Let's talk PORROS! (1 Viewer)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Hermann post 439,
When the Binocular History Society had one of its meetings in Wetzlar in the Zeiss company building, the Zeiss head of quality management dropped this binocular during a coffee break when we were discussing it in the back of the conference room, seemingly by accident, but obviously that was not the case, since he took it from the concrete floor to show that the instrument was working as a new one.. We were certainly impressed.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[[email protected]]

Which did you find that were better? The FL or the SLC?

The Swarovski SLC 8x56 was better overall with sharper edges but the Zeiss FL 8x56 was a little sharper on-axis. They are both nice binoculars. When you get into a 56 mm binocular you really get a nice bright clear view with no aberrations! There is NO substitute for aperture. No doubt about it.

 

[[email protected]]

Nice. They look tough.

Steiner Nighthunter 8×56 (2016) – Binoculars Today

True eye relief 17mm. Bright yes, but colour fidelity?

Do they have 'Germany' or 'Made in Germany' stamped anywhere on the actual binocular?

No. I read that they were made in Germany somewhere. They are very high quality. The strap attachment is great! The strap just clips in, and you push a little button to release it. A much better design than the Swarovski Field Pro attachment system. The tethered objective covers fit perfect and are some of the best I have ever seen seenig like a part of the binocular. The Armour on the Steiner is also some of the best I have seen. very comfortable yet it seems very tough. I usually don't like the bat wing eye cups but these on the Steiner work great fitting your eye sockets nice and help keep out light from the side. The case is also really nice. The accessories are all excellent. Quite a view through these big hummers!

 

[Sancho]

There is an 8x30 Fujinon FMTR-SX for sale on ebay, from the US. About 400 dollars. The description says the optics are fine but it's missing the right eyecup.

 

[CharleyBird]

Dennis, thanks for your replies. Some (more expensive?) models used to say 'Steiner Germany'.
I find the Discovery 8 & 10x44 roofs have some very nice features just as you describe the 8x56, though I've had a couple of problems with the polycarbonate 10 years down the line, and found the 10x44 have one optical downside: use them in twilight over a glassy lake with trees around and the veiling glare is horrid.
I read the 8x56 are still advertised as offering 'auto focus over 20m'. Have you experimented i.e. focus on infinity and see if 20m or less is in focus?

 

[Jessie-66]

Has anyone ever compared the Swaro Habicht 7x42 with a Nikon Action EX 7x35? Just for fun and for possible insights. The difference in objective lens diameters is quite unimportant, both have twilight suitability, the 7x35 has twist-up eyepieces for eyeglass wearers, the 7x35 is at least splash-proof and weighs 800 g with 163 m field of view. The Swaro Habicht without/with rubber armouring weighs 680/760 g and has 114 m field of view. If you now compare the size of the sweet spots and take into account the information content at least for movements and bigger contrast-rich objects of the unsharp area of FoV ... what might come out for overall information content of the images? For the beauty of the images, large field of vision versus tunnel vision? The Swaro Habicht will certainly be more robust, but not everyone is a hardcore birdwatcher or hunter or has a lot of money.

 

[[email protected]]

There is an 8x30 Fujinon FMTR-SX for sale on ebay, from the US. About 400 dollars. The description says the optics are fine but it's missing the right eyecup.

Those look a little rough for $400. I had a like new pair of 8x30 Fujinon FMTR-SX and I sold them. I probably shouldn't have. They were quite good binoculars, and they are hard to find now. I like the big 50 mm Porros better now anyway.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, thanks for your replies. Some (more expensive?) models used to say 'Steiner Germany'.
I find the Discovery 8 & 10x44 roofs have some very nice features just as you describe the 8x56, though I've had a couple of problems with the polycarbonate 10 years down the line, and found the 10x44 have one optical downside: use them in twilight over a glassy lake with trees around and the veiling glare is horrid.
I read the 8x56 are still advertised as offering 'auto focus over 20m'. Have you experimented i.e. focus on infinity and see if 20m or less is in focus?

Yes, I would say anything over 20 m is in focus. NO glare in the big 8x56 Shadowquest. Awesome views and optics. As long as you're not looking at close up birds it is nice just to put the binoculars up to your eyes and use them. No focusing and no adjusting eye cups, and they have a scale for the IPD, so it is easy to reset or know where it is at. The bat wing eye cups really help with incident light.

