Pocket alpha binocs. What? (1 Viewer)

[Pepitogrillo]

Hello,
I read something a while ago that made me think about it, I know it's a personal opinion, but I'd like to share it with all of you.
I was just saying that you would never spend a small fortune on a pocket alpha binocular because of all the commitments that come with these types of binoculars.
I would like to hear your opinions on this topic... I've been after some like this for quite some time but I haven't made up my mind yet!
Thank you
PG.

 

[Will K]

I think that the 'commitments' you mention will be different for everyone. Personally, I find that the view provided by good glass is worth the extra cost / worry they might also provoke. The kind of view I like best is only provided by (unfortunately, the most expensive) full size models (42mm). I would imagine that a 'pocket alpha' (perhaps the smaller Ultravid, Pocket Victory, or Curio) is less 'demanding' than a full size bino, but I couldn't say for sure.

 

[Scott98]

What type of "commitments" are you referring to with expensive compacts? Do you mean trying to avoid damaging them while out & about??

 

[dorubird]

It matters how many binoculars we are willing to have and how often we use pocket binoculars. If we only wanted one pair of binoculars, and we wanted it to be a pocket-sized one that we would use extensively, then it is worth buying the most expensive pocket binoculars we can afford. But if we have other bigger binoculars, which we use most often, then I personally opt for a cheaper pocket binocular, next to the alpha, because anyway I will use it less often, only in emergencies!
Here is a personal example: I opted for Trinovid pocket against Ultravid pocket, because it is much cheaper but optically very close to Ultravid. And an even more important thing, regardless of the price, is that such pocket binoculars share the same weaknesses given by the tiny shape compared to larger binoculars (small exit pupil that affects viewing comfort, poor hand stability, lower brightness in low light conditions) ...so an Ultravid would not be justified for me for a rarely used pocket binocular. If it were used more often then it would be justified

 

[Pepitogrillo]

Durobird,
This was the perfect answer I was looking for... to my imperfect question!! you read my thoughts very well when I wrote the question... you knew exactly what I was asking, chapeau!!
thank you so much
Pepito

 

[Roadbike]

I don't mind spending money on good binoculars as long as the performance there and they fit properly and are easy to use. The combination of smaller exit pupil and double hinge found in some compact bins is unworkable for me. And yet my wife loves that configuration.

 

[edwincjones]

The small size and weight of pocket binoculars is great when one needs that,
but I find them more difficult to use and prefer larger binoculars.
I got the 8x25 zeiss terra, it is nice for what it is, but helped me to decide against pockets
(although I might have been happier with an alpha pocket).

edj

 

[yarrellii]

I think I'm in the same boat as many here, and after a quest for "my perfect pocket bino" I discovered that the general idea of "comfort over performance" that I value in any binocular, is even more true when it comes to pockets. I struggle with small eyecups, and double hinges... so a combination of both plus smallish focus wheels is a recipe for disaster in my case. After trying some of the best there is (8x20 Ultravid and 8x20 Swaro) and also de well respected Terra 8x25 I gave up on all of them and discover that I much prefer a 50 € Nikon 7x20 CF III to any of the above (yes, you can throw stones at me now). As a matter of fact, even if the Ultravid 8x20 was also 50 €, I would still grab the Nikon, because I simply enjoy more using it: it has proper eyecups, the size of regular binocular eyecups, it has a great focus wheel (for a compact, this is) that puts to shame even the Ultravid in terms of ease of use and it has a single hinge, which makes using it a breeze, really. Ah, and they're lighter than any of the "alpha pocket" while their footprint is nearly the same.

Yes, the image quality is nowhere as nice as the Ultravid, obviously, it's just in another galaxy, and I wish it was better. But then, what's the point of an amazing image quality if all the compromises of a "classic pocket" (double hinge, tiny eyecups, tiny focus wheel, etc.) don't let you enjoy it? I agree with the idea that for me it's not worth investing such a lot of money for a bino that won't see a lot of use but, truth be told,

To me, it's a clear answer (but hey, that's just me, many here live very happy with their UV).

