has530
Well-known member
Interesting I agree with your preferences on all accounts. Maybe I need to give the SFs a more thorough try.
-
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.
What are your priorities in binoculars? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter has530
- Start date
avidopticguy
Active member
Haha, shame on me, I never read the original post. I just did. In retrospect, I am kind of glad I wrote my preferences prior to reading yours (Has530). Nonetheless, our priorities seem to align.
Thanks for posting a fun thread topic. I am enjoying reading other individual's preferences and how it relatesto how they use their binos (ex, water and glare; brightness and night use). It affirms binos are a super personal choice.
Regarding your interest in the SF; I think they are awesome. They were a very specific fit, as other contenders could not sufficiently overdrive past infinity to resolve my vision without glasses. If they could resolve my poor vision; i would have been happy with swaro slc hd 8x42 or swaro el 8.5x42. With that said I think the SFs are better than the SLCs and the ELs (and I do like the SF mos of the 3). SLCs were awesome and had such a beautiful warm view. I would have been happy and never "upgraded " to the SFs had the SLCs corrected for my vision (But I do like and enjoy the view of the SF more than the Slc).
Thanks for posting a fun thread topic. I am enjoying reading other individual's preferences and how it relatesto how they use their binos (ex, water and glare; brightness and night use). It affirms binos are a super personal choice.
Regarding your interest in the SF; I think they are awesome. They were a very specific fit, as other contenders could not sufficiently overdrive past infinity to resolve my vision without glasses. If they could resolve my poor vision; i would have been happy with swaro slc hd 8x42 or swaro el 8.5x42. With that said I think the SFs are better than the SLCs and the ELs (and I do like the SF mos of the 3). SLCs were awesome and had such a beautiful warm view. I would have been happy and never "upgraded " to the SFs had the SLCs corrected for my vision (But I do like and enjoy the view of the SF more than the Slc).
Chotacabras
Active member
My two cents. Background: long-term Leica Trinovid BA 8x42 user, unable to find a modern binocular that really convinces me. Swarovski EL 8.5x42, perhaps.
1) CRITICAL
a) Ease-of-view (Einblickverhalten): No blackouts/beaning, perfect collimation, and undoubtedly other factors which impact on this sensation in complex and user-specific ways. I must immediately rule out many modern binoculars because they give me blackouts (presumably because eyecups too short for my face shape). I also suspect (?) that collimation micro-inaccuracies may often reduce ease-of-view, i.e. cause eye-strain, even in some prime binoculars.
b) Build quality/ruggedness: They must be built to survive field use and to last decades, without frequent problems requiring months of servicing. If an eyecup breaks, for example, the binoculars may be rendered useless in the middle of a one-month trip.
c) Good optical quality parameters, of course: but I really don't care about slight CA, or 90% vs 92% light transmission, etcetera (see below).
2) NICE-TO-HAVES
d) Reasonably low weight: though if this cuts corners on build ruggedness, I'll take heavy.
e) Close focus: It's not often genuinely necessary for birding, but close focus of 2m or less makes binoculars very enjoyable to use. However, I do wonder whether close close-focus may possibly (?) have negative impacts on ease-of-view under normal distance use.
f) Focus feel and characteristics: Often swings-and-roundabouts, in my experience… I like fast focusing, but in some cases this is associated with shallow depth-of-field, which is not so good. Etcetera.
g) Ergonomics: Very important, of course, but I don't consider it very relevant, because in my personal experience there are few binoculars which have significantly poor ergonomics… it's not a common problem for me.
3) NOT VERY IMPORTANT, AS LONG AS NO EXTREME ISSUE
h) CA, FOV, edge resolution, light transmission, colour tint, etc etc. However, one optical feature which may sway me is contrast: a somewhat exaggerated contrast can assist detail resolution. Also, I may sometimes find glare issues significantly irritating.
