Nikon Sportstar 8x25 (1 Viewer)

O.K. so a couple of weeks back I was admonished by OrbitalJump and FrankD to take a look at these 8x25 Nikon Sportstars as I had posted saying basically that at their pricepoint they (and actually any binocular) could not be worth anything. The comment had been made that the Sportstar would rate at least 90% (or was it 89% :t: ) of the Swarovski Pocket, which I doubted.

I had examined a Sportstar some months previously and did not remember liking them at all, but I gave them a second try while in Salt Lake City over the weekend. Here are my impressions.

At my first look-through I instantly remembered why I wasn't impressed before. Eye relief is just terrible, only 10mm. So although the FOV is (on paper) impressive at 429 ft., there was just no way I am going to ever get even close to seeing all the way to the edges with my glasses. This by itself, would be a deal breaker for me and I just can't understand what Nikon is thinking. Among the binoculars with which I am familiar, this is the one with the second lowest eye relief (the worst is the compact WindRiver Mesa with only 9mm!)

What I could see of the remaining center portion of the field was not bad and might even be usable for someone with decent eyesight. I also think it would be a great binocular for children to use. It far surpasses the typical Tasco, Simmons, etc. junk that can be had for under $25, yet it is not so expensive as to constitute a tragedy if (read when) they are lost or broken by the hard use a child will give them.

So I plugged this binocular into my ratings matrix which assigns point values for features such as the magnification, field of view, size, weight, exit pupil, twilight factor, eye relief, waterproofing, build quality, presense of phase correction coatings (when applicable,) etc. and then calculates an overall score which is designed to suggest an expected satisfaction level based on my personal preferences. For example a 10x binocular recieves more points than an 8x because I prefer the higher magnification. Obviously then, the scores would change for someone who preferred lower magnification. Similar differences might exist for someone with 20/20 vision, who would not be effected by the need for good eye relief like I am, etc. (Subjective ergonomic features such as how the binocular fits the hand, the speed and location of the focus wheel, the style of diopter adjustment, the type of eyecups, etc. are not considered as a part of this score.)

The Sportstar took hits for its eye relief, for being only "weather resistant," and for not having phase correction coatings, all of which are very important to me. Overall it scores a 6.17.

Other 8x compact binoculars score as follows:
Leica Ultravid 8.58
Nikon LXL 8.50
Zeiss Victory 8.33
Swarovski Pocket 8.33 (also took a big hit for eye relief)
Zeiss ClassiC 8.08
Pentax DCF MC II 7.75
Bushnell Legend 7.50

(All score somewhat higher in their 10x versions.)

The Sportstar actually scored higher than I thought it would and garners a full 74% of the Swarovski Pocket's score. That's not too bad and although I would never want to have a Sportstar for myself, I can see myself potentially buying a couple for my young sons to use.

Thanks for giving it a fair shake. After dismissing the eye relief issue, in my case at least, I would agree with your assessment. For an 8x compact bin in that price range I would say it is the best out there...at least in terms of optical performance and, ofcourse, for someone who does not wear glasses.

Now, it is funny you brought this up because Nikon might have been thinking along the same lines. Their new version of the 8x Sportstar only has a 345 foot field of view. I would assume that this then increased the eye relief (.?) I have not had a chance to grab a pair of the new ones but will give them a try once the local Cabelas gets them in stock.

Thanks again.

I don't want to start a fight here but one factor was not considered in these comparisons. To wit: Price. I think you have to make it clear that you are comparing a $60.00 binocular with others costing hundreds of dollars more. This is a significant issue in all comparisons, especially where there is such a great difference in price.

I'm sorry to hear Nikon made the FOV smaller in the 8x. 345' was about what the 10x version had, and if they aren't going to add phase coating to the new version the change is hardly worth the bother. As for me, I don't wear glasses and I like a wide FOV. I'm going to try to get the old version before they disappear. At 60 bucks, I don't care if they are weatherproof, waterresistent or waterproof; and I can live without the phase coating.
Cordially,
Bob

ceasar said:

I don't want to start a fight here but one factor was not considered in these comparisons. To wit: Price. I think you have to make it clear that you are comparing a $60.00 binocular with others costing hundreds of dollars more. This is a significant issue in all comparisons, especially where there is such a great difference in price.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you here. Price is a huge factor in any decision and the fact that the Leica (for example) might score higher than the others does not mean I am any closer to being able to afford one. Nor does it mean that I necessarily would benefit from the advantages that said Leica might provide. Much of this will depend on how much, how hard, and under what conditions I will be using the binocular. For example, a person would be ill-advised to take a binocular to the rainforest that is not waterproof, whereas if you visit the Sahara, it probably wouldn't matter one bit.

My comparison was done solely to address the assertion that the Nikon performed at least 90% as well as a Swarovski. Allthough it did not, it still gave an admirable showing and is clearly useful for some people under some conditions. Certainly it is better than its $60 price tag might seem to infer. Which of the many options available represents the best buy for you is a purely personal decision.

