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

[Binastro]

The 8x32 and 10x32 are not ideal for astronomy.

If you have both, try them out.

I use 8x32 BA or Canon 10x30 IS,
The latter is very good even in light pollution, much better than a normal 10x30.

I think that the Aculon and Action VII have aspherical eyepieces, but I don't know which Nikons don't have them.

I spent twenty minutes looking for Perseids this morning but saw none.
There was heat haze and a bright Moon and severe light pollution.
Magnitude 2 stars were barely visible, although Mars was bright.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

Astronomy is such a wide ranging subject and the observer's location so variable that one cannot really advise on an ideal binocular.

Any binocular from a 2x opera glass to a 40x150 Fujinon is suitable.

It is up to the observer to choose.

Often no binocular is needed, just viewing with ones eyes.

B.

 

[angelo225544]

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.

This explanation seems to fall short. It assumes that there is only a single variable - magnification. This discussion, as I read it, attempts to explore (albeit subjectively), observed differences among instruments of equal magnification. If, to a single observers eyes, there appear to be differences between optical systems of nominally equivalent magnification, might this suggest that those differences result from measurable qualitative differences between the instruments in question?

 

[Maljunulo]

No, because a 7X50 and a 7X35 are likely to be indistinguishable in the middle of a bright sunny day.

Mayhaps you are overthinking, or I misunderstood your question.

 

[tenex]

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.

The first sentence here contradicts the rest. Would you care to clarify what you meant to say?

If, to a single observers eyes, there appear to be differences between optical systems of nominally equivalent magnification, might this suggest that those differences result from measurable qualitative differences between the instruments in question?

Yes, but it does not suggest what those differences may be, or whether they correspond to the words the person is using (i.e. "depth of field").

 

[angelo225544]

The first sentence here contradicts the rest. Would you care to clarify what you meant to say?

Thank you for asking. What I was attempting to say, however inelegantly, is simply this: What we perceive as depth of focus will be influenced by actual measurable differences between the various binoculars in question, as well as the object being viewed, and in spite of our unfortunate reliance on a notoriously idiosyncratic tool of observation - human vision. What prompted my statement were the observations of SMark, whom I consider to be the most esteemed voice in this forum on matters of observed differences between Japanese Porro binoculars (I have never found a single observation of his that would be called into question by my own). I was attempting to tie my own observations taken from my 50 years as a photographer, darkroom technician, and binocular collector - with respect to the unique set of characteristics of each and every optical device I have ever had the pleasure to use. Of course, one of the greatest differences between evaluating camera lenses vs binoculars is the relative ease of objective quantification of camera lens characteristics absent laboratory equipment. With that in mind, I thought I might be able to shed some light on the necessarily subjective observations being discussed. Not wanting to be so wordy as to dissuade the casual reader, I kept my post brief - but apparently too brief. That under certain conditions there are no observable differences, or that at differing levels of magnification there are easily predicted differences, is to entirely miss the point that each binocular we own (and cherish) has a unique set of properties which, thankfully, prompt endless thought and conversation. This hobby has brought me much joy in my retirement, largely because of the ideas so generously shared in this forum.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

I have a fondness for the 7x50 format, but not for using them for bird watching. Two favourites are Porro II, military glasses: one German, a Leitz, and one British, both of WWII vintage. The British one, on the right, was probably updated with coatings after WWII while the Leitz was originally coated.



The Porro II binoculars are lighter than the Porro I binoculars and have nice haptics. I like to use them to find planets at dusk or dawn.

Edit: The British one, a model 5, mark 5, is quite the equal of the Leitz.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[Tringa45]

