• 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.

Of Binoculars Large and Small (1 Viewer)

ailevin

Well-known member
I know I have too many binoculars. I don't mean this in any pejorative sense, as in it's better to have fewer higher quality instruments, or it's wrong to spend so much on optics, or don't tell the wife and kids I ordered yet another binocular. I just like them. I know it's silly, but there it is. I thought about calling it “crazy” or “a disease,” but there is no need for such drama except with tongue in cheek. Also, I'm sure others have much bigger collections—I'm currently in the vicinity of a dozen. I rationalize this by spreading my binoculars around (in cars, viewing spots in the house, backpacks and emergency kits) and specializing them by use (astronomy, birding, travel, concert/theater).

My oldest binocular is a Fujinon Meibo 7x50 purchased second hand from a local astronomical optics shop in 1986. The actor William Schallert traded them in on the latest FMT model. (Those who are old enough may remember him from movies and TV, particularly as Patty Duke's long suffering father.) This was my favorite astronomy binocular until I purchased a Cannon 15x45 IS in 1998. Until recently, I used binoculars primarily for astronomy. I still use both of these binoculars for astronomy, but these days I am viewing much more often during the day.

My newest binocular is a Zeiss Victory 8x25 acquired new about a month ago. I have really enjoyed using this binocular. In fact, I have used almost nothing else for the past month. My favorite daytime binocular has been a Maven 9x45 B2 that I've owned for a little more than a year. This was by far my most used binocular over the past year, except that I almost always take something smaller when I travel. It is these two, the diminutive 10 oz Zeiss and the large 33 oz Maven that I'm speaking of in the title to this post. I've already reviewed each of these binoculars in more detail. I was skeptical when I first read about them though they were both well reviewed. The Maven seemed too big and heavy, while the Zeiss seemed too small. In fact, looking back at my reviews, to some extent I rationalize the weight of the Maven, and the small aperture of the Zeiss. And yet these two are easily my favorites. The fact that they are so different, and that I love both of them may help to explain why I have too many binoculars.

After a month straight with the Zeiss, I've been out several days in a row with the Maven again. The balance, feel in hand, and mechanics of the Maven are superior to the little Zeiss. They focus in the opposite direction (CC to infinity); this took some getting used to after a month away. The larger eyepieces, and the larger exit pupil make eye placement easier, though I notice that because of how the eyecups meet my face, IPD is much more critical on the Maven, and if it is off I begin to notice CA. I did not notice much difference in speed of focus or close focus and actual field of view seemed about the same even though the Maven is 9x. I can hold the Maven steady with less effort, but the Zeiss was easier to point and get on target, particularly for birds flying in the open. Also I found the Zeiss easier to get focused at the right depth when looking into nearby shrubs or undergrowth. So overall mechanics and ease of view go to the Maven, and maybe handling too, but it is hard to call because they are better at different things. As I've said before, I find weight and bulk more of a problem when transporting it than when birding with a RYO harness. Over the past couple days I have only been out for 1-3 hours at a time I had no problems with harness comfort. But, I thought more than once that if I was hiking further or going to be out for a full day I might pick up the Zeiss. In the past, I would have considered a smaller binocular to be a compromise. It was not so much a concern about low light performance, but rather because nothing could match the view of the Maven B2 until now.

When I first compared the Maven B2 9x45 and the Zeiss Victory 8x25 I said that I expected it to be Godzilla vs. Bambi. After all, the Maven 9x45 was easily better than anything smaller that I owned. I had attributed it to larger exit pupil or larger objective or AK prisms or ... . Instead I experienced exactly the same clarity and color dynamics with the little 8x25 binocular that I saw in the 9x45 under daylight conditions. The little Zeiss is at least a match for the big Maven as long as it is working with enough light. I was also shocked at how well the Zeiss handled difficult lighting compared with my other binoculars. Of course, aperture makes a difference and the Maven gathers more than 3x as much light as the Zeiss, so under dim lighting and with the larger exit pupil, the Maven will be much better. But now it is a functional trade-off of weight/portability vs. low light performance. I can get the same spectacular view and daylight performance from the small Zeiss as the large Maven.

Alan
 
A friend of mine collects wrist watches - some of these are terrifyingly expensive. There is, of course, the argument that no-one needs more than one watch. Another is the same with sunglasses, of all things - Oakley, Aviator etc. Someone in my town has a barn-full of bicycles - some functional, some vintage.
What i'm saying is that this seems to be a human condition when some artifact or other becomes more than a casual interest. Providing you're not taking food out of your familiy's mouth by doing it, what is wrong?
The expertise developed by the 'collectors' contributes to the general knowledge of others through public dissemination via forums like this one, and the collector knows exactly why a particular model attracted them.
I think it is also natural to regard a forum as a form of 'confessional' to admit to a slight obsession. This reply is meant to take the place of your 100 Hail Marys!

I just wish people would stop saying how good the little Zeiss is, as it's not helping my problem!!
 
Think I am on the “safe” side of a dozen still. I try to keep each binocular to a niche... so I don’t have duplicates. Interesting about your David vs Goliath, I have just picked up some 8x30E3 as a “lighter weight” daytime carry bin, as the 7x35 Rangemasters are a noticable weight. They are shockingly bright and crisp and almost unnoticeably light. Going to have to find other niches if I want to “keep collecting”.

PEter
 
@Alan,

I think it may be "easier" to make good bins with smaller aperatures. If we look at camera lenses, which I am more familiar with, a lens that is rather soft at f/1.4 is often very sharp by f/4, and even "cheap" kit zoom lenses can be quite good at f/8.

The zeiss 8x25 is in effect a lens with a much smaller aperature. In my mind, a bin that is simultaneously has a large aperature and also is equal in sharpness to the zeiss 8x25 is a significantly better bin because it would be much brighter. In photography, a lens that is sharper at f/1.4 than a similar one at f/8 would be astounding.

In photography, lenses are usually stopped down to the same aperature before comparing them to each other. I noticed, that there was a thread somewhere that was talking about using lens caps with holes in them to "stop-down" bins from say 42mm to 32mm in order to increase sharpness.

Alan, I suspect that if you stopped down your 8x45 bin to 25mm, it is likely to show a big boost to sharpness and may even convincingly beat out the zeiss 8x25!
 
I can get the same spectacular view and daylight performance from the small Zeiss as the large Maven.

Alan

I must admit yours and other reviews have placed the 8x25 Victory Pocket squarely at the top of the list of current production binoculars I'd like to look through. The comments regarding its apparent ease of view are particularly impressive. It's precisely this kind of optical design innovation that established Zeiss's fame.
 
If they can make a good 8X25 why not a great 8X32, I mean how small is small. Perhaps a new 8X32 is in the works, perhaps.

Andy W.
 
@Alan, ... I noticed, that there was a thread somewhere that was talking about using lens caps with holes in them to "stop-down" bins from say 42mm to 32mm in order to increase sharpness....
The following link is to one of the threads about this, or perhaps it might even be to the one you meant: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=363384

To me sharpness is also interesing but there seem to be different types which I do not understand e.g. I was struck by a description which included the term 'cartoon-like'. I take this to be an exaggeration of outlines and think I saw it with Orion UltraView 8x42, which immediately seemed very sharp, but was not colourful enough for my taste. On the other hand I enjoyed the colour/contrast of e.g. Pentax DCF ED 8x32, which on close comparison did not seem to be so sharp but was preferred for its stronger colours. However they both 'only' provided 8x magnification so sharpness did not seem generally to matter so much.

I guess that human acuity is less likely to be fully utilised or significant at, say, 8x, compared to e.g. 10x, and that this may be why 10x may not look more detailed when looking through binoculars which are otherwise the same: at higher magnification it might be more likely to be noticable if sharpness is not so good, so 7x32 binoculars may also be easier to make...for ease of use the larger objectives might just be needed for higher magnifications...

