Didn't know (or forgot) you had gotten the switch powers Steve. Are you tempted to use them as your primary bin? Or are you still in love with your Chinese EDs?
Best,
Jim
-
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.
Eagle Optics Raven, First Impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
Didn't know (or forgot) you had gotten the switch powers Steve. Are you tempted to use them as your primary bin? Or are you still in love with your Chinese EDs?
Best,
Jim
Steve C
Well-known member
Didn't know (or forgot) you had gotten the switch powers Steve. Are you tempted to use them as your primary bin? Or are you still in love with your Chinese EDs?
Best,
Jim
I am going to use the Switch Power as a primary binocular for the next few months, along with the new dielectric ZEN models I have on pre-order. It really takes a while to get a really good handle on how a binocular really works over the long run. There may be an issue or two, but that may take some time to sort out. But for now, the Switch Power have the look of a keeper.
Now as for this "..in love with Chinese ED's", I'm not quite sure how to take that (your smiley is noted). I have posted and taken the stance that they are a nearly alpha quality image for a very good price, less than $400 US. I have never promoted them solely because they are Chinese and have never told anybody that they are the absolute equal of the alpha glass. But I absolutely do intend to use them as as much and as hard as I can, because I do want to see if they do, and how well they do, hold up.
I've said what I've said, and see no reason now to unsay any of it. If they fall apart and something shows up about them, then I will stand up in front of BF and eat a plate of boiled crow if necessary. I don't have an interest in that fight. I like them because they are good binoculars. Not because they are Chinese, not because I have any loyalty to any of the four versions (ZEN, Promaster, Hawke, or Intrepid), but because they seem to be good binoculars.
Now maybe it is the Chinese thing. On a couple of other forums, there have been some extremely intense "statements" where the opinion of "bleep no, they are Chinese I will not try them..." etc have showed up. The moderators here would have canned a couple of those threads, posthaste. So BF stands as about the only place where some rational discourse about these is taking place.
I take some note that so far, there has not been one post about any of these various forums that says anything substantially negative about them. That and that more new posters seem to be showing up with comments too.
OK, Rant off. Jim, no offense taken, don't take that wrong.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info Steve; I'll look forward to your longer term reaction to the switch powers.
All I really meant was to ask whether they are still one of your primary bins of choice when you want to look through glass. Any other connotations or implications about any overt or hidden agendas were entirely unintended. Probably should have used different words.
Cheers,
Jim
All I really meant was to ask whether they are still one of your primary bins of choice when you want to look through glass. Any other connotations or implications about any overt or hidden agendas were entirely unintended. Probably should have used different words.
Cheers,
Jim
FrankD
Well-known member
I received both of the 32 mm Ravens today. Brief looks through both so far only. From those brief looks I can tell you that I do, definitely, prefer the 6.5x version because of the:
Brighter image
Better depth of field
Larger exit pupil
However, I do not "dislike" the 8.5x as much as I thought I would. It definitely is not a contender with the Nikon SE but it is very comparable in overall image quality with the Yosemite 8x30. Comparing the two Ravens side by side immediately shows the increase in image shake, the dimmer image and increase in edge distortion of the 8.5x model. Eye relief is also just on the side of tolerable for me and my facial dimensions. I do not wear glasses but I do require a decent level of eye relief because of the size of my noise and recess of my eyes. The 8.5x seems just barely able to accomodate those issues. I can, almost, see the field stops but it lacks the comfort of the larger exit pupil model. Close focus on the 8.5x is also a bit longer (a foot or two) than the 6.5x model. I would rate the 6.5x at about 10 feet for my eyes.
Everything positive Steve has said about the 6.5x is mirrored in my own opinion of the bin. The extra .5x is noticeable in direct comparison to the Yosemite. The size of the 6.5x's sweetspot is very generous and, agreed, slightly better than the Yosemite. I find the image very easy to look at because of this and because of the larger exit pupil. Field curvature is present but it seems fairly well controlled and only noticeable in the very outer edge of the image.
All for now. I am going to use these more over the next few days and comment further.
Brighter image
Better depth of field
Larger exit pupil
However, I do not "dislike" the 8.5x as much as I thought I would. It definitely is not a contender with the Nikon SE but it is very comparable in overall image quality with the Yosemite 8x30. Comparing the two Ravens side by side immediately shows the increase in image shake, the dimmer image and increase in edge distortion of the 8.5x model. Eye relief is also just on the side of tolerable for me and my facial dimensions. I do not wear glasses but I do require a decent level of eye relief because of the size of my noise and recess of my eyes. The 8.5x seems just barely able to accomodate those issues. I can, almost, see the field stops but it lacks the comfort of the larger exit pupil model. Close focus on the 8.5x is also a bit longer (a foot or two) than the 6.5x model. I would rate the 6.5x at about 10 feet for my eyes.
