[barry robson]

I understand that the new Minox HG's are now on sale on the www.newprouk.co.uk web site and they look great - if they are better than my BD 10x52 BRs then they must be pretty good and at the quoted prices a great buy!

Any one any where any experience they can pass on?

B

[mook]

Hi Barry,

I was checking out all the HG features on Minox's website just last week - must say I like what I see.

I've just recently got the 8x32 asph's and have been delighted with how sharp the view through them is, depth of field is a tad shallow, but the image is excellent - well worth the money!

Cheers,

Mook.

[gr8fuldoug]

Originally Posted by barry robson

I understand that the new Minox HG's are now on sale on the www.newprouk.co.uk web site and they look great - if they are better than my BD 10x52 BRs then they must be pretty good and at the quoted prices a great buy!

Any one any where any experience they can pass on?

B

We just received these yesterday and this morning I did a stack test with the 8.5x43 HG & a Leica Ultravid 8x42. I must say they were unbelieveably close to the point that I really had to stretch to see any difference, however, with the Minox at less than half the price that difference is very obvious :>)

[matt green]

Originally Posted by gr8fuldoug

We just received these yesterday and this morning I did a stack test with the 8.5x43 HG & a Leica Ultravid 8x42. I must say they were unbelieveably close to the point that I really had to stretch to see any difference, however, with the Minox at less than half the price that difference is very obvious :>)

how did you find that metal focus wheel?..bit of an oddball feature?

did you find any of the classic niggle points that birders love to find on new
products,i'm specifically thinking about eyecup design,focus movement/speed
build quality etc.

matt

[trealawboy]

Originally Posted by matt green

how did you find that metal focus wheel?..bit of an oddball feature?

did you find any of the classic niggle points that birders love to find on new
products,i'm specifically thinking about eyecup design,focus movement/speed
build quality etc.

matt

Yep, I'd be interested to learn about the focus mechanics. Looking at other Minox bins at the Birdfair last year, I'd say that was the only feature I didn't like about them. Somewhat soft with a lot of play I found. Nothing like the super smooth Nikon HG focus I'm used too.

[barry robson]

Interesting re the focus mechanism - having tried both Leica and Swaros, the focus mechanism on my Minox beats them hands down, The top bins were stiff and jerky making focussing difficult.

B

[solentbirder]

Originally Posted by barry robson

Interesting re the focus mechanism - having tried both Leica and Swaros, the focus mechanism on my Minox beats them hands down, The top bins were stiff and jerky making focussing difficult.

B

Yes, that caught my attention too. I've got a Minox 10x52 and a Nikon 8x32 HG. Mine are equally good although I actually prefer the Minox focussing as it's a bit slower than the Nikon.

[gr8fuldoug]

Originally Posted by matt green

how did you find that metal focus wheel?..bit of an oddball feature?

did you find any of the classic niggle points that birders love to find on new
products,i'm specifically thinking about eyecup design,focus movement/speed
build quality etc.

matt

Matt,
Actually, the focus wheel feels rather nice. It has the little nubbies on it so it is a non-slip surface and with the distance scale on it I can tell you that my door knob is 3 yards from my chair and when it was installed it was put in upside down as the keyhole is upside down (yes, it focused super sharp @ 3 yards)

The eyecups spin out in three steps that click softly into place. The first two positions can fairly easily push down, the top position holds tight when pushed on.

The focus, center wheel and right eyepiece, are extremely smooth. The overall size is reasonably small, like an Ultravid.
Overall, I give these a 2 thumbs up. Adding in the lower cost to equal glass I think Minox has a huge success in these glasses.

[MacGee]

Originally Posted by mook

...depth of field is a tad shallow...

Mook, I've been thinking of getting these and have been a bit put off by reports of the shallow depth of field. How have they worked out in practice?

[mook]

Hi MacGee,

I didn't have any real problems with the shallow depth of field - the image itself was very sharp & the focussing action was nice and smooth, so if you don't mind adjusting the focus a tad here & there, it's not a big deal.

Notice I'm talking in the past tense.....I no longer have the Minox 8x32 BR's - I really do prefer 10x bins. I'm now using Zeiss 10x40 BT* which I love beyond reason (always wanted a pair). I'd say the Minox's were a tad brighter than the Zeiss, but the Zeiss are just as sharp - not bad at all considering they're not phase coated. I have yet to find a binocular that is as well balanced as the Zeiss 10x40 - my main gripe about the Minox 8x32 BR's was that they felt a lot heavier than they were - balance I suppose, all that glass tightly packed together, whereas the weight distribution in the Zeiss is (to me) perfect.

