Why is buying and collecting binoculars so addictive. (2 Viewers)

[wllmspd]

Fewer microscope brands and less demand from the public. Sure there are some cheap microscope brands, but at work you’ll be using Leica, zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and “just using them”, not worrying about tiny bits of chromatic aberration or the like. Functions/innovations like confocal, fluorescence, polarisation etc are more useful functions that field of view etc…. If you need “more power” then there’s always electron microscopes!

When I’m worrying about different binos I have to remind myself that the difference between no binos and any (eg some cheap £80 8x30 I got as kiddy binos) is bigger than between them and top end stuff. Having several pairs of binos does encourage comparisons, which is a bad habit for idle eyes!

For seeing more at night an intensifier or thermal change the rules vs purely glass and let you see stuff that you never could any other way, though some see this as cheating.

Peter

 

[Binastro]

I don't know about the fake premium phones.

I don't have a mobile phone and don't buy from the internet.

With AI now nothing can be trusted.

I am also angered by the 3000x22 and 4000x25 binoculars and numerous other probable frauds that pervade the internet.

Regards,
B.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Because microscopists are shy, withdrawn people who pursue their passion in solitude.

Hi,

of course it was a joke, but first of all, welcome on board.

In fact, the topic of microscopes and their use is much more complex than binoculars, there are more factors involved and you need a certain understanding of the subject.
Several years ago I was in a German microscope forum because I was also interested in the subject. There were already discussions about the various microscopes, but usually not quite as heatedly as here in the binoculars forum.
A microscope can be put together from several different parts, binoculars are self-contained, which also makes comparison easier.

By the way, I myself have an older Leitz Lux transmitted light microscope and a Zeiss DV4 stereo microscope and although they are no longer up to date, they are still very good and are by far sufficient for me.

Binoculars are more suitable for a wider range of people, microscopy is a bit special because it is more complex and is therefore, IMO, carried out by far fewer people.

Andreas

Thanks for the welcome. I have found several sites and forums that are dedicated to all things microscopic, I just placed my post because I found it curious that none of them seem to provoke the controversial discussions that I find concerning binos and scopes. I attirbute most of it to the more "scientific" orientation of most microscope users, but the degree of acrimony with bino and scope discussions still surprises me. It's almost like having a political or religious debate. You make a good point about the modularity of some microscope systems, but there are also Swaro and Kowa scopes that can interchange front and rear sections with different opinions as to whether this is a useful feature or not. Clearly the binoview option is the most obvious advantage, but as the total weight increases, I am not sure about how many people would chose this over a comparable aperture Fuji or Nikon large binocular with interchageable lenses. Different courses for different horses, I suppose - still I would be curious to know how many people actually buy the whole bino and spotting combo.

 

[Astrovisiter]

I don't know about the fake premium phones.

I don't have a mobile phone and don't buy from the internet.

With AI now nothing can be trusted.

I am also angered by the 3000x22 and 4000x25 binoculars and numerous other probable frauds that pervade the internet.

Regards,
B.

100% with you on the 3000x22 binos. The tiny "half a binocular" roof prism spotting scopes that are evenly split between the 100x 60 and 60x100 models (that are all 50mm) are also interesting curiousities. Amazon has been selling a Usogood 12x50 binocular for over a year. It is a "sponsored item", has an "Amazon Choice" designation, and is featured as an "Overall Pick. It is in fact a 10ish x 37 or 38 (depending on where you decide the foggy ring of chromatic fuzz transitions into a useable field of view), and a stated field of view that is about 100 feet smaller than claimed. The claimed 4.2mm exit pupil kinda falls a little when you realize that the 12x magnification and the 50mm aperture - as Bob Uecker might have said is "Just a wee bit high!!!!" All reported many times by many Amazon members, with no corrections made by the seller or demanded by Amazon. There are over twenty "reviews" on the item page by buyers who stated all these faults and false claims in their "Amazon approved" reviews - - - yet......... no corrections. Maybe Trump's lawyers should consult Jeff Bezos' lawyers to learn how to not get caught or even prosecuted while repeatedly breaking the law.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Fewer microscope brands and less demand from the public. Sure there are some cheap microscope brands, but at work you’ll be using Leica, zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and “just using them”, not worrying about tiny bits of chromatic aberration or the like. Functions/innovations like confocal, fluorescence, polarisation etc are more useful functions that field of view etc…. If you need “more power” then there’s always electron microscopes!

