8x30/32 porro suggestions? (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

Just checked the Habicht 7x42 close focus spec : 3.5m is pretty good for a Porro. Probably a fair bit better than a Nikon E 8x30; just checked, Henry Link found 17' for his in his EII review.

My Nikon E2 8x30 has 2m close focus, extremely close for a porro binoculars

 

[Pinewood]

My Nikon E2 8x30 has 2m close focus, extremely close for a porro binoculars

Hello Durobird,

At 2m, do you get eyestrain or other problems?

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[normjackson]

My Nikon E2 8x30 has 2m close focus, extremely close for a porro binoculars

That tallies with Henry's findings :

Review: 8x30 EII, 8x30 E, 8x32 SE

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I know only a few other obsessed optogeeks will wade through all this, so for you healthy ones here’s the short version: As others have already said, the Nikon 8x30 EII is an excellent binocular. Buy it while you can. Mechanical Quality-...

www.birdforum.net

I mentioned the E because that seems to be the model the OP is seriously considering and might be disappointed if he was looking for improvement over his Habicht 7x42.

 

[William Lewis]

As regards your questions about IF binoculars when go into cover, I guess you're satisfied with Yarrellii's and Hermann's responses. Still why not try some tests on your Habicht in subdued light to see what is an acceptable range of focus you can achieve with them after trying to set an "optimum focus" setting on them. If you're quite picky about sharpness and/or your accommodation is less than brilliant it's possible you'll find the range quite a bit less than you thought ie. the sharpness of objects even quite close together can be "tweaked" with a little movement of the focus ring. In conditions where there is very little light and your pupil is wide open (or with an inferior binocular) the range of "equivalent sharpness" might then extend again.

Just checked the Habicht 7x42 close focus spec : 3.5m is pretty good for a Porro. Probably a fair bit better than a Nikon E 8x30; just checked, Henry Link found 17' for his in his EII review.

Hopefully you're happy to tolerate some lateral colour since even the better wide angle models here under discussion will likely yield more than your narrower FOV 7x42.

Thanks Norm

I don't fully understand the mechanics of achieving a good depth of field enough to believe a test using my habichts would yield useful results, I'm ready to be enlightend! For example my current bins will focus on everything from 50ft to infinity once focused past 50ft however the 8x30 steiners will focus on everything from 20ft to infinity which gives me the impression that there native (if that's the correct term!) depth of field is greater than the habichts? Therefore they may be able to focus on everything from say 5ft to 30ft where as my habichts certainly can't.

It seems from my experience of using binoculars that the vast majority of the focus travel is used from close focus to say 30ft with the remaining third from there to infinity.

Incidentally the habichts are still performing well, they got every native species of covid with the exception of chough and raven out of a small London woodland today in a walk with some friends, a few others with the highlight being a gold crest, not rare but still only an every 6 monther for me.

 

[BKoh]

For example my current bins will focus on everything from 50ft to infinity once focused past 50ft however the 8x30 steiners will focus on everything from 20ft to infinity which gives me the impression that there native (if that's the correct term!) depth of field is greater than the habichts? Therefore they may be able to focus on everything from say 5ft to 30ft where as my habichts certainly can't.

There has been some past debate about depth of field for binoculars. Tests by experienced observers agreed with calculations that depth of field depends only on magnification. In other words the Steiner has no magic sauce, any 8x30 binocular will have the same depth of field. Certainly a 8x30 Habicht will match the 8x30 Steiners for depth of field and outperform them for brightness and central resolution.

If a binocular's field curvature happens to coincide with the scene being viewed, it could appear to have extraordinary depth of field. But that can happen with any binocular.

Steiner's "auto focus" is a marketing lie that relies on your own eyes to adjust/accommodate for things that are slightly out of focus. All binoculars work the same way.

 

[normjackson]

Hi William. Talk of "depth of field" in binoculars tends to bring in discussions on accomodation, users' acuity of vision, field curvature, speed of focus, "sharpness" of binocular ("snapping into focus") and a plethora of other things I've forgotten. As one tries to be more specific and scientific about defining it, one tends to end up with something of less practical application.

