Binocollector
Well-known member
I doubt it's 15 %. The good ones among the EWA porros have more like 60% sweetspot depending on ones ability to accommodate of course.
-
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.
Review of the Linet Imperial 7x35 WA 13.5 degree Porro Prism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Unless it’s a FPO rangemaster 😉. He knows it’s not, it’s dribble.
CharleyBird
Well-known member
I recall someone writing that older non waterproof binoculars, (and at the time criticising the Nikon E2), were prone to getting dust inside etc. So not a good thing, better not buy.
Hmm, who was that ?
Hmm, who was that ?
Binocollector
Well-known member
I didn't hold back often enough with my critique of Dennis but I think it's a good thing to appreciate the porros of yesteryear. And considering how many I have by now - dust and fungus are rarely an issue, alignment is however.
And even if they had some dust inside, they're easy enough to clean.
The ones that are particularly clean on the inside are the old Komz models with the felt ring around the ocular turrets that prevent dust from getting in. Of course they didn't make all that many super wide angle models. But the 6x24 is pretty neat.
And even if they had some dust inside, they're easy enough to clean.
The ones that are particularly clean on the inside are the old Komz models with the felt ring around the ocular turrets that prevent dust from getting in. Of course they didn't make all that many super wide angle models. But the 6x24 is pretty neat.
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Binocollector, that's good to know, thinking long term about my E2 and Swaro drawscope.
I'd agree with someone who said that mechanically, or for build quality, some older binoculars were equal to modern ones.
But it was postulated that a binocular made at least half a century ago could outshine, for example, my 12x42NL or 7x42FL.
Got to love the enthusiasm though
I'd agree with someone who said that mechanically, or for build quality, some older binoculars were equal to modern ones.
But it was postulated that a binocular made at least half a century ago could outshine, for example, my 12x42NL or 7x42FL.
Got to love the enthusiasm though
I like the vintage porros too! It's a little funny to me how wide-field went out of style, then came back in style, but only if you pay $2500+. For a couple of the "modern" brands, you also must pay $2000 to get a decent smooth focuser, which is amusing to me. There's definitely a cult-like mentality to "alpha" bino phenomenon. Not everybody got onboard that train. In fact, most people would consider us crazy to be spending this much on binos!
If you really want to get into what makes a sensible purchase for most consumers, you don't want to go down the road of comparing some of these vintage porros to modern "alphas" IMO. I was just able to buy several pairs of the absolute cream of the crop vintage Nikon E's on ebay, get them serviced to perfection at best bino servicing shop in the US, and the bill for three of them came to less that one new pair of Leica Retro's or even a Nikon Monarch HG.
If you really want to get into what makes a sensible purchase for most consumers, you don't want to go down the road of comparing some of these vintage porros to modern "alphas" IMO. I was just able to buy several pairs of the absolute cream of the crop vintage Nikon E's on ebay, get them serviced to perfection at best bino servicing shop in the US, and the bill for three of them came to less that one new pair of Leica Retro's or even a Nikon Monarch HG.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Do we get three guesses? Do we get clues? Does the person buy stuff, praise as best thing since sliced bread , then sell and trash them? Does this person see glare in almost every binocular? Does that person say they like bins sharp to the edge , then praise binoculars notoriously known for bad edges? Does this person say something they had a classified ad was sold, then we find out he lied? Does this person like Google images of goats?
I have no idea. 😂🤣
Binocollector
Well-known member
Just a little thought, since I use these things a lot. Just came back from hiking and had one of my 8x30 EWAs with me.
The field curvature is less of a problem than the massive pincushion distortion. Unless you like to roll your eyes around in the FoV, the blurry edges are not much of an issues. In fact I think that's pretty close to how our eyes work anyway since they only have a 2° sweetspot.
But the pincushion can be annoying. Yes, it does prevent rolling ball effect but it makes the edges of the FoV bend up and down, depending on how you pan the surroundings. And you normally don't see the blurry edges as much as you notice those bending lines of trees or architecture.
