• 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.

Nikon Action Extreme vs Nikon Prostaff (2 Viewers)

RoadsterGirlie

RoadsterGirlie

Active member
Greetings!

This is my first post so please bear with me. I have been into astronomy since I was 12 and while I've owned numerous telescopes over the years, I've never owned a good pair of binoculars. My husband gave me a pair of what seem to be 25 year old Bushnell 7x35s. This ARE old and as such aren't perfect, but it's shown me how much I could probably cross over into birding with whatever I end up getting.


We have an extraordinary bird sanctuary and nature center nearby where these would be a lot of fun.

So what I'm trying to do is find a middle of the road pair that can be used for both astronomy and birding. These will be solely handheld and I do not want to go bigger than 10x50. 8x won't probably be enough for astronomical purposes which is why I'd like to stick with 10x. I don't want to go into 12x or higher due to these being handheld and won't be good for terrestrial viewing.

I originally had my eye on the Nikon Action Extremes 10x50. Unfortunately no store carries them for me to test them and I have concerns about the weight at 2.5 lbs.

I went to Cabala's yesterday and was able to test the Prostaff 5 10x50. I understand the difference between roof prism and porro prisms so I get this is a entirely different design. Roof's tend to be more expensive because they're more complex but even for the size of 10x50 these felt like a feather in my hand. They're 3/4ths of a pound less than the AEs.



I'm also interested in the Prostaff 7 10x42 as I see it has better coatings and is slightly cheaper, but the 10x50 would better used for astrnomy.

If anyone has used both the prostaff and the AEs I'd like to hear from you. I'm surprised to see there's no such comparisons on the Internet after a good search.

All in all I'd like to keep this under the $200 mark. I would like to stick with Nikon solely because their warranty is unmatched, but if anyone has suggestions that aren't Nikon, please feel free to share your thoughts. Thank!
 
RoadsterGirlie said:
Greetings!

This is my first post so please bear with me. I have been into astronomy since I was 12 and while I've owned numerous telescopes over the years, I've never owned a good pair of binoculars. My husband gave me a pair of what seem to be 25 year old Bushnell 7x35s. This ARE old and as such aren't perfect, but it's shown me how much I could probably cross over into birding with whatever I end up getting.


We have an extraordinary bird sanctuary and nature center nearby where these would be a lot of fun.

So what I'm trying to do is find a middle of the road pair that can be used for both astronomy and birding. These will be solely handheld and I do not want to go bigger than 10x50. 8x won't probably be enough for astronomical purposes which is why I'd like to stick with 10x. I don't want to go into 12x or higher due to these being handheld and won't be good for terrestrial viewing.

I originally had my eye on the Nikon Action Extremes 10x50. Unfortunately no store carries them for me to test them and I have concerns about the weight at 2.5 lbs.

I went to Cabala's yesterday and was able to test the Prostaff 5 10x50. I understand the difference between roof prism and porro prisms so I get this is a entirely different design. Roof's tend to be more expensive because they're more complex but even for the size of 10x50 these felt like a feather in my hand. They're 3/4ths of a pound less than the AEs.



I'm also interested in the Prostaff 7 10x42 as I see it has better coatings and is slightly cheaper, but the 10x50 would better used for astrnomy.

If anyone has used both the prostaff and the AEs I'd like to hear from you. I'm surprised to see there's no such comparisons on the Internet after a good search.

All in all I'd like to keep this under the $200 mark. I would like to stick with Nikon solely because their warranty is unmatched, but if anyone has suggestions that aren't Nikon, please feel free to share your thoughts. Thank!
Click to expand...



Hi Roadster Girlie:hi:

Welcome to Bird Forum!

Here is a listing of all the binoculars on Nikon's website. You can order directly from it if you like. Some of them are on sale, including the Nikon Pro-Staff 7 10 x42 you inquired about. Unfortunately it is currently on back order at Nikon.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/all-binoculars/index.page

You can compare their specifications from the information given on the website.

Here is the information on the Pro-staff 5 10x50 which is available.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/prostaff-5-10x50.html

The Pro-staff 3s 10x42 at $100.00 has a wide field of view and long eye relief according to Nikon but it is also back ordered.
Its FOV according to Allbinos website is 7º which works out to a very wide 367.5'@1000 yards.

https://www.allbinos.com/1766-Nikon_Prostaff_3s_10x42-binoculars_specifications.html

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/prostaff-3s-10x42.html


I know from personal experience that Nikon's warranty is excellent if you register your binocular with Nikon when you purchase it and follow the instructions about returning it if it has a problem. I had a 10x32 EDG replaced after 4 years use because of a defect in its focus wheel and an 8x42 Monarch HG replaced because of a wandering diopter after having it only one month.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Welcome to Bordforum Roadster Girlie,

The Prostaff 10X50 is lighter, has more eye relief, but has less actual field of view and the apparent field of view of 52 degrees would to me, give me the perception of looking down a tunnel. So the weight of the Action Extremes (Porro) is the issue. That limited FOV and apparent FOV on the Prostaff comes with greater eye relief, so in effect a trade off.

