• 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.

BX-2 Cascades 7x42 roof (1 Viewer)

... the 828's overall light transmission is only 75%!...If allbinos is correct, .... darkest image of all group of binoculars, tested at the same time...

Yep. It is dimmer than the porro models, and i imagine many roofs.
What i like about mine is its "easy view", good on the eye muscles, with enough res/contrast to get the job done. Also a good feel in the hand. Kind of a good, hard working glass;)
 
I agree.

Often a successful binocular is better than the sum of it's measured virtues minus it's measured faults. Jay's statement illustrates that some things that cannot be measured precisely often are controlling.

I used mine this morning on my deck along with my 8 x 30 SLC. Different exit pupils of course, and that helped the Swift, but on this overcast, dreary morning the brightness of the Swift was as good as the SLC which cost me $500.00 more and should have more modern lens coatings and more modern prism coatings. Where it was superior to the SLC was in eye placement and overall comfort of view. The longer eye relief was certainly an advantage even though I don't wear glasses. Don't get me wrong, the SLC is a great binocular but it is harder to use, especially if you are going to use it for long individual time periods.

The 828 probably continues selling at a rate that pleases Swift and they may be understandably reluctant to change anything that could affect this. Improvements would probably increase it's price to where it competes with Nikon's 8.5 x 45 Monarch X and now it has the low end price market on the 8.5 to itself.

A simple illustration of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
Dielectric coatings are pretty cheap these days. Even Chinese bins under $300 such as the Monarch ATB have them.

So it wouldn't add much cost but it would add much brightness. Swift doesn't need to change anything else, the 828 will still have that ease of view and res./contrast, just brighter so it's competitive with modern roofs.

Brock
 
I just purchased the Cascades 7x42 last week. I've tried them twice for short periods of time thus far. They are excellent for the price. I am not too sure why people are reporting color problems. I haven't noticed...I focused on a turkey vulture against a clear sunny sky and saw no problem. But, then again...I've never owned a Swarovski or anything that is very high end. I'm sure you will see a difference with the more 'elite' brands. I've only owned Leupold...I think they are excellent binos for the price ranges they offer. I have the Katmai 8x32 and the cascades I feel are better for bird watching (much cheaper as well). For my personal tastes, the 7x42 seems to be the right bino for birding.
 
Hi Annabeth,
You are right. They are a very good binocular for their price. I have one and I like it very much. I've used it mostly as a car binocular so it has seen some bumps and withstood them.

I also own 2 "alpha" 7 x 42s: A Leica Trinovid and a Swarovski 7 x 42B SLC. Now they are better but then their original list prices were at least $1000.00 more than your Leupold cost. But they are as heavy as anvils! What they have that sticks out are wider fields of view, better glare control in difficult situations, sharper edges and they are brighter and have more solid construction. And they should at their prices!

The Leupold is just as sharp AFAICS, and it's contrast is excellent, it is MUCH lighter, it's eye relief is just as good, it is rugged enough to withstand some knocks and it's FOV is wide enough! And you won't go nuts if you run into the bad luck of having them stolen!

Bob

Don't worry about it's pedigree. It is a fine birding binocular. It will last until you decide you have enough money to get an "alpha!"
 
I looked at EO and Leupold has a new model called Hawthorne that is also 7x42 and fully multi-coated compared to Cascades multi-coated. Looks like is the same but with better coatings.
 
MM,

Thanks for the info. Here is a link to one retailer's description and pic of the Hawthorne 7x42.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/30930213-1.html

Except for the new design etched into the exterior rubber covering it is exactly the same as the BX-2. I guess that is how one will be able to tell if the one they have is FMC or MC. The old one has long thin rubber ridges etched lengthwise on the middle of the body. The model name is not on the body of the BX-2.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/leupold/leupold-bx-2-cascades-10x42-binocular

Bob
 
Last edited:
I just purchased the Cascades 7x42 last week. I've tried them twice for short periods of time thus far. They are excellent for the price. I am not too sure why people are reporting color problems. I haven't noticed...I focused on a turkey vulture against a clear sunny sky and saw no problem. But, then again...I've never owned a Swarovski or anything that is very high end. I'm sure you will see a difference with the more 'elite' brands. I've only owned Leupold...I think they are excellent binos for the price ranges they offer. I have the Katmai 8x32 and the cascades I feel are better for bird watching (much cheaper as well). For my personal tastes, the 7x42 seems to be the right bino for birding.

Annabeth (I should write Annabeth2 so nobody confuses you with the other Annabeth :),

The CA would have to be bloody awful for a 7x bin for you to see fringing on birds against a clear, sunny sky. The litmus test is looking at birds (and tree branches) against a bright but overcast sky. If you don't see any CA then, either everybody else is nuts, or you are immune to CA.

Brock
 
Brock,
you are absolutely correct. I went to our NJ Audobon center today and did notice on the trees against a couldy and very whitish sky the color abberation that everyone is talking about. It's evident, but it's not too annoying since it doesn't seem to be extreme or anything. It is there though and the higher models probably don't seem to have that.


Bob,
I did check out the 'alpha' bins at the Audobon center today. WOW. The guy that helped me said that I will regret trying them b/c I will then feel bad about what I already have haha. I tried the Leica 7x42 and the Swarovski 8x32 and they are both quite amazing. I especially like the Swarovski (more for comfort reasons). OMG...they are SUPER comfortable and a little lighter (open bridge design). Of course, the optics are REAL good. I'm not too technical minded on this stuff and can't really describe too well how I know they are superior to my Leupold. When I focused on the trees about 20-30 yards in front of me, it seemed that the middle-ground and backgroud were not really that out of focus. In other words, more objects at different depths seemed to stay in focus well compared to my Cascades. I guess that is a great 'depth of field' ... duh...I'm just realizing this as I type. Clarity, depth of field and the trueness of color were all noticeably better than the ones I have.

but yeah...I still love my Leupold 7x42...they are still super clear , have very good FOV and the color abberations isn't a deal breaker since it's not all that bad. With that said...I will someday pick up an 'apha' brand as you say. Boy those swarovskis are great, but the guy told me they don't make 7x anymore with the new models. So, I will look for 7x42 in the elite brands someday if they are available. Maybe the Leica? If not, then I will have a great excuse to keep using my cascades. I will use them for a year or two before I get a super duper alpha pair. This stuff is expensive...what am I made of money ? ;) It looks like the 7x is not envogue these days, but that is what I prefer.

I like the cascades with the 'leaf design' on the body that you say are superior to the ridges design. I have the ridges...I was unable to find a place that sold the leaf (Hawthorne) one. They are prettier too...I'm sure you guys don't give a rat's behind about a binocular's prettiness factor like I do haha. Well, you are right-on about mid priced and inexpensive binos when you say it's not so terrible if they are stolen. I wouldn't know where to hide a super expensive pair in my tiny apartment. I'd probably worry too much !

thanks for the advice and comments guys ... happy birding. :)
 
Brock,
you are absolutely correct. I went to our NJ Audobon center today and did notice on the trees against a couldy and very whitish sky the color abberation that everyone is talking about. It's evident, but it's not too annoying since it doesn't seem to be extreme or anything. It is there though and the higher models probably don't seem to have that.


Bob,
I did check out the 'alpha' bins at the Audobon center today. WOW. The guy that helped me said that I will regret trying them b/c I will then feel bad about what I already have haha. I tried the Leica 7x42 and the Swarovski 8x32 and they are both quite amazing. I especially like the Swarovski (more for comfort reasons). OMG...they are SUPER comfortable and a little lighter (open bridge design). Of course, the optics are REAL good. I'm not too technical minded on this stuff and can't really describe too well how I know they are superior to my Leupold. When I focused on the trees about 20-30 yards in front of me, it seemed that the middle-ground and backgroud were not really that out of focus. In other words, more objects at different depths seemed to stay in focus well compared to my Cascades. I guess that is a great 'depth of field' ... duh...I'm just realizing this as I type. Clarity, depth of field and the trueness of color were all noticeably better than the ones I have.

but yeah...I still love my Leupold 7x42...they are still super clear , have very good FOV and the color abberations isn't a deal breaker since it's not all that bad. With that said...I will someday pick up an 'apha' brand as you say. Boy those swarovskis are great, but the guy told me they don't make 7x anymore with the new models. So, I will look for 7x42 in the elite brands someday if they are available. Maybe the Leica? If not, then I will have a great excuse to keep using my cascades. I will use them for a year or two before I get a super duper alpha pair. This stuff is expensive...what am I made of money ? ;) It looks like the 7x is not envogue these days, but that is what I prefer.