I'd recommend trying the Minox's - they are quality binoculars, you just need to make sure they suit you, but for price/performance they should be on your shortlist.

Cheers,

Mook.

[barry robson]

Hi Mook
interesting comments - I've always had 10x bins and am waiting to try the new HG's to see just how good they are. I'm interested in the weight as much as the optics as my BR's are a tad heavy. Having spent the summer helping out with the RSPB harrier 24 hour watch, I found that long spells of tracking the birds as they circled the breeding area left me with aching arms! As a matter of interest, 10x seem to be the norm amongst the watchers up here on the fells where the birds can be well over 1/2 mile or more away.
Cheers
B

[MacGee]

Originally Posted by mook

Hi MacGee,

I didn't have any real problems with the shallow depth of field - the image itself was very sharp & the focussing action was nice and smooth, so if you don't mind adjusting the focus a tad here & there, it's not a big deal.

Notice I'm talking in the past tense.....I no longer have the Minox 8x32 BR's - I really do prefer 10x bins. I'm now using Zeiss 10x40 BT* which I love beyond reason (always wanted a pair). I'd say the Minox's were a tad brighter than the Zeiss, but the Zeiss are just as sharp - not bad at all considering they're not phase coated. I have yet to find a binocular that is as well balanced as the Zeiss 10x40 - my main gripe about the Minox 8x32 BR's was that they felt a lot heavier than they were - balance I suppose, all that glass tightly packed together, whereas the weight distribution in the Zeiss is (to me) perfect.

I'd recommend trying the Minox's - they are quality binoculars, you just need to make sure they suit you, but for price/performance they should be on your shortlist.

Cheers,

Mook.

Thanks, Mook. That's interesting, especially as the other pair I'm considering are the Zeiss 8x30 BT*. You've now set me leaning more towards the Zeiss.

This page suggests your 10x40s have phase correction. That's the same as phase coating, isn't it? I'm still grappling with the terminology.

MacGee.

[solentbirder]

Originally Posted by MacGee

Thanks, Mook. That's interesting, especially as the other pair I'm considering are the Zeiss 8x30 BT*. You've now set me leaning more towards the Zeiss.

This page suggests your 10x40s have phase correction. That's the same as phase coating, isn't it? I'm still grappling with the terminology.

MacGee.

I think the phase coated version of the Zeiss 10x40 is marked T*P*. The lack of the 'P' shows an earlier non-phase coated model. Hope that helps.

[mook]

Solentbirder is correct - my Zeiss are the older Dialyt B T* not the current Conquest model. The later phase corrected/coated versions had the extra 'P' moniker. So, performance-wise, they are fantastic in still being able to hold their own against more modern optical designs.

I compared the Zeiss side by side with Leica 10x42 BA's and could find no appreciable difference in optical performance - both sharpness & brightness. To me, the Zeiss had a slightly wider field of view (though figures would suggest not) & were just so much more comfortable & balanced in the hand. I suspect the eyecups have a part to play in the view - pop out eyecups (I don't wear specs) always seem to give me a tunnel like view. The Zeiss rubber eyecups are very comfortable & the view doesn't feel 'restricted' in any way.

Just my own findings really - but now that I've got the Zeiss 10x40 B T*'s, I will not part with them.

Cheers,

Mook.

[MacGee]

Originally Posted by mook

Solentbirder is correct - my Zeiss are the older Dialyt B T* not the current Conquest model. The later phase corrected/coated versions had the extra 'P' moniker.

Thanks to both of you for putting me right. I'll keep quiet now until I know whereof I speak.

MacGee.

[barry robson]

All very interesting, but there is a forum for Zeiss - can we get back to the Minox HGs PLEASE? Unable to get to the Bird Fair to try them - anyone had a go?

B

[mook]

MacGee - it does get very confusing at times! So many models/designations... not to worry, it'll only get worse!

Barry - you're right (d'oh!), though it did start out as a mini comparison 'tween Minox & Zeiss.....then we all got confused!!

Where are the MINOX HG's !!??

The 10x43 remind me a little of my Zeiss...D'oh!! not again.....

Cheers,

Mook.

[barry robson]

Mook

you're right - it can only get worse - why don't they just call the Zeiss (oops) 1, 2, 3, 4 etc and then you'd know whether you had the most recent model or not. Let's be honest, most of us don't know what all the letters mean anyway. Its getting as bad as cars - mine is officially a CRTD CDX 4WD for pete's sake - what does it all mean when the only important thing is you need to know it's a diesel!

Anyway, deep breaths and lie down in a darkened room for 10 minutes.
Or take a drop more water with it…
B

[mook]

You said it!