Thank you for asking. What I was attempting to say, however inelegantly, is simply this: What we perceive as depth of focus will be influenced by actual measurable differences between the various binoculars in question, as well as the object being viewed, and in spite of our unfortunate reliance on a notoriously idiosyncratic tool of observation - human vision. What prompted my statement were the observations of SMark, whom I consider to be the most esteemed voice in this forum on matters of observed differences between Japanese Porro binoculars (I have never found a single observation of his that would be called into question by my own). I was attempting to tie my own observations taken from my 50 years as a photographer, darkroom technician, and binocular collector - with respect to the unique set of characteristics of each and every optical device I have ever had the pleasure to use. Of course, one of the greatest differences between evaluating camera lenses vs binoculars is the relative ease of objective quantification of camera lens characteristics absent laboratory equipment. With that in mind, I thought I might be able to shed some light on the necessarily subjective observations being discussed. Not wanting to be so wordy as to dissuade the casual reader, I kept my post brief - but apparently too brief. That under certain conditions there are no observable differences, or that at differing levels of magnification there are easily predicted differences, is to entirely miss the point that each binocular we own (and cherish) has a unique set of properties which, thankfully, prompt endless thought and conversation. This hobby has brought me much joy in my retirement, largely because of the ideas so generously shared in this forum.

If SMark was observing at night, his ability to detect differences in sharpnes on terrestrial objects would be severely impaired.
As GlennLeDrew mentioned on that thread, field curvature might influence perception of depth of field (depth of focus is something else) and the only other instrument factor I can think of would be magnification tolerances either side of the nominal magnification. These however would probably fall below the threshold of human detection.
Everything else is user related.

John

 

[angelo225544]

Very well said, John. Point well taken. I must agree it is very difficult to sort out real vs perceived differences, since binocular viewing is necessarily subjective. This discussion reminds me of discussions among audiophiles, who also struggle to separate real vs perceived differences.

 

[Thotmosis]

Hello,

I have a fondness for the 7x50 format, but not for using them for bird watching. Two favourites are Porro II, military glasses: one German, a Leitz, and one British, both of WWII vintage. The British one, on the right, was probably updated with coatings after WWII while the Leitz was originally coated.

View attachment 1463402

The Porro II binoculars are lighter than the Porro I binoculars and have nice haptics. I like to use them to find planets at dusk or dawn.

Edit: The British one, a model 5, mark 5, is quite the equal of the Leitz.

Stay safe,
Arthur

They are beautiful Arthur!

 

[Tringa45]

The British one, a model 5, mark 5, is quite the equal of the Leitz.

Hello Arthur,

Is that a Ross, and what are the protuberances on the prism housings?

John

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Arthur,

Is that a Ross, and what are the protuberances on the prism housings?

John

Hello Tringa45,

It may very well be a Ross. The manufacturer's name is not engraved on the British binocular but the name may have been obscured when the glass was updated. The protuberances may be purging ports, although someone insisted that they were contacts for internal heating coils.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

Here are two more of my 7x50 binoculars, both older than I: a Bausch and Lomb USN Mark 28, model 0, which I purchased new in the box in 1985, and a US Army Nash Kelvinator Mark 16. My family had a Kelvinator refrigerator which was as well made as the binocular.

If my skies had less light pollution they would get more use.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[angelo225544]

Here are two more of my 7x50 binoculars, both older than I: a Bausch and Lomb USN Mark 28, model 0, which I purchased new in the box in 1985, and a US Army Nash Kelvinator Mark 16. My family had a Kelvinator refrigerator which was as well made as the binocular.

I recently acquired a SARD USN Mark 44, Model 0, and I’m constantly amazed by its performance and build quality. Not the easiest binocular to service, since it was assembled with a waxy waterproofing agent 78 years ago, but well worth the effort.

 

[Binocollector]

I think I should maybe post a couple of mine:
"Scope", 11° on top, "Olympia", 9.8° on bottom, both Made in Japan.

The Scope has an interesting double focuser, one fast, the other one slow for fine-tuning.

A pic of the coatings:

Fujinon FMTR:

Zeiss Jenoptem 7x50:

Noblex Inception:

No porro but AK-prisms, Japanese "Safari":

Nikon "Marine".

 

[Harrybongo]

I've been wanting to post about this for quite a while, and the current thread about marine 7x50 roofs has given me the last push.

In most areas of human activity there are items that end up becoming classics, and for a reason. Yes, you can enjoy the last trend in music, clothing, cars, painting, you can feel the vibrancy and relevance of something new and see how it relates to the current world. However, almost invariably, there will be times where you will look back and look for comfort in things that had stood the test of time, to tried and tested ideas that need no introduction, that we even take for granted and forget about. Say, no one needs to say how great Johann Sebastian Bach is and yet, you sometimes marvel in awe when rediscovering a sonata or a variation. Somehow I find 7x50 Porro prism binoculars are the J. S. Bach of binoculars: they're understated, timeless, sometimes overlooked and left aside, but still have a lot to offer.