When I’m worrying about different binos I have to remind myself that the difference between no binos and any (eg some cheap £80 8x30 I got as kiddy binos) is bigger than between them and top end stuff. Having several pairs of binos does encourage comparisons, which is a bad habit for idle eyes!

For seeing more at night an intensifier or thermal change the rules vs purely glass and let you see stuff that you never could any other way, though some see this as cheating.

Peter

Excellent points. Some folks "cheating" is another folk's "science". This can also be hard to explain to someone who has already decided that they are right and you are wrong. I guess that they also consider all radio-telescopy to be cheating too. All "real" astronomy apparently ended sometime in the 1930's for these guys. I'm still surprised that no Olympus microscope users don't throw some shade at their "uniformed" colleagues using Nikon, and I've never even seen a little smug declaration that the German microscopes are "naturally" superior to the Japanese models. I remain convinced that true scientists simply see these instruments as tools and evaluate them accordingly. My father was an engineer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from 1947 to 1977. One of his jobs was selecting the critical program monitors for the network. They had used RCA monitors since the television service began in 1952. When he told his superiors that they should switch to Sony in 1970, there was some puch back and some questions, but they respected his decision, and by 1976, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CTV had all made the same decision.

 

[Conndomat]

I attirbute most of it to the more "scientific" orientation of most microscope users, but the degree of acrimony with bino and scope discussions still surprises me. It's almost like having a political or religious debate. You make a good point about the modularity of some microscope systems, but there are also Swaro and Kowa scopes that can interchange front and rear sections with different opinions as to whether this is a useful feature or not.

Yes, you're right, microscopes are more in the scientific direction, binoculars can be used by anyone after a short introduction.
And it's also true that the discussions about binoculars are often fought with hot fire; I've stayed away from that in recent years.

IMO there is much less heated debate about spotting scopes, and general use is also significantly lower.

There is also a lot less argument among astronomers about telescopes, because here too there is the possibility of the components, a pair of binoculars is fix. If someone has a Swarovski EL 8x32, many others have exactly the same binoculars, in the best case with the same optics and mechanical properties, it gives the impression of a more accurate 1:1 comparison.

Andreas

 

[Astrovisiter]

There is the Queckett Society or Queckett microscopial club, which has a large following.

Camera collecting has a large following.

B.

Thanks for this piece of information.

 

[wllmspd]

Spotting scopes take up more space and need tripods to use, so harder to build up and use a collection. There’s fewer models.. angled/straight, different apertures, but with zoom eyepieces there is less need for so many different options.

I do find it strange that fewer birders tend to have scopes… 4 out of 16 on a recent bird club trip. Given the aim was to see birds… but then I am sure that everyone had different expectations and what they had suited what they were after. One chap is an ace bird IDer, “only” has a small bino, but can just tell what a bird is even it’s a tiny dot.
I always try to invite others to have a look through whatever scope I have, as often there are some real subtle details in plumage that you can’t see without a stable scope and it would be a shame to miss.

Peter

 

[Upland]

Because it’s fun. Sort of the search for the holy grail within one’s budget as well

 

[Upland]

BTW over the years there have been several members that decided enough is enough and parted with some of their seldom used pairs. Often for good prices that allowed those of us with more limited budgets to get nice optics and put them to use. Not saying everyone should do that but it is nice when it happens.

 

[Astrovisiter]

BTW over the years there have been several members that decided enough is enough and parted with some of their seldom used pairs. Often for good prices that allowed those of us with more limited budgets to get nice optics and put them to use. Not saying everyone should do that but it is nice when it happens.

I have found that birding, astro, and hunting forums are good places to find deals on used binos and other somewhat specialized gear. I just bought an atmospheric dispersion corrector from a fellow astro club member, and that is not an item you are likely to find in the local penny saver listings.

As roof prism binos steadily improve in performance and gain popularity for their smaller dimensions and lighter weight, more excellent examples of older Porro prism models are appearing on the used market. Older models may have dust issues and show some deterioration of their silvering but these issues are easily seen and usually result in an appropriate price adjustment.

In the realm of steady technical improvements, I agree that replacing each model of your alpha binos as soon as the subsequent model is introduced is going to net you a minuscule performance gain at best and quite possibly an imperceptible improvement under most viewing situations. However, I disagree with the collector crowd who insist that a "Uboat" or other desirable vintage model gives away nothing to contemporary designs. Modern coatings make a huge difference and especially in the astro world many afficianados of vintage eyepieces simply refuse admit that their beloved orthos are distinctly inferior to modern designs and modern surface finishing technologies.

Many of the current "cheap" optics produced in China are vastly superior to previous efforts, simply because at those price points, fully automated production outperforms mediocre semi-skilled human labour. The highest quality hand finishing and individual human inspection of the leading German producers is still the Holy Grail of quality control. but if you look at all the stages of manufacture of these alpha items, most of the critical grinding and polishing is done by machines in sterile environments that are sealed off from any human contamination.

You also don't see this intransigent behaviour towards technological advances from microsopists. Especially when they have to spend many hours at the eyepiece, no one dismisses any improvement in performance as well the design changes that don’t actually improve acuity or contrast, but simply increase eye relief or improve other parameters that make the views more comfortable. I use modern designs of high magnification eyepieces in my telescopes, because the comfort factor for my aging eyes far outweighs any advantage that I might gain by squinting through my floaters at a 2mm peep hole. My Nikon M7 binos are a slight but noticable improvement in comfort compared to a friend's pair, which are the immediate predecessor "7" model. I see no difference in acuity or contrast, but the slighly wider view and improvement in edge abberations are easily seen.

All these companies are constantly researching and testing. New models do not appear to make a buck or because an executive felt that a new exterior styling treatment would imprvove sales. New models arrive when the cumulative improvements will justify a new design. Some of the Swaro and Zeiss recent adventures in less than optimium outer skins and covers prove that they don't always get it right, but you can be assured that a fix is on the way when these embarrasments happen.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Could you name or add photo of your monopod/pistol grip setup, please?

Tanks

Sorry, I missed your posting because other replies pushed the thread onto page eleven, and your question remained on page ten. My pistol grip is currently on loan to a friend doing a fashion shoot, so I can wait for its return, but this is not a complex concept, so I will speed up the reply by posting two catalogue photos for you to see how it works. I have shown the current model and my model because they have different features that I explain below. These Vanguard grips seem to be the most common and popular pistol grip, easily found at B&H or Amazon. You simply lock the handle at whatever angle makes for a comfortable walking stick and put the quick release plate onto your scope.

If you are comfortable "wearing" your scope "six-gun" style on a tool belt, you can snap the scope on the grip and extent the monopod in about five seconds to change from walking mode to viewing mode. Fishing the scope out of a backpack doesn't take a huge amount of time if you have a larger scope that you prefer to carry on your back. Older models of these vanguard grips are lighter (without the trigger and other features that you will probably never use) so they would probably be a better choice if you can find one at KEH or on the local used market. My older model also has a seperate handle pivot in addition to the ball rotation, which I prefer to use as the point of adjustment, but my model uses a barrel between the handle and the ball joint to adjust the ball tension, which is not as easy to operate as the newer model, so you might want to think about these merits to decide which design would be best for you.

