[gunut]

Any opinions in comparison to other available brands...Steiner, Fujinon, Bushnell....ect...

I just picked up one and aside from the size/weight they give a v-nice view....will be using these when fishing off the breakwater on lake Michigan...and watching girls...I mean gulls at the beach.....

[black crow]

Do you fish those huge brown trout that cruise the shorelines? That's what I miss about Michigan. The great lakes are amazing.

[Canip]

Originally Posted by gunut

Any opinions in comparison to other available brands...Steiner, Fujinon, Bushnell....ect...

.....
.....

I like the Minox, but the image in both the Fujinon FMT and the Steiner Commander is slightly sharper and more brilliant in my eyes.
The latest version of the Steiner (apparently not produced anymore) has also a clearly wider field of view (145m vs. 126 for the Minox), and the Fujinon has just a little more.
On the other hand, I like the digital compass (and other electronic functions) of the Minox better than the compass in the Steiner; in the latter, I have to move my eye position to read the numbers , whereas in the Minox I can leave the eyes in „observation position“

[Binastro]

I have some small Minox altimeter binoculars, maybe 8x24 where the altimeter is accurate to 2 or 3ft.
On the table one sees one height, lift it up and a different height.
I was fascinated how accurate they were.

The only problem is how to get an accurate barometer fix.
Usually they are given to 1hPa (millibars of old) or 28ft.
By taking two or three nearby airfield readings one can get it to 10ft or so.

The actual airfield readings are probably 0.1 hPa and Arlanda 0.01 hPa, but these are not given out to better than 1hPa.

Horace Dall made a barometer which had different readings on or off the thickness of a book.

These Minox binoculars were sold by Jessops at a third price. Trouble is they take little batteries and I can't be bothered to undo the little screws of the top plate.

For elevation, distance etc. I use a Leica rangefinder.

[Troubador]

David
Your musings never fail to fascinate.

I wonder if Horace Dall's barometer could detect if you have eaten a curry.......

Lee

[Binastro]

Lee,
Only if it was a fairly thick curry (:

The problem with very accurate digital devices is how to set them.

It is possible a bench mark for Ordinance Survey is accurate to a foot above sea level.
We have old ones round here, maybe 100 years old or more?
But sea levels have changed and different locations have different sea levels.
Mascons also influence sea levels.

New surveys often differ by a foot or two in standard heights.

Then land heights vary with tectonic plate action and earth tremors.

GPS accuracy is variable in commercial units, maybe 5ft or 10ft height accuracy. but professional units may be accurate to cms.
A recent cheap purchase is much more sensitive than the old one I gave to a friend who crossed the Sahara alone on an off road motorbike using it. Both simple yellow Garmins.
The friend flies Boeing 727s as a sideline.

The local airfield is now quoted as one foot higher than before. Perhaps they put in new tarmac or recalibrated.
Some runways that were 27 or 270 degrees are now 28 or 280 degrees because of magnetic pole drift.

The Earth Moon distance is measured regularly to cm. accuracy using the laser reflectors left on the moon. I wonder whether they will degrade over time.

The Minox small binoculars are not that great, but they were really low price and worth it just for the accurate altimeter.

[gunut]

Originally Posted by black crow

Do you fish those huge brown trout that cruise the shorelines? That's what I miss about Michigan. The great lakes are amazing.

browns, rainbows, lake trout....plus coho and chinook salmon....very good fishing....

BTW....do any of you guys know if the optical coatings are tweeked at all on any of these nautic bins for a better view over water....or do they use the same coatings as their standard bins....

[Binastro]

Regarding the Minox binoculars with altimeters.
I just chatted with an Ordnance Survey man and although he didn't know I can send in questions.

What surprised me is that heights of cols and peaks can be out by +/- 3.3m or more, even though benchmarks are supposed to be accurate to 2mm.

We have maybe 750,000 benchmarks, which are not maintained and erode or disappear with development.

There are 193 very high accuracy benchmarks that are maintained, but again the person did not know what happens with changing sea levels.

I also don't know if aircraft have to change settings.

The separation of heights used to be I think 1000 ft but was reduced to 500 ft to allow more aircraft to occupy the sky. Even this may reduce, but we are relying now on GPS and if this fails or is switched off at a click of a button, we are in a real mess.
So much reliance on technology is a mistake.

The original height of Everest was measured at exactly 29,000 ft but the surveyor after years of work published it as 29,002 ft as he didn't think 29,000 ft would be believed.
It is now given as 29,029ft but a new survey is underway.
There is seismic activity in that location also.

[Binastro]

Surprisingly difficult to find accurate barometers or a local live site giving pressure to 0.1hPa in real time to set an accurate Minox altimeter binocular.

Omega engineering seem to sell hand held ones with calibration certificates if needed.
But they cost around £1300. I don't know if Vat is included.

The easiest way would be to go to one of the 193 fundamental bench marks FBMs in the U.K. where the height is known and the FBM maintained.

Sea level is known to very high accuracy as there are special BMs near the sea. Height is known to say 1mm. The change in sea level height is known for over a century and measurements are getting more accurate.
Britain's tilt is known and the Thames 2100 requirements are being regularly monitored for planning future flood defences.
I suppose a new Thames barrier will be needed.

Old bench marks are not reliable especially in mining areas.