• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Get what you pay for? Not always... (1 Viewer)

Personally I don't think it's a very good idea putting a shear load on a short 1/4" thread, particularly with heaviear binoculars. Also, unless you leave the adapter on the binocular with a QR plate it's going to be slow to deploy.

I use the Leica platform adapter (there's a similar one from Swarovski) and at binocular magnifications the stability leaves nothing to be desired.

The superb Nikon WX comes with a tripod adapter, which clamps to the central hinge, similar in principle to the screwed hinge adapters. Like so many other binocular accessories it is a minor catastrophe. When I stepped on to the Nikon stand at Photokina, the WX was oscillating on its flimsy tripod adapter. And I'm not overweight! ;).

John

Those of us who hike way into the backcountry, at altitudes over 10K feet, have been hanging "heavy" bins off of 1/4x20 sockets for many years now. It's routine, in fact, and no, we're not going to carry the big bulky platform adapters. Not everyone has this specific need, I understand, but those who do won't accept anything less. The Outdoorsman brand has come up with some clever adapter studs for Leica binoculars but there wasn't anything available for those LX-L's when I was looking at the time.

If you haven't seen the Outdoorsman stud / quick release system, it's pretty darn neat.

https://outdoorsmans.com/products/outdoorsmans-binocular-adapter
 
Those of us who hike way into the backcountry, at altitudes over 10K feet, have been hanging "heavy" bins off of 1/4x20 sockets for many years now. It's routine, in fact, and no, we're not going to carry the big bulky platform adapters. Not everyone has this specific need, I understand, but those who do won't accept anything less. The Outdoorsman brand has come up with some clever adapter studs for Leica binoculars but there wasn't anything available for those LX-L's when I was looking at the time.

If you haven't seen the Outdoorsman stud / quick release system, it's pretty darn neat.

https://outdoorsmans.com/products/outdoorsmans-binocular-adapter

That looks rather good. At least one can torque up the adapter so that radial loads are carried by the friction between bin and adapter, just like a car wheel on its hub. What head are you using and monopod or tripod?

John
 
That looks rather good. At least one can torque up the adapter so that radial loads are carried by the friction between bin and adapter, just like a car wheel on its hub. What head are you using and monopod or tripod?

John

I have a couple of small packable tripods. A small Giottos with a small Manfrotto ball head is my primary unit but when packing way in, I use this little guy I found on Amazon for $37. It worked much better than I expected this past year and it's only 2 lbs. head and all.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DRXMDTH/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Not only do we vary wildly in the way our senses work, but it changes with age. When first married many expensive scents smelt a bit like rotting cat to me - I was banned from buying the stuff - I was 'heartbroken'. Either they use different constituents now or my nose has changed as most now smell pleasant.

My hearing was heavily skewed to the higher frequencies, but that is (fortunately) no longer quite so true it may be encroaching deafness or the fact that there aren't so many screaming flourescent tubes around to drive me mad, but life is more pleasant. Similarly I seem to be less blue sensitive these days.

Some of the foregoing was from blind lab tests and some subjective - dead cat anyone?, but the early tests were carried out late teens, early twenties and the results amongst a group of young scientists, mathematicians etc., somewhat surprised us on their variability.

Other than the fact that my eyes are almost fix focussed - sharp for anything more than a car bonnets distance away - I seem to be becoming more normal - tragic really.

Anyway unlike the 10x50 and 7x50 bins I used to use a lot when young and innocent? my 8x32 FLs are now pretty much meet my personal needs most of the time.

N.B. Stick to Laphroaig, it costs more but fewer people will 'help' you drink it, that way you get more of what you paid for. Nothing like a good Scrooge at this time of year!
 
Last edited:
... My 8x32 FLs ... pretty much meet my personal needs most of the time.

N.B. Stick to Laphroaig, it costs more but fewer people will 'help' you drink it, that way you get more of what you paid for. Nothing like a good Scrooge at this time of year!

