I’m opening this thread so that we can read all sorts of opinions and points of view. There's no wrong answer 
There are several very important aspects to take into account when choosing binoculars. One is fit. I’m sure many forum members have been there. You have two (or more) options to choose from. One is “better” but the other “fits better”, this might be related to ergonomics, the tactile feeling of the armour, the size of the eyecups, the way the binoculars “fall” in your hands, etc. Just like in a bicycle, or a pair of shoes, fit is (mostly) everything. It can be very good, but if it doesn’t fit…
However, I’m not interested so much in this notion of "fit" as in a more subtle consideration: the notion of convenience against performance when choosing between binoculars.
Yes, of course, we’d have to define convenience beyond what the dictionary says ("suitable for your purposes and needs and causing the least difficulty”). I’d be glad to know what forum members consider “convenient” and how important this is compared to performance when talking about binoculars (looking at the prevalence of roofs against porros, we could think that aspects such as waterproofness, size and close focus are part of this general idea of convenience... or can we?)
Just an example to set the ball rolling (I’m sure many of you have also been here). You are torn between two devices to fit a particular purpose, let’s take two 10x42 binoculars. In this example let's take two Nikons (so that there's no brand/loyalty-related issues): Nikon Monarch 7 and Nikon SE.
Let’s assume both can be bought for a similar price and both have good fit (no blackouts or the like) so the main considerations like price and fit are out of the equation so we can concentrate on what you value the most.
Following the example (it is just an example, not the goal of this thread, so don't pay too much attention to it) some things to consider:
Nikon SE 10x42
Pros - better overall performance. Sharper, brighter, bigger sweetspot, more “perceived depth of field", although both are 10x42.
Cons - not waterproof, narrower FOV, bulkier, heavier.
Nikon Monarch 7 10x42
Pros - smaller, lighter, waterproof, easier to carry
Cons - not as sharp or bright, noticeable CA, rubber armour and mechanics probably not as good in the long term
In this particular case, on one hand we have the sheer performance, the pure joy when looking*, and on the other hand a more convenient piece of kit, particularly in size/weight/waterproofness, ease of use (to carry and store).
What do you choose? Actually… what have you chosen when faced with similar choices in the past? What’s your experience? Any regrets?
*Yes, I’ve omitted the notion of residual/resale value or the fact that M7 is still in production and SE is a much sought after device. Let’s omit those considerations for the sake of the argument convenience vs performance.
There are several very important aspects to take into account when choosing binoculars. One is fit. I’m sure many forum members have been there. You have two (or more) options to choose from. One is “better” but the other “fits better”, this might be related to ergonomics, the tactile feeling of the armour, the size of the eyecups, the way the binoculars “fall” in your hands, etc. Just like in a bicycle, or a pair of shoes, fit is (mostly) everything. It can be very good, but if it doesn’t fit…
However, I’m not interested so much in this notion of "fit" as in a more subtle consideration: the notion of convenience against performance when choosing between binoculars.
Yes, of course, we’d have to define convenience beyond what the dictionary says ("suitable for your purposes and needs and causing the least difficulty”). I’d be glad to know what forum members consider “convenient” and how important this is compared to performance when talking about binoculars (looking at the prevalence of roofs against porros, we could think that aspects such as waterproofness, size and close focus are part of this general idea of convenience... or can we?)
Just an example to set the ball rolling (I’m sure many of you have also been here). You are torn between two devices to fit a particular purpose, let’s take two 10x42 binoculars. In this example let's take two Nikons (so that there's no brand/loyalty-related issues): Nikon Monarch 7 and Nikon SE.
Let’s assume both can be bought for a similar price and both have good fit (no blackouts or the like) so the main considerations like price and fit are out of the equation so we can concentrate on what you value the most.
Following the example (it is just an example, not the goal of this thread, so don't pay too much attention to it) some things to consider:
Nikon SE 10x42
Pros - better overall performance. Sharper, brighter, bigger sweetspot, more “perceived depth of field", although both are 10x42.
Cons - not waterproof, narrower FOV, bulkier, heavier.
Nikon Monarch 7 10x42
Pros - smaller, lighter, waterproof, easier to carry
Cons - not as sharp or bright, noticeable CA, rubber armour and mechanics probably not as good in the long term
In this particular case, on one hand we have the sheer performance, the pure joy when looking*, and on the other hand a more convenient piece of kit, particularly in size/weight/waterproofness, ease of use (to carry and store).
What do you choose? Actually… what have you chosen when faced with similar choices in the past? What’s your experience? Any regrets?
*Yes, I’ve omitted the notion of residual/resale value or the fact that M7 is still in production and SE is a much sought after device. Let’s omit those considerations for the sake of the argument convenience vs performance.
Last edited:
