-
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.
Compact bins (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Carlton
- Start date
Congratulations Mike!
Have you tried the 'thumbs-up' holding technique? Works great by stabilizing the view and blocking side light. It's my preferred method with the Ultravid 10x25's.
I have had five or six of the compacts including the Leica, Nikon and the Swarovski's. The last pair I had was the Leica Ultravid's 8x20 which I bought new on E-bay for $400.00. They were the best of the lot. Sold them. You are much better off getting a compact 8x32. I consider all the compacts toys or novelties and I wouldn't have any of them. They are a pain in the butt!
Dennis
You could start a small war with that statement.
An 8x32 is a mid-size glass, not compact.
Definitely fighting words. LOL. The truth is simple, you aren't going to get good glass without paying for it. Something compact like a Nikon Travelite just isn't going to compare with a Zeiss or Swarovski, obviously. My advice is to go with an 8x25 porro prism compact, spending the most you feel comfortable with. It will save you the hassle of returning them and being without binos in your pocket for a week or two. no bueno! :-O
Been following this thread w/interest, as I think a take-along-anywhere glass should be part of any serious users repertoire (along with a good 7x42, 8x32, 8x42, 8.5x42/44, 10x42/50/56, 12x50, 15x50, 20x80, etc). I tried some of the primo little roofs (Nikon, Swaro & Zeiss) but they're just too small for my oversized mitts...and that 2.5mm ep just is a little too fussy. The only small one I've ever been comfortable with is the B&L 7x26 (in the polycarb body). To me, it's a little brighter, a little sharper, and a lot easier to use and handle. Granted, it isn't waterproof, but that's not a criterion for me.
What I wish Bushnell would do is increase to 7x28, add the pop-up eyecups from the hemisphere, get an honest 16mm eye relief and bump the fov up to a full 8*. Should be about the same size n wt and don't see where they'd hafta boost the sticker more than about $40-50. To me, that would be an awfully capable all-around glass & one you cd have with you almost all the time....and as someone on BF noted...the best bino is the one you have with you. I'd get one in a heartbeat.
What I wish Bushnell would do is increase to 7x28, add the pop-up eyecups from the hemisphere, get an honest 16mm eye relief and bump the fov up to a full 8*. Should be about the same size n wt and don't see where they'd hafta boost the sticker more than about $40-50. To me, that would be an awfully capable all-around glass & one you cd have with you almost all the time....and as someone on BF noted...the best bino is the one you have with you. I'd get one in a heartbeat.
Check this thread, spyglass; an amateurish review by me of Opticron DBA Oasis 8x21. I love it (and my fave compact used to be the Leica Ultravid 8x20). It might fit your bill!
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=143331
Last edited:
kristoffer
Used Register
I needed a small bin to take with me everywhere. Tried the nikon sportstar, malfunctioned second day I had it, got a refund, bought a Leica Trinovid 8x20 on ebay. It´s marvellous! I often feel that I rather take my Leica then my Vortex vipers (8x42) when I´m out on daytime since I prefer the image on the Leicas. Can you afford it, I really recommend it.
I sent Zen Ray an email and asked if they were planning anything in the 8x30 range and I got a reply back saying
Now notice that they said 30mm they still could be coming out with a 32mm.
Chad
update
Just to update my earlier comments for those who may search for info on compacts in the future, a couple of points:
1) Although the the old Nikons will stay as loaners, direct comparison to newer rev. porros bumps them down a notch, probably due to newer coating technology. They are a pain w/glasses, having rubber eyecups and little eye relief.
2) This is completely personal preference, but although I started my search for compacts with a "smaller is better" mindset, the optical quality plus price of decent rev. porros puts them head and shoulders above the compact roofs, for me, as a design. And in fact carrying a few around convinced me that, up to a point (e.g., the Yosemites were just a bit too big, despite their light weight), weight is as important as size (the Pentax Papilio, for example, weighs a bit over 10 oz, which feels a lot lighter than the 13.5 oz. of the E2 (the 12 oz. published weight is incorrect. I weighed mine).
3) There is, right now, nothing that satisfies what I'm looking for in image quality, weight, size and waterproofness, but the new generation Bushnell E2 Custom Compact is close. For my tastes, it was better than any of the small roof compacts out there in image characteristics, besting everything from the Nikon Premier 8x25, the Pentax SW 8x25, and the Leica, Zeiss and Swaro 8x20s, although for different reasons (sharper than the less expensive compacts, not sharper/brighter, but more user-friendly view than the alphas - I definitely prefer that expansive 3D porro image). If the E2 had a better diopter adjuster design, were waterproof, and returned to the earlier plastic chassis (and thus dropped some weight), I'd stop looking at compacts.
My advice at this point to anyone looking for compacts is to first decide how you want to use them (are they just for the occasional walk, and you'll use your bigger binoculars most of the time, or will these be heavily used -- for me it was the latter), and then try a good rev. porro or two against a couple of good roofs and decide which kind of image you prefer. If you must have the smallest binocular with the best image, the Zeiss Victory, Leica Ultravid and Swaro Pocket all had good images and were surprisingly bright for 20mm bins. The Zeiss and Leica seemed a bit better built to me, as the Swaro's focus and hinge seemed a bit fiddly, but my impressions were based on testing demos in stores with optical charts, not on extended periods used in the field.
Just to update my earlier comments for those who may search for info on compacts in the future, a couple of points:
1) Although the the old Nikons will stay as loaners, direct comparison to newer rev. porros bumps them down a notch, probably due to newer coating technology. They are a pain w/glasses, having rubber eyecups and little eye relief.
