I've had a Bushnell Elite 7x26 for a couple of years and providing it's dry and bright it's been my pick and go choice. The simplest way to describe the Opticron BGA Classic 7x36 is that it is the waterproof, big brother to the Bushnell I've been looking for.
I think the Classic is excellent but it's not going to be an easy sell. I guess it would be fair to call it a 'retro' design with modern coatings. I'm more than happy to concede that many will find the current generation of wide, flat field, neutral coloured designs preferable for birding. I really prefer a bit more character, but then, generally I get out in the country to relax and enjoy what I see, not to worry about what I might have missed or agonise over a tricky ID. For me the Classic fits the bill perfectly. I tend to bring a 12x as well if I'm being serious.
I'm using the Bushnell as a the reference pair for the report for it's similarity and it might be more familiar to forum members than the other pairs I have. Martin Fagg did quite a detailed review about a year ago with other comparisons. My observations differs on couple of points. I have been unable to contact him, but I suspect these may be explained by using glasses. With my weak prescription I noted a slightly different characteristics with and without.
http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/bga_classic_7x36.htm
There doesn't seem to be much written about the Classic. It is a very close relative of the Swift Eaglet. Even though they have the same ancestry the current specifications are slightly different. I don't know the history, but it's a pretty old design, and this old review of the Eaglet from Better View Desired (early '90s?) sums up the appeal pretty well, and also sums up my thoughts on the modern Classic as well.
“The real strength of the Eaglets however, is not any one feature, but the sum of their many charms. They are easy to carry, comfortable in hands, water and weatherproof, easy to look through, and optically adequate to most birding situations you might run across in a day in the field. They fit in the pocket of most field jackets, and tuck easily into a brief case or carry on. I find that, even though I know there are slightly better views sitting on my shelf, the Eaglets are getting more than their share of use.”
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Swift-Eaglet-and-Nikon-Action-Egret-II.php
The techie bits. Sorry, quite long.
Why 7x36?
7x has fallen from favour these days. There are quite a few devotees on the forum and the recent interest in rediscovering old porros suggests interest is not quite dead. I have 6,7,8,9,10 and 12x of varying quality and tried well over 100 others, but it's the 7x that works best for me. Mostly it's the steadiness and DOF. With higher powers it's just more demanding on the focus and bracing for a little, or in my case, often no detail advantage. I simply find 7x is more relaxing and enjoyable to use.
There aren't many catalogue 7x these days and even fewer in the shops. I've managed to track down a few nice x42s but doubt I can get any benefit from more than a 5mm EP these days so prefer not to be burdened by the extra size and weight. I'd never seen any of the Opticron 7x in the retail outlets, so made the trip to their Luton HQ a few weeks back to check out the three pairs they still offer. I'd be quite content with either of the others, but it was the more compact Classic that wowed me. Prior to that the Meopta Meopro 6.5x32 had been top of wish list. The Classic is pretty much the same size and weight, but much more to my tastes. I have reason to believe the pair I subsequently bought is old stock and may differ in minor ways to the pair I tested.
Ergonomics
Nice! Very nice.
At 125mm (<4.9”) long, with slim barrels it's more the size of most 8x32s. At 623g (22oz) it feels quite solid for it's size without being heavy. There are lighter pairs around, but the proportion of metal in the construction feels reassuring. For comparison the Nikon Monarch 8x36 is 560g (20oz) 125mm long, Zen Ray 7x36 662g (23oz) 147mm, and the Hawke Frontier ED 8x36 is 700g (24.7oz) 150mm.
The distance from the strap lugs to the end of the objectives is just the width of my hands and the recess on the mouldings seems perfect for thumb pads. Probably the most comfortable pair I've ever held. The focus is 1 ½ turns anticlockwise from 4ft to infinity but a fairly fast ¼ turn from 20ft to infinity. The focus on the pair I bought is not as light as one I tried a few weeks ago, but still very smooth.
The ER is listed at 19mm, and is too generous for my close fitting glasses. I'm currently using the first stop to avoid blackouts, but a simple fix with O-rings should be perfect when I get to a hardware store. The eye cups extend in two ratcheted stages, 5mm and 11mm. The dioptre adjustment is quite stiff with click stops. The zero point is spot on.
