A bastion (1 Viewer)

The first part of this reconnaissance is a well-known theme. I believe all of us binocular nerds share similar feelings here. It's about optics being durable goods, unaffected by digital trends and having a similar aura as fine mechanical watches, pens and the like. When used, they create visual memories, amplified not only with the magnification rate but also the sensory memory and perhaps even smell.
Some of us might have lost this emotional connection to our binoculars after having bought, loved, rejected and exchanged uncountable numbers of binoculars.
I plead guilty as charged :-C
Let's never forget that our tubes with glass in the ends (and much of the in-between too) might finally face the same destiny as the typewriters did a few decades ago, and take good care of the instruments, what they represent and cherish the enjoyment they deliver.

The second part is closely related to all the above. I may be wrong, but I think that the marketing of good optics usually is quite low-key and not overflowing with boastful, unverified claims of being hugely superior to the competition. Yes, there can be some fuzzy marketing blurbs but usually those are kept to a minimum. Images that don't show the product shows hawks, beautiful wildlife and sailboats on blue oceans.

In fact it's quite funny that those images aren't there solely for decoration purpose, they are actually meant to emphasize that you could see this with your own eyes through their product.

Never before have sport optics been this excellent. We know they are at the pinnacle, and that they have reached full product maturity. And everybody knows what to expect, and they/we do expect it. There's no need or room for hyperbole statements about the product's alleged superiority, because it simply cannot be vastly superior to its competitors. If there are such tendencies, it's a safe sign this is an inferior product that can only sell with the help of lies.

Altogether, fine optics are a refuge and a bastion towards an ever-rising deluge of shortlived crap.

//L

So am I to be skeptical when someone on this forum writes that their latest acquisition "blows away" anything from the competition?

We hear this around here from some, at times. Can it not be accurate? Does not some company completely rediscover the birding binocular every couple of years or so?

Kevin Conville said:

So am I to be skeptical when someone on this forum writes that their latest acquisition "blows away" anything from the competition?

We hear this around here from some, at times. Can it not be accurate? Does not some company completely rediscover the birding binocular every couple of years or so?

Click to expand...

:-O:-O:-O

When you say it... Obviously there are "fanboys" that fill in what's absent in the brochures. And I can see why and how it happens. One of the traits I share with them is the joy that arises when I hold a new bargain, and see a significant difference to be amazed with. Now, since my latest acquisition is a Meopta 12x50 HD, and I haven't used even 10x binoculars for years, the difference is noticeable. One could argue that an Ultravid HD or a Swarovision 12x50 would have made the same impact on me.
It came to me in the right moment, and I'm not ashamed to say my joy far exceeds what's seen in the dry, fact-based brochures. It's a joy in itself to find your expectations being exceeded by reality. A low-key advertising is a good predictor here.

//L

I'm not immune to the joy of looking through great optics either. I just know better than to think or make declarations of definitive superiority when I come across something that floats my boat. It's like arguing about cars, there's personal taste involved. As you've already wrote, this avenue of optics is quite mature so there's not a whole lot different to see between brands. And sometimes there is change just for change's sake, to churn the market.

I've thought for years that among premier birding bins that are held in one's hands that how much difference (optically) can there really be?
Your view is compromised by the mount, you.

My latest kick is high powered bins mounted on a tripod. And, like you Lars, I just acquired a 12x50, a Leica BN. I've also been using a Minox 15x58 ED on loan from my brother and it delivers amazing views.

Kevin Conville said:

I'm not immune to the joy of looking through great optics either. I just know better than to think or make declarations of definitive superiority when I come across something that floats my boat. It's like arguing about cars, there's personal taste involved. As you've already wrote, this avenue of optics is quite mature so there's not a whole lot different to see between brands. And sometimes there is change just for change's sake, to churn the market.

I've thought for years that among premier birding bins that are held in one's hands that how much difference (optically) can there really be?
Your view is compromised by the mount, you.

My latest kick is high powered bins mounted on a tripod. And, like you Lars, I just acquired a 12x50, a Leica BN. I've also been using a Minox 15x58 ED on loan from my brother and it delivers amazing views.

Click to expand...