Btw there is a peculiar thing which I noticed when nit-picking like this when looking at e.g. text, that for things can unpredictably, and just for a moment, look suddenly super-sharp and more readable and I take it that this is a mental rather than purely physiological phenomenon. I believe that this is partly due to sharpness while it also involves perception and that, when viewing more natural subjects, it might even be the basis for an unexpected additional bonus to superior sharpness.

Regarding quick comparisons, in normal use one can only really 'look' at a small patch in the centre but the initial impression of a wide angle and 'walk in view', or when the trade names Leica, Swarovski, or Zeiss are involved, perceptions may be rendered more favourable. Any real differences in sharpness are likely to take a bit more time, however minimal they might really be |=)|
 
Last edited:
Chris6 and aCuria:
You raise a number of interesting points. If the optics were perfect then masking the entrance pupil (outer edge of objective or mirror) would be equivalent to your eye having a smaller entrance pupil than the exit pupil of the instrument. However, in real optical systems scattering and errors in figure can put light where it doesn't belong in the exit pupil. While I am no optician, I know that the part of a mirror that is most difficult to figure and keep smooth is the edge and this may also be true for an objective. In astronomy it is common to mask the edge of a large mirror or large objective. So even during daytime when your eye has a rather small entrance pupil, masking could potentially improve image quality.

I was taught by a talented planetary observer to maintain a very relaxed focus and breathe normally while observing. It sounds simple but it's not that easy to do. There is a tendency to tense up and/or hold your breath when concentrating, and if you focus in that situation you end up with less focus accommodation than if you focused when more relaxed. This also seems applicable to binocular observing. There is also the issue of atmospheric turbulence, and though it is much more severe at high magnification, it is a factor at binocular magnifications as well. Once again with turbulence it pays to stay relaxed and wait for those moments when the air allows the image to snap to a sharper focus and give you more detail.

Andy: My wallet lived in fear that Zeiss would come out with an SF in 8x32. Perhaps it still may, but when I asked at a show in February they claimed it was not scheduled for production. They recommend a conquest 8x32, a fine binocular, but I find it a bit clunky and not in the same optical class as SF 8x42.

Patudo: The Zeiss 8x25 is a specialized binocular and it has it's issues, but it works surprisingly well for me. The most obvious design choices compared to others I've tried are the offset hinge and the identical right/left barrel optics; usually barrels are mirror image in prism design. As with my 9x45, I don't know how to dissect the critical design choices and specs, but for me it is just a winning recipe in hand.

Paddy7: I appreciate your willingness to forgive and relieve my penance, but unfortunately I hail from a guilt ridden pre-confessional people. Now I have to deal with being a bad influence over you :-O .

Alan
 
I must admit yours and other reviews have placed the 8x25 Victory Pocket squarely at the top of the list of current production binoculars I'd like to look through. The comments regarding its apparent ease of view are particularly impressive. It's precisely this kind of optical design innovation that established Zeiss's fame.

Dont get too excited, the ease of view is not as good as the 8x42SF or the 8x30CL, and the afov is significantly narrower. It is however optically sharp while being very small and pocketable.
 
Dont get too excited, the ease of view is not as good as the 8x42SF or the 8x30CL, and the afov is significantly narrower. It is however optically sharp while being very small and pocketable.

I didn't notice an appreciable difference in FOV, and the Zeiss seemed to have better flatness of field.

The specs also show minimal difference in AFOV (131.2m @ 1km for the Zeiss, 131.5m @ 1km for the Swarovski).

Is it possible what you saw is the difference in exit pupil, specially if you are wearing glasses?
 
I didn't notice an appreciable difference in FOV, and the Zeiss seemed to have better flatness of field.

The specs also show minimal difference in AFOV (131.2m @ 1km for the Zeiss, 131.5m @ 1km for the Swarovski).

Is it possible what you saw is the difference in exit pupil, specially if you are wearing glasses?

I think the spec you quote is for the field of view, not the apparent field of view.

You may be right here though, I do use glasses which may affect something.
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top