[smallblueplanet]

I keep meaning to find an idiots guide to explain the difference (minus the physics!) in types of bins (porro/roof) and therefore why buy one sort rather than the other.

Can anyone tell me the idiots guide? with or without pictures!!

Thanks. (sorry if I've missed an faq somewhere)

[scampo]

Roofs are easier to waterproof - that's about all. And they're usually heavier. If you have small hands, you might prefer a roof prism design because it is less wide and more compact. But the Nikon E is a compact porroprism (http://www.acecameras.co.uk/asp/web/.../prodtype.asp) and seems to be as good a binocular as you'll get optically, yet are not fully waterproof (would it ever matter in practice, I wonder?). A similar quality waterproof roof prism would cost far more, and not necessarily be any better optically - the Nikon 8x32HG for instance is £500-00 or thereabouts.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

I keep meaning to find an idiots guide to explain the difference (minus the physics!) in types of bins (porro/roof) and therefore why buy one sort rather than the other.

Can anyone tell me the idiots guide? with or without pictures!!

Thanks. (sorry if I've missed an faq somewhere)

In simple terms:

Porros tend to be more bulky, each optical assembly has a dog leg shape producing a shape that some people do not like, they are cheaper to make for a given optical quality due to lower tolerances of the prisms and no mirror coatings required. They tend to use external focussing which is hard to waterproof. Because the objectives are further apart, the image has a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects can be hard. The near focus distance is often quite large. The eye tubes tend to be rubber which are inconvenient to use.

Roof prism binoculars tend to be more compact, less bulky, expensive to make due to high tolerances on the prisms, and the need for phase and mirror coatings on the prisms. They tend to use internal focussing which is easier to waterproof. Because the objectives are close, the image does not have such a strong 3D feel, but focussing on nearby objects is easier. The near focus distance is often quite small. The eye tubes tend to be screw-in screw-out which are convenient in use.

So in brief, the typical porro prism binocular is cheaper for a given optical quality, is not waterproof, does not focus very close and is somewhat bulky and thus less comfortable to hold. A typical roof prism binocular is expensive for a given optical quality, is waterproof and nitrogen filled, and is comfortable to hold. The above are generalisations and your milage may vary depending on your physiognomy e.g. the size of your hands.

I think the fashion these days tends to be for roof prism binoculars, presumably because they tend to have all the 'features' some considerable desirable: waterproof, nitrogen filled, compact and screw in screw out eye tubes.

I'm sure I've missed out important points ...

[alan_rymer]

http://www.optics4birding.com/basics1.aspx

The website above shows the prism/mirror layouts.
Basically in a Porro the light path is deflected 4 times, in a Roof 5 times.
Porros are brighter because less light is lost
HTH

[smallblueplanet]

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by scampo

Roofs are easier to waterproof - that's about all. And they're usually heavier. If you have small hands, you might prefer a roof prism design because it is less wide and more compact. But the Nikon E is a compact porroprism (http://www.acecameras.co.uk/asp/web/.../prodtype.asp) and seems to be as good a binocular as you'll get optically, yet are not fully waterproof (would it ever matter in practice, I wonder?). A similar quality waterproof roof prism would cost far more, and not necessarily be any better optically - the Nikon 8x32HG for instance is £500-00 or thereabouts.

Just to reinforce what Steve has said, the well known write Stephen Moss reviewed binoculars in the BBC Wildlife magazine a few years back, and he concluded that the Nikon 8x32 EII (~£270) porro prism binocular was the optical equal of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) roof prism binocular. Obviously the Leica is far more robust.

[smallblueplanet]

Oops the reply above was to steve's post (in jest obviously).

Thanks for that Leif I understand now, what I don't understand now is why buy the Leica's if the E's are as good optically?

And thanks for the picture link, the words will have to wait until the morning.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

Oops the reply above was to steve's post (in jest obviously).

Thanks for that Leif I understand now, what I don't understand now is why buy the Leica's if the E's are as good optically?

I think others should answer that one ... I'm too biased. :)

[Bill Atwood]

Originally Posted by Leif

Just to reinforce what Steve has said, the well known write Stephen Moss reviewed binoculars in the BBC Wildlife magazine a few years back, and he concluded that the Nikon 8x32 EII (~£270) porro prism binocular was the optical equal of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) roof prism binocular. Obviously the Leica is far more robust.

Well the Nikon is a good bino for the price, I have looked through both of these and the Nikon was noticeably inferior in every way.

