-
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.
Hawke Premier Compacts (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Those do look interesting alright. I did a search and can't seem to find any place that sells them in the US.
brocknroller
porromaniac
The Hawke Premier compacts do not list "phase coating" in their description.
If you never tried an open hinge compact, you should try before you buy. They are very small and light, and I find them impossible to hold steady. The eye placement is also very finicky due to the small exit pupils.
The best compact out there is still the Bushnell 7x26 Elite (formerly B & L Custom). Even Steve Ingraham admitted that after comparing them against more expensive Nikon LX, Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica compacts:
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-be.php
I have a Nikon 8x23 Venturer II, which was Ingraham's first binoculars. They offer a nice view with a wide sweet spot, and the bulky Wall-e body gives my large hands plenty to grip, but I would rather have the 3.7mm exit pupil of the Elites, particularly on overcast days and in the winter - close to an 8x32 in that regard but lighter and more compact.
If you never tried an open hinge compact, you should try before you buy. They are very small and light, and I find them impossible to hold steady. The eye placement is also very finicky due to the small exit pupils.
The best compact out there is still the Bushnell 7x26 Elite (formerly B & L Custom). Even Steve Ingraham admitted that after comparing them against more expensive Nikon LX, Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica compacts:
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-be.php
I have a Nikon 8x23 Venturer II, which was Ingraham's first binoculars. They offer a nice view with a wide sweet spot, and the bulky Wall-e body gives my large hands plenty to grip, but I would rather have the 3.7mm exit pupil of the Elites, particularly on overcast days and in the winter - close to an 8x32 in that regard but lighter and more compact.
Last edited:
It seems not, no mention of it. They´re cute, though. I like cute.
I disagree with Steven Ingraham after having the Bushnell 7x26 Elites and having had all the expensive compact roofs except the Swaro. The Bushnell's to my eyes were definitely not as good optically as the Leica's, Zeiss, or Nikon LX's. I now have the Zeiss 8x20 Victory's and the Nikon 10x25 LX's and they are both better than the Bushnell Custom Elites 7x26. It amazes me he thought the Elites were better. IMO they are definitely not. I tried a couple pair and returned them both. My experience with the less expensive compacts like the Hawke Premier is you are wasting your time. You have to pay top dollar to get a satisfactory compact because you need top quality coatings and phase coatings to get a satisfactory view out of that small of an aperture. Don't waste your time and money on the cheap ones.
Last edited:
My Bushnell 7 x 26 Custom Classic is clearly a better all round binocular than either my Leica 8 x 20 Trinovid or my Zeiss 8 x 20 Victory which is not at all a criticism of the latter two as they are both excellent binoculars.
The Trinovid and Victory have smaller exit pupils and visibly narrower FOV's and are not as bright in overcast situations. Sharpness is a tossup, which is not bad when you consider the 1X difference in power. Edge of field sharpness is also excellent in all three.
There are ergonomic differences of course, and depending on the circumstances of their use, these differences can be major factors in the decision of which one to use, but basically we are comparing 2 tiny Roof Prism binoculars to a compact reverse Porro prism which costs about 1/2 as much as the Roofs. In the final analysis, it is a better binocular.
Bob
PS: In recent weeks I have been using both the Bushnell and Zeiss extensively. Sometimes I carry both of them at the same time in different pockets in my Jacket while I am driving my car. At other times I sit with them in front of a large window at the Bar in my American Legion sipping a libation. The window overlooks a lake and I can watch the ducks, geese, Blue Herons and now and then a piliated woodpecker working in some dead trees along the shore line. I have had a good opportunity to compare them as have a few of my colleagues. They are not sophisticated binocular users but they all prefer the Bushnell. It is easier to use. Many have expressed interest in getting one to use while hunting. Of course when I tell them it's price most of them lose interest quickly.
The Trinovid and Victory have smaller exit pupils and visibly narrower FOV's and are not as bright in overcast situations. Sharpness is a tossup, which is not bad when you consider the 1X difference in power. Edge of field sharpness is also excellent in all three.
There are ergonomic differences of course, and depending on the circumstances of their use, these differences can be major factors in the decision of which one to use, but basically we are comparing 2 tiny Roof Prism binoculars to a compact reverse Porro prism which costs about 1/2 as much as the Roofs. In the final analysis, it is a better binocular.
Bob
PS: In recent weeks I have been using both the Bushnell and Zeiss extensively. Sometimes I carry both of them at the same time in different pockets in my Jacket while I am driving my car. At other times I sit with them in front of a large window at the Bar in my American Legion sipping a libation. The window overlooks a lake and I can watch the ducks, geese, Blue Herons and now and then a piliated woodpecker working in some dead trees along the shore line. I have had a good opportunity to compare them as have a few of my colleagues. They are not sophisticated binocular users but they all prefer the Bushnell. It is easier to use. Many have expressed interest in getting one to use while hunting. Of course when I tell them it's price most of them lose interest quickly.
Last edited:
Interesting. I have really decided I like 8x magnification or above better lately so that could be part of the reason I didn't like the Bushnell's. This is a good example of try before you buy because everybodies eyes are different and oftentimes everybody prefers something different. I don't think the Bushnell's are really a true compact in that they are considerably bigger than the 8x20 alphas and they kind of push being pocket size. Also, the Bushnell's FOV of 363 '(@1000yds) is not that much greater than the baby alphas which range from 345' to to 356'. If I am going to use a compact it is going to be an 8x20 or 10x25 alpha. The view through the Bushnell IMO was definitely a step down from the small alphas. The Nikon 10x25's have the sharpest edge I have ever seen on any binocular and really outclass the Bushnell's. Of course you are paying twice as much money so it is kind of you get what you pay for. I like the fact that the small alphas are waterproof also ,whereas, the Bushnell is not and for an all purpose compact that you can use anywhere anytime that makes a big difference to me.
brocknroller
porromaniac
"I don't think the Bushnell's are really a true compact in that they are considerably bigger than the 8x20 alphas and they kind of push being pocket size."
Dennis,
You like roof prism compacts better than reverse porros and find them more convenient to use (with my large hands and my often dim skies, I feel the opposite way), but regardless of our personal preferences that doesn't change the definition of "compact binoculars".
The 7x26 Custom/Elite is a "true compact" since optics company's designate any bin below 30mm objectives as a "compact".
Even an 8x28 roof is considered to be a "compact".
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-excursion-8x28-binocular-240828.html
So there's a difference btwn the technical definition of the word and its generic use, which is more subjective.
A subcategory of compacts you are referring to is often called "pocket-sized compacts".
Good for taking to concerts and for using on sunny days, but I agree with Ingraham and Bob in that the 7x26 is a better "overall birding binocular".
With it's 3.7mm exit pupils, it can "outshine" a 2.5mm exit pupil 8x20 roof a lot longer, the eye placement is less fussy, and the size comes closer to a midsized bin, and is therefore easier to hold for many people.
All this makes it a more suitable substitute for midsized bins for me, in a smaller and more light weight package.
You can add dielectric coatings to an 8x20 roof but it's still not going to be as bright as a 7x26 Bushnell.
The 10x25 LX/LX L has gotten rave reviews, and having owned a 8x32 LX for years, I know the quality of Nikon's LX optics, nd I would probably appreciate its high contrast, excellent color depth, and sharp to the edge images.
However, I have tried holding folding hinge roofs, and I can't even hold the 8x32 LX really steady, let alone a 10x25 compact roof.
But you obviously can and so can others who use folding compact roofs, and I can see why you find them so convenient.
I might become a convert to compact roofs if Nikon or one of the other top companies made an open bridge 8x28 compact roof with a larger open space btwn the barrels than these Carson open bridge compacts:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001T2TZYK/ref=asc_df_B001T2TZYK991741/?tag=prontocom92524-20&creative=380333&creativeASIN=B001T2TZYK&linkCode=asn
With the open bridge roof trend in full swing, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a top quality open bridge compact in the future, at least from Nikon and Swarovski, which both have open bridge full sized and midsized roofs.
Last edited:
I consider a compact a compact if it fits in a normal size pocket. You need a BIG pocket to fit the Bushnell in. To my eyes at twilight I felt the small Alphas were every bit as bright as the Bushnells. You have to remember even though the aperture is smaller the quality of the coatings on a Zeiss or Leica at twice the price are going to be higher and produce brighter images. Bushnell is not putting the quality coatings on like the Alphas. I would say to anybody looking for a compact to expect to pay $400.00 to $600.00 or you are going to get something you are not satisfied with. The Bushnell's just did not do it for me so I say try before you buy.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Dennis:
I was looking back at the "Better View Desired" reviews where Stephan Ingraham did his comparisons of "compacts". Take a look at that review and it pretty well sums it up as I see it. I have had a Leica 8x20 Trinovid, but would prefer my Nikon Travellite 8x25 as it gives me more satisfaction.
This is a very thorough review, and included as compacts are the reverse porros, including the Bushnell 7x26. Also included are the small compacts that you like and many others.
