• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Who is the best binocular maker? (1 Viewer)

Vespobuteo said:
OR Just snap some photos..

Maybe with the next generation of yota-sensors that have high pixel count and still are very sensitive to light, actually counting every single photon,
current small sensors are not good enough for the small size of optics (slow f-stop) that are manageable handheld.
Battery life will always be an issue.

But I guess there are military grade bins that might do things like that today, at least in the dark.
Click to expand...

The aim is for us to see, the picture taking is a trivial add on.
The Nikon WX is an illustration that basic optics technology is at a dead end, the added glass needed to achieve extra wide FoV cost dearly in terms of weight, bulk and light transmission.
Electronics will allow us to expand the utility of vision aids much more effectively, but the military are not helping nearly as much as the entertainment industry.
Ideally, there would be a respected award for innovation in this space, perhaps the 'Bird Forum Better Seeing' prize, given annually for the greatest advance in seeing. I'd nominate Stephen Ingraham and Holger Merlitz as members of a jury of perhaps a dozen, along with someone from Canon and from Sony.
 
Alexis Powell said:
I feel like bicycles reached that point by ~1995, and for the most part decades before that.

--AP
Click to expand...

Hmm. Dunno. Had a nice Peugeot roadbike about then, but my newer CF Giant roadbike is a different beast entirely. Although I think Di2 shifters and disc-brakes (neither of which interest me) on roadbikes are innovations for their own sake, and merely complicate a machine that has reached perfection. I fear that in a few years, only bikes with Di2, discbrakes and those awful press-fit bottom brackets will be available. Sorry, wrong forum;)
 
etudiant said:
The aim is for us to see, the picture taking is a trivial add on.
The Nikon WX is an illustration that basic optics technology is at a dead end, the added glass needed to achieve extra wide FoV cost dearly in terms of weight, bulk and light transmission.
Electronics will allow us to expand the utility of vision aids much more effectively, but the military are not helping nearly as much as the entertainment industry.
Ideally, there would be a respected award for innovation in this space, perhaps the 'Bird Forum Better Seeing' prize, given annually for the greatest advance in seeing. I'd nominate Stephen Ingraham and Holger Merlitz as members of a jury of perhaps a dozen, along with someone from Canon and from Sony.
Click to expand...
I think you are right on the Nikon WX. The only way optical designers seem to be able to improve binoculars optics is with increasing complexity. Field flatteners, more complex prisms, and more and more glass in the binocular makes improvements costly to the consumer and out of reach for many people. The new alpha's are approaching $3000.00 and over. It is getting ridiculous.
 
Sancho said:
Hmm. Dunno. Had a nice Peugeot roadbike about then, but my newer CF Giant roadbike is a different beast entirely. Although I think Di2 shifters and disc-brakes (neither of which interest me) on roadbikes are innovations for their own sake, and merely complicate a machine that has reached perfection. I fear that in a few years, only bikes with Di2, discbrakes and those awful press-fit bottom brackets will be available. Sorry, wrong forum;)
Click to expand...
Your right Sancho caliper brakes are history. You use to be able to fix your bike yourself now you have to take it to a technician. You sound like you like to keep things simple in your bike and your binoculars. I see why you still like the porro-prism. They are simple but they work.
 
Sancho said:
Hmm. Dunno. Had a nice Peugeot roadbike about then, but my newer CF Giant roadbike is a different beast entirely. Although I think Di2 shifters and disc-brakes (neither of which interest me) on roadbikes are innovations for their own sake, and merely complicate a machine that has reached perfection. I fear that in a few years, only bikes with Di2, discbrakes and those awful press-fit bottom brackets will be available. Sorry, wrong forum;)
Click to expand...

I share your fears about electronic shifters, disk brakes (ubiquitous where I am, the epicenter of "gravel grinding"), and press-fit bottom brackets. The tech of the 1990s will be available forever, esp. if you are willing to ride a metal frame, but maybe not the tech in between that and the latest stuff being pushed.

I don't doubt your Peugeot and Giant are different beasts, but how much of that is new tech vs. geometry and set-up? I have several bikes for different purposes, and they are all very different beasts, but they are all old tech frames (steel, titanium) and equipped with (by today's standards) old-tech (yet high end) components. Frames of the ones I use mostly include Columbia cruiser from 1950-60s, Bianchi Project 1991, Electra StreetRod 7 700c ~2001, Litespeed Classic 2004, Surly Crosscheck 2008. They're all very very different frames, with very different components, but I think the differences in handling, stability, assertiveness, etc. come mostly from tire width, bottom bracket drop, head angle, top-tube vs stem length etc. I've tried, but haven't been tempted by CF frames.

No! Not wrong forum. For me, it's like discussing tripods. I use my bikes for birding (sometimes :)

--AP
 
Last edited:
etudiant said:
The aim is for us to see, the picture taking is a trivial add on.
The Nikon WX is an illustration that basic optics technology is at a dead end, the added glass needed to achieve extra wide FoV cost dearly in terms of weight, bulk and light transmission.
Electronics will allow us to expand the utility of vision aids much more effectively, but the military are not helping nearly as much as the entertainment industry.
Ideally, there would be a respected award for innovation in this space, perhaps the 'Bird Forum Better Seeing' prize, given annually for the greatest advance in seeing. I'd nominate Stephen Ingraham and Holger Merlitz as members of a jury of perhaps a dozen, along with someone from Canon and from Sony.
Click to expand...

