Hello everyone,
May I introduce myself; defend (or at least explain) my use of “alpha” field glasses; and ask some questions about using field glasses for both birds and butterflies.
I’m a retired mathematician and amateur musician who goes (not nearly often enough) onto the Downs of Hampshire and into the New Forest, usually taking either a camera (I’m something of a Nikon geek who has recently started using a Leica) or field glasses for wildlife observation and (inexpert) birding and butterflying.
In the late 1990s, our children started graduating from university, and good optics started being affordable. The Pussycat and I bought a modest pair of Nikon 10x50 porroprism glasses. Then I made my mistake. At an RSPB gig, I looked through a pair of glasses that cost about 3x the price of the Nikons ... and they were much sharper, clearer and more comfortable. Then, at a photographic trade show, I looked through Nikon EDG and Leica glasses that cost about 5x the price of the porroprism Nikons ... and they were noticeably clearer and more comfortable still!
This was very much a case of diminishing returns. The first £N on the porroprism Nikons made distant objects visible. The extra £2N on the RSPB glasses did not give images that were 3x as good, but they were definitely sharper. The further £2N on the alphas gave the smallest improvement: greater clarity and comfort, but not, I think, significantly greater sharpness.
I yielded to temptation; and in 2002 went to a store which stocked the grand brands (looking for 8x42 glasses – the 10x50 experience had showed me I would prefer glasses that weighed less and didn’t jiggle so much) leaving with Swarovski ELs; which I slightly preferred to the then new Leica Ultravids and the long-established Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 BGATs. A decision which I’ve never regretted.
Though I do wish that the Swarovskis would focus closer. Mine focus down to about 2.5 metres (8 feet), so I have to take a pace back when viewing a butterfly. I rejected the Bausch & Lomb Elites, quite rightly, because they seemed less clear than the alphas, but they did focus down to about 1.5 metres (5 feet).
(Digression: It is my perception that between the launch of the Bausch & Lomb Elites in 1987, and the launch of the Swarovski ELs in 1999, there was a massive improvement in the clarity of the best field glasses, largely the result of much improved multicoating.)
Now, I have the need/opportunity to buy another pair of good glasses. Our ten-year-old grandson wants to learn astronomy, so we have given him the 10x50 Nikons. And when the Owl and the Pussycat go out for a walk together, each needs to have his or her own field glasses.
The market has changed since 2002, and there are now two alphas that focus down to 1.5 metres: the Swarovision ELs and the Zeiss Victory SFs. One option would be to go back to the store and buy whichever I like more. I doubt whether there is a wrong answer to that decision.
My questions are:
(1) Is this the right solution for both birding and butterflying? Or does one need different glasses for each purpose?
(2) Are there are other glasses I should be considering as well as the ELs and the SFs?
(3) The Pussycat is more stable than I, and has no great difficulty with handling 10x power glasses. Is 10x42 too much magnification for butterflies?
Later,
Dr Owl
----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
May I introduce myself; defend (or at least explain) my use of “alpha” field glasses; and ask some questions about using field glasses for both birds and butterflies.
I’m a retired mathematician and amateur musician who goes (not nearly often enough) onto the Downs of Hampshire and into the New Forest, usually taking either a camera (I’m something of a Nikon geek who has recently started using a Leica) or field glasses for wildlife observation and (inexpert) birding and butterflying.
In the late 1990s, our children started graduating from university, and good optics started being affordable. The Pussycat and I bought a modest pair of Nikon 10x50 porroprism glasses. Then I made my mistake. At an RSPB gig, I looked through a pair of glasses that cost about 3x the price of the Nikons ... and they were much sharper, clearer and more comfortable. Then, at a photographic trade show, I looked through Nikon EDG and Leica glasses that cost about 5x the price of the porroprism Nikons ... and they were noticeably clearer and more comfortable still!
This was very much a case of diminishing returns. The first £N on the porroprism Nikons made distant objects visible. The extra £2N on the RSPB glasses did not give images that were 3x as good, but they were definitely sharper. The further £2N on the alphas gave the smallest improvement: greater clarity and comfort, but not, I think, significantly greater sharpness.
I yielded to temptation; and in 2002 went to a store which stocked the grand brands (looking for 8x42 glasses – the 10x50 experience had showed me I would prefer glasses that weighed less and didn’t jiggle so much) leaving with Swarovski ELs; which I slightly preferred to the then new Leica Ultravids and the long-established Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 BGATs. A decision which I’ve never regretted.
Though I do wish that the Swarovskis would focus closer. Mine focus down to about 2.5 metres (8 feet), so I have to take a pace back when viewing a butterfly. I rejected the Bausch & Lomb Elites, quite rightly, because they seemed less clear than the alphas, but they did focus down to about 1.5 metres (5 feet).
(Digression: It is my perception that between the launch of the Bausch & Lomb Elites in 1987, and the launch of the Swarovski ELs in 1999, there was a massive improvement in the clarity of the best field glasses, largely the result of much improved multicoating.)
Now, I have the need/opportunity to buy another pair of good glasses. Our ten-year-old grandson wants to learn astronomy, so we have given him the 10x50 Nikons. And when the Owl and the Pussycat go out for a walk together, each needs to have his or her own field glasses.
The market has changed since 2002, and there are now two alphas that focus down to 1.5 metres: the Swarovision ELs and the Zeiss Victory SFs. One option would be to go back to the store and buy whichever I like more. I doubt whether there is a wrong answer to that decision.
My questions are:
(1) Is this the right solution for both birding and butterflying? Or does one need different glasses for each purpose?
(2) Are there are other glasses I should be considering as well as the ELs and the SFs?
(3) The Pussycat is more stable than I, and has no great difficulty with handling 10x power glasses. Is 10x42 too much magnification for butterflies?
Later,
Dr Owl
----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK