-
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.
Vortex Razors (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
henry link
Well-known member
Tero, I should add that this method can only show you the relative sizes of two apparent field circles, not which one is accurate. Even if the apparent field circles are the same size in two bins with the same magnification spec the true fields may differ because of differences in the actual magnifcation. There may be some magnification difference between two 8x bins at the center of the field, and the type and amount of off axis distortion will add to or subtract from the magnification toward the edge. A bin with a lot of pincushion distortion (which increases magnification toward the edge) will have a smaller true field than would be predicted from its apparent field and one with barrel distortion (lower magnification toward the edge) will have a larger than predicted true field.
FrankD
Well-known member
Henry,
Excellent information. Thank you. I am going to try your suggestion shortly. After posting my previous comments I was left thinking of that bit of an exchange you and I had about how you knew that one pair of Celestrons(?) was not the configuration it was advertised to be. I am now wondering if either the Meopta or the Razor might actually be a somewhat different magnification. I would guess that should show up by comparing the two in the manner you suggested as well?
Excellent information. Thank you. I am going to try your suggestion shortly. After posting my previous comments I was left thinking of that bit of an exchange you and I had about how you knew that one pair of Celestrons(?) was not the configuration it was advertised to be. I am now wondering if either the Meopta or the Razor might actually be a somewhat different magnification. I would guess that should show up by comparing the two in the manner you suggested as well?
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
I wonder if the Razor would function properly at the temperatures that we have in the Midwest these days. At -18 Celsius/0 Fahrenheit the Ultravids are happy, the ELs are slow and stiff but working, and the FLs increased stiffness slows them down a bit.
At -30 Celsius/-22 Fahrenheit only Ultravid still works. At least in our binos.
It may not be relevant to most people, but to a few it may mean success or failure.
At -30 Celsius/-22 Fahrenheit only Ultravid still works. At least in our binos.
It may not be relevant to most people, but to a few it may mean success or failure.
Luca said:
My Vortex Viper worked fine over the weekend at 6 below, and it was in the car all night. Though it was stiff when I took it out of the case, it was
fine after a few turns. I was not fine, however. I was darn cold. Some of the ducks had ice building up on their feathers. But the cold and wind didn't seem to bother the Peregrine sitting on the lights of the Mid-American building.
Lew
FrankD
Well-known member
Luca,
I had the bins out yesterday morning when the temp was at 5 degrees Fahrenheit with a windchill in the single digits below zero. No problems with the focusing whatsoever for the 3 hour period that I was out there. I was very impressed because the focus on a few of my bins tends to tighten up a bit in colder weather.
Tero,
I think the main difference between the two bins in question, minus field of view, would be the percentage of the image that exhibits some type of distortion. From what I remember of the Conquests (both ABK and non-ABK) the outer 1/3rd of the image had a bit of fuzziness to it. At the time I owned them I did not readily understand how to differentiate from one type of distortion to another. The Razors have less edge distortion than the ABKs. In addition that edge distortion is in the form of what I mentioned above. What I found out yesterday was that it can be beneficial because it can lend to the impression of greater depth of field. When I focused on an object at 20 yards there were several objects at apprximately 15 yards that were in perfect focus because of the curvature of field in that outer edge.
I keep learning all the time.
I had the bins out yesterday morning when the temp was at 5 degrees Fahrenheit with a windchill in the single digits below zero. No problems with the focusing whatsoever for the 3 hour period that I was out there. I was very impressed because the focus on a few of my bins tends to tighten up a bit in colder weather.
Tero,
I think the main difference between the two bins in question, minus field of view, would be the percentage of the image that exhibits some type of distortion. From what I remember of the Conquests (both ABK and non-ABK) the outer 1/3rd of the image had a bit of fuzziness to it. At the time I owned them I did not readily understand how to differentiate from one type of distortion to another. The Razors have less edge distortion than the ABKs. In addition that edge distortion is in the form of what I mentioned above. What I found out yesterday was that it can be beneficial because it can lend to the impression of greater depth of field. When I focused on an object at 20 yards there were several objects at apprximately 15 yards that were in perfect focus because of the curvature of field in that outer edge.
I keep learning all the time.
FrankD
Well-known member
The sale price for the Conquests (at least the 8's) from what I remember would be close to the regular price of the Razors. Is the sale on the Conquests still on? I thought it ended at the end of last year. What are the Elites usually going for these days? I know you can find them on Ebay now and again for around $500-$600.
FrankD
Well-known member
Tero,
If you are interested in the Conquests then you may be interested in this....