The Japanese build quality appears very good.
View
The main appeal to me is that is delivers a easy, bright, detailed view with characteristics that are very close to the Bushnell.
One thing that puzzled me about the BVD review was describing the view as 'fairly flat'. I can't rule out possibility that the Classic is different in this respect from the Eaglet but it seems unlikely. It is indeed 'fairly flat' from 4ft to about 20ft, but the field curvature progressively increases from that point on. When viewing across open ground, often all the foreground is in focus giving the illusion of an infinite DOF. At certain distances the degree of curvature is more noticeable, and the area in sharp focus seems smallest (~50%) at about 40m but the focus softening is mild and gradual. For me at least, the gain in apparent DOF out ways that disadvantage. I suspect the curvature effects I see may be less apparent for younger eyes and they may indeed find it 'fairly flat' and the view even easier than I do.
The FOV is listed as 128m @1000m (384ft @1000yds). By modern standards a 50.4* AFOV is hardly impressive, but I don't feel it's restrictive and is a small improvement over the Bushnell. The Zen Ray 7x36 has much larger 477ft @1000yds but judging by the reports, softer edges. The Classic is sharp, right to the edge like the Bushnell.
Where is does win out over much of the reasonably priced competition is contrast. The blacks are very black. The slightly warm colour balance is more to my taste than many alternatives but there is probably a fraction more blue in the transmission spectrum than the Bushnell. Some colours, particularly reds and yellows appear a little more vivid and distinct than when using more overtly neutral pairs, but certainly not as 'hot' as some I've tried. With some really critical observation there were some other tiny differences between the two. The reverse porro may be fractionally better on contrast, but few roofs below the alphas reaches that standard IMO. It appears that the Classic roof might be again a fraction behind the reverse porro on transmission brightness, but the extra EP shows it's benefit in deep shadows and late dusk. The Classic has phase coating and 'Oasis' 64 layer prism coatings with 99% transmission! No, I'm not sure what that mean either, but I'm guessing the subtle differences I see between the Classic and the Bushnell may be due to prisms efficiency.
I've misplaced my good copy of the USAF chart, but a boosted test (49x) on printed material showed the Classic was marginally better on resolution than the Bushnell as you would expect. Neither are going to set records. I could not spot any asymmetry in the view. At 7x they are both more than sharp enough and indistinguishable.
There is quite a mild pincushion throughout the focus range. I see no sign of a 'rolling ball' effect, but with the field curvature it may be somewhat masked.
For spectacle wearers there is a occasionally a little more rear reflection than I've usually encountered, but rarely distracting and easily dealt with, and, of course, no problem with the eye cups extended. My first test with the Classic was the perfect overcast day for finding CA. It had a little more than the Bushnell, but was certainly better than some other I tried. I've now used my pair for about a week under variable conditions. I can see fringing at the edges, but it's slight and I have go looking for it. Not intrusive at all, and definitely better than some mid priced ED pairs I've tried. Glare and flare control is quite reasonable but the purchased pair is not quite up to standard of the test pair I tried recently or the Bushnell. Generally repositioning the eye is usually sufficient to eliminate problems.
All in all the characteristics of the Bushnell and Classic are remarkably similar. The Classic has the small advantage of a wider view, but it is tempting to suspect they have a common optical configuration, and differences mostly accounted for by their prisms.
There is one aspect of both the Classic and the Bushnell that appeals to me greatly that I have to say I don't understand it. They have more 3-dimensional spacial positioning than is usually seen with roofs etc.. Don't know how that works with close objectives, but I like it.
Value
A tricky subject. The list price for the Classic is £399, though is commonly on offer at £360. There is little doubt there are newer more fashionable 8x and 10x with wider, flatter, more neutral views available for less money. Understandably it's a slow seller these days. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I've not found a pair that suites me better for the money. I owe particular thanks to NormJackson who found a heavily discounted pair. These had obviously been in stock for at least five years judging from the documentation, and from the serial number might be older. This may explain the minor differences between the pair I tried at Opticron and the ones I bought. At the price I paid I have no complaints, but it leaves me curious if there has been a minor refinement to coatings, lubrication etc. in the intervening period.