Or just enjoy the birds and their song before the earth is covered in electronic debris and batteries and all the other stuff that we don't need.
 
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...
There's no reason that technology like this, and improved iterations, couldn't take an (r)evolutionary fork into a binocular form factor and ergonomics.

I'm not real keen on having my eyeballs bombarded by electrons, and the EVF's are not yet up to snuff in terms of resolution, colour fidelity, and lag time - but I would like to see the Sony DEV - 50 continue to evolve and improve via new model iterations.

The increased low light amplification, improving our acuity would be a worthwhile (if rather electronic representation of the world) function after the sun has set --- provided we would be able to walk out of trails/ride bikes/drive cars afterwards without being paralysed by 'firefly' blindness! :eek!: :bounce:



Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun Juan said:
Jeez ..... you're not going to get much for a lazy $2K then! Lol. ;)



Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...
I had to settle for a sub-alpha with the $2K but I got a BIG one.:king: A Swarovski SLC HD 8x56. I did extra bench presses at the gym this morning in preparation for it's arrival.:gh:SHHH! Don't tell Henry.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
I had to settle for a sub-alpha with the $2K but I got a BIG one.:king: A Swarovski SLC HD 8x56. I did extra bench presses at the gym this morning in preparation for it's arrival.:gh:SHHH! Don't tell Henry.
Click to expand...
Interesting choice! :eat:

I haven't spent much time with the 8x, but I've had a pretty good look at the 10x on a couple of occasions. The first time it didn't top the 10x50 SV for me, but the second time I noticed a bit more brightness from the A-K SLC and found it a much more pleasing view that time. Both times conditions were very similar - varying dull/ diffuse bright overcast. :cat:

One thing is for sure though - I think the primary benefit of the big A-K SLC is that it makes every other bin pale into a lightweight by comparison! Even the 1kg 10X50SV ...... :eek!:

I hope you have enough change left from the $2K to hire some porters! o:D


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun Juan said:
Interesting choice! :eat:

I haven't spent much time with the 8x, but I've had a pretty good look at the 10x on a couple of occasions. The first time it didn't top the 10x50 SV for me, but the second time I noticed a bit more brightness from the A-K SLC and found it a much more pleasing view that time. Both times conditions were very similar - varying dull/ diffuse bright overcast. :cat:

One thing is for sure though - I think the primary benefit of the big A-K SLC is that it makes every other bin pale into a lightweight by comparison! Even the 1kg 10X50SV ...... :eek!:

I hope you have enough change left from the $2K to hire some porters! o:D


Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...
You forget I am used to carrying the Canon 10x42 IS-L so not much difference in weight. Maybe 3 oz. I won't be hiking much with it. I have smaller binoculars for that. I like to watch the Big Horn Sheep and Elk at dusk so it will be good in the low light.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
You forget I am used to carrying the Canon 10x42 IS-L so not much difference in weight. Maybe 3 oz. I won't be hiking much with it. I have smaller binoculars for that. I like to watch the Big Horn Sheep and Elk at dusk so it will be good in the low light.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an interesting choice. However, just a reminder from your post of binoculars past .......

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2866478&postcount=15

"My back STLL hurts from the short period of time I had a Zeiss 8x56 FL. I went to the chiropractor for 3 months after selling them. Stick with an 8x32. It is the best size all around."

Swaro SLC 8X56 43 oz
Ziess FL 8X56 43 oz

Looks like it will mainly be a vehicle based binocular so you may be ok this time.
 
BruceH said:
Sounds like an interesting choice. However, just a reminder from your post of binoculars past .......

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2866478&postcount=15

"My back STLL hurts from the short period of time I had a Zeiss 8x56 FL. I went to the chiropractor for 3 months after selling them. Stick with an 8x32. It is the best size all around."

Swaro SLC 8X56 43 oz
Ziess FL 8X56 43 oz

Looks like it will mainly be a vehicle based binocular so you may be ok this time.
Click to expand...
I am amazed that you can remember those old post because I can't even remember some of them. I am not using the Swarovski SLC HD 8x56 for hiking like I tried with the big FL. It will mainly be a stand and observation binocular and serve some astronomical use also.There are many places in Rocky Mountain National Park and Yellowstone National Park where you can just pull the road and observe big expanses like the Hayden Valley from observation points. I think if I do find the optics that great that I want to hike with it I will just get a nice harness. I walk quite a bit with my Canon 10x42 IS-L which is close in weight to the SLC with just the padded strap and it doesn't bother me too much but if I am going any distance especially with elevation gain I use my Swarovski CL 8x30 or Swarovski CL-P 8x25. From the reviews the SLC handles a lot better than the big FL with better balance some even saying it is like a 42mm on steroids so we will see. I am curious to see if there is really any less optical aberrations with the bigger aperture as discussed in the other thread. I am also curious to see if my pupils open enough to appreciate the bigger exit pupils of the bigger glass in dim light.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

S
Vortex vs Swarovski vs Zeiss vs Leika bins (~8x42)
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
Steves13
S
T
"Best binoculars for ..."
Replies
16
Views
1K
Maljunulo
M
F
DDoptics Binoculars Pirschler 15x56 Gen. 3
Replies
0
Views
199
fikey
F
V
Best marine binoculars?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Foss
Foss
B
binoculars for aquarium
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
yarrellii
yarrellii

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top