The focus wheel on my Zeiss 8 x 20 is small and a bit stiff. On my Nikon 10 x 25 it is very smooth and fast. It is easy to turn with my ring finger.
Bob
-
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.
Which of these compacts would you get? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter vkalia
- Start date
The focus wheel on my Zeiss 8 x 20 is small and a bit stiff. On my Nikon 10 x 25 it is very smooth and fast. It is easy to turn with my ring finger.
Bob
Brigadier
Well-known member
pompadour, I prefer the Swarovski Pocket to the other alpha 8x20s for several reasons, some objective, some subjective.
The Swaros are smaller and lighter than the others, important in a carry-anywhere, use-anywhere backup binocular. Then there's the legendary Swaro engineering and support. And I love the image: pin-sharp, yet somehow more subtle than the Leica or Nikon. Aesthetically it's a very pleasing view. Ergonomically the Swaro's pinky-focusser is fine and I have no problem with the eye relief when wearing glasses.
Like you I'm sometimes puzzled by kikkertspesialisten.no - what does everyone else think? - but in this case I think they re-tested one of the latest Swaro 8x20s in May 2012 and found its contrast, brightness and build quality to be marginally superior to the Ultravid 8x20 BR.
Putting the Opticron HR WP 8x26 reverse-porro in top position is interesting - I've never looked through one of those - and I often wonder why they don't test Nikons.
The Swaros are smaller and lighter than the others, important in a carry-anywhere, use-anywhere backup binocular. Then there's the legendary Swaro engineering and support. And I love the image: pin-sharp, yet somehow more subtle than the Leica or Nikon. Aesthetically it's a very pleasing view. Ergonomically the Swaro's pinky-focusser is fine and I have no problem with the eye relief when wearing glasses.
Like you I'm sometimes puzzled by kikkertspesialisten.no - what does everyone else think? - but in this case I think they re-tested one of the latest Swaro 8x20s in May 2012 and found its contrast, brightness and build quality to be marginally superior to the Ultravid 8x20 BR.
Putting the Opticron HR WP 8x26 reverse-porro in top position is interesting - I've never looked through one of those - and I often wonder why they don't test Nikons.
Last edited:
vkalia
Robin stroker
No no, please keep it here. I haven't bought the Nikons yet and I reserve the right to change my mind
Clive - I was actually looking at the Hawke Frontier on their website, and I screwed up and bought the wrong bino.
Brigadier, thanks.
As you say, obj. and subj. Acc. to the makers' website figures the Swarovski is actually longer than the other alphas. Attached is a chart I made. With its guidance (also) I first bought the Opticron 8x and then the Leica 10x to replace it. If I had seen your comments among the more clinical ones I read at the time I'd have been tempted to seek and look through a Sw. first!
It's that model of Opt. I mean and not the one kik.sp. rates highest. By saying "There's been a lot of puzzlement" I meant more "Everyone's puzzled" than "I'm puzzled"!
Vandit, you might like to see the chart. The Leica weights are for the leather versions, which are much more costly; the rubber ones weigh 10 g more. The two photos are to scale.
As you say, obj. and subj. Acc. to the makers' website figures the Swarovski is actually longer than the other alphas. Attached is a chart I made. With its guidance (also) I first bought the Opticron 8x and then the Leica 10x to replace it. If I had seen your comments among the more clinical ones I read at the time I'd have been tempted to seek and look through a Sw. first!
It's that model of Opt. I mean and not the one kik.sp. rates highest. By saying "There's been a lot of puzzlement" I meant more "Everyone's puzzled" than "I'm puzzled"!
Vandit, you might like to see the chart. The Leica weights are for the leather versions, which are much more costly; the rubber ones weigh 10 g more. The two photos are to scale.
Attachments
Last edited:
Brigadier
Well-known member
vkalia, Kimmo Absetz - who sometimes posts here - tested the reverse porro-prism Opticron Taiga 8x25 against three 8x20 alpha roof-prism compacts for Alula in 2006. The test used to be available as a downloadable pdf but seems to have disappeared from the Alula website.
Kimmo found that the Taiga matched the roofs' sharpness, albeit with more flare, more edge distortion and a narrower field of view. However, in my opinion, you should also consider build quality. A cheaper, plastic-bodied compact cannot be repaired cost-effectively if damaged and should therefore be considered a throwaway item, while a well-engineered binocular from one of the top manufacturers is an investment that will last a lifetime. It's a case of "buy cheap, buy twice".
pompadour, Thank you for the chart showing that the Swarovski 8x20 is a little longer, but lighter, than the others. Choosing between these models is of course down to personal preference. When you handle them and look through them, some will appeal more than others and different models will appeal to different people. You should be guided by what you see, what you feel and how much money you want to spend.
Because the Swarovski 8x20 - my personal favourite - often gets mediocre reviews on this and other forums, I wanted to point out that its optics have improved significantly in recent years and that it is now back as a serious contender in the pocket compact market.
