-
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.
Are ACULONS the new ACTION porros? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ceasar
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Frank - Be careful! (pretty hard to hold a bin steady and focus it with only 3 fingers on each hand!) :eek!:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Amazing!
So now the deals even come and sniff you out, ay Frank :t:
Chosun :gh:
So now the deals even come and sniff you out, ay Frank :t:
Chosun :gh:
FrankD
Well-known member
I don't currently have the last version of the Action or the Action EX. I do have the Action WFs so they will have some stiff competition in everything but contrast /color bias. If they equal that performance but with modern coatings then impressive they will be.
I will be looking at quality control in particular and also potential flexing of the eyepiece bridge.
I will be looking at quality control in particular and also potential flexing of the eyepiece bridge.
Giorgio
Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
The VII and Ex were sharp to about 60-70% depending of the models, like 60% for the 7x35 and 70% for the 10x50.
The body weakness of the 7x50 model i got, is clearly too weak eyecups.
I don't know if it's made on purpose, but turning them up/down is way too easy, so when you press them only a bit on your face, they can move up/down.
The body seems a bit stronger than the one of the Action VII series, but the eyepiece bridge is still moving when you press it, like on the VII. The eyepiece bridge isn't moving at all on the Ex series.
The body weakness of the 7x50 model i got, is clearly too weak eyecups.
I don't know if it's made on purpose, but turning them up/down is way too easy, so when you press them only a bit on your face, they can move up/down.
The body seems a bit stronger than the one of the Action VII series, but the eyepiece bridge is still moving when you press it, like on the VII. The eyepiece bridge isn't moving at all on the Ex series.
FrankD
Well-known member
Giorgio,
Thanks for the info. Based on what you provided it would seem I shouldn't have a problem with one issue you mentioned while the other certainly could be an issue.
The tension of the eyecups shouldn't be a concern considering the listed short eye relief of the 7x35 (think it was 12 mm). They eyecups most likely will never be extended when I use them as a result.
The eyepiece bridge flexing could be a concern depending on how hard I have to press the eyecups into my face to try to see the full field of view. I will comment further on this issue once I get the bins in hand.
Thanks for the info. Based on what you provided it would seem I shouldn't have a problem with one issue you mentioned while the other certainly could be an issue.
The tension of the eyecups shouldn't be a concern considering the listed short eye relief of the 7x35 (think it was 12 mm). They eyecups most likely will never be extended when I use them as a result.
The eyepiece bridge flexing could be a concern depending on how hard I have to press the eyecups into my face to try to see the full field of view. I will comment further on this issue once I get the bins in hand.
Giorgio
Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
I just remember to tell you also, the focus was very stiff the first days.
Getting smoother with use, but it's not that great.
FrankD
Well-known member
That wouldn't be unexpected since we are talking about an external focus porro prism model. It does intrigue me a little since I don't believe they are advertised as waterproof. Typically the rubber gaskets/o-rings used to waterproof them on the eyepiece end usually restrict the movement of the entire eyepiece bridge element. Without those gaskets I would expect it to be smoother unless the grease just needs to loosen up.
Giorgio
Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
As you say Frank.
The unexpecting thing is that the Ex model, the lonely one to be waterproof, is the smoothest of all the Action range lol. The 7x35 i have and the others i tried have their weels as smooth as butter. I never understood why.
Even the non WP Action VII are stiffer than the Ex.
FrankD
Well-known member
Just an update. I received the Nikon Aculon 7x35 yesterday afternoon. I have had some time to tinker with it. I will write something extensive up when I have time today or tomorrow.
Until then a couple of quick notes:
- As expected I cannot see the full field of view even with the eyecups fully collapsed because of the short eye relief and the width of the eyecups. So, as someone else mentioned, I am the first to completely remove the rubber off of the eyecups. After this modification I can now see the full field of view.
- Handling-wise they feel very much like what I remember of the last version of the Actions.
- As Giorgio mentioned with his 7x50 the focusing tension is relatively stiff but seems to be loosening up slightly after about 18 hours of sporadic use.
- In many ways image quality seems to be very similar to the last version of the Action in terms of sweet spot size, apparent sharpness, etc... The one pleasant surprise is that the coatings may have been upgraded as apparent brightness is very good and color saturation is above average in my opinion.
All for now.
Until then a couple of quick notes:
- As expected I cannot see the full field of view even with the eyecups fully collapsed because of the short eye relief and the width of the eyecups. So, as someone else mentioned, I am the first to completely remove the rubber off of the eyecups. After this modification I can now see the full field of view.
- Handling-wise they feel very much like what I remember of the last version of the Actions.
- As Giorgio mentioned with his 7x50 the focusing tension is relatively stiff but seems to be loosening up slightly after about 18 hours of sporadic use.
- In many ways image quality seems to be very similar to the last version of the Action in terms of sweet spot size, apparent sharpness, etc... The one pleasant surprise is that the coatings may have been upgraded as apparent brightness is very good and color saturation is above average in my opinion.
All for now.
oetzi
Well-known member
No having to wear glasses, there are only two things which bother me with my Action VII 7x35:
They are bulky, even for a porro.
The very pronounced field curvature is quite annoyibg at times.
But for € 56,- delivered I am not complaining. A more than decent binocular.
Cant wait to read about your experiences.
They are bulky, even for a porro.
The very pronounced field curvature is quite annoyibg at times.
But for € 56,- delivered I am not complaining. A more than decent binocular.
Cant wait to read about your experiences.
FrankD
Well-known member
Actually, I don't wear glasses either...but I do have a big nose that requires binoculars with either plenty of eye relief or relatively narrow diameter eyecups.
I am going to be quite busy over the weekend so I want to share my initial thoughts and impressions of the Aculon 7x35 now.
For those looking for a ground-breaking improvement over the Action in a variety of optical and ergonomic areas I don't think the Aculon is going to do it for you. That isn't to say that this isn't a good glass. For a variety of reasons it is...many of the same reasons that the last version of the Action was.
- Exceptionally wide true field of view (9.3 degrees)
- Very good depth of field (7x magnification)
- Very good level of brightness (5mm exit pupil coupled with the porro design and Nikon's coatings)
- Good level of apparent sharpness within the sweetspot
- 3D image representation (porro prism design)
Negatives have been somewhat previously mentioned:
- short eye relief on the 7x35 model (12 mm if I remember correctly)
- a bit bulky prism housing compared to many classic designs
- fairly small sweet spot
- notable off-axis chromatic aberration
I haven't had problems with the eyepiece-bridge flexing assuming we aren't referring to when I try to set the diopter. That takes a bit of practice. In regular use the bridge does not flex even though I have to put a bit of pressure on the eyepieces to truly see the full field of view.
I don't really have an issue with the size of the binocular either. It is bulkier than something like a Nikon SE or EII in terms of the prism housing but not substantially so. The new housing design does help a bit with ergonomics but I wouldn't call it a substantial improvement.
Optically I enjoy using them. Their on-axis performance is good overall. I found the apparent sharpness good but not very good or excellent. There were a few situations where I felt I could see more detail with other binoculars I have in my current selection. CA is well controlled within the sweetspot but moderate to highly noticeable as you move outside of the sweetspot.
Sweetspot size can be misleading at times. I am guessing that is the result of my eyes and the environmental conditions. At worst it feels like it is about 50% of the image. At best it might be 60-65% if I had to throw percentages at it. Keep in mind the field of view is very wide.
Field curvature is definitely present over a large portion of the field of view. It can be distracting at times.
If I had to single out one optical area that seems improved it would be the color saturation and apparent brightness. I am guessing Nikon utilized newer coatings on this model as various colors across the spectrum are very well represented.
I think, in general, it would be difficult to improve much over the basic Action design that has been utilized over the last 5 or 10 years without improving to the level of the Action Extreme (EX). In keeping the Aculon as the same basic design as the Action while slightly improving the ergonomics, the eyecup design and the coatings I think Nikon made a good step forward without making the Action EX obsolete.
I would certainly recommend this binocular as inexpensive option for beginners, as a backup glass or as a feeder binocular. The $75 street price makes it a good option for those looking for reliable optical performance. I plan on keeping mine.
I am going to be quite busy over the weekend so I want to share my initial thoughts and impressions of the Aculon 7x35 now.
For those looking for a ground-breaking improvement over the Action in a variety of optical and ergonomic areas I don't think the Aculon is going to do it for you. That isn't to say that this isn't a good glass. For a variety of reasons it is...many of the same reasons that the last version of the Action was.
- Exceptionally wide true field of view (9.3 degrees)
- Very good depth of field (7x magnification)
- Very good level of brightness (5mm exit pupil coupled with the porro design and Nikon's coatings)
- Good level of apparent sharpness within the sweetspot
- 3D image representation (porro prism design)
Negatives have been somewhat previously mentioned:
- short eye relief on the 7x35 model (12 mm if I remember correctly)
- a bit bulky prism housing compared to many classic designs
- fairly small sweet spot
- notable off-axis chromatic aberration
I haven't had problems with the eyepiece-bridge flexing assuming we aren't referring to when I try to set the diopter. That takes a bit of practice. In regular use the bridge does not flex even though I have to put a bit of pressure on the eyepieces to truly see the full field of view.
I don't really have an issue with the size of the binocular either. It is bulkier than something like a Nikon SE or EII in terms of the prism housing but not substantially so. The new housing design does help a bit with ergonomics but I wouldn't call it a substantial improvement.
Optically I enjoy using them. Their on-axis performance is good overall. I found the apparent sharpness good but not very good or excellent. There were a few situations where I felt I could see more detail with other binoculars I have in my current selection. CA is well controlled within the sweetspot but moderate to highly noticeable as you move outside of the sweetspot.
Sweetspot size can be misleading at times. I am guessing that is the result of my eyes and the environmental conditions. At worst it feels like it is about 50% of the image. At best it might be 60-65% if I had to throw percentages at it. Keep in mind the field of view is very wide.
Field curvature is definitely present over a large portion of the field of view. It can be distracting at times.
If I had to single out one optical area that seems improved it would be the color saturation and apparent brightness. I am guessing Nikon utilized newer coatings on this model as various colors across the spectrum are very well represented.
I think, in general, it would be difficult to improve much over the basic Action design that has been utilized over the last 5 or 10 years without improving to the level of the Action Extreme (EX). In keeping the Aculon as the same basic design as the Action while slightly improving the ergonomics, the eyecup design and the coatings I think Nikon made a good step forward without making the Action EX obsolete.
I would certainly recommend this binocular as inexpensive option for beginners, as a backup glass or as a feeder binocular. The $75 street price makes it a good option for those looking for reliable optical performance. I plan on keeping mine.
Giorgio
Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
Sad to see the FOV is still sharp to only 60-65% for the 7x35 model. Same goes for its bad of axis CA correction.
It seems the lenses are still the same since the VII range, just the coatings are improved (they are more blueish than the previous greenish coatings), the 7x50 Aculon is excellent against flaring by day, and false pupils depending of the sun orientation.
Better go with the Ex series instead of the Aculons so?
It seems the lenses are still the same since the VII range, just the coatings are improved (they are more blueish than the previous greenish coatings), the 7x50 Aculon is excellent against flaring by day, and false pupils depending of the sun orientation.
Better go with the Ex series instead of the Aculons so?
FrankD
Well-known member
If squeaking out the most optical performance within a limited budget then, yes, I would probably opt for the EX. Still the 7x35 Aculon still provides all the benefits one would expect from a wide angle 7x binocular......a very panoramic view with excellent depth of field.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
I was in REI yesterday and as usual checked out their (meager) binocular selection, and noticed the Aculons on display there. They typically just stock some cruddy REI "house brand" compacts, plus a few low end Nikons models and a handful of Olympus compact reverse porros. Usually they have some Monarchs but yesterday the Nikon roof selection was limited to just an 8x42 ProStaff and an 8x36 Monarch. I think the 8x36 Monarch was a poor sample as one barrel wasn't very sharp, so I spent most of the time comparing the 7x35 Aculon to the ProStaff.
It was a brief comparison, but on the good side the Aculon was very bright and neutral, noticeably moreso than the ProStaff or Monarch roofs. Both the roofs had a "dingier" view that was clearly a bit reddish (expected with both having lower level silver prism coatings) and the Aculon was very obviously brighter without that obvious warm tinge. The difference was more obvious in the indoor store lighting than when gazing outside through the windows into sunlit areas.
The FOV of course was very wide but with the low eye relief and large eyecup diameter it was tough to get a position that allowed me to see it all. I settled on the first click out from fully collapsed, with the eyecups resting on the bridge of my nose and underside of my brow. There was a lot of pincushion and curvature, no surprise, and a moderate sweet spot. Focus was smooth enough, I didn't find it that stiff. The rubber armor was pleasant to the touch and they felt solidly built.
That about ends it on the positives as far as I'm concerned. Other than the FOV and the brightness I wasn't very impressed with the optics, the ProStaffs were clearly sharper in the center. More importantly though I found the overall ergonomics to be absolutely awful. Beyond just the eyecups/FOV issue, these things are so wide and short that they just felt awkward and clunky to hold and use. My pinky finger wanted to slip of the front of the barrels, and the prism housings are so large that I had to cock my wrist this awkward angle and stretch to try and reach the focus knob.
I know I'm going to get some heat from all the porro fans but I think these would just be awful, awful birding binoculars. There is a reason that 95%+ of birders use roofs, they are simply more comfortable and ergonomic for actual birding use. The longer, straight barrels are more natural to hold with the hands held at the proper wrist angle, and the focus knob is not only smoother in all conditions, but is closer and easier to reach. Despite the much narrower and dimmer view, I would take the ProStaffs ten times out of ten for actual use in the field for birding. I feel like the awkwardness of the Nikons would make it slow and difficult to quickly find, acquire and focus on the bird for the ID.