A friend of mine who liked my setup also suggested that you could 3D print a lightweight pistol handle to fit the quick release plate of any ball head, and have this feature for very little cost if you already have a ball head. The only down side that I can see to that plan is that you have to pocket the "extra" handle to use the scope, but if cost is a factor he has an excellent idea. You could also 3D print an even lighter weight handle to fit over a standard photo aluminum threaded spacer like the ones you see on the bottom of every ever-ready camera case. The female threads on the bottom would accept the monopod and the male threads on top would take a ball head, with the handle "pinched" between the platform of the monopod and the bottom plate of the ball head.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Spotting scopes take up more space and need tripods to use, so harder to build up and use a collection. There’s fewer models.. angled/straight, different apertures, but with zoom eyepieces there is less need for so many different options.

I do find it strange that fewer birders tend to have scopes… 4 out of 16 on a recent bird club trip. Given the aim was to see birds… but then I am sure that everyone had different expectations and what they had suited what they were after. One chap is an ace bird IDer, “only” has a small bino, but can just tell what a bird is even it’s a tiny dot.
I always try to invite others to have a look through whatever scope I have, as often there are some real subtle details in plumage that you can’t see without a stable scope and it would be a shame to miss.

Peter

My experience here in Montreal has been that birders who pick a favorable vantage point and stay there will have some sort of scope for higher magnification verification of their bino views, but mainly use the binos for most of their observing. We get thousands of migrating Snow Geese that settle southwest of Montreal and annually draw huge crowds of observers. You need a scope to see them while respecting the distance that must be kept from their roosting territory. Those who hike and move can't be bothered with the bulk and weight of a scope. Some of that crowd are starting to carry a long reach bridge camera, which can double as a scope, but they also have limitations especially in low light conditions. It's a lot like the debate between 30 or 32mm bino users and 42mm or larger aficionados. Despite the inability of those camps to see the other guy's viewpoint, the merits of each are pretty obvious. You go 30mm to save weight and live with poor low light performance, or you "lug" around the 42's to gain the dawn and dusk views. I think that a lot of 30mm users would be fine with 42's if they used a good harness or vest arrangement rather than the usual neck strap. I grew up using 7x50's as my go to binos, so 42's are "featherweight" for me.

 

[wllmspd]

… I use an 8x30 as I also carry a scope and thus don’t want/need the extra bulk. If going out in the dusk I’ll drag the 7x50 or 8x56 out instead. People also need a better awareness of exit pupil…. All the talk of larger apertures providing “more light”…. Yes, but not it you also increase the magnification too…

Peter

 

[Astrovisiter]

… I use an 8x30 as I also carry a scope and thus don’t want/need the extra bulk. If going out in the dusk I’ll drag the 7x50 or 8x56 out instead. People also need a better awareness of exit pupil…. All the talk of larger apertures providing “more light”…. Yes, but not it you also increase the magnification too…

Peter

100% with you on that exit pupil point. I once was giving a lecture at my astronomy club, and I asked them (mostly older males) how many of them had recently consulted an optometrist or ophthalmologist to verify their actual night adapted pupil size. Less than 10% of them knew that information and only a few understood that they would not be maintaining that aperture unless they were also in a sustained dark environment. Most of these geezers are assuming that they have 7mm pupils and basing all their calculations on that number. Once you have an instrument that can interchange eyepieces you can be "within" generally accepted pairings, but still wasting your money on apertures that will not benefit your particular vision limits. I'm 69, and I see no longer see any brightness difference when I switch between my 7x50's and my 8x42's.

 

[Patudo]

more excellent examples of older Porro prism models are appearing on the used market. Older models may have dust issues and show some deterioration of their silvering but these issues are easily seen and usually result in an appropriate price adjustment.

Er... silvering? In porros?

New models do not appear to make a buck or because an executive felt that a new exterior styling treatment would imprvove sales.

I'd like to refer you to a recent thread... New / Updated Leica Ultravid HD+ coming

But, in all seriousness, welcome, and look forward to hearing more about your sightings in Montreal. I have fond memories of my visit to Canada - ten years ago, I think it was. How time flies...