[Bill Atwood]

Well, OK maybe the above is a little harsh, but the Leicas I have seen were still better than the EIIs optically. I have had a pair of the Leica 8x32 BAs for several years and like them a lot except in low light conditions. I have seen prices in the US for the EIIs as low as $250 and have been tempted to pick a pair up just to have around.

As many have said on these forums, probably the best 8x bino (optically) is the Nikon 8x32SE (porros).

Why choose roofs?

I like roofs because of their more compact size (I have small hands) and that they are usually water/fog proof. I came to the decision to purchase my first roofs when I signed up for a Costa Rica trip. I have heard more than one first hand horror story of birders missing neotropical lifers because of fogged up bins. Had I not had roofs I would probably of been one of them. While backing our boat into a landing area on the Osa Peninsula a bit of a freak wave washed over the bow, of which I somehow caught the brunt of and was soaked in seawater from the chest on down. Our guide was disgusted because he thought he had ruined (and his outfit would have to replace) a second pair of bins in as many days. He was relieved when I told him not to worry, and washed the saltwater off of the bins in a freshwater stream.

I guess it boils down to why gamble on ruining a $2,000 (or more) birding trip to humid and wet tropical regions with $200 porros? Especially these days when several decent mid-priced roofs are available.

BTW, perhaps the best deal on low priced roofs is the Bushnell Legends. Several of the guides at Asa Wright Center in Trinidad are using these. They appear to be very durable and optically are very nice. I would highly recommend these to a new or young birder. I have seen the 8x32 version prices as low as $199 on ebay, and $230 or so from more well known optics dealers.

[pduxon]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

probably in absolute terms the answer is no. There is a diminishing scale of returns. That said the he more you pay you get something less likely to let you down. This winter I walked through a massive torrential downpour only to discover I had left the rainguard off (what a wally) but the bins were fine.

I think though that if you are a good weather birder or one who watches in hte middle of the day then spending that sort of money is a waste.

I wonder how many of us buying bins are influenced by the fact that certain designs and brands are perceived as "cool".

[smallblueplanet]

Pete - I wonder about the "coolness" factor too. Many moons ago I used to be into Hi-fi (until my hearing got less than 100%!!) and I used to love the "it has a better sound" arguements from the "clean electricity" brigade users.

Is there a binocular optical equivalent of "clean electricity"?

[william j clive]

Originally Posted by Bill Atwood

Well the Nikon is a good bino for the price, I have looked through both of these and the Nikon was noticeably inferior in every way.

Bill

I suppose Leica 8x32 BA/BN are OK, if you dont mind soft edges and vignetteing.

Clive

[Leif]

Originally Posted by william j clive

Bill

I suppose Leica 8x32 BA/BN are OK, if you dont mind soft edges and vignetteing.

Clive

You forgot to mention the strong chromatic aberration in contrasty situations ...

[Leif]

Originally Posted by pduxon

probably in absolute terms the answer is no. There is a diminishing scale of returns. That said the he more you pay you get something less likely to let you down. This winter I walked through a massive torrential downpour only to discover I had left the rainguard off (what a wally) but the bins were fine.

I think though that if you are a good weather birder or one who watches in hte middle of the day then spending that sort of money is a waste.

I wonder how many of us buying bins are influenced by the fact that certain designs and brands are perceived as "cool".

Pete: I agree that most 'Sunday afternoon' birders do not need waterproofing, and nitrogen filling. After all, most still and motion cameras are not waterproof.

Personally I don't think it is a waste to pay ~£440 for the Nikon 8x32 SE: the view is so natural that if you have the money then IMO it's well worth it. But if you don't have the mazooma to hand, then a cheap porro such as those from Opticron and others will provide years of enjoyment.

[scampo]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

If thats a link to Nikon SE 8x32's its not working......... :-)

I think you must be in their pay - is there really such a difference that its worth paying £440 for 'em? I've never looked through any expensive bins.

I managed for years with a cheaper pair of bins (Zeiss-Jena Jenoptems) - but the extra quality from good bins does seem well worth the extra. My son still has my first "good" pair, Optolyth Alpins 10x40. They are excellent.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Leif

Pete: I agree that most 'Sunday afternoon' birders do not need waterproofing, and nitrogen filling. After all, most still and motion cameras are not waterproof.

..... waterproofing sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure what nitrogen filling would do to the innards of 'Sunday afternoon' birders!