Haven't tried tripod mounting binoculars yet. The Meostar is surprisingly easy to handhold. What's more, the mere fact that is two-eyed, I'd say it often replaces the small scope, and that without the need of a support.
Of course, really long distance viewing requires more magnification, but it's mesmerising to discover how the 12x50 puts a completely different emphasis on the background, while still simple to use up close. The lower-powered 7x42 and 8x32 will still usually be the first choice.

I looked for a Minox 10x58 for a long time, but when it appeared, I could never buy it. I can imagine the views are spectacular with the 15x58.
The 12x50 success has led me to look at the 15x56 HD more than once. Not sure they are for me though.

//L

This is interesting to me. If there isn't a world of difference between binoculars where one is vastly superior to another than I think bang for the buck or value takes on real meaning. Which company can make a good optic that everyone (within reason) can afford easily and still deliver much of that same thrill of quality and view that a binocular that is far out of their price range can give. I'll never be able to justify to myself spending $2500 on a single binocular even though I actually have the money to do it without breaking my bank. I get a thrill out of a great optic at what I consider a reasonable cost or a great bargain. And now that I've owned a $2000 optic and sold it I know that my new $200 optics are close enough for me to get that thrill. Had I not owned that Swarvoski I would have always thought I was likely missing out on a lot. Now I know better.

looksharp65 said:

Haven't tried tripod mounting binoculars yet. The Meostar is surprisingly easy to handhold. What's more, the mere fact that is two-eyed, I'd say it often replaces the small scope, and that without the need of a support.
Of course, really long distance viewing requires more magnification, but it's mesmerising to discover how the 12x50 puts a completely different emphasis on the background, while still simple to use up close. The lower-powered 7x42 and 8x32 will still usually be the first choice.

I looked for a Minox 10x58 for a long time, but when it appeared, I could never buy it. I can imagine the views are spectacular with the 15x58.
The 12x50 success has led me to look at the 15x56 HD more than once. Not sure they are for me though.

//L

Click to expand...

Lars and Kevin:

I have tried several big binoculars, that is what we call the 15-16X models.

I owned the Minox 15x58 ED for a few years. It has a nice quality build but
is a real CA producer, and it does not compare optically to some of the others
that I have compared against. That means resolution, sharpness a bit softer, so these can work, but others do better.

Here is my short list in order of the terms of performance of big binoculars that I have owned and used.

Minox 15x58 ED
Docter Nobilem 15x60, both older and newer armored models.
Nikon Monarch 5 15x56
Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56
Swarovski 15x56 SLC Neu.

Value wise the Nikon Monarch 5, does very well, and is tops in that measure.
I also own the 20x56. There are lots of reviews out there that say much the
same.

I am a value type of guy, and several of these I purchased preowned and like
new, that is a nice way to try new glass.

Jerry

Lars,

I have also been looking at the 12X50 but also want to view through the 15X56 HD. I am a new fan to the Meopta brand, a very good value. Let us know your experiences with them, by the way I thought your pics about the FL were very accurate, and to me true to life.

A.W.

I've used the older Swaro SLC 15x, and now the Minox 15x58 ED, on a tripod, but I prefer a monopod as it's more versatile. If necessary I can sit and prop the 'pod between my knees. I use it sometimes seawatching from a camp-chair, the monopod short and propped on the seat itself, between my thighs. So if I need to move/stand or turn to follow a petrel or a skua or whatever, I can. A tripod is more limited in manoeuvreability; all it can do is swivel at a fixed height.

NDhunter said:

Lars and Kevin:

I have tried several big binoculars, that is what we call the 15-16X models.

I owned the Minox 15x58 ED for a few years. It has a nice quality build but
is a real CA producer, and it does not compare optically to some of the others
that I have compared against. That means resolution, sharpness a bit softer, so these can work, but others do better.

Here is my short list in order of the terms of performance of big binoculars that I have owned and used.

Minox 15x58 ED
Docter Nobilem 15x60, both older and newer armored models.
Nikon Monarch 5 15x56
Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56
Swarovski 15x56 SLC Neu.

Value wise the Nikon Monarch 5, does very well, and is tops in that measure.
I also own the 20x56. There are lots of reviews out there that say much the
same.

I am a value type of guy, and several of these I purchased preowned and like
new, that is a nice way to try new glass.