I like the cascades with the 'leaf design' on the body that you say are superior to the ridges design. I have the ridges...I was unable to find a place that sold the leaf (Hawthorne) one. They are prettier too...I'm sure you guys don't give a rat's behind about a binocular's prettiness factor like I do haha. Well, you are right-on about mid priced and inexpensive binos when you say it's not so terrible if they are stolen. I wouldn't know where to hide a super expensive pair in my tiny apartment. I'd probably worry too much !

thanks for the advice and comments guys ... happy birding. :)

Annabeth,

Glad the CA wasn't too annoying on your Loopys, apparently it is for some people.

The Swaro 8x32 EL is "SUPER comfortable" for me too, and I have large hands. I think that's part of the appeal of this model, it fits a variety of hand sizes whereas the longer, heavier and bulkier full sized EL WB might not be the darling of the small handed. Even I thought they were somewhat of an albatross. But the 8x32 EL feels like Baby Bear's porridge - "just right". The price, OTOH, is like the Big Bad Wolf.

Here's the conundrum about depth of field (if binoculars even have "depth of field" - one of our experts says no). But here's how it's supposed to work - the lower the magnification, the better the depth perception (let's use that term to avoid a technical discussion breaking out since we already had a thread about that recently, if I find it I'll post a link).

So in theory, your 7x Leupold should have better depth perception than an 8x Swaro. There's nothing about alphas that make them superior in that regard.

But in practice, it doesn't always look that way. One reason is that fast focusers can create the impression of shallow depth because with just a nudge you can run through more real estate than a bin with a more "pokey" focuser.

The 8x32 EL WB, which is what I assume you tried, not the new SV EL, has a faster focuser than the original 8.5x EL, which was so Pokey that even Gumby would be moving at only 12 frames per second, just barely detectable. :)

So even though the 8x32 model wasn't as pokey, compared to the 8x32 Nikon LX/HG, it turns at a reasonable pace.

My Kreskin guess is that your Leupold has a faster focuser than the EL.

Also, note the length of the EL vs. your Loopy. For a midsized bin, the 8x32 EL is fairly long. Most midsized roofs are fairly short, which I think contributes to their lesser depth perception (a controversial theory, I might add). Focal ratio does affect depth of field, but since most bins are f/3-f'4, some would argue that a longer binocular doesn't make a difference. I'm not convinced. So take that one with a grain of salt (and a shot of Vodka :).

The 8x32 EL is the only midsized roof I've tried so far that gives good depth perception. The rest give more of a 2-D view.

According to 8x32 EL users who are sensitive to chromatic aberration (CA), the EL shows CA. Even allbinos mentioned it in their review. So in that regard, you might not be any better off with the 8x EL than you would with your 7x42. But the EL's handling, depth perception and sharp, bright view for a midsized bin is very appealing.

Someday I'd like to own one. Okay, maybe not this lifetime, but for sure in the next incarnation if I don't come back as an eagle (in which case I wouldn't need binoculars, because I'd have them built-in :).

Brock
 
Annabeth wrote: I was unable to find a place that sold the leaf (Hawthorne) one. They are prettier too...I'm sure you guys don't give a rat's behind about a binocular's prettiness factor like I do haha.

Well, we guys may not give a gnat's ass about how pretty a bin is or purchase one based on whether or not it has leaf reliefs imprinted on it, but we do have a sense of aesthetics, and I dare say that for some of us, that's as an important factor as the optics and other features.

