Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

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 Rate Thread
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 14:31   #1
BobinKy
Registered User
 
BobinKy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 418
7x binoculars increasing in popularity?

Are 7x binoculars becoming more popular again? If more models, higher prices, and out of stock inventories are any indications, then the 7x may be challenging the 8x. After reading an interesting thread on “8x vs 7x for forest birding,” I decided to check 7x models at a popular online optics vendor here in the U.S.

Do you use a 7x? What do you like about this size? Are there disadvantages?

… Bob
Kentucky, USA

. . .

7X at popular online vendor (U. S.)

Roof 7x36
Two of the three models out of stock . . . Hmmmm?

Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 7x36
7.0 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 20.3 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Swift Eaglet Roof CF 7x36
7.1 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 20.6 oz, 16.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil

Vortex Diamondback Roof CF 7x36
8.0 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 23.4 oz, 20.9 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***



Roof 7.5x43
Interesting size . . . look at the close focus!

Brunton Epoch Roof CF 7.5x43
7.0 FOV, 3.0 ft close focus, 26.0 oz, 20.0 mm eye relief, 5.7 mm exit pupil



Roof 7x42
Would love to own one of these, but why are they so expensive? Might be nice to try the cheaper Meopta brand--if it ever gets back in stock.

Leica Ultravid HD Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 10.8 ft close focus, 27.2 oz, 17.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Meopta Meostar Roof CF 7x42
7.8 FOV, 9.8 ft close focus, 30.4 oz, 20.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Nikon EDG Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 9.8 ft close focus, 28.6 oz, 22.1 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Swarovski SLCnew Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 13.0 ft close focus, 33.5 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Zeiss Victory T* FL LT Roof CF 7x42
8.6 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 26.1 oz, 16.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil



Porro 7x35
This once popular size is still available, but prices appear to be rising.

Eagle Optics Triumph Porro CF 7x35
9.2 FOV, 12.0 ft close focus, 20.4 oz, 12.0 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Extreme Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 28.2 oz, 17.2 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 24.3 oz, 11.9 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil



Porro 7x50
Many choices are available for this size—long popular in military, marine, law enforcement, and astronomy environments. However, these models generally are not popular with birders because of the size, weight, and many models are individual focus.

Last edited by BobinKy : Thursday 16th April 2009 at 14:33.
BobinKy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 14:56   #2
John M Robinson
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 370
Hi Frank,
That chart is very helpful. I just got to test a 7x42 Ultravid BR against my 8x42 BR, I was surprised to see very little difference between the two. The 7x42 was green, but if it was black like my 8x42 you could have handed them back and forth to me, and it would have been very hard to tell which was which. The 7x42 was a little easier view and I know that larger exit pupil would benefit younger guys at dusk. I guess you could look at this two ways, 1) Why not go for seven power if the additional magnification of the eight isn't noticable, and you get the benefit of the larger exit pupil with the seven, or 2) Go with the eight because there must be some extra resolution from the greater power, even if it's not noticable in general use.

Despite the unbelievably sharp view of Leica optics, I now know that there is something about Leica optics and my eyes-face that make them a little more difficult to view than either Swaro or Zeiss. I picked the Ultravids originally because I prefered the Lieca view in a pure sense, I probably would have been happier overall with one of the others, though this is really picking at straws. Anyway of your list I would go with the Zeiss as it's the lightest of the Alphas and I know it is a wonderful, easy view.

Of course it would seem to make more sense to build a 7x32 with a 4.6 mm EP over a 10x32 with a 3.2 mm EP. A seven power alpha with a reasonably large E.P at around 20-22 oz would be a wonderful bin to carry in the field. I still don't get why all the alphas build a heavy 7x42 instead.

John
John M Robinson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 15:23   #3
LauraL
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 40
I'm considering getting a 7x. I have a compact 8x20 Zeiss Victory and would like to get a full sized binocular with more light. Initially I thought I wanted either an 8x or 10x, but the other day I pulled out an old 7x50 that is inferior to my compacts in every other way and I was surprised how much I really liked it. The main reason I am now considering a 7x is there is less disturbance with hand shaking. It's really nice and relaxing to have that more stable image. I don't think I have super shaky hands, but all those unavoidable minute movements destroy the image more than I realized. In my opinion the lack of shaking more than makes up for the lower magnification and provides the ability to see just as much detail as with the 8x.
LauraL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 16:15   #4
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobinKy View Post
If more models, higher prices, and out of stock inventories are any indications, then the 7x may be challenging the 8x.
7X at popular online vendor (U. S.)