Everything positive Steve has said about the 6.5x is mirrored in my own opinion of the bin. The extra .5x is noticeable in direct comparison to the Yosemite. The size of the 6.5x's sweetspot is very generous and, agreed, slightly better than the Yosemite. I find the image very easy to look at because of this and because of the larger exit pupil. Field curvature is present but it seems fairly well controlled and only noticeable in the very outer edge of the image.
All for now. I am going to use these more over the next few days and comment further.
Steve C
Well-known member
I wondered if that "extra bit of image size" was just my imagination or not. I am glad to see that you find it noticeable too. I used it quite a bit over the weekend and it likely will stay. I do prefer it to the Yosemite at this point.
FrankD
Well-known member
I did not go back through the thread to look but did you mention anything about either the eye relief or the click stop adjustment with the eyecups?
I found the eye relief the be very generous on the 6.5x which forced me to actually utilize the first click stop-setting on the eyecups. I noticed there are multiple, gradual click-stop settings on the eyecups...in some ways similar to the superior eyecup design of the Vortex Razor. Very nice.
I found the eye relief the be very generous on the 6.5x which forced me to actually utilize the first click stop-setting on the eyecups. I noticed there are multiple, gradual click-stop settings on the eyecups...in some ways similar to the superior eyecup design of the Vortex Razor. Very nice.
Steve C
Well-known member
I agree. I found the 6x Yosemite has, at times, too little eye relief, the 8x is about right. There is, I think, one more stop on the Raven, and there is a little more space to the lens with an extended eye cup. I do not think I posted anything about that elsewhere.
FrankD
Well-known member
Hmm, interesting. I forget, do you where glasses?
The reason I ask is because I don't have a problem with the eye relief on the 6x Yosemite. I can force blackouts if I de-center my eye and press fairly hard onto my brow but it seems generous in the grand scheme of things. The Raven definitely has more though as I "need" to have the eyecup one stop up otherwise I definitely get blackouts.
The 8x Yosemite was borderline on acceptable eye relief IIRC. Kevin has it now so I cannot comment further.
The reason I ask is because I don't have a problem with the eye relief on the 6x Yosemite. I can force blackouts if I de-center my eye and press fairly hard onto my brow but it seems generous in the grand scheme of things. The Raven definitely has more though as I "need" to have the eyecup one stop up otherwise I definitely get blackouts.
The 8x Yosemite was borderline on acceptable eye relief IIRC. Kevin has it now so I cannot comment further.
Steve C
Well-known member
No glasses with binoculars. I use the eye cup all the way out on everything. So instead of the eye relief comment, I should have said I wish the eye cup would extend maybe a mm or a bit less than it does.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Interesting. The Yosemite eyecups would actually do a great job of staying whereever you put them.
But more stops is a good thing ... you can be sure that they stay put. But only one stop in between the two ends I find not quite enough these days especially with an EP with a lot of ER.
FrankD
Well-known member
Tero,
I readily admit to a predetermined bias against smaller exit pupil bins. 4 mm is about all I can handle and even then only with certain bins. Even the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 (despite all of its wonderful optical characteristics) was still less than ideal for me because of its sub-4 mm exit pupil.
Who knows? You might actually like them since you enjoy that 9x-10x range. The image is sharp though not quite as bright or as contrasty as I would like. For a $100-something dollar 32 mm porro though who could complain?
I readily admit to a predetermined bias against smaller exit pupil bins. 4 mm is about all I can handle and even then only with certain bins. Even the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 (despite all of its wonderful optical characteristics) was still less than ideal for me because of its sub-4 mm exit pupil.
Who knows? You might actually like them since you enjoy that 9x-10x range. The image is sharp though not quite as bright or as contrasty as I would like. For a $100-something dollar 32 mm porro though who could complain?
Tero
Retired
Yes, well, the trouble is the easy return policy. After the first week of excitement, I am already thinking of returning almost every pair the second week. Been there, done that. Move on.
My general preference is still roofs. So the 9x36 is still on the list of things to try. I wish the local dealers carried Vortex so I could try out any of these.
My general preference is still roofs. So the 9x36 is still on the list of things to try. I wish the local dealers carried Vortex so I could try out any of these.
FrankD
Well-known member
I have to say that the more I use the 6.5x32 Raven the more enthused I am about it.
