Promaster Infinit Elite ELX ED 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Coming somewhat late to this thread, but wanted to thank Frank for starting it and for the review. However, I notice there is no listing in this thread of the actual specs of the binocular. Here they are (from this link: http://www.wolfes.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=6578&category_id=340):

Specifications:

• Power: 8X
• Objective Lens Diameter: 42mm
• Type of Prism: BAK4
• Roof Prism Coating: Silver and phase coated
• Number of Lens: 8 elements in 6 groups
• Body Construction: Magnesium Alloy
• Objective Glass: Extra Low Dispersion (ED)
• Lens Coating: TRANSBRIGHT™, REPELLAMAX™, and full broadband multicoatings
• Focus System: Internal center focusing
• Exit Pupil Diameter: 5.2mm
• Eye Relief: 17.2mm
• Field of View: 7.5° - 393 ft. @ 1000 yds.
• Minimum Focusing Distance: 6.56’/2M
• Diopter System: Left eyepiece - ±3
• Waterproof: 1.5m for 3 minutes
• Weatherproof: Nitrogen filled fog proof
• Weight: 27.48 oz.

My two cents: I think because of the extra weight (27.5 versus 23 ounces), slower focus, and the apparent absence of a locking diopter, I still prefer my 8 x 42 Vortex Vipers. But the wider field of view and reported slightly better optics (I don't think any binocular has more than slightly better optics than the Viper, but I am not that finicky), may outweigh those factors for some. (But also note the listed eye relief is less than for the viper, so it may not be as good for eyeglass wearers like myself).

Best,
Jim

Jim,

There is other information on this glass, including my review, which has full specs in the CameralandNY Mystery Binocular thread. The mystery behind the mystery is explained there and in a post I started on blind binocular tests.

As to the Viper vs the Promaster ELX ED. As you know from other posts, I have and admire a Viper. I do like the locking diopter, but the diopter on the Promaster is stiff enough it will not move without concious effrort on the part of the user. Its drawback for some is a +/- 3 diopter range. The Viper also has a deeper depth of focus than the Promaster, but that is the Vipers' only optical advantage. The Promaster is a noticeable step up in resolution from the Viper. Apparent build quality of the Promaster, aside from the diopter ring, looks to be a wash. The Promaster is a bigger glass, both in H x W and in weight. The focus system is also different. I do prefer the Viper there.

If you want to keep your Viper, stay away from the Promaster. My Viper is likely going to be moved on down the line and be replaced by the Promaster.

FWIW the links provided to other threads (in this thread) have the other mystery bin and specs. So getting that data is just a matter of clicking on some URLs further up the page

And thanks to Surveyor for providing some real measurements. Very interesting.

Excellent timing on resurrecting this thread. The reason I say that is because I had the opportunity to compare the Meopta Meostars to the Promaster EDs (easier to type than the full name. )

Before I get to that I want to comment on the other posts.

Surveyor,

Ever since you took an interest in my Razor vs. Meostar pics I have always looked forward to your posts. Sadly though I lack some of the technical expertise to fully understand the repurcussions of what you posted. Based on what I can interpret there seems to be some variance between the two barrels but that variance is within normally acceptable specs...if I am reading that correctly. Measured resolution is on the high end but some of the distortional imperfections are substandard compared to the big 3. Is that a fair assessment?

Whatever further insights from a technical or practical standpoint would be appreciated. FWIW, I am glad you chose to give this binocular a try.

Jim,

Thanks for listing the specs. I should have relisted what Steve posted when I started this thread. It might have been more helpful for people just pulling it up for the first time. I wish I had a Viper handy to compare it to the Promaster ED but since I don't then I will defer to Steve's judgment. I can say that I would like to have a Razor again to add to my stable. Though the Viper's image was brighter I somewhat preferred the wider field of view and more relaxed image of the Razor. The Viper definitely has the edge on being more "handy" in terms of size and weight and does possess a very attractive overall package.

Steve,

Interesting comments. I think you might like what I have to say in the Promaster/Meopta comparison below.

Kevin,

You are going to be interested too.

Now to the heart of the matter. I definitely do not hide the fact that I have always been fond of the Meopta Meostar B1 8x42. Optically I have long considered it the closest thing to the optical performance of the big three (or four) without having to resort to paying $1000+ (and only comparing similar roof prism designs). The Meostar 8x42 has many things going for it. One is the image quality. It offers a very bright and wide image. At 411 feet it is actually offers the widest field of view of any of the high end 8x42s. The apparent field is equally wide at around 63 degrees. This combination results in an extremely relaxed image. To add to that is the field flattener element giving the image much the same appearance of the Nikon Premier LX/Venturer line. The size of the sweet spot of image in focus and without distortion is also above average. Only the Swaro SLC and previously mentioned Nikon series appear wider to my eyes.

So, to summarize, I could easily see someone actually preferring the Meostars to some of the higher cost bins especially when one considers the price difference...

...and I didn't even get into its ergonomics yet. Speaking of which, the Meostars are probably one of my favorites from an ergonomic standpoint. Their shape and texture really give me that "like a glove" feeling. It is hard to describe but I receive a great deal of tactile pleasure by picking them up and using them. Combining that with their optical appeal makes them a very attractive binocular. Of course, they have their negatives too and I will get to that in the comparison.

Probably the largest difference optically between these two glasses is in their color representation and level of distortion in the image. Though both images appear relatively "flat" to me the Meostar's sweet spot is considerably larger than that of the Promaster ED. As I have mentioned previously the Promaster ED reminds me more of the Zeiss FL in this regard. A good portion of the center of the image is extremely sharp but with noticeable astigmatism as you get into the outer portion of the image. Coupling that with the slightly narrower field of view (393 feet versus 411 feet) gave the visual impression of a more restricted image. The image through the Meostar was more relaxed but less lifelike because of difference number two...

To my eyes the Meopta has always displayed a slightly warm color bias. The image has the ever so slightest "yellow/orange tint" to the image. This is not as apparent as some of the other European bins I have owned in the past but it is noticeable in comparison to something like the Promaster ED with its noticeably neutral color representation. The other negative about the Meopta's image is that it does tend to display noticeable color fringing especially on high contrast objects. It isn't at the level where I find it distracting and is somewhat similar to the Swarovski SLC and EL in this regard. However, when you combine the warm color bias with the color fringing the image appears just a bit less lifelike compared to the Promaster ED, the Nikon Superior E and the Zeiss FL. All three of these latter bins provide a really "clear, sharp" image to the point where it looks as if you are really standing 8 times closer to the object.

Since I mentioned the SE 8x32 I should say that I had it out at the same time as I had the Promaster and Meopta out for comparison. To my eyes the Promaster's image resembled the SEs much more so than the Meopta's in terms of apparent sharpness and overall clarity. In one area, brightness, the Promaster ED actually appears to better the SE. Both the Meopta and Promaster ED provide an above average brightness level. Only the FL gives a brighter image, again, to my eyes.

All for now. If I get a chance to do a further comparison I will be sure to post more.

Coupling that with the slightly narrower field of view (393 feet versus 411 feet) gave the visual impression of a more restricted image.

Click to expand...

I have not found those kinds of specs to be a whole lot different. It is probably distortion that gives the effect.

63 vs 60 degree AFOV is a noticeable difference in image size, even if it isn't much more FOV in feet per thousand yards. The more AFOV the better, IMO..

“Based on what I can interpret there seems to be some variance between the two barrels but that variance is within normally acceptable specs...if I am reading that correctly. Measured resolution is on the high end but some of the distortional imperfections are substandard compared to the big 3. Is that a fair assessment?”


FrankD,

Difference between the two sides is common. The only three specifications that are specified (as far as I am aware) are diopter difference, collimation and power. The resolution difference could be my eye position, difference in lighting between the sides, focus error at 80x or difference in aberrations in the tubes. Hopefully, I have controlled the variables so that the difference is caused by aberrations in the optics. I actually had better results using standard test lighting values of 15 EV at 5500K of 3.02 and 3.39 arc seconds. The 3.2 and 3.5 values were obtained with 11 EV at 2800K, a value that most would use indoors and more conservative, more likely for others to match. These are common values, in my opinion, for Big 3 or most other decent optics and not a practical difference since it is about 3 times better than my visual acuity at 8x. For reference the ISO High Performance rejection limit is 60/power=7.5 arc seconds and most of the time you can expect half that value or better.