 

[[email protected]]

Has anyone ever compared the Swaro Habicht 7x42 with a Nikon Action EX 7x35? Just for fun and for possible insights. The difference in objective lens diameters is quite unimportant, both have twilight suitability, the 7x35 has twist-up eyepieces for eyeglass wearers, the 7x35 is at least splash-proof and weighs 800 g with 163 m field of view. The Swaro Habicht without/with rubber armouring weighs 680/760 g and has 114 m field of view. If you now compare the size of the sweet spots and take into account the information content at least for movements and bigger contrast-rich objects of the unsharp area of FoV ... what might come out for overall information content of the images? For the beauty of the images, large field of vision versus tunnel vision? The Swaro Habicht will certainly be more robust, but not everyone is a hardcore birdwatcher or hunter or has a lot of money.

I have had them both at different times but never compared them directly, but I am sure there is going to be no comparison in the quality of the view with the Habicht being an easy winner. The Habicht for one thing would be much brighter with the bigger aperture and much higher transmission. I think the Habicht would have a larger sweet spot also because I remember the Nikon Action EX 7x35 as having a smallish sweet spot.

 

[Hermann]

Has anyone ever compared the Swaro Habicht 7x42 with a Nikon Action EX 7x35? Just for fun and for possible insights. The difference in objective lens diameters is quite unimportant, both have twilight suitability, the 7x35 has twist-up eyepieces for eyeglass wearers, the 7x35 is at least splash-proof and weighs 800 g with 163 m field of view. The Swaro Habicht without/with rubber armouring weighs 680/760 g and has 114 m field of view. If you now compare the size of the sweet spots and take into account the information content at least for movements and bigger contrast-rich objects of the unsharp area of FoV ... what might come out for overall information content of the images? For the beauty of the images, large field of vision versus tunnel vision? The Swaro Habicht will certainly be more robust, but not everyone is a hardcore birdwatcher or hunter or has a lot of money.

I've got both. The Nikon is my "kitchen binocular" ...

I'd say the Nikon is pretty nice for the price - sharp, with medium contrast, easier to use than the Habicht due to it's focuser and of course the much larger field of view, even though the sweet spot isn't exactly huge. Some obvious glare when viewing against the light. Fairly dim compared to the Habicht, I guess transmission must be something like 80-85% at most. Optically the Habicht is spectacular with much higher transmission and contrast. Pretty large sweetspot but then the field of view isn't really large at all. No problems when viewing against the light. None. Easily one of the most "transparent" binoculars I'm familiar with.

In summary: Could I use the Nikon for any birding trips? Yes, sure. However, in practice I always take the Habicht, despite its quirks.

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

Nice. They look tough.

Steiner Nighthunter 8×56 (2016) – Binoculars Today

True eye relief 17mm. Bright yes, but colour fidelity?

Do they have 'Germany' or 'Made in Germany' stamped anywhere on the actual binocular?

 

[Jessie-66]

I'd say the Nikon is pretty nice for the price - sharp, with medium contrast, easier to use than the Habicht due to it's focuser and of course the much larger field of view, even though the sweet spot isn't exactly huge.

Good morning Hermann,
thank you for your comment. Would you please compare the sizes of the sweet spots? Maybe choose 2 observation objects that just fit into the sweet spot?
Thanks in advance. Best regards. Jessie

 

[Hermann]

Would you please compare the sizes of the sweet spots? Maybe choose 2 observation objects that just fit into the sweet spot?

I find comparing the sweet spots of binoculars (or scopes) somewhat difficult, for several reasons: First of all, what one defines as a sweet spot depends very much on the observer. And secondly there's usually no clear difference between the (sharp) sweet spot and the unsharp area, there's always a gradual change from sharp to unsharp. I'm also one of those guys who don't really care if binoculars are sharp to the edge, there are other factors I find much more important.

That said, with the Habicht the sweetspot covers ~80-85 % of the field of view, perhaps a bit more. With the Nikon it's more like ~50-55% at most. In fact, I find the small size of the sweet spot of the Nikon somewhat bothersome, especially because the blurring is rather strong outside the sweet spot. That's rather different from e.g. the Zeiss West 10x50 where there's a much more gradual change between the sweet spot and the less sharp areas of the image. But then the AFOV of the Nikon is a heck of a lot larger than that of the Habicht but it explains why I only use the Nikon as my kitchen binocular ...

BTW, the good old BPO 7x30 is sharp to the edge ... That's another fun porro IMO.

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

I find comparing the sweet spots of binoculars (or scopes) somewhat difficult, for several reasons: First of all, what one defines as a sweet spot depends very much on the observer. And secondly there's usually no clear difference between the (sharp) sweet spot and the unsharp area, there's always a gradual change from sharp to unsharp. I'm also one of those guys who don't really care if binoculars are sharp to the edge, there are other factors I find much more important.

