mfunnell
Registered Confuser
As I noted in another thread, Vortex has released new models in most or all of their Diamondback line. I pre-ordered a couple of pairs, in 8x28 (to compare with my old-model Diamondback 8x28s) and in 8x32 (to further my ongoing quest to find an inexpensive and compact 8x32 I actually like). Both arrived yesterday.
I've found the 8x32 to be far more interesting (and in some ways annoying) than the 8x28s, which I'll provide my impressions on when I get to them.
Here, though, are my initial impressions of the new-model Vortex Diamondback 8x32s.
Firstly, their specifications (lifted straight from the B&H website where I bought the bins):
These specifications appear to be mostly accurate and are impressive in some areas.
In the hand, and viewing through them:
Then something clicked: what it appears to be is a very shallow depth of field with an abrupt transition to the out-of-focus areas and a very harsh background blur (what a photographer might call bad bokeh; something I'm fairly sensitive to in photographs, but have never previously noticed with binoculars). I do emphasise "appears" because, yes, I do know that depth of field in binoculars is "really" all about magnification (etc. ad nauseum). Yet the view through these Diamondbacks gives the appearance that things are otherwise.
The real story - at least as near as I can work out - is that these bins have a rather drastic curvature of field, coupled with rather a lot of other uncorrected off-axis aberrations. This would account for the small sweet spot and explains why the transition to the background seems abrupt (off axis, they're really focused way in front of where you think they are) and sort-of explains why the background seems harsh (some complex mixture of uncorrected stuff that I haven't begun to analyse and probably won't bother with). Checking this showed that I don't have to look far from the centre to need to change focus a lot to bring off-axis details into focus.
Which leaves me thinking that these Diamondback 8x32s are really very nice bins in a lot of ways, but also thinking I won't ever really like them. I get the feeling that their view has been compromised by pushing too hard for the "headline numbers" in the specs of 8.1° FOV and 2.4' close focus. I'd have preferred a slightly narrower field of view if it allowed some reduction of the over-the-top field curvature. I'd also have preferred a more realistic close-focus number to be admitted in the specs.
But I'm sure that their way, with those numbers in the specs, they'll sell a lot more binoculars than if they'd set out to suit my taste.
...Mike
I've found the 8x32 to be far more interesting (and in some ways annoying) than the 8x28s, which I'll provide my impressions on when I get to them.
Here, though, are my initial impressions of the new-model Vortex Diamondback 8x32s.
Firstly, their specifications (lifted straight from the B&H website where I bought the bins):
Code:
Prism Type Roof
Magnification 8.0x
Objective Lens Diameter 32mm
Angle of View 8.1° (actual)
Field-of-View 426' @ 1000 yd / 141.43 m @ 1000 m
Minimum Focus Distance 2.4' / .73 m
Exit Pupil Diameter 4 mm
Eye Relief 15.6 mm
Interpupillary Adjustment 55 - 75 mm / 2.17 - 2.95"
Dioptric Correction Not Specified By Manufacturer
Focus Type Center
Tripod Mount Yes (Adapter Optional)
Dimensions 4.6 x 4.5" / 11.68 x 11.43 cm
Weight 15.5 oz / 439 g
These specifications appear to be mostly accurate and are impressive in some areas.
In the hand, and viewing through them:
- These Diamondbacks are small and light (smaller in all dimensions than my other compact 8x32s: the Meade Rainforest Pros I recently wrote about and lighter by nearly an ounce). They're nice to hold and are not too small for comfort in my more-or-less average size male hands. They have thumb indents on the underside of the armour that are positioned "just right" for my hands. Oddly, for bins where compactness is one of the attractive features, they come with a rather bulky semi-rigid case that seems inconvenient to carry in the field and too large to easily fit in a bag or pack. The rain guard, rubber-band-and-cap objective covers and neck-strap are of good quality and fit well.
- Construction seems solid, the focus wheel is smooth in use (though with slightly too little resistance for my taste) and has no play or backlash. (For those who care, the focus moves counter-clockwise to infinity.) The hinge seems well-weighted, allowing easy adjustment of IPD while holding position firmly. The dioptre adjustment is the usual ring near the right-hand eyepiece and is firm enough to adjust easily without being likely to move accidently once set. The three-position twist-up eyecups hold position well and seem suited to the available eye relief, which appears to be pretty much just as specified. I use the middle position with glasses on, and maximum extension without, which matches my nearsightedness fine and allows me the full field of view in both circumstances (unlike those Meades I wrote about).
- The field of view is wide, seems to be just as specified, and the apparent FOV is wide as well. The sweet spot, though, is rather small (more on this below): they seem very sharp in the centre but that degrades swiftly when you look off-axis. Contrast and colour both seem pretty good, but I probably need to use them more to firm up my opinions there. Chromatic aberration is moderate in the centre of the field (slightly more than I'd like, really) but doesn't seem to increase much until the very outer edges of the field. Flare is reasonably well controlled. When provoked I can induce both direct flare and veiling flare, but it doesn't seem as if flare would be a problem in most circumstances.
- Close focus is specified as a rather amazing 2.4'/73 centimeters. Too amazing, I'd say. While their close-focusing ability is really quite impressive, it isn't that good. I measured this, to make sure, since with my nearsightedness I can usually focus more closely that the specified distance - but not with these. My measured minimum close focus is 108cm without glasses and 127cm with glasses on. People with "normal" eyesight and younger eyes would probably be able to focus somewhere within those distances. My guess is that 73cm number came by finding the youngest, most nearsighted, member of their team then handing them binoculars and a tape measure... Nonetheless, between their higher magnification and wider real and apparent field of view, these Diamondbacks compete quite closely with the view through my 6.5x21 Papillo IIs - as long as the subject isn't too close. I find that quite impressive.
Then something clicked: what it appears to be is a very shallow depth of field with an abrupt transition to the out-of-focus areas and a very harsh background blur (what a photographer might call bad bokeh; something I'm fairly sensitive to in photographs, but have never previously noticed with binoculars). I do emphasise "appears" because, yes, I do know that depth of field in binoculars is "really" all about magnification (etc. ad nauseum). Yet the view through these Diamondbacks gives the appearance that things are otherwise.
The real story - at least as near as I can work out - is that these bins have a rather drastic curvature of field, coupled with rather a lot of other uncorrected off-axis aberrations. This would account for the small sweet spot and explains why the transition to the background seems abrupt (off axis, they're really focused way in front of where you think they are) and sort-of explains why the background seems harsh (some complex mixture of uncorrected stuff that I haven't begun to analyse and probably won't bother with). Checking this showed that I don't have to look far from the centre to need to change focus a lot to bring off-axis details into focus.
Which leaves me thinking that these Diamondback 8x32s are really very nice bins in a lot of ways, but also thinking I won't ever really like them. I get the feeling that their view has been compromised by pushing too hard for the "headline numbers" in the specs of 8.1° FOV and 2.4' close focus. I'd have preferred a slightly narrower field of view if it allowed some reduction of the over-the-top field curvature. I'd also have preferred a more realistic close-focus number to be admitted in the specs.
But I'm sure that their way, with those numbers in the specs, they'll sell a lot more binoculars than if they'd set out to suit my taste.
...Mike
Last edited: