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 Rate Thread
Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:06   #26
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:11   #27
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.
Yes the Intrepid HD looks very much the same as the GPO. I had not caught that one yet.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:19   #28
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,333
Steve,

You are right there can be numerous of sources of glare, but the most common I've seen are either shiny internal surfaces, which can form a partial or total halo around the exit pupil (a production problem). Or alternatively the spurious reflections we usually call false pupils if they encroach on the exit pupil (a design problem). As our pupils dilate in low light both are increasingly likely to interfere with the view and centering the view becomes increasingly more critical if problems are to be avoided. It's likely to be more problematic with the 4.2mm EP of 10x42 than the 5.25mm of an 8x42.

I believe the ELSV 8x32, for instance, is a false pupil problem, but Franks original complaint about the Nikon M7 8x30 was shiney surfaces (which I've not encountered). However, the M7, Kite Lynx, and I've read the Maven B3, also have false pupils just outside the EP, which I've found can often be avoided with care.

I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:33   #29
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
Are these of a similar lineage as the Vortex Intrepid HD (with they understanding that they would not be manufactured and inspected in the same factory)? Outwardly they look to be the same model with minor differences in armoring and such.
I see what you mean, but I didn't see a mention of the dual HD elements or the screw threads for filters. It might be an oversight in the description but on the other hand if could mean a different design?

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:45   #30
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Do you testers get to keep the binoculars that you receive from GPO?
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th March 2017, 20:50   #31
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Yes the Intrepid HD looks very much the same as the GPO. I had not caught that one yet.
I'd guess, based on the high praise here for the GPO, that a similarity between the Intrepid is only that, a similarity. I fooled around with the Intrepid for a couple of hours one day and was largely unimpressed. I thought the Viper HD was noticeably better.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 00:13   #32
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
I have had the 8x42 HD for several days. It is a seemingly superb glass. I will save comments for my review, but my initial response is ..."glare?...what glare?" I happen to agree with Pesto's comment that this is a hard binocular not to like. The focus is as good as there is on any binocular. You can both feel and hear the eye cups sort of thunk into position, where they will remain until you take the effort to move them.

I'm going to do a series of reviews on the "new guy in town binoculars" Since I got the GPO first, it will be up first.
Steve:

What branders will be represented ?

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 01:00   #33
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Steve,

You are right there can be numerous of sources of glare, but the most common I've seen are either shiny internal surfaces, which can form a partial or total halo around the exit pupil (a production problem). Or alternatively the spurious reflections we usually call false pupils if they encroach on the exit pupil (a design problem). As our pupils dilate in low light both are increasingly likely to interfere with the view and centering the view becomes increasingly more critical if problems are to be avoided. It's likely to be more problematic with the 4.2mm EP of 10x42 than the 5.25mm of an 8x42.

I believe the ELSV 8x32, for instance, is a false pupil problem, but Franks original complaint about the Nikon M7 8x30 was shiney surfaces (which I've not encountered). However, the M7, Kite Lynx, and I've read the Maven B3, also have false pupils just outside the EP, which I've found can often be avoided with care.

I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David
David,

We are pretty much in agreement here. Yes, reflective surfaces are a problem. However, at a certain point, a point which it seems has certainly been reached here with the GPO HD is that reflective surfaces should no longer be an issue. So yes the EP diameter becomes more of an issue, as does eye relief. I guess I'm wondering at which point does due diligence in design and manufacture give over to personal physical differences,as I don't think the best design and QC will be able to rid all users of the same binocular of the glare problem.

So far the only real diagnosis I have done is to note the apparent total lack of reflective surfaces present in the GPO HD I have. The eye cups and eye cup extension seem just right for me, so placement is not an issue, probably significantly relating to my use.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 20th March 2017, 03:07   #34
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Quote:
I'm just asking if Peter, and others if can do a bit of diagnosis to understand if it's a manufacturing glitch or a feature the design, and to what degree it can be avoided.

David
David:

That's a very good question. IMO the glare control of the HD is quite similar to that of the SV 8x32, therefore I tend to believe it's a feature of the design. I discussed the glare issue of the SV 8x with engineers at Swaro, and was told that it's part of the design and they cannot do anything about it.
I want to be clear about this: the GPO HD is a very usable binocular, in normal use few will be bothered by glare in the 10x. However a careful observer will notice it, and after all GPO needs suggestions for the improvement of gen 2.....

Peter
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 03:15   #35
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Quote:
Do you testers get to keep the binoculars that you receive from GPO?
James: Would an unbiased reviewer do/accept that? There you have your answer. ///Peter
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 03:33   #36
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
One thing about the GPO HD that surprised me is the way it feels in the hand: it weighs about 840g (without rainguard & strap) but it feels well balanced and significantly lighter. I think this is due to weight distribution, similar to the SF. The wide well-padded GPO neck strap also makes it feel lighter around the neck.

Peter.
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 10:29   #37
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
I'd guess, based on the high praise here for the GPO, that a similarity between the Intrepid is only that, a similarity. I fooled around with the Intrepid for a couple of hours one day and was largely unimpressed. I thought the Viper HD was noticeably better.
I see. I just noticed the passing resemblance when I was browsing Cabela's online. I didn't really look much more into it than that.

That is disappointing regarding the Intrepid, though, given I'm normally quite pleased with Vortex optics.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 15:19   #38
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Regarding glare testing in any binocular.

