Who is the best binocular maker? (1 Viewer)

Sancho said:

I got an MHG in 10x to 'complement' my SE 8x, having foolishly sold my SE 10x42 some years ago to assuage the guilt of splashing out on a new 'gruppo' for my roadbike. I haven't used the MHG much but I'm very impressed.

Click to expand...

typo said:

Same design, but not necessarily the same glass, coatings or engineering. The Kite was made in Japan with Japanese components for the European market.. We think Maven was the same but for the US market. The Nikon was made in China with Chinese components, and the difference is evident in the view. Opticron paid for a modification to x32 instead of the x30 (which may give them more market freedom), and recovered some of the costs through a mixture of Chinese and Japanese components and assembly. I think it offers more glare resistance than the M7 and Kite, but for me falls a little behind in colour fidelity. I'm not sure it would bother most users.

David

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

This is a rehash of many other threads - with the same vagueness - are we talking quality of the product, just optics, reliability etc.?

If returning /complaining about a bin due to focusser issues counts as a negative, then a certain brand has to be well down the list....

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

Reading this thread is depressing.
It documents that none of these 'binocular manufacturers' have the slightest urge to really upgrade their product. Their emphasis appears to be entirely on improving manufacturing cost and badge engineering. Sadly , these firms are in a rut, much as was the US auto industry before imports.
Canon and Fuji are now the only surviving innovators in this space, with their line of IS binoculars. Sony's DEV-50 made an even more dramatic leap forward, but apparently did not enjoy good sales, as there has been no follow on since, even though Sony's camera offerings are really raising the bar in digital imaging. Hopefully Sony will return to this market soon. Right now it seems stuck in the 19th century.

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

Reading this thread is depressing.
It documents that none of these 'binocular manufacturers' have the slightest urge to really upgrade their product. Their emphasis appears to be entirely on improving manufacturing cost and badge engineering. Sadly , these firms are in a rut, much as was the US auto industry before imports.
Canon and Fuji are now the only surviving innovators in this space, with their line of IS binoculars. Sony's DEV-50 made an even more dramatic leap forward, but apparently did not enjoy good sales, as there has been no follow on since, even though Sony's camera offerings are really raising the bar in digital imaging. Hopefully Sony will return to this market soon. Right now it seems stuck in the 19th century.

Click to expand...

typo said:

Bob,

I haven't been told who manufactured the EDG, only that Nikon weren't manufacturing in house at that time. I think most the recent Monarchs have been made in China, and I was told by a Nikon employee they changed manufacturer at some point for the 5 and 7. The M7 x30 was a Kamakura design which Nikon opted to have made in China, with Kite, Maven and Opticron taking other manufacturing locations and market restrictions. The MHG I'm again told is made by Kamakura, but I think in Japan, but even these details are getting increasingly vague. We know one or two Opticron models switch countries, and possibly companies, during the manufacturing process, and I'm sure they are not alone in following that path.

I'm told the Japanese OEMs are totally discrete on what they make for who, and their customers are generally not keen to tell either, but those in the trade seem to have a good idea about the major models.

David[/QUOTE

David,

What we need here are some real quotes by real people with real facts in them.

My Monarch HG says right on it that it is made in Japan. We know they were introduced by Nikon News in 2016. My Nikon 10x32 EDG II says right on the focus wheel that it is made in Japan and we know from Nikon's news releases that they were introduced in 2010.

The idea that Nikon Corporation cannot make binoculars of this quality is ridiculous especially with their 100th year anniversary binoculars, one of which is the iconic 8x30 EII which Nikon has been making continuously since 2000.

Bob

Click to expand...

[email protected] said:

I really agree with you. There needs to be more innovation in the binocular industry. What needs to be done to bring about this innovation? What changes need to be made?

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

The shift will happen organically, as the technology makes a better electronic glass possible. The lens makers are no longer the technology pace setters.
Rather the emergence of AR headsets is a crucial element imho, as that drives the needed ultra high resolution small displays. This Google headset points the way forward.
https://www.pocket-lint.com/ar-vr/n...lg-are-developing-a-high-res-120hz-vr-display
Couple that to a good lens and imager in a reasonably compact package, that is the future. Sony, LG, Canon, possibly Fuji would be the likely leaders,
along perhaps with Samsung or some Chinese house.

Click to expand...

gunut said:

folks need to accept that the future of optics is no longer in glass and coatings ....and move into the 21rst century....I for one will go kicking and screaming.....

Click to expand...

Alexis Powell said:

Some technologies mature. They reach the point that they do what we need them to do. I think that is a moment to celebrate, not mourn.

Fishing tackle reached that point long ago.

I feel like bicycles reached that point by ~1995, and for the most part decades before that.

Laptop computers have done that. In fact, most of my students (college level) don't own a computer. They have no need for a real computer unless they are engaged in research or digital editing. They use tablets or their phones for routine assignments, and only use (campus) computers when they can't get by with those.

Digital cameras too. Most people are fine with their phone camera, and real cameras do most things well beyond even most "serious" photographers' needs.

Typically, after maturity, comes effort to cut cost of production and changes driven by promoting style, fads, and planned obsolescence of standards, with little if any improvement in function. These are the trends that I fear, not stagnation of the technology.

--AP

Click to expand...

Sancho said:

I agree. Why do we need any better than what is already available? We don't need "better binos" anymore than the kids need an iPhoneXXX. What exactly is it we're hoping to see that we can't see clearly already? If you like porros, there's Habicht or EII. If you like roofs, there's a host of top-quality one available. If you like IS, get a Canon. Hasn't bino-innovation reached a point where no more innovation is possible? Personally I don't feel a need for digi-binos, I'd rather not bother if they become available. (OTOH I've spent years and a fortune chasing bino-perfection so I'm not one to talk).

Click to expand...

Vespobuteo said:

There are a lot of inventions through the history that didn't make it because they were to stupid and there was no real need for them. Digital binos is such an "invention". Especially as you can buy a 600-1000mm super-zoom bridge camera for $300 that takes surprisingly good photos and video of birds etc.

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

One feature a digital binocular might offer is a really good zoom, to scan the area at 2-3x and then get detail views with a stabilized 10-20x. Varying the sensitivity would widen the useful interval to include the twilight time, even without adding IR capability.
The picture taking would be automatic, it is a very low cost feature to include.

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

One feature a digital binocular might offer is a really good zoom, to scan the area at 2-3x and then get detail views with a stabilized 10-20x. Varying the sensitivity would widen the useful interval to include the twilight time, even without adding IR capability.
The picture taking would be automatic, it is a very low cost feature to include.

Click to expand...