Kimmo found that the Taiga matched the roofs' sharpness, albeit with more flare, more edge distortion and a narrower field of view. However, in my opinion, you should also consider build quality. A cheaper, plastic-bodied compact cannot be repaired cost-effectively if damaged and should therefore be considered a throwaway item, while a well-engineered binocular from one of the top manufacturers is an investment that will last a lifetime. It's a case of "buy cheap, buy twice".
pompadour, Thank you for the chart showing that the Swarovski 8x20 is a little longer, but lighter, than the others. Choosing between these models is of course down to personal preference. When you handle them and look through them, some will appeal more than others and different models will appeal to different people. You should be guided by what you see, what you feel and how much money you want to spend.
Because the Swarovski 8x20 - my personal favourite - often gets mediocre reviews on this and other forums, I wanted to point out that its optics have improved significantly in recent years and that it is now back as a serious contender in the pocket compact market.
Brigadier, now I think there may be a mistake in my first post (#20)! After you repeated that the Swarovski was improved recently I thought more about the time of my purchase, about 10 mths ago, and cannot recall the Sw. website then had the text about Swarobright, etc. If it did I cannot imagine why I did not try out the Swarovski. 45 g lighter means a lot to me. It is just possible that it was there but I read some negative comment/s about some objective criterion/a. Would very much like to see a newer comparison test. Also, awaiting word about the new Hawke Sapphire, 240 g acc. to their website (rounded to nearest 5), and costing much less than the Leica or Sw.
Last edited:
Brigadier
Well-known member
pompadour, Optics manufacturers constantly refine their products to keep them competitive. Even if the basic optical configuration remains the same, better coatings and glasses are often introduced unannounced.
The Swarovski 8x20 B and 10x25 B models have undergone several such iterations since they were introduced in 1989. This is equally true of larger Swarovski models and, as we have read on other threads, of other binocular brands.
The problem with comparison tests is that they are only valid at the time of testing. They do not take account of these subtle but important improvements.
The Swarovski 8x20 B and 10x25 B models have undergone several such iterations since they were introduced in 1989. This is equally true of larger Swarovski models and, as we have read on other threads, of other binocular brands.
The problem with comparison tests is that they are only valid at the time of testing. They do not take account of these subtle but important improvements.
Last edited:
vkalia
Robin stroker
Thanks for the info, guys. The reason I was asking about the Taiga is that I used to own it (and possibly still have it in a box somewhere in my other domicile), so this would give me a basis for comparison.
It was a nice bino to have but yeah, I found the shape a little too clunky and the FOV too restrictive. So if I am going to get a replacement, I want a good one that I won't outgrow - I agree with you there, Brigadier.
Pompadour's chart is another vote in favor of the LXLs. Optically, I don't think there is going to much of a real world difference in the views between the LXL and the Alphas, but that additional FOV would be really nice (a few grams more, I don't care about).
Perhaps it is a Sign from Fate: I saw a Pompadour Green Pigeon today - my first for the islands.
It was a nice bino to have but yeah, I found the shape a little too clunky and the FOV too restrictive. So if I am going to get a replacement, I want a good one that I won't outgrow - I agree with you there, Brigadier.
Pompadour's chart is another vote in favor of the LXLs. Optically, I don't think there is going to much of a real world difference in the views between the LXL and the Alphas, but that additional FOV would be really nice (a few grams more, I don't care about).
Perhaps it is a Sign from Fate: I saw a Pompadour Green Pigeon today - my first for the islands.
bh46118
Well-known member
Seems like "Alpha" is pretty much an arbitrary term. You basically either got some good glass or you don't.
Bruce
Bruce
Brigadier
Well-known member
bh46118, Yes, I think most of us on Birdforum use the term 'alpha' to mean the best offerings from the top manufacturers. With birding binos - as against astronomy or marine binos - this usually means the top-tier models from the Big Four.
vkalia, Congratulations on your sighting! And if you do decide on the Nikon 8x20 LXL, you won't be disappointed. pompadour is right; it is very much an alpha!
vkalia, Congratulations on your sighting! And if you do decide on the Nikon 8x20 LXL, you won't be disappointed. pompadour is right; it is very much an alpha!
Brigadier
Well-known member
Nikon is right up there with Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss in the premier league of birding binoculars. I'm a big Nikon fan too; in fact my fair-weather birding binocular of choice is the 8x30 EII, but that's another story...
What do you mean? Nikon makes the best binoculars in the world!
Brigadier
Well-known member
Nikon makes some of the finest birding binoculars - but so do Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss and perhaps other manufacturers.
Which is "best" is surely a matter of personal preference. We all have our own likes and dislikes. You have to try different models and see which one works for you.
tpcollins
Well-known member
I had the Leica 8x20 Trinovids and loved them except the eye relief was a tad short for me being an eyeglass wearer. (I used to have the 8x20 Swarovski, other than the hinged loosening up twice I can't remember the eye relief but they were a great optic). My current 8x20 is the Leica Ultravision. A tiny bit cumbersome with the rubber armor coating but the eye relief is as great as the optics.
My favorite is still the Trinovids - they were so small and compact like a piece of jewelry but the eye relief just wasn't there for me. YMMV
My favorite is still the Trinovids - they were so small and compact like a piece of jewelry but the eye relief just wasn't there for me. YMMV
Brigadier
Well-known member
Great choice! When you get them, tell us what you think of them.
Last edited:
