-
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.
Porro or Roof ? Your choice. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Simon S
- Start date
bh46118
Well-known member
Unless you want to spend $2500, Porro is the way to go for the brightest, sharpest image. The designers have to jump through hoops with the roof design, the Porro has a huge inherent advantage in raw optical quality. $2500 roof = polished turd, $600 Porro = diamond in the rough waiting to be further refined :eat:
Giorgio
Porro bins are a bit like war, they are made by yo
I think i won't have the chance to look through the Leitz Camera banana, i don't think that a lot of frenchies will need this toy. I only know a few hunters, one uses a Zeiss FL and the other one an Habicht, the 7x40. It seems they don't need a range binoc, and as their pairs are newish, they won't buy a new alpha that soon i guess.
Hope you'll describe the Leica if you ever try it.
normjackson
Well-known member
70° proof wins every time :bounce:
Ahem, yes a 70° AFOV is very nice. Yes, indeed it is...
Ahem, yes a 70° AFOV is very nice. Yes, indeed it is...
jan van daalen
Well-known member
I like the latest roofs, as they beat the porros, both in view and ergonomics.
Yes, but hard to hold steady.
Yes, but hard to hold steady.
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Porro or Roof: Roof (8x30)
Brief description why: Advantages outweigh disadvantages. I think these might have been mentioned previously.
Brief description why: Advantages outweigh disadvantages. I think these might have been mentioned previously.
But all things are not equal between the roof and porro designs. If you assume all facets are equal then this thread serves no purpose. Each has different benefits and shortcomings. To me the porro desgn benefits including high performance at a reasonable price, wider field, easy to hold porro design and enhanced 3d view outweigh the shortcomings and deliver better performance than comparably priced roof bins.
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
I have this little feeling Simon knows full well that porros and roofs are not "all else equal". What I think he meant was usage conditions and reasonably comparable optical quality. I assumed his question is really which side of the "all else is not equal" elements of roof vs porro do you like and why.
If "all things being equal" should be taken to mean "all things are not necessarily equal" then what is the purpose of the phrase?
Torview
Well-known member
Given the above parameters the porro would probably be one third the price in which case I`d go for the cheaper option.
henry link
Well-known member
I seldom use Porros for birding anymore because I often bird at close range in woodland settings. In that situation I dislike the effects of the wide objective spacing. The "enhanced" stereopsis at mid distances from widely spaced objectives doesn't look more natural to me; it just looks like more stereopsis. I find the effect neutral by itself, but it comes with the disadvantage of excessive parallax at close distances. I begin to notice a problem at about 25', where an object centered in one barrel of an 8x Porro (with objective spacing twice the eye's IPD) is about 7º of apparent field off-axis in the other barrel. At 12' the difference between the two sides is around 15º of apparent field. Some Porros with good off-axis performance handle the displacement better than others, but all suffer at close range from poorer field overlap and increased exit pupil vignetting compared to binoculars with objectives placed in-line with the eyes.
For long distance uses, like astronomy, I don't have any preference as to prism type.
For long distance uses, like astronomy, I don't have any preference as to prism type.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
The Asahi Pentax Papilio porro's are especially designed for close focus observations of butterflies etc. Therefore the objective tubes are placed close towards each other like the non-Zeiss porro's around 1894-1910 (Zeiss had a patent for making porro's with enlarged distance between the objectives).
The Pentax Papilio construction is used fequently in small porro's of other brands as well.
Gijs
The Asahi Pentax Papilio porro's are especially designed for close focus observations of butterflies etc. Therefore the objective tubes are placed close towards each other like the non-Zeiss porro's around 1894-1910 (Zeiss had a patent for making porro's with enlarged distance between the objectives).
The Pentax Papilio construction is used fequently in small porro's of other brands as well.
Gijs
Brigadier
Well-known member
Yes, surely, inverse porros like the Papilio are better than roofs for close-range viewing.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Right, it's not the prism type but the objective spacing. For that reason the reduced offset of the Perger Porro prism looks interesting to me.
As I recall the Papilio objectives TILT towards each other as you close focus to perhaps 20 inches.
A fine binocular in two magnifications, maybe 6.5x and 8.5x.
So this does not rely on using non central parts of the field, but even with a non tilting porro you could offset both sides by 7.5 degrees rather than one side 15 degrees, although aberrations are not symmetrical this would probably give better views.
A fine binocular in two magnifications, maybe 6.5x and 8.5x.
So this does not rely on using non central parts of the field, but even with a non tilting porro you could offset both sides by 7.5 degrees rather than one side 15 degrees, although aberrations are not symmetrical this would probably give better views.
henry link
Well-known member
Binastro,
I think most of us instinctively center a close object of interest so that it's off-axis in both fields, but once the offset is large, say a total of 20º or more for a conventional Porro inside 10', then a really good image from both sides is not possible.
Henry
I think most of us instinctively center a close object of interest so that it's off-axis in both fields, but once the offset is large, say a total of 20º or more for a conventional Porro inside 10', then a really good image from both sides is not possible.
Henry
