Close-focusing alpha field glasses (3 Viewers)

[Alexis Powell]

...Any 8x32s will get annoyingly-pigeontoed at 8 ft. but you can close one eye...

Not true in my experience. I find 8x32 roofs completely comfortable down to their near-focus limit (~4 ft) so long as they have few off-axis aberrations and the IPD is adjusted downward to match one's crossing eyes.

--AP

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Not true in my experience. I find 8x32 roofs completely comfortable down to their near-focus limit (~4 ft) so long as they have few off-axis aberrations and the IPD is adjusted downward to match one's crossing eyes.

--AP

I tried out 5 pairs of roofs before making that statement...today.
I found the "movie style figure-8" picture annoying and limited.
(pigeon-toed was less exact I suppose)
There's not much you can do about it...it is what it is.
You can adjust the IPD to gain some convergence, but you end up
using both fields off-axis. Not for me. A pair of reverse-porros does
what I want, until I switch to a monocular with macro focus.


Dr. Owl:

"
Is the Leica you mention the monocular Leica Monovid 8x20?

http://uk.leica-camera.com/Sport-Opt...onovid/Details
"
They make a different one for the macro lens...
I saw it at bhphotovideo. Still, many monoculars focus quite close.

"
If I cannot find a single do-everything pair of binoculars, a small monocular would be a far easier supplementary item to carry than a second pair of binoculars.
"
And very easy if it's a small monocular!

"
In fact, a new-found friend on the Forum has suggested, via private message, that the Zeiss 6x18 monocular could play a similar role.
"
That is a very awesome unit!
I went the cheap route and got the Audubon/Vortex 6x16,
but I've had a peek through the Zeiss.. it's bright, flat, rich,,,and the
near focus is 1 ft (.3 M)! That would be less hassle than an extra
lens. Perfect for ants, Egyptian carvings, bugs, plays, and the birdfeeder
outside the place you're visiting, spying at the embassy party ;-).
I carry the Audubon in-pocket a lot.
I think you would find the 6x18 Zeiss very entertaining.
6-power can be handy to blow up the view of binoculars and
see the true resolution, too (beyond what your eyes see)
6x is a little strong for that but not bad. You have to have a very
bright target, BTW.

 

[winwinbino]

Thank you, everyone.

What a clear-cut recommendation! The Pentax Papilios (Papiliones?) are enormous fun, open up a world that goes even smaller than butterflies, and should be tried, even by an alphaphile.

Six consecutive replies in broad agreement ... unprecedented in Bird Forum history! :eek!:

Given the vast price difference between Papilios and alphas, I should probably just check the eye relief, buy a pair of Papilios in the near future, and use them through the early weeks of the butterfly season. We shall need a second pair of good birding glasses anyway; if the Papilios meet our needs for butterflying, then these alphas don’t have to be close focus.

I must admit that, up till now, my reaction to the Papilios has been ...
... 3mm exit pupils !?
... not waterproof !??
... plastic !???



That’s useful to know, Kimmo. I believe those distances would be suitable for butterflying.



That’s an option that hadn’t occurred to me. If the Papilios work out, I must consider them too, though their weight will be against them. (In 2002, I rejected the Nikon EDGs because I found them too heavy.)



Good point, Arthur.



You’re right about the weight: the 10x50 Nikons weigh getting on for a kilo (just over 2 lb). But a light bucket with 5mm exit pupils is a great help for looking at stars. (7x50 glasses, when we still had them, were quite wonderful for my young eyes looking at the Pleiades.) 10x30 IS Canons, if we had them, would have their place; I’d imagine they would be super for looking at the Moon.

There used to be 7x35 binoculars, which small people used for stargazing. Whatever happened to them?

Later

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

Papilios are special purposed bins. Nothing could beat them re close focus, but you have to accept those cons you mentioned. And, optically they are very average.

The Vortex Viper HD 32mm & Viper 8x28 could focus down to 1 meter (at least my samples do) and could serve for multi-purposes. Worth a look.

Andy

 

[ceasar]

I have the Zeiss 6x18 monocular. It has draw tube focusing and can be awkward to use up close. You need plenty of light on the subject and the ability to hold it steady when it is extended. For general use it is easy to use. Depth of field is so long that almost everything is in focus beyond 10 feet when it is fully closed but 8x would be better overall for that usage IMO.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/zeiss.pl?page=zeissmonocular522051

Bob

 

[etudiant]

Optic_nut mentioned the Minox 8x25 Macroscope, which is a superb close focus instrument, at a very reasonable price. It is waterproof and comes with a tripod fitting, for sustained close in observation. It is also great for museum crawls.
The eye relief is good, the image is bright and the eye placement a lot less finicky than with the little 8x20 Monovid.

The only fly in the ointment is that this is a materially fatter piece than either the Monovid or the 6x18 Zeiss.

 

[HighNorth]

HighNorth,

Down here in Helsinki, I have birded with Canons in temperatures down to -20°C with no problems. Focusing works and the stabilizer works. Nickel Cadmium batteries are not good, but NiMH rechargeables or Lithium disposables work just fine. One spare pair in your pocket for peace of mind is good to have.

Kimmo

Thanks Kimmo! Maybe I'll give the Canons a try then! :t:

 

[Dr Owl]

"Optimised Focusing System" from Nikon

Put the variable-ratio focus of the Brunton Epoch in the SF or the SV and it would be the bin I've long dreamed of. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm hoping some day it will.

That day may be coming closer.

Nikon has sent me a hard copy of its latest EDG catalogue -- which is available online at

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dl/catalogue/EDG_20p.pdf

-- in which, on page 13, "Nonlinear movements of focusing" for its fieldscopes are described.

The Brunton Epoch came and went during the 12 years since I last bought a pair of field glasses, but its variable-ratio focusing seems similar to the new Nikon fieldscopes: fast movement in the near zone of focusing and slow movement in the distant zone.

(Yes, yes, I know. Brochures !? Paper !?? How old-fashioned! More Archaeopteryx than Owl. But I wouldn't have noticed this -- it doesn't seem to be searchable on the Nikon site -- if I hadn't received a hard copy.

I really must follow the modern idiom and start referring to field glasses as "bins". :news: )

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

 

[etudiant]

Seems the day is receding again, the link does not work and by all evidence, the EDG line is history. Nikon has apparently changed its mind.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Seems the day is receding again, the link does not work and by all evidence, the EDG line is history. Nikon has apparently changed its mind.

Here's the full working link address (truncated in Dr Owl/John's post) to that 2011 catalog:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dl/catalogue/EDG_20p.pdf

I don't take the market failure of the EDG scopes to be an indictment of variable-ratio focus.

--AP

 

[etudiant]

Here's the full working link address (truncated in Dr Owl/John's post) to that 2011 catalog:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dl/catalogue/EDG_20p.pdf

I don't take the market failure of the EDG scopes to be an indictment of variable-ratio focus.

--AP

Thank you for the new link, it works nicely.
Agree entirely that variable-ratio focus is blameless in the EDG case.
The pricing was at fault, close to $6000 for the EDG85 VR narrowed the market too much.