For him, and many others the small alpha compacts are a nice piece, but I agree that they are quite finicky or fiddly to use, and nice to carry along,
but when wanting to get a good look at things, a larger choice will give you
more satisfaction.
It seems if Ingraham includes the reverse porros as compacts, then maybe they are compacts.
Jerry
Dennis:
I was looking back at the "Better View Desired" reviews where Stephan Ingraham did his comparisons of "compacts". Take a look at that review and it pretty well sums it up as I see it. I have had a Leica 8x20 Trinovid, but would prefer my Nikon Travellite 8x25 as it gives me more satisfaction.
This is a very thorough review, and included as compacts are the reverse porros, including the Bushnell 7x26. Also included are the small compacts that you like and many others.
For him, and many others the small alpha compacts are a nice piece, but I agree that they are quite finicky or fiddly to use, and nice to carry along,
but when wanting to get a good look at things, a larger choice will give you
more satisfaction.
It seems if Ingraham includes the reverse porros as compacts, then maybe they are compacts.
Jerry
That Steven Ingraham article was written in 1994. You have to realize it is outdated. I know Zeiss has improved their coatings on the Victory 8x20 compacts because mine have the improved coatings and I would wager that Leica and Nikon have changed their coatings at least once over the last 16 years. Most likely they are alot brighter than the older coatings. They probably use dielectric coatings on their prisms now as well. Maybe Bushnell has improved their 7x26 also. The little alphas are definitely more finicky than their bigger brothers BUT they are amazingly good for their size. I really like them for that reason.
I don't think that we can make a blanket assumption that the coatings used by Zeiss or Leica are better or more costly than those used by Bushnell on the little Custom Classic. (now Elite) One thing that has been repeated over and over in this forum is the proprietary (and very secretive) nature of each manufacturer's coatings.
I think that the difference in their relative costs is due to the nature of the types of construction in the binoculars. Just about every manufacturer has taken it upon themselves to make some compact reverse porro prism binoculars. (Big 3 excluded.) Bushnell has always made a number of them but the 7 x 26 has always been the "Flagship," so to speak, of that fleet. They have made it for many, many years and have now promoted it into their top "Elite" rank of binoculars. They appear to have had a goal, over the years, to make it the very best compact reverse porro in the industry. Note that it costs about twice as much as the excellent Nikon Pro Staff Reverse Porro.
Now, consider that Nikon makes the Travelite and the Pro Staff reverse porro lines but their best and most expensive compacts are the little LX L Roof Prisms. The LX L's are water proof but so are the Pro Staffs and the cost differential there is still $300.00 or more.
I don't think that the cost differential is due to their respective coatings, I think it is caused by the nature of differences in their manufacture. Roofs simply cost more to make: Quality roofs cost a heck of a lot more to make!
The Bushnell might be made waterproof for an additional $50.00 or so but a Marketing analysis might find the extra cost detrimental to sales. It is really an "alpha" binocular and they are hard to come by for under $250.00!
Bob
I think what Dennis is driving at is the difference between a pocket bin and a compact. The 7x26 is a compact, but not pocket, bin. It also has superb optics. I have a pair of 8x20 ultravids because I really wanted a pocket size bin, and in that class they are near or at the top of the heap. They aren't better optically than the 7x26 CC, though.
Good point. Maybe we should make a new classification for pocket bins and seperate them from compact bins. There is a difference in their size and the way people use them I think. Their convenience and ease in carrying goes beyond a mere compact. I would say any small folding roof below a 25mm aperture that easily fits in a shirt or small pants pocket is a pocket binocular.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
My 8x23 Venturer II's objectives are below 25mm, but it's not a pocket bin. It's thicker and almost as long as the 8x32 LX. Pretty big bulge in your pocket if you can fit them inside.
Also, the Opticron 8x25 LE is a folding compact roof and would fit in most people's pockets.
They are discussed in this thread along with other folding roofs and are distinguished in the OP from compact porros:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=11464
Even a 32mm "compact" folding roof could fit in your pocket, though your pocket might sag under the 15 oz. weight:
http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Powerview-Compact-Folding-Binocular/dp/B000051ZO6
So if we are going to invent a new nomenclature rather than have pocket bins remain a subcategory of compacts, then I think we need to be more specific than an arbitrary cutoff in aperture in defining what a "pocket bin" is.
Compact folding roofs seem to be the only "true" pocket bins. You can fold them up and stick them in any pocket.
The litmus test: If fits in your pocket and your pocket doesn't rip, then it's a pocket bin!
If you find a pocket big enough to stuff a reverse porro in, Mae West might be inclined to ask:
Is that a compact reverse porro in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
