Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Olympus 8x42 PRO - Allbinos review

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 12th March 2019, 20:23   #1
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Olympus 8x42 PRO - Allbinos review

I was a bit curious on these, could they compete with Conquest HD for example,
overall they seem good but the transmission apparently is clearly overrated. Claimed 94% but measured to 85-87%.
The transmission curve seems quite flat though.


https://www.allbinos.com/337-binocul...RO_review.html
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th March 2019, 23:04   #2
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,247
Does Olympus still make their own binos? These look and perform like a dozen other rebranders models.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th March 2019, 11:27   #3
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Does Olympus still make their own binos? These look and perform like a dozen other rebranders models.
They are ranked #6 right behind the Nikon MHG with almost identical score but cost only half the price. They also get way better score than the Zeiss Terra:s (ranked #21) that cost the same and they also beat the Leica-Ultravid 8x42 HD.

Translate the ranking score to the 10x42 list (10x model usually get 5-6 points more) and a Olympus Pro 10x42 would most likely be a top-10 binocular and still cheaper than competition. That's not really like "dozens of other rebranded models".

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ra...king-8x42.html

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Wednesday 13th March 2019 at 11:32.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th March 2019, 12:27   #4
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,605
I notice that they don't try to stuff a wide FOV in them. It has 7.5 and it has 18mm eye relief. It is probably easy to use.

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th March 2019, 13:14   #5
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Does Olympus still make their own binos? These look and perform like a dozen other rebranders models.
Olympus, as well as Nikon, Kowa, Pentax and Fujinon have been using OEM companies for most, if not all of their binocular ranges for years we've been told. Seems this one is made in China.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th March 2019, 13:41   #6
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,429
The Nikon in the albinos ranking is the HG/L 8X42 the latter HG/LX (venturer) which I have in 8X32, made in 2002-2004. It is not the new Monarch HG (surprised they have not reviewed it, although they have reviewed the 10X42). They are now placing new glass in their ranking system with older glass. Personally the Leica HD 8X42 being ranked below the Olympus is to me perplexing. I checked out the Olympus, in both 8 and 10X42, I was not impressed. I have a UV HD in 8X42. They are better ones in the market for that price.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th March 2019, 17:16   #7
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Olympus, as well as Nikon, Kowa, Pentax and Fujinon have been using OEM companies for most, if not all of their binocular ranges for years we've been told. Seems this one is made in China.

David
Thanks!
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th March 2019, 17:17   #8
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
They are ranked #6 right behind the Nikon MHG with almost identical score but cost only half the price. They also get way better score than the Zeiss Terra:s (ranked #21) that cost the same and they also beat the Leica-Ultravid 8x42 HD.

Translate the ranking score to the 10x42 list (10x model usually get 5-6 points more) and a Olympus Pro 10x42 would most likely be a top-10 binocular and still cheaper than competition. That's not really like "dozens of other rebranded models".

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ra...king-8x42.html

5 of the top 10 are rebranders....

Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like that Zeiss does it and it is farcical how many supposed binocular makers we have out there hawking the same Kamakura chassis and glass with a few cosmetic tweaks.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Thursday 14th March 2019 at 17:19.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th March 2019, 17:53   #9
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
The Nikon in the albinos ranking is the HG/L 8X42 the latter HG/LX (venturer) which I have in 8X32, made in 2002-2004. It is not the new Monarch HG (surprised they have not reviewed it, although they have reviewed the 10X42). They are now placing new glass in their ranking system with older glass. Personally the Leica HD 8X42 being ranked below the Olympus is to me perplexing. I checked out the Olympus, in both 8 and 10X42, I was not impressed. I have a UV HD in 8X42. They are better ones in the market for that price.

Andy W.
Probably more relevant info than the Allbinos score.
Those reviews and scoring might be a bit deceptive I guess.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 14th March 2019 at 18:22.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th March 2019, 18:02   #10
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
5 of the top 10 are rebranders....

Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like that Zeiss does it and it is farcical how many supposed binocular makers we have out there hawking the same Kamakura chassis and glass with a few cosmetic tweaks.
Yes perhaps, the 8x42 ranking list is rather incomplete.
I usually hate those re-brand Kamakuras...
Takes about 10 seconds of looking through them to dismiss them.

