Opticron Aurora 8x42 vs alpha(ish) 8x42s - anything given away in optical quality? (2 Viewers)

[William Lewis]

Don’t worry you won’t hurt my feelings, and I apologize that I hurt yours. I’m sure you’ve heard the term you pay for what you get , I fully understand that some people can’t necessarily see the difference and or want to see the difference when it comes to having to spend money you don’t have, or are uncomfortable spending money on what many would say are incremental improvements, regardless of name brands. I have a whole collection of optics you may never have heard of. We also can agree that there are lovely binoculars half the price of the Aurora that are equally good to some. Again I don’t want to hurt your feelings accusing you of any falsities, but I do have to share that I’m shocked that you’ve not had one issue over the years that you recognize with 20 Opticrons , considering how many people have complained about the less than stellar focusers. Its very possible your not recognizing the issues as well. Enjoy your day, I’m off today to go do some observing with a few vintage SWA toys.

Hi Paul. What model are the binoculars in your well stocked shelves with the chamfered prism housing like the e2 and the large numbering on the diopter ring?

Those old wide angled Porro's must be nice - given you've got a range of them how do find eye piece comfort? I only ask as I've recently sold the 10x50 Decarems we discussed a while back as I'm just used to the more forgiving eye box of more modern bins or at least bins with slightly longer eye relief! Thank you.

but you are stating that your high priced binoculars are better than others lower priced binoculars,what's wrong with others opinions,so the people who come on here to learn can see that more £££'s don't always mean better, it's just others opinions.

More £ generally does mean better BUT it depends on what you value - you can get a cheap 7x50 hawk marine and have a larger exit pupil than any swaro's, zeiss, or leica's or you can buy a kowa 6.5x 32 and have a larger field of view of any of there current offerings.

I like a top of the line bino- don't get me wrong and I can and enjoy seeing the difference.

What is useful with lower priced optics though and for me where they do represent excellent value is that you can have a couple or 3 specialised instruments that will each do better than 1 all round alpha in the areas they excel at - you can have a better view for less outlay and more toys to play with!

never looked through a pair of the so called alpha binoculars so i wouldn't know, but others have and they have stated their opinions and their opinions get rubbished

You should.

Will

 

[Paultricounty]

so you are not rubbishing others opinions, others who have tried Alpha's are lying when they gave their opinions???

This is a waste of time Pattyduke. I thought you had insightful experience. My bad.

 

[paddyluke]

This is a waste of time Pattyduke. I thought you had insightful experience. My bad.

no i dont but others have

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Paul. What model are the binoculars in your well stocked shelves with the chamfered prism housing like the e2 and the large numbering on the diopter ring?

Hi Will, not sure what your asking here. Please elaborate.

Those old wide angled Porro's must be nice - given you've got a range of them how do find eye piece comfort? I only ask as I've recently sold the 10x50 Decarems we discussed a while back as I'm just used to the more forgiving eye box of more modern bins or at least bins with slightly longer eye relief! Thank you.

The problem with many of the old vintage SWA 7x35’s is the short eye relief. I truly think the only ones that will work with eyeglasses is the Bushnell FPO (FujI) Rangemasters , with 14mm of eye releif.

More £ generally does mean better BUT it depends on what you value - you can get a cheap 7x50 hawk marine and have a larger exit pupil than any swaro's, zeiss, or leica's or you can buy a kowa 6.5x 32 and have a larger field of view of any of there current offerings.

Of course very few will disagree with that. Although I like a good value in optics as well as anybody else, there really is something special in high end equipment, some take your breath away.

I like a top of the line bino- don't get me wrong and I can and enjoy seeing the difference.

What is useful with lower priced optics though and for me where they do represent excellent value is that you can have a couple or 3 specialised instruments that will each do better than 1 all round alpha in the areas they excel at - you can have a better view for less outlay and more toys to play with!

You should.

Lol, ya think he should. I always thought if your going to give an opinion about something, what ever it is, you should have at least tried it out, Dah. 🙄.

Will

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

no i dont but others have

I’m sorry, I have to go argue with my wife now, im sure I’ll get much more out of that.

 

[William Lewis]

First left binocular in this picture?

 

[Paultricounty]

View attachment 1524728
First left binocular in this picture?

I misunderstood what you were asking. I got you now. The one on the left is a Bushnell Rangmaster made by Tamron. This one is the one with the 11° FOV , also known by some as the ugly duckling. This is a solid beast of metal and glass. On Fan Tao’s website he lists the eye relief as 12-13mm but it feels like less. You really have to put your eyeballs right up to the glass, not near as forgiving as the FPO model, which has a very comfortable eyebox. The FPO has better edges, but is only (only 🤣) 10° FOV. Both of these imo are the pinnacle of the high end vintage SWA era, the alphas of their day.

There are no binoculars on the market today that have the image characteristics of these high quality super wides. There are sharper, brighter, more contrast etc. etc modern option, but nothing compares to the image when you look through a pair of these. It’s almost like there’s no field stop. It’s like looking through a glass window with 7x magnification.

Here’s a link to Fan Taos old archive website. Lots of good information on here about many vintage porros. Check it out.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070206190840/http://fantao.home.att.net/rangem.htm.

First two pictures are the Bushnell Tamron version and the others ones are the Rangmaster FPO (Fuji photo optics) version.

 

[William Lewis]

Thanks Paul. Very nice, they're all prism those 7x35's aren't they!

I like the way the tamron's rangemasters have minimised the bulk with the organic shape of the outer housing for the Prims, like a metal and leather n.l of it's day. Not sure about the location of the strap lugs when holding but they also have a bit of the field pro about them - and I bet they hang straight.

