• 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.

Olympus 8x42 PRO - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)

james holdsworth said:
Does Olympus still make their own binos? These look and perform like a dozen other rebranders models.
Click to expand...

They are ranked #6 right behind the Nikon MHG with almost identical score but cost only half the price. They also get way better score than the Zeiss Terra:s (ranked #21) that cost the same and they also beat the Leica-Ultravid 8x42 HD.

Translate the ranking score to the 10x42 list (10x model usually get 5-6 points more) and a Olympus Pro 10x42 would most likely be a top-10 binocular and still cheaper than competition. That's not really like "dozens of other rebranded models".

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x42.html
 
Last edited:
I notice that they don't try to stuff a wide FOV in them. It has 7.5º and it has 18mm eye relief. It is probably easy to use.

Bob
 
james holdsworth said:
Does Olympus still make their own binos? These look and perform like a dozen other rebranders models.
Click to expand...

Olympus, as well as Nikon, Kowa, Pentax and Fujinon have been using OEM companies for most, if not all of their binocular ranges for years we've been told. Seems this one is made in China.

David
 
The Nikon in the albinos ranking is the HG/L 8X42 the latter HG/LX (venturer) which I have in 8X32, made in 2002-2004. It is not the new Monarch HG (surprised they have not reviewed it, although they have reviewed the 10X42). They are now placing new glass in their ranking system with older glass. Personally the Leica HD 8X42 being ranked below the Olympus is to me perplexing. I checked out the Olympus, in both 8 and 10X42, I was not impressed. I have a UV HD in 8X42. They are better ones in the market for that price.

Andy W.
 
Vespobuteo said:
They are ranked #6 right behind the Nikon MHG with almost identical score but cost only half the price. They also get way better score than the Zeiss Terra:s (ranked #21) that cost the same and they also beat the Leica-Ultravid 8x42 HD.

Translate the ranking score to the 10x42 list (10x model usually get 5-6 points more) and a Olympus Pro 10x42 would most likely be a top-10 binocular and still cheaper than competition. That's not really like "dozens of other rebranded models".

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x42.html
Click to expand...


5 of the top 10 are rebranders....;)

Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like that Zeiss does it and it is farcical how many supposed binocular makers we have out there hawking the same Kamakura chassis and glass with a few cosmetic tweaks.
 
Last edited:
dries1 said:
The Nikon in the albinos ranking is the HG/L 8X42 the latter HG/LX (venturer) which I have in 8X32, made in 2002-2004. It is not the new Monarch HG (surprised they have not reviewed it, although they have reviewed the 10X42). They are now placing new glass in their ranking system with older glass. Personally the Leica HD 8X42 being ranked below the Olympus is to me perplexing. I checked out the Olympus, in both 8 and 10X42, I was not impressed. I have a UV HD in 8X42. They are better ones in the market for that price.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

Probably more relevant info than the Allbinos score.
Those reviews and scoring might be a bit deceptive I guess.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
5 of the top 10 are rebranders....;)

Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like that Zeiss does it and it is farcical how many supposed binocular makers we have out there hawking the same Kamakura chassis and glass with a few cosmetic tweaks.
Click to expand...

Yes perhaps, the 8x42 ranking list is rather incomplete.
I usually hate those re-brand Kamakuras...o:D
Takes about 10 seconds of looking through them to dismiss them.

Allbinos scoring is a mess. All important dimensions of binoculars are getting lost in translation.
The holy chinese binocular grail is most likely not present in the Olympus PRO either.
o:)
 
Last edited:
Mark9473 said:
Would you mind spending a few words to explain what you mean?
Click to expand...

I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality.

I've tried Leica Trinovid HD, Nikon MHG and Zeiss Conquest HD (and many others) that are supposed to be in the midrange and "good binoculars" and I guess they are "ok" but it seems that perfect is biggest the enemy to good. If you are spending that much money, why not spend a bit more to get the best? o:)

My reference bin is the Swarovski SV 8.5x42. I could probably live with a pair of Zeiss SF 8x42 as well. And maybe Leica Nocitivid or UVHD+ 8x42.

I guess I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to optical gear.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughts on that. While I don't disagree, I am happily using lower priced binoculars as long as the compromises aren't too big. I have a 10 year old Kamakura 8x42 (Vixen branded) that has good sharpness to the edge, build quality, CA control - I'm only giving up the FOV which is a low 6.5° - but it works for me. For a pair that mostly gets used around the garden or on day trips and vacations I really struggle to justify spending 5 times as much for one of the current alpha's.
 
"I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality".

This quote from Vespobuteo I agree with esp for glass in the ~ $300-$600 - build quality and consistency of craftsmanship is lacking. However if you are talking about a bit more money say ~ $800-$1200, nothing is better IMHO than the Meopta Meostars. I own some and have used others in the field, excellent optics and build quality. Personally this glass is much closer to the premium brands and should not be considered a mid-range IMO. Yet in the Allbinos ranking, it is ignored, go figure.

Andy W.
 
dries1 said:
"I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality".

This quote from Vespobuteo I agree with esp for glass in the ~ $300-$600 - build quality and consistency of craftsmanship is lacking. However if you are talking about a bit more money say ~ $800-$1200, nothing is better IMHO than the Meopta Meostars. I own some and have used others in the field, excellent optics and build quality. Personally this glass is much closer to the premium brands and should not be considered a mid-range IMO. Yet in the Allbinos ranking, it is ignored, go figure.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried the Meostars but the Swarovski SLC:s that are a bit more expensive and compete in the same range. They definitely are a step up in most aspects but still my demand om eye relief and eye piece design is not fulfilled in those bins (eye-glass user).

I loved the Leica 8x32 UVHD+ for example, if they had better eye relief I would have bought them.

The latest CL B Companions is another bin that are close but not quite there. The stated eye relief looks promising, but the deep eye cups ruins it for me.

With less demand on eye relief there are more "acceptable" models to choose from, I can agree with that.
 
Vespobuteo said:
........
I loved the Leica 8x32 UVHD+ for example, if they had better eye relief I would have bought them.

The latest CL B Companions is another bin that are close but not quite there. The stated eye relief looks promising, but the deep eye cups ruins it for me.

With less demand on eye relief there are more "acceptable" models to choose from, I can agree with that.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have made life easier to simply change you glasses or have them adjusted?

David
 
I have that model and find it very good. Optically I don't see I'm loosing much quality compared to my Leica uv, except the colors slightly colder and less vibrant. Contrast is also apparently lower, but I see the same amount of detail. However, eye relief is better than on Leica, 18 mm instead of 16 mm, so overall I find the olympus more comfortable to use. I also like the compact shape, unpretentious look and impeccable built quality ( leica uv has similar qualities I find, and less plastic... ) .
The review and it seems fair, although I find the scoring system questionable. The focus was judged slow, but within the normal birding range it is fast enough for me. Also, the blue tint measured is not obvious or bothersome to my eyes. I cannot comment on Zeiss but hope this helps.
 
The Olympus is a step from the Terra, but is that really a major accomplishment? If they work for OP that is great, but I just could do better with $450 spent elsewhere.

Andy W.
 
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.

Similar threads

D
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
yarrellii
Allbinos Review of the Vortex Crossfire HD 10x42
Replies
2
Views
1K
qwerty5
qwerty5
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Canon IS II 10x30
Replies
16
Views
2K
henry link
H
chris6
Levenhuk Sherman Pro 8x42 & Vixen Foresta ZR 8x32 WP
Replies
14
Views
4K
chris6
chris6
mgp13
Zeiss SFL 8x40 review from Australia
Replies
7
Views
3K
GrampaTom
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top