Andy W.
 
dries1 said:
Welcome to Bordforum Roadster Girlie,

The Prostaff 10X50 is lighter, has more eye relief, but has less actual field of view and the apparent field of view of 52 degrees would to me, give me the perception of looking down a tunnel. So the weight of the Action Extremes (Porro) is the issue. That limited FOV and apparent FOV on the Prostaff comes with greater eye relief, so in effect a trade off.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

Originally I wanted these for astronomy which is why I set the minimum at 50mm, but now that I think about it, 85% of their use is probably going to be terrestrial, especially since Atlanta has 1001 areas for hiking, birding etc. I notice Prostaff 10x42 has wider FOV (325.30' @ 1000 yd / 108.0 m @ 1000 m) vs the 10x50 FOV at 293.0' @ 1000 yd / 97.3 m @ 1000 m.

Is this going to be a big difference? I liked the 10x50 that I tested yesterday, but I do understand what you mean by tunnel vision. The FOV wasn't very big, especially compared to the Aculon line which were very basic. The reason the Aculons are out is they aren't water or fog proof.
 
@ceasar thank you for the warm welcome! At this time I'm not really considering the 3s simply because it is not fully multicoated and lacks phase coating, although the price and the wide FOV is nice.

At this time I'm leaning towards the Nikon Prostaff 7s 10x42 - it's fully multicoated and nothing else seems to compete with it at that price point. It can be found at Amazon at $166.

I really thought I'd go with the Action Extreme in the beginning, but in the end I think the weight is going to kill it for me. The bushnells my husband gave me are probably a pound and a half and after 10 minutes, my arms were beginning to fatigue. It wasn't terrible, but I can see how adding another pound would really limit what I can do with these, no matter how great and crisp the views are.
 
RoadsterGirlie said:
Originally I wanted these for astronomy which is why I set the minimum at 50mm, but now that I think about it, 85% of their use is probably going to be terrestrial, especially since Atlanta has 1001 areas for hiking, birding etc. I notice Prostaff 10x42 has wider FOV (325.30' @ 1000 yd / 108.0 m @ 1000 m) vs the 10x50 FOV at 293.0' @ 1000 yd / 97.3 m @ 1000 m.

Is this going to be a big difference? I liked the 10x50 that I tested yesterday, but I do understand what you mean by tunnel vision. The FOV wasn't very big, especially compared to the Aculon line which were very basic. The reason the Aculons are out is they aren't water or fog proof.
Click to expand...



The Pro-staff 5 10x50 does not have Phase Coating either. None of the Pro-staff 5s do. So, all things considered, I think you would be better off with the Pro-staff 7 10x42. (Of course you don't have to worry about Phase Coatings with Porro prism binoculars.) It looks like it is now a matter of weight and ergonomics. Good luck with your choice!:t:

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/sp...pdf/Performance_Icons_Compatible_Chart_En.pdf

Bob
 
Last edited:
Roadster:

I have been reading your post, and welcome to Birdforum.

I have experience with both the Action Extreme in the 12x50 size, and also had a PS 7 10x42, until I gave
it to my brother.

You are right in your thoughts, the Action Extreme is quite bulky, and I agree with you it is too bulky for
your uses. Optically the AE is good, but only in the center view, it has a nice center sweet spot but goes off
quickly to the edges.

The Prostaff 7, as Bob mentioned is the one I would look at getting, the PS3, and PS5, are lesser models.

I think the Prostaff 7 models are quite good, I have a PS 7s 8x30 also, and they are a nice quality made binocular.
They have a nice view, light and a very nice focuser, so lot to like.

Good luck with your purchase.

Jerry
 
Thanks again everyone for helping me solidify my choice. I’m going to go with the Prostaff 7s 10x42.

As I said earlier, my husband gave me his vintage Bushnell 7x35s. They appear to be these:

https://picclick.com/Bushnell-Insta-Focus-7X35-Binoculars-Sportview-Wide-Angle-500-192491534015.html

It’s really hard to find matching info on these, even with models of pictures I know are the same ones. Used, the price varies greatly- anywhere from $20 to $100. I have no idea what they would have retailed new. The FOV in the ads varies greatly as well - anywhere from 300 to 500 out of 1000 feet. They’re listed at 19 oz, which seems about right.

