Too high powered compacts (1 Viewer)

[Swedpat]

I have wondered about this matter long time. Why are compact binos mostoften 8-10x? Generally a 10x50 provides at least the same stable image as a typhical 8x20, likely better. Because of the light weight and small format the image can't be as stable as with larger binoculars. Why the manufacturers don't produce 6x20 models instead? I know that Zeiss has earlier had this configuration.

The advantages with a 6x20 instead of a 8x20 (and 10x25) would be:

*larger FOV
*78% brighter image
*more stable image
*longer eye relief

In many cases the user can hardly make use of the larger image scale with compacts, and a lower powered alternative would be a better choice. I think!

Patric

 

[kmiernik]

I've been looking for 6x25 compact binos but there are no such. I had the same problem: 8x20 is a very dark option even if they are Fully MC and has Phase Coated prism and all that stuff. I could use 6x25 all the time not only during bright and sunny day as I can with 10x25.

I think it is that because those compact binoculars are not for people using binoculars at all. It is just a toy for someone that does not understand what 10 and 25 means. He may have heard that 10x means magnification so he wouldn't have taken 6x25 as they had to be worse. And that's why you can buy such useless thing as 12x25 or 10x21 (dark as hell and FOV around 4 deg - madness!)

I have found one very strange and funny Minox 6x20, but never tried them.

 

[Swedpat]

kmiernik,

Yes, a 6x25 would also be a great configuration. Actually I have had a Zeiss Classic monocular 6x20, and would today like to have the binocular version of this discontinued model. With the eyecups downfolded the eye relief was more than adequate to see the entire FOV with eyeglasses on and superior to every today existing 8x20-10x25 (though apparant FOV was only 41 deg). Despite the narrow AFOV the TFOV was nearly 7 deg, in comparison to my current Minolta Activa 8x25 D WP XL with 5,5 deg. The 3,3 mm exit pupil provided significantly brighter and clearer images than the typhical 8x20 and 10x25 models, which actually maked the 6x20 somewhat useable even at dawn and dusk. A 6x25 of the same size and shape as a 8 and 10x25 would really be a comfortable and useful binocular. You are completely right about those stupid 10x21 and 12x25 models, who mostly attract unexperienced persons!

Patric

 

[ceasar]

Everybody is raving about the pentax 6 x 21 butterfly bins.
Bob

 

[CSG]

Well, as someone who has a pair of Minolta 6x20's from around 1980, I understand the appeal. As someone who just purchased some Zeiss Victory 10x25's, I understand their appeal too. The Minolta's sit in the glove box, the Zeiss go with me for walks. Part of the reason is the superb image scale. Still, if one of the big three or Nikon, Pentax, etc. made a new 6x20, I'd be all over a pair. The Minoltas (which are shirt-pocket tiny porros and have factory winged eyecups) are useless when I'm wearing sunglasses. Also, the diopter adjustment is loosy-goosy and you have to constanty fiddle with them. When they are adjusted and on target though, they're very nice.

The manufacturers have bought into their own marketing though and say the public does not want low-power compacts. I think they're wrong.

 

[eetundra]

The shape of the Leica 10x25 allows me to grab a tube well enough to make it steadier than any other 10x I've used. On the other hand, with most other compacts the hold is fiddly. Maybe you should look into a used 6x25 Bausch and Lomb.

Just today in an airline magazine I saw an ad for compacts that boasted they were the only compacts with the amazing technology and workmanship neccesary to allow them to zoom up to 125x! Apparently a bigger number means a better binocular from a marketing standpoint.

 

[Swissboy]

Everybody is raving about the pentax 6 x 21 butterfly bins.
Bob

That's right! They are great, but they are not waterproof!

 

[Tero]

I think it has to do with what people are used to. If they are using 8x in full size, they seem to want 8x in compacts.

I might go one level lower, so if you use 8x, go for 7x in compact, if you use 10x, use 9x in compacts. That way you get a good FOV.

