• 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.

10 years old vs new (1 Viewer)

Old Hat

Member
Good morning, after much lurking this is my first post.

I have been using an approx 10 year old binocular, an Eagle Optic Ranger 8x32 with the SRT marking. I believe I had paid just short of $300 at the time.

Lately I have been curious how much if any there have been improvements on this end of the market in that time. I see units like the Diamondback by Vortex, The Endurance ED by Hawke, Bushnell's various models, Nikon ProStaff advertised in the same ballpark or even quite less than I paid for my Rangers. Have there been enough upgrades over ten years to notice a difference?

Thank you all.
 
Good morning, after much lurking this is my first post.

I have been using an approx 10 year old binocular, an Eagle Optic Ranger 8x32 with the SRT marking. I believe I had paid just short of $300 at the time.

Lately I have been curious how much if any there have been improvements on this end of the market in that time. I see units like the Diamondback by Vortex, The Endurance ED by Hawke, Bushnell's various models, Nikon ProStaff advertised in the same ballpark or even quite less than I paid for my Rangers. Have there been enough upgrades over ten years to notice a difference?

Thank you all.

There are always changes, but sometimes not for the better. I recently bought a Nikon travelite 8x25 as a gift for someone as my old pair of around 12 years old or so had been so good for the money. The view on the new pair was noticeably darker with less easy eye placement. I think they must have compromised on quality somewhere (glass and used more baffling or prism or something). The view was definitely worse and the rubber casing didn't feel so nice as the old pair. So the moral is not to expect quality to constantly improve, sometimes to keep the price down it gets worse. Best thing is to try some.

Sorry, I feel I've used your post as a bit of an excuse to rant after my disappointment. I'm sure others can give lots of examples of model updates where there are good improvements. Generally I get the impression that in the mid-range with the makes you've mentioned there's been a lot of positive developments bringing good quality at low cost.
 
Good morning, after much lurking this is my first post.

I have been using an approx 10 year old binocular, an Eagle Optic Ranger 8x32 with the SRT marking. I believe I had paid just short of $300 at the time.

Lately I have been curious how much if any there have been improvements on this end of the market in that time. I see units like the Diamondback by Vortex, The Endurance ED by Hawke, Bushnell's various models, Nikon ProStaff advertised in the same ballpark or even quite less than I paid for my Rangers. Have there been enough upgrades over ten years to notice a difference?

Thank you all.

Hi Old Hat!:hi:

Welcome to Bird Forum!


I have 2 EO Rangers about that old. One is a 6x32 and the other a 10x32.

You will notice a difference in brightness with more recently manufactured 8x32 binoculars in your price range because of the improvements of the coatings on the prism mirrors. Yours probably has Aluminized coatings. Now Silver coatings are standard on 8x32 prisms in that price range.

You will notice a lot more difference in brightness in more expensive versions of the 8x32. For instance, I have an expensive Nikon 10x32 LXL binocular with Silver coated prisms about the same age as my 10x32 Ranger and the Nikon is vastly brighter than the Ranger is. They aren't in the same league.

You could look into the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30. You can buy it direct from Nikon for $380.00. It has di-electric prism coatings, the brightest of all along with a very wide field of view.

https://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/monarch-7-8x30.html

The Nikon Pro-staff 7S 8x30 can be purchased from Nikon for under $200.00 but it will have a narrow field of view compared to the Nikon 7 8x30 and not be as bright.

https://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/prostaff-7s-8x30.html

There are many very good 8x30/32 binoculars in this price range. Here is the very popular Sightron 8x32 SII Blue Sky which sells for $210.00.

There is a very long thread about it on this Forum! Look it up and read it!

https://www.adorama.com/siibl832.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpNnmjtfK4AIVRESGCh089Av5EAQYASABEgLF3vD_BwE

Bob
 
Last edited:
Thank you both,

I was thinking that my iteration of the Ranger SRT had somewhat better prism coatings than Aluminized. Dialectic rings a bell but the packaging and manual are long gone so I could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Good morning, after much lurking this is my first post.

I have been using an approx 10 year old binocular, an Eagle Optic Ranger 8x32 with the SRT marking. I believe I had paid just short of $300 at the time.

Lately I have been curious how much if any there have been improvements on this end of the market in that time. I see units like the Diamondback by Vortex, The Endurance ED by Hawke, Bushnell's various models, Nikon ProStaff advertised in the same ballpark or even quite less than I paid for my Rangers. Have there been enough upgrades over ten years to notice a difference?

Thank you all.

Please keep in mind that “new and improved,” has more to do with marketing than optics. When MAJOR improvements are made, most folks can appreciate the difference. But when MINOR “improvements,” real or imagined, are made, MOST cannot appreciate the difference ... even though they might go to their grave swearing they can—physics never takes a backseat to opinion. However, it is opinion—not physics—that causes the cash register to ring.

