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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 4.00 average.
Old Thursday 19th January 2017, 22:51   #26
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
May Zarquon's blessings be upon you!

My choice for mid range 8x 32 would be between Conquest HD, Meopta B1 and Kowa Genesis 8x33. Undoubtedly there are others and as a brand that I feel you can always rely on there is Opticron and they do a rather nice 7x36 (BGA Classic) which is nice and bright, easy eyeplacement, easy to hold and 19mm eye relief. Typo (David) on here is a big fan and I have looked through his and it is a gem.

Lee
A fellow Golgafrincham !

Conquest is in there but it may be touch and go with the ER situation. I'm increasingly tuning into the idea of equating exit pupil and ocular lense diameter with ease of use with glasses, perhaps wrongly. That seems to be the meme across some threads I've read.

Meopta and Kowa are very exciting but may fall into the 'blind purchase' list.

Opticron I may be able to look at during one of their roving demo days.

I'll pin them all down as time goes on.

Almost anything is up for grabs apart from ER. The more I watch the more I see the value of being able to not lift and replace my glasses every few seconds. It quickly becomes a p in the a. I wear contacts too but ER it seems, is going to be non-negotiable.

Swarovski not supplying even a rudimentary set of objective lens caps and a raincover for their 8x25 cl-p's seems pretty strange. Not even available as an accessory? Would be like if Range Rover didn't put seatbelts in right?

All the best

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th January 2017, 10:11   #27
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
A fellow Golgafrincham !

Conquest is in there but it may be touch and go with the ER situation. I'm increasingly tuning into the idea of equating exit pupil and ocular lense diameter with ease of use with glasses, perhaps wrongly. That seems to be the meme across some threads I've read.

Meopta and Kowa are very exciting but may fall into the 'blind purchase' list.

Opticron I may be able to look at during one of their roving demo days.

I'll pin them all down as time goes on.

Almost anything is up for grabs apart from ER. The more I watch the more I see the value of being able to not lift and replace my glasses every few seconds. It quickly becomes a p in the a. I wear contacts too but ER it seems, is going to be non-negotiable.

Swarovski not supplying even a rudimentary set of objective lens caps and a raincover for their 8x25 cl-p's seems pretty strange. Not even available as an accessory? Would be like if Range Rover didn't put seatbelts in right?

All the best

Tm
Watch out or the white mice will get you. Or you may suffer a pseudo fracture

1) Conquest eyepiece lenses are massive.
2) And actually the lack of rainguard and objective covers for CL-P is understandable because they wouldn't remain in place when the bin is folded and the folding up into a compact and pocketable size is the main point. Having loose stuff that you need to carry with you doesn't sit well with this concept.

Good luck with your choices, Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th January 2017, 15:40   #28
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
'Yeah but no but.....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Watch out or the white mice will get you. Or you may suffer a pseudo fracture

1) Conquest eyepiece lenses are massive.
2) And actually the lack of rainguard and objective covers for CL-P is understandable because they wouldn't remain in place when the bin is folded and the folding up into a compact and pocketable size is the main point. Having loose stuff that you need to carry with you doesn't sit well with this concept.

Good luck with your choices, Lee
Cheers Troubador.

Ha ha - or I'll misinterpret some dolphins doing a double back flip through a hoop whilst whistling The Star Spangled Banner !

Anyone reading this exchange must think we've completely lost the plot -

How I miss the wit and wisdom of Mr. Adams in this crazy world sometimes.

The Conquest HD's sound extremely promising. I'm almost as excited about trying them as I am the MHG's. Both companies have such incredible provenance in optics. Hard to ignore. Just hope the effective ER on the Conquests is enough.
The alleged, paper quoted, 18mm of the ones I have are adequate but not particularly flexible and a little fussy if I'm not square on.

By all that I've read that should be plenty and my glasses are not bottle thick by any standards. I'm only a -1.5 on my left (post cataract surgery) and about -2.5 on my right.


There again, my expectations of what's possible with glasses may be out of range. Undoubtably, binoculars seem more comfortable to use without glasses as partly they feel more 'joined' to me, partly steadier through a semi-MOLCET ready bone structure and also just that bit more, well, immersive.

The curse of the short sighted !

Care to put a width/diameter in mm on those Conquest x32 occular lenses' back/eyeball facing elements? (These are about 20.5 mm)

As far as the whole Swarovski CL-P lens cap thing goes. Yes, I get that line of thinking. Zeiss seems to follow it too by not appearing to include them with their Terra x25's.

Interestingly Kowa and Opticron take a different stance. Kowa including both sets and Opticron just the objectives I believe. I see that thinking too.

The more I ponder it, the less it really seems to matter. Having said that I have an instinct born of handling, for a period of my life, unbelievably expensive Panavision and Zeiss film lenses to protect exposed elements such as objectives and couplings as well as obsessive checking for lint etc. Far less critical on a robust little compact pair of bins but habits die hard.

I'm sure I read on here someone who had ingeniously got round the lack of Swaro covers by buying some old small porro bins and/or fabricating a solution from the supplied covers.

For me a close fitting hard/formed leather pouch would serve just as well.

On that note it simply leaves me to say;

'Oh freddled gruntbugly, thy micturations are to me, as plurdled gobbleblotchets on a lurged bee'

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th January 2017, 15:57   #29
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
The Conquest HD 8x32 ocular lenses are 24.5mm in diameter.
That should turn your joopleberry bush a nice shade of pinky-russet.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 01:05   #30
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Caveat emptor eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
The Conquest HD 8x32 ocular lenses are 24.5mm in diameter.
That should turn your joopleberry bush a nice shade of pinky-russet.

Lee
Thanks Troubador.

That's quite a lot more real estate from an occular perspective.

Just been reading about Ruger270's shocker with some ex demo Conquests back in 2014. I gotta say the whole, 'Made in xxxxx' cannard absolutely simmers my waste waters. I'm surely going to find that all of these established brands are using third parties like Kamakura to design and manufacture some of their key components. I know Conquests, Trinovid HD's, Nikon MHG's and all sub £1000 binoculars are not the top tier but that's still a hefty amount of money. At least to me it is.I think consumers are still pretty price to value aware at under £1000. At least the Trinovids say what appears to a more honest 'Made in Portugal' on the central focussing dial.

If it's assembled in country x then it should say 'Assembled in xxxxxx' and not 'Made' or 'Manufactured'.

It appears disingenuous, slightly patronising and misleading Imho. I have no doubt Kamakura are top guys at what they do but when one buys into one of these prestige marque, one has a right to expect that they didn't just wave a hand over them or bung a sticker on, in for example, Germany during a QC conveyor belt pass and consider that enough to justify their prestige prices and lack of involvement.

Neither am I necessarily suggesting that production outside of the base country, as declared, is inferior per se. Globalisation has brought on hybridisation of production in many things. It would be naive to think otherwise.


The benefits and costs of off shoring production are beyond the scope of this thread but ask the kid who just got an Epiphone Les Paul 'burst for his 12th birthday if he gives two toots his guitar was made in Korea. If he's good enough he'll sound like Billy Gibbons wailing on Pearly Gates (Billy's '59 Les Paul- now beyond price) one day. Gibson isn't hiding this. Neither is Fender. You want a USA made Gibson or Fender? - fine. Gibson Studios start around £900 and go up to prettymuch as much as you feel like paying.....but that IS manufactured in The US . Korean made? - starts at £200 or so.

Going back to bins- second/third tiers are partly price/value competitive because compromises must be made and a differentiation made between them and their big brothers at 2-3 or 4 times the price. I know that. It's the slight-of-hand that bugs me. The ol' switcheroo. I thought these guys might have had more integrity.

It should be enough for a good piece of product to stand on it's merits alone without having to hide behind the heritage of it's 'parents' endeavours..when in fact it's actually a second cousin one removed, so to speak. Fine, it's part of the blood line but call it a second cousin and be let it stand or fall by it's own merits against it's peers.

I'm probably way late too the party and will find out with further research that ALL genuine site manufacturing from blue prints to final polish and ALL points in between may have ended a long time ago in European optics. Did that ship sail years ago ? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps someone can fill me in?

Just goes to show that one musn't allow a top European (or Japanese too maybe) marque any additional price or technical latitude simply out of a sense of buying into it's heritage and provenance...especially if it's like going to be like buying a Versace t-shirt eh?

Anyway, got that out of my system.

Phew

I actually really like the Conquests on paper and from pictures irrespective of where they're 'made'. Look like a solid bit of portable kit with good back up.

I'm (rather unfairly) just scribbling up their 8x32 stats. against a bunch of similarly priced 8x42's. Guess because the MHG's seem to have pushed the envelope about standard thresholds of an 8x42. I want to see how they stack up against a full blooded and proven 8x32 like the Conquest as well as some more conventional 8x42 competition in that braket.

All the best

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 02:16   #31
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,738
Tm,

Some Leicas are made in Portugal and some are made in Germany and Leica has been making them both places for at least 24 years, maybe more. I have an old Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA that says it was made in Portugal and its serial number puts its date of manufacture in the middle of 1982 according to GaryMH. I have a Leica Trinovid 7x42 BN which was made around 2000 in Germany and I have a Leica 8x42 Ultravid BL (Blackline) which was made in Portugal about 8 years later and it is one of the classiest looking binoculars you will ever see! I also have an old Leica R3 Camera with a 90mm F2 Summicron lens. One of them was made in Portugal and the other in Canada; I forget which ones now.

(FWIW, I also have a Zeiss 8x20 Victory which was made in Hungary.)

Everyone of them shows the same quality as if they were made in Germany in the Leica (or Zeiss) Plant.

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 07:20   #32
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Tm,

Some Leicas are made in Portugal and some are made in Germany and Leica has been making them both places for at least 24 years, maybe more. ....
.....
.....
.....
Bob
Definitely more - my "Leitz Trinovid 10x40" from 1970 was made in Portugal (the quality is impeccable).
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 10:35   #33
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,766
TM,

regarding the Conquest, and I'm aware I'm repeating myself now:
When I had the Zeiss 10x32 FL, I compared it to the Conquest 10x32 HD, and the FL was clearly nicer with the easier view. The difference was clearly visible but not huge. The FL was sold to fund my EDG 7x42.
Despite this, I still like the Meostar better than both the Zeisses. It could be argued that the Conquest HD has the truer colours compared to the Meostar, but the Meostar wins hands down as a package thanks to its super solid but sleek casing, effortless handling and ease on the eye.
But be aware that I use it with close-fitting spectacles. Other specs don't do justice to it, and when using contacts, it's obvious that the eyecup diameter is too small. They simply can't be supported on the eyebrows.

//L
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry

Last edited by looksharp65 : Saturday 21st January 2017 at 10:37.
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 11:13   #34
CliveP
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 833
Hi Tim

Just for info Hawke supply 4 individual rubber lens caps with their Endurance and Sapphire compacts.

I do think it is poor of these premium brands to neglect this. Some Zeiss, Leica? don't even supply a case (in some cases) if I understand it correctly.

I have an RSPB 8x20 HD and it has a nice compact leather case with a slightly reinforced bottom so goes some way to protection of the objectives in transit.

My Pentax 8x20 DCF ED has a leather case but a flexible bottom which I only partially trust.

I actually use some of the caps from my Hawke Endurance 10x25 to help protect these other bins as they fit perfectly to all three. In fact Hawke recently exchanged my 10x25 and I was glad to get a few more of the caps as a result. If I ever need more I will contact them.

Basically I totally agree with you on this topic. It is simply poor that this is neglected by these superior brands.

Perhaps get to try some Hawke bins. They suit me very well such as my Sapphire 8x43 ED but then I don't wear specs so I am fortunate not to be limited by this issue. I don't really know how anyone can enjoy a binocular while wearing glasses but then I suppose if needs must then it's different. I certainly don't like the sound of potentially damaging expensive eyewear.

Many opticians tried their best to get me to depend on glasses when young as I have a little shortsightedness but I refused to go along with them and sure glad I didn't as my eyesight is fine all these years later.

BTW My Pentax was an ebay bin I bought for £19. It was out of colimation, basically seemingly thrown together by whoever assembled it. I dismantled, collimated and reassembled and now I have to say it's kind of one of my favourite bins because it seems to have the colour/contrast recipe very nicely implemented. It's perhaps very slightly on the warm side but I like that as opposed to the RSPB which veers to the cooler side. My other Pentax is the famous Papilio 6.5x21 but this is on the cooler side also.

Getting a bin where you enjoy it's white balance is very nice as I'm sure you will know well from photography. I would try and pay attention to this some also but I'm sure you will know what you like when you see it..

Last edited by CliveP : Saturday 21st January 2017 at 11:17.
CliveP is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st January 2017, 13:27   #35
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
Thanks Troubador.

That's quite a lot more real estate from an occular perspective.

Just been reading about Ruger270's shocker with some ex demo Conquests back in 2014. I gotta say the whole, 'Made in xxxxx' cannard absolutely simmers my waste waters. I'm surely going to find that all of these established brands are using third parties like Kamakura to design and manufacture some of their key components. I know Conquests, Trinovid HD's, Nikon MHG's and all sub £1000 binoculars are not the top tier but that's still a hefty amount of money. At least to me it is.I think consumers are still pretty price to value aware at under £1000. At least the Trinovids say what appears to a more honest 'Made in Portugal' on the central focussing dial.

If it's assembled in country x then it should say 'Assembled in xxxxxx' and not 'Made' or 'Manufactured'.

It appears disingenuous, slightly patronising and misleading Imho. I have no doubt Kamakura are top guys at what they do but when one buys into one of these prestige marque, one has a right to expect that they didn't just wave a hand over them or bung a sticker on, in for example, Germany during a QC conveyor belt pass and consider that enough to justify their prestige prices and lack of involvement.

Tm
Assembled in wherever may well be a more accurate description but these companies look at what the law allows (thats not just European but also USA and other territories' laws) and work within it.

Conquest HD optics were designed by Zeiss and the external appearance by KISKA. From info posted on here it appears kits of parts are sent to Germany where they are assembled, collimated and quality controlled.

According to information from a reliable optical engineer and repairer in Europe the latest Trinovids are also made from parts made in Japan. Probably this means they are assembled in Portugal from kits too. I expect that Leica designed the optics.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 13:38   #36
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Tm,

Some Leicas are made in Portugal and some are made in Germany and Leica has been making them both places for at least 24 years, maybe more. I have an old Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA that says it was made in Portugal and its serial number puts its date of manufacture in the middle of 1982 according to GaryMH. I have a Leica Trinovid 7x42 BN which was made around 2000 in Germany and I have a Leica 8x42 Ultravid BL (Blackline) which was made in Portugal about 8 years later and it is one of the classiest looking binoculars you will ever see! I also have an old Leica R3 Camera with a 90mm F2 Summicron lens. One of them was made in Portugal and the other in Canada; I forget which ones now.

(FWIW, I also have a Zeiss 8x20 Victory which was made in Hungary.)

Everyone of them shows the same quality as if they were made in Germany in the Leica (or Zeiss) Plant.

Bob
Thanks once again for this knowledge-expanding background Ceasar. Really helpful. You've also clearly got enough breadth of kit to have handled and lived with gear across different manufacturers, models, generations and of course sheer time. Short of doing so myself, unlikely as I'm getting on the bus at quite a long way along it's route so to speak, that knowledge is beyond price.

I can't argue with the BLs classiness. In fact I would be tempted to go as far as to say Leica gear probably has, to my personal eye, the edge for aesthetics from the simple perspective of objet d'art. I might have to exclude the new Noctivids from that accolade as whilst I've no doubt the open bridge arrangement is sturdier, perhaps offers more hand holding options and is undoubtably popular at the top tier of binoculars, it detracts from the simple classic lines of the UV and TV lines. They've made a good fist of it perhaps at the expense of bringing the focus arrangment to a more occular weighted position.

Even the bulky and knurled BA/BNs in armoured configuration have a certain purposeful aesthetic. Just my uninformed and utterly subjective thoughts of course.

There's some interesting stuff out there about the politics of why Leica originally set up their Portugal plant. Much if not all of it speculation no doubt but interetsting to me sitting here.

I'm confidenent that no serious maker of binoculars is going to compromise it's reputation by interpreting its exacting designs by using shoddy components or assembly procedures. QC is another matter as we see from the 270 'shocker' thread. It's not that the odd bad piece slips through so much - it's how it's subsequently dealt with. Antsy and snotty service is unacceptable at this level frankly.

I'll be trawling the web for information on that parameter of the 'package' although the preponderance of negative stories is always going to be disproportionate as one almost never hears from a satisfied customer in public as much as one hears from a disgruntled one.
Some of what passes for being 'disgruntled' would test the patience of a saint and the service and retail people have my deepest sympathies in dealing with such buffoons.

As I young lad I did some I high value retail. A 'challenge' would be putting it mildly.

All the best

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 14:18   #37
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Definitely more - my "Leitz Trinovid 10x40" from 1970 was made in Portugal (the quality is impeccable).
Fair do's Canip. Very reassuring. Have you ever dealt with customer service and if so how on what sort of issue and how was that for you? (Accepting of course that you're not going to be dealing with the same service centre as me and time and ethos change as well as personnel of course)

I think I've scanned a lot of the more contemporary service threads from the various manufacturers but not comprehensively. If anyone would like to share their experiences or direct me to a useful thread here or elsewhere, it would be most welcome.

All the best

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 15:07   #38
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,738
Tm,

I agree.

I don't think that it will be possible to tell whether Leica's Portuguese made binoculars have better quality control than their German made ones have based on the complaints that we receive about Leica's reputation for antsy and snotty service here on Bird Forum.

I had no problems with Leica service when I purchased new screw on replacement fold down rubber eye cups for my long discontinued Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA. They did advise me that they were running out of parts for these binoculars and that future repairs, if needed, would be questionable. They also had a computer record of the other Leica binoculars I owned which I had registered with Leica when I purchased them.