Hello ivejay,

I agree with you on the 8x32FL. I can only do better with two binoculars. I recommend Kilchoman or Bunnahabain, if you want to try a different Islay malt.
However, I can understand how binoculars above $800 might show few differences even among the cognoscenti. Personal tastes in ergonomics and colour biases might mean more than a slight improvement in resolution.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
My partner's fave binoculars of mine was the Nikon M7 8x30 - to the point that i eventually gave them to her, seeing as she had them more than me.
That also 'justified' my buying of the Zeiss Pocket. She doesn't get on with that so much - for which i'm very grateful!
When i've got the funds, it's Lagavulin 16 yr for me - an Islay not quite so 'obvious' as Laphroaig. A 'once-a-year' bottle unfortunately.
 
My partner's fave binoculars of mine was the Nikon M7 8x30 - to the point that i eventually gave them to her, seeing as she had them more than me.
That also 'justified' my buying of the Zeiss Pocket. She doesn't get on with that so much - for which i'm very grateful!
When i've got the funds, it's Lagavulin 16 yr for me - an Islay not quite so 'obvious' as Laphroaig. A 'once-a-year' bottle unfortunately.

B :) B :)
Arthur
 
As my girlfriend reminds me, women by-and-large are more sensitive to variations in color, so I can see why any optics that presented better, more subtle, or more/less vivid color would stand-out to women.

A corollary to that seems to be men who work with color as their passion or profession. She's constantly amazed that I can perceive color as well or better than she can. I chalk it up to the fact that I work in the design world, specifically output devices, color calibration, etc. So maybe my eyeballs are better trained/attuned to color than most guys because of my work?

Would be a fun thing to study. |:D|
 
As my girlfriend reminds me, women by-and-large are more sensitive to variations in color, so I can see why any optics that presented better, more subtle, or more/less vivid color would stand-out to women.

A corollary to that seems to be men who work with color as their passion or profession. She's constantly amazed that I can perceive color as well or better than she can. I chalk it up to the fact that I work in the design world, specifically output devices, color calibration, etc. So maybe my eyeballs are better trained/attuned to color than most guys because of my work?

Would be a fun thing to study. |:D|

https://psychology.stackexchange.co...r-differences-in-color-discrimination-ability
 
Fascinating. As much for the study itself as it is that:

--my girlfriend studied in the field of psychology

--my own experience is that women have better color differentiation

My own experience, granted, is limited to workplace color and also clothing color. Again, meaning a certain amount of "training" may be involved (be it societal or career based).

But on a technical level apparently...myth BUSTED and I have another piece of esoterica lodged in my head. |:$|
 
I worked in recording studios for 15 years - engineering, producing, composing and spending a lot of time mixing albums. I still find myself 'going through a mix' when i hear a piece of music, separating out the components and how they've been treated, balanced etc.
Now, i don't think my ears are 'better' than anyone else's - more like 'professionally trained'
 
I've long found it curious that members here have distinctly different opinions on the colour balance of different binoculars, (Zeiss in paticular). Add in the popular view that women are often better at distinguishing colours than men and it got me wondering if there was an underlying reason.

Initially most scientific studies I found appeared to show that outside the classic types of colour blindness which affect about 8%of men and 1% of women there was very little if any gender difference. Virtually all these studies used a anomaloscope for the investigation. It's an instrument first devised by Lord Rayleigh in 1881 to identify those with the classic types of colour blindness from 'normal' vision. Studies going back at least 30 years show it is fairly insensitive to the variation within the 'normal' population and many alternatives have been reported which claim to distinguish differences that would be otherwise missed.

It was in the 1980s that the evolving genetic techniques began to reveal the heterogeneity of the components that make up out photo sensitive sells in the retina. In particular it was noted that roughly half the population had one amino acid at position 180 on the L-optis (red pigment) and the other half a different one. This caused a small but significant shift in the absorption peak of the pigment, but less than that for the most common form of red/green colour blindness. Although anomaloscope studies generally failed to show a functional difference in colour sensitivity, other tests claim to do so. It means that about 50% of men have a slightly different red/green sensitivity to the other 50%.