 

[Swedpat]

As you say CSG:
"The manufacturers have bought into their own marketing though and say the public does not want low-power compacts. I think they're wrong."

I am sure you are right here. I really suspect the manufacturers don't are in line to what SERIOUS users want. Too many of them still go for the selling argument of high power, which attracts the big mass of unexperienced binocular buyers.


You Tero say:
"I might go one level lower, so if you use 8x, go for 7x in compact, if you use 10x, use 9x in compacts. That way you get a good FOV."

I will go even longer. When I compared my 8x25 to my 11x70 I found that the 11x70 provides a more stable image than the 8x25 because of the weight and size. I think the difference in practice (if talking about image stability) is at least two or three levels of magnification. (I will confirm that a 11x70 at any circumstances is way too large and heavy for comfortable use handheld, however, but just wanted to give the example).

Regards, Patric

 

[ceasar]

That's right! They are great, but they are not waterproof!

Robert,
For 135 bucks you have to cut somewhere!

I might as well correct my earlier error. They are 6.5 x 21 not 6X--that will make a world of difference!
:'D
Bob

 

[lucznik]

Why the manufacturers don't produce 6x20 models instead? I know that Zeiss has earlier had this configuration.

The simple answer here is that they can't sell enough of them to make it worthwhile. You mention that at one point Zeiss made this configuration so, the question then is not "why don't they produce 6x20 models" but rather, "why did they stop?" Zeiss certainly would not have discontinued the configuration if it had been one of their better selling options.

The bottom line is that optics manufacturers are not in the business to simply make the best optics bar none. Even the "Top 3 (or 4)" limit what they do based on a paradigm of what they believe will generate an acceptable return on investment. They are there to turn a profit, plain and simple. 8x and 10x models do this very nicely, whereas the lower magnifications generally do not. It almost seems counter productive to use a low magnification optic as the whole point of using one in the first place is to get you closer to the thing you are trying to look at.

I'm sure that different areas and regions will see different demands in marketing so, I don't offer this as an accross-the-board truth but, this last concept seems to be so generally convincing that I don't know of a single optics retailer within 200 miles of my home in Wyoming that regularly stocks binoculars with less than 8x magnification and the most popular is the 10x. Personally, I can't blame them as I have come to strongly prefer the higher magnification models. I just don't seem to experience the negatives that some people condemn them for having.

I guess what it really comes down to is; what motivation is there for them to make this 6x20 configuration if the sales aren't going to be there to make it a profitable endeavor? Sure a few people who are optics fanatics might rejoice but, there aren't enough of them to create or maintain a steady demand.

 

[Swedpat]

lucznik,

Yes, I absolutely get what you say. Zeiss wouldn't discontinue the 6x20 model if it had sold enough.

My personal opinion is that many binocular users fool themselves when they prefer high powers at compact binoculars. As I have mentioned (and also is a indisputable fact among experienced binocular users) a lightweight compact binocular doesn't provide nearly the same stable image handhold as a larger and heavier model. Therefore I doubt about the use of higher than 8x power with compacts, and think that 6-7x is best. Surely the experience because of the image scale may be greater with 10x than with 6-8x but it's doubtful if you really see more details. (and if you don't gain of higher power, it's better to have slightly lower power and get brighter image).
My comparison above between my 8x25 and 11x70 MAY confirm this to SUCH a level.

Regards, Patric

 

[lucznik]

Patric,

I'm not sure a comparison between 8x compact and 11x supersize binoculars can provide much useful information as they are so completely and diametrically opposed in both their design and also their intended uses.

I certainly know people who prefer low power, especially in compacts (my dad being foremost among them.) I personally however, have all but completely given up on my 8x compacts in favor of the 10x option and there are quite a few people who would seem to agree with my choice. A search on this very forum related to the issue of 10x compacts will net you several threads where the advantages of the higher magnification have been loudly and eloquently lauded. The extreme popularity of 10x25 models like the Leica Ultravid, Nikon LXL, Zeiss Victory, etc. alone represents adequate evidence of their abounding utility. Clearly the various manufacturers are not persuaded by the arguments for low magnification. I would postulate that this is primarily because they don't ever see such arguments translate into sales.