 

[GrampaTom]

Sorry, I missed your posting because other replies pushed the thread onto page eleven, and your question remained on page ten. My pistol grip is currently on loan to a friend doing a fashion shoot, so I can wait for its return, but this is not a complex concept, so I will speed up the reply by posting two catalogue photos for you to see how it works. I have shown the current model and my model because they have different features that I explain below. These Vanguard grips seem to be the most common and popular pistol grip, easily found at B&H or Amazon. You simply lock the handle at whatever angle makes for a comfortable walking stick and put the quick release plate onto your scope.

If you are comfortable "wearing" your scope "six-gun" style on a tool belt, you can snap the scope on the grip and extent the monopod in about five seconds to change from walking mode to viewing mode. Fishing the scope out of a backpack doesn't take a huge amount of time if you have a larger scope that you prefer to carry on your back. Older models of these vanguard grips are lighter (without the trigger and other features that you will probably never use) so they would probably be a better choice if you can find one at KEH or on the local used market. My older model also has a seperate handle pivot in addition to the ball rotation, which I prefer to use as the point of adjustment, but my model uses a barrel between the handle and the ball joint to adjust the ball tension, which is not as easy to operate as the newer model, so you might want to think about these merits to decide which design would be best for you.

A friend of mine who liked my setup also suggested that you could 3D print a lightweight pistol handle to fit the quick release plate of any ball head, and have this feature for very little cost if you already have a ball head. The only down side that I can see to that plan is that you have to pocket the "extra" handle to use the scope, but if cost is a factor he has an excellent idea. You could also 3D print an even lighter weight handle to fit over a standard photo aluminum threaded spacer like the ones you see on the bottom of every ever-ready camera case. The female threads on the bottom would accept the monopod and the male threads on top would take a ball head, with the handle "pinched" between the platform of the monopod and the bottom plate of the ball head.

Thanks for that. Confess I was naively hoping for a simpler solution to my grumpiness about hauling scope and tripod around. Which I'll quickly add is becoming much less of a thing, as I so enjoy the tradeoff for the spectacular viewing through the scope.

… I use an 8x30 as I also carry a scope and thus don’t want/need the extra bulk. If going out in the dusk I’ll drag the 7x50 or 8x56 out instead. People also need a better awareness of exit pupil…. All the talk of larger apertures providing “more light”…. Yes, but not it you also increase the magnification too…

100% with you on that exit pupil point. I once was giving a lecture at my astronomy club, and I asked them (mostly older males) how many of them had recently consulted an optometrist or ophthalmologist to verify their actual night adapted pupil size. Less than 10% of them knew that information and only a few understood that they would not be maintaining that aperture unless they were also in a sustained dark environment. Most of these geezers are assuming that they have 7mm pupils and basing all their calculations on that number. Once you have an instrument that can interchange eyepieces you can be "within" generally accepted pairings, but still wasting your money on apertures that will not benefit your particular vision limits. I'm 69, and I see no longer see any brightness difference when I switch between my 7x50's and my 8x42's.

I agree with the idea the binos (when scope is in tow), can and probably should be a smaller 8x30/32 but not just do to weight, but bulk. I hike/bird so moving the scope from shoulder to shoulder, setting it down to get binos (from RYO) up, and then going between scope and bino without banging things into each other, favors the smaller bino. In between migrations back to more wooded terrain, with scope back home 1042s are just fine. As a stand alone for me a plus.

Its admittedly old advice, from the 1980s when I bought my first serious binocular, recommended by outdoor writer friends, but pivoting around a 4mm exit pupil sort of enabled decent light gathering for most, most of the time. I get things have changed lens and coatings-wise. I don't bird at ends of the day, but do have to deal with lowlight when brush, foliage encroaches on the view. Following the old recipe, may no longer hold, is less relevant, but I think it works for me. Don't want to haul a round a 56 whatever.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Er... silvering? In porros?


I'd like to refer you to a recent thread... New / Updated Leica Ultravid HD+ coming

But, in all seriousness, welcome, and look forward to hearing more about your sightings in Montreal. I have fond memories of my visit to Canada - ten years ago, I think it was. How time flies...