I think there is a general consensus that a greater "apparent depth of field" tends to come from an optical device nearest to unaided vision : low magnification and wide field of view.

In certain situations field curvature can help by, say, bringing ducks on water at the bottom of the field of view and nearer the viewer into focus which a flat field binocular wouldn't do.

Psychologically a slow focus mechanism might give the impression of more depth of field as well as a less sharp binocular or compromised eyesight which gives a greater range of "apparently equally in focus" (none of these options tending to be desirable for woodland birding).

The stricter more scientific definition would be about the centre of the field only. There was a discussion many years back on the Cloudynights forum where Jean-Charles Bouget, I think it was, presented a formula suggesting that (all other things being equal ) it was only magnification that should, theoretically affect depth of field. Henry Link did suggest an experiment trying to remove the user by taking photographs of an artificial star at different distances and measuring the diameter of the smear in a photo editing program. Maybe he decided that was too onerous an experiment to undertake and/or maybe he was later convinced by what he read. I believe Holger Merlitz in his book states that, as things stand, the understanding is that magnification is the primary factor in distinguishing "depth of field" between different optics.

I do wonder how much of the sharper appearance of background and foreground objects in a low power binocular is down to them simply being smaller because of the lesser magnification and whether at say 7x and 8x there is practically no difference in the actual amount of information being presented to the viewer.

Anyhoo, if the science if right, it should mean that the extra magnification of the Steiner IF binocular would make it more difficult to achieve a satisfactory focus for objects at, say, both 40 feet and infinity without adjusting focus than for your Habicht. And the same should apply if your interest is from say 11 feet (the minimum of your Habichts).

 

[William Lewis]

It's a depth of mine field by the sounds of it! Just to throw another spanner in the works for an expert to throw back - when I use a camera the depth of field is shallower with a larger aperture but deeper with a smaller aperture but by the logic explained above the opposite is true with binoculars, ie with a fixed objective a higher magnification will mean a smaller exit pupil but less depth of mine field!

 

[normjackson]

Well, all else being equal, a smaller effective exit pupil at same distance as larger one is expected to give more depth of field (or less blurry blurs) according to this diagram of JCB's :

https://www.cloudynights.com/uploads/monthly_12_2004/post-5538-14070922297337.jpg

But of course stopping down your binocular with masks to achieve this will also be dimming the image somewhat. Come to think of it, when substantially stopping down binoculars I tend to find that to achieve comfortable viewing one often needs to twist down the eyecups which might negate this effect...

Here's the original discussion from 2004 with some estimates on how available depth of field (with zero accommodation) varies with magnification and some later guesstimates on how it might be affected at different distances :

Depth of Field ? - Page 2 - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 2 of 2 - Depth of Field ? - posted in Binoculars: Jean-Charles,I think that in your example of the two 7X50s the light cones would not be identical. Imagine that one pair has an objective with a 147mm focal length and the other 210mm. The first will have a focal ratio of f/7 and the second...

www.cloudynights.com

Not sure whether these figures have been corroborated at all by experiment.

 

[Hermann]

I believe Holger Merlitz in his book states that, as things stand, the understanding is that magnification is the primary factor in distinguishing "depth of field" between different optics.

Absolutely correct:

"Zusammenfassend halten wir fest, dass die Schärfentiefe, die ein Beobachter mit seinem Fernglas erzielt, maßgeblich von seiner Akkomodationsbreite bestimmt wird, ferner von der Vergrößerung des Fernglases, und, in geringerem Maße, von dem Durchmesser der effektiven Austrittspupille."
(Merlitz ²2019, p. 157)

Hermann

 

[dorubird]

Hello Durobird,

At 2m, do you get eyestrain or other problems?

Stay safe,
Arthur

No eyestrain, the only problem is that I have to reduce the pupillary distance so that I can see well at 2m.