Roof 7x36
Two of the three models out of stock . . . Hmmmm?

Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 7x36
7.0 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 20.3 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Vortex Diamondback Roof CF 7x36
8.0 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 23.4 oz, 20.9 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***
The 7x36 Diamondback are new product ... they haven't actually shipped yet. SteveC posted some due dates for this from Cameralandny (May, IIRC?).

The Bushnell Excursion EX 7x36 (24-3606) are new to me and and like the Legend Ultra HD I suspect they too haven't shipped yet. As I searched the EO site last week for 7x36 I suspect they've popped up very recently.

The FOV you quote for the EX 7x36 is apparently incorrect: it's 488 feet@1000yds or 143m/1km that's 9.3 degrees. That's wider than the Zeiss 7x42

http://www.bushnell.com/general/bino...=General%20Use

$250 so more than the $190 Vortex but its: much lighter; open-bridge and wider FOV. And a free harness (for a 20oz bin it's a new Bushnell trend). SO that may be worth $60.

http://vortexoptics.com/binoculars/v...7x36-binocular

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular...7x36-binocular

Last year I tried a Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 8x36 but it had too much CA for me but one lives in hope. I did like the open bridge enclosure.

It's also interesting to note that there isn't a Bushnell Excursion EX 9x36. There's the new 7x and the older 8x. Perhaps they agreed the 8x36 had too much CA

This would also add more fuel to the "Diamondback and Excursion (EX)" are OEMed by the same folks. So I suspect the optics are the same the enclosure is different.

Not sure why the Eaglet is out of stock ... perhaps SteveC talking it up has caused a run on them

I do have one and I like it (once I fitted a set of O rings to kill off the occoasional blackouts due to excessive ER (for me .. myope with close fitting glasses).

I used it for a week solo and went back to it yesterday after using some of my other bins and it is rather good bin. Just a bit too fast focus but it is quick. The only thing I don't like is it is a rather low "pincushion" correction bin so I get a bit of the rolling ball effect on panning. I think I'd prefer a tad more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobinKy View Post
Porro 7x35
This once popular size is still available, but prices appear to be rising.

Eagle Optics Triumph Porro CF 7x35
9.2 FOV, 12.0 ft close focus, 20.4 oz, 12.0 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Extreme Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 28.2 oz, 17.2 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 24.3 oz, 11.9 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil
All older designs. No one is doing modern designs here. There is a Swift non-waterproof inexpensive porro with no ER too you could add to that list (I'm I wonder if it is related to the Triumph).

Prices on most bins has been rising rising mostly due to exchange rate changes recently.

I don't think the 7x is going to take over the 8x slot. The 8x is a good compromise for all sorts of use and modern 8x design have given wide FOVs (wider than the old 7x FOV except the exceptional Zeiss 7x42) so I don't expect a rush to switch.

Last edited by Kevin Purcell : Thursday 16th April 2009 at 16:22.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 16:31   #5
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by John M Robinson View Post
The 7x42 was green, but if it was black like my 8x42 you could have handed them back and forth to me, and it would have been very hard to tell which was which. The 7x42 was a little easier view and I know that larger exit pupil would benefit younger guys at dusk. I guess you could look at this two ways, 1) Why not go for seven power if the additional magnification of the eight isn't noticable, and you get the benefit of the larger exit pupil with the seven, or 2) Go with the eight because there must be some extra resolution from the greater power, even if it's not noticable in general use.

[snip]

Of course it would seem to make more sense to build a 7x32 with a 4.6 mm EP over a 10x32 with a 3.2 mm EP. A seven power alpha with a reasonably large E.P at around 20-22 oz would be a wonderful bin to carry in the field. I still don't get why all the alphas build a heavy 7x42 instead.
The extra detail seen with an 8x over a 7x (the "efficiency" of a bin depends on it's magnification and transmission) is a probabilistic thing. It is 14% (8/7) so the distance ring around you in which you can see a particular feature is expanded by 14%. If you are IDing birds by field mark at 25m to 40m with 8x then that same ring is 87.5% (7/8) smaller with 7x or 21.9m to 35m. So you might expect to miss some birds with a 7x.

The same argument with different numbers applies to 10x. There is also an additional quirk. See Vukobratovich "Binocular performance and design" paper at the University of Arizona optomech paper collection

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optome...ich%201989.pdf

where more magnification is worth "less" with each increase even on a fixed bin (for reason I still don't quite get) so in real life these numbers will be slightly smaller.