My inlaws (who are not very "outdoorsy" people) went on a trip to Hawaii a couple of years back and sought advise on a binocular they could use while on a whale watching cruise. I steered them not to the best binoculars on the market but rather, to some very inexpensive reverse porro compacts that I knew they could afford and would be small enough that my inlaws would be willing to carry them around all day. Did mom and dad get the best view of the whales possible? Absolutely not. Did they know they were compromising performance for price? Yes, I had clearly explained this to them. Did they care about the difference. Again no. What's more, they haven't had occasion to use the binoculars again since they returned so, they are very pleased they didn't invest a small fortune in their purchase.

Ooops! Double Post

Lucznik....you are right on. Obviously you know your stuff. I totally discounted eye releif as it is not a deal breaker with me as I dont wear glasses. This would increase the value of the Sportstars on "your" matrix. I am particularly fond of wide fov's aparent and true. This would also bring up the score. Devalue the waterproofness issue and phase coatings (non phase coated roofs can outperform phase coated due to other factors) and you can easily reach 90% maybe even 100% or as far fetched as it sounds 110%, depending on the individuals personal preferences. But quibbling over numbers in a matrix is not what Im about.

I would also like to note that if we were doing a straight up comparison with the Swarovski Pockets...the greater Objective area would be a factor in favor of Nikon Sportstars. Expanding exit pupil size as well as offering expanded dawn and dusk viewing, not very important, I admit, with the use compacts are likely to see, but there never the less. Also increasing brightness, though offset somewhat by the superior coatings on the Swarovskis. But then again, there are other binos to consider as well from Leica and Zeiss.

Bottom line is. These are great compacts at a great price, not to mention that they are roof prisms which are more difficult(expensive) to produce. That is assuming one doesnt wear glasses...Ill have to note that in further recommendations.

I put these up against Brunton Lite Tech 8x25s. Both have exactly the same optical specifications. 429' fov / 65 deg afov / 10mm eye relief.

The Brutons, have a nicer build. Rubber armor. Waterproof. Nitrogen purged. Better hand feel...they are a bit wider and rounded and the rubber grippy. Nice sturdy single hinge construction. They were noticebly lacking in side by side comparisons with the Sportstars in the quality of the image. Being less contrasty and less bright...probably due to the "Emerald Fire" bright green coatings on the objectives. They also have rubber roll down eye gaurds. They also weigh 14 oz. It also has a minimum IPD of 62ish mm. A nice binocular, non the less.

The Nikon has.... Less waterproofing. Not nitrogen purged. And lessor hand feel. They are not as tough as the Bruntons...obviously. The Nikon is lighter at 10oz. And has a ridiculously low minimum IPD, due to its double hinge design, which also contributes to the Nikons being less rugged. Nikon also has twist up eyecups for those who bother with that at such tight eye relief. Nikons coatings beat the Bruntons hands down, leading to better brightness and contrast. Optically the Nikon is noticably better(probably due in large part to those nasty looking Emerald Fire coatings on the Bruntons objectives), which counts high on everyones list. They also beat the Bruntons for compactness, especially when folded for storage.

Im selling the Bruntons. Why because I rarely do any bino viewing in the rain, and if I did it probably wouldnt be with compacts and the Nikons are weather resistant so I can tuck them under something dry for awhile before they get soaked if caught in a downpour, they will survive. And I treat my binoculars with due care and the ruggedness factor is generally a non factor, although nice. The Nikons are more compact and lighterweight. Two attributes of imperative importance to my backpacking use.

The Sportstars would make excellent low cost binos for children. I agree. Check out the Bushnell H2O 8x24 double hinged roof compacts they are waterproof with similar specifications. 429' fov. I havent looked through them yet. Trying to get my hands on some. They may be cheaper as well although I doubt they have better optics, probably much poorer. Also could also be a winner for kids.

How do some of the reverse porros fit on your matrix?

Also, have you looked through the Nikon Sportstar III 10x25s. I havent. What was your impression if you did? If you havent then could you speculate on their matrix value and whatnot?

Best regards

OJ

OJ

First let me emphasize (just in case I haven't been clear before) that my little comparison matrix is highly subjective. It takes away points for things I don't like (e.g. low eye relief) and gives points for having things I like (e.g. the "right" magnification - 10x) etc. Noone but me could really use it effectively as it only represents my personal preferences. It has however, been immensely helpful to me in making comparisons.

I haven't analyzed a lot of reverse porros because I don't personally care for them a whole lot. Although optically superior to many of the best of their roof prism cousins, they are just a bit to big for me to consider them truly compact. In a compact, I want to be able to slip it in a pants pocket and have it "disappear." Because of this reverse porros tend to score slightly low on my matrix because of the hits they take for size and weight. I actually think they are the very best choices for kids (assuming the IPD isn't to large for the child in question) as they are big enough for the kid to really grasp and small enough not to be a burden. They also tend to be more rugged than the inexpensive two-hinged compact roofs. Topping it all is the vastly superior image quality they can provide over most of the compact roofs.

The ones I have looked at include:
Bushnell Custom 7x26 - 7.92 (while optically fantastic, it takes hits for low magnification, poor twilight factor, and no waterproofing.)
Bushnell Legend 8x26 - 7.5
Bushnell Legend 10x26 - 7.83
Wind River Mesa 8x23 - 7.08
Wind River Mesa 10x23 - 7.25

You can see the jump that going from 8x to 10x gives.
BTW the very highest scoring compacts on my matrix are:
In 8x the Leica Trinovid and Leica Ultravid which tie at 8.58
In 10x the Leica Ultravid at 9.17 (The Nikon LXL comes a close 2nd @ 9.00)


No, I haven't seen the Nikon Sportstar III. FrankD mentioned them in his post and neither of us have seen them in any store yet. Living in rural Wyoming as I do, I doubt I will have the chance to see them anytime soon.

I understood about the subjectivity of your matrix, it would change with each individuals valuations and inclusions or ommissions. I was making that point, also. I apologize if I come off, somewhat abraisive. Character flaw of mine, I guess.

The Nikon Sportstar 3 8x25 we have been discussing, there is also a Nikon Sportstar 3 10x25. Now there is a Nikon Sportstar 4(dont know if it has this nomenclature). What I was referencing was the 3 in the 10x25 configuration. Here is a look with specifications.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-10x25-Spo...ryZ28180QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I have not examined one. However, the specs on the ebay page you linked to indicate that it has the same 10mm eye relief and a FOV that is reduced to 340 ft. (The 2005 Nikon literature I have says 342 ft, but whose counting?) This is to be expected with the jump to 10x and usually is a tradeoff I happily accept for the higher magnification. But in this case, where I already know I won't see the edges of the field, this means I get to see even less than I did with the 8x. Because of this I don't think they would score very high. I would guess around a 6.5.

Maybe the Sportstar IV will rectify this problem?

Just wondering about them...If anyone has any comments about the 10x Sportstar 3s please share.

Maybe the Sportstar IV will rectify this problem?---lucznik

As for me, Im with Ceasar...I prefer the wider fov even at the cost of tightish eye relief, and can live without phase coatings and absolute waterproofness. But I hope the new Sportstar 4s are a step in the right compromise direction for you. Nikon already made me very pleased with the 3s.

Having just "Borrowed" some Sportstar IV 8x25 for the weekend (curteousy of a well known catalogue store here in the UK) i must say i was not at all impressed. Fine up to about 15 or 20 mtrs but anything past that was hard work (for me anyway). Maybe if they only cost about £30 i could learn to live with them but for close on £100 ...... no way ..... not even rubber protected ...... my £10 pair from Lidl gave a nicer and clearer view too!!! Wont be sorry when i return the Nikon's for a refund tomorrow.

My main reason for trying them is that i have a small IPD and am struggling top find a good set of bins to suit me.

iano

iano said:

...i have a small IPD and am struggling top find a good set of bins to suit me.
iano

Click to expand...

If you want superb optics with a small IPD in something other (better) than a pocket sized roof, take a look at the Nikon 8x32 SE (a porro) and the Zeiss 8x32 FL (a roof).

There are many excellent full-sized porro-prism binoculars that adjust for very small interpupillary distances. My favorites are the Nikon 8x30 EII and the Nikon 8x32 Superior E.

I'm not aware of any reverse-porro compacts that can be set below 56 mm except the Nikon 7x21 Sprint, which goes down to 54 mm (not much of an improvement, and not the best bino either). I'd love to learn about others, if they exist.

In double-hinged, and Zeiss' single-hinged pocket roofs, anything should work for you when it comes to IPD. The top-end models are amazingly good, but they cost $400+.

In 2/3 and full-sized roofs of top quality, the only company which breaks the 56 mm barrier is Zeiss. The Conquest models go down to 54 mm, as do the full-sized FL models. The 2/3 sized FL models go down to 52 mm! I'm not sure that there are any other options in this category, at any price level, that can beat the Zeiss FL models w/regard to minimum IPD specs.

--AP ally

iano said:

My main reason for trying them is that i have a small IPD and am struggling top find a good set of bins to suit me.
iano

Click to expand...

I don't know your budget or your product availability but, if you are looking for compacts to satisfy your IPD needs (which probably rules out the reverse porro models,) then you might want to take a look at these:

I really have been quite pleased with my 8x25 Pentax DCF MC II. The double hinge design ensures it can be used by the smallest of people (including my kids) and with 21 mm of eye relief, wearing glasses is not a problem. Its 315 ft FOV is almost as good as my full-size Pentax and it cost me only $120 US. They also make this in 10x (which I wish I would have bought as I've become convinced I prefer the higher magnification) which only loses 1mm of eye relief. This binocular weighs a very reasonable 10.9 ounces.

If you are willing spend somewhat more the 10x25 Zeiss ClassiC (at $320 US) remains an awesome value in mini binoculars. It's eye relief is a little tight at just 14mm but, it is still acceptable. It only weighs 7.1 ounces, which is great.

Interested in the very best available? Look to the 10x25 Leica Ultravid ($650 US) or the 10x25 Nikon Premier LXL ($430 US). Eye relief is an acceptable 15mm and they weigh 9.3 and 10.5 