Henry,
You remember this better than I, but didn't B&L for a short time have an 8x50 porro where the objectives were underhung so that the objective spacing more or less equalled the eyepiece spacing? And Minolta has had a similar range of porros. The former I have never handled, but the Minolta felt quite good and natural in my hands. The design was not as streamlined as in the Perger prisms, but looked and felt more compact than traditional wide porros. Additionally, it is less tiring to hold a binocular if your hands can be held even a mere inch lower.
As to the original posters' question, I have no preference by prism type any more. Roof prism coatings and production technologies/tolerances have developed to a level where the best roofs have for some while not given up anything of visible importance to porros, and now even medium-priced roofs are getting there.
Kimmo
You remember this better than I, but didn't B&L for a short time have an 8x50 porro where the objectives were underhung so that the objective spacing more or less equalled the eyepiece spacing? And Minolta has had a similar range of porros. The former I have never handled, but the Minolta felt quite good and natural in my hands. The design was not as streamlined as in the Perger prisms, but looked and felt more compact than traditional wide porros. Additionally, it is less tiring to hold a binocular if your hands can be held even a mere inch lower.
As to the original posters' question, I have no preference by prism type any more. Roof prism coatings and production technologies/tolerances have developed to a level where the best roofs have for some while not given up anything of visible importance to porros, and now even medium-priced roofs are getting there.
Kimmo