New Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (1 Viewer)

henry link said:

The full sized binoculars with the lowest IPD I've seen are the Swarovski Habicht Porros which close to about 47mm, even though I beleive their official IPD spec is 56mm. The eyecups on the unarmoured versions are also quite small at about 32mm (too small for me). Of course the field overlap at close focus is no better than any other traditional porro with widely spaced objectives.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Henry, I like the sound of those. I've heard that some earlier Habicht models had a yellow cast; is there a way to tell which ones have the cast and which ones don't?

Some late models focus down to 3m. Are you saying that at that distance the images wouldn't overlap?

Michael.

MacGee said:

Thanks, Henry, I like the sound of those. I've heard that some earlier Habicht models had a yellow cast; is there a way to tell which ones have the cast and which ones don't?

Some late models focus down to 3m. Are you saying that at that distance the images wouldn't overlap?

Michael.

Click to expand...

Michael,

I haven't seen any examples of recent production, so I don't know about color accuracy now, but old Habicht Porros do have a pronounced yellow cast.

Other than coatings, I don't think the optics or the mechanics of these binoculars have changed in at least 20 years. Perhaps four or five years ago the logo graphics changed. Old ones have nothing on the front of the binocular. Newer ones have "Swarovski" written in large letters running down the center shaft and the Swarovski hawk symbol on the front of the left prism housing.

The 8x30W would probably work the best for you. At close focus, overlap of the fields in it will be about the same as any other 8x traditional Porro with a 60 degree apparent field, like the Nikon 8x32 SE. I estimate the area of overlap at 3m includes the left 35 degrees of the right field and the right 35 degrees of the left. In an 8x, 60 degree roof prism binocular the overlap at that distance would be around 50 degrees. Another disadvantage this causes for a traditional Porro at close focus is that the eyes are forced to toe in more which means looking further off-axis into an area of the field where the image is not as sharp. All this ceases to matter at distances beyond 7-8m. Another thing to consider about the Habicht 8x30W is that the eye relief is a pretty short 12mm. Having said all that I should add that I used a rubber armoured pair of these as my main birding binoculars for about six years in the late 80's and early 90's and liked them.

Henry

henry link said:

...Old ones have nothing on the front of the binocular. Newer ones have "Swarovski" written in large letters running down the center shaft and the Swarovski hawk symbol on the front of the left prism housing...

Click to expand...

I was looking at a pair of 8x30N, but they don't have any of that stuff, so I guess they're old. Best leave them, I guess.

Michael.

The 8x30N would probably not be a good choice. Its body is identical to the 8x30W. The IPD and eyecups are the same (early ones would have hard eyecups), but its eyepiece has a narrower (so called Normal) field and even shorter eye relief than the 8x30W. It was discontinued about 15 years ago and would certainly have a yellow cast. I would consider it a fairly rare binocular. I don't think many were sold.

well, thanks to the info in this thread as well as some first hand observations, I just purchased a pair of these bino's in tan. I will take some good pics of them if anyone is interested as well.

review--though from a beginner--to follow!

hrbngr said:

well, thanks to the info in this thread as well as some first hand observations, I just purchased a pair of these bino's in tan. I will take some good pics of them if anyone is interested as well.

review--though from a beginner--to follow!

Click to expand...

I look forward to reading that, hrbngr. I'll start a new thread for my IPD, Porro, and Swaro issues to avoid further impinging on this one.

Michael.

Since no-one is using this thread at the moment, I'll borrow it again to return to an issue raised above. After Henry's recommendation of the Swarovski Habichts, I was all set to look for a pair, either to try, or to buy at a discount on eBay. In the meantime I bought a pair of Opticron SR.GA 8x32s, which are very close to the Habichts in quality, according to the Kikkert Spesialisten reviews. A touch less contrasty, but better FOV; a bit poorer in build quality, but way cheaper. Sharpness and brightness equal.

But I notice that my eyelashes are obviously touching the Opticron lenses, because I see a fine tracery of grease on the upper part after using them. This is with an ER of 13mm. The Habichts, with their ER of 12mm, would presumably be worse, so I think I'm going to abandon them. The grease doesn't seem to degrade the image at all; it's just a small irritation. But at Swarovski prices, it would be a bigger irritation.

So what I'm now thinking could be my ultimate binocular is the Zeiss ClassiC, if I can find a pair in this country. But am I right in thinking that these are a reissue of the later, phase-coated Dialyts? I know that some of the Dialyts have an eyecup diameter of 35mm, which would be fine. I believe the ClassiC reissue has a diameter of 37mm, which might be okay. Is this reasonable, or should I forget about 'ultimate' binoculars and settle for what I've got?

Michael.

Just found a current auction for brand new Leupold Yosemite 6x30s...

http://www.binoculars-and-scopes.or...ite&catid=28179,31710&submit=search&advanced=

talon_dfa said:

Just found a current auction for brand new Leupold Yosemite 6x30s...

http://www.binoculars-and-scopes.or...ite&catid=28179,31710&submit=search&advanced=

Click to expand...

Sold for $64 plus $7 shipping

Yes, there are a few auctions where they are currently for $30-$40 under the usual retail price. I may yet have to pick up a pair for myself. Maybe I will just have to wait and see how much Christmas money I take in.

I agree with Frank that the Yosemites 6x30 are excellent. They are somewhat limited by their low power, but they are excellent binoculars for backyard birding, close range birding - such as warblers in heavy cover, people inexperienced with binoculars or with small IPD, and...pellagic trips when the roll and pitch of the boat will make higher power useless.
MacGee: i don't like the eyecups of the FL either, they are too large for me (maybe this is another reason why i prefer the EL, for smaller eyecups). However, the eyecups of the Yosemites are comfortable. They (Yosemites) have tappered (conical shape) eyecups, the FL eyecups are straight cylindrical. They are worth a try. They are a very nice and bright and sharp bino.
Leupold are fools for not designing a 8x30 version.

FrankD said:

...there are a few auctions where they are currently for $30-$40 under the usual retail price. I may yet have to pick up a pair for myself....

Click to expand...

Another Leupold Yosemite at auction:

http://www.binoculars-and-scopes.or...ite&catid=28179,31710&submit=search&advanced=

tilling said:

Fuji discontinued the Polaris 6x30s, but they still make the Nautilus 6x30s.

I disagree that IF makes a binocular inconvenient, especially at 6-8 magnification. If you set the two eyepieces right (so you can focus at anything closer than infinity, and juuust focus at infinity) then you should never need to refocus until somebody else wants your binoculars. For my kayaking binoculars that's not going to happen much.

Click to expand...

The 6x30 Fuji FMTR-SX does have the best DOF I've seen in a binocular, but, how convenient/inconvenient IF bins are for an individual depends on his/her focus accommodation. Years back, before they were discontinued, I bought a Fuji 6x30 FMTR-SX. I used it mostly as a "finder binocular" with my telescope since the configuration was the same size as my finderscope, but the FOV was wider and the binoculars gave much better contrast. Sometimes, I would get carried away and forgot what I was looking for and just scan the Milky Way or look at star clusters. At 6x, the scale is small, but you take in the Big Picture with 8.5* FOV. Good for learning your way around the night sky.

I occasionally used the Fuji for daytime viewing, mostly for watching soccer games. I'd set the diopters to focus at about 30 ft, and everything from 30 ft. on was in focus, with a tweaking needed at infinity, as you mentioned.

I gradually lost interest in stargazing due to increasing clouds in my area and increasing light pollution, which pushed my fellow astro. club members and I farther and farther out to find dark skies, and then only when conditions permitted, which wasn't often, particularly when limited to weekends.

So I sold the Fujis to a kayaker. 6x provides stable views for marine use and given kayaks propensity for capsizing, the submersible WPing was a must.

A few months ago, I saw a 6x30 FMTR-SX on eBay and decided to give them a second look and bought it (now that they are discontinued, they are hard to find and more expensive to buy). They were as good as I remembered-- sharp, contrasty, with excellent color rendition and built like a tank. However, now that I wear reading glasses, I can no longer focus the EPs at 30 ft. and see everything short of infinity in sharp focus. Now I need to tweak the EPs just a hair to keep them in focus at different distances.

I don't think this is due to sample variation. The Fujis appear to be as good as my first pair, but rather because my eye lenses are no longer as flexible as they used to be now that I have presbyopia (age-related farsightedness).

It's not terribly inconvenient, certainly a bit "slow" for birding, hard to catch flighty Chickadees with IF bins, but excellent for longer range observing due to the steadiness of 6x, the great DOF, and super 3-D views.

I just wanted to qualify your statement since I posted the similar statement myself when I had my first pair, but now that my focus accommodation has changed, I realize that not everyone will be able to set the focus once despite the great DOF of these outstanding binoculars.

Brock

I bought the Yosemite (6x30) at last and here are my impressions. Previously I'd been using a RSPB High Grade (HG) 7x42, so I was naturally comparing them. This is a bit unfair, considering the HG was intended to sell for £400 and the Yosemite for $100, but they're what I've got.

Well, the Yosemite isn't as sharp, contrasty or bright as the HG. The view is comfortable, but quiet. Penny Plain compared with the HG's Twopence Coloured. It also produces a strange effect that I've never seen before: in very bright light (glaring might be the word) I see a ring of reflections round the outside of the image. Better there than in the image, I suppose.

On the other hand, the Yosemite is almost half the weight of the HG and hangs nicely round my neck; it has a wonderful depth of field and wonderful steadiness; it doesn't appear (so far) to show any aberrational colour, unlike the HG. (The HG isn't bad for aberrational colour, but does exhibit some under extreme conditions.)

They both have pretty neutral colour; eyecups that are pleasant to use with glasses (even my bifocals); focus knobs that you don't notice (the best kind); the concertina-style eyepiece covers (a pain in the neck when you have a narrow IPD).

I like them both very much. I take the Yosemite when I'm walking any distance, and since I'm usually walking some distance, the HG has gravitated to mostly being the bins for looking at the bird feeders in the garden. It's really too good for that, so I'll probably end up selling it.

The thing about the Yosemite is that the impression it gives you is of being a lot better as a whole than its parts seem to warrant and I have a theory about this. Here's my theory; hold on to your mice.

As we know, depth of field is decided entirely by magnification. (Cue outraged disagreement). But people report seeing different depths of field in bins of the same magnification and I've seen it suggested that bins which are optically superior give the illusion of having better DOF. My idea is that this also works in reverse. Low magnification bins, with their huge DOF, show a sharp image more of the time than higher magnification bins and thus give the illusion of being optically better than they really are. This may explain why the Yosemite 6x30 got such rave reviews and why the Leupold Katmai 6x32 won its class in the Cornell review.

What do you think?

Michael.

MacGee said:

...Low magnification bins, with their huge DOF, show a sharp image more of the time than higher magnification bins and thus give the illusion of being optically better than they really are. This may explain why the Yosemite 6x30 got such rave reviews and why the Leupold Katmai 6x32 won its class in the Cornell review...

Click to expand...