I stressed men because the genetic information is carried on the X chromosome it means that men have a single copy of the gene and express one variant or the other. Women have two X-chromosomes and can have have two copies of one form, two copies of the other, or one of each. As a consequence the studies show that a higher proportion of women have slightly better colour sensitivity on average.

Beyond this it gets increasingly complicated. There is also a comparable amino acid substitution on the M-opsin (green pigment). One study found that the best performing individuals In tests had the genes for both variants on each opsin. That means that while men will normaly have one each or the blue green and red receptors a small proportion of women have a blue, two red green annd two red receptors. Other amino acid substution have been identified that probably contribute to the story.

It is quite clear that at the genetic and physiological level, men vary in their colour sensitivity, not only from each other but also distinctly from a proportion of women. However as Calvin and Paddy point out, other factors like "training" will also pray a role, as will aging and disease, so things are not clear cut. However if your wife/girlfriend says her handbag doesn't go with her shoes it's probably best not to argue. ;)

David

PS. 18yo Highland Park juggles with 18yo Ardbeg and McCallan for top spot for me, but JW red label is more my budget. :-C
 
Last edited:
Definitely with you on the Macallan!
Perhaps this explains why - try as i might to - i cannot see the supposed 'green' in Zeiss bins. Must be one of the other 50%.
Don't know if this is interesting or not, but i liken alpha approaches to colour rendition to art. I see Leica as oils, Zeiss as watercolour and Swarovski as pastels...it occurred to me a few years back, but seems to have been quite consistent.
 
...
Don't know if this is interesting or not, but i liken alpha approaches to colour rendition to art. I see Leica as oils, Zeiss as watercolour and Swarovski as pastels...it occurred to me a few years back, but seems to have been quite consistent.

an interesting way to compare their distinct views and it seems about right to me too.
 
Enjoyed that!

Whenever I do that the "best" binocular is rarely if ever picked. ;) If you include a $2000 binocular it's practically gonna lose every time! The average person has no idea what a Zeiss or a Swarovski even IS! I think ergonomics and "ease of use" are most folks primary concern.

The average "birder" I see around here in the field usually has an older Bushnell. If they are REALLY an avid birder it's a Vortex. Seriously TRUE! Now I'm not knocking either brand but most things just don't matter to most folks that do matter to us.
 
Enjoyed that!

Whenever I do that the "best" binocular is rarely if ever picked. ;) If you include a $2000 binocular it's practically gonna lose every time! The average person has no idea what a Zeiss or a Swarovski even IS! I think ergonomics and "ease of use" are most folks primary concern.

The average "birder" I see around here in the field usually has an older Bushnell. If they are REALLY an avid birder it's a Vortex. Seriously TRUE! Now I'm not knocking either brand but most things just don't matter to most folks that do matter to us.

Agreed, I see a lot of the Nikon Prostaff/Monarch and a fair bit of the Nikon Action as well. I rarely see an alpha in the field unless I go somewhere like Magee Marsh during migration. Also, most of the technicians I worked with in the past considered their Vortex Vipers and Nikon Monarchs top of the line, in fact. This could potentially be because wildlife biology/management is possibly the least lucrative career field around, so money is rarely available to purchase higher end binos unless you're farther into your career...
 
...The average "birder" I see around here in the field usually has an older Bushnell. If they are REALLY an avid birder it's a Vortex. Seriously TRUE! Now I'm not knocking either brand but most things just don't matter to most folks that do matter to us.

Well, some old Bushnell bins are pretty darn sharp, but I take your point.

When leading walks for inexperienced birders, I've often traded bins for a bit with a person with fairly fuzzy bins. Especially common in that category are cheap old porros that are only sharp in the very center of the view. One reaction, that I've heard again and again, is that my bins are "too sharp", or that they are so sharp that they "hurt my eyes."

--AP
 
Just read the associated post with the image, which i didn't want to do before passing judgement....
Bottom right is a Swaro? Was the original image white?
If i really concentrate, i could possibly describe top right as 'towards greenish,' but - after reading the post - my viewpoint might be coloured.....HA!!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top