Of course you trade this off for shake and that leads to other ergonomic feature that might help say over a day's birding. Useful for pelagic trips too!

I agree that there should be more smaller 7x bins especially at 32mm but I suspect there is almost a reverence of tradition (playing to old fogies like us?) for "magic numbers" like 7x42 and 7x35 (well, 36 now). I think for some 7x32 just seems too odd.

I still think you need a reason to pick 7x over 8x but for some folks it's the right choice for a variety of personal reasons.

If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 16:45   #6
John M Robinson
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell View Post


If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.
I agree with you there, I have 6x30, 8x32 SE, 8x42 BR and 10x42SE. If I could reset I would trade the 8x42 BRs for 7x42 FLTs and leave the rest of my collection as is. I'd be interested in seeing one of those 7x36s. I know Steve loves his, but I've always been nervous about the small FOV on the Swifts, it looks like those Bushnell's could be contenders.

John
John M Robinson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 16:54   #7
LauraL
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 40
Quote:
If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.

This sounds like an excellent reason to get two new pairs of binoculars, one 7x and one 10x. Not that I can afford that right now, but one can always dream...

This is a very interesting website. I'd need a few hours and sleeping children to digest it, however.
LauraL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 16:55   #8
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by John M Robinson View Post
I agree with you there, I have 6x30, 8x32 SE, 8x42 BR and 10x42SE. If I could reset I would trade the 8x42 BRs for 7x42 FLTs and leave the rest of my collection as is. I'd be interested in seeing one of those 7x36s. I know Steve loves his, but I've always been nervous about the small FOV on the Swifts, it looks like those Bushnell's could be contenders.
Yeap, the FOV of the Eaglets is their weakness. After all when you trade off magnification you want to get something for it (OK, less shake too and the size and weight is nice!). But aside from that they are good bins.

The dielectric prism coating does help the transmission (which helps the acuity of the bin/eye system).

So ideally you want you 7x bin to be as bright as possible. Either a newer silver mirror coating on the roof prism or better still a dielectric mirror coating.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 17:00   #9
Steve C
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Basin, Oregon
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell View Post
Not sure why the Eaglet is out of stock ... perhaps SteveC talking it up has caused a run on them

I do have one and I like it (once I fitted a set of O rings to kill off the occasional blackouts due to excessive ER (for me .. myope with close fitting glasses).

I used it for a week solo and went back to it yesterday after using some of my other bins and it is rather good bin. Just a bit too fast focus but it is quick. The only thing I don't like is it is a rather low "pincushion" correction bin so I get a bit of the rolling ball effect on panning. I think I'd prefer a tad more.
I was wondering if you were ever going to comment further on your 7x36. I was beginning to think maybe you didn't like it. FWIW, I checked the fov on mine the other day and it check out 393'. Seems like you got yours from mayoayo (IIRC) who posted a comment about that unit being 400'. I use O-rings on mine too, but to keep the eye cup all the way out, they collapse a bit too easy on mine. I also don't notice any rolling ball effect with mine.

I would agree that "maybe" the listed 374' could be wider than it is. But I have no recollection thinking I missed anything. or really ever wanting much more. That 7x@7* or a bit more is about minimum. I do agree that that Eaglet with 8-9* would come close to perfection. They advertise the CFT coatings as transmitting 99.8%. The CFT process is a dielectric one if I understood the Swift tech I asked about, to the brightness thing shows up.

Funny, I was just on EO the other night and did not happen to notice the 7x36 EX. I tend to think that you may well be correct in thinking that the optics of the Diamondback and the EX are the same with different enclosures. Pretty much the same specs. If the optics were different, it seems the 7x36 EX would have a wider fov than the 8x36 EX instead of smaller.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Thursday 16th April 2009 at 17:09.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2009
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 18:08   #10
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
I was wondering if you were ever going to comment further on your 7x36. I was beginning to think maybe you didn't like it.
Well after they arrive and I found I was having minor black outs with them (enough to be annoying so I wouldn't bird with them but not all the time. So I didn't bird with them for quite a while.

Plus the weather turned pretty anti-birding (wet and lots of it).

And I've been spending more time birding than evaluating too.

