• 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.

A $4 Support for $3,000 Binoculars! (1 Viewer)

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
I recently bought a second hand Swarovski 12x50 EL SV. It’s a constant delight, especially on the first use of the day - just focus and see a bright, high magnification, high detail image. Overall, my impressions closely follow those of Roger Vine of Scope Views (see under the heading ‘In Use - Daytime’: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro12x50EL.htm )

The binoculars balance well and are relatively easy to hold steady without any other support - for short periods. However, they have certainly caused me to be attentive to both my holding technique, and making use of any available support (either resting the binos and/or my forearms or elbows for added stability).


A PORTABLE SUPPORT
Jonno52’s recent post ( https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3769728&postcount=12 ), drew my attention to Dick Forsman’s review on the introduction of the x50 Swarovski’s. Dick describes using the Field Bag that comes with the binoculars as an aid to support - see the attached excerpt (‘the lower corners of the case’ referred to in the last sentence are of course the top corners of the bag when it’s not upside down).

PERFORMANCE
This bag works as described for a number of reasons:
- it has sufficient rigidity to support the weight of the binoculars, without collapsing out of shape;
- the broad area of the base is flexible enough to provide a self-shaping platform, and;
- the rolled covering around the zipper at the top of the case, provides a firm non-slip line of contact on the upper chest/collar bone area.

A) LESS SHAKE
What’s immediately obvious is significantly less shake. While I observed this at all the magnifications I tried from 6x to 12x, the effect is more pronounced as magnification increases. I’d rate the effect of the support verses only hand holding, as providing around a 1/3 gain in steadiness:
- a supported 12x is about equivalent to a hand held 8x, and;
- a supported 10x is about equivalent to a hand held 7x.
However, even with 6x and 7x binoculars the support provides a much more ‘restful’ image.

B) MINIMISED EFFECT OF WEIGHT
Within reason, weight does not seem to be an issue. Comparing a 20 oz 8x30 to a 27 oz 8x42, they were equally steady.

C) INCREASED DURATION
As Forsman indicates, if your arms are held low so as to be supported by contact with the sides of your chest, they can remain relaxed (and so not cause shake) for an indefinite period. If your arms are high (when your hands are wrapped around the binoculars), in time your unsupported arms start to shake, and that in turn causes the binos to shake.

DOWNSIDES
The downsides are that the bag is relatively:
- large (10” high x 8” wide x 4” deep across the base; 25 cm x 20 cm x 10cm);
- heavy (10 1/2 oz as is, and 14 oz with it’s carry strap; 300 g and 400 g), and;
- expensive (as a separate purchase, $70 or more on the net).
And of course while any bag of similar construction and dimensions will work, it’s still something you need to have with you.


A $4 ALTERNATIVE
Considering the above, I went browsing in my local hardware store looking for an alternative. What I finally came up with was a squeegee! This particular one sells in Australia under the Sabco brand (see the photo). And of course, something very similar should be available wherever good squeegees are sold. Mine cost $4 and weighs 2 1/2 oz (70 g). The handle is 10 1/2” long (26 cm) and the blade 9” (23 cm).

HOW IT WORKS
The tapered end of the handle provides the support point. It self-centres between the two barrels of most roof prism designs (the pointed tip does not work with the flat underside of double hinged x20 and x25 designs). Somewhat surprisingly, it works well with Porro prism binoculars - you have to place the tip to one side of the axle, and while the binos are slightly off balance side-to-side, the fit is secure.

The curved shape of the handle places the bottom of the synthetic rubber blade directly against your chest, ensuring firm contact (if the handle was straight, the side of the blade would be the area of contact and would tend to slide down the chest). The blade is more secure pressed against natural and blended fabrics than 100% synthetic ones.

ANGULAR ADJUSTMENT
The binoculars can easily be pivoted to the left or right further than you can comfortably turn your head. You can also easily raise or lower the elevation at least 45 degrees above or below the horizontal. To raise the elevation, either move the pivot point closer to the rear of the binoculars, or move the blade higher on your chest, or both (and to lower the elevation the opposite applies).

PERFORMANCE
It works just as well as the Field Bag. It provides as solid support, and once the binoculars are focused you can place both hands low on the handle, arms against your chest, and use your fingertips to steady the binocular (while your arms are not as low as with the Field Bag, they are sufficiently low so that they are rested).

HANDS FREE CARRY
All that’s needed is a loop of cord on a belt. Alternatively, just push the handle inside the belt.

WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED?
The blade is unnecessarily long. It can get in the way if it’s lower on your chest and you hunch your shoulders. I’ll probably reduce the length to around 6 to 7” (15 to 18 cm).

