It is just rubber armouring over a metal frame similar to most of the alpha binoculars. The rubber serves no structural purpose other than to cushion and protect it.
-
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.
Polycarbonate or Magnesium? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bokaba
- Start date
The Nikon Travelite 5 has a metal frame for structural strength. with carbon fiber over it and then rubber over that for comfort. The Ferrari just have carbon fiber accents which is the black plate over the bridge.Binocular construction can be in many ways. And one kind is not better than the other.
It does come down to a mfrs. decision, and there are many things that may determine that.
The list of chassis component types, include: Aluminum, fiberglass reinforced polycarbonate,
carbon fiber, and magnesium. Some older types may include some other metals.
The carbon fiber models are not very common, but Nikon offers models, in all 4 types mentioned
above, and Ferrari, a car company that uses carbon fiber, in their F1 race cars, and also
in their production cars.
Here is one carbon fiber binocular model that I own, the Nikon Travellite 5 8x25, and a Ferrari model
I would like to own some day. The binocular may be just as allusive as
my getting the car.
Jerry
"The Ferrari Visio 8x25 binoculars borrow more from the F1 racing team than the famous Prancing Horse logo - they include a real carbon fiber plate which, as well as looking the part, adds to their lightweight construction.
On the Nikon Travelite 5:
"The lightweight body of the 8x25 compact binocular covers a strong metal chassis that in turn is covered with a durable black rubber armor"
Last edited:
EII's are made from magnesium and the Conquest's HD are made from aluminum. Aluminum is actually a good metal to make binoculars from although it is 33% heavier than magnesium.
Last edited:
I guess you could contact the website where I got the information from and ask them to verify their testing methods and tell them you think what they are posting on the internet is just a myth. Here is the website and their contact information. They are selling magnesium so it is possible they are fabricating everything.
http://www.meridian-mag.com/magnesium-die-casting/magnesium-faq/#q09
Joe Petrillo
Director of Sales, North America
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (734) 416-8600 Ext: 2049
Last edited:
Getting back to Bokaba's OP and before the transatlantic slingshots start - prefer polycarb or magnesium for what? Weight, robustness?
As far as the FLs are concerned, i seem to remember them coming top in a 'destruction test' (might have been some time ago on Allbinos?). The 8x32s are very light too....
As far as the FLs are concerned, i seem to remember them coming top in a 'destruction test' (might have been some time ago on Allbinos?). The 8x32s are very light too....
I like the EII. The Conquest is excellent but a bit heavy.
The Terminator, original model, also had a metal endoskeleton. So nothing new there.
Has anyone seen a one piece binocular body broken in half or split?
I have seen broken hinges, bridges and eyecups.
Also two piece bodies broken at the joint.
If I can find a lookout I intend dropping two worthless fungus filled binoculars from 20ft and 50ft onto concrete to see if I can break a body.
I think I will put them in thin Tesco plastic bags so the shattered glass stays in one place.
Unfortunately I don't have a suitable location or a lookout., so it might take a while.
I don't want to hurt anybody.
If not I'll try to toss a binocular 20ft in the air onto the pavement.
If anybody wants to do the same, please report the results.
I think that the design of the binocular matters more than the material.
The Terminator, original model, also had a metal endoskeleton. So nothing new there.
Has anyone seen a one piece binocular body broken in half or split?
I have seen broken hinges, bridges and eyecups.
Also two piece bodies broken at the joint.
If I can find a lookout I intend dropping two worthless fungus filled binoculars from 20ft and 50ft onto concrete to see if I can break a body.
I think I will put them in thin Tesco plastic bags so the shattered glass stays in one place.
Unfortunately I don't have a suitable location or a lookout., so it might take a while.
I don't want to hurt anybody.
If not I'll try to toss a binocular 20ft in the air onto the pavement.
If anybody wants to do the same, please report the results.
I think that the design of the binocular matters more than the material.
I would think polycarb is probably more robust, I seen many older lightweight porro cast magnesium binoculars where the ocular arms have snapped, I formed the view, rightly or wrongly that it seems a common fault. I am guessing polycarb would be less brittle.
As usual it is easy to fall into the trap of talking about these materials as if there is only a choice of one or the other.
Like extra-low dispersion glass there are many different types. For example magnesium alloys with different blends of aluminium, manganese, zinc, silicon, copper and more exotic stuff like zirconium and rare-earths. Polycarbonate can be reinforced with different percentages of glass or carbon-fibre and mixed with other plastics such as ABS, Polyester and Acrylic. There are hundreds of blends with end uses such as flame retardant, food contact, optical, weather resistant, headlamps, medical, architectural, and many more.
Some of these materials will be more suitable than others, some more expensive, some more economical.
Apart from a vague idea born out of impressions gained decades ago that metals are more robust than plastics I wouldn't know which is really better and I suspect that some fibre reinforced plastics are tougher than is generally thought.
Lee
Like extra-low dispersion glass there are many different types. For example magnesium alloys with different blends of aluminium, manganese, zinc, silicon, copper and more exotic stuff like zirconium and rare-earths. Polycarbonate can be reinforced with different percentages of glass or carbon-fibre and mixed with other plastics such as ABS, Polyester and Acrylic. There are hundreds of blends with end uses such as flame retardant, food contact, optical, weather resistant, headlamps, medical, architectural, and many more.
Some of these materials will be more suitable than others, some more expensive, some more economical.
Apart from a vague idea born out of impressions gained decades ago that metals are more robust than plastics I wouldn't know which is really better and I suspect that some fibre reinforced plastics are tougher than is generally thought.