I suppose it helps when there's a name, ie. Conquest, Legend, Venturer etc. - but then they decide to call them different names in different markets around the globe & you're back where you started! Or they introduce a newer model & its MkII, MkIII, etc, etc...(thank you Swarovski SLC). In the end, you end up going by the styling - the ones with the....rubber eyecups/winged eyecups/twist-out eyecups....the rubber/leather ones (let's not go there)....

Even Minox....BD BR, BD BL, HG ?....that's Nikon - isn't it..??

Oh well, pass the bottle....that'll do for now.....

Cheers!!

Mook.

PS. Thankfully, I haven't got a car to get confused about.....& my girlfriend's is a Micra....err, that's all....oh, petrol....it goes....nuff said.

[jeepnut]

I am the happy owner of a pair of Minox HG 8.5x52 BR binoculars. They produce a very sharp, bright, clear image. The quick center focus (QCF) feature is better in practice than it sounds, the nurlized, (sharply, square-pattern-checkered) alloy, center focus knob turns easily with a gloved or mittened hand, with just the right amount of friction. I have used the binoculars on two, all-day, winter bird outtings here in Montana in the last month. The focus knob has a range finder that is scaled as follows: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100 (infinitey symbol) "yard" -- yes, YARD, the literature says meters, but the knob has the word "yard". In any case, you will not be able to use it as a range finder beyond 100 meters, but the scale is handy to dial in an approximate focus before viewing.

The diopter ring is very difficult to turn, but once it is adjusted it locks upon pushing it down. The diopter scale is only visible when the ring is in the raised (unlocked) position, it has a marked center point but does not have +/- indicators, you are on your own to figure that part out.

On the down side, the one-peice, eyepeice cover is soft rubber with a strap-like bridge connecting the cups -- removing it in a hurry takes some practice because it acts like two eyecups attached by a rubber band, each cap needs to be individually removed.

There are no objective lense covers -- period! The case is padded vinyl with an awkward plastic buckle that must by squeezed from both sides and pulled at the same time to unlatch it.

Regarding the lense covers and case, Minox could take a lesson from Pentax, with their one-peice, semi-rigid eyepeice cover and their padded ballistic cloth, velcro closure case, to say nothing of the non-existent objective covers.

I wear my binoculars around my neck, with the strap adjusted very short, all day long. I have become very fond of the entegral objective lense covers on Penatx DCF 8x43 SP binoculars, they hang from the front center pivot screw, out of they way, and are available for use instantly, I have used them a number of times when hiking in heavy brush or jeeping in dusty conditions, otherise they hang there out of the way but available.

There is no question in my mind that there are more Minox optics in my future. I got mine from gr8tfuldoug at http://www.cameralandny.com/ -- he has proven to be very competitative, honest, ethicle and easy to do business with, service after the sale counts.

Good Birding! jeepnut

[Big_Whip]

I'd really be interested in a comparison between the Minox HG 8.5x43 and the Vortex Razor 8x42 that have been getting so many good reviews lately. Maybe Doug has had a chance to stack these? I want to upgrade from my Pentax SP's, but don't have the funds for the top three. The Minox and Vortex are the last 2 on my short list - I guess I have a thing for x's.

[FrankD]

BW,

I would love to be able to compare the Minox HG 8.5x43 with the 8x42 Razor. My only real reservation with Minox bins in the past is their relatively narrow field of view. I know many of the full size and oversized lower cost Minox's had relatively narrow fields of view in comparison to many other bins in their price class. I seem to remember the full sized HGs also falling into this group but I could be mistaken. At the moment the Razors and the Meoptas are my two favorites in this price class though I still would enjoy comparing the HGs and possibly the Pentax EDs to them.

[Big_Whip]

Frank,

That is the one thing that worries me about the Minox. If I remember right, the field of view is about 340ft, compared to 410 on the Vortex. But that wise ol' Doug put a Minox HG brochure in with the spotting scope and rangefinder I got from him, so that "spend all my extra money" bug is kicking in again.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Big_Whip

Frank,

That is the one thing that worries me about the Minox. If I remember right, the field of view is about 340ft, compared to 410 on the Vortex. But that wise ol' Doug put a Minox HG brochure in with the spotting scope and rangefinder I got from him, so that "spend all my extra money" bug is kicking in again.

The Minox site lists the FOV at 6.1 degrees fo the HG 8.5 x 43, if my math is correct that is 364 ft. at 1000 yards.

Happy Trails, Jeepnut

[MacGee]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

..if my math is correct that is 364 ft. at 1000 yards.

Jeepnut, I make that 106m at 1000m, or 319 feet at 1000 yards.

Michael.