I get plenty of "wow" factor with my Zeiss Victory 10x25's to the point where I use them most often of the three decent sets of bins that I own (Nikon SE 8x32 and Canon 10x30 IS). Why do I use them more? Because I always have them with me in the car. I looked at the 8x20 size but as these were bought for daytime use and are easy for me to hold steady I wanted the additional magnification over the FOV. Then again, I bought these for general use not, specifically, birding.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Can a small bino really deliver? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Super Dave
- Start date
After a LONG search for a perfect compact I found the Nikon 8x25 Prostaff. My favorite compact and it will outperform the alpha roofs for only $120.00. A little reverse porro with rubber armouring conventional style and waterproof to boot. 3mm exit pupils so it is not fussy at all and good Nikon optics. Much like a small Nikon Monarch 8x42. Very nice little binoculars.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Yeah, I suspect Dennis has resorted to some hyperbole, again. The Prostaff 8x25 is quite nice, a fine choice. I had one for a week, side by side with an 8x20 Ultravid and the Olympus Tracker. In the end I returned the Prostaff. They were no better and were quite a bit chunkier/heavier. At that size/weight I decided I'd rather just take the 8x32 FL instead. If I want to take a compact, it better be COMPACT.
Mark
The topic of this thread though, "Can a small bino really deliver?", the answer is yes, if you're willing to buy top of the line 8x20's or 10x25's. I think if you're carrying reverse porro bins like the Prostaffs you might as well carry a small 8x32 as Kammerdiner points out.
KorHaan
Well-known member
No, I'm sorry to have to disagree here, the exit pupil of the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 being 3.2mm is easier on the eye than the 2.5mm of the top of the line compacts. The weight of 300 grams is a lot less than even 535 grams of a Leica Ultravid 8x32, noticeable for me anyway. The FOV of 131m/1000m is outstanding for a compact. I dare say the 6.5x21 Papilio's are a better all-round binocular than the top 8x32's, if you want to go lightweight during the day.
I've grown quite fond of them lately, as you can tell o
Best regards,
Ronald
Hermann
Well-known member
I agree. Although, after looking at a few alpha compacts with small exit pupils, I feel a compact that is "just right" for you can also be quite easy on the eye. If the size of the eyecups, their depth, the way the binoculars handle in the field and so on are just perfect for you, even a 2.5mm exit pupil may be enough.
I totally agree. Keeping the weight down is really important when you're birding the whole day and expect to use your binoculars almost all the time.
Well, 131m/1000m amounts to a TFOV of 48.7 degrees - and that feels like a bit like a tunnel to me. I tried the Papilo, and the field of view just wasn't good enough for me.
But only if - and that's a big if - the weight is of utmost importance. Any top 8x32 will run circles around the Papilo. I also think the best alpha compacts (Leica, Nikon, Zeiss) have got somewat better optics. Alright, the Papilo I tried for a few days in the field may have been a lemon, but I wasn't *that* impressed. I thought it was nice, but not really great.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
No, it won't. It's ok for the price, but it won't outperform the Leica and the Nikon HG. No way.
Hermann
KorHaan
Well-known member
Hermann,
Weight is of utmost importance for me, right now, but I should have mentioned that of course when I made my bold statement, sorry, my bad. The 8x32 roofs are waterproof and that's just about the only thing I'm missing in the Papilio's right now. I like the 6.5x mag a lot, actually. Rain won't stop me from using them, they're small enough to keep under my jacket.
I haven't looked through a HD 8x32 lately, but as it is, I like the image in the Papilio's better than the 7x42 FL's I had. Hard to imagine, I know, it's just that my eyes seem to be different than everybody elses'.
Best regards,
Ronald
It did for me! That's shows you binoculars are a real personal thing. I even ordered the Nikon 10x25 HG from Amazon to compare them and the eye relief was to great making me hold the binoculars away from my eyes. That is a real deal killer for me I can't stand it. To me the Prostaff's are way less fussy with their 3.1mm exit pupil versus 2.5mm for the alpha roofs. I think the comparison is like the Nikon SE 8x32 compared to the alpha roofs like the Zeiss 8x32 FL's. A cheaper porro will perform ,as well as, a more expensive roof every time because they are way easier and cheaper to manufacture. Porro's also transmit more light generally than a roof so that's why I think the Prostaff's hold their own against the alpha compact roofs. I also preferred the feel of the Prostaff's in my hands versus the Nikon 10x25 HG's and I definitely liked the single hinge adjustment of IPD on the Prostaff versus the double hinge of the alpha roofs. I had a pair of Leica 8x20 Ultravids once that I bought on E-bay new for $380.00 and OH MY GOD I put them On E-bay for sale the next day I had so many blackouts with them and they were so FUSSY. Just a real PIA!
It put my back out! I am still paying Chiropractor bills. I slipped and it wrenched my back. I had to get something lighter. It does have great optics though just to darn heavy. I kind of blame Henry for pushing those monsters. You get seduced by the view but their dangerous!
KorHaan
Well-known member
looksharp65
Well-known member
What about Fujifilm/Fujinon Offroad 32mm models? At least they are featherweight!
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/binoculars/offroad-series/index.html
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/binoculars/offroad-series/index.html
keithdrengen
Well-known member
So even when the eyepupil is small like 3.5 mm, a 10x50 binocular will have greater contrast and resolution than a 10x35?
C J
soloflyfisher
Active member
I just picked up a pair of Leica 8X20 ultravids last night and so far am quite impressed. They don't have the field of view or brightness of larger binoculars of course, but they are far lighter than even my 8X32s and have great optics given the small size of the objectives. Sure, the view through bigger binoculars, with bigger exit pupils, is better . . . but not when the bigger binoculars are stuffed in my backpack or sitting on a shelf at home! I got the compacts because, thanks to their light weight, I can carry them around longer and in more situations. I think these binoculars will deliver simply because they'll be with me more often than my larger binoculars and in situations when I would otherwise not have binoculars with me. For serious birding, I'll still use my bigger binoculars, which do have a bigger FOV, bigger exit pupils, and a brighter image. But when I'm hiking or fishing or walking downtown in a foreign city these compacts are the binoculars that will be with me and that will give me the chance to get a bit closer look at a bird that I'd otherwise be viewing just through the naked eye.
I can't imagine buying compacts for a main birding binocular, but for go-everywhere companions, the compacts are just the ticket. The correct comparison isn't between compacts and bigger binoculars, it's between compacts and no binoculars. And in that comparison, the compacts win out hands down.
I can't imagine buying compacts for a main birding binocular, but for go-everywhere companions, the compacts are just the ticket. The correct comparison isn't between compacts and bigger binoculars, it's between compacts and no binoculars. And in that comparison, the compacts win out hands down.
