• 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.

Review BX-4 McKinley HD (1 Viewer)

Just for grins I showed the McKinley's to a few different people. Thing is I put some black tape over the focus knob so they wouldn't know which was 8x and which was 10x. A couple of these guys were dyed in the wool 10x users and it was not even possible to entertain the notion in their head that 10x was not "better" than an 8x.

So all I did was to tell them I was doing a survey. All the information needed was to answer the question which do you think is the better image, binocular #1 or binocular #2, and why was it they liked whichever one it was. Nothing scientific about this to be sure ;).

The two 10x users dumbfounded themselves when both of them told me essentially the same thing..."it's way easy to pick out the 10x, its number 2! It is brighter, sharper, easier to focus, and clearer too". Needless to say binocular number 2 was the 8x. That's a paraphrase of both, but close to what they said. Different places and times for both of these guys. I have an exceptionally eagle eyed nephew who just turned 25 and has always been a user of 10x, although he was not as adamant about it as the other two guys were. He also picked out the 8x as the best binocular. That started him asking a lot of questions he'd never really asked me about binoculars before. I'd given him a ZRS 10x42 because he liked it best of the several I had at the time. He spent quite awhile over several days looking at stuff in general making his mind up. His deciding comments were something along the lines of..."If I look close enough, the 10x is bigger, but the 8x is clearer and shows the colors better and you can tell more about lots of things with the 8x. The 8 is easier to look through for a long time too. Now that you tell me about the difference in field of view, I can see that too".

His birthday was two days ago and he now has an 8x McKinley, as I offered him his choice for his birthday.

This sort of parallels a demonstration at our local birding show from about ten or twelve years ago. Brunton had a display and optics demonstrations of all sorts and one of the things they did was disguise 7x, 8x, and 10x binoculars and collect data from a protocol they had everybody go through. In this instance, 7x won hands down, with 8x someplace in the middle, and 10x way behind the curve in third place. This was at the time Brunton introduced the original Eterna line in 7x42 and 10x42. Not surprisingly they introduced the 7x based on their blind user tests, and the 7x proceeded to flop and was replaced by 8x in the newer Eterna line.

So at lest with these two Leupold McKinley binoculars, 8x seems to get the preference. keep in mind that in my mind this a a really good 10x too. I can see nothing to indicate it has any sort of problem that would hinder it. For a 10x it has quite good apparent depth of field. But obviously not as good as the 8x. This is my bet on the comments on the 8x being easier to focus.

I'm still pretty impressed with the Gold Ring. If forced to choose between the GR and the McK, I have to say the GR is a better binocular. The differences are slim, and I could easily do with a McKinley and really not wish for much better binocular.
 
Last edited:
Great post Steve :)

Amazing what the human mind can do to trick itself. It's always fun to read about "blind" experiments and how the results can differ so dramatically from those when the user's expectation bias is in play.
 
Steve:

This is a very good post, and I agree with you on your findings. I have binoculars of
several power sizes, and have drifted to 8x or 8.5x as my favorite size all around.
You are right on track.

For some of us, another direction that is very addicting is a quality 10x50-56. These
just offer another big bright view, that is very helpful in low light, and in many other
ways.
A question, on the Leupolds, is have you been comparing the latest GR HD, or a new
prototype of an upcoming model?

Jerry
 
Just for grins I showed the McKinley's to a few different people. Thing is I put some black tape over the focus knob so they wouldn't know which was 8x and which was 10x. A couple of these guys were dyed in the wool 10x users and it was not even possible to entertain the notion in their head that 10x was not "better" than an 8x.

So all I did was to tell them I was doing a survey. All the information needed was to answer the question which do you think is the better image, binocular #1 or binocular #2, and why was it they liked whichever one it was. Nothing scientific about this to be sure ;).

The two 10x users dumbfounded themselves when both of them told me essentially the same thing..."it's way easy to pick out the 10x, its number 2! It is brighter, sharper, easier to focus, and clearer too". Needless to say binocular number 2 was the 8x. That's a paraphrase of both, but close to what they said. Different places and times for both of these guys. I have an exceptionally eagle eyed nephew who just turned 25 and has always been a user of 10x, although he was not as adamant about it as the other two guys were. He also picked out the 8x as the best binocular. That started him asking a lot of questions he'd never really asked me about binoculars before. I'd given him a ZRS 10x42 because he liked it best of the several I had at the time. He spent quite awhile over several days looking at stuff in general making his mind up. His deciding comments were something along the lines of..."If I look close enough, the 10x is bigger, but the 8x is clearer and shows the colors better and you can tell more about lots of things with the 8x. The 8 is easier to look through for a long time too. Now that you tell me about the difference in field of view, I can see that too".