 

[Rg548]

Always buy the best you can.
Pockets can be a tad awkward, but Alpha pockets can stun with their image quality.
I struggle a bit with the twin hinge set up, but it's to get the compactness.... pros and cons.
I would never make do with poor optics, no pleasure in the view... I would take a spectacular image and some level of awkwardness any day.
I have however found 8x32's to be the best all round for me now.
But I've loved my pockets, Trinnie 8x20, Ultra 8x20, and recently the CL8x25. All exceptional optics

 

[Richard D]

I think a lot depends on how much you expect to use them. If you're going to be using compacts a lot then it makes sense to invest more than if they're only going to be rarely used. I travel a reasonable amount for work, don't drive and have a laptop and other stuff to lug - shoving my CL 8x25s in a bag adds little bulk and weight, but if I do get half hour to walk along the coast I've got something I'll still enjoy using. I tried cheaper compacts and some were awful, some were okay but not enjoyable to use. A lot of people seem to like the Terra's, personally I was very disappointed, but I certainly woudn't say don't try them if you want something comparatively inexpensive compared to the top end.

 

[fazalmajid]

I started with compacts, a Trinovid 8x20 then an Ultravid 8x20, and only later graduated to 8x42s. In pocket binoculars ergonomics matter more than anything else and you will be better served by binoculars that "fit" you, e.g. eye cup shape and eye relief even if they have worse absolute optical quality than others that don't fit you so well. There is no substitute for testing them in person in a proper shop.

The Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 stretches the definition of pocket binoculars but is absolutely stellar, at least if you wear glasses.

 

[Zedster]

The Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 stretches the definition of pocket binoculars but is absolutely stellar, at least if you wear glasses.

I concur. I got SWMBO a pair for valentines day last year and she uses them all the time. Even over her Swarovski SLC 8x30s. The only downside is the tiny focus wheel. Though the non-symmetrical hinge is strange at first it grows on you. The image quality is outstanding. Slightly bigger than some other pocket bins but 100% worth it.

 

[has530]

I think I'm in the same boat as many here, and after a quest for "my perfect pocket bino" I discovered that the general idea of "comfort over performance" that I value in any binocular, is even more true when it comes to pockets. I struggle with small eyecups, and double hinges... so a combination of both plus smallish focus wheels is a recipe for disaster in my case. After trying some of the best there is (8x20 Ultravid and 8x20 Swaro) and also de well respected Terra 8x25 I gave up on all of them and discover that I much prefer a 50 € Nikon 7x20 CF III to any of the above (yes, you can throw stones at me now). As a matter of fact, even if the Ultravid 8x20 was also 50 €, I would still grab the Nikon, because I simply enjoy more using it: it has proper eyecups, the size of regular binocular eyecups, it has a great focus wheel (for a compact, this is) that puts to shame even the Ultravid in terms of ease of use and it has a single hinge, which makes using it a breeze, really. Ah, and they're lighter than any of the "alpha pocket" while their footprint is nearly the same.

Yes, the image quality is nowhere as nice as the Ultravid, obviously, it's just in another galaxy, and I wish it was better. But then, what's the point of an amazing image quality if all the compromises of a "classic pocket" (double hinge, tiny eyecups, tiny focus wheel, etc.) don't let you enjoy it? I agree with the idea that for me it's not worth investing such a lot of money for a bino that won't see a lot of use but, truth be told,

To me, it's a clear answer (but hey, that's just me, many here live very happy with their UV).

It is interesting you enjoy it so much. I have a pair in my glovebox but have 3 major complaints with them. The AFOV is very narrow, even for a pocket bino. There is some major focus breathing, doesn't really affect the user experience I just find it irritating. And finally my major gripe: they have horrible amounts of glare. They handle glare about as poorly as anything I have handled.

 

[yarrellii]

@has530 Yes, you are right. Obviously for some 50 € (the average price you can find them for) the little Nikon make no miracles: yes, glare is not good. However, 7,1º FOV for a 7x is quite average. If you look at most 7x50 (even many 7x42), 7º seems to be quite common. As a matter of fact, there are many 6,5º FOV 7x. So when I use it I don't feel bothered by it. As a matter of fact, given the poor ergonomics I feel using something like the Ultravid 8x20, with double hinge and very narrow eyecups, the 6,5º FOV for 8x feels actually worse and more restrictive. To me, the ease of use of the little Nikon with its classic single hinge design, "ful sized bino" eyecups and the much wider focus wheel more than makes up for it. The view is way, way (but way) worse: however, it is more pleasing. I've been really intrigued by the great reviews of the cult-status Bushnell Custom Elite 7x26, that by all accounts offers a great view. My dream would be a "beefed-up" 7x20 Nikon with the level of quality of the Bushnell and the ease of use of the CF III. Well, daydreaming...

 

[dunder]

“My dream would be a "beefed-up" 7x20 Nikon with the level of quality of the Bushnell and the ease of use of the CF III.”

I’m also a fan of small reverse porros for usability over double-hinged compacts. Every bin involves compromise - i’ve recently accepted some in the form of a pair of Lacerta Mini 7x20. Weighs about 50g more than the Nikon and probably a bit bulkier, but you get ~8º FOV, 15mm eye relief, twist-up eyecups and (presumably) modern coatings.

I don‘t have a Nikon CF III to try it alongside, but compared to my Olympus PC III 7x21 its noticeably brighter and easier to use (thanks to better FOV and eye relief). To my eyes they’re a bit sharper, with sweet spot about the same.

Very similar binoculars are available as Carson Falconer 7x20, Prakica Petite 7x20, Bresser 7x20 and probably others. I liked the Lacertas because they also come in a 5x20 configuration with a 10.3º FOV (and a 4mm exit pupil of course).

 

[Elkhornsun]

There is already the loss of light being transmitted with the smaller objective lenses and so for my pocket binos I get the 10x version to compensate as much as possible.

 

[fazalmajid]

Wouldn't it actually work the other way if the objectives are equal? Since a 10x has a longer focal length than a 7x, the aperture (objective diameter divided by focal length) would be 0.7x and thus the amount of light (square of reciprocal aperture) would be half as much? Spotting scopes get darker as you zoom in. That's probably why 10x models are usually 10x25 when the 8x are 8x20 so the aperture is the same, and a 7x21 like the Swarovski Curio would have a small but noticeable +44% brightness advantage over a 8x20 or 10x25, that is over half the difference between x32 and x42 binoculars (+72%) and certainly my experience comparing the CL Curio to the Ultravid 8x20.

 

[yarrellii]

@dunder Really interesting, thanks for pointing this out. I didn't know about the Lacerta (or its siblings, for that matter). I can see the Bresser 7x20 retail for as little as 26 USD on Amazon.com However, I can't find them listed either on the .es or .de website of the same online shop. Weird. I wonder how much optical performance can they pack in a 26 USD device. I have no complains about the Nikon, for its price. In fact, I consider it great value, even in terms of build quality. Looking at the pictures of the Lacerta there's something I can't verify 100 %, but I'm afraid the eyecups are narrow, like in your average pocket (unlike the Nikon 7x20, which has full size bino eyecups). Recently I got myself a pair of Nikon 8x25 Travelite EX, which are waterproof and feel reassuring in the hands, but the eyecups are narrower as well. It seems that pocket+large eyecups is a very rare animal to find.

 

[has530]

@has530 Yes, you are right. Obviously for some 50 € (the average price you can find them for) the little Nikon make no miracles: yes, glare is not good. However, 7,1º FOV for a 7x is quite average. If you look at most 7x50 (even many 7x42), 7º seems to be quite common. As a matter of fact, there are many 6,5º FOV 7x. So when I use it I don't feel bothered by it. As a matter of fact, given the poor ergonomics I feel using something like the Ultravid 8x20, with double hinge and very narrow eyecups, the 6,5º FOV for 8x feels actually worse and more restrictive. To me, the ease of use of the little Nikon with its classic single hinge design, "ful sized bino" eyecups and the much wider focus wheel more than makes up for it. The view is way, way (but way) worse: however, it is more pleasing. I've been really intrigued by the great reviews of the cult-status Bushnell Custom Elite 7x26, that by all accounts offers a great view. My dream would be a "beefed-up" 7x20 Nikon with the level of quality of the Bushnell and the ease of use of the CF III. Well, daydreaming...

I just retrieved my pair from the glove box and you are absolutely right! It says 7.1 on it and I double checked and took my own measurement and got 7.09, a very respectable FOV for this size. I agree that it has nice ergonomics and I personally love the focus wheel. They are a nifty little tool and perfect for my glove box but I do stand by my one complaint. The veiling glare is horrible, among the worst I have used! I too would love to get my hands on a 7x26 elite, I have a fondness for reverse porro designs and it is supposedly the best there ever was.

 

[Richard D]

I just retrieved my pair from the glove box and you are absolutely right! It says 7.1 on it and I double checked and took my own measurement and got 7.09, a very respectable FOV for this size. I agree that it has nice ergonomics and I personally love the focus wheel. They are a nifty little tool and perfect for my glove box but I do stand by my one complaint. The veiling glare is horrible, among the worst I have used! I too would love to get my hands on a 7x26 elite, I have a fondness for reverse porro designs and it is supposedly the best there ever was.

I've not tried the Custom Elite, but I recently picked up the older Custom 7x26 and whilst it's not up to optical performance of the Swaro CL 8x25 it's still a very decent performer.