Think about it. If each minor “improvement” announced was, in fact, an improvement, we would have 1,000 power binoculars coming in a case the size of a thumb drive. As Aristotle was prone to say: “Reality bites.” :cat:

Bill
 
Hi,

first of all, welcome to BF!

In general, the last 10 years have not brought major innovations in binoculars, even my almost 30 year old Nikon SE are still quite good.

As Bob has pointed out, especially in roof bins some desirable features formerly found only in top tier models might have trickled down to the economy class...

If you want to try sth else in 8x32, the Nikon M7 is worth a try...

Joachim
 
Hello Old Hat,

Try before you buy is always good advice.

Do you live Winona or elsewhere on the MN/WI border? I visited the ice fishermen there, one December.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Mr. Pinewood, I reside near the Twin Cities and have property across the way in Wisconsin and north a bit, though I am pulling stakes and trading the Cities for New England within the year.

I can certainly still see wildlife in the Rangers, the haven't obsoleted or anything. Its tough to find anything but 10x42s and other biggies n person around here, birders are a minority optic purchaser in these parts.
 
The biggest improvement in the last decade was probably the Zeiss Victory SF with its enhanced field of view. Not that many people can afford a $2400+ pair of binoculars and enjoy that, though.

Another one is the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 and the new Swarovski 8x30 CL Companion B, compact binoculars that punch far above their weight.

Midrange binoculars have also made major improvements, essentially getting closer to the Alphas, i.e. their value-for-price ratio has gone up, unlike the Alphas where prices have risen to match. Ten years ago top of the line was $2000, today it's more like $2400–2600.

That said, I am still very happy with my 11 year old Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, even though they are not optical state of the art, but still can't be matched for feel in the hands.
 
Last edited:
New Glass

These were made between 1995 and 2000, and perform extremely well. So in essence my answer is no.

Andy W.
 

Attachments

  • BA8X42_10X50 (640x398) (2).jpg
    BA8X42_10X50 (640x398) (2).jpg
    230.4 KB · Views: 109
I think the original question, or its intent, has been lost.

On the question of optical improvement over the past ten years, I agree with others that in the binocular field as a whole, and especially in the upper tier, it hasn't changed very much. However, when it comes to $300 roofs, they have (on average) improved a lot in two areas: field of view and contrast/CA control. Those improvements, which came with what we used to call the "Chinese ED binoculars", were available in some budget roofs 10 years ago, but they have made their way into many more models since.

On the question of whether something among today's budget roofs would significantly improve on the performance of the Eagle Optics 8x32 Ranger SRT, the answer is (in my opinion) a hearty YES. That binocular was optically mediocre in my opinion, even in its day. Its contrast is functional but poor by current standards, colors are muddy, and its sweet spot is on the small side relative to its (respectably large) field of view. Off-axis performance is hampered by astigmatism. The only thing at which this bin excels is close focus (3 ft), which is why I own one (purchased for kids' use, to carry when bicycling, glove box etc. I later got a Browning 8x32 which is far superior overall). The unit I purchased was the best of three that I tried. I haven't kept up with what is currently available in 8x32 at this price point, but I'd be looking at Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7 for starters, and compare it to similarly priced bins from Leupold, Vortex, Meopta, and maybe Opticron, Vanguard, or Hawke.

As for where to view 8x bin in the Twin Cities area, in my experience REI has had a good selection (esp. of Nikon) as has Cabela's (but not sure now with the buy-out by Bass Pro Shops).

--AP
 
Last edited:
Thank you Alexis for your input. I wonder if you could answer this based on your experience with the SRT: as I am reading reviews of newer 8x32s like the Diamondbacks they get a demerit for having lower quality edge views. Shall I take these only as relative to current alternatives or would it compare to my SRTs as well through time?

I have Prime so perhaps I'll have Amazon dispatch me a Diamondback to peek through. Won't cost me.a thing but time if I can't see an improvement.
 
Last edited:
As for where to view 8x bin in the Twin Cities area, in my experience REI has had a good selection (esp. of Nikon) as has Cabela's (but not sure now with the buy-out by Bass Pro Shops).

--AP

There is a propensity for the observer to see anything new as better. That’s what the advertisers are paid the big bucks to entice you to think over, and over, and OVER THE TOP! “Everybody has one; SO SHOULD YOU.” If you don’t, you’re silly and less than a good observer. Just think, spending only $2,500 will put you in contention to be a REAL person!

A few years ago, a salesman came into my shop wanting me to carry his line. He was so excited because all of them had ASPHERIC optics. He used the word “aspheric” so often, I think he wanted me to swoon. I thoroughly reviewed his samples. Not only did two of the three have bits of foreign matter throughout, the performance in chromatic and field curvature put that performance behind any number of much cheaper Asian imports. Although not one of the BIG THREE European firms, it was still from a company that commanded respect.