His birthday was two days ago and he now has an 8x McKinley, as I offered him his choice for his birthday.

This sort of parallels a demonstration at our local birding show from about ten or twelve years ago. Brunton had a display and optics demonstrations of all sorts and one of the things they did was disguise 7x, 8x, and 10x binoculars and collect data from a protocol they had everybody go through. In this instance, 7x won hands down, with 8x someplace in the middle, and 10x way behind the curve in third place. This was at the time Brunton introduced the original Eterna line in 7x42 and 10x42. Not surprisingly they introduced the 7x based on their blind user tests, and the 7x proceeded to flop and was replaced by 8x in the newer Eterna line.

So at lest with these two Leupold McKinley binoculars, 8x seems to get the preference. keep in mind that in my mind this a a really good 10x too. I can see nothing to indicate it has any sort of problem that would hinder it. For a 10x it has quite good apparent depth of field. But obviously not as good as the 8x. This is my bet on the comments on the 8x being easier to focus.

I'm still pretty impressed with the Gold Ring. If forced to choose between the GR and the McK, I have to say the GR is a better binocular. The differences are slim, and I could easily do with a McKinley and really not wish for much better binocular.

Good post!

I suspect that in most blind comparisons like this, all other things being equal, the winner will almost always be the binocular with the largest exit pupil. It is simply easier to pick it up, put it to your eyes and start using it. When the ambient light is changing finding a useable IPD position for the exit pupils is easier as the margin for error is larger. And the FOV will be larger.

But the fact that Brunton found out that people will ignore it's benefits when confronted with the choice of using binoculars with higher powers probably says more about the psychology of "power" on the human make up than on say, common sense.

I remember a few years back talking to a couple in my American Legion Post. They considered me an "expert" because I often had a binocular with me when I visited the Post.:king: They were about to buy an inexpensive Bushnell reverse porro for a back yard binocular and were considering either an 8 x 25 or a 7/15 x 25 zoom. Dick's sporting goods had them. I advised them to buy the 8 x 25 because of the usual reasons that zooms were unreliable and had narrow fields of view. They ignored my advise and bought the zoom and were very happy with until it stopped working in about 2 weeks except at the 7 x 25 position. We discussed that problem and I suggested that they return it to Dicks and see if they would take it back for an 8 x 25 which, lucky for them, is what happened. Now they are happy and the husband also takes it Deer Hunting.

Bob
 
Steve:

This is a very good post, and I agree with you on your findings. I have binoculars of
several power sizes, and have drifted to 8x or 8.5x as my favorite size all around.
You are right on track.

For some of us, another direction that is very addicting is a quality 10x50-56. These
just offer another big bright view, that is very helpful in low light, and in many other
ways.
A question, on the Leupolds, is have you been comparing the latest GR HD, or a new
prototype of an upcoming model?

Jerry

I tend to think like Ceasar in the post below yours and with your observation about 10x 50-56. I think the little larger exit pupil helps there and I guess if I ever feel the 10x need, it will be a 50-56 model.

This is the recently discontinued GR binocular. Too bad it did not get more love, it is exceptional. Leupold has something on the drawing board for a new Gold Ring. They need to figure how to get it assembled in their factory in Oregon, keep the quality of this GR and keep it around $1,000. How close they are to the goal, I do not know.
 
Well I thought this post might help people make a decision on the McKinley or other mid grade binoculars on the market.

I spent about two hours today comparing several new 10x42 binoculars as well as a few all ready established on the market. Threw one 8x42 into the mix also. I was not able to look through an 8x McKinley though.

I was really wanting to look through a few mid grade glasses to include the McKinley,Viper HD,Meopta HD and the Nikon Monarch 7.

I was also able to examine a Zeiss HT and Conquest HD, SLC HD, Swarovision and the new Leica Trinovid as well as the Ultravid HD all in 10x42 models.

I was not able to to test for brightness or CA as I was in a large retail store but there were challenging conditions (including a resolution chart on a far wall) inside the store.

For some background I currently own a Swarovision 8.5x42 as well as a Leupold cascade 8x42 porro.

In the last couple of years I have also owned a Zeiss Victory FL in 10x42,a Zen Ray Prime in 10x42, a Bushnell original split bridge Elite in 8 and 10x43 and a Brunton Epoch in 7.5x43 and have had extensive use of my fathers Meopta Meostar B1 in 10x42 and a friends SLC NEU 10x42. I guess what I am trying to get across is I am an experienced binocular user. My first premium glass was a Leica Trinovid BN in 10x50. These have all gone away for one reason or another.