As far as the star test results, I am not qualified to speak to that in any definitive way. I have done very few tests on alpha bins (or any others) so I do not have a reference frame for what is or is not typical. I hope someone like Henry, who has done far more of these, will give me some feedback on the validity of my test and just how typical he deems it to be. Based on my very limited experience I would not be ready to call this substandard though. I am looking for answers more than making a statement about this test.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Great job with the measurements and especially photographing the star test. Are you using a real green filter or is the green color a computer generated virtual filter?

My usual indoor artifical star test is at 10m. I tested a few binoculars at 5m just now and I did see worse undercorrection than at 10m. Outdoors I star test at about 33m and usually see improvement at that distance compared to 10m.

You're analyzing the spherical aberration to a level of detail that I've never tried to do with binoculars, so I don't think you can learn anything from me. Mostly I star test binoculars to detect defects like astigmatism, miscollimation, pinching or a bad roof prism edge. Your Promaster doesn't show any of those defects (well, maybe slight pinching), but plenty of expensive binoculars do. Considering that your star test was done at 5m I would say it's just fine and combined with the excellent resolution measurements I wouldn't expect to see any problems in the axial sharpness of this binocular. The measurements and star test could be considerably worse and the binocular could still be perfectly sharp in the center at 8x.

I am a little surprised by the light transmission measurements. Promaster claims only 99.3% transmission for each surface which isn't all that impressive for modern multicoating. Combine that with the silver mirror coating and I would expect something closer to the Trinovid transmission curve. Perhaps the 99.3% was just pulled out of a hat by a marketing writer who thought it sounded good.

Henry

Henry,

Thanks for the input Henry. I found a couple of tricks while playing with the star test over the last couple of months. First the apparent filtering seems to work well and is just done by selecting different colored Christmas ornaments, I keep a green, red, blue, yellow and silver ball on the table, size 60mm. Also use two size ball bearings, 25 and 12 mm. I use a modified method of the glitter point by using an aperture along with it. I made up a spread sheet using Suitors math in the appendix of his book to adjust the aperture to whatever size I want and also lets me set two apertures a known distance apart for scaling purposes. I attached a jpg of the spread sheet set up for this test. I learned a lot from trying to photo this and have a few ideas I am going to try over the next couple of weeks.

I too was surprised by the transmission curve but feel fairly confident, within the limitations of my very cheap equipment. You will notice that I showed two curves for one of the tubes. I was concerned about my setup and actually made 3 runs of the right tube. I completely redid the second run with the same parameters as the first, That did not make me feel any better so I tore the whole setup down and changed from a 10mm collimated beam to a 5 mm collimated beam and that is the result shown as #2 on the chart. I expected lower but using 0.7% loss and 8 elements would bring me down to 94.4% and measured about 91.?% (peak) average so that would leave about 3% in the prism, maybe a realistic possibility.

Thanks again for your input.
Ron

Ron,

I also have a collection of colored Christmas tree ornaments. Recently I bought a Baader Solar Continuum Filter which has a very narrow bandpass centered at 540nm. Nothing but green comes through.

I would guess that the Promaster has 16 glass to air surfaces, which would bring the transmission down to about 89% without even counting the other sources of light loss. Those might add another 5-10% loss, depending on the quality of the silver mirror coating and the total thickness of the glass. If the Promaster really has around 90% transmission a daylight eyeball comparison between it and the Trinovid should tell the tale.

Henry

Henry;

I just read your post again and I may have made a bad assumption. You said that Promaster advertises 99.3% per surface. I had just assumed that the 99.3% was per element.

I thought uncoated float glass was about 4% per surface and that the state of the art for coatings was about 99.6% to 99.8% per surface. I need to research those numbers.

I may have jumped to a bad conclusion.

I loaned the Promaster to a friend to look at but I will compare it to a Trinovid when I get it back.

Best,
Ron

henry link said:

Baader Solar Continuum Filter which has a very narrow bandpass centered at 440nm. Nothing but green comes through.

Click to expand...

Henry, disregard the comment about float glass above. Irrelevant, must have been thinking out loud and my hand followed.

Did you mean 540 nm above? I have a few green filters, 532 nm, but not particularly sharp bandpass.

Ron,

Looking again at the Promaster specs, I see that they don't indicate what the 99.3% refers to. Normally a transmission figure like that refers to a single surface. There are 8 lens elements in six groups, so that's 12 surfaces. Add the two prisms and you have 16. Using elements doesn't make sense because some of the elements are cemented, so 2 elements might have 4 surfaces or only 2. Of course, not making sense doesn't mean it wasn't done.