So, something more modern with a wide field of view will have far less pincushion distortion. In an ideal case, just enough to prevent rolling ball. Holger Merlitz has explained that quite well on his website and in his book. (Not even mentioning the more modern coatings but for daytime use, transmission isn't that much of an issue for me.)
So I think I'd rather have a wide angle bino with no pincushion and rolling ball effect (like the Meopta Meopro HD 8x32). But that being said, I still like those old porros.
Some of them make up for the blurry edges with such a razor sharp center that some modern roofs (below the 1k$/€ bracket) have trouble keeping up.
The field curvature is less of a problem than the massive pincushion distortion. Unless you like to roll your eyes around in the FoV, the blurry edges are not much of an issues. In fact I think that's pretty close to how our eyes work anyway since they only have a 2° sweetspot.
But the pincushion can be annoying. Yes, it does prevent rolling ball effect but it makes the edges of the FoV bend up and down, depending on how you pan the surroundings. And you normally don't see the blurry edges as much as you notice those bending lines of trees or architecture.
So, something more modern with a wide field of view will have far less pincushion distortion. In an ideal case, just enough to prevent rolling ball. Holger Merlitz has explained that quite well on his website and in his book. (Not even mentioning the more modern coatings but for daytime use, transmission isn't that much of an issue for me.)
So I think I'd rather have a wide angle bino with no pincushion and rolling ball effect (like the Meopta Meopro HD 8x32). But that being said, I still like those old porros.
Some of them make up for the blurry edges with such a razor sharp center that some modern roofs (below the 1k$/€ bracket) have trouble keeping up.
Yes, but none of that really takes away from the stunning, realistic 3D view the Linet produces. With its bigger 35 mm aperture, the Linet still brings in 20% more light than a 32 mm alpha like the 8x32 NL.
It feels much lighter than an NL because it is much shorter and wider. Even with the slight drop-off in sharpness at the edge, at which I estimate at 15%, the usable FOV is way larger than any NL or even WX with a 13.5 degree FOV.
I actually prefer the realistic 3D view through the Linet more than an NL. It is like looking through a pane of glass where everything is 7x closer. The NL is like looking at a big flat pie plate or at a slide under a microscope that has been processed through 20 pieces of glass. It is personal preference which you prefer, but I prefer the Linet. The Linet pans better with no RB, eye placement is easier, there is much less glare and because the FOV is so much bigger you can pan faster because you are taking in bigger chunks of the scenery at one time. Best of all, the armor is 50 years old and still looks new! With the NL, you may be lucky to get 2 to 3 years before it starts disintegrating.
The color does little to decrease the quality of the view of the Linet. It is just an observation that it is not as pure white. Some may prefer the color of the Linet. Have you ever looked through a SWA vintage porro like the Linet? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be making these ridiculous statements.
"Ignorance is bliss, tiss folly to be wise."
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Dennis (master Po), sorry but I have to agree with Charleybird on this one.
Piffle😄
Your faddiness is unsurpassed
Not a spot of dust or fungus in the Linet and I checked them with a flashlight. They must be better sealed than the E2.
Last edited:
I don't see anywhere near that amount of falloff on the Linet. In fact the falloff is very gradual, and actually the edges are not fuzzy just slightly less sharp like many modern roofs. You can actually see things quite well, even at the extreme edges. A Kowa Genesis 8x33 has fuzzier edges than the Linet.
Just a couple of weeks ago, you were praising the vintage porros like the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 and saying how it shocks people when you let them look through a pair, but now that I have a pair, you have changed your colors. Sometimes I think you just like to argue with your Master Kann, grasshopper. Kind of like a kid that wants to argue with their father to express their independence.
Here is a Bushnell 7x35 FPO Rangemaster that somebody wants $1899.99 for on eBay. That is a little steep even for somebody with deep pockets like me.