On to today's Comparisons.

Everyone's eyes are different as we all know but in my opinion its very easy to group top performers from the lower level.

If you want to be happy with a binocular and not strive for better optics the $1000 and up segment is where you want to look.

This tread is on the Leupold Mckinley so I will start with it.

I was completely non impressed with the McKinley to such an extent that I thought I was looking through a bad sample and asked the guy working the optics counter if he would get another new one out of the box (which he did) so I could examine it also. One of the hardest binoculars I have every tried to look through. Yes sharp and flat edges with good brightness ect. but just impossible to get a good complete view of the picture presented. I had to run the eye cups all the way down to even get close. Its not just a problem with the big eye cups as I did not have any problems with the Zen Ray Prime I owned, seems to me the problem is beyond just the eye cups. Not much more to say as its a complete failure in my book. I would have a hard time believing that the 8x would be much better. Why it is getting such good reviews baffles me?

Optically I put the McKinley at the bottom of the list of all the 10x42's I looked through today. I would take the Viper HD or Nikon Monarch 7 over it any day of the week.

I would also have a very hard time deciding between The Zen Ray Prime HD and the Nikon M7 or Vortex Viper HD. Even though the prime I had was decent I would not say it was better than either, also the build quality seems better on the M7 and Viper HD.

Here are my thoughts on the other Binoculars with best at the top.

Swarovision -best resolution I have seen still to this day.

SLC HD and Zeiss Victory HT tied for second place ( I would place my late victory FL in this group also, not much difference.)

Leica Ultravid HD

Leica Trinovid (new), Zeiss Conquest HD, Meopta Meostar HD and Vortex Razor HD (new) all tied. the Meopta was my pick, I like the weight and ergonomics in the 10x. If you are looking to spend $1000 pick from these three but I see Leica not selling to many Trinovids at $1400 when the other three are just as good.

Nikon Monarch 7, bested the viper hd in sweet spot and FOV. Best buy at $500 if you don't want to step up to the $1000 class. I was not expecting it to be as good as it was because of all the negative reviews.

Vortex Viper HD- it only lost to the M7 because of its smaller FOV, very good glass.

Zen Ray Prime HD

Leupold McKinley HD

The sole 8x42 I looked through today was a lightly used Leupold Golden Ring HD on the used market, yes I bought it and yes it is a much better binocular than the McKinley. This golden ring 8x42 HD easily performs in the $1000-1400 class mentioned above if not higher .
 
Last edited:
J,

Thank you for posting your comparitive impressions of all of these binoculars. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it not just for the information but for your writing style as well.

I do want to bring up a discussion on the McKinley though. When I first read through your review the initial impression I got of your experience with the McKinley was that it was dismissed because of the poor user-binocular "interface" with the eyecups/eyepieces.

Let me preface the rest of my comments by saying this. I don't doubt your experiences. If you go back and read my review of this model my chief nitpick was the same issue. For me the size of the eyecups required an entirely different, and initially uncomfortable, positioning with regard to my facial features.

Second preface would be that I reviewed the 8x42 and not the 10x42. In most situations 8x bins have more eye relief than 10x (whether it is published that way by the manufacturer or not). If the 8x had less eye relief than it does then there is no way I would have even been remotely able to see the full field of view which would then make them unusable for me as well.

So I guess my question is this....

If we disregard the binocular/human interface at the eyepiece then was there anything else objectionable about this model?

Of course this is a huge point of concern and can't be dismissed in the grand scheme of things but I am curious about your impressions beyond that.
 
The one time I had a chance to use the Swarovision 8.5x42 was to my eyes truly amazing & will agree with you that optically they are the king of binoculars in that power range. The Mckinley 10x I have never handled & can't give an opinion but I really like the Mckinley 8x. I would buy 5 pairs of 8x Mckinley like the one I now own before I would pay out what the Swarovision cost or any other binocular on your list that cost 2 to 5 times as much because I think they are that good. This is only my opinion based on what my eyes see when using the Mckinley ... gwen
 
Frank ... Your mention of the large eyecups combined with ones physical face is a good point. I know many people on this forum do not like this in a binocular. Iam one who does, that along with the 8x mckinley's added long eyerelief , wide flat field view really works for me. ... gwen
 
Well, we have at least been comparing some of the same binoculars. On some we agree, on some we don't ;). Here we go, top to bottom.