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Sunday 22nd January 2017 at 15:09.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 15:11   #39
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by looksharp65 View Post
TM,

regarding the Conquest, and I'm aware I'm repeating myself now:
When I had the Zeiss 10x32 FL, I compared it to the Conquest 10x32 HD, and the FL was clearly nicer with the easier view. The difference was clearly visible but not huge. The FL was sold to fund my EDG 7x42.
Despite this, I still like the Meostar better than both the Zeisses. It could be argued that the Conquest HD has the truer colours compared to the Meostar, but the Meostar wins hands down as a package thanks to its super solid but sleek casing, effortless handling and ease on the eye.
But be aware that I use it with close-fitting spectacles. Other specs don't do justice to it, and when using contacts, it's obvious that the eyecup diameter is too small. They simply can't be supported on the eyebrows.

//L
How is the EDG working out Looksharp? Customer service experiences with Nikon?

Do you find any 'real world differences with a 7x to an 8x? I'm probably working on the principle that a given bird which occupies a given proportion of the fov will appear ;

Apparent size divided by 8 times 7 smaller all else being equal.

At some distance this going to negligable but closer than say 125 yards or indeed at garden distance I imagine it to be somewhat more distinct.

This is a flawed argument to some degree because it's just as much about how much space the bird occupies of the fov which of course is balanced to some degree by a wider fov in a similarly configured 7x binocular.

What I'm cackhandedly trying to drive towards here is, 'do you noticably miss the resolving power of an 8x when set against some of the merits of a 7x ?

...and; were, you to only have one binocular in say, a x32 or x42 at 7x or 8x as an all rounder ( no sneaking compacts in socks or 10xs in a bag - ha ha) what would it be and why? (Thoughts from all contributors welcome)

I should probably say at this point bearing in mind I'm asking so many questions today that I stand by the following ubiquitous disclaimer;

'I have no connections with any binocular manufacturer nor am I sponsored or endorsed to make my comments. I have bought one, deliberately anonomised pair of 8x32's that will at some point be gifted to Mrs.Themoog as they're really pretty good for what they are. Neither am I part of a marketing or opinion polling company. Just a guy looking to consolidate many lifetimes-worth of real world experience from amongst a pool of specialist and discerning users and consumers in this field of expertise'

I see shills operating in politics forums from time to time.

People here seem quite upfront about their industrial connections and equipment tastes. All good and perfectly as it should be imho. On price,reliability and load carrying capacity I'll defend a Toyota Landcruiser against a Land Rover Discovery with measured tenacity.

On luxury and prestige - I'm holding nothing.
On mud plugging and hill climbing?- That lowrange gearsticks' for hanging house keys on isn't it?

We bring different things to the table eh?

Meoptre sounds and looks great. If I can get my hands on some they'll be in the mix. I can see myself spending some quiet time looking deeply at these. Customer service?

Much appreciated

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 16:38   #40
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
How is the EDG working out Looksharp? Customer service experiences with Nikon?
The focuser is a bit stiffer than I prefer and the hinge tension too loose. I've been given a Vortex Bino-Loc as a gift from a friendly Birdforum reader, and it solves that issue. From Nikon Sverige I was offered a focus knob and hinge adjustment, but I'm not overly bothered by either of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
Do you find any 'real world differences with a 7x to an 8x? I'm probably working on the principle that a given bird which occupies a given proportion of the fov will appear ;

Apparent size divided by 8 times 7 smaller all else being equal.

At some distance this going to negligable but closer than say 125 yards or indeed at garden distance I imagine it to be somewhat more distinct.

This is a flawed argument to some degree because it's just as much about how much space the bird occupies of the fov which of course is balanced to some degree by a wider fov in a similarly configured 7x binocular.

What I'm cackhandedly trying to drive towards here is, 'do you noticably miss the resolving power of an 8x when set against some of the merits of a 7x ?
There is a considerable difference between the 6,5x I used and the EDG 7x42. The latter is pickier when it comes to eye placement and focus, but rewards the user with a spectacular view the Fury's nowhere near.
It is not a lightning-fast warbler binocular like the Fury, but it might be better if the focus knob was less stiff.
I think of it as an 8x42 with modest AFOV and 6 mm exit pupil.

Since there's not much real FOV difference vs. the Meostar 8x32 or (for example) the EDG 8x42, the bird occupies a similar fraction of the FOV.
The bird and the AFOV are both smaller.
The EDG is what I use for slower, serious birding at any and all distances, and the Meostar is what I grab for standby when on the go. It is fine for warblering too, after its notorious stiff focuser has loosened up considerably.
There's no chance that a better 7x40/7x42/7x45 than the EDG is ever going to be made, which was the ultimate reason for me to buy it before it was discontinued. There will always be nice 8x42's if needed.

I dismiss the idea that binocular magnification is about resolving power.
In theory, it's correct. But when I tested the ultra-sharp 10x32 FL against the equally sharp 8x30 E II, it was impossible to find any far and small detail the FL delivered that the E II didn't. Differences were non-existent.