David
I think the Classic is excellent but it's not going to be an easy sell. I guess it would be fair to call it a 'retro' design with modern coatings. I'm more than happy to concede that many will find the current generation of wide, flat field, neutral coloured designs preferable for birding. I really prefer a bit more character, but then, generally I get out in the country to relax and enjoy what I see, not to worry about what I might have missed or agonise over a tricky ID. For me the Classic fits the bill perfectly. I tend to bring a 12x as well if I'm being serious.
I'm using the Bushnell as a the reference pair for the report for it's similarity and it might be more familiar to forum members than the other pairs I have. Martin Fagg did quite a detailed review about a year ago with other comparisons. My observations differs on couple of points. I have been unable to contact him, but I suspect these may be explained by using glasses. With my weak prescription I noted a slightly different characteristics with and without.
http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/bga_classic_7x36.htm
There doesn't seem to be much written about the Classic. It is a very close relative of the Swift Eaglet. Even though they have the same ancestry the current specifications are slightly different. I don't know the history, but it's a pretty old design, and this old review of the Eaglet from Better View Desired (early '90s?) sums up the appeal pretty well, and also sums up my thoughts on the modern Classic as well.
“The real strength of the Eaglets however, is not any one feature, but the sum of their many charms. They are easy to carry, comfortable in hands, water and weatherproof, easy to look through, and optically adequate to most birding situations you might run across in a day in the field. They fit in the pocket of most field jackets, and tuck easily into a brief case or carry on. I find that, even though I know there are slightly better views sitting on my shelf, the Eaglets are getting more than their share of use.”
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Swift-Eaglet-and-Nikon-Action-Egret-II.php
The techie bits. Sorry, quite long.
Why 7x36?
7x has fallen from favour these days. There are quite a few devotees on the forum and the recent interest in rediscovering old porros suggests interest is not quite dead. I have 6,7,8,9,10 and 12x of varying quality and tried well over 100 others, but it's the 7x that works best for me. Mostly it's the steadiness and DOF. With higher powers it's just more demanding on the focus and bracing for a little, or in my case, often no detail advantage. I simply find 7x is more relaxing and enjoyable to use.
There aren't many catalogue 7x these days and even fewer in the shops. I've managed to track down a few nice x42s but doubt I can get any benefit from more than a 5mm EP these days so prefer not to be burdened by the extra size and weight. I'd never seen any of the Opticron 7x in the retail outlets, so made the trip to their Luton HQ a few weeks back to check out the three pairs they still offer. I'd be quite content with either of the others, but it was the more compact Classic that wowed me. Prior to that the Meopta Meopro 6.5x32 had been top of wish list. The Classic is pretty much the same size and weight, but much more to my tastes. I have reason to believe the pair I subsequently bought is old stock and may differ in minor ways to the pair I tested.
Ergonomics
Nice! Very nice.
At 125mm (<4.9”) long, with slim barrels it's more the size of most 8x32s. At 623g (22oz) it feels quite solid for it's size without being heavy. There are lighter pairs around, but the proportion of metal in the construction feels reassuring. For comparison the Nikon Monarch 8x36 is 560g (20oz) 125mm long, Zen Ray 7x36 662g (23oz) 147mm, and the Hawke Frontier ED 8x36 is 700g (24.7oz) 150mm.
The distance from the strap lugs to the end of the objectives is just the width of my hands and the recess on the mouldings seems perfect for thumb pads. Probably the most comfortable pair I've ever held. The focus is 1 ½ turns anticlockwise from 4ft to infinity but a fairly fast ¼ turn from 20ft to infinity. The focus on the pair I bought is not as light as one I tried a few weeks ago, but still very smooth.
The ER is listed at 19mm, and is too generous for my close fitting glasses. I'm currently using the first stop to avoid blackouts, but a simple fix with O-rings should be perfect when I get to a hardware store. The eye cups extend in two ratcheted stages, 5mm and 11mm. The dioptre adjustment is quite stiff with click stops. The zero point is spot on.
The Japanese build quality appears very good.
View
The main appeal to me is that is delivers a easy, bright, detailed view with characteristics that are very close to the Bushnell.
One thing that puzzled me about the BVD review was describing the view as 'fairly flat'. I can't rule out possibility that the Classic is different in this respect from the Eaglet but it seems unlikely. It is indeed 'fairly flat' from 4ft to about 20ft, but the field curvature progressively increases from that point on. When viewing across open ground, often all the foreground is in focus giving the illusion of an infinite DOF. At certain distances the degree of curvature is more noticeable, and the area in sharp focus seems smallest (~50%) at about 40m but the focus softening is mild and gradual. For me at least, the gain in apparent DOF out ways that disadvantage. I suspect the curvature effects I see may be less apparent for younger eyes and they may indeed find it 'fairly flat' and the view even easier than I do.
The FOV is listed as 128m @1000m (384ft @1000yds). By modern standards a 50.4* AFOV is hardly impressive, but I don't feel it's restrictive and is a small improvement over the Bushnell. The Zen Ray 7x36 has much larger 477ft @1000yds but judging by the reports, softer edges. The Classic is sharp, right to the edge like the Bushnell.
Where is does win out over much of the reasonably priced competition is contrast. The blacks are very black. The slightly warm colour balance is more to my taste than many alternatives but there is probably a fraction more blue in the transmission spectrum than the Bushnell. Some colours, particularly reds and yellows appear a little more vivid and distinct than when using more overtly neutral pairs, but certainly not as 'hot' as some I've tried. With some really critical observation there were some other tiny differences between the two. The reverse porro may be fractionally better on contrast, but few roofs below the alphas reaches that standard IMO. It appears that the Classic roof might be again a fraction behind the reverse porro on transmission brightness, but the extra EP shows it's benefit in deep shadows and late dusk. The Classic has phase coating and 'Oasis' 64 layer prism coatings with 99% transmission! No, I'm not sure what that mean either, but I'm guessing the subtle differences I see between the Classic and the Bushnell may be due to prisms efficiency.
I've misplaced my good copy of the USAF chart, but a boosted test (49x) on printed material showed the Classic was marginally better on resolution than the Bushnell as you would expect. Neither are going to set records. I could not spot any asymmetry in the view. At 7x they are both more than sharp enough and indistinguishable.
There is quite a mild pincushion throughout the focus range. I see no sign of a 'rolling ball' effect, but with the field curvature it may be somewhat masked.
For spectacle wearers there is a occasionally a little more rear reflection than I've usually encountered, but rarely distracting and easily dealt with, and, of course, no problem with the eye cups extended. My first test with the Classic was the perfect overcast day for finding CA. It had a little more than the Bushnell, but was certainly better than some other I tried. I've now used my pair for about a week under variable conditions. I can see fringing at the edges, but it's slight and I have go looking for it. Not intrusive at all, and definitely better than some mid priced ED pairs I've tried. Glare and flare control is quite reasonable but the purchased pair is not quite up to standard of the test pair I tried recently or the Bushnell. Generally repositioning the eye is usually sufficient to eliminate problems.
All in all the characteristics of the Bushnell and Classic are remarkably similar. The Classic has the small advantage of a wider view, but it is tempting to suspect they have a common optical configuration, and differences mostly accounted for by their prisms.
There is one aspect of both the Classic and the Bushnell that appeals to me greatly that I have to say I don't understand it. They have more 3-dimensional spacial positioning than is usually seen with roofs etc.. Don't know how that works with close objectives, but I like it.
Value
A tricky subject. The list price for the Classic is £399, though is commonly on offer at £360. There is little doubt there are newer more fashionable 8x and 10x with wider, flatter, more neutral views available for less money. Understandably it's a slow seller these days. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I've not found a pair that suites me better for the money. I owe particular thanks to NormJackson who found a heavily discounted pair. These had obviously been in stock for at least five years judging from the documentation, and from the serial number might be older. This may explain the minor differences between the pair I tried at Opticron and the ones I bought. At the price I paid I have no complaints, but it leaves me curious if there has been a minor refinement to coatings, lubrication etc. in the intervening period.
David
