerely hope to see more of your postings in the future.

I have to say that much of what you posted also mirrors my own experiences. The Cascades do have absolutely fantastic depth of field. In some cases I often find my eyes actually refocusing on objects at drastically different distances without any adjustment to the focusing knob. Granted, some of that is my age but some of it also has to be due to the fact that most of the image is relatively close to perfect focus despite the actual distance from the focused object. I really enjoy that effect and would agree that it is very similar to the Nikon SE in that regard.

Admittedly, I have to also agree about your field of view comment. I have always been a big proponent of larger fields of view in binoculars (assuming nothing else is greatly compromised). With the Cascades I don't really seem to mind the issue as much. I wonder if that is the result of the excellent depth of field and/or the quality of the image itself. Something to think about.

I have the Minoxs on order and should have them shortly. I now wonder if it would be worth it to take a look at those Opticron internal focus porros as well.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by FrankD

iveljay,

Admittedly, I have to also agree about your field of view comment. I have always been a big proponent of larger fields of view in binoculars (assuming nothing else is greatly compromised). With the Cascades I don't really seem to mind the issue as much. I wonder if that is the result of the excellent depth of field and/or the quality of the image itself. Something to think about.

Frank,

Interesting that you have come to this point. It seems you and I have discussed this issue at other times in other threads. I have come to like the larger fov of the Promaster more than I thought I would. However I still think the 330' fov of the Monarch is OK. Kind of like the thread about optical quality vs the whole package. This is sort of like the fov vs the whole image package. I think at either end of the spectrum there can be either too much fov or too little fov. Or too much or too little of some other image parameter.

I'm going to be looking forward to your comments on the Cascade vs Minox. I think I'll have to throw a few bucks at the cookie jar and get a Cascade.

John Dracon,

Welcome to the forum. I enjoyed your post as well, and will second Frank in his comments.

[John Dracon]

Thanks Frank and Steve. I'll be floating in now and then with opinions and experiences.
John

[FrankD]

John,

I look forward to it.

Steve,

I see the 8x42 Cascade porros are now down to $209 at Eagle Optics. I really think you will like those. In addition to John, Kevin P. also seems to be favorably impressed with them as well. I believe he had some positive comments on them over in the Abbe Koenig/Schmidt Pechan thread with Henry.

[matt green]

Originally Posted by FrankD

I have the Minoxs on order and should have them shortly. I now wonder if it would be worth it to take a look at those Opticron internal focus porros as well.

I should say so, I owned a pair of these some years ago but sold them on because I didn't like the low geared focus...that was from a time (the good old days!!) when I could save up and buy a pair of leica's, Swarovski's or anything else I wanted so didn't really appreciate what such a fantastic pair of budget bins they are and now I wish I had kept hold of them!!

Had a chance to compare them against Opticrons top end DBA oasis roofs and a secondhand pair of Leica Trinovid 8x32 BN's a short while ago and to speak plainly the Opticron HR WP 8x42 gave the best image, they were sharper, brighter and had excellent image clarity at long range and were only beaton on field of view, they have great build quality and for the asking price they are a steal!!

Matt

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Steve,

I see the 8x42 Cascade porros are now down to $209 at Eagle Optics. I really think you will like those. In addition to John, Kevin P. also seems to be favorably impressed with them as well. I believe he had some positive comments on them over in the Abbe Koenig/Schmidt Pechan thread with Henry.

I saw that too. As an aside, how does the image of the Cascade porro compare to the Yosemite? I've compared the Yosemite to the Mesa porro and apart from fov, there does not seem to be too much to separate them optically.

While I've never really looked at a Cascade, I've had it in my head that the 8x Mesa was basically an optical twin of the 8x Cascade, having the typical external porro focus. The Mesa is another pretty good, inexpensive, optical quality porro glass as well. My brother has those and they have lasted very well and served to answer the questions put to them.

Thing is, I'm basically awash right now in 8x binoculars.

[iveljay]

Sorry for the delay in clarifying -

8x30 roofs are today small, waterproof, wide fov, fast focus, light, lots of choice, very flat image - just about pocketable - for travelling light I use the roofs as a good compromise.

Minox BD BP/Opticron/etc... a totally different experience (luxury saloon compared to sports car?) - For really enjoying the view - the porros win every time, but they tend to be used within 24hrs of base, as do most of my bins as I try to match the glasses to the likely usage and focussing speed is critical in some environments.

Strangely enough with some binoculars fov doesn't seem to matter as much as with others, possibly I handle them differently or something...

