[Tero]

This is a new model, may not be in stores. I am anxious to hear about it. It is not phase coated, but FOV is good in both 8x and 10x. Price is under 100, as this is not top optics, obviously.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp...rch=1&pid=4534

the eye relief of other Nikon models, Sportstar etc may be better. I think the compactness and simplicity here is a selling point.

Does it have two hinges?

I am quite happy with my ProStaff porros, but I am still looking for a smaller bin that I would basically carry at all times. In my coat pocket.

[ceasar]

The picture shows it to be very similar to the discontinued Sportstar I. ER and FOV are the same. Cosmetically the double hinges are longer. My Sportstar is a pretty good binocular with a wide and bright field; a bit fuzzy toward the far edges. It's surprisingly good for the price (at that time) of $59.00. I've paid alot more for binoculars that were alot worse. This new model at $79.00 is definitely worth a try!
Bob

[FrankD]

Ditto on what Bob stated. The new Trailblazer is just a remake of the previous Sportstar configuration...the Sportstar III. Field of view, eye relief (10 mm), etc.. are all the same. The only difference is the design of the package that Nikon decided to put the optics in. Nikon's improvment on that concept came in the Sportstar IV which has 15 mm of eye relief but a narrower field of view....330-340 feet at 1000 yards...if memory serves me.

[Tero]

I never did find these, but if anyone is interested, I would stick to 8x. Nikon does not make a good 10x25 in this price class. There are several other brands that have these small 8x25s for around a 100 dollars, some even less. I got some Minoltas and though only water resistant, are good enough for me.

[Tero]

I would disagree with the remade Sportstar evaluation, and also my own statement above. I would say these are an improvement. The 10x25 Trailblazer
Field of View 342 ft./100 yds. BEST I FOUND of all compacts
Eye Relief 10 mm
Close Focus 8.2 ft.
Weight oz.
Dimensions (HXW) in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

It is typical in eye relief and weight for compacts, but unlike the Sporstar 10x25 these I could use. Not super optics, but much better than 90% of the compacts out there.

The 8x25
Field of View 429 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 10 mm
Close Focus 8.2 ft.
Weight oz.
Dimensions (HXW) in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproo

[richt]

The 8x25
Field of View 429 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 10 mm
Close Focus 8.2 ft.
Weight oz.
Dimensions (HXW) in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproo[/quote]


Hi Tero again

Basically looking at the above specs and having looked at a picture these seem very similar to Brunton Echo 8 x 25 or Tech Lite as they were previously known
A pleasant handy roof from my experience not earth shattering and with limitations on eye relief etc but solid built and useable without desperately having to worry over cost

Regards
RichT

[Tero]

I should point out that one can never expect the clarity of a Zeiss Nikon high grade or Leica, but these Trailblazers don't drive me nuts trying to focus the way the Sportstar 10x did. The 8x will be the preferred for most. There the clarity will be quite comparable to even some phase coated low end stuff, like Pentax 8x25.
***

OK, I have the 10x25 now. About the same cost as a sweater for my wife. May even last a year longer than the sweater.

[FrankD]

Hmm, I wonder if this means an upgrade in coatings, glass or both. Now you have me interested in checking them out as I am quite fond of my 8x25 Sportstars.

[Tero]

The lenses are multicoated, but the 10x still suffers from typical dimness in winter. Not that it did not bring out enough color on a cloudy day to ID birds.

[FrankD]

The Sportstar IVs were multicoated as well but I would be curious if they increased the quality of the coatings. I guess I will have to grab my Sportstars and head down to Cabelas to see if they have the Trailblazers in stock to compare.

[Tero]

Well, the Trailblaser passed my ETS test. I was able to see the cheek patch of an ETS, our local specialty, at a longer distance than with 8x. Also same for black wing tips of gulls on a partly sunny day. I really like my 8x pocket Minoltas as well. Both were fine today. The eye cups on the Nikon have to be half way in so you don't see the rim of the cups, and there eye relief is pretty small. My Minoltas are not that way, I see the full view with cups all the way out. Looking across the river, 500 m or so, the view was starting to lose some clarity. But hey, it is not a 40mm Monarch.

I rate the 8x and 10x higher than Bushnell Excursion 28mm models. But you have to put up with a double hinge.

[Tero]

Though this pair does not drive me nuts, I just have no use for them. Will sell or return. The dimness would keep me from trying the 10x again. The 8x is the better choice here (but I already have a different 8x25 pocket).