• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The enduring allure of the 7x50 Porro (1 Viewer)

I've used 7x50s at sea, and for my money, that is the situation I think they perform best. Size/weight is not so important as you won't be hiking long distances with the instrument, and the large exit pupil works really well for making the view as relaxed as it can be, which, if conditions are not calm, becomes very important. The targets you are searching for (landmarks, other vessels, navigation buoys etc) are generally speaking not too difficult to spot, so 7x mag is seldom an issue. I've found that when searching for smaller birds/groups of birds, especially at some distance, I would prefer more magnification, and I've found my brother's 8.5x42 Swarovski quite useful - but every increase in magnification makes things more difficult at sea.

On land, with things being more steady, I tend to prefer more magnification, especially in the x50 format, and a wider field of view than most 7x50s offer. But if 7x works for you and the weight/bulk of a x50 isn't an important factor, they can still give good service. In all fairness, the image quality of the 7x50s I've used (mostly lower end ones too - Bushnells etc) has been pretty good.
 
My 7x50 Nikon oceanpro are amazing for astronomy. They keep up with some of my 10x binoculars

when other people try out all my optics they often pick the Oceanpro as their favorite, even among more expensive binoculars

the only downside is they are big and heavy
 
I'm a porro fan (use 10x40 Habichts a lot) but the more I use my SLC 7x50's the more I enjoy them - not lightweight round the neck, but beautifully balanced in the hand. The doubler works pretty decently too - yes you get a narrower view and optically it isn't quite up to stunning clarity used without, but you get a very useable 'bright enough' 14x50 scope
 
Have you ever compared it to the Nikon Action 7x35? I wonder how soft the edges are?
There is definitely softness in the edges, but I guess it's to be expected for the price. I have also looked through the Nikons but for some reason they give me a bit of a headache while panning... ¯\(ツ)/¯ Otherwise, the view is similar.
 
Some of the lower price Nikon Porros have aspherical eyepiece elements.
Maybe moulded plastic on top of glass.
The magnification varies across the field.

This could account for problems when panning.

The low price Olympus, Pentax and Bushnell Porros may not use aspherics.

B.
 
Has anybody really compared a good 7x50 porro like the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 to a good 8x56 roof like the Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56. I know the roofs would have the advantage of center focusing versus the IF of the Fujinon but with the great DOF of the Fujinon you wouldn't have to change the focus too much, perhaps having three different focus settings for infinity, garden and close range. In fact, it could be an advantage because you wouldn't have to focus as much following fast moving birds. The porro would have the advantage of higher transmission with the Fujinon having over 95% transmission and the "3D" view, more DOF because of the lower 7X magnification, it has much less distortion, much sharper edges, scores much higher in Allbinos, and it would be easier to hold steady than the 8x56 roofs. Weight and size would actually be pretty close between the porro and the roofs, and the Fujinon would be about 1/3 the cost. If you could tolerate the IF, could the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 be a alternative to the Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 for a low light binocular?

 
Last edited:
Hi Denis,

I haven't looked though the Fujinon 7x50 but a friend from the astro club has an FMT-SX2 in 10x50 and we have many times compared it side by side to my SE and under the stars the Fuji certainly had the edge... partly certainly due to 8mm more aperture and more modern coatings but under daylight it was also very nice if one forgot the weight and the IF...

Joachim
 
Last edited:
Hi Denis,

I haven't looked though the Fujinon 7x50 but a friend from the astro club has an FMT-SX2 in 10x50 and we have many times compared it side by side to my SE and under the stars the Fuji certainly had the edge... partly certainly due to 8mm more aperture and more modern coatings but under daylight it was also very nice if one forgot the weight and the IF...

Joachim
Where did you get the SX2? I have heard these have newer coatings, but I have never seen them for sale. Everything Fujinon I see for sale is just an SX. The Fujinon FMT-SX in 7x50 or 10x50 is one of the best astro binoculars you can get for the money.
 
Hi Denis,

those are kinda common over here... I guess he probably got his from this store as they often had a stand at telescope conventions when we still had those...


Not sure if they ship overseas...

But APM does - and they speak english too...