I havn't done a side by side comparison Minox vs Opticron in this 'range' but as one of my other favourites is the Opticron 8x30 SRGA suspect that the main difference may be in the price and/or quality control (and argon?) as having rejected the first SRGAs the second pair were excellent.

For those awash with 8x I find that the 10x BD BP is in many ways an even better bet when compared to many roof bins of similar spec, but that is getting away from this discussion.

J

[BobinKy]

Originally Posted by iveljay

Minox BD BP/Opticron/etc... a totally different experience (luxury saloon compared to sports car?) - For really enjoying the view - the porros win every time, but they tend to be used within 24hrs of base, as do most of my bins as I try to match the glasses to the likely usage and focussing speed is critical in some environments.

J

Could you speak a little more about "24hrs of base" comment? I am not sure what you mean by that phrase.

Thanks.

--Bob
Kentucky, USA

[BobinKy]

Originally Posted by Steve C

As an aside, how does the image of the Cascade porro compare to the Yosemite?
Steve

Good question, Steve. Does anybody have any opinions on this?

--Bob
Kentucky, USA

[FrankD]

Kevin can chime in when he gets a chance as he has both of the Yosemite configurations and the Cascade 8x42. I have the 6x30 Yosemite on hand and the 8x42 Cascade. After just comparing them I think they are very similar. The most surprising characteristic is how similar the depth of field is between these two bins. You would think it would be pretty substantial considering the 6x to 8x difference but it really isn't all that much.

The Cascade is a hair brighter to my eyes with slightly better edge sharpness. Apparent sharpness between the two seems about equal but I am comparing them in a fairly limited environment at the moment. Truth be told I prefer the ergonomics of the Cascade a bit more because the dogleg bend is a bit more rounded on the Cascade. It just feels wonderful to put my hands around it (dare I say I feel a bit "dirty" for saying that?). Contrast, again in this environment, seems to be about equal. I would like to try them both outside tomorrow and state more when I get the chance.

IvelJay,

Thank you for commenting further.

Steve,

When John Traynor and I first looked at the Cascade porros at Cabelas we actually started looking at the 10x first and were very impressed by its optical performance. If anything the 10x might be more impressive because it provides the same superb optical performance in a higher magnification but without showcasing any of the optical faults often found when comparing an 8x to a 10x in this price range. In other words, if someone were looking for a relatively inexpensive 10x to own then this would be the one.

[John Dracon]

While this isn't a thread on Leupold binoculars, the 6 x 30 Yosemite has been mentioned. Purchased a pair when they first came out. Used mostly for football games and knocking around. Bought mine on Ebay for around $80. Very good optics and when compared to the old B&L Zephyr 6 x 30, a bit brighter. But the durability and fixability of the Yosemites is an unknown. The old B & Ls are easy to re-collimate and are durable beyond question. I suspect the Yosemites have good glass surrounded by a lot of plastic /nylon parts glued together. The composite covering makes getting to the essential parts difficult. Part of my hobby is fixing old binoculars. There was a reason the Germans stayed away from the B&L style body. If you ever decide to "break into" a pair of Zeiss binoculars before they were rubber covered, you will come to an appreciation for the German precision and fit. Nikon had a 7x35 widefield binocular with wonderful optics about 20 years ago, but it was a non-metal chassis. Bump or drop that binocular in very cold weather and something was going to chip or crack, and I don't mean the glass. But the Yosemite treated with reasonable care ought to give good service. And Leupold's guarantees are solid. John

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Kevin can chime in when he gets a chance as he has both of the Yosemite configurations and the Cascade 8x42. I have the 6x30 Yosemite on hand and the 8x42 Cascade. After just comparing them I think they are very similar. The most surprising characteristic is how similar the depth of field is between these two bins. You would think it would be pretty substantial considering the 6x to 8x difference but it really isn't all that much.

The Cascade is a hair brighter to my eyes with slightly better edge sharpness. Apparent sharpness between the two seems about equal but I am comparing them in a fairly limited environment at the moment. Truth be told I prefer the ergonomics of the Cascade a bit more because the dogleg bend is a bit more rounded on the Cascade. It just feels wonderful to put my hands around it (dare I say I feel a bit "dirty" for saying that?). Contrast, again in this environment, seems to be about equal. I would like to try them both outside tomorrow and state more when I get the chance.

I think I differ a bit from FrankD but they are close.

I took the two of the bins out today looking for a day roosting Barn Owl I've been following (see the TWEETERS mailing list for more details .. I do bird as well as mess with bins ).

I find the Cascades brighter, with slightly better sharpness, better contrast and better color saturation than the Yosemite 8x30. Overall they're a better view. Of course they do only have a 6.3 degree FOV which is about the minimum I could use seriously (and perhaps a bit less than the smallest FOV I'm really happy with).