If the shiny white plastic is a bother either tape or spray paint should work (with the latter it would probably be best to first roughen the surface with sandpaper).


So, a $4 expenditure for a potential 1/3 increase in performance. Is there a squeegee in your birding future?
 

Attachments

  • per Forsman.jpg
    per Forsman.jpg
    35.4 KB · Views: 90
  • Sabco squeegee.jpg
    Sabco squeegee.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:
Very innovative! Thanks for the idea.

Unreasonable request: post a selfie of you using the bag and squeegee supports.
More reasonable request: post a photo of the squeegee handle tip supporting the binoculars.
 
There is a small Pentax post that screws into the bottom of some of their small binoculars.
It works well.

I haven't tried it with say a Swift binocular, which has a screw thread on the bottom.
I can't remember if the Pentax post is a standard thread.
 
Hi John,

A car windscreen bug sponge also works well as the sponge part is softer on the chest. The wooden handle that they usually come with can be easily shortened to customize the length for the best comfort. A vinyl cap can then be put on the cut end to protect the binoculars.

Doug....
 
Hello all,
I had a chance to take some photos this afternoon to illustrate my initial post.
The second and third show the Field Bag upside down as when used for support.
As can be seen by the last photo, the squeegee and the bag have similarly located contact points, both for supporting the binocular and contacting the torso.
The last also shows the importance of the squeegee's curved shape (verses straight), to help prevent the blade sliding down the chest.
 

Attachments

  • a) Field Bag.jpg
    a) Field Bag.jpg
    246.7 KB · Views: 23
  • b) Field Bag upside-down.jpg
    b) Field Bag upside-down.jpg
    222.9 KB · Views: 11
  • c) and side on, as in use.jpg
    c) and side on, as in use.jpg
    213.7 KB · Views: 16
  • d) Squeegee and Field Bag.jpg
    d) Squeegee and Field Bag.jpg
    183.1 KB · Views: 22
  • e) Squeegee and Field Bag profiles.jpg
    e) Squeegee and Field Bag profiles.jpg
    203.3 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:
. . . and some photos in use
- first the Field Bag
- next the squeegee
- and last the squeegee, with arms rested on the chest
 

Attachments

  • With Field Bag.jpg
    With Field Bag.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 132
  • With Squeegee.jpg
    With Squeegee.jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 168
  • - and with arms rested.jpg
    - and with arms rested.jpg
    103.7 KB · Views: 153
Last edited:
LETS GO CUSTOM!
Over the weekend in the spirit of ‘scientific enquiry’, I did some destructive testing. To determine what blade length was ideal, I reduced the length by 1” (c.2.5 cm) at a time. I’ve attached photos of the original 9”, a medium 7” and a minimum 5” version.

I used my 12x50 binoculars to best observe the effect on steadiness, while wearing a summer weight shirt. And bearing in mind that I’m 5’ 8” (173 cm) and of average build, my conclusions were:

It’s the padding of the pectoral muscles that best support and stabilise the rigid blade. When the blade is reduced too much there comes a point where there is insufficient padded contact, as the unpadded sternum bone increasingly makes contact. This unpadded contact results in both a sense of less security and more significantly physical discomfort.

7” (c.18 cm) is as long as I needed
It’s just as stable and secure as the original 9” blade (since on the full length blade, roughly the last 1” on each end has no chest contact). It’s also both distinctly more comfortable (with no tendency to restrict shoulder movement) and more convenient (being more compact to either handle or pack away).

6” (c.15 cm) is still very much OK
However, it just does not give me the sensation of being as completely solid and comfortable as above (there is slightly less padded contact but no sternum contact). For someone of a smaller physique - say 5’ 3” (c.160 cm) or less - it may be ideal.

5” (c.12.5 cm) is too short
For the first time, the squeegee feels noticeably less stable in terms of side-to-side stability, and it also feels if it might slip - without actually doing so. However, while distracting, neither of these affected the stability of the image.
Much more significant was the lack of physical comfort as the weight was now primarily rested on my sternum, and this was distinctly uncomfortable from the initial contact. Perhaps this would be OK for short views of a subject, and if I was wearing heavy clothing this presumedly would not be a problem.
However, the 5” is certainly the least obtrusive to handle or pack away - ‘the Traveller’s model’?

Bearing in mind we’re only talking about $4 a pop, I’d suggest buying a couple of squeegees and alter them to see what best suits you.
 

Attachments

  • 9 inch.jpg
    9 inch.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 14
  • 7 inch.jpg
    7 inch.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 14
  • 5 inch.jpg
    5 inch.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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