Before we had the benefits of dielectric reflective surfaces, premium binoculars usually silvered the prisms because silver offered two or three percent higher reflectivity over aluminized surfaces. Over a number of years the silver will oxidize, so you see a gradual darkening of the view. At some point a recoating is necessary to restore the performance of those binos.

I was probably being a little generous to state that bino companies never introduce some models simply to make a buck or two, but apart from the collector and designer editions, most of the mainstream models that are the core of these lineups do follow a pretty consistent and credible pattern of introducing a new offering when they have made sufficient progress in multiple parameters of performance to justify a redesign. I would certainly defend bino companies as more honest in this regard than most other techno providers that do most definitely tout "new' models as necessities for us to buy at far more frequent intervals. If you need an excuse to visit Montreal again, we have huge comedy and Jazz festivals that run in the summer when our weather is at its best.

 

[exup]

Before we had the benefits of dielectric reflective surfaces, premium binoculars usually silvered the prisms because silver offered two or three percent higher reflectivity over aluminized surfaces. Over a number of years the silver will oxidize, so you see a gradual darkening of the view. At some point a recoating is necessary to restore the performance of those binos.

I was probably being a little generous to state that bino companies never introduce some models simply to make a buck or two, but apart from the collector and designer editions, most of the mainstream models that are the core of these lineups do follow a pretty consistent and credible pattern of introducing a new offering when they have made sufficient progress in multiple parameters of performance to justify a redesign. I would certainly defend bino companies as more honest in this regard than most other techno providers that do most definitely tout "new' models as necessities for us to buy at far more frequent intervals. If you need an excuse to visit Montreal again, we have huge comedy and Jazz festivals that run in the summer when our weather is at its best.

My understanding is porros have TIR and no reflective coatings are required.... unlike roofs.

 

[Astrovisiter]

Thanks for that. Confess I was naively hoping for a simpler solution to my grumpiness about hauling scope and tripod around. Which I'll quickly add is becoming much less of a thing, as I so enjoy the tradeoff for the spectacular viewing through the scope.





I agree with the idea the binos (when scope is in tow), can and probably should be a smaller 8x30/32 but not just do to weight, but bulk. I hike/bird so moving the scope from shoulder to shoulder, setting it down to get binos (from RYO) up, and then going between scope and bino without banging things into each other, favors the smaller bino. In between migrations back to more wooded terrain, with scope back home 1042s are just fine. As a stand alone for me a plus.

Its admittedly old advice, from the 1980s when I bought my first serious binocular, recommended by outdoor writer friends, but pivoting around a 4mm exit pupil sort of enabled decent light gathering for most, most of the time. I get things have changed lens and coatings-wise. I don't bird at ends of the day, but do have to deal with lowlight when brush, foliage encroaches on the view. Following the old recipe, may no longer hold, is less relevant, but I think it works for me. Don't want to haul a round a 56 whatever.

Finding your best setup is always an ongoing process and an entirely subjective choice. I see many good ideas that don't necessicarily translate for my situation, but I see the merits in that person's solution, and it definitely represents an optimum arrangement for him. I initially dismissed a bino harness as being uncomfortable and restrictive, but I now use one frequently. My initial prejudice was reinforced when the first one that I tried was simply a poor quality design, so it is worth doing an extensive evaluation before dismissing any possible option in gear choices. Another friend uses a safari jacket with four huge pockets that easily hold a scope on one side and his binos on the other. He sometimes carries a fairly large bridge camera in one of the other pockets and he seems quite comfortable with this load over fairly long walks that include several steep climbs. For general use binos, I think that your 4mm pupil target is still valid, and I would certainly consider a good 8x30 if my 8x42 wasn't as lightweight as it is. I find the size difference between 30 and 42 to be inconsequential, but I have friends with 30 or 32 binos that would never consider a 42. My main bino requirement is for astronomy, so the 8x30 would be an additional purchase that I would only use in the daytime. At the other extreme of perspective, many astro users easily justify owning one each of 7x50, 8x56, 9x63, 10x70, and 11 or 12x80 binos. Not for me, but good luck in trying to persuade them that this "basic 5" set isn't just a tad excessive.