Since chromatic aberration and field curvature are two good reasons designers use aspherics here and there—although production costs are a magnitude higher—and since this salesman kept using the term over and over, I asked him to tell me what it meant and what it would mean to my customers.

Apparently, he thought the WORD alone had magical powers. He did the best he could but just danced around the issue. I told him I had done design and optimization work—pointing to Zemax-EE, then on my computer screen—and that overall his expensive samples were not nearly up to the cost they carried.

Feeling the young fellow meant well, but that he had been duped by a boss who knew a lot about sales but little about optics, or a young wife wanting to be taken to a nice restaurant, I had the fellow sit while I dragged out Sidney Ray’s Applied Photographic Optics.

Across the nation, route salesmen, regional salesmen, and importers concentrate on selling through buzzwords and a keep up with the Jones’s technique because that’s all most vendors really understand or care about understanding. And, as long as consumers fail to do any serious study on the matter ... that will be all that’s required.

‘Bottom line is Alexis’ last comment:

“On the question of optical improvement over the past ten years, I agree with others that in the binocular field as a whole, and especially in the upper tier, it hasn't changed very much. However, when it comes to $300 roofs, they have (on average) improved a lot in two areas: field of view and contrast/CA control.”

My bottom line is from Desiderata:

“... Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals ...” :cat:

Cheers,

Bill
 
Thank you Alexis for your input. I wonder if you could answer this based on your experience with the SRT: as I am reading reviews of newer 8x32s like the Diamondbacks they get a demerit for having lower quality edge views. Shall I take these only as relative to current alternatives or would it compare to my SRTs as well through time?

I have Prime so perhaps I'll have Amazon dispatch me a Diamondback to peek through. Won't cost me.a thing but time if I can't see an improvement.

You're quite welcome. Unfortunately, my comments are mostly based on experience w/all price levels of 8x42 bins, and esp. w/models of 3 or more years ago. I haven't kept up w/the latest model iterations, esp. in the mid-priced 8x32 format, so I don't have any specific advice. I don't have experience w/the current version of the Vortex 8x32 Diamondback. The Diamondback line, in the past, was quite capable (esp. in 8x42) and was competitive with the EO Ranger line, but it was a step down from the bins that really impressed me with their performance (all of which were "Chinese ED" types). I don't know about the 8x32 Diamondback's edge performance, but this is something that differs a lot between models at the same price point.

--AP
 
The Diamondback is certainly inexpensive enough while seeming similarly spec'd that checking one out via Amazon is within reason. I am recalling that what made me finally 'spring' for the Ranger was the price reduction to closer to $200ish when they moved production.
 
Last edited:
Hey Old Hat,

Vortex Diamondback 8X32- If I were wanting a clear "step up" in optics, this wouldn't be it. I bought the new model for a friend. I couldn't stand watching her TRYING to see something thru the binocular she owned that she prob paid $20-$40 dollars for and I absolutely knew she would be elated and that it would be an exponential improvement over what she had. It was. For ME, the optics were absymal and I could't imagine birding for a day with them. YOU are wanting to step up from what you have so let's do that.

Above, the Monarch 7 8X30 was recommenced and I think it is a good recommendation. Also the Vanguard Endeavor ED II and Meopta Meopro would be good choices. The least expensive really nice binocular might be the Sighton Blue Sky 8X32, probably less than $200. I had MUCH rather see you with that binocular than the Diamondback.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0104.jpg
    DSC_0104.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 59
  • DSC_0091.jpg
    DSC_0091.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 56
Thank you Chuck. When encountering the larger Diamondbacks in person and then viewing the Vortex site the higher MSRP led me to assume these were in a similar strata to my version of the Ranger. The online pricing does seem to devalue them a bit.
 
Thank you Chuck. When encountering the larger Diamondbacks in person and then viewing the Vortex site the higher MSRP led me to assume these were in a similar strata to my version of the Ranger. The online pricing does seem to devalue them a bit.

When I encounter the "larger diamondbacks," I assume I'm in Georgia, Florida, or South Carolina. :eek!:
 
On rare occasions one might encounter a small Timber Rattler in the Mississippi River bluff areas south of here. The singular specimen I've encountered in the wild was a massive three-footer. We have mosquitos bigger than that...
 
On rare occasions one might encounter a small Timber Rattler in the Mississippi River bluff areas south of here. The singular specimen I've encountered in the wild was a massive three-footer. We have mosquitos bigger than that...

Out here in the west, we have plenty of rattlers. However, the Eastern Diamondback is the daddy of them all. The force and pain of the strike ALONE could send a fellow to the hospital. :cat: See attached.

Bill
 

Attachments

  • image001a copy.jpg
    image001a copy.jpg
    108.5 KB · Views: 79
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top