Zeiss Binoculars
#523208 Conquest 8x30B T* @ $374.99
#523210 Conquest 10x30 T* @ $399.99
#524508 Conquest 8x40 T* ABK @ $599.99
#524510 Conquest 10x40 T* ABK @ $629.99
#524512 Conquest 12x45B T* @ $549.99
#524515 Conquest 15x45B T* @ $629.99
#525008 Conquest 8x50 T* ABK @ $879.99
#525010 Conquest 10x50 T* ABK @ $899.99
#522033 Conquest Compact 8x20 @ $249.99
#522034 Conquest Compact 10x25 @ $299.99
These are all SCI show demos that CameralandNY has up for sale now. Full warranty. That 10x40 is only $630 now.
If you are interested in the Conquests then you may be interested in this....
Zeiss Binoculars
#523208 Conquest 8x30B T* @ $374.99
#523210 Conquest 10x30 T* @ $399.99
#524508 Conquest 8x40 T* ABK @ $599.99
#524510 Conquest 10x40 T* ABK @ $629.99
#524512 Conquest 12x45B T* @ $549.99
#524515 Conquest 15x45B T* @ $629.99
#525008 Conquest 8x50 T* ABK @ $879.99
#525010 Conquest 10x50 T* ABK @ $899.99
#522033 Conquest Compact 8x20 @ $249.99
#522034 Conquest Compact 10x25 @ $299.99
These are all SCI show demos that CameralandNY has up for sale now. Full warranty. That 10x40 is only $630 now.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Thanks, Frank for that detailed review, and to Lewie and others for their contributions. THIS is the type of information I needed last year when I was thinking about buying a Razor. The questions Frank asked where the same ones I was asking myself.
Corresponding with the Vortex Rep helped iron out some issues, but what I wanted to hear was a detailed review from a buyer. The other review Frank posted was also helpful. Btw, the Vortex rep DID answer my query about the focusers and was very friendly and open about the Razor's shortcomings. His original reply was probably lost during a period when my ISP was down so he sent me a copy via PM on BF. This made me feel better about their customer service.
Other reviews I read prior to these, though praising the Razor's optics, "focused" on the stiff focuser, some samples were apparently very hard to turn, others only somewhat stiff like Frank's.
The 9 ft. close focus is fine with me, as is the longer than one turn close focus to infinity turning circle. I have an 8x32 LX for close in birding and butterflies, but the trade-off from that close focus are an ultra fast focuser (I had to buy two samples since the first samples focuser was too loose and caused focus accommodation problems) and shallower DOF than the full sized 10ft close focus 8x42 LX. So I actually prefer an "unexceptional" close focus and slower focuser (though not "stiff") on a full sized roof.
Unfortunately, I didn't have this info last year when the version with the updated focuser came out, so I passed and bought some old classic porros instead. I would consider buying a Razor (the newer version) in the future, based on these new reviews and hopefully more to come as this binocular reaches more birders' hands.
The only criticism that was worrisome in Frank's review was about the ergonomics of the focuser: "One, the size of the focusing knob and the angle with which my finger comes off the barrel and rests upon it. If the focusing knob was a bit smaller I do not think it would be as much of an effort."
Being primarily a backyard birder, with a heavily wooded backyard, I use the focuser A LOT. I found the 8x42 and 10x42 LX and LX L focusers were very tiring on my index finger, even though the focusers were smooth to turn, because I had to reach UP and pull it or push it DOWN whereas the smaller focuser on the 8x32 LX is even with my hands and the bridge so it's less tiring to turn (and needs less turning with its faster focuser).
After reaching up and pushing or pulling down on a focuser a couple hundred times over a day in the field (or backyard) and my finger felt almost as bad as after using my iMac's original poorly designed mouse. Reaching up AND having to pull or push HARDER would probably give me "Trigger Finger."
Nurse: Doctor, we have another case of trigger finger.
Doctor: The birds must be back from Capistrano.
I will have to try a Razor to see if I can live with the focuser. EO's 30-day trial period would give me ample time to find out.
Brock
Corresponding with the Vortex Rep helped iron out some issues, but what I wanted to hear was a detailed review from a buyer. The other review Frank posted was also helpful. Btw, the Vortex rep DID answer my query about the focusers and was very friendly and open about the Razor's shortcomings. His original reply was probably lost during a period when my ISP was down so he sent me a copy via PM on BF. This made me feel better about their customer service.
Other reviews I read prior to these, though praising the Razor's optics, "focused" on the stiff focuser, some samples were apparently very hard to turn, others only somewhat stiff like Frank's.
The 9 ft. close focus is fine with me, as is the longer than one turn close focus to infinity turning circle. I have an 8x32 LX for close in birding and butterflies, but the trade-off from that close focus are an ultra fast focuser (I had to buy two samples since the first samples focuser was too loose and caused focus accommodation problems) and shallower DOF than the full sized 10ft close focus 8x42 LX. So I actually prefer an "unexceptional" close focus and slower focuser (though not "stiff") on a full sized roof.