4) THINGS I WISH L, S AND Z WOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO
i) Sufficient eyecup length, if necessary offering a long eyecup option. (I have massive Leica brand loyalty, but I can't consider their current binoculars simply because eyecups too short. That's marketing madness, surely? Or perhaps not: perhaps I'm a rare and not-very-relevant customer type, hey it's their business not mine!) (I also wonder whether eyecup diameter relevant here: wider eyecups will hit your eye sockets sooner.)
j) Eyecup ruggedness: They need to be pretty much unbreakable, and the extension mechanism needs to be solid.
k) Loose-fitting ocular rainguards. Instead of (or as well as) tight-fitting ocular caps, birdwatchers need a loose-fitting long-oval rainguard / dustguard which falls back immediately and freely when you bring the binoculars to your eyes. I mean, I don't think it's just me! Not rocket science.
1) CRITICAL
a) Ease-of-view (Einblickverhalten): No blackouts/beaning, perfect collimation, and undoubtedly other factors which impact on this sensation in complex and user-specific ways. I must immediately rule out many modern binoculars because they give me blackouts (presumably because eyecups too short for my face shape). I also suspect (?) that collimation micro-inaccuracies may often reduce ease-of-view, i.e. cause eye-strain, even in some prime binoculars.
b) Build quality/ruggedness: They must be built to survive field use and to last decades, without frequent problems requiring months of servicing. If an eyecup breaks, for example, the binoculars may be rendered useless in the middle of a one-month trip.
c) Good optical quality parameters, of course: but I really don't care about slight CA, or 90% vs 92% light transmission, etcetera (see below).
2) NICE-TO-HAVES
d) Reasonably low weight: though if this cuts corners on build ruggedness, I'll take heavy.
e) Close focus: It's not often genuinely necessary for birding, but close focus of 2m or less makes binoculars very enjoyable to use. However, I do wonder whether close close-focus may possibly (?) have negative impacts on ease-of-view under normal distance use.
f) Focus feel and characteristics: Often swings-and-roundabouts, in my experience… I like fast focusing, but in some cases this is associated with shallow depth-of-field, which is not so good. Etcetera.
g) Ergonomics: Very important, of course, but I don't consider it very relevant, because in my personal experience there are few binoculars which have significantly poor ergonomics… it's not a common problem for me.
3) NOT VERY IMPORTANT, AS LONG AS NO EXTREME ISSUE
h) CA, FOV, edge resolution, light transmission, colour tint, etc etc. However, one optical feature which may sway me is contrast: a somewhat exaggerated contrast can assist detail resolution. Also, I may sometimes find glare issues significantly irritating.
4) THINGS I WISH L, S AND Z WOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO
i) Sufficient eyecup length, if necessary offering a long eyecup option. (I have massive Leica brand loyalty, but I can't consider their current binoculars simply because eyecups too short. That's marketing madness, surely? Or perhaps not: perhaps I'm a rare and not-very-relevant customer type, hey it's their business not mine!) (I also wonder whether eyecup diameter relevant here: wider eyecups will hit your eye sockets sooner.)
j) Eyecup ruggedness: They need to be pretty much unbreakable, and the extension mechanism needs to be solid.
k) Loose-fitting ocular rainguards. Instead of (or as well as) tight-fitting ocular caps, birdwatchers need a loose-fitting long-oval rainguard / dustguard which falls back immediately and freely when you bring the binoculars to your eyes. I mean, I don't think it's just me! Not rocket science.
Last edited:
John M Robinson
Well-known member
I consider myself an experienced user , and assuming Leica-Zeiss-Swaro level optics, ease of view is number one. I don’t care how good the view is, if I have to fight to prevent blackouts or kidney beaning, I’m not interested.
On the one hand the only person's preferences that really matter are your own - but it's interesting to see what other folks like or dislike. (I'd have thought at least some of the 100+ binocular brigade would have weighed in - but oh well.)