Jerry

Click to expand...

I think this is one of those examples of what one person sees vs another and/or sample variation affecting the outcome. Though I don't have the across the board experience with big bins that you have Jerry, I have owned the Monarch 5 16x56s and currently have in my possession Minox 15x58 EDs and I have a beautiful example of Fujinon 16x70s that can be used pretty well as a benchmark.

I didn't care too much for the sharpness of the Nikon. Everything else about it was quite good, but they just weren't very sharp to my eye.

The Minox, on the other hand, are excellent. Within a hare's breath of the Fujinons for sharpness. I'm also not getting a lot of false color, considering their size, and they have almost no distortion. They are a beast however. Large and heavy, with a slow focuser. I'd still be happy to own them. :t:

I'd really like to try the Swaro HDs however, just to get it out of my system, so to speak. Who knows? Maybe I'd have to have them!

black crow said:

This is interesting to me. If there isn't a world of difference between binoculars where one is vastly superior to another than I think bang for the buck or value takes on real meaning. Which company can make a good optic that everyone (within reason) can afford easily and still deliver much of that same thrill of quality and view that a binocular that is far out of their price range can give. I'll never be able to justify to myself spending $2500 on a single binocular even though I actually have the money to do it without breaking my bank. I get a thrill out of a great optic at what I consider a reasonable cost or a great bargain. And now that I've owned a $2000 optic and sold it I know that my new $200 optics are close enough for me to get that thrill. Had I not owned that Swarvoski I would have always thought I was likely missing out on a lot. Now I know better.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd ever pay $2k+ for any bin that I hold in my hands. I'm just not that good. I would consider that kind of money for a big bin however, if it was a real performer.

I am thinking that 12X50 may be more versatile for all around viewing than a 15X50, I thinking of atmospheric conditions would have to be better to get the most out of the 15 X during daytime viewing, and the wider field of view with the 12X is another plus.

A.W.

dries1 said:

Lars,

I have also been looking at the 12X50 but also want to view through the 15X56 HD. I am a new fan to the Meopta brand, a very good value. Let us know your experiences with them, by the way I thought your pics about the FL were very accurate, and to me true to life.

A.W.

Click to expand...

Thanks! The 12x50 is probably the more versatile, but if you have some 10x bins, I'd at least recommend trying the 15x56.
And I wrote that report too, can be found in the Meopta forum.

//L

Going back to the top, i'm definitely a supporter of the 'binocular as valued possession, with which you have an emotional tie' club. There are brilliant bins i've tried that i just couldn't bond with for some reason. If they can make you feel good just by looking AT them, rather than THROUGH them, that' the thing.

It's just human nature that someone will boost the optics they've just bought, as agreement ratifies their decision. It's also an extension of the 'my car's faster than your car' human competitive streak. No-one really cares about it other than the poster.
Binoculars are fantastic pieces of design, robust enough to go with you to some pretty wild places, accompany you on holidays and field trips, and as such, it's probably like a marriage - it's between the two of you, and stuff the rest.

Right on!:smoke: I have no idea what that smiley is for or means.

black crow said:

Right on!:smoke: I have no idea what that smiley is for or means.

Click to expand...

I suspect it's a representation of someone approaching a chemically-induced psychotic attack. It's the emogi for what happens next that might be interesting.

paddy7 said:

Going back to the top, i'm definitely a supporter of the 'binocular as valued possession, with which you have an emotional tie' club. There are brilliant bins i've tried that i just couldn't bond with for some reason. If they can make you feel good just by looking AT them, rather than THROUGH them, that' the thing.

Click to expand...

I suppose there are a whole lot of factors at play besides the view, obviously ergonomics, weight etc., but I agree with you Paddy. I've had a few binos that tick all the boxes on paper and even in my own head (the conscious bit), but that I just never took a shine to. Among these are, for examply, Ultravid HD's. Like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way. I don't understand why I didn't "bond" with them.

Same for me with the HTs; for my purposes, one of the most 'suitable' bins i could wish for. Just couldn't gel with the 'artefact' aspect. Now the FL 8x32 is a different matter...just bought a Nikon 8x30Eii for exactly that reason. Just a lovely thing to have with you.