Joachim
 
Hi Denis,

those are kinda common over here... I guess he probably got his from this store as they often had a stand at telescope conventions when we still had those...


Not sure if they ship overseas...

But APM does - and they speak english too...


Joachim
Hi Denis,

those are kinda common over here... I guess he probably got his from this store as they often had a stand at telescope conventions when we still had those...


Not sure if they ship overseas...

But APM does - and they speak english too...


Joachim
Interesting, they have the SX2's, and we don't in the US. Thanks for the information!
 
Here is an interesting thread from Cloudy Night's on the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 concerning the fabulous DOF it has!

 
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the binoculars which are perceived as producing the greatest depth of field, also produce the flattest field of focus. This is because depth of field and flatness of field are easily conflated. Both the Fujinon 7x50 FTM-SX, and the Nikon 7x50 Prostar (mentioned by SMark in the discussion linked above), produce exceptionally flat fields - which is to say the image center and edges can be simultaneously focused on a flat subject (such as a wall or star field). Most binoculars (and camera lenses) have a field of focus which is umbrella-shaped (from the perspective of the umbrella’s handle), rather that flat. In many terrestrial viewing circumstances, this field curvature can actually increase the apparent depth of field, since foreground and distant objects can be simultaneously in focus. This illusion of greater depth of field collapses when viewing a flat object such as a wall or star field.
 
Here is an interesting thread from Cloudy Night's on the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 concerning the fabulous DOF it has!

The usual confusion between a focussing instrument (camera) and an afocal instrument (telescope or binocular).
There are a number of (mostly human) factors which can affect perceived DoF but basically it is proportional to the inverse square of the magnification of the instrument, i.e. for a focussed object at a certain distance a 7x bin would have double the DoF of a 10x bin.

John
 
I submit a pair of Carton Adlerblicks. They are designed to sound German, but were made in Japan.... (!)

I was just getting into astronomy, living in San Francisco, but getting out to some darker skies from time to time. I found this brand in the Orion catalog, which advertised them as being multi-coated and having long eye relief.... Even 30 years ago, ER was an issue for me. They worked fine for my needs back then. I recall finding the beehive cluster just over the roof of our flat under terribly light polluted skies, by following a simple chart, and being thrilled by that simple discovery. Andromeda Galaxy looks good under the dark skies of central Oregon through them. They did their job under night skies for several years, until I got a pair of Canon IS 15 x 50, that was far superior, even though they didn't have enough eye relief, and the IPD was a bit too wide. I had to use those without my glasses. I also progressed to an 80mm scope, then a 10" reflector, and finally an 18".

When I started birding about 5 years ago, out came the Adlerblicks, and immediately revealed their major fault for birding: Close focus is greater than 25 feet, something I never noticed under the night skies. I can't even focus on the bird feeder in the backyard from the kitchen! The outer third of the image is progressively soft. FOV of 7° is ok for 7x50's, and they do still work fine at night, where most bright objects are more than 25 feet away...

-Bill
 

Attachments

  • carton.1.jpg
    carton.1.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 11
  • carton.2.jpg
    carton.2.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 10
  • carton.3.jpg
    carton.3.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 10
An observer in Belgium about 1950 reported seeing M31, the Andromeda galaxy, a full 5 degrees long in a 7x50 binocular.
During the Great Northeastern US Power Failure of 1965, one of the first things I looked at was M31 with my 7X50s.

It was my impression at the time that the galaxy filled the entire field. I’m sure that statement will be greeted with hoots of derision and elaborate explanations of why that was not possible, so I will settle for agreeing with the observation from Belgium.

That was my first binocular, and it has long since passed into oblivion. I don’t even remember the brand.

A 10X70 in a good location also gives an impressive view of M31.

The impression from 1965 remains to this day.
 
Last edited:
Most astronomers consider the 10x50 binocular is standard. The increased magnification more than compensates for the very relaxed view of the 7x50.

In very dark skies a 7x50 binocular is indeed wonderful.
Some of the lower price Nikon Porros have aspherical eyepiece elements.
Between my 8x32 and 10x32, would the 10x be the better of the two for non-dark sky viewing and which Nikon models not have the aspherical elements?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top