Henry

PS- Sorry, I meant 540nm. I'll correct the original post

I have not found those kinds of specs to be a whole lot different. It is probably distortion that gives the effect.

Click to expand...

Good point and something I was trying to reference in my earlier comments. The amount and type of distortion coupled with the difference in true and apparent fields of view gave a different impression of comfort with each model.

Henry, Ron,

Please do continue. I am getting most of what you folks are saying this time. In comparing the light transmission numbers in actual percentages I can refer back to what I remember from those German Light Transmission tests of some of the high end bins. If I remember correctly the Zeiss FL was around 92-93% with Ultravid around 89%. The Trinovid was closer to 82%, again, if my memory isn't failing me.

Ron,

I do enjoy the in-depth technical analysis of the bins' attributes. Would you care to comment more on general overall impressions?

Frank, when i get them back in hand and have a chance to use them in the open and in the woods I will post more on the impressions. So far I have been impressed with the optics and not particularly fond of the ergonomics. I find them too narrow for my hands at my IPD of 64 mm, with both thumbs going under the opposite tube from the hand, i.e. right thumb goes all the way under left tube and my finger overlaps the focus knob almost at the middle joint, a little more than I care for. Somewhat to narrow to place my fingers between the tubes. So far I have to grip them with my right hand aft and left hand forward. I am sure I can get used to it for the view.

Since I have done nothing but check parameters, I have really not formed any opinions yet about FOV, sweet spot, pointing speed or rolling ball etc. although first impressions are very positive. Let me drag them around for awhile next weekend (I generally only use compacts at work thru the week) and I will get back to you.

Have a good day.
Ron

I have only had them out hand held for a few minutes. I want some time in the woods trying to pick birds out of the dark branches, look at Jupiter, get them in the open with different lighting conditions before really forming much of an opinion

Ron.

Two things you posted really hit a note with me.

So far I have been impressed with the optics and not particularly fond of the ergonomics...... far I have to grip them with my right hand aft and left hand forward.

Click to expand...

This is my feeling towards them as well. The optics are good enough for me to accept the less than perfect ergonomics. Coincidentally, or not, I have ended up using the same hand position as you to get the best balance from them.

This afternoon I finally got my 8x42 Infinity Elite ELX delivered. I went out on my terrace to see how good these things really are and I think that these will be the last binoculars I will need because at least in their 'sweet spot' they will be the sharpest of all of them. I didn't have my other ones to compare with them but I'm pretty sure none of them are better.
But I remember reading about someone considering these being very similiar to FLs, super-cracking clear in that sweet spot but not on the edge. That's what they are, especially while wearing my bifocals
I was out birding this morning and I decided to bring some not too great binos with me, the first type of 8x42 Bushnell Excursions. Their focus is tight and slow and while I was trying to look at some little birds I wished I brought something better. All the gnats drove me nuts and taking a long time to focus made it seem worse. But then this afternoon my new one came and I really wished I had these with me when I was trying to look at the Rose-breasted Grosbeaks and other birds. Mostly just a lot of Gray Catbirds.

Some nice photos over on 24hourcampfire Promaster review thread

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2439286&page=0

I didn't know they had that gold ring near the focuser. That's a bit blingy.

What with the focus range at the end and requiring people to turn down the eyecups to fit in the case obviously these were designed (and tested) by a myope

The ring on mine is gray.

Ron and Henry,

Thanks for the technical information. Whatever else you can post about the Promaster I will welcome. While a lot of it is beyond me, I do learn from it all and for that you guys have my thanks.

Marcus and Ron,

I am glad you are liking the Promaster. I'm not quite sure what my reaction would have been if both you and Ron would have said AAAAGGGHHH!!! these things stink.

Tero,

I agree with you about FOV. I can certainly not tell the difference between 393' and 411', especially since that is 39 vs 41 feet at 100 yards.

Frank and Owen,

As noted I tend to agree with Tero on the fov. However, far be it from me to quibble over someone's preference in binoculars. We like what we like. Actually this is the sort of optical difference testing that was part of my objective in the blind binocular test post. Here I would really like to see if you guys are really statisically better than the coin flip spread in ability to actually pick up on fov levels of less than 20' at 1000 yars. Just because I'm not doesn't mean you can't. Is it real or do we think we see what the spec sheets say? We could do this both before and after hypnotherapy.