Vintage Rare Bushnell Rangemaster Fuji FPO Extra Wide 7x35 mm 10* Binoculars | eBay
This is the best of 12 different versions of the Bushnell Rangemaster, made by Fuji Photo Optical. It is the pinnacle of Japanese wide field binoculars. This pair is circa 1957 manufacture with serial number being 314,222.
www.ebay.com
Last edited:
Not outshine. They just produce a different kind of view than the newer alpha roofs that is just refreshing. I am not saying either is superior, just I prefer the view through the Linet. Even with the view being slightly less bright and having softer edges, it is hard to go back to the tunnel like view of an NL once you have experienced a 13.5 degree FOV.
You can see so much at once through the Linet without moving the binocular, it becomes addictive. The Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44 and the Linet Imperial SWA 7x35 really shocked me when I first looked through them, it is amazing just how good a 50-year-old binocular can be and the armor still looks like new. There must not be anything biodegradable in it..
Exactly. The on-axis resolution is superb on these older porros and that is mainly what you are looking for when you are birding. That is why the Audubon's were designed like they were. I have always said a simple porro prism design with TIR prisms will beat a complex roof prism design, no matter how much money they throw into them to correct everything.
The porro prism is just s simpler, superior design. The thing about a 13.5 degree binocular is you don't have to pan as much because you can see almost everything the first time in the huge FOV.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Yes I was praising the vintage porros, the good ones, not the ones you have. As your eyes continue to degrade so is your reading comprehension, I’ve mentioned in multiple posts and a few directly to you which are the very good vintage porros. But your to busy with the piffle descriptions. From your texts and contradictory descriptions of binoculars I’ve come to the belief you were not master Khan but master PO.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Linet not even close to 13.5 , maybe 11 if your lucky and the picussion on those are horrendous.
If I recall, something I do better than you 🤭, you had said months ago the old vintage porros were no good because of low light transmission and bad edges, and you only like binoculars with good edges. Like the best birding binoculars in the world (according to you) the NL’s 😲😉.
The Linets are quickly becoming my favorite non IS birding binoculars out of the seven binoculars I have, and they include a Zeiss FL 8x42 and a Nikon SE 8x32. I still like my Sig Sauer Zulu 6 IS 10x30 and 16x42 for longer distances. I don't know why they ever quit making these SWA porros! The 7x magnification with its great DOF and the 13.5 degree FOV allow me to see a way bigger area at one time without panning, and I am finding more birds easier than I ever did with any binocular I have had in the past.
The amazing 3D of these porros also pops the birds out of the trees in a way no NL or SF ever did with their pie plate flat FOV. These feel at least 20% lighter when holding them up to your eyes because they are shorter and wider than most modern alpha roofs, so the weight distribution is much better, similar to the front forward weight on a Zeiss SF.
I was out late tonite and even in low light these were very bright, and I think the only binocular I have that is a tad brighter is my Zeiss FL 8x42 and like all my other binoculars they now seem like the FOV is like looking down a straw. Let me tell you, a 13.5 degree FOV is ADDICTING!
I can't believe anybody would try to bird with a Habicht 7x42 with its tunnel like 6.5 degree FOV and tight focuser when these have more than twice the FOV and a silky smooth focuser! The edges are sharper than you think and when you sense the movement of a bird on the edge you just center it in that huge FOV. If more people with an NL would try these, Swarovski would lose more business than they are with the armor fiasco!
The amazing 3D of these porros also pops the birds out of the trees in a way no NL or SF ever did with their pie plate flat FOV. These feel at least 20% lighter when holding them up to your eyes because they are shorter and wider than most modern alpha roofs, so the weight distribution is much better, similar to the front forward weight on a Zeiss SF.
I was out late tonite and even in low light these were very bright, and I think the only binocular I have that is a tad brighter is my Zeiss FL 8x42 and like all my other binoculars they now seem like the FOV is like looking down a straw. Let me tell you, a 13.5 degree FOV is ADDICTING!
I can't believe anybody would try to bird with a Habicht 7x42 with its tunnel like 6.5 degree FOV and tight focuser when these have more than twice the FOV and a silky smooth focuser! The edges are sharper than you think and when you sense the movement of a bird on the edge you just center it in that huge FOV. If more people with an NL would try these, Swarovski would lose more business than they are with the armor fiasco!
Last edited:
