-
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.
Spent A Week With The 7x35 Retrovid... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mac308
- Start date
Hi Scott98, sure you did that search right? Only 9 come up, of which one is the Leica 7x35, and 2 of the others are the Nikon 7x35, a bit of a classic well known here on BF, in its weatherproof and non versions. All but the Leica are porros.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
It’s interesting how the Retro has brought on so much discussion about 7x magnification. We don’t hear to much talk about 9x or 11x, but seven always seems to have passionate followers. The 7 and 8 power binoculars have a very similar reach and the difference doesn’t really jump out at you like the difference between an 8 and 10. The 7 and 8 have similar FOV, the 7’s are a tad calmer to use which is in contrast to the 10’s smaller FOV , shallower DOF and more difficult to hold steady. The one noticeable thing that pops out to me between 7 and 8 is the very immersive DOF of the 7.
All of this makes me wonder why there are so few 7 roofs on the market. Somebody knows something and their not telling us 🤔🤓.
Paul
All of this makes me wonder why there are so few 7 roofs on the market. Somebody knows something and their not telling us 🤔🤓.
Paul
For all those reasons I come to the opposite conclusion Paul. Theres not much difference, so why? Folks here belittle the difference between 8 and 10, while others come and pray for a 7. Since I come from a product planning, manufacturing background you might reasonably accuse me of being maker biased. But more SKUs add complexity and cost to the system and/but may not add enough profit to justify those. If they made a 7, how much of its sales would be all new vs how much would in fact cannibalize the 8s? What else could I spend my limited R&D money on, that might provide a better return? Eyes on the ball, if the industry insiders see the world shifting to say image stabilization - thats the next big thing - then where do you put your money?
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I figured there was marketing agenda but it doesn’t necessarily answer all the questions. 7’s Being very close to 8’s with better DOF and easier to hold steady , especially with older folk or substance abusers 😜 that the 7’s would win out over the 8’s.
Leica doesn’t seem to worry to much about 8x sales considering they have the UVHD & classics (Retros). Swaro only has the Habicht.
Paul
Paul,
"Agenda" infers something sort of devious about marketing folks and their process. Is that fair? For companies to stay in business and continue to serve most of us, most of the time (notice the riff), they need to think this way. Profit is not a 4 letter word. Adding this or that product to the whole production magilla, do to the desires of a small if dedicated group of enthusiasts needs to be put into context of the whole plan. We know so little about the data these companies possess, how they see the market, these conversations, including my own, all we can do is conjecture. Its fun to be sure, up to a point.
T
For me 8x is the best choice if you only have one binocular. If you're to have 2, 3, or beyond, that's when 7x is my favorite. But even for 1 pair there are advantages to 7x that could make the best choice for some people.
There's definitely a trend toward smaller product lines in the top, expensive binoculars. You can look at past offerings and see it. It's not just 7x that was trimmed, also the 35mm's, 50mm's and 56mm's, in some cases even the 32's. No more 8x50, no more 9x. I think it's the higher initial cost to establish production, the tooling, material costs, subcontractors, etc. It only pays to invest in the higher-volume sizes.
There's definitely a trend toward smaller product lines in the top, expensive binoculars. You can look at past offerings and see it. It's not just 7x that was trimmed, also the 35mm's, 50mm's and 56mm's, in some cases even the 32's. No more 8x50, no more 9x. I think it's the higher initial cost to establish production, the tooling, material costs, subcontractors, etc. It only pays to invest in the higher-volume sizes.
Yes…. If you have two bins…than a solo 7x is perfect for one of them. Perhaps a 7x and 10x?
A trend toward smaller bins… YES… THiS is where Swaro missed with the 8x32 NL. Their R&D concentrated on developing a bin with a ‘ more than needed ‘ FOV and while they did that, the consumer demand on 7-8x 30-32 shifted from FOV to Smaller size/dimensions. Swaro missed and were thinking of old needs according to market research. I am not saying the NL isn’t quality, isn’t selling… but surely they blew it by putting out a product and then seeing consumer demand going for smaller size such as the MHG, SFL, Retro bins.
But those three have compromises to some degree over the NL's. All the smaller ones do - either color correction or edge sharpness, and maybe other areas. Swaro has the 8x30 CL for a compact bino.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Imans66, post 69,
From your post the impression arises that the companies are kind of stupid with the choice of models they produce. What I have seen from a number of them, that they perform a market analysis and keep track of the volumes in sales of different models and 7x binoculars are not the most popular ones and sales are too low to earn enough profits from it to pay for the investments. Lee has in one of his posts already written this: 7x does not sell. So we are to blame...
Gijs van Ginkel
From your post the impression arises that the companies are kind of stupid with the choice of models they produce. What I have seen from a number of them, that they perform a market analysis and keep track of the volumes in sales of different models and 7x binoculars are not the most popular ones and sales are too low to earn enough profits from it to pay for the investments. Lee has in one of his posts already written this: 7x does not sell. So we are to blame...
Gijs van Ginkel
I’m skeptical….
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Tom, you will certainly never hear me say the word profit as a four letter word, I’m a capitalist dog 🤣.
I wasn’t using the word agenda as a negative, or in a way as it is used in the political circles. I was defining it as Merriam Webster number one, A list or outline of things to be considered or done.
Why not mostly 7’s instead of 8’s. Why did 7’s reigned supreme for decades only to be replaced with 8’s the last decade or so. You might know a lot more than me , but I’m not so certain that 7’s would be a niche market. Like you said it could have a lot to do with what will be the best bang for the companies bottom line.
It is fun to bandy the possibilities of why, how and what it’s all about. Let us not forget the 8.5’s , 9’s and 11’s 🫢🤓
I agree. If this isn’t about fun, why are we here?
OK, lets have some fun. Know more than you? Nah. But lemme try in this potentially kinky way.
Several months back there was a thread here asking what were folks favorite or most important attributes in choosing a binocular. We can all guess the answers - FOV, depth of field, ergos, AFOV, 8 vs 10, Field Pro lumps (or not), focuser feel, the usual suspects. I thought phew! First world problems? Then I chimed in with my fav - magnification, and was roundly booed off the stage. Initially taken aback, I thought, "Wow, this seems so obvious. Why else does a bino exist? Isn't it to make objects at some distance bigger and/or closer? How could this be controversial?" But then, this is Birdforum.....
Point?
Shopping for a 32 something or other over the past year, I recall one review at a dealer, where both he and I were looking through SF 832s and NL 832s across a parking lot full of cars and towards some retail businesses. We studied detail, peered here and there, looking for glare, resolution, Absam rings, blue hazed edges, effective FOV (ask me and Ill explain), license plates anything to try and see a difference. 75 or so yards away was a black and white Starbucks sign on the side of a building. Looking first through the NLs, then the SFs, something occurred. I asked the dealer to do the same thing and tell me if he noticed anything. He did. We agreed. The NLs magnified more than the SFs. Now search your memory has anyone here ever mentioned anything like this? Well I have... Any reviewer ever commented? We're talking nominal X here. I have no idea what the actual number is, but say for sake of the conversation the NL was 8.1 and Sf was 7.9. All things being equal, (and to me they were not), I thought Id take the NL any day. I sorta think the average citizen if they were discerning enough to notice, would too.
So, again Ill turn your question around. "Why not mostly 8s instead of 7s?" Time has proven the choice. The market has spoken. For most more X, if one can handle it, is better. Its why we buy binos.... I wouldn't hold my breath for a 7X renaissance.
OK, now your turn.
tenex
reality-based
No, the reason 7x roof-prism bins today have no wider field than 8x is that prioritizing compactness keeps prism (and possibly ocular?) size too small for 6-7x models, leading to an underwhelming impression and drop in sales. If any higher-end maker were to buck this trend and market a 7x35/42 with a more proportional FOV of 9.5°, even I would want to give it a try. But (apart from WX which seems impractical) it's not going to happen, because they've convinced themselves that "7x doesn't sell". Not the way they do it...
Last edited:
The people who turned capitalism into a dirty word are the ones who think they should be able to control your money instead. No thanks.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I was hoping it wasn’t going to get too kinky. I don’t think I’ve ever heard kinky used on BF before 🤣.
I remember that discussion. I don’t remember your specific points but I do remember how you were lambasted in the posts.
Ive experienced this as well , I think it might possible that many binoculars are slightly off on their stated magnification. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the SF had the 8.1, maybe your choice would’ve been different.
I agree more X is preferable if you can handle it and even if you can , is it more comfortable for you to do so. DOF is something that jumps out at me in 7x , and I like that. Therein lies the problem, I prefer 8x mostly but like the feeling of the 7’s because of that DOF.
Tag your it Tom 🙏🏼