I took these out to our local wildlife sanctuary down the road this evening (boardwalk over a marshy lagoon-type area of the river). While I wasn’t expecting perfection out of almost three decades old equipment, I saw all kinds of stuff and the view was still impressive. I saw a white mother crane with her chicklets. I saw another male crane (different type from the mother) that was putting on some sort of either mating or territorial display. I saw a hawk, geese, crows and a host of smaller birds. A few cardinals too.

Given how old these bins are and the fact they appear to be entry level, they still impressed me and I got some beautifully crisp views. After about 40 minutes around my neck and knowing their weight is 19 oz, I now know the Action Extremes would be horrendous for this. The ones Prostaff 7s’s I’m planning to buy are 22 oz so I don’t anticipate that will be a huge difference. Having 10x for those cranes as opposed to 7x would be nice too. Anyways I’m really glad I took the time to do this tonight as not only was this a great way to get out of the house, but it really helped me figure some things out.
 
Last edited:
You will not be disappointed with the Nikon PROSTAFF 7S bino's. I have a few friends who use them and no complaints. Excellent in low light too. They are under a Nikon Sponsored Promo right now that any Nikon Dealer will honor.
 
Last edited:
Hi RoadsterGirlie,

The Instaview form of focus was popular at one time, at least with the makers.
I never got on with them as they weren't precise. Others also had problems.
They often needed two hands to keep in focus.

For astronomy one needs precise focus, even though it is fixed at a distance, and I think a regular focus is better.

10x42 is fine for astronomy, depending on how much light pollution one has and the size of ones pupils.
10x50s are the normal astro binoculars, but any binocular has its uses for astronomy.

In fact a dark sky is far more important than the binocular used.

Enjoy the binocular.
 
Binastro said:
Hi RoadsterGirlie,

The Instaview form of focus was popular at one time, at least with the makers.
I never got on with them as they weren't precise. Others also had problems.
They often needed two hands to keep in focus.

For astronomy one needs precise focus, even though it is fixed at a distance, and I think a regular focus is better.

10x42 is fine for astronomy, depending on how much light pollution one has and the size of ones pupils.
10x50s are the normal astro binoculars, but any binocular has its uses for astronomy.

In fact a dark sky is far more important than the binocular used.

Enjoy the binocular.
Click to expand...

I can back up the fact that the Insta View isn't precise and it takes me several tries to get the focus to where I need it to be. They also have a bit of tunnel vision going on with only about 60 to 70% of the center being truly in focus - the edges are quite soft. These were free though, and it was a very helpful starting point on helping me figure out what I wanted in a set of good binoculars, especially where weight is concerned. I am thanking my lucky stars I did not opt for the Action Extremes. I could not have taken them on yesterday's excursion without getting extremely fatigued. The Prostaff 7S 10x42s only weigh two ounces more than these which I think will be just fine.

I plan on taking these out again tonight after work. I figure that buy the time I get my Prostaff's they'll seem like a $2000 pair of Swarovskis compared to these things!!! :king:

I do belong to a dark site with our astronomy club. It is two hours outside the city by car, but at least I have access to it!!!
 
Last edited:
I realize this is the Nikon thread so I apologize i advance, but I just found this:

https://www.vanguardworld.us/photo_video_us/endeavor-ed-ii-1042.html

This sale ends in 10 hours.

I know little about these other than when comparing specs (wider FOV and the superior ED glass.) They also weigh more (25 oz as opposed to 22 oz). They are on sale for 1 day, marked down from $300 to $160). At first glance this appears to be a close out in effort to market their newer lines in this same model.

I'm not QUITE ready to buy yet, but would consider it if some think it's worth it. I would love input.

For those looking for a deal like this, you're welcome. :D
 
Thanks for everyone's input. I ended up pulling the trigger on the Vanguards. It was just too good a of a deal to pass up. After a little bit of research, these are more comparable to Nikon's more expensive Monarch line, and I just couldn't pass up given they're the right size I'm looking for.
 
RoadsterGirlie said:
I realize this is the Nikon thread so I apologize i advance, but I just found this:

https://www.vanguardworld.us/photo_video_us/endeavor-ed-ii-1042.html

This sale ends in 10 hours.

I know little about these other than when comparing specs (wider FOV and the superior ED glass.) They also weigh more (25 oz as opposed to 22 oz). They are on sale for 1 day, marked down from $300 to $160). At first glance this appears to be a close out in effort to market their newer lines in this same model.

I'm not QUITE ready to buy yet, but would consider it if some think it's worth it. I would love input.

For those looking for a deal like this, you're welcome. :D
Click to expand...