Will

 

[Paultricounty]

Thanks Paul. Very nice, they're all prism those 7x35's aren't they!

lol, very true.

I like the way the tamron's rangemasters have minimised the bulk with the organic shape of the outer housing for the Prims, like a metal and leather n.l of it's day. Not sure about the location of the strap lugs when holding but they also have a bit of the field pro about them - and I bet they hang straight.

Supposedly there’s some story that Bushnell wanted to make them look more modern in the 1960’s. They are kind of front heavy. If you have small IPD you have to carful when you set them down on the objectives , like in the picture, they can tip over.

Will

 

[Belumat]

I am not interested in being controversial, but I would like to make a clarification. I think it is often true that in optics you get what you pay for, but I confirm that my El (1440 euro in 2006) has visibly more Ca and more glare than my Aurora (980 in 2022). Simply looking at prices does not always tell the whole story.

 

[Paultricounty]

I am not interested in being controversial, but I would like to make a clarification. I think it is often true that in optics you get what you pay for, but I confirm that my El (1440 euro in 2006) has visibly more Ca and more glare than my Aurora (980 in 2022). Simply looking at prices does not always tell the whole story.

That is very true , that you pay for what you get. But keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that the most expensive optics ( binoculars in this case) will be better in every optical criteria, CA being one as your exemplary example shows. We also need to keep in mind your EL is twenty plus year old design, the newer version is superior in most areas and improved in CA correction. Of course optically overall we can’t really put the image quality of an Aurora in the same league as a Swaro EL, as Dennis would say they’re miles apart.

 

[paddyluke]

That is very true , that you pay for what you get. But keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that the most expensive optics ( binoculars in this case) will be better in every optical criteria, CA being one as your exemplary example shows. We also need to keep in mind your EL is twenty plus year old design, the newer version is superior in most areas and improved in CA correction. Of course optically overall we can’t really put the image quality of an Aurora in the same league as a Swaro EL, as Dennis would say they’re miles apart.

who is "we" or do you me "I"

 

[Paultricounty]

who is "we" or do you me "I"

I , we, you, me. Who ever has the the ability to see the difference. Now I’m going to go argue with my wife again, much more productive and get much from it , than your never ending add nausea praise on one binocular that your infatuated with. ✌🏼

 

[paddyluke]

I , we, you, me. Who ever has the the ability to see the difference. Now I’m going to go argue with my wife again, much more productive and get much from it , than your never ending add nausea praise on one binocular that your infatuated with. ✌🏼

which binocular would that be?

 

[Belumat]

The problem is that we cannot know the cost of the components by looking at the final price. Included in the price is service (Swaro's is 5-star) the cost of design and branding. Then the production costs vary depending on the country. I am convinced that there are better binoculars than Aurora but let's not just rank them by price

 

[Paultricounty]

The problem is that we cannot know the cost of the components by looking at the final price. Included in the price is service (Swaro's is 5-star) the cost of design and branding. Then the production costs vary depending on the country. I am convinced that there are better binoculars than Aurora but let's not just rank them by price

Actually you can generally rate them by price. Ive tried, bought and collected many binoculars from entry level Diamondbacks through the mid level, upper mid level (Aurora) all the way to top of the line. And I can in general say you pay for what you get. That doesn't always mean everybody will see the difference from an upper mid level to the best of the best , especially if the armor is peeling off .

 

[Bphunter53]

I guess you didn’t read my whole post. This was the opinion of over six experienced observers. What I said was that you can’t tell the difference between the HT AK prisms in comparison the SF SP. But I guess you read into what you want to do.

I guess I should take your advice , somebody who hasn’t compared all the other top binoculars. I guess then I’ll be selling all my Ultravids, SF, Noctivids, EL’s, NL’s , Nikons etc. etc. and buy back the auroras that had major issue with focuser.

All because your opinion is that a $1000 optic is optically superior to the $2000-$3000 offerings from the top optics manufacturers. I’ll also just forget the three defective opticrons that I had, I’m just gonna put that behind me.

Thank you

Thanks for the input. I was close to buying a pair but I can not and will not deal with a bino with a poor focuser no matter how good the glass is. No reason for a $1k binocular not to have a silky smooth focus wheel. Heck I’ve had cheap pairs that have smooth focus. I sent my last pair of Zeiss conquest Hd 8x32 back because of stiff stick grainy focus wheel. I didn’t even take time to review the glass. Focuser was instant deal breaker. I use all my binos for hunting so I’m constantly focusing from 30 yards to 300 plus depending on where I’m hunting. If you have seen multiple pairs with this issue it seems a crap shoot getting a good pair.

 

[Patudo]

I think it is often true that in optics you get what you pay for, but I confirm that my El (1440 euro in 2006) has visibly more Ca and more glare than my Aurora (980 in 2022). Simply looking at prices does not always tell the whole story.

That's a fair enough comment. Optical designs have improved over the years (maybe not so much as other forms of technology, but mid-range models have definitely improved over the last 16 years) and there's no doubt that Kamakura and other companies have the experience and expertise to manufacture very good binoculars. Glad you're enjoying yours, in what sounds like a very birdy area.

re post 57 above: I wonder if the difficulty in manufacturing the focuser assembly for a modern internally focusing binocular (and doing so to a good standard consistently) might sometimes be underestimated. It's certainly not like manufacturing an old style external focuser. Mechanical quality that stands hard use is not cheap, and $1000 isn't much these days...