• 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.

FYI Allbinos review 8x43 ED2 (1 Viewer)

filipek said:
The ED2 8x43 unit was from us Lanius-Books, the only representative in Poland. It has been sent for evaluation about 1.5 year ago. Unfortunately it was not possible to send ED3 unit as at the same time Allbins carried a year long test which had to proof bins reliablity in the field under elements. Reason why we could not exchange it for ED3. The ZR ED2 test has raised in Poland a lot of comments about test methods, their real value. There are many Zen-Ray user in Poland already, they provided their own opinions which generally rate ZR much higher then other brands at the same price level.
Click to expand...


Why do you give pincushion distortion such low marks, when it is applied mostly to counter any globe-effect and is [generally] far less apparent [in the field] than the globe effect? Great for astronomy, maybe, but less so for other applications.

And why is no / low distortion ranked so high, even if the results are negative in the field - globe effect?

Why no boosted resolution results?

Apologies if you are not with Allbinos, it wasn't that clear from your post....
 
Charles: Thank you for offering 7X choices! I agree with you: I think many people do not fully understand the trade-offs between 7X and 8X when they make their purchase decision. Personally I've always felt that I get more than I give up by going with 7X. Stephen Ingraham wrote years ago that "In extensive comparison in the field, under actual birding conditions, on real birds, given high quality binoculars, there is no significant difference in the amount of detail delivered when you go from 7 to 8 power... [furthermore] in objective tests conducted by Zeiss, birders consistently extracted the most detail (at least on eye charts) from a 7 power image*" (compared to 8X and 10X I presume).

As for the 7X36, I think if you make the edges a little sharper and emphasize that extra field of view, it might sell better. I for one hope it survives!

--Dave

*from The Ideal Birding Binocular, which I think is one of the best short essays on binoculars I've ever seen (still, even though it is becoming a little out of date). To more accurately quote Stephen Ingraham, he actually said he thought the biggest difference was not the amount of detail seen in 7X vs higher power, but in the "amount of fatigue generated over a day’s use."
 
Last edited:
Charles,

I certainly agree with your sentiments on 7x and the 7x30-something format in particular. Folks don't appreciate it unless they have the opportunity to really do a side by side comparison over extended periods of time. The benefits of the typically wider field of view and better depth of field are almost like an acquired taste. The differences, though subtle, are there and are greatly beneficial under a variety of circumstances in the field.

Whether you decide to go with a porro or roof I would kindly request that you don't let the format die. The 7x36 ED2 was very close to being what everyone was asking for and you were really the only company that took the time to listen to what many optics afficiandos were asking for. It really wouldn't take much to "upgrade" the design. Shortening the amount of recess of the ocular lens from the edge of the eyecups, decreasing the amount of pincushion distortion and updating to the ED3 coatings would make it, once again, an excellent binocular in the current marketplace.
 
I think that I'm not bothered by the ED2's level of pincushion, because the huge FOV allows you to pretty much stay away from it. If that makes any sense ?
 
I am not really either but I know it is an objection to some folks. I was attempting to include the major "gripes" with the design that should be relatively easily addressed. I say this last part simply because, like most others, I would have preferred the overall size of the binocular to "shrink down" a bit but realize that design change may compromise other beneficial aspects of its design.
 
The only other 7 x 36 (besides the Swift) available at that time was the inexpensive Vortex 7 x 36 Diamondback. It had a wide FOV and a lot of pincushion distortion at the edges. It is discontinued along with the 9 x 36 which also had a wide FOV and the same pincushioning. Vortex then brought out 8 x 32 and 10 x 32 Diamondbacks which both have very short eye relief along with the wide fields and much pincushioning. I will bet that they will be short lived too; but this will be because of their poor eye relief for the most part.

I still have my 7 x 36 and my major criticism is that it is rather large and bulky. It's not much smaller or lighter than many 8 x 42s are. I think this is the biggest reason the 7 x 36 format doesn't sell well.

I think that a decent mid priced FMC 7 x 32 with good eye relief, bright prisms and a reasonably wide FOV of about 7.6* (Like the Nikon 8 x 32 SE has) would sell steadily.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Since this has turned into a 7x36 discussion, the solution for the 7x36 format is found with the Swift Eaglet (as mentioned by Bob) and its Opticron counterpart, the Oasis I think. This has the benefit of a full 5mm exit pupil, and it is no larger than a typical 32 mm format binocular. It is exceptionally well built, has excellent ergonomics, and maybe one of the best focus mechanisms I have used... albeit fast, but smooth and slick.

If somebody (and I have had some conversations with Swift and they will not do this) will take this design and upgrade it with higher end glass and coatings, and get a wider angle ocular design to bump the fov up to a minimum of 420' we would have what we all seem to want. The optics are good enough that the wider angle solution may be sufficient.

Maybe ZR could take this same sort of design and put it out in the ZRS HD lineup.

Opticron may have the best position to get this one done. Swift may own the design for all I know and unless they give it their blessing, it may not happen. The Eaglet is a bread and butter item for Swift through contracts to various Law Enforcement contracts, and they will not jeopardize the contract status...can't say I blame them either.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for the feedback on the 7x36. It definitely makes me feel great even if it is a dumb "business" decision if you know what I mean. I will keep you posted soon with more update after the New Year.

Charles
 
I want a Zen-Ray 8x56. Forget those little binoculars, the wave of the future are huge, manly binoculars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8-P
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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

yarrellii
Allbinos Review of the Vortex Crossfire HD 10x42
Replies
2
Views
1K
qwerty5
qwerty5
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Nikon SE 12x50
Replies
19
Views
3K
Duende
D
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the new Vortex Triumph HD 10x42
Replies
0
Views
2K
yarrellii
yarrellii
John A Roberts
Allbinos Canon 12x36 IS III Review
Replies
12
Views
2K
jcpjung
jcpjung
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Canon IS II 10x30
Replies
16
Views
2K
henry link
H

Users who are viewing this thread

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