Swarovski SV. Since you brought it into the discussion, I agree it is the top of the list. For what is costs it should be there. However, I'd really like to see the links to independent lab tests that give the SV a 5-6% increase in light transmission over the EL and SLC Neu that you were using over on Optics Talk.

SLC-HD. Top of the list with the above. Again for the cost it is where it should be. I like the ergonomic package of the SLC-HD better than the SV.

Leupold Gold Ring. There is so little difference to the true alpha glass here as for those differences to be inconsequential. The ergonomics of this glass for me are the best I've tried, and I still place it pretty high in my list of top ten roof prism views.

Vortex Razor HD (new). Really nice glass, super view, nice ergonomics. The downside is I don't quite think it is worth $300 more than the glass below. I put this one over the Zeiss only because the eye relief, eye cup extension is just right for me.

Zeiss Conquest HD. Really nice binocular. The one I've seen is quite satisfying, nice ergonomics, but the eye relief or the eye cup extension is just not right for me. I like the just slightly warmer color balance of this glass better than I do the Victory FL.

ZEN Prime HD Leupold McKinley HD. Even up. If it were not for the larger size and the larger oculars giving the binoculars a slight ergonomic advantage to the Conquest and Razor HD's they would all rank even up here. The oculars and the eye cups on the 10x versions of these two are identical. Identical. The eye relief is identical too. I can imagine no explanation for the problems you see with the McKinley since you had none with the Prime. I guess it boils down to personal differences ;)

The next bunch are basically even up in my book.

Kruger Caldera. It is just a bit sharper than the Monarch 7 below. The color saturation and contrast are on par with the Monarch 7 below.

Monarch 7. Very nice binocular. Compact, well built, with very pleasing ergonomics. If this was my binocular I'd go forth and use it with no fear of missing anything. The edges are better than some posts have claimed. But while the image is nice, it does not have the color saturation or overall brightness to get it in a higher tier. This is the Monarch that should have happened to upgrade the original Monarch. Forget the Monarch 3, the 5, and the X.

ZEN ED 3. Lots has been said about this binocular. I don't need to repeat anything here

Vortex Viper HD. If the 42 mm was as nice as the 32 mm, this would go higher. Considering where other price competitors are today this needs a more competitive fov. I actually think the optics are better than the Monarch 7. But overall, if this were my binocular, id go use it and not fear I was missing anything.

Consider a lot of this preliminary. I don't see where I'll ever be able to arrange to do a proper side by side.

The differences are pretty slim. I think the ranking (mine and mine alone) is pretty indicative of the optical quality advances we've been seeing over the last several years.
 
Last edited:
Frank, thanks for your interest in my post.

As per your question, I was not able to get a full clear view of the picture through the Mckinley at all, seems to be a eye relief problem (too much) even with the cups all the way down. This prevented me from really getting a good look at the optical quality. There was no point to continue with the binocular any further.

I will continue to look through them every chance I get to verify my findings. Perhaps a few bad ones slipped past QC at Leupold? Time will tell.

I think Leupold is going to have a hard time selling these to the average hunter/binocular user as the interface ergonomics as you called them are so bad. Its a shame. Same can be said of the Prime HD to a lesser degree.

Leupold needs to do some serious work on the eye cups, if that requires going to smaller oculars so be it. They will sell more of these to the general public IMO
 
Last edited:
As per your question, I was not able to get a full clear view of the picture through the Mckinley at all, seems to be a eye relief problem (too much) even with the cups all the way down. This prevented me from really getting a good look at the optical quality.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. In my experience, too much eye relief means the eyecups aren't long enough for those not wearing glasses, resulting in blackouts. Moving the eyecups down only makes the problem worse. On a different, but partially related note, I agree entirely on the praise for the 8 x 42 HD GR, and would also encourage you to look at the Leupold Hawthorne 7 x 42, which is made in Japan (not China), somewhat narrow FOV, but very bright and sharp as a tack right to the edges.
 
I'm not sure I understand this comment. In my experience, too much eye relief means the eyecups aren't long enough for those not wearing glasses, resulting in blackouts. Moving the eyecups down only makes the problem worse. On a different, but partially related note, I agree entirely on the praise for the 8 x 42 HD GR, and would also encourage you to look at the Leupold Hawthorne 7 x 42, which is made in Japan (not China), somewhat narrow FOV, but very bright and sharp as a tack right to the edges.

There are, to me anyway, 2 types of blackouts.

The first kind is the one you describe above. I don't wear glasses and in many cases (but not all) I have had the same problem; the eyecups weren't long enough for me and blackouts resulted. If I put sunglasses on the problem went away.

But in specific cases, particularly the Nikon 8 x 32 SE, there is a 2nd type. The SE has about 4mm more ER than the 8 x 30 EII but unless I hold the SE in a particular way (MOLCET) I get "kidney beaning" type blackouts. These are different from those I experienced in the 1st paragraph. I have never experienced blackouts when using my EII which has shorter ER.

This "kidney beaning" blackout must be a different type of blackout than the kind I experienced in my 1st paragraph above. I also experienced it while using my old Leitz 7x42 BN which has 22mm eye relief. These blackouts took on the shape of a "kidney bean" where upon the name. I got these "kidney beaning" blackouts while using the binoculars with AND without glasses. With the MOLCET technique they disappeared in both instances.

I suspect, and I could be wrong, that these blackouts come about as a result of the physiognomy surrounding ones eyes. That's the best I can do here.

The MOLCET technique, for those who do not know it, consists of bracing the top of the eyecups of the binocular firmly up against, and slightly under ones brow ridge and then VERY slightly tilting the binocular upward. This removes the "kidney beaning." It received it's name from Brock (who else?) and means "MooreorlessCeasar'sEyebrowTechnique" after Steve and Yours truly who originated it independently.:t:

Bob

PS: I also have the discontinued precursor of the Leupold 7 x 42 Hawthorne; the BX-2 Cascade. It is very good for a $250.00 binocular. Sharp, bright, large sweet spot, real good edges and long ER. I've been keeping it in my car lately day and night. The only differences between it and the Hawthorne is that the Hawthorne is FMC and the BX-2 is MC and the exterior coverings have different designs.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I ment to say the eye relief on the McKinley was too short, not too long/much.

I'm sorry but this is confusing me. I checked Eagle Optics and it seems, if their specs are accurate, that the 8 x 42 and 10 x 42 McKinley's both have 20mm eye relief. (I went to the Leupold website and it only had information for the 8 x 42 listed--20mm. It did not list a 10 x 42.)

Based on your report in thread #86 I'm sure you know that 20mm is very long eye relief. Are you sure that short eye relief caused the problem you experienced when you tried them? Is it possible that the eye cups did not fully extend?

Bob
 
I could not get proper eye relief even with the eye cups all the way down, extending them out only made the situation worse.
 
I was in a large sporting goods store yesterday, and they had the new Leupold in
the 10x42.
I really had no opportunity to evaluate them optically with just a quick look, but
did notice the large diameter ocular eyecup size. These are the largest I have ever
found.
The salesman that showed me these, has a small face, with a narrow IPD, and
I am not sure how he would get along with these.

They are a large binocular, and seem well built. As with any optics purchase, a proper
test takes time, to find out how you get along with them.

Jerry
 
Jerry .. I agree, the Mckinley's do indeed have very large ocular eyepieces. From what I have read here & other comments on the web this seems to be the major complaint. If ones eyeset IPD & other face factors don't match the design of the McKinley then I can understand the strong negative comments. Iam very fortunate the design of the McKinley's fit my face very well & thats why my 62yr. eyes like that wide flatfield look that many seem to not. Again as you have mentioned along with many others here on the forum, any binocular or scope should be put to ones face just like buying a new pair of hunting boots because there is really no model that fits all. .... gwen
 
Dielectric Coatings?

Do the McKinley models have dielectric coatings? I did not see any mention of that in the reviews or on the Leupold website, but I could have missed it.

Steve's review says "the image is just a bit brighter than the Prime". The Prime has dielectric prism coatings, so with the McKinley being just a bit brighter, then that makes me think it may also have dielectric prism coatings. On the other hand, "dielectric" is one of the latest binocular marketing buzz words so I would think Leupold would mention it if is used on the McKinley.
 
Do the McKinley models have dielectric coatings? I did not see any mention of that in the reviews or on the Leupold website, but I could have missed it.

Steve's review says "the image is just a bit brighter than the Prime". The Prime has dielectric prism coatings, so with the McKinley being just a bit brighter, then that makes me think it may also have dielectric prism coatings. On the other hand, "dielectric" is one of the latest binocular marketing buzz words so I would think Leupold would mention it if is used on the McKinley.

Bruce,

Yes the McKinley is dielectric coated. The biggest difference in the two, now that I have had them for awhile is in the fact the McKinley has a little bit of a warm, reddish-brown-amber sort of a color bias. Similar to what is seen in Leica and Nikon models, but it is also different. The Prime is just about dead neutral in color balance, with only a very slight yellow shade.

For those of you who have experience with the Gold Ring from Leupold, you have a good idea of the image of the McKinley.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top