For example, I am not a fan of Leupold's "busy" pattered Aztec theme and neither is Yosemite Sam, which the Yosemites were named after.

Here's what he told me at the National Cartoon Characters Convention:

"Dadburnit! Why in tarnation did they have to put an Injun pattern on my namesake binoculars? Now I got that blasted rabbit calling me Injun Sam and that daffy duck telling everybody that Injun Sam is ticklish. It's revoltin' development, I tell ya!"

The cleaner lines of the original Yosemite were more appealing to me. I never liked the body design of the original Conquests, which looked like Buck Rogers-Era space ships.

I also don't care for those dainty compact roofs that you have to hold with your finger tips and that look like a piece of jewelry hanging around your neck.

No sirree bob, I like manly man binoculars. I wouldn't call 'em purdy, but they are handsome fellows. See below.

Besides being manly, the weight and bulk help when we're out pillaging and plundering in case we run out of bows and arrows or lose our swords...
 

Attachments

  • 654999-4.jpg
    654999-4.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 128
  • czj14.jpg
    czj14.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 150
  • 7x50Brockstar.JPG
    7x50Brockstar.JPG
    148.9 KB · Views: 153
ugh...I typed up a long reply and then my laptop just restarted on me. how frustrating...well, I'm not going to type all of that up again.

In a nutshell, I am not too swift on the technical aspects here, but I felt that the swarovski was a 'fast' focuser too. The depth of field really seemed superior to me compared to my Cascades. It was noticeable right away. Shouldn't it be better at
such a high price? I guess I'd have to go back and check them more thoroughly against what I have and take more notice of the focus speed as you point out. However, I'm not doing that again...no siree...then I will really want one ;)

Yes, I have the original Yosemite and I feel the pattern or lack of pattern is nicer than the new ones. The Cascades pattern is ugly...I am not satisfied with that, but as long as I can see birds and other wildlife clearly and brightly then this is all that matters ultimately. The Swarovski's felt best in my hands compared to the Leica and the Zeiss (forgot to mention I tried a Zeiss model). However, the Swarovski felt 'precious' and I got this feeling like I needed to be super careful with them. The Zeiss felt durable (as well as the Leica) and I felt like I wouldn't worry if they were to get banged around a bit. One of the models (can't remember) was short and sort of stout (green)...maybe it was the Zeiss (victory I think) and that felt pretty rugged. I am sure the Swarovskis are not fragile, but they just felt that way. Oh yeah...and the eyecups on the alpha binos were all better than what I have...especially the Swarovski...super smooth twisting them up and down and very comfy.

yes, your binos look very 'manly' and rugged. They look huge ! I was going for smaller and more compact for a few years with the Katmai (I thought that's what I wanted), but I then I felt it was time for something more substantial in size.

well someday I will get a gorgeous and superior bino, but until then...I will keep using my cheap yet reliable and ugly yet practicle 'Loopy's" as you call them ;)

:)
 
Did you get a chance to try out the new Swarovski 8 x 30 CL binocular. It's about $800.00 cheaper than the 8 x 32 EL's and weighs 17 ounces. And if you ever run across the binocular it replaced you might like it too. That was the 8 x 30 SLC which should be rugged enough for you. It weighs 20 ounces. Keep your eyes open for them so you can try them out.

Bob
 
oh now I do recognise this model Bob (just googled them). The Audobon center had these and I looked through them very briefly. I didn't get a chance to take it in. When I go back for seed I will give them more time.
 
I like mine a lot also.
I am hoping the new Hawthorne which are fully multi-coated are still Japan made. Will check them out at some point.
 
Last edited:
I like mine a lot also.
I am hoping the new Hawthorne which are fully multi-coated are still Japan made. Will check them out at some point.

They probably are. Look underneath them on the body next to the hinge for the stamp.

The only thing that changed on the Hawthorne other than the optics is the exterior design etched into the covering. The name and the Logo are in the same place. They have the same focus wheel and same eye cups.

This Japanese company appears to also make the Swift 8.5 x 44 828 binocular which is stamped made in Japan on it and has the same eye cups and focus wheel and a similar exterior to the Leupolds.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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