Lee
Be sure to make a YouTube video of it. It would be smashing!
"The Conquest is excellent but a bit heavy." That is because it is made out of aluminum. It is 33% heavier than magnesium. Zeiss had to save money somewhere on their mid-range binocular. To get magnesium you have to buy their alpha's like the SF or HT. The lower end Terra's are plastic composite. So as you move up the line you have plastic, aluminum, and magnesium. That should tell you what Zeiss thinks of binocular construction materials. Does good, better and best come to mind?
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Lee,
Thank's for putting this insightful post together (as well as others :t
. Binoculars are opto-mechanical visual instruments, and designed on a holistic engineering basis. There is no general answer to the question "Polycarbonate or Magnesium?" simply because of the many trade-offs involved, one of them, of course, being the price point. The "-mechanical" part of the system is rarely discussed, but comprehensive books are available on the subject, e.g., "Opto-Mechanical Systems Design" by Paul Yoder, Jr. (Yoder is also an author of the recent SPIE Field Guide to Binoculars and Scopes.)
Ed
Last edited:
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Denis,
It appears that you are in the grip of an enthusiasm. Again. As usual, this seems to lead you into making absurd statements.
Think on the factoid you keep trotting out about aluminium being 33% heavier than magnesium. Really? A kilogram of aluminium is heavier than a kilogram of magnesium? I think not.
Perhaps you mean that magnesium is less dense than aluminium - which is true but really says very little. Water is less dense than either - yet is clearly unsuited for use as a structural material in binoculars at normal terrestrial temperatures . Pure unalloyed magnesium, just by the way, is also clearly unsuitable for use as a structural material. As Lee has pointed out, above, what might need discussing (to the slight extent that any of this does) would be the characteristics of appropriate alloys of magnesium as compared to other structural materials such as, say, various alloys of aluminium and various composite materials.
I know I'm not really competent to assess such matters. Are you?
...Mike
It appears that you are in the grip of an enthusiasm. Again. As usual, this seems to lead you into making absurd statements.
Think on the factoid you keep trotting out about aluminium being 33% heavier than magnesium. Really? A kilogram of aluminium is heavier than a kilogram of magnesium? I think not.
Perhaps you mean that magnesium is less dense than aluminium - which is true but really says very little. Water is less dense than either - yet is clearly unsuited for use as a structural material in binoculars at normal terrestrial temperatures . Pure unalloyed magnesium, just by the way, is also clearly unsuitable for use as a structural material. As Lee has pointed out, above, what might need discussing (to the slight extent that any of this does) would be the characteristics of appropriate alloys of magnesium as compared to other structural materials such as, say, various alloys of aluminium and various composite materials.
I know I'm not really competent to assess such matters. Are you?
...Mike
Last edited:
It is logical when you say something is heavier in the context that I am using it that I mean density. Of course 1 kilogram of aluminum is the same weight as 1 kilogram of magnesium. Also, you would never use PURE magnesium to construct a binocular. Of course it would be a magnesium alloy.
Last edited:
Lee,
Thank's for putting this insightful post together (as well as others :t
The "-mechanical" part of the system is rarely discussed, but comprehensive books are available on the subject, e.g., "Opto-Mechanical Systems Design" by Paul Yoder, Jr. (Yoder is also an author of the recent SPIE Field Guide to Binoculars and Scopes.)
Ed
Thanks Ed and thanks for reminding us about the mechanics.
Considering the controversy (overdone by some) concerning Swaro focusers, Leica grease-less systems, and some sloppy Zeisses, its a subject that should interest us more. Meopta's MeoStar 8x32 has a profoundly different feel to its focuser than any bins I have tried before.
Unfortunately we are unlikely to have clear schematics or explanations of these systems from the makers.
Lee
It is logical when you say something is heavier in the context that I am using it that I mean density. Of course 1 kilogram of aluminum is the same weight as 1 kilogram of magnesium. Also, you would never use PURE magnesium to construct a binocular. Of course it would be a magnesium alloy.
You mean by volume, not by density. Interestingly, Mg alloy often contains aluminum, so, in a way, you're both right. Win-Win!
I actually think aluminum alloy is a pretty good material to make binoculars out of but it is heavier than magnesium. Really not to many binoculars are made out of aluminum.
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Does the extra 'i' in European aluminium make it heavier than US aluminum?:smoke:
Graham
Now you are just being silly.
Stick around, you should fit right in :t:
Lee
John Frink
Well-known member
binocular structural material choices
It's disappointing to see comments from forum members who appear to have made an emotional investment in their binoculars that may be greater than their financial investment, with the result that they can't bear to think that theirs might not be the absolute best of all possible choices. To these people I would say, "Everyone please chill out; it's all good stuff. The top manufacturers all make superb instruments from many different materials, and that's what gives us all these wonderful choices." I have binoculars made of plastic, aluminum, and magnesium, and they're all great; not one of them has an inherent superiority over any of the others solely because of the material that was used to build it.
John Frink
It's disappointing to see comments from forum members who appear to have made an emotional investment in their binoculars that may be greater than their financial investment, with the result that they can't bear to think that theirs might not be the absolute best of all possible choices. To these people I would say, "Everyone please chill out; it's all good stuff. The top manufacturers all make superb instruments from many different materials, and that's what gives us all these wonderful choices." I have binoculars made of plastic, aluminum, and magnesium, and they're all great; not one of them has an inherent superiority over any of the others solely because of the material that was used to build it.
John Frink
Similar threads