I think you're absolutely right. Besides the advantage of greater DOF, the low magnification also makes it harder to detect optical flaws, so the image is agreeably sharp, for as much resolution as it is capable of delivering to the eye (which is less than higher power bins since the eye is the limiting factor with any halfway decently made bin.) Folks go so far as to say that they can see as much with their super-sharp 6x as can be seen with 8x or 10x, a ridiculous claim unless we're talking about situations with lots of shaking.
--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I think you're absolutely right. Besides the advantage of greater DOF, the low magnification also makes it harder to detect optical flaws, so the image is agreeably sharp, for as much resolution as it is capable of delivering to the eye (which is less than higher power bins since the eye is the limiting factor with any halfway decently made bin.) Folks go so far as to say that they can see as much with their super-sharp 6x as can be seen with 8x or 10x, a ridiculous claim unless we're talking about situations with lots of shaking.
--AP

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Alexis, though contrariwise, I do think a lot of people underestimate both the amount of movement involved in hand-holding binoculars, and the effect of that movement (I'm avoiding the word 'shake' here because mostly it's an overstatement).

I have a question about the movement of the image: is it purely the amount of hand movement times magnification, or does the distance to the viewed object have an effect?

Michael.

A couple of points to add.

Firstly, it seems that the reflections I reported were caused by the placement of the oculars relative to my bifocals. My 7x42 is very forgiving in this respect—the Yosemite less so. But I find I can get rid of the reflections by moving the oculars up.

Secondly, the strap slips through the buckles(?), so that by the end of a walk, the bins are noticeably closer to the ground than when I started. I've never seen this reported before, so I may have a bad sample. I'll investigate manipulating the buckles to increase resistance. Obvious, I suppose, but I've only just thought of it.

Michael.

One thing I've noticed about the Yosemite is that when I focus on a single tree trunk, it seems extraordinarily flat, like a cardboard cut-out. It only seems to happen if the the tree trunk fills up a fair amount of the image. I find this puzzling because I thought porros were supposed to make the image more 3D, not less.

My only tentative theory is that the Yosemite's extensive depth of field makes the back of the trunk as sharp as the front and since our eyes interpret the falling off of sharpness as increasing distance, they interpret equal sharpness as equal distance.

Has anyone else noticed this, or have another theory about what causes it?

Michael.

Truly fine binoculars!

I received a batch of six today which I had ordered for our school. This allows some insight into possible sample variation. First of all, though, I am amazed about the superior quality all of them have. They all have a very bright and very contrasty view, reminding me of my Leica Trinovid in quality! Sure, it is easier to come up with a good view at 6x than at 8 or 10x. Nevertheless, I am very impressed. It is only when one goes into detailed comparisons that the difference in price shows to some degree. Thus, minimum focus varies by about 1.5 m (5 feet) among them. With two of them at each end, and the other two in between, but closer to the better ones. There are some minor impurities when looking through the objective side, but none that would seem to visibly affect the view. In some of them, the picture seems to "snap" a bit better than in others. But as I already mentioned, all of them provide a very enjoyable view. Distortions are minimal, and the sweet spot is very large. All of this is said with the fact that I have little experience with 6x models (though I do own a Pentax Papilio 6.5x21). But then, I am mostly used to top end models, and the fact that these binoculars impress me so much should say something about the optical quality of the Leupolds. They are definitely excellent value for the money. And let's not forget that they are also waterproof at this price! Incredible. The only negative remark I could make is that I noticed some tendency for flare under critical light conditions. In a way similar to but less excessive than the early Zeiss Victory (I) models. Like in those, focus direction is also reversed compared to what seems more usual. But no real problem at all.
They come with a handy carrying pouch. The strap for the binoculars is flexible and very comfortable. And there is even one of my favorite rain guards provided in the package. I am seriously considering getting one of these binoculars for myself, they might take the place of some very old Leica 10x40s roofs (without phase coating) on a window shelf. With the benefit of being usable for visitors or grandchildren as well.

Coating variations

I bought another two. This time one for myself to keep in the car, the other one for a friend who has also been impressed. Thus I now have 8 to compare. What struck me now when I compared these two with the other six that the objective coating differs in color. Some are more bluish, others have a greenish shine. In my subjective comparison, it seemed that the bluish ones are a little bit more contrasty.