[looksharp65]

Hello everyone, I realise what a peculiar impression this, the first of my entries must give, but could someone just kindly propose a last item to my binoculars list?

I am about to invest in a large binocular with 10-12x magnification.
It is meant to be used in low light nature observation and stargazing. It has to be FMC, exit pupil 5-7 mm, water- and fogproof, w i d e FOV, no real issues with optical and view quality.

The thing is, the view in my old Zeiss 10x40 is so immediately stunning that I am very spoiled. I don't aim towards getting a substitute for it, rather a real step up to supplement it, in terms of low-light performance, with no loss in visual quality.

I have looked on the Minox BD 10x58 ED BR (way too heavy), the Meopta Meostar 10x50 (CA issue), the Nikon Monarch 10x56 (CA and color rendition issues), the Minox HG 10x52 (narrow AFOV).
I have also looked on several porros like the Nikon Action EX 10x50 (narrow usable FOV), the Leupold Mesa 10x50 (slightly too narrow AFOV) and also the Barska Storm 12x60 (no reviews at hand)

Any suggestions are welcome, however the Big Three are out of question from apparent reasons. I cannot justify buying a supplementary binocular to a price that exceeds the Gross Domestic Product of a Central American banana republic.

Maybe I should just await the days when my pupils won't dilate beyond 4 millimeters, and buy myself a mouth harmonica instead?

[Steve C]

I'd start with the Minox BL 13x56. Nice bright, sharp image. Pretty good fov for the magnification too. Not real inexpensive at about $830 US, but not uber expensive either.

That is less than your stated EP requirement, being 4.3mm, but to look at 12x and 5-7mm EP means absolutely huge binoculars.

[Tero]

There is not a whole lot of interest in 12x here. For most people that means a tripod, and then I might as well bring the scope. My scope does not weigh much, the tripod does.

There are Monarch
http://www.optbinoculars.com/product...=66-28-33-8664
and some other 12x50s out there, I think a Vortex. I do not remember anyone impressed by those.

[spyglass]

If u can find a 12x50SE, that will match anything in that range, and should cost no more than half or even a third of a premium roof. I've often thought I'd like to "upgrade" to an alpha roof, but side-by-side w/a Zeiss 12x56 Victory (not an FL), a Leica 12x50 BN and a Minox 12x58 (the only ones I could find locally), the SE was visibly better than the Zeiss and Minox, and held its own in brightness, contrast and resolution with the Leica (the BN had a very slight edge in fov, but seemed to have a slight variation in illumination across the field). It's also one of the very best astro glasses for rich field viewing, especially open clusters; also provides stunning lunar views.

And personally, I'm not convinced that the Ultravid 12x has anything on the earlier models, view wise, this based on side by side of a BN & Ultrav, both in 10x42.

[looksharp65]

Thanks a lot for your friendly suggestions. I primarily look for a 10x50, 10x52, 10x56, 10x60, 11x56, 11x60 or 12x60. My dream would come true if Meopta made a 10x56 with ED glass, wide FOV and some weight saving tricks to keep it below 1200 grams.

Steve, I also looked on the Minox 13x56 and I regard it to be a very fine binocular.
If the FOV is 5 degrees and the magnification is 13x, it would mean this is a true wide field bin with 65 degress AFOV, which would be quite remarkable. If it were 10x, I would have already bought it, but the EP size and the slight overpowering make me hesitate. Would they really sweep the floor with my Zeiss?

Tero, I am not specifically looking for a 12x bin unless it is something really spectacular. Guess the Monarch 10x56 would be a better choice than the 12x56.

spyglass, you gave some interesting points of view there. I will certainly keep my eyes open for the SE. Sounds like one of the nicest bins ever made. But is it weatherproof? If not, I might as well find a Garrett or Oberwerk. BTW, is there anyone who tried the Visionary Stormquest?

[ronh]

I would not bother to upgrade to another, larger 10x, say a 10x50, the difference in view will not be worth it. Going to a 12x50, however, would be interesting. Despite not meeting some of your criteria, I think a 12x50 SE would be great.

I recently got a used Leica Trinovid BN 12x50, mainly for stargazing, and although not claiming it's the best by any means, I am very happy with it. I paid $950 used, about typical. That's probably more than you mean to spend, but for astronomy, I think it would likely turn out to be not a supplemental, but your primary instrument. For daytime use, 12x is getting silly, but is sort of mad fun occasionally.

I can't enjoy stargazing very much with a binocular that won't focus stars to really good sharp images over a reasonably wide area. That is harder to achieve with greater size and magnification. You have been spoiled by your Zeiss, and that is a good thing, basically, but respect that now high-classed part of your bad self, or be disappointed.
Ron

[Tero]

You have not described the situation where you need them. 10x50 is used in porros, and they are heavy. 10x42 is sufficient in roofs in most situations. I hate dim little 10x25 pairs, but 10x42 is plenty of light in a good model.

[looksharp65]

Once and again, I am thankful for your opinions.
Tero, in Sweden the variations of the daylight can be quite extreme. From just a few hours of daylight in the winter to 17-18 hours in the summer, further north even midnight sun. But the northern location means that the sun approaches the horizon in a shallow angle. This implies that whereas a 10x50 binocular would have an edge over a 10x40 with say 15 minutes in the US or Southern Europe, it will be favourable for probably at least an hour in Scandinavia. And if we double it, since that also goes for the mornings, well... A decent 10x50/10x56 with excellent light transmission might have the edge for a couple of hours every day.
Basically, what I am saying is that we have dusk for much longer time than most other locations.
And, if I reverse my argumentation, in areas close to the equator, anything beyond 10x32 is a complete waste because the sun drops down the horizon in a 90 degree angle, making the dusk period last only a few minutes.

Ronh, I surely would go for a 12x bin if I were sure to keep it steady. However, I understand that there is an eternal debate going on whether the 10x really gives more detail than the 8x, when the increased shaking is calculated as a factor.
In my opinion, I prefer my 10x Zeiss over my 8x Minox if it all would be about the view. Going further in magnification makes me feel a little scary.

I read some spectacular reviews on the Minox 10x58, but the bulk and weight of 1490 grams put me off. However, very few bins seem to be able to match its view.

[Tero]

I only had an 8x32 last summer in Finland. I was able to ID lapwing and nightjar at 11 PM or later. The smaller birds will be hard, but one usually learns to ID by song at night, in Scandinavia.

In winter, there is only a dozen species to be found, mostly at the bird feeder. Tramping through snowy woods, might find a grouse. [just kidding, though I would have about 30 species for the year, and people I know get some 100 birds for the year by Jan 30]

[looksharp65]

Tero, that's nice, about where in Finland did you stay? Guess I should listen to expertise and not carry more equipment than necessary. However I still know that we live in prolonged dusk here. These are examples of the variation in daylight where I live:

-At summer solstace, the sun rises at 4:15 am and it sets at 10:10 pm (daylight saving time). It rises above the horison by 56 degrees.
-At winter solstace, the sun rises at 8:50 am and sets at 3:30 pm, and it rises no more than 9,5 degrees.
-In Northern Scandinavia, the circumstances are even more extreme with midnight sun in the summer and no real day at all in the winter, just traces of light at noon.
In any occasion - whenever the sun sets or rises, it does it in a shallow angle, thus the dusk period is prolonged. So the use of more light-gathering binoculars really ought to be more common here. But just like you used your 8x32 in Finland, I have my Minox HG 8x33 because of some handling advantages over my Zeiss.
I live like 2 kilometers from Getterön, a quite well-known habitat and birding location, so some transport bulk is no real problem. If I should go abroad for a birding vacation, I would surely bring my Minox.
Off Topic: Speaking of Minox, and I know you don't fancy mini bins, I really like the small 8x25. Incredible bang for the buck, sharp, fairly wide-field, eyeglass-friendly, bright, color neutral, waterproof and all the features expected from a modern roof-prism. Dunno how they do it...