Over time I've learnt to love binoculars, not only for what they can provide when watching birds or stars or the world around, but also by their sheer inner beauty as optical engineering marvels (the same way others love cars, watches or fountain pens). I have and have tried many different formats, some are my default/go-to/grab-n-go, like the 8x32... but I always go back to the good old 7x50 Porro. I've had several, fancier, more expensive, but for the time being I've settled for the inexpensive Vixen Ultima (I think it was also sold as Celestron). Not the brightest, not the fanciest... but able to provide indeleble images: deep, immersive, sparkling and full of detail glances of the everyday. I keep it by the kitchen window (because a) I spend an awful lot of time in the kitchen and b) the kitchen overlooks the garden) and use it almost on a daily basis, albeit in short sips, like a strong spirit full of character.

We are lucky to have an incredible choice of hi-quality optics to choose from. The price/performance ratio is really amazing in some cases, and you don't need to spend a fortune to enjoy amazing views. But somehow I feel the humble 7x50 is overlooked, although you can get a battered but trusty 2nd hand for peanuts and enjoy the relaxed view that the 7x50 can offer. Because the objectives are spaced wide apart, the stereoscopic sensation is amazing, and being a 7x the depth of field makes you take on a lot of what you see without need for refocusing (like if you had superpowers in your eyesight), the huge exit pupil makes using them a breeze. And finally, being a low-magnification device even moderately priced units can give an impressive level of detail, offering great experiences of plumage, texture of plants as well as placid view of the landscape (actually, to my eyes, they're the easiest way to get an almost "alpha-esque" view for little money). If someone had a pair of binoculars and was looking for a versatile and inexpensive 2nd pair, I'd recommend the joys of the 7x50. Yes, probably not for everyone, but so capable: relaxed view and easy to use as a loaner, great in low light...

So, here's to the good old 7x50 Porro (yes, your grandpa was wise enough!).
Any other 7x50 Porro lovers around? What's your pick? Any hidden gems? Any memories of that 7x50 you had and let go?

Hi. Yep, you can't beat porros for quality of image! I have 4 sets, all Zomz or Komz Russian /Soviet bins, as well as the porro monos too! : 7x50, 8x40, 8x30, and 7x35's Pin sharp images, built like tanks and, you get a superb leather case too! Like you, I do astronomy as well as birding, and in both fields, the optics are superb! They might be slightly bigger than your roofs, but for the image quality and price, you can't beat em! Good thread/read bye the way. All the best! 👍

 

[Scott98]

It's frustrating that many of the top porros today, like the Fujinons, are so heavy, and IF, because they're aimed at marine use. Nikon's current E2's show that top porros don't need to be any heavier than roofs. I think the 8x30 and 10x35 are 20 and 22 ounces?? or 23??

I wish they'd expand the line, or at least bring back the 7x35 - at 22 or 23 ounces that would be a formidable competitor to 8x42 or 8x32 roofs.

 

[Harrybongo]

Hi Scott. Totally agree. I have both, the Tento 7x35 's, and Nikon 8x40's, both optically very good but, out of the two, I prefer the image and feel of the 7x35's!..... a really good spec bino! 👍

 

[Harrybongo]

I think I should maybe post a couple of mine:
"Scope", 11° on top, "Olympia", 9.8° on bottom, both Made in Japan.

The Scope has an interesting double focuser, one fast, the other one slow for fine-tuning.

A pic of the coatings:

Fujinon FMTR:

Zeiss Jenoptem 7x50:

Noblex Inception:

No porro but AK-prisms, Japanese "Safari":

Nikon "Marine".

Nice sets of binos! 👍 When I give myself a kick, I'll post some pics!......... I like the way you describe the weight in ounces!................. grams! .........what are they?!!..... Showing are age!! 😲 ☺

 

[oldfortyfive]

As much as I love 7x binos all of these older ones typically have very short eye relief making them almost useless to us wearing glasses.