As for the reasons why folks opt for roofs, I'm convinced it's largely a matter of ignorance and fashion. The assumption being if it's more expensive, it must be better and then this being reinforced by people seeing all their peers sporting roofs. We smug types who use Nikon 8x32 SEs merely smirk to one another at the foolish spendthrift types who insist on paying so much more! As for waterproofing, my bins have been out in some pretty foul weather and have not yet let me down,

John

[normjackson]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

.... We smug types who use Nikon 8x32 SEs merely smirk to one another at the foolish spendthrift types who insist on paying so much more! John

You're a hard man John.
Don't forget though that tastes can change. Even Mr. Nikon Superior E himself, Steve Ingraham of the Betterviewdesired site, suggested somewhere on his site that he was "coming round" to seeing the virtues of good WP roofs. Still, as our American friends know, BVD is pants :
www.bvd.com

[smallblueplanet]

..... waterproofing sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure what nitrogen filling would do to the innards of 'Sunday afternoon' birders!

Yeah filling 'em with helium would be much sillier!

Trouble is Nikon SE/E2 's don't look as pretty as some!

[jebir]

Hi,

I just went through this and compared high quality porros and roofs. In real life comparisons, it turned out that both the 8x32 and the 10x42 Nikon SE-CFs have as good (or even better) image regarding contrast, colour, and sharpness (to the edge) as the high end roofs. The only thing that is VERY different is the price... roofs being approximately 2x more expensive for a given optical quality.

When I first started these comparisons, I was determined to get a pair of roofs, mostly because I thought that they should be better (they definitely "look" better from the outside). However, after the tests and thinking a while about my own experiences with using porros since the mid 70:s without any fogging problems, I finally chose the Nikon 10x42 SE-CF. I have not regretted that decision for a second!

I can now almost see the same amount of detail in the bino's as I can in my old Kowa TS-1 - so I can (almost) leave that at home. On the other hand, having such good binoculars have triggered me to start looking for a new scope... luckily I saved a lot of the money by going for the best porros rather than roofs so I can maybe afford it...

My 2 "x", Jens (Sweden)

[scampo]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

Trouble is Nikon SE/E2 's don't look as pretty as some!

Yes, they do look tough and well made rather than dinky, that's true.

[boyinthebush]

I am thinking of buying a pair of Bushenll H20 and am currently pondering the porro/roof debate. There's only £20 between them at Warehouse Express and my brain is stuck in a circle of "are the roofs better or worse for the extra £20"... has anyone used either of these or ideally both to compare?

I understand the porros got a good write-up in Bird Watching... I missed that (being a casual buyer)... don't surpose anyone could scan the review and mail it could they?? :)

Cheers fellows.

p.s. I'm probably looking at the 10x42

[mike60]

Re the roof vs porro design -
I find one great benefit in porro vs roof is the enormous depth of field of the porro, which leads to very little focusing and a much more natural 3d image, not to mention the quick response between seeing something with the naked eye, and having a focused bin view of the same.
Is this a general benefit of porro over roof, or an isolated case I have observed?

[mpedris]

mike,

I'm pretty sure that the DOF is a general property of the porro prisms. I think it's due to the greater distance between the two objectives. Of that I'm not sure. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jay Turberville]

Originally Posted by boyinthebush

I am thinking of buying a pair of Bushenll H20 and am currently pondering the porro/roof debate. There's only £20 between them at Warehouse Express and my brain is stuck in a circle of "are the roofs better or worse for the extra £20"... has anyone used either of these or ideally both to compare?

Leif already touched on this but maybe not in an explicit way. It is cheaper to make a binocular with a high quality porro prism than to make one with a high quality roof prism. The roof prism by design creates a phase problem. Top quality roofs use a special coating that corrects this. But this simply brings them up to where a porro prism already is. Leif mentione reflective coatings and alignment issues as well and I'll assume he is correct in this. So as a general rule of thumb, for a given price point, the porro prism binocular is likely to be a bit better optically - or at least the prism component is likely to be.

So given no other information, I'd assume a porro binocular that was only £20 cheaper than an otherwise similar roof probably is not quite as good optically. Of course it would be better to get specific information on the models rather than to use general rules of thumb.

I did a quick look on the Bushnell website and for a given magnification, all of the porro prism bins had a wider FOV (excepting the compact porros). And with the exception of the compact porros, they also had larger objective lenses. All of the prisms in this line use the less expensive BK7 glass and the roofs are listed as NOT using the phase correcting coating. So I think its fair to say that in this particular line that the prism sections of the roofs probably won't perform as well overall as the prism section of the porros. I'm not sure what you can assume about the rest of the optics except that the 8x42s should give a wider and brighter view. The conventional porros also have more eye relief. If I had to make a choice without doing further research, I'd go for the 8x42 conventional porros if I was looking for the best view. But its probably wiser to look for some specific review information and to also hold and use the bins first.