10 years old vs new (1 Viewer)

I've discovered another change over the last 10 or so years, at least in this segment of the marketplace:

When I bought my Rangers the midsize models at this price weren't just lighter and more compact but had a much wider field than full size versions of the same. Folks chose a larger view or a brighter view and I went with larger.

Perusing specs it seems current models in both sizes have pretty large fields of view. That might be a reason to move ahead a few years to me right there,to upsize to a bigger model without losing a more open view.

Old Hat said:

I've discovered another change over the last 10 or so years, at least in this segment of the marketplace:

When I bought my Rangers the midsize models at this price weren't just lighter and more compact but had a much wider field than full size versions of the same. Folks chose a larger view or a brighter view and I went with larger.

Perusing specs it seems current models in both sizes have pretty large fields of view. That might be a reason to move ahead a few years to me right there,to upsize to a bigger model without losing a more open view.

Click to expand...

You will find that many times 8x32 binoculars will have wider FOVs than 8x42 binoculars of the same brand. It is not unusual; in fact it may be the rule. You probably enjoyed longer eye relief with the 8x42 binoculars than you would have with an 8x32 too and that often means more comfortable viewing. An 8x42 also has an exit pupil of 5.25mm to an 8x32s 4mm so your IPD setting is not as critical in placing your pupils inside the cone of light that enters them on bright days.

Bob

ceasar said:

You will find that many times 8x32 binoculars will have wider FOVs than 8x42 binoculars of the same brand. It is not unusual; in fact it may be the rule. You probably enjoyed longer eye relief with the 8x42 binoculars than you would have with an 8x32 too and that often means more comfortable viewing. An 8x42 also has an exit pupil of 5.25mm to an 8x32s 4mm so your IPD setting is not as critical in placing your pupils inside the cone of light that enters them on bright days.

Bob

Click to expand...

Still, the old webpage I founds lists the 8x42 Ranger at 341 feet @ 1000 yards and the competitior Nikon Monarch 8x42 at just 330 feet. The 393 foot wide view of the 8x32 was immense in comparison.

Now both sizes are well above the older 8x42s I would've considered at the time.

Old Hat said:

Still, the old webpage I founds lists the 8x42 Ranger at 341 feet @ 1000 yards and the competitior Nikon Monarch 8x42 at just 330 feet. The 393 foot wide view of the 8x32 was immense in comparison.

Now both sizes are well above the older 8x42s I would've considered at the time.

Click to expand...

That would have been about a normal FOV for an early Ranger.

I've lost count on how many different Monarchs there have been since the original ones came out. For instance, I have a friend who is a millionaire who bought one of the first Monarch 10x42s. They were notorious for having eye cups than wouldn't stay extended. His binocular still has the problem but he wears glasses so he doesn't need to use it with the eye cups extended. He is still using it. It has to be about 14 years old.

Nikon sold many 8x42 binoculars over the years under the name of Monarch that had differing FOVs. The Monarch 3 ATB 8x42 had a 330'@1000yd FOV\ it was still being sold in 2017 based on the reviews Nikon received on it. Prior to these there were others that have been removed from the Nikon binocular archives.

https://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

Bob

ceasar said:

That would have been about a normal FOV for an early Ranger.

Click to expand...

Yup, for the 8x42. Everything I can find indicates the 8x32 was always wider at 393 feet @ 1000 yards, which was the point I was getting at. I chose a few feet over a few minutes. Now I could get both in the 42mms in this price range.