Now to be fair, not all porros have such an extreme "short and wide" profile (but I will say I haven't found a porro that feels as comfortable to use as a roof in real life birding situations). And of course these cost less than 100 bucks, a price point where any roof is pretty much going to be a piece of garbage. They would be very nice if I just wanted to gaze serenely at a wide open landscape and admire the bright, wide FOV, but for trying to find and focus on a small, fast moving bird? Fuhgetaboutit.
Yes, porros provide more optical "bang for the buck" but I don't sit around staring at tree bark or DVD cases marveling at how sharp they are for the money I spent; I will gladly trade off the tiny bit of optical difference for the vastly improved ergonomic experience of a decent roof when I actually in the field birding. (flame suit on!) I want to able to grab the binoculars and whip them to my eyes and have the focus knob in the right place and the "hold" be natural in my hands. For a hundred bucks more there are many excellent choices for quality roofs at the $180-220 price point.
I didn't have them side-by-side but from my recollection the various Leupold Yo clones are better optically (sharper, just as bright) and also much more ergonomic with their slimmer barrels. If I *only* had 100 bucks to spend on a pair of binoculars for birding I would definitely go with a Yo clone over these Aculons.
It was a brief comparison, but on the good side the Aculon was very bright and neutral, noticeably moreso than the ProStaff or Monarch roofs. Both the roofs had a "dingier" view that was clearly a bit reddish (expected with both having lower level silver prism coatings) and the Aculon was very obviously brighter without that obvious warm tinge. The difference was more obvious in the indoor store lighting than when gazing outside through the windows into sunlit areas.
The FOV of course was very wide but with the low eye relief and large eyecup diameter it was tough to get a position that allowed me to see it all. I settled on the first click out from fully collapsed, with the eyecups resting on the bridge of my nose and underside of my brow. There was a lot of pincushion and curvature, no surprise, and a moderate sweet spot. Focus was smooth enough, I didn't find it that stiff. The rubber armor was pleasant to the touch and they felt solidly built.
That about ends it on the positives as far as I'm concerned. Other than the FOV and the brightness I wasn't very impressed with the optics, the ProStaffs were clearly sharper in the center. More importantly though I found the overall ergonomics to be absolutely awful. Beyond just the eyecups/FOV issue, these things are so wide and short that they just felt awkward and clunky to hold and use. My pinky finger wanted to slip of the front of the barrels, and the prism housings are so large that I had to cock my wrist this awkward angle and stretch to try and reach the focus knob.
I know I'm going to get some heat from all the porro fans but I think these would just be awful, awful birding binoculars. There is a reason that 95%+ of birders use roofs, they are simply more comfortable and ergonomic for actual birding use. The longer, straight barrels are more natural to hold with the hands held at the proper wrist angle, and the focus knob is not only smoother in all conditions, but is closer and easier to reach. Despite the much narrower and dimmer view, I would take the ProStaffs ten times out of ten for actual use in the field for birding. I feel like the awkwardness of the Nikons would make it slow and difficult to quickly find, acquire and focus on the bird for the ID.
Now to be fair, not all porros have such an extreme "short and wide" profile (but I will say I haven't found a porro that feels as comfortable to use as a roof in real life birding situations). And of course these cost less than 100 bucks, a price point where any roof is pretty much going to be a piece of garbage. They would be very nice if I just wanted to gaze serenely at a wide open landscape and admire the bright, wide FOV, but for trying to find and focus on a small, fast moving bird? Fuhgetaboutit.
Yes, porros provide more optical "bang for the buck" but I don't sit around staring at tree bark or DVD cases marveling at how sharp they are for the money I spent; I will gladly trade off the tiny bit of optical difference for the vastly improved ergonomic experience of a decent roof when I actually in the field birding. (flame suit on!) I want to able to grab the binoculars and whip them to my eyes and have the focus knob in the right place and the "hold" be natural in my hands. For a hundred bucks more there are many excellent choices for quality roofs at the $180-220 price point.
I didn't have them side-by-side but from my recollection the various Leupold Yo clones are better optically (sharper, just as bright) and also much more ergonomic with their slimmer barrels. If I *only* had 100 bucks to spend on a pair of binoculars for birding I would definitely go with a Yo clone over these Aculons.
Last edited:
oetzi
Well-known member
I agree with you that the ergonomics of a Porro are not up to the one of a roof. And the Nikon is in that aspect an especially "porroish" Porro.
But with the given price I wouldnt hesitate to recommend it to anyone who wants to give birding a try without spending too much on something that may not find much more use afterwards.
And, as you said, the center is sharp and clear, all you need to watch and identify any bird.
But with the given price I wouldnt hesitate to recommend it to anyone who wants to give birding a try without spending too much on something that may not find much more use afterwards.
And, as you said, the center is sharp and clear, all you need to watch and identify any bird.