I think really, it comes down to a matter of personal preference which is based on each individual's expectations, biases, and desires for what they want to see through their optics. There are pros and cons to each model and the consumer has to make a decision as to what features are the most desireable as well as to what problems are the most tolerable. I doubt you could ever find a single configuration that would sufficiently satisfy every user all the time.

 

[Swedpat]

lucznik,

When you say: "I doubt you could ever find a single configuration that would sufficiently satisfy every user all the time." you are of course right!

I yet think that I to a CURTAIN EXTENT have right in my opinions, but different persons can manage different levels. One person claim that more than 8x is too shaky. Another claims that he can manage 12x power on a normal binocular. And a third means that he can make use of a 15x56...

Undependent of opinion it's a fact that a 6x25 provides 2,78 times brighter image than a 10x25, which is one important factor I want to illustrate. This is a factor making a 6x25 a glass suitable for dusk and dawn, while a 10x25 (and barely a 8x25) are not.

Patric

 

[lucznik]

lucznik,

When you say: "I doubt you could ever find a single configuration that would sufficiently satisfy every user all the time." you are of course right!

I yet think that I to a CURTAIN EXTENT have right in my opinions, but different persons can manage different levels. One person claim that more than 8x is too shaky. Another claims that he can manage 12x power on a normal binocular. And a third means that he can make use of a 15x56...

Undependent of opinion it's a fact that a 6x25 provides 2,78 times brighter image than a 10x25, which is one important factor I want to illustrate. This is a factor making a 6x25 a glass suitable for dusk and dawn, while a 10x25 (and barely a 8x25) are not.

Patric

I have no qualm with this statement. You are definately correct that 8x and 10x compacts are not well suited for low light. Then again, no compact really is. I'll bet those 11x70s are a real jewel at night though. (That is, assuming they are on a tripod.) :t:

 

[Swedpat]

I'll bet those 11x70s are a real jewel at night though. (That is, assuming they are on a tripod.) :t:

You got it! The great combination of brightness and twilight factor makes them impressing during real low light conditions. But 70mm objectives means that they are large and heavy and that a tripod is recommended...

Then again, no compact really is

Yes, if you have 3-4x magnification... but then the gain of the magnification will be too low to be really worth to consider. So, in practice you are right...

Patric

 

[ceasar]

The fact of the matter is that if you are going to be walking around in the woods alot, a 6 or 7x with a wide field and a 5 or 6mm exit pupil will probably be more than satisfactory. 8x's are a good all around compromise for all around birding and as Lucznik notes a 10x is ideal for wide open spaces with long distance views. If you don't know what your itinerary will be for the day, then it goes without saying that the properly prepaired birder will carry all three!
You betcha,
Bob :hi:

 

[eetundra]

Funny, the shape of the Ultravid 10x25, or at least the lenght of the tube I can wrap my hands around, allow me to steady it better than their 8x20 or most other compacts. Honestly, if the field were a few feet wider the 10x25 Ultravid could have easily ended up as my all-around birding binocular, very stunning and an over achiever. Deceptively bright.

 

[hinnark]

Funny, the shape of the Ultravid 10x25, or at least the lenght of the tube I can wrap my hands around, allow me to steady it better than their 8x20 or most other compacts.

Here you are not the only one. I feel the same when compared the 8x20 and 10x25 Leica Trinovids and some other compacts that way.
Aprospos too high powered binoculars: Nikon offers a 16x32 Stabileyes binocular. Has anybody tried this?

Steve

 

[CSG]

I'm finding my 10x25 Victorys fast becoming the favorite binoculars I've ever owned. That said, the small exit pupil makes them a bit of a handful after awhile. Eye placement is critical but man, once you're in the zone, wow!