Nixterdemus
Well-known member
I'm just having a bit of fun somewhat @ NWbirder's expense. If he'd chosen a 10x I would have made similar jest. I've heard nothing nor read anything about the Prime HD save for this forum.
-
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.
Prime for pre order on Zen Ray site now (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
eitanaltman
Well-known member
it's pretty much in line with any other high end 42mm class model. It's not a small binocular, it's over 6 inches long and has a lot of glass. The only 42mm class models I am aware of that aren't in the 25-30oz range are compact body types like Nikon Monarch, Zen's ZRS HD line, Eagle Optics Ranger (non ED), Vortex Viper, etc.
compare some 8x42 class bins:
Swaro EL 8.5x42 - 28.9oz
Swarovision 8.5x42 - 28.0oz
Zeiss FL 8x42 - 26.6oz
Nikon EDG 8x42 - 28.6oz
Zen-Ray ED3 8x43 - 27.0oz
Leica Ultravid HD - 27.9oz
Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x42 - 25.8oz
Meopta Meostar 8x42 - 30.4oz
Alpen Rainier 8x42 - 32oz
are your expectations realistic here? seems right in line with the field and lighter than many...
Highway Dog
Well-known member
Those of us who know the value of the Porro prism system in that it has better illumination of the exit pupil. In this modern infatuation with the roof prisms for binoculars, and also lightness, it contributes directly with lower edge illumination of the exit pupil light. A good level binoculars like the Prime, should flirt with "too much glass" to make a good product!
Rob.
Rob.
eitanaltman...sorry if my expectations aren't realistic enough for your taste. It just seems to me that anything with a magnesium body should be lighter than one made of something else (other than perhaps carbon fiber). Besides, if the extra elements are in the eyepieces, they are relatively small...so I just don't think of glass that size weighing that much. Maybe I am thinking of it wrongly?
If those eyepiece elements do weigh a significant amount for their size, it seems like the balance of the binocular would be weighted toward the rear.
Just look at the difference in weights of the models you named. The Alpen Rainier is the heaviest in your list, nearly 5 ounces heavier than the Prime HD.
However, according to Alpen's specs, the weight you state, "32oz", is quite wrong! It's 29.4 ounces.
http://www.alpenoptics.com/bino-rainier.html
So before you school someone about unrealistic expectations (perhaps mine are a tad, or perhaps not), at least get your facts straight next time.
Technological innovation does have a way of making optics lighter in weight. It's not unrealistic or even unheard of...it's reality. Just look at Canon's latest super telephoto lenses. Both new and old versions had magnesium bodies, and yet one of the new versions weighs a whopping 30% less...in the case of the 400mm f/2.8....going from around 12 pounds, to 8 pounds. I doubt there's a sacrifice of rigidity, and I guarantee there's an INCREASE in optical performance...along with the weight savings. There's also an unpleasant increase in MSRP, of 25% or more, though!
If those eyepiece elements do weigh a significant amount for their size, it seems like the balance of the binocular would be weighted toward the rear.
Just look at the difference in weights of the models you named. The Alpen Rainier is the heaviest in your list, nearly 5 ounces heavier than the Prime HD.
However, according to Alpen's specs, the weight you state, "32oz", is quite wrong! It's 29.4 ounces.
http://www.alpenoptics.com/bino-rainier.html
So before you school someone about unrealistic expectations (perhaps mine are a tad, or perhaps not), at least get your facts straight next time.
Technological innovation does have a way of making optics lighter in weight. It's not unrealistic or even unheard of...it's reality. Just look at Canon's latest super telephoto lenses. Both new and old versions had magnesium bodies, and yet one of the new versions weighs a whopping 30% less...in the case of the 400mm f/2.8....going from around 12 pounds, to 8 pounds. I doubt there's a sacrifice of rigidity, and I guarantee there's an INCREASE in optical performance...along with the weight savings. There's also an unpleasant increase in MSRP, of 25% or more, though!
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
Well, larger established corporations have a bit of capital to throw around. They can obtain deals that smaller vendors have little to hope of achieving. Wal-Mart comes to mind.
Of course, the other side of the coin is they have quite the overhead.
The juggernaut has deep pockets, yet it's usually slow to move & most resistant to change from the current status quo.
On limited funds a few ounces saved is not cost effective unless you can raise the price. We have to be realists observing not through rose coloured glass. Competition is neither far away nor in short supply. Research, development, marketing & sales all jostle another for any extra crumbs that might be found.
I will continue to be critical where I see fit, yet I salute Charles for the progress he's made and the inroads laid as the little engine that could chugs along. I'm impressed that ZR has taken the field flattener plunge & look forward to the new line.
Of course, the other side of the coin is they have quite the overhead.
The juggernaut has deep pockets, yet it's usually slow to move & most resistant to change from the current status quo.
On limited funds a few ounces saved is not cost effective unless you can raise the price. We have to be realists observing not through rose coloured glass. Competition is neither far away nor in short supply. Research, development, marketing & sales all jostle another for any extra crumbs that might be found.
I will continue to be critical where I see fit, yet I salute Charles for the progress he's made and the inroads laid as the little engine that could chugs along. I'm impressed that ZR has taken the field flattener plunge & look forward to the new line.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
Hope you didn't injure your shoulder reaching to pat yourself on the back on that "gotcha". I am amused at the mental image of you sitting there furiously googling all the models in my post, hoping I made an error on one of them so you could call me out, as though nailing me on a 2.6oz difference on one model I listed is somehow relevant. I suppose it's much easier to focus on a single nitpick than to address the broader point I was making, which is that the ZR Prime is right in line with its full-sized 42mm class competition in terms of weight, and, in fact, is one of the lightest binoculars on the list.
Regardless, the link you provided is to the Alpen Rainier ED, which is a different (newer) model than the Alpen Rainier I listed.
Link: http://www.optics4birding.com/alpen-rainier-8x42-binoculars.html
Hey look! 32oz! Guess I was right! :eek!:
So, while you busy yourself extracting your foot from your mouth, perhaps you should contemplate the irony of you not having YOUR facts straight and consider adopting a less abrasive, self-righteous tone with your forum posts. :smoke:
If you'd like, you can add Alpen Rainier ED at 29.4oz to the list, although since it is 2.2oz heavier than the ZR Prime it only goes to further my point. :t:
Obviously, as Charles has already explained, there were other design factors that caused the ZR Prime to be heavier, and using the magnesium alloy body allowed them to negate those weight gains and bring the overall package down to a level which is very reasonable for its class. My only point is that the fuss about the ZR Prime's listed weight of 27.2oz seems misplaced considering the competition tends to be the same or heavier.
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I agree with you fully, the new ZR Prime seems right in line with the others.
Carl is picking nits, and if he wants something lightweight, there are some
available, so go choose something else. To get much lighter they need to be plastic.
Jerry
Steve C
Well-known member
To each his/her own I suppose. However, I find the idea that 28 oz (more or less) is too heavy for a 42mm class binocular is kind of irrelevant. I have no desire for much less than what the Prime is targeted to weigh in a full size glass anyway. Most top quality full size binoculars are fairly substantial, as etianaltman accurately pointed out. Better look for a good 32mm if weight is that big of an issue.
Very Well Said, I do love that the Monarchs are so lightweight for 42mm Glass, but for pure optical enjoyment, an alpha 32mm is way ahead of them anyway. I hope these will be in a whole separate category than the Monarchs and many Aplha 32mm.