The optics are very good in and of themselves. Throw in all of the benefits of the magnification and the porro design. Consider that the edge distortion is more well controlled than the Yosemite. Lastly, I find I like the length of the binocular more than the Yosemite. I know Steve mentioned something earlier about 1/8th of an inch. He may be right but, to me it seems closer to 1/2 of an inch. I will get the ruler out shortly. That extra bit of length does not seem like much but what it does is allow my ring finger and pinky to fully wrap around the barrel.
A very comfortable holding position results. Comfortable to my hands and also providing a much steadier image.
So far so good with the 6.5x32 Raven. Two thumbs up at this point.
The optics are very good in and of themselves. Throw in all of the benefits of the magnification and the porro design. Consider that the edge distortion is more well controlled than the Yosemite. Lastly, I find I like the length of the binocular more than the Yosemite. I know Steve mentioned something earlier about 1/8th of an inch. He may be right but, to me it seems closer to 1/2 of an inch. I will get the ruler out shortly. That extra bit of length does not seem like much but what it does is allow my ring finger and pinky to fully wrap around the barrel.
A very comfortable holding position results. Comfortable to my hands and also providing a much steadier image.
So far so good with the 6.5x32 Raven. Two thumbs up at this point.
Howard220
Well-known member
Frank (and others), this may sound like a stupid question, but here goes: At 6.5x, what do you/will you use these for? It sounds like a wonderful instrument for the price, but I am so used to 8.5x and 9x optics that I'd be afraid I wouldn't be able to see birds up close enough. Is the lower power simply something to get used to? (Yes, my first 15 or so years' worth of binoculars were 7x, so I know "it can be done.")
Steve C
Well-known member
Well, for my part I do not see a lot of practical difference in 6.5-8x. 6x does seem to start to look a bit smaller, so that seems to be my "too small" threshold. Beyond 8-8.5x, the difference is at pretty long ranges. But most typical reasonably close in birding, for me anyway, it is "not up close enough", but rather it is "what sort of quality is there in the image that you do see". Not necessarily quality in the sense of magnified detail, but color representation, contrast, image shake, image brightness, and so forth.
For quite awhile I used the Swift 7x36 and a Viper 10x42, and that degree of magnification separation seemed about right for a two binocular combination. I can't see any difference in the 6.5 Minox, 6.5 Fury. 6.5 Raven, 7x DB and the 7x EX, or the 7x Swift, or the 7x Leupold in image "size" that makes a difference. Where I really like the 8x43 is in the full size easy grip and large enough fov and enough magnification for really long session viewing.
I tend to think that people tend to think more than they should in terms of image size, and less of the ease of view and finer image characteristics of lower magnification. Less can be more. The Raven is a very inexpensive option to test that bit of philosophy for yourself. I remember a binocular clinic I was at once where everyone attending (well about 75% if I remember correctly) the clinic picked the magnification of an absolutely unmarked new model binocular (the original Brunton Eterna) 7x42 as being 8x, literally nobody picked 7x, including me.
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
I agree with Steve's comments. It really has to do with one's mindset. If you believe the image is going to be too small then it probably will turn out to be.
Oh, if life were so simple.
Seriously though I do agree that I do not find any problem with using a 6.5 or 7x binocular. They provide a wider true field of view, better depth of field and, in general, a brighter image. They also, assuming the objective size stays constant, provide a larger exit pupil so your eye has more room to "roam around" the image.
A majority of my binocular use is down at relatively close quarters however I think a lower powered binocular can also be very beneficial for certain types of long distance viewing as well. What I am referring to here is hawkwatching. I used 7x almost exclusively for the last three or four years with my hawkwatching excursions. I find the wider field of view coupled with the larger exit pupil (42 mm binoculars) makes long duration viewing sessions much more comfortable.
Now if you were considering using a pair of bins for shorebird or waterfowl identification then more magnification would certainly be useful.
Oh, if life were so simple.
Seriously though I do agree that I do not find any problem with using a 6.5 or 7x binocular. They provide a wider true field of view, better depth of field and, in general, a brighter image. They also, assuming the objective size stays constant, provide a larger exit pupil so your eye has more room to "roam around" the image.
A majority of my binocular use is down at relatively close quarters however I think a lower powered binocular can also be very beneficial for certain types of long distance viewing as well. What I am referring to here is hawkwatching. I used 7x almost exclusively for the last three or four years with my hawkwatching excursions. I find the wider field of view coupled with the larger exit pupil (42 mm binoculars) makes long duration viewing sessions much more comfortable.
Now if you were considering using a pair of bins for shorebird or waterfowl identification then more magnification would certainly be useful.
Steve C
Well-known member
Frank is right, the Raven is a bit more than 1/2" longer than the Yosemite.
Attachments
Similar threads