Back to topic "8x30/32 porro suggestions?"
Nikon E2 is my favorite 8x30 porro binoculars, so this is my recommendation in this class

 

[William Lewis]

Yeah I think that's the one I'm going to have a go with, looks decent and there's some good used ones about. There are some cheaper models that are only multi coated on 2 of there lenses but the reviews of those are not so great...

 

[William Lewis]

Hello

I've found a pair of 10x35e criterons for sale and given them a bid. No willing to pay a huge ammoun but think they may fit the bill nicely for a fair weather pair with the 7x42 habichts there when it's a bit dim or rainy.

We'll see...

 

[William Lewis]

View attachment DSC_0002.JPGView attachment DSC_0004.JPGView attachment DSC_0005.JPGView attachment DSC_0006.JPGTook delivery of the nikon 10x35 e c's today after work.

Not had much chance to try them out properly as yet but initial impressions are as to be expected i suppose!

Slightly but noticeably less bright than the habichts and ever so slightly less sharp.

Ca seems similar which is a relief as its one of my bug bears.

Details in good light slightly more visible due to the increased magnification (in good light!). Handling takes less effort, all controls are lighter but nice and smooth. Field of view looks the same but apparent field of view is much wider so its more immersive.

More kidney beans with the nikons.

Weight nikon 612g swaro 725g - it's noticeable but the habichts seem heavier due to the weight of the controls (I did remove the neck strap from the swaro when weighing).

Looking forward to giving them a spin for a few hours on a nice shiny day when the Nikons should offer the advantage I bought them for.

Cost of the swaro's £425 nikon's £180. The swaro's are late 2004 so have the swaro bight coatings. Nikons I would guess are late 90's as have the later coatings but hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will might chime in with a more accurate date!

I know I went slightly left field from the original thread title but think they will cover more bases in the end than an 8x mag for my uses.

Thanks as always for the advice.

Happy birding.

Will

 

[jring]

Hi Will,

congratulations to your new (to you) toy!
The 10x35E2 or E tends to make my index finger itch at times... unless I think of my SE 10x42 to stop the itch...

Enjoy the view!

Joachim

 

[Paultricounty]

Hello.

I'm drawing up a shortlist for binoculars to try as a pair to take out this summer. I currently use habicht 7x42's and am very happy with them but wondered if there are any models that I'm missing that would be worth a try in the 8x30 porro category? I'm looking for a decent 130/140m at 1000 meters field of view, better close focus and good glare suppression which kind of rules out the 8x30 habichts. I'm very sensitive to ca so good ca suppression is essential.

Water proof would be good but isn't essential. Must be a conventional prism porro (with the exception of I.s models) with 35mm to 30mm objectives and a minimum of 7x magnification. I don't wear glasses and have decent vision. Has anyone got any more to add to my list?

My current short list.

Opticron srga (had a pair previously, know them to be good, current favourite)

Nikon eii (seems to have got quite pricey recently)

Steiner 8x30 military marine(might not be good as has I.F) but I'd be interested to know from someone with experience using them if once changed from 20m to infinity focused down to say 5m to 30m that smaller range would all be in focus?

Swarovski habicht 8x30 but see glare comments above!

Are image stabilised models worth considering? I like the look of the cannon 8x42's but don't see anything on the market of the same quality in 8 x 30 format?

Am I missing any?

Thanks in advance.

Will

A lot of good advice here. I agree with most. The pinnacle in these suggestions is the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht. By far a top of the line optic. Don’t worry about the overstated and overhyped glare issue. Its a phenomenal set of binoculars. But also pricey.
Heres a good break down to consider;
1. Habicht, best & pricey.
2. Nikon 8x32SE excellent, ridiculously overpriced right now.
3. Nikon 8x30EII excellent, around $500 just as good as SE.
4. Nikon 8x30E C (criterion) very good , $288 nice clean one on eBay right now.


Paul

 

[William Lewis]

A lot of good advice here. I agree with most. The pinnacle in these suggestions is the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht. By far a top of the line optic. Don’t worry about the overstated and overhyped glare issue. Its a phenomenal set of binoculars. But also pricey.
Heres a good break down to consider;
1. Habicht, best & pricey.
2. Nikon 8x32SE excellent, ridiculously overpriced right now.
3. Nikon 8x30EII excellent, around $500 just as good as SE.
4. Nikon 8x30E C (criterion) very good , $288 nice clean one on eBay right now.


Paul

Hi Paul.

Yes, I think the Habicht or eii would have been my ideal choice but ho hum, other things to spend money on. The 7x42 habichts I've got are a great testament to what can be achieved optically at the expense of a degree of handling, within the field of view the sharpness is amazing and the lack of refocusing due to the deep depth of field is a great assistance in getting onto a bird. There actually one of the most effective birdwatching instruments I've used despite the narrow field.

I've heard broadly similar things about the eii's clarity but never been willing to bare the cost enough to look through one and therefore never tempted fate, just seems a bit greedy as they were so cheap a few years ago.

I've been out with the 10x35e criterion birding this weekend and am quite pleased with it, £180's worth of view anyway.

There were never going to have that precise sparkle that the habichts have I suppose, much more light gathering with the habichts, less mag, less glass, better cotings, less shake etc but the nikon can still generate more detail in decent light due to the increased mag (whilst keeping exactly the same fov). I think this will be quite useful for summer birding when it's often hunting for smaller birds mixed with lots of leaves, I mean the habichts would do so I suppose its hum ho, vive la difference! 1st world problems...

 

[pat mitchel]

how about the orion 8x30 ED? 8.1 deg FOV, 18mm ER- mag frame waterproof At one point in time APM was going to market the same thing , for some reason (cough* covid?) that one didn't come to market.

Orion 8x30 ED Waterproof Binoculars

The Orion 8x30 ED Waterproof Binocular features a retro porro prism look, Shop online - 100% satisfaction guaranteed!

www.telescope.com

Regards,Pat

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Paul.

Yes, I think the Habicht or eii would have been my ideal choice but ho hum, other things to spend money on. The 7x42 habichts I've got are a great testament to what can be achieved optically at the expense of a degree of handling, within the field of view the sharpness is amazing and the lack of refocusing due to the deep depth of field is a great assistance in getting onto a bird. There actually one of the most effective birdwatching instruments I've used despite the narrow field.

I've heard broadly similar things about the eii's clarity but never been willing to bare the cost enough to look through one and therefore never tempted fate, just seems a bit greedy as they were so cheap a few years ago.

I've been out with the 10x35e criterion birding this weekend and am quite pleased with it, £180's worth of view anyway.

There were never going to have that precise sparkle that the habichts have I suppose, much more light gathering with the habichts, less mag, less glass, better cotings, less shake etc but the nikon can still generate more detail in decent light due to the increased mag (whilst keeping exactly the same fov). I think this will be quite useful for summer birding when it's often hunting for smaller birds mixed with lots of leaves, I mean the habichts would do so I suppose its hum ho, vive la difference! 1st world problems...

Sounds like you got it all covered. The 10x35EC are very nice binoculars are are not at all far off from the EII At all. And you can’t beat that price for that quality. The 7x42 Habicht’s fills Habicht need, 8x30 not needed if you have the 7 and now the Nikon 10. Enjoy the new glass. Post a few pics.
Paul

 

[Fredin'Zona]

I'm appalled that no one had mentioned the Swift 8.5x44
Hard to find new since covid, but can be found on ebay.
Half the price of a Swarovski and just as good or better optically.
I have the 820ED and it is superb. Only 24oz and it's water dunk proof nitrogen filled.

 

[Paultricounty]

I'm appalled that no one had mentioned the Swift 8.5x44
Hard to find new since covid, but can be found on ebay.
Half the price of a Swarovski and just as good or better optically.
I have the 820ED and it is superb. Only 24oz and it's water dunk proof nitrogen filled.

Welcome to BF. Your appalled, and you only joined yesterday.