RoadsterGirlie said:
Thanks for everyone's input. I ended up pulling the trigger on the Vanguards. It was just too good a of a deal to pass up. After a little bit of research, these are more comparable to Nikon's more expensive Monarch line, and I just couldn't pass up given they're the right size I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

GREAT choice! I have the 8X42 of the Endeavor ED II and for the money, I don't think you can beat it right now. I have a feeling you are going to LOVE that binocular!
 
chill6x6 said:
GREAT choice! I have the 8X42 of the Endeavor ED II and for the money, I don't think you can beat it right now. I have a feeling you are going to LOVE that binocular!
Click to expand...

I like hearing this! I went to REI today because I'm just obsessed and my Endeavors are due to arrive tomorrow. In the meantime I need something to keep me busy, so I checked out the Prostaff 7s 10x42s and the 7s 8x42s side by side. These are still great binoculars and if for any reason I need to return the Endeavors, I'll go with the Prostaff.

It also helped solidify my choice in the 10x42. I couldn't tell of any difference in shakiness between the two, and the eye cups with the slightly shorter eye relief felt more comfortable to me. I know huge eye relief seems to be the be all and end all, but as a non-eyeglass eyewearer, the 15mm over the 19mm was better. I knew exactly where to put my eyes. With the 19mm it takes me a quick second to figure out where to look. I can skip that step with the 15mm.

I feel also like I can get more detail out of the 10x42.

I also had the chance to look through the 3s 10x42. The 7s is such a world of difference for just a slighter higher price. There was so much glare it was distracting, with considerably more CA. The only time I saw CA in the 7s's is when I held it directly up to the ceiling lights.

Anyways, my new Endeavor binocs are due to arrive tomorrow and I couldn't be more excited! I will keep you all posted.
 
Tina

When considering whether 10x gives you too much bino shake or not, don't forget to try your bins in at least moderately windy conditions. Gusty wind can add to bino shake and of course this can be worse with higher magnifications. Otherwise your Vanguards sound like a great choice.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Tina

When considering whether 10x gives you too much bino shake or not, don't forget to try your bins in at least moderately windy conditions. Gusty wind can add to bino shake and of course this can be worse with higher magnifications. Otherwise your Vanguards sound like a great choice.

Lee
Click to expand...

You'd think a 20% increase in magnification between 8x and 10x would be apparent but I really had to look to see the difference. I had to keep looking down to see which one I was holding. The 10x also seemed to have a wider, clearer view which on paper I would have thought would have been the opposite. This could have been due to the comfort the eye relief and knowing right where to put my eyes, but I guess it shows how important that factor is. The "circle" (is this FOV?) was definitely larger in the 10.

Still, if I were still looking at the Prostaff I'd be weighing the choices carefully between the 8 and the 10 before deciding. Given the almost too good to be true price on the Endeavors, I'm really comfortable with getting the 10x42 (that was the only option), so I'm really happy about that.
 
Usually 10x binoculars have wider apparent fields of view than 8x binoculars of the same type as the 10x eyepieces have a shorter focal length than the 8x.
 
RoadsterGirlie said:
The 10x also seemed to have a wider, clearer view which on paper I would have thought would have been the opposite.
Click to expand...


The apparent FOV will vary from bin to bin. Usually you estimate it by multiplying the magnification with the FOV in degrees, so in the case of the 10x42 Endeavor ED II you will get:

Endeavor ED II 10x42 = 10 * 6.5 = 65 degrees
Endeavor ED II 8x42 = 8 * 7.2 = 57.6 degrees

So I would expect the Endeavor ED II 10x42 have a wider apparent fov here.

The ED II 10x42's FOV (104m) is actually wider than the Zeiss Victory HT (110m), Swarovski EL SV(112m) and the Leica Ultravid(112m) 10x42s! (the "alpha" bins should be sharper at the edges though).

Note that the fov calculation above is only an estimation, a more accurate calculation is
tan(w') = tan(w).Γ
where Γ is the magnification of the binocular, w' is the apparent FOV and w is the real FOV.

These calculations assume the optic is aberration-free. Supposedly certain optical aberrations will affect the apparent field of view too.

Another question is how much of this field of view is actually "useable", as often the outside of the field tends to be somewhat out of focus, unless the binocular is "flat-field"

Its not always the case that the 10x would have a larger apparent field of view, for example swarovski claims 58mm for both their 8x30 and 10x30 CLs, and 61 degrees for both the 8x42 SLC and 10x42 SLCs.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Similar threads

M
Prostaff P7 8x30 for gift
Replies
2
Views
676
mhasman
M
S
Got my first Nikon today…
Replies
0
Views
908
safaridreaming
S
J
Full Spec Sheet for Nikon 8X30 Monarch HG
Replies
3
Views
1K
JohnVan
J
has530
8-16x40 XL Zoom...One Binocular to Rule Them All?
Replies
9
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
H
Nikon 10x35 E11
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
11K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top