The funny thing is that I agree with some of the preferences that have been voiced (ease of view, ergonomics etc) and I do like things like brightness, large field of view, light weight and so on; I also wear glasses, so need a decent level of eye relief to use binoculars with them. But when I look at the binoculars I own and use, oddly enough (as yarrellii puts it so well in post #6), many of them hardly fit those preferences. The Nikon 10x42 SE has a narrow field of view and doesn't have the most accessible view; the big Zeiss Jena 12x50B requires a long reach-around those huge prisms to focus; the Zeiss West 8x30 is light and handy, but can't be used with glasses and is noticeably less bright than a modern binocular. I guess (to echo glennd in post #81) "I'm a binocular chameleon when it comes to priorities".
I suppose if one looks for commonalities in the binoculars I own, they would be:
- sharpness, all of them are at least pretty sharp. There is definitely a minimum level of sharpness, actually, optical quality in general, that I find acceptable (this might be a good subject for a separate thread) and if I'm not satisfied with the optical performance of a binocular I don't keep it;
- I suppose most of them have at least a largish sweet spot, the Swift 7x35 is the worst performer in this department but I guess its field of view is so large that I can overlook it;
- build quality, they are all pretty well made and some are really good in this respect.
Bottom line is that they all give me pleasure in use: they all offer an image that I like looking through/at, and most of them are enjoyable to handle and use as well, although for different reasons (1950s West German mechanical excellence, lightness and brightness of the FLs and so on). They are by no means the only binoculars I'd enjoy using, but I do enjoy using all of them. I suppose that's it, really - my first priority in binoculars is that I have to enjoy using them.
The funny thing is that I agree with some of the preferences that have been voiced (ease of view, ergonomics etc) and I do like things like brightness, large field of view, light weight and so on; I also wear glasses, so need a decent level of eye relief to use binoculars with them. But when I look at the binoculars I own and use, oddly enough (as yarrellii puts it so well in post #6), many of them hardly fit those preferences. The Nikon 10x42 SE has a narrow field of view and doesn't have the most accessible view; the big Zeiss Jena 12x50B requires a long reach-around those huge prisms to focus; the Zeiss West 8x30 is light and handy, but can't be used with glasses and is noticeably less bright than a modern binocular. I guess (to echo glennd in post #81) "I'm a binocular chameleon when it comes to priorities".
I suppose if one looks for commonalities in the binoculars I own, they would be:
- sharpness, all of them are at least pretty sharp. There is definitely a minimum level of sharpness, actually, optical quality in general, that I find acceptable (this might be a good subject for a separate thread) and if I'm not satisfied with the optical performance of a binocular I don't keep it;
- I suppose most of them have at least a largish sweet spot, the Swift 7x35 is the worst performer in this department but I guess its field of view is so large that I can overlook it;
- build quality, they are all pretty well made and some are really good in this respect.
Bottom line is that they all give me pleasure in use: they all offer an image that I like looking through/at, and most of them are enjoyable to handle and use as well, although for different reasons (1950s West German mechanical excellence, lightness and brightness of the FLs and so on). They are by no means the only binoculars I'd enjoy using, but I do enjoy using all of them. I suppose that's it, really - my first priority in binoculars is that I have to enjoy using them.
Elkhornsun
Well-known member
There is a line from a 1960's Mason Williams song that stuck with me over the years "how hopeless it all becomes to seek all the answers in one".
For me there is not single binocular that is my favorite in all situations. I have an inexpensive pair I keep in my truck and a 12x50 pair when I want the added magnification and a 10x25 that is very compact and is used when carrying camera gear, and a 20x60 for astro use. I now have 11 binoculars of which two get used by far the most.
I have a lightweight 12x40 pair that are very light at 22.6 ounces but have replaced them with a 12x50 pair that are considerably sharper although they weigh 27% more.
For me there is not single binocular that is my favorite in all situations. I have an inexpensive pair I keep in my truck and a 12x50 pair when I want the added magnification and a 10x25 that is very compact and is used when carrying camera gear, and a 20x60 for astro use. I now have 11 binoculars of which two get used by far the most.
I have a lightweight 12x40 pair that are very light at 22.6 ounces but have replaced them with a 12x50 pair that are considerably sharper although they weigh 27% more.
oldfortyfive
Well-known member
image and eye relief