Allbinos scoring is a mess. All important dimensions of binoculars are getting lost in translation.
The holy chinese binocular grail is most likely not present in the Olympus PRO either.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 14th March 2019 at 18:24.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th March 2019, 11:32   #11
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51N 4E
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
I usually hate those re-brand Kamakuras...
Takes about 10 seconds of looking through them to dismiss them.
Would you mind spending a few words to explain what you mean?
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th March 2019, 12:47   #12
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark9473 View Post
Would you mind spending a few words to explain what you mean?
I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality.

I've tried Leica Trinovid HD, Nikon MHG and Zeiss Conquest HD (and many others) that are supposed to be in the midrange and "good binoculars" and I guess they are "ok" but it seems that perfect is biggest the enemy to good. If you are spending that much money, why not spend a bit more to get the best?

My reference bin is the Swarovski SV 8.5x42. I could probably live with a pair of Zeiss SF 8x42 as well. And maybe Leica Nocitivid or UVHD+ 8x42.

I guess I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to optical gear.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Friday 15th March 2019 at 12:52.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th March 2019, 17:56   #13
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51N 4E
Posts: 196
Thanks for your thoughts on that. While I don't disagree, I am happily using lower priced binoculars as long as the compromises aren't too big. I have a 10 year old Kamakura 8x42 (Vixen branded) that has good sharpness to the edge, build quality, CA control - I'm only giving up the FOV which is a low 6.5 - but it works for me. For a pair that mostly gets used around the garden or on day trips and vacations I really struggle to justify spending 5 times as much for one of the current alpha's.
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 02:02   #14
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,429
"I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality".

This quote from Vespobuteo I agree with esp for glass in the ~ $300-$600 - build quality and consistency of craftsmanship is lacking. However if you are talking about a bit more money say ~ $800-$1200, nothing is better IMHO than the Meopta Meostars. I own some and have used others in the field, excellent optics and build quality. Personally this glass is much closer to the premium brands and should not be considered a mid-range IMO. Yet in the Allbinos ranking, it is ignored, go figure.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 08:27   #15
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
"I usually find that eye relief is not good enough, even though specs might state otherwise and/or they fail on some other property like to much CA, lack of edge sharpness, small FOV/AFOV or sloppy build quality".

This quote from Vespobuteo I agree with esp for glass in the ~ $300-$600 - build quality and consistency of craftsmanship is lacking. However if you are talking about a bit more money say ~ $800-$1200, nothing is better IMHO than the Meopta Meostars. I own some and have used others in the field, excellent optics and build quality. Personally this glass is much closer to the premium brands and should not be considered a mid-range IMO. Yet in the Allbinos ranking, it is ignored, go figure.

Andy W.
I haven't tried the Meostars but the Swarovski SLC:s that are a bit more expensive and compete in the same range. They definitely are a step up in most aspects but still my demand om eye relief and eye piece design is not fulfilled in those bins (eye-glass user).

I loved the Leica 8x32 UVHD+ for example, if they had better eye relief I would have bought them.

The latest CL B Companions is another bin that are close but not quite there. The stated eye relief looks promising, but the deep eye cups ruins it for me.

With less demand on eye relief there are more "acceptable" models to choose from, I can agree with that.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 14:01   #16
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
........
I loved the Leica 8x32 UVHD+ for example, if they had better eye relief I would have bought them.

The latest CL B Companions is another bin that are close but not quite there. The stated eye relief looks promising, but the deep eye cups ruins it for me.

With less demand on eye relief there are more "acceptable" models to choose from, I can agree with that.
Wouldn't it have made life easier to simply change you glasses or have them adjusted?

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 16th March 2019, 19:19   #17
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Wouldn't it have made life easier to simply change you glasses or have them adjusted?

David
I've already done that.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Allbinos 10X42 UV HD + review... chill6x6 Leica 27 Saturday 9th July 2016 20:34
Zeiss Terra ED 8x42 - Allbinos review Vespobuteo Zeiss 7 Tuesday 6th October 2015 04:45
FYI Allbinos review 8x43 ED2 jaymoynihan Zen Ray 51 Thursday 13th December 2012 16:45
SCL HD Allbinos Review? mwnold Swarovski 5 Wednesday 18th July 2012 12:56
Allbinos review of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD absolut_beethoven Leica 9 Wednesday 16th May 2012 02:50

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.31789303 seconds with 31 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:28.