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Tero

There is not a whole lot of interest in 12x here. For most people that means a tripod, and then I might as well bring the scope. My scope does not weigh much, the tripod does.

A monopod works very well with 10x and up bins. THe usual twisting problem with a monopod and scope combo is much reduced as the bin is easy to hold with two hands and has to sit flush to you face.

The monopod makes a big difference even at 10x and is noticible easier than a scope on the eyes.

And a monopod is a lot lighter to carry.

I can see where the original poster is comming from though. Tero only goes there in summer In fall and winter it's a different proposition!

But back to the OPs question the set of specs he defines used to be very popular in the late 1950s and 1960s in the US at least: 10x50 with 7.2 degrees of field (and virtually no ER!). If you search for Chandler Robbins bins thread here you'll see what I mean.

The Zeiss classic 10x40 have you spoiled for a large field (6.8 degrees? IIRC). Even 40mm wide FOV 10x bins are difficult to find now.

The problem seems to be all the 10x50 roofs (and even the porros) out there have quite a small field. I suspect his is due to keeping the weight down but reducing the size of the roof prisms (bigger light cone == bigger and much heavier prisms).

It seems the market is though too small to make those bins that are pretty heavy. I giess people light Chandler had stronger necks in the 1960s

Another possibility are the Minox 15x58 ED but they really are heavy (and would need a monopod or tripod) but they should work well in near-twilight conditions.

[Tero]

Looksharp, there is a lot of stuff to drag along, but maybe an iPod with bird song is not a bad investment.

I do walk around maybe 1 km at most, with scope on shoulder. Once you learn your local patch, you will learn to bring the right junk at each spot.

I was in Hämeenlinna and Tampere, plus caught a few loons and grebes closer to Oulu.

[looksharp65]

I find all your proposals interesting, even though it seems I am stuck where I started.
Despite all the concentrated binocular wisdom and knowledge here, the "wow" binoculars don't really seem to be there (when I have saved enough buck to buy a alpha bin my 6 mm pupil will have shrunk to 4 mm ). Annoying for me and a challenge for you to suggest new contenders.

I am seriously considering the Minox 13x56 merely because it's more compact and lightweight than the 10x58, that also needs a tripod but solely because of its weight.
Of course it is not all about the EP and front aperture, the light transmission percentage is just as important IRL.
So the Minox HG 10x52 would be just fine if the FOV was wider. The Meostar 10x50 would be just fine if the front lens was a little larger and the CA better controlled. The...

(Lord, why oh why have I put myself in this hopeless dilemma of choosing which imperfection I most easily could cope with ??)

Can't stop wondering why Meopta don't make a 10x56 and why Minox chose 8x56 and 13x56 for the BL biggies...


Tero, I consider a double bird song CD to rip down to mp3 and listen to in my phone. Nice tip yours, though. :) Guess you are Finnish?

[Tero]

Yes, nearly all my Europe birds are Iceland and Finland, but my Europe list starts in Sweden, some yard birds like magpie
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=159843

As far as the binoculars go, I have birded 7 years and 700g is all I am willing to carry on my neck past 2 hours in the field.

[looksharp65]

Nice list, Tero! Must run the translation program...
In general I prefer as small gadgets as possible, as long as they serve their purpose. I was out for several hours the other day with the greater Minox, without even noticing the weight. Anyway I will go on trying to find the last item of my list. When I was a kid my father was a keen birder, and I used to carry around a classic 7x50 those days. Thus I have a scoliosis now

[brocknroller]

If the Meo 10x50's CA bothered you, the 12x50 SE's probably will too. Great bin for stargazing, but not great for daytime use if you are sensitive to CA (unless you are curious to see what a purple-tailed hawk looks like :-).

If you can deal with the "rolling ball" in the 10x40 B/GA (what "rolling ball," you ask?), then a Fuji 10x50 FMT would be a walk in the park (well, they weigh over 50 oz., you wouldn't want to walk in park too far with them, but they would help you fend off a mugger, no problem).

The Fuji's "rolling ball" isn't that bad actually, take it from a brocknrollingaballer.

The Fuji fits all your criteria: It is meant to be used in low light nature observation and stargazing (though an 8x50/56 would serve you better in low light). It is FMC, has an exit pupil 5 mm, water- and fogproof, w i d e FOV (6.5*), no real issues with optical and view quality (as long as you get a good sample, which most are).

The only issue is its weight, but when you are stargazing, you really should mount a 10x bin if you don't want to follow the bouncing ball.

My objection with these originally was the IF EPs, but for general nature observing at a distance and not specifically for close in birdwatching, the IF EPs are not a big issue, particularly if you have good focus accommodation ("set and forget").

Plus, even with the under par sample I tried, I haven't seen any 10x50 with as good image quality except my former 10x50 ED, but that had only a 5* FOV and although it was lightweight, having most of the weight in front didn't make it easy to hold steady.

Also, the Fuji has very sharp edges, which would make it ideal for stargazing, and with the 6.5* FOV @10x, you can almost taste the raspberries in the Milky Way.

See Holger Merlitz's review.

$600 at EO, armored or naked.

An additional benefit is if you chose to use them hand held, in a year your biceps will look like this:
http://mass-monsters.tripod.com/site...ures/arnbi.jpg

Joe Jackson (Look Sharp!)

[looksharp65]

brocknroller, nice try and interesting information. But the Minox 10x58 still leads the race with central focusing, about 62 degrees AFOV and 5.8 mm EP. (it is quite similar to Fujinon HB 10x60 in specifications and shape)
The weight issue remains with all of these...

[etudiant]

Have you considered the Canon 15x50IS?
Admittedly, it falls short of your exit pupil spec, but the IS feature really helps in poor light.
It is decently weather resistant, although not waterproof to 5 m like the newer Minox and Zeiss designs.

[looksharp65]

etudiant, interesting idea. I will have a look at its specs and reviews. Somewhere, however, I feel some reluctance to use another battery-powered gadget. Scopes and binoculars are among the last few things in life that stubbornly hold the fortress of old-fashionedness. And they do well, too.
Not that I don't see the advantages of IS, I adore my little Cybershot H20 with outer measures of a compact camera but with a handholdable IS 380 mm telephoto lens capability.

But I am sure that Holger Merlitz predictions will come true. Completely digital magnification devices will mean the end of the Jurassic Binocular Era. Maybe one will only need to lift and hold a flat frame or screen an arm length away in front of the eyes to see super-sharp, steady images, brighter than real life. A shutter button will send the image to your website to confirm that you were there to see the rare bird. Within 5 years, wanna bet?

I think I want to get hold of the last dinosaur before they become extinct. My grand-children will be able to enjoy the perfect view of my most perfect binoculars while the flashy electronic obsolete-battery ...thing is merely landfill.

[Kevin Purcell]

Perhaps more than five years for digital bins. The limitation on the digital bins (I suspect a lot of them would be digital monoculars with two eyeholes!) is the display for the eye and the sensor.

To match the resolution of current bins (better than the resolution of the eye say 1 minute of arc for arguments sake) with a wide AFOV (say 65 degrees). That's a circle about 4000 pixels in diameter. You would also require a 16Mpixels or 64Mwells (with a bayer filter) sensor. And you'll need an update rate of at least 30Hz and perhaps faster than that to avoid jerking when panning.

My "big" 21" 4:3 LCD display 1600x1200 here subtends perhaps 30 degrees AFOV on the diagonal and 21ish degrees vertical.