But I should write something up rather than I'm quite happy with them especially for the price I paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
I would agree that "maybe" the listed 374' could be wider than it is. But I have no recollection thinking I missed anything. or really ever wanting much more. That 7x@7* or a bit more is about minimum. I do agree that that Eaglet with 8-9* would come close to perfection. They advertise the CFT coatings as transmitting 99.8%. The CFT process is a dielectric one if I understood the Swift tech I asked about, to the brightness thing shows up.
It two different things I think: one is FOV and the other AFOV.

The FOV is narrower than other bins I have that look almost as good but just a hair not as bright and are lighter e.g. Pentax WP 8x32 and Pentax SP 8x32. So when one is out with them I occasionally get that feeling "so what am I getting for 7x?".

The AFOV of course is narrower and you get to not fill the eye's FOV (around 65 to 70 degrees seems big) so you see the field stop clearly in front of you. And it's sort of telling me that there's more field here that getting thrown away. I think this is a general effect with lower magnifications on AFOV ("this one ain't as "big" as this one") but is the size of the field stop that bothers them more than the magnification.

That said the lower magnification is not that bad. The usual caveat applies here in that I'd rather have a good lower mag bin than poorer higher mag bin. The recent raptor migrations over Seattle have shown this with my Eaglets. Especially over Capitol Hill is both an escarpment with orographic lift plus covered with city rooftops so it generates a thermal too plus its bounded on the east by Lake Washington and the west by Puget Sound (sorta) so we get the raptors funneled up over the city to head north. Even with the 7x bins you can pretty much see all the field marks you are going to see on a soaring bird then the "Hawks in Flight" jizzy stuff takes over. But the bins are bright enough. And deal with stray light decently well so you can actually see some of the details. Plus the low mag actually helps when you spend an extended time watching them at 30 to 45 degrees above the horizon without your arms getting so shaky you have to quite looking through the bins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Funny, I was just on EO the other night and did not happen to notice the 7x36 EX. I tend to think that you may well be correct in thinking that the optics of the Diamondback and the EX are the same with different enclosures. Pretty much the same specs. If the optics were different, it seems the 7x36 EX would have a wider fov than the 8x36 EX instead of smaller.
You did real my other post though ... they have 9.3 degree FOV. That's bigger than the 8 degrees or so of the 8x.

That would give them a "real" AFOV (using the real tan formula not the approximation) of 59.3 degrees. That's a degree larger than the AFOV of an 8x with 8 degree FOV. So they should "fill the eye" without a problem.

Of course it will be interesting to see what other compromises are made to get there (TCA at the edge of field? sharpness at the edge of field?).

I guess we'll see when they ship.

Add them to the list, Steve
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 19:00   #11
BobinKy
Registered User
 
BobinKy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 418
Kevin...

Thanks for the correction to the FOV on the Bushnell Excursion EX. At 9.3 FOV, the EX should gather some interest.

Still, other than weight, size, and the Swaro look, the Bushnell EX ($249.95) offers little over the older design of the Nikon Action Extreme 7x35 ($119.00 U.S.). But like you said, the proof will be in the viewing.

I wish the manufacturers would roll out some lower priced 7x42 models. There may be a few left of the Minox BD 7x42 BR still in the pipeline ($480.00). The next step up appears to be the Meopta 7x42 ($859.00). Maybe China will put their clone engineers to work on it--if they are not already.

Like Laura, I enjoy the ease of the 7x50--I have a Fujinon model that I just love at twilight and on overcast days. When I can find someone to do the driving through the mountains, I enjoy the large exit pupil of the 7x50 from a moving vehicle.

Additionally, there are also several 6x models now on the market. I use the Leupold Katmai 6x32 as my grab 'n go when I am about hither and thither--very convenient, bright views, good depth of field. However, a bit weak in the contrast category.

All in all, I may have to patiently wait for a good cheap[er] 7x42 roof.

...Bob
Kentucky, USA

Last edited by BobinKy : Thursday 16th April 2009 at 19:18.
BobinKy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 19:55   #12
Steve C
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Basin, Oregon
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell View Post

It two different things I think: one is FOV and the other AFOV.

You did real my other post though ... they have 9.3 degree FOV. That's bigger than the 8 degrees or so of the 8x.

That would give them a "real" AFOV (using the real tan formula not the approximation) of 59.3 degrees. That's a degree larger than the AFOV of an 8x with 8 degree FOV. So they should "fill the eye" without a problem.

Of course it will be interesting to see what other compromises are made to get there (TCA at the edge of field? sharpness at the edge of field?).

I guess we'll see when they ship.

Add them to the list, Steve
Yes I saw the post, but I checked the Eagle Optics listing, which is 414'. So somebody is mistaken it appears. I suppose Bushnell should know what their own binocular will do.

I guess I'll once again have to express wonderment about what is the deal with afov. I can see its value when dealing with two different fov of the same magnification. But when we take, oh say the Yosemite 6x@420' and the Yosemite 8x@393', what is apparent to my eye is the fact the 8x image is bigger, but the 6x is "apparently" (obviously) biting off a bit bigger chunk of territory. So, I guess for those that "see" something in it; may you live forever in peace and viewing contentment, and find all the afov you can. Don't get me wrong, I understand the concept OK, I just see no (OK little)value in it.

I may see about adding the EX to the list, but, like you, I await other options. I'm beginning to wonder about the value of the Diamondback 7x36. I sort of doubt it will really compete with the Swift.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2009
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 20:02   #13
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobinKy View Post
Still, other than weight, size, and the Swaro look, the Bushnell EX ($249.95) offers little over the older design of the Nikon Action Extreme 7x35 ($119.00 U.S.). But like you said, the proof will be in the viewing.
If you discount the advantages then they're not that different. A bit like comparing a BMW M3 to a Model T and concluding they both get you to the destination

The open bridge has much better ergonomics than the porro. It is easier to hold with reduced shake. I can hold porros pretty well but the recent discussion of the military or TUG grip shows not everyone knows how or likes it when you can't get to the focus easily.

As you say, the size is significantly different.

The weight difference between the two is significant. I find I can't neck carry with a bin > 24oz without bugging my neck. That weight makes a significant difference for me.

I wouldn't hold your breath for 7x42. The big exit pupil is a win in the very dark but it's not otherwise a significant. You don't get much more out of a 7x42 that I wouldn't trade for weight. And I suspect that's a more general view. Oh, and I own two 7x42s and quite a few porros.

This is not a trivial matter. I think ergonomics (especially grip for 10x bins) and waterproofing are why roofs took off with the end user. It's curious that the decline of the porro and the decline of the low mag birder almost go hand in hand.
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th April 2009, 23:24   #14
FrankD
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,375
I do think we are starting to see a very slow revival of lower powered binoculars. Look at the number of 6x, 6.5x and now 7x binoculars that are starting to or already have hit the market in recent years. I think many folks, especially in the US, are starting to realized that 10x and even 8x in certain applications is not ideal.

I continue to pick up the 6x30 Yosemite and be impressed by the optical performance of an inexpensive 6x binocular.

I would not be surprised if you start seeing even more 6x and 7x bins from relatively large players in the not so distant future.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th April 2009, 03:59   #15
BobinKy
Registered User
 
BobinKy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 418
. . . and maybe it is wishful thinking on my part--and not yet verified by bino sales--but I think we will be seeing more of the porro design in the coming revival of the 6x and 7x bins.

...Bob
Kentucky, USA
BobinKy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th April 2009, 04:09   #16
BobinKy
Registered User
 
BobinKy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 418
How about some discussion on the 7x42 roof?

Why, as I asked in my original post, is the distribution of the 7x42 dominated by the alpha brands? Why do 7x42s from cheaper brands seem to come and go?

What about the merits of the 7x42? Those who use it regularly--those who are loyal to the 7x42--what are the advantages? Any disadvantages?

...Bob
Kentucky, USA
BobinKy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th April 2009, 22:23   #17
oleaf
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: connecticut
Posts: 333
I think a lot people who just like the 7x is because the eye relief and the larger
exit pupil make a more comfortable view and a more forgiving view. Your eyes can "move" around more behind the eyepiece without penalty of blackouts.
The extra depth of field is addictive as well.

I bet more "experienced" birders find themselves moving towards 7x after they've made the rounds with all the other formats. Only after spending lots of time with 8x or 10x can you really see the benefits of a good 7x. Those who comment negatively about 7x probably either don't have a pair or haven't spent enough time behind a pair.

As far as 7x selling more now that you see retailers "out of stock"... I think the opposite is true. The 7x is not so popular so it's either special ordered or the retailer has such low stock that they seem to go out of stock more often. A retailer isn't going to stock a slow seller.

Cheers

Last edited by oleaf : Friday 17th April 2009 at 22:29.
oleaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 18th April 2009, 01:27   #18
FrankD
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,375
I think Peter pretty much summed up my thoughts on the 7x42 as well. There are still a few fairly inexpensive ones floating around here and there (Bushnell Discoverer and Meade Montana for example) but other than that and then the Meopta 7x42 you really do have to pay high end prices for any 7x42 bin.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 18th April 2009, 01:36   #19
Steve C
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Basin, Oregon
Posts: 2,682
The old Weaver Grand Slam 7x42 is the same binocular too. Since the new Weaver binocular line up doesn't include it, there may be some upcoming deals on it begin to show up.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2009
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Saturday 18th April 2009, 03:01   #20
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
The old Weaver Grand Slam 7x42 is the same binocular too. Since the new Weaver binocular line up doesn't include it, there may be some upcoming deals on it begin to show up.
Wow, they really made an effort making it fugly ... and the Bushnell one is rather elegant in a flowing line and ergo grip way.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-b...am-849627.html

I suspect this would be good in the collection (as I already have a Disco) as a pelagic bin (7x big exit pupil, OK resolution and inexpensive so you don't mind if you throw up on it).
Kevin Purcell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 18th April 2009, 05:07   #21
ronh
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Alamos, NM
Posts: 1,800
It does seem that the 7x, once the popular no-brainer for the beginner, has now, through unpopularity and limited availability, become the choice of the experienced and discriminating expert. Especially the 7x42.

Oh woe. I have an 8x42, now the popular no-brainer for the beginner, therefore of no interest. I also have a 5" f/12, not a 6" f/15, refracting astronomical telescope. 6" f/15, by the way, is the classic nostalgia king from the '50s, if you birdheads didn't know.

Story of my life. An inch in arrears, and an x in excess.
Ron
ronh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 18th April 2009, 09:17   #22
Guizotia
Registered User
 
Guizotia's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Henley-on-Thames
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronh View Post
Story of my life. An inch in arrears, and an x in excess.
Ron
Guizotia is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th April 2009, 20:03   #23
James Bean
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chester, England.
Posts: 732
Coincidentally, I've been using lower magnification binoculars over the last few weeks as a matter of choice, starting with a WW2 BuShips 6x30 (with the sharpest reticle I have ever seen) prompting me to buy a Zeiss Design Selection 6x18 (it's still growing on me), then trying my Nikon 7x35 Action EX porro in comparison with my Olympus 7x42WP roof. The Olympus is fairly scarce, despite being praised five years ago by the Polish Antarctic Expedition for its 'unsurpassed light gathering and optical quality'. Last Friday I took my grandchildren and their friend on a birdwatching outing along the Wirral Peninsula, and I let them pick binoculars from my collection. My grandson instantly chose a 10x32 Kowa, yet the two girls preferred the 7x Nikon and 7x Olympus; I had the Zeiss 8x30 Conquest. I'd been tempted to give my Nikon 7x35A an airing, but felt an 8x would provide variety. Strange to relate, on the day I preferred the 7x Olympus; maybe it was the weather, or my eyes, but it seemed to deliver the 'easiest' view. My grandson wouldn't part with the 10x Kowa, saying it was 'brilliant'. So, it's all a matter of personal preference, which can change from day to day, for a number of reasons...
James Bean is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Sunday 19th April 2009, 23:46   #24
FrankD
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,375
Hmm, the 7x Olympus you say? I might have to see if I can give a pair a gander. I always have a soft spot in my heart for a good 7x. I was just using my Nikon 7x35 Es and was again struck by how really good a binocular they are.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th April 2009, 03:40   #25
Kevin Purcell
Registered User
 
Kevin Purcell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell View Post
The Bushnell Excursion EX 7x36 (24-3606) are new to me and and like the Legend Ultra HD I suspect they too haven't shipped yet. As I searched the EO site last week for 7x36 I suspect they've popped up very recently.

The FOV you quote for the EX 7x36 is apparently incorrect: it's 488 feet@1000yds or 143m/1km that's 9.3 degrees. That's wider than the Zeiss 7x42

http://www.bushnell.com/general/bino...=General%20Use
I've just had it pointed out to me ... that these numbers of inconsistent. Funny that.

143m == 8.19 degrees
488ft == 9.31 degrees

Hmmm, which one? Perhaps neither?

I see

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular...fications#tabs

says FOV is 410 feet which is 7.82 degrees (decent but a lot less spectacular).

I wonder which one is right. I wonder if Bushnell know?

I guess I'll ask them.
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 On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Increasing raptors mooskibaby Birds & Birding 3 Thursday 28th June 2007 20:18
Can a feeder's colour affect its popularity? Kevin Food and Feeders 21 Friday 9th February 2007 07:33

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24883103 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:59.