Curiously looking up at a Doug Fir with overcast skies here (brightish anticyclonic gloom) really shows up some problems with stray light in multiple bins even when most of the time they don't show a problem with off angle sun. I think another thread on that is in order (some interesting stray light results!).

The Cascades have more of a problem with stray light than I would have expected. The Yosemites fall apart as I expected (given my previous observations with low fall sun). I suspect this a porro problem when they don't have "slotted prisms" (does anyone do that today?) and perhaps with baffling the "first" prisms from incoming light.

Still in "non-difficult" situations the Cascades look fine (and I suspect beat a comparable roof but I have to AB the Cascades and the Legend 8x42 roof to know for sure ... I'll do that tomorrow).

One other minor issue is they seem rather more problematic with stray color: some in the objectives but they seem rather sensitive to centering the exit pupils. I think this is exacerbated with my "looking for the roosting owl" with high contrasts branches plus a high angle view (40 degrees perhaps?) which lets me get the exit pupils decentered with my eyes (as a glasses wearer I think this is a more common for me than others who don't use glasses).

Finally the exit pupil size makes a difference ... the Cascades are a lot more relaxed. In fact the Yosemite 6x30 are a lot better in this regard. Curiously the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 is also more relaxed (smaller FOV?) than the Yosemite 8x30 so I suspect there is something else going on.

Originally Posted by FrankD

When John Traynor and I first looked at the Cascade porros at Cabelas we actually started looking at the 10x first and were very impressed by its optical performance. If anything the 10x might be more impressive because it provides the same superb optical performance in a higher magnification but without showcasing any of the optical faults often found when comparing an 8x to a 10x in this price range. In other words, if someone were looking for a relatively inexpensive 10x to own then this would be the one.

How much narrower FOV does the 10x have? 272 ft./1000 yds that's only 5.2 degrees. A bit too narrow for me.

I'd add the discontinued $90 EO Raptor 10x42 to that list too. Very nice bin. Sharp. Good color. High contrast. Wide (6.5 degree) FOV. And very good with stray light (beat the Cascades and Yosemite and plenty of others in the same situation). Very nice bin.

Don't confuse the EO Raptor and Audubon Raptor. Very different bins.

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by John Dracon

While this isn't a thread on Leupold binoculars, the 6 x 30 Yosemite has been mentioned. Purchased a pair when they first came out. Used mostly for football games and knocking around. Bought mine on Ebay for around $80. Very good optics and when compared to the old B&L Zephyr 6 x 30, a bit brighter. But the durability and fixability of the Yosemites is an unknown. The old B & Ls are easy to re-collimate and are durable beyond question. I suspect the Yosemites have good glass surrounded by a lot of plastic /nylon parts glued together. The composite covering makes getting to the essential parts difficult.

The whole point of fixing prism mounts with UV set urethane adhesive is that the prism doesn't move under shock. Shock sensetivity was alway a problem to the older "prism shelf" designs. You can't recollimate glued prisms to but then again you should never have to because the prisms was in the correct place at first and needs a huge hit to move them (a hit that would damage or deform the enclosure).

This change in manufacturing came out of people building roof prism bins where prism orientation is rather more critical. Newer porros used the same mechanical engineering style.

Fixing bins is fun but I prefer for them not to break.

I for one wouldn't want to go back to the "good old days" of porro design.

[BobinKy]

Frank, John, & Kevin--

Thank you for your comments on a comparison of the Leupold Cascades with the Leupold Yosemites. Very informative.

. . .

All--

Now, back to the Minox BD BP Porro. Is this the same binocular as the Leupold Cascade? If so, there is a big spread in the price of the two models for users here in the U.S. Eagle Optics prices are $209 (Cascade 8x42) and $549 (BD BP 8x44). Any more comments on this?

--Bob
Kentucky, USA

[FrankD]

Bob,

The Minox's are sitting on my doorstep as I type this. I hope to find some difference with them considering the price difference even if they are Doug's demos at $350.



Kevin,

I think we are on the same page considering I was comparing the 6x30s and the comparison was indoors last night.

:-)

[John Dracon]

Bob - On post number 3 of this thread, I gave my analysis of the Minox and Cascade porros. Of course with the Minox having 44 MM objectives lens, as opposed to the Cascade at 42 MM, we aren't comparing the same apples. The Minox does have a nicer case.

Frank D - Would be interested in your opinions since you have a Minox now in hand.