So that's something like 4000p60. That's well beyond HD TV displays and sensors right now. And to put them in a small lightweight and not power hungry box is going to be a challenge. We will get there but I think a couple decades more than 5 years. We are a long way from digital bins.

Electro-optics for birding is another matter and I think that will make more of an impact as cameras (still and video are merging) with IS and long lens like the current superzooms start to get better (and perhaps bigger sensors for less noise). They're at the point now that normal folks can start to use them for birds. Fuji has just announced another interesting superzoom.

And of course where woudl we talk about them ... the bins forum or the camera forum

[looksharp65]

Kevin Purcell, my previous post reveals I am quite conservative-minded when it comes to binoculars. Still I am highly aware of the velocity by which new technologies spread out and into our every-day life.
The development rate is not linear but rather exponential. The expression "technological singularity" as explained by Ray Kurzweil et al is an utmost interesting theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

But that's another story.


My odyssey to find the last binoculars has lead me back to a place where I once was - the Garrett Signature 10x50 with very good 14-point QC and extremely high transmission of 92%. The eye relief could be better but wth. Pity they are heavier than the Minox 10x58.

But they are individually-focused which would probably be less suitable for birding. But I read more than once that IF's are sort of "set and forget" and I can't really get that into my mind.
Are they supposed to give a deeper depth-of-field than CF binoculars?
Anyone here who owns one?

[Kevin Purcell]

technological singularity == religion for techno nuts

See Jaron Lanier for his critque.

And another point most technological progress follows something like a logistic curve. People mistake the first part of that growth curve for an exponential curve (and so make wild predictions based on it).

Anyhow back to the bins ...

But I read more than once that IF's are sort of "set and forget" and I can't really get that into my mind.

They're set and forget for the military and hunters who are interested in big targets beyond the hyperfocal distance (typically 50m or more). So you can see things in focus from 50m out to infinity. Not much good for birds that are observed at 50m and less distance and are prone to move about. Hence birders use CF.

Are they supposed to give a deeper depth-of-field than CF binoculars?

DOF depends only on the magnification (and apparent DOF perhaps on field curvature too) not the focusing system.

[looksharp65]

Thanks Kevin,

just like I supposed with the IF. There is no reason that the focusing system itself could have impact on the DOF. I just thought that some other design feature commonly used together with IF might simplify the focusing.
You write that only the magnification decides the DOF. Given the actual focus distance and aperture are equal, I assume you mean?

Because DOF in meters or centimeters is decidedly shorter in a close focus situation. And in photo lenses, it is actually the size (not f/ number) of the aperture that decides the DOF. Thus, a 1,4/50 mm will have identical DOF to a 2,8/100 or 5,6/200 on their largest apertures if focused to the same distance.
I am not sure whether this applies for all formats, i.e. if a wide 2,8/50 mm for 6x6 has identical DOF to a 2,8/50 for 35 mm cameras or not.

Anyway, thanks for stopping me buying the non-birding Garrett.

[Kevin Purcell]

By DOF I mean the relative (fractional) DOF. So at close distances it will be smaller in absolute terms than at distance but the absolute DOF/distance will be a constant.

[looksharp65]

Thanks Kevin!

My photo lenses are marked with DOF for different apertures, so focusing at hyperfocal distance can be set. Would you agree that it is the aperture that decides the DOF? If so, a 10x25 should have markedly better DOF than a 10x50, but at the same time transmit only 25% of the light compared to the bigger bin.

Vortex Razor 10x50 or 12x50, anyone? It is similar to the Meostar in price, size and weight but has "XD glass", argon filling (as opposed to nitrogen) and supposedly better lens coatings.

Seems like it is easier to find 8x32 and 10x42ish bin models that are close to perfect, while the range of 10x50 and above always seem to have some flaw or at least beauty spot. Not that I don't understand why - CA, SA become more observable with big front lenses, wide FOV needs larger prisms and so on. But the quest for the "Holy Grail" (lightweight alpha performance for Wal-Mart price) continues.