Unfortunately, I didn't have this info last year when the version with the updated focuser came out, so I passed and bought some old classic porros instead. I would consider buying a Razor (the newer version) in the future, based on these new reviews and hopefully more to come as this binocular reaches more birders' hands.
The only criticism that was worrisome in Frank's review was about the ergonomics of the focuser: "One, the size of the focusing knob and the angle with which my finger comes off the barrel and rests upon it. If the focusing knob was a bit smaller I do not think it would be as much of an effort."
Being primarily a backyard birder, with a heavily wooded backyard, I use the focuser A LOT. I found the 8x42 and 10x42 LX and LX L focusers were very tiring on my index finger, even though the focusers were smooth to turn, because I had to reach UP and pull it or push it DOWN whereas the smaller focuser on the 8x32 LX is even with my hands and the bridge so it's less tiring to turn (and needs less turning with its faster focuser).
After reaching up and pushing or pulling down on a focuser a couple hundred times over a day in the field (or backyard) and my finger felt almost as bad as after using my iMac's original poorly designed mouse. Reaching up AND having to pull or push HARDER would probably give me "Trigger Finger."
Nurse: Doctor, we have another case of trigger finger.
Doctor: The birds must be back from Capistrano.
I will have to try a Razor to see if I can live with the focuser. EO's 30-day trial period would give me ample time to find out.
Brock
FrankD
Well-known member
Brock,
Thank you for the very nice detailed response.
To address your last concern, after using the Razor's for a few days I do not really know if the focuser is going to be an issue with extended use. I still stand by my earlier comments but feel that the focuser has "loosened up" a bit after some extended use. I do wish it was a bit smaller in terms of a "perfect setup" but it is not a sticking point in my case. I look forward to seeing your comments should you decided to give one a try.
Henry, and all,
I followed Henry's advice this morning and put the Meostars up to one eye and the Razors up to another to compare both the size of the apparent field of view and the magnification of a given object. A strange result occurred. The Meopta has a larger apparent field in direct comparison to the Razor. The size of the image circle was slightly, but noticeably, larger in the Meopta. Furthermore, the size of the object in the center of the field of view was also larger in the Meopta.
Explanation? Is one or the other not an 8x? Could one or the other be a 7.5x or an 8.5x? The only way I can think of determining this is to take one of my other 8xs, the Yosemite or Sportstar, and again attempt to compare one image to the next.
Personally I think it is a bit of a win-win situation. If the Razor is actually a 7.5x then what a wonderful surprise. If the Meopta is an 8.5x then what a nice compromise between an 8x and 10x bin.
Any thoughts on this issue?
Thank you for the very nice detailed response.
To address your last concern, after using the Razor's for a few days I do not really know if the focuser is going to be an issue with extended use. I still stand by my earlier comments but feel that the focuser has "loosened up" a bit after some extended use. I do wish it was a bit smaller in terms of a "perfect setup" but it is not a sticking point in my case. I look forward to seeing your comments should you decided to give one a try.
Henry, and all,
I followed Henry's advice this morning and put the Meostars up to one eye and the Razors up to another to compare both the size of the apparent field of view and the magnification of a given object. A strange result occurred. The Meopta has a larger apparent field in direct comparison to the Razor. The size of the image circle was slightly, but noticeably, larger in the Meopta. Furthermore, the size of the object in the center of the field of view was also larger in the Meopta.
Explanation? Is one or the other not an 8x? Could one or the other be a 7.5x or an 8.5x? The only way I can think of determining this is to take one of my other 8xs, the Yosemite or Sportstar, and again attempt to compare one image to the next.
Personally I think it is a bit of a win-win situation. If the Razor is actually a 7.5x then what a wonderful surprise. If the Meopta is an 8.5x then what a nice compromise between an 8x and 10x bin.
Any thoughts on this issue?
henry link
Well-known member
Kimmo Absetz came up with an excellent way to determine the true magnification of a binocular. You need a small scope (finder scope, riflescope) or a second pair of binoculars and two tripods or some other support. Place a measuring tape at some distance perpendicular to your line of sight. The farther the better because binoculars that focus by changing the distance between the objective and eyepiece have a little more magnification at close focus. I don't think bins that have internal focusing elements change magnification with distance. Measure the part of the tape visible through the scope from one edge of the field to the other. Now place the binocular you are testing at the same distance frome the tape and center the measuring tape in the field. Line up the scope behind the binocular eyepiece. Sight the measuring tape through the scope/binocular combination and measure across the field again. A binocular with exactly 8x magnification at the center of the field will will reduce the measurement across the field of the scope to exactly 1/8 the original measurement made with the scope alone.
Similar threads