2) This is completely personal preference, but although I started my search for compacts with a "smaller is better" mindset, the optical quality plus price of decent rev. porros puts them head and shoulders above the compact roofs, for me, as a design. And in fact carrying a few around convinced me that, up to a point (e.g., the Yosemites were just a bit too big, despite their light weight), weight is as important as size (the Pentax Papilio, for example, weighs a bit over 10 oz, which feels a lot lighter than the 13.5 oz. of the E2 (the 12 oz. published weight is incorrect. I weighed mine).
3) There is, right now, nothing that satisfies what I'm looking for in image quality, weight, size and waterproofness, but the new generation Bushnell E2 Custom Compact is close. For my tastes, it was better than any of the small roof compacts out there in image characteristics, besting everything from the Nikon Premier 8x25, the Pentax SW 8x25, and the Leica, Zeiss and Swaro 8x20s, although for different reasons (sharper than the less expensive compacts, not sharper/brighter, but more user-friendly view than the alphas - I definitely prefer that expansive 3D porro image). If the E2 had a better diopter adjuster design, were waterproof, and returned to the earlier plastic chassis (and thus dropped some weight), I'd stop looking at compacts.
My advice at this point to anyone looking for compacts is to first decide how you want to use them (are they just for the occasional walk, and you'll use your bigger binoculars most of the time, or will these be heavily used -- for me it was the latter), and then try a good rev. porro or two against a couple of good roofs and decide which kind of image you prefer. If you must have the smallest binocular with the best image, the Zeiss Victory, Leica Ultravid and Swaro Pocket all had good images and were surprisingly bright for 20mm bins. The Zeiss and Leica seemed a bit better built to me, as the Swaro's focus and hinge seemed a bit fiddly, but my impressions were based on testing demos in stores with optical charts, not on extended periods used in the field.
Last edited:
Tero
Retired
After numerous pairs of all kinds, I will not really look at 10x in smaller size than 32mm, preferably 36mm. So I came to the same conclusion about 8x. I am no longer much of a fan of reverse porros. This may be because I rarely use anything smaller than 32mm. But the 8x25 and 8x20 pocket bins certainly have their uses. I have two cheap pairs. They serve the "better than no binocular" role.
The Vortex Vanquish reverse porro 8x26s would probably be my choice, if I had to pick a reverse porro.
The Vortex Vanquish reverse porro 8x26s would probably be my choice, if I had to pick a reverse porro.
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Note that with a reverse porro (where the objective are close together than you eyes) you don't actually get a better "3D" image than a roof. The "porro 3d view" is from the exaggerated depth perception you get from having your "eyes" set wider apart than usual.
I wonder if there is another property of the reverse porros that you are keying on that makes you prefer their view?
I wonder if there is another property of the reverse porros that you are keying on that makes you prefer their view?
That's what I would've guessed, too, Kevin, but using the E2s, 8x24UCF, and the Yosemite's along with two pairs of roofs (in addition to all the roofs I looked at in optics departments recently), the porros (reverse or standard) seem to share something the roofs don't. This may be what some people call greater "depth of field", even when we know it can't really be that, based on mag. and aperture. I don't think it's FOV, since the Pentaxes are a bit narrow... Perhaps it's inherent to the way the different types of prisms function and not about the distance between the objectives?
Last edited:
kristoffer
Used Register
I have debated my compact bin buying in several threads. First I bought Nikon sportstar IV 8x25 dcf but they broke down in one day so I got a refund and bought, after long anxiety, leica trinovids 8x20 on ebay for £250.
I have used them a lot. The size makes a huge difference, I bring them out when I would not had taken my vipers with me and they are nice to my neck, no strain there. I think the image is as good as on my vipers but with far less CA. The double hinge is annoying but I am getting used to it. I recommend them for this price for sure!
New ultravids got a quite other pricing though.
I have used them a lot. The size makes a huge difference, I bring them out when I would not had taken my vipers with me and they are nice to my neck, no strain there. I think the image is as good as on my vipers but with far less CA. The double hinge is annoying but I am getting used to it. I recommend them for this price for sure!
New ultravids got a quite other pricing though.
James Bean
Well-known member
Regular use of my Zeiss 6x18 Design Selection compact (similar at first sight to the Victory compacts but more eccentric) suggests to me that it is very good for relatively close viewing of garden birds, where the 6x magnification is no handicap. I've even tolerated its nonconformist focusing (anticlockwise to infinity, out of step with most Zeiss) and become accustomed to its off-centre single hinge. Damn, I think I'm beginning to like it, despite initial misgivings...
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Not FOV, Not DoF. It's something about the view that I still can't explain but it seems like a few others know what I mean.
Not to say I don't like roofs (I do!).
I'm not totally convinced its just to roof spikes ... I do have some roof that don't have spikes but do have a little of this effect. Perhaps there are multiple causes that affect the view I see.
Not to say I don't like roofs (I do!).
I'm not totally convinced its just to roof spikes ... I do have some roof that don't have spikes but do have a little of this effect. Perhaps there are multiple causes that affect the view I see.
Yes, it's there, but not clear what "it" is. For example, the Pentax UCF had a narrow FOV (and is kind of dim), but I still get the porro view. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it (special thanks to Potter Stewart for that one... 
) Still, wouldn't the most obvious culprit be the different prism design? I'll try to have more articulate comments after I've used the new Raptors side by side with the others for a few days (they're due in next week).
) Still, wouldn't the most obvious culprit be the different prism design? I'll try to have more articulate comments after I've used the new Raptors side by side with the others for a few days (they're due in next week).