A hemisphere has 20,000 sq deg (20,626).
Glare could come from 30 deg or even 45 deg off axis.
So one needs to examine 3,000 sq deg or more.
The source of the problem may be in an area of 10 sq. deg.
So one needs to examine 300 positions.

One needs to have the intensity of the source varied, say from Moon to Sun brightness. This is 7 illumination levels of 10x increasing intensity.

So 2,000 variables for each sample binocular.

In addition, there are the variables mentioned in this thread. exit pupil, eye pupil, IPD, eye position etc., so maybe 20,000 variables per binocular sample.

The above are of course approximations, but give an idea of the testing needed to get a full glare result.

One can get suggestions from reviewers, particularly about the central portion of the field.

I typically test the central 200 sq deg.

But the only way to know is to test a binocular yourself.
And samples vary, production varies over time etc.

I often use binoculars that have glare problems, but I like them overall.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 18:04   #39
gr8fuldoug
Camera Land

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 517
Just a heads up, GPO is going to sponsor the Camera Land May Web give-away so make sure you enter.
We too have been getting some great feedback from folks reviewing the offerings from GPO and are excited to be offering their products.
__________________
Have a great day,
Doug
Please visit our website @ www.cameralandny.com
516-217-1000
gr8fuldoug is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 21:53   #40
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Doug: Thanks for the heads-up///Peter
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 22:00   #41
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Binastro:

With your use of squared angles (azimuth x elevation) you made it sound more complicated than it actually is. Give me any bin and I can tell you in a matter of seconds if it has a potential glare issue by simply looking at the (lower edge of) EP. Then I need to look through the bins a few extra minutes to confirm that. Determining the cause of the glare is the really complicated matter.

Peter
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 22:01   #42
Bajjanamnam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: öland
Posts: 1
No one buyes a binocular these days with such a shitty FOV. it's just another weak japanese clone.
Bajjanamnam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 22:05   #43
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Quote:
No one buyes a binocular these days with such a shitty FOV. it's just another weak japanese clone.
The FoV of the HD 10x42 is 6.4*, not the 7* of the SF 10x or the EII 10x35 but anyway quite competitive. Anyway, welcome to the BF, if you really exist...

Last edited by PeterPS : Tuesday 21st March 2017 at 14:05.
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th March 2017, 22:28   #44
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajjanamnam View Post
No one buyes a binocular these days with such a shitty FOV. it's just another weak japanese clone.
Wow Bajjanamnam, you have only one opportunity to make a first appearance and so you did.

Without looking trough it and or even ever having it in your hands your conclusion is that it is just another weak japanese clone.

Welcome to Birdforum.

Could you shine your light on the weak part?

Jan
jan van daalen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 04:38   #45
mjensen6577
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajjanamnam View Post
No one buyes a binocular these days with such a shitty FOV. it's just another weak japanese clone.
Whoa... that was a zinger, welcome to BF. I agree with Jan, very curious, please elaborate.
mjensen6577 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 04:53   #46
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,740
It is a surprisingly "unladylike" comment.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 09:15   #47
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajjanamnam View Post
No one buyes a binocular these days with such a shitty FOV. it's just another weak japanese clone.
Hej Bajja

It is a long time since I was in your beautiful country visiting the national reserve of Store Mosse in Smaland.

The field of view of 112m isn't so far from for example the 115m of Zeiss Conquest so it is quite competitive.

And FOV isn't the only way to judge a pair of binos. You should try a pair before deciding what they are like.

Hej da

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 10:21   #48
jan van daalen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: maarssen holland
Posts: 1,654
Yep, looks to me that building quality, decent coatings, edge and contrast performance, the company behind the product etc etc are as important as a decent FOV. IMO BTW nothing wrong with this FOV.

I'm curious what drove him to this post.

Jan
jan van daalen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 10:44   #49
Racuuna
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: sweden
Posts: 91
If we focus on the binocular instead of that post by bajjanamnam.

You who have tried the gpo, how does it compare against other binoculars in its pricerange, like conquest, trinovid, meostar HD, maven, even the higher priced swarovision and noctivid.
How good is the sharpness/ resolution, size of sweetspoot, brightness etc.

Last edited by Racuuna : Tuesday 21st March 2017 at 12:02.
Racuuna is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st March 2017, 13:27   #50
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan van daalen View Post
Yep, looks to me that building quality, decent coatings, edge and contrast performance, the company behind the product etc etc are as important as a decent FOV. IMO BTW nothing wrong with this FOV.

I'm curious what drove him to this post.

Jan
I'm curious too., but hardly surprised. The Tract, Maven, and now GPO threads are full of negative comments made by people who have never even held these Kamakura manufactured binoculars in their hands, much less used and tested one themselves. Nothing new here with this crowd.
jgraider 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
Binoculars Habicht 10x40 and Zeiss Fl 10x42 vs. Nikon SE 10x42 and HGL 10x42 PHA Binoculars 8 Thursday 9th September 2010 23:00
Buying assistance: Nikon Premier 10x42, Swarovision 10x42, or Minox HG 10x52 sbpeugh Nikon 13 Thursday 11th March 2010 19:06
Nikon Monarch 10x42 or Vortex Vipers 10x42? MSG Reaver Binoculars 12 Thursday 26th March 2009 12:21
Helios Am 6 10x42 Versus Nikon Monarch 10x42 superhov Say Hello 9 Sunday 22nd February 2009 09:01
Bushnell 10x42 Discoverer or Olympus 10x42 EXWP pw53 Bushnell - Bausch & Lomb 1 Thursday 3rd May 2007 02:05



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.23795891 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59.