John

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by BobinKy

Now, back to the Minox BD BP Porro. Is this the same binocular as the Leupold Cascade? If so, there is a big spread in the price of the two models for users here in the U.S. Eagle Optics prices are $209 (Cascade 8x42) and $549 (BD BP 8x44). Any more comments on this?

I doubt it.

In fact if you search the forums (for the threads that FrankD mentions) there is the same question and a denial from a Minox importer (I think it the same Dave who is active today but don't quote me on that).

I suspect this is another case of "same enclosure; different optics" though given the enclosure design I rather suspect that the design is somewhat constrained in how it can be different.

I suspect that the objective size and focal length have to be the same or very close though they could be made from different glass (or different glass source) and figured to a different tolerance. This would be the same with all optical elements. The same with the tolerances in construction.

Interior baffling could be different.

As this is an internally focused porro I suspect that is a bit constrained by the enclosure design though you could move that lens up or down the optical path a little (but not by much). Of course how that lens is built (in combination with the objective) is another way the optical design can differ. The prisms could be slightly different (a slot on the hypotenuse?). The holder for them could be different but that mostly won't change the view. Finally, probably where the biggest differences are, the eyepiece may be a different design. Then all through the bin the AR coating designs may be different.

So they have the same enclosure, perhaps a similar overall design, different coatings and different EP designs. That could make a different performing bin.

I'd particularly like to know how it performs in bad light e.g. overcast or close to the sun (not outdoors at night ).

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by FrankD

I now wonder if it would be worth it to take a look at those Opticron internal focus porros as well.

They seem to be identical to the Cascades ... just different branding.

[FrankD]

Yes Kevin. I noticed much the same about the Opticrons and have decided not to try to order them at the present time (and try finding one that sells in US dollars).

The BD BPs were waiting when I got home. I had a very brief amount of time to compare them after work as I had to run right back up to work for a special event. I took the Minox's with me and did utilize them sparingly.

General impressions optically...and very limited as I have yet to really play with them in full daylight.

- Optically very similar if not identical to the Cascades as John mentioned. I was particularly struck by the edge sharpnes of the Minoxs. It is Excellent! I would like to compare them directly in this regard to the Cascades when I get more time.

- Contrast, brightness, color fidelity all seem very close but, again, I want to compare them more closely.

- I did pick up some lateral CA when looking through them on an extremely high contrast object in the backyard (black post against snow). I didn't notice any "horizontal" CA.

Ergonomically they are very good. I must say I prefer the contouring of the Cascades more but I have no problem toting the Minox's around as well. They do feel a bit thicker and a touch heavier than the Cascades but they are still very attractive ergonomically.

Hmm, $350 versus $209 though.....I cannot say whether they are worth the price difference at this point as I really haven't found anything "superior" about the Minox design.
It is early yet though.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

In fact if you search the forums (for the threads that FrankD mentions) there is the same question and a denial from a Minox importer (I think it the same Dave who is active today but don't quote me on that).

Hi all,

not sure if I would have confirmed or denied anything about the Minox Porros as I do not know the US brands and equivalents, but may have compared them with the Opticron WPs.

As for the price difference, I cannot really comment as I am not familiar with the UK brand equivalants, however, since a price increase from Minox took them beyond a price which we believed was good value for money, the BP Porro series are not longer a part of our price list here in the UK (unless someone is really desperate for them!!)

[spacepilot]

Frank, did you get to play around with the Minox more and compare it back to back with the Cascades in normal daylight?

[mercedes_sl1970]

Hi there

I'm very new to Birdforum and principally use binos at night but "dabble" during the day. I recently bought a set of 2nd hand Minox 8x44s and have found them to be rather impressive. There is not much opportunity to test a variety of binos where I live but the price was right and what I could glean off the web seemed to indicate that the Minox's would fit my needs.

All that said, the Minox's are a delight to use. They appear to be very well made, solid, comfortable, etc. However, the important stuff for me - views are very sharp on axis, there is good colour rendition and the field is quite flat with only a little curvature towards the edge. I found only minimal chromatic aberration but I may be less sensitive to this than others. Spending a fair bit of time with binos at night, I am very comfortable with porros and don't find the size of the Minox's to be any problem.

At night, well, the Minox's are rather impressive. Stars are pinpoints across most of the field and better than quite a few binos I have looked through. They are not quite as good as my Nikon Prostars or Fujinon 16x70s on edge sharpness, but they do cost substantially more new! Again, the Minox's have quite a flat field with some curvature towards the edge and there are virtually no internal reflections, even when focusing on the moon or other bright objects. Also on the moon, there is almost no false colour which is something of a test. These latter points have impressed me.

Overall, I think these binos will be with me for some time.

Andrew