That said, with the Habicht the sweetspot covers ~80-85 % of the field of view, perhaps a bit more. With the Nikon it's more like ~50-55% at most. In fact, I find the small size of the sweet spot of the Nikon somewhat bothersome, especially because the blurring is rather strong outside the sweet spot. That's rather different from e.g. the Zeiss West 10x50 where there's a much more gradual change between the sweet spot and the less sharp areas of the image. But then the AFOV of the Nikon is a heck of a lot larger than that of the Habicht but it explains why I only use the Nikon as my kitchen binocular ...

BTW, the good old BPO 7x30 is sharp to the edge ... That's another fun porro IMO.

Hermann

I agree with that exactly. That is just how I felt about the Nikon EX 7x35. Good explanation!

 

[CharleyBird]

Thanks. If you trawl through the Steiner/Beretta pages you'll find their 'global presence' and check out their partner companies.
I need to get out more.

 

[Jessie-66]

I find comparing the sweet spots of binoculars (or scopes) somewhat difficult, for several reasons: First of all, what one defines as a sweet spot depends very much on the observer. And secondly there's usually no clear difference between the (sharp) sweet spot and the unsharp area, there's always a gradual change from sharp to unsharp. I'm also one of those guys who don't really care if binoculars are sharp to the edge, there are other factors I find much more important.

Hi Herman,
I observe very small, finely detailed objects (cones of conifers, last dried up flowers of roses) and swivel the binoculars so that the barely distinguishable fine details (scales of tree drops, petals of dried up roses) at the edge of the field of view start to become blurred. I remember the beginning of the blurring regarding field of view radius. To judge only the binoculars and to be independent of eye defects and physiognomy (looking into the binoculars with non-ideal eyecups), I also turn the binoculars by 90 degrees, so I test individually both tubes with both eyes one after the other and note the maximum of the sharp range.

That said, with the Habicht the sweetspot covers ~80-85 % of the field of view, perhaps a bit more. With the Nikon it's more like ~50-55% at most. In fact, I find the small size of the sweet spot of the Nikon somewhat bothersome, especially because the blurring is rather strong outside the sweet spot. That's rather different from e.g. the Zeiss West 10x50 where there's a much more gradual change between the sweet spot and the less sharp areas of the image. But then the AFOV of the Nikon is a heck of a lot larger than that of the Habicht but it explains why I only use the Nikon as my kitchen binocular ...

Thanks for this comparation. 50 to 55 % is small. It is a pity that Nikon does not do a bit more. The inexpensive Carl Zeiss Jena series (Deltrintem, Dekarem, Jenoptem) had 60 to 66 % sharp field of view relative to the radius. I am also not a fanatic about edge sharpness, but I would like to see 2/3 of the radius of wide-angle binoculars in focus - with an inconspicuous progression of the edge blur.

BTW, the good old BPO 7x30 is sharp to the edge ... That's another fun porro IMO.

If only it wasn't so heavy, 1 kg at 30 mm aperture. Well, Soviet military binoculars. It depends on robustness and ambient temperatures. But it is an interesting pair of binoculars:

Review: NVA DF 7x40 vs. BPO 7x30 vs. Kronos BPWC 8x40

Best wishes. Jessie

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Jessie-66,
There is a buch of test reports of EastGerman , Polish and Russian binoculars on the WEB-site of House of Outdoors.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks. If you trawl through the Steiner/Beretta pages you'll find their 'global presence' and check out their partner companies.
I need to get out more.

Steiner makes a lot of good binoculars, and they are well-built but most are not exceptional optically except for the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56.

 

[[email protected]]

I purchased the APM APO 12x50 Porro from APM for $500. I bet it will give any of the alpha 12x50 roofs a run for their money. In Allbinos rankings I have the top 7x50 the Fujinon FMTR-SX, the top 8x56 the Steiner Shadowquest and the 2nd 10x50 under the Nikon WX the Fujinon FMTR-SX. The APM APO's are really as good as the Fujinon FMTR-SX if not a little better. They have less CA with the ED glass.

 

[Patudo]

Let's see - either

(a) Steiner must have improved this model quite a bit in the last 12 months, or

(b) the person using them has become more evangelical about them...

Which is the more likely, we wonders...

(January 2021) It is a very interesting binocular and a bargain at $800 since it outperforms the big roofs like the Swarovski SLC 8x56 for 1/3 the cost.

(December 2020) I have tried a lot of different Steiners over the years and I just never felt like they measured up to a lot of the other brands optically and I think a lot of birders feel the same way and that is why they are not discussed much on the forum. I did find the Steiner ShadowQuest 8x56 to be a pretty good binocular but ultimately I found other better 8x56 binoculars.

(October 2019) The Fujinon FMTR 7x50 and the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56 are both IF. Fine for astronomy but I can't see why you would want them for birding where you need fast focusing at different distances.