I did not mount them on tripods, since that's not how binoculars are used, but I was sitting down with my elbows resting on a shelf, overlooking the Getterön nature reserve, stretching 2,5 kilometers from the observation point. That's the heureka moment when I gave up carrying two binoculars.

So, how come 10x binoculars have a market even among birders?
I think it's about the areal magnification, which, if the binoculars are used correctly with steady hands, delivers a 56% larger object area than an 8x, thus making the detection of ID clues faster.
It punches you in the face, sort of, but then there are disadvantages like smaller FOV and shallower depth of field.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
...and; were, you to only have one binocular in say, a x32 or x42 at 7x or 8x as an all rounder ( no sneaking compacts in socks or 10xs in a bag - ha ha) what would it be and why?
Among the ones I already own, the Meostar has become the faithful companion I can't let go of. Would I buy it again? Not sure.
I had mine at a bargain price and the new ones are over-priced considering their colour rendition flaw.
I'd try to find the Meopta/Cabela's Euro HD 8x32 to see if it's better.

Then again, the MHG 8x42 appears very tempting with its low weight, huge FOV and praised optics. Can it take a beating? Probably not like the Meopta so I'd have more peace of mind with the Meopta.

//L
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 17:34   #41
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Yes, it is very disappointing the UVid 8x32 has such short ER. I always wanted the little 8x32, but not enough ER for me unfortunately (I wear glasses).
Well, that's the price you pay for the small, compact size. Relatively short focal lengths of the objectives require a short focal length of the eyepieces. And that means short eye relief, unless you put in a lot more glass - which would make the binoculars bigger and heavier again.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 17:58   #42
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
Well, that's the price you pay for the small, compact size. Relatively short focal lengths of the objectives require a short focal length of the eyepieces. And that means short eye relief, unless you put in a lot more glass - which would make the binoculars bigger and heavier again.

Hermann
Yes I am aware of this, but I do wonder how Zeiss has 2mm more ER in their 8x32 FL. The little FL is the same height as the Ultravid. Also, FL 10x32 has 16mm ER...not bad.

Another thing I wonder is how Zeiss FL 8x32 controls CA so well since CA is supposedly more prevalent in bins with short focal length (?).

Last edited by Gilmore Girl : Sunday 22nd January 2017 at 18:06.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 20:29   #43
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Yes I am aware of this, but I do wonder how Zeiss has 2mm more ER in their 8x32 FL. The little FL is the same height as the Ultravid. Also, FL 10x32 has 16mm ER...not bad.

Another thing I wonder is how Zeiss FL 8x32 controls CA so well...
Yes, the little FL bins are miraculous in those respects. If Zeiss could reduce off-axis astigmatism (even at the cost of field flatness) in an updated 8x32 FL without making it any larger, I'd get it and never look at another x32 (such as the 8x32 Ultravid HD) longingly again.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 23:01   #44
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveP View Post
Hi Tim

Just for info Hawke supply 4 individual rubber lens caps with their Endurance and Sapphire compacts.

I do think it is poor of these premium brands to neglect this. Some Zeiss, Leica? don't even supply a case (in some cases) if I understand it correctly.

I have an RSPB 8x20 HD and it has a nice compact leather case with a slightly reinforced bottom so goes some way to protection of the objectives in transit.

My Pentax 8x20 DCF ED has a leather case but a flexible bottom which I only partially trust.

I actually use some of the caps from my Hawke Endurance 10x25 to help protect these other bins as they fit perfectly to all three. In fact Hawke recently exchanged my 10x25 and I was glad to get a few more of the caps as a result. If I ever need more I will contact them.

Basically I totally agree with you on this topic. It is simply poor that this is neglected by these superior brands.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a deal breaker. As was said earlier there's a perfectly legitimate philosophy for not including extra paraphernalia in the compact class. You either buy into it or not. Similarly, I'm extremely unlikely to use whatever bag comes with a bin no matter what. I have accumulated some very useful Lowe Pro pockets and can easily get MOLLE (MOdular Light-weight Load -carrying Equipment) compliant pouches for my 5.11 2 Banger bag if needs be for compacts. Bubble wrap is an excellent, cheap and replacable impact cushion. Also a few sachets of dessicant thrown in for good measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveP View Post
Perhaps get to try some Hawke bins. They suit me very well such as my Sapphire 8x43 ED but then I don't wear specs so I am fortunate not to be limited by this issue. I don't really know how anyone can enjoy a binocular while wearing glasses but then I suppose if needs must then it's different. I certainly don't like the sound of potentially damaging expensive eyewear.
Yes, Hawke seem very well respected and plenty of bang for buck. Some of their models have excellent ER I believe. I'm afraid to say, 'Needs must when the devil drives' on this one. The devil has the car keys on this occasion. Yeah, eyes permitting, I would look to avoid having to switch to new glasses for a good few years yet. New, flatter fronted frames however might 'buy' me 2-3 mm in ER. That's about £250 per mm ! Binocular I expect to last at least a decade of use and being jostled around in my EDC. Where's the balance of economies in that equation? I'm too tired to think it through right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveP View Post
BTW My Pentax was an ebay bin I bought for £19. It was out of colimation, basically seemingly thrown together by whoever assembled it. I dismantled, collimated and reassembled and now I have to say it's kind of one of my favourite bins because it seems to have the colour/contrast recipe very nicely implemented. It's perhaps very slightly on the warm side but I like that as opposed to the RSPB which veers to the cooler side. My other Pentax is the famous Papilio 6.5x21 but this is on the cooler side also.
Working on something is a tremendous way to bomd with it I find. The critical fractions involved in a re-colimation must be nerve wracking. I'll have to see it done on Youtube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveP View Post
Getting a bin where you enjoy it's white balance is very nice as I'm sure you will know well from photography. I would try and pay attention to this some also but I'm sure you will know what you like when you see it..
Yes, it is. Less so in an age of auto wb which in theory is all set against the tried and trusted 18% grey card. Nothing can top that and was part of my wider kit as a technician. Caste is different though. On a bin it is what it is. No B&W filter threads for Cokin system rigs etc. I personally favour the sort of National Geographic rich saturation which comes from deliberate under/over exposure on E6/c41. Nowadays it can be graded and histograms biased in a post production suite.

On a bin I would be inclined to believe that this saturation comes at the opportunity cost of some brightness. One of the limitations of this bin I have is that it's dawn and dusk performance is pretty impressive at the expense of saturation and, to some extent, contrast. Deep blacks therefore look grey and detail is clipped out at the top end.

No getting round the laws of physics right? Colour rendition and how it pleases the eye is as personal as smell or touch. A manufacturer must have to make a judgement call on it's coatings and how this will impinge on the final image.

Real? There is, imho, 'real' once you put the acetate in the first bath of dev as you can pull or push the timings to suit. The decisions are creative from the second you hit the shutter button. Same with the second it comes down the firewire cable etc.
Real, in the moment, with a binocular is as real as it gets. Chose your coatings accordingly right?

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd January 2017, 23:42   #45
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Hermann, GG and Alexis.

I'm inclined to think Leica have dropped the ball with such a short ER on their 8x32 UV+ in relation to some of other makers who seem to have got it figured at that price point Zeiss/Swaro etc. or, in some cases, much lower.
I know the UV+ is only a relative tweak rather than a new chassis design and that chassis appears to have been around for quite a while now. It's like their trying to squueze absolutely every drop of performance they can out of that chassic before moving on. Fair play.

You don't turn a huge 'ship' like Leica around on a sixpence and their reputation perhaps permits them to sit a little behind the curve and be a little more contemplative about their design priorities. But the same could be said of the other prestige marques. (I may be coming across all anti Leica but in fact I love their classic and timeless designs as I've said elsewhere)
As I see it (no doubt wrongly) MOST people aren't buying Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski for cutting edge, zeitgeist increments. That's what Nikon apparently does so well. It appears to be more of an 'esprit de corps' thang.

ER is just another parameter that offers no interest to non glass wearers but is almost paramount to those that do wear glasses. Even then I believe we generally get more long sighted as we age so it's then about latitude past infinity, as was explained to me earlier, than ER.



Hawke offer 18mm of (nominal) ER on their 8x32 Endurance and Sapphire lines and they're not alone.
I would lay good money Leica ups that metric in the next iteration of the UV and TV lines.....but in their own good time and not because a moany old git in the UK says so eh?
The lack of x32 in the Nv and Tv lines does however seem, well, a little uncompetitive in 2017 - glass wearer or no.

The NVs offer a seemingly generous 19mm albeit on a x42. So maybe 16-17mm on their next (now) tier two and three lines?
Anyone know when the 2017 brochures and catalogues are due for release across the makers as pdfs?

All the best

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd January 2017, 01:31   #46
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by looksharp65 View Post

I dismiss the idea that binocular magnification is about resolving power.
In theory, it's correct. But when I tested the ultra-sharp 10x32 FL against the equally sharp 8x30 E II, it was impossible to find any far and small detail the FL delivered that the E II didn't. Differences were non-existent.

I did not mount them on tripods, since that's not how binoculars are used, but I was sitting down with my elbows resting on a shelf, overlooking the Getterön nature reserve, stretching 2,5 kilometers from the observation point. That's the heureka moment when I gave up carrying two binoculars.



//L

Some very good points. Yes, I've misused 'resolving power'. Wrong context. (Slaps own wrist). I more correctly meant, 'Do you miss the additional magnification power of the 7x over the 8x?'


Meopro? But no 7xs.

The Meostars look very robust, almost military, which appears to be their raison d'etre.
I get that.
Jesse Ventura in Predator probably would have Meostars

Thanks LS for all of that.
Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd January 2017, 01:44   #47
Themoog
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kent
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Assembled in wherever may well be a more accurate description but these companies look at what the law allows (thats not just European but also USA and other territories' laws) and work within it.

Conquest HD optics were designed by Zeiss and the external appearance by KISKA. From info posted on here it appears kits of parts are sent to Germany where they are assembled, collimated and quality controlled.

According to information from a reliable optical engineer and repairer in Europe the latest Trinovids are also made from parts made in Japan. Probably this means they are assembled in Portugal from kits too. I expect that Leica designed the optics.

Lee
Amen to 'assembled'.

Talking of disparities between Europe and UK why the seemingly weakened guarantees in Europe? Are we notoriously cack-handed over this side of the pond or something?
It could be a sort of market culture thing where a product just won't get a look in over in The 'States if it's not backed by a rock solid warranty. Who knows eh?


Production chains appear to be a deep rabbit hole that's bordering on unfathomable. Best let the eyes and hands be the judge or that way madness beckons. Interesting though. I appreciate the input.

Tm
Themoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd January 2017, 09:42   #48
CliveP
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 833
This is all to easy for you Tim. Time to get down the shops in your wheelchair

For that compact Swaro (no lens caps) decision anticlimax, yawn. Actually I'd probably like one myself if it would be good enough to replace my beloved Viking Vistron 8x25, no longer produced but replaced by the Vistron Pro 8x32 (11cm long) which I would consider myself in future. You see my 8x20's are great for pockety type use but the Vistron 8x25 (non foldable single hinge and large full size focus wheel) delivers the most compactness while approaching full size bin view and performance that I have yet encountered but I suspect the Swaro may be at least the equal but really I'd want it to be clearly better. FYI Vixen still make the 8x25 equivalent of the Vistron but you are unlikely to find it locally I would think.

I always like to have a little guess and am perfectly fine about getting it wrong.

£250/mm on eyeglasses. Bloomin eck. Hallelujah I can see !!!



Oh, here's a crazy site if you are not already aware of it. Amazing graphs of some pricing trends on each model.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/N...kon-Binoculars


I also have a £30 Carson Scout 8x22 reverse porro and I am not ashamed to say that on a summers day this is a great ultra light compact to have along. The top end aren't the be (beginning) and end of all.

Last edited by CliveP : Monday 23rd January 2017 at 09:57.
CliveP is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd January 2017, 11:19   #49
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
Amen to 'assembled'.

Talking of disparities between Europe and UK why the seemingly weakened guarantees in Europe? Are we notoriously cack-handed over this side of the pond or something?

Tm
Here is how it has been explained to me. The EU in its wisdom requires that warranties be supported by spare parts made to the same specification as the parts originally used for manufacturing the product. This sounds fine but it has had an unintended consequence and that is that the manufacturers can't use improved components and have to keep a stock of components that are no longer used for production. In binocular terms this means keeping stocks of lenses and prisms for example with outdate coatings or profiles. So in Europe manufacturers are not inclined to sink cash into piles of components that can only be used if a warranty claim requires it. Hence we get 10 years while other territories get 30 years or lifetimes.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd January 2017, 19:03   #50
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themoog View Post
On a bin I would be inclined to believe that this saturation comes at the opportunity cost of some brightness. One of the limitations of this bin I have is that it's dawn and dusk performance is pretty impressive at the expense of saturation and, to some extent, contrast. Deep blacks therefore look grey and detail is clipped out at the top end.

No getting round the laws of physics right? Colour rendition and how it pleases the eye is as personal as smell or touch. A manufacturer must have to make a judgement call on it's coatings and how this will impinge on the final image.
I figure you might make use of two threads I started in 2012:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=233869
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=234596

My guesstimation is that the binocular whose name you avoid mentioning is a Zeiss FL. Right or wrong?

//L
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry

Last edited by looksharp65 : Monday 23rd January 2017 at 19:05.
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beginning digiscoping Tord S Eriksson Digiscoping Adapters 0 Sunday 12th October 2014 20:34
Gambia from the beginning! O.Reville1989 Gambia 17 Wednesday 13th March 2013 12:13
The beginning Pazardjick Say Hello 4 Sunday 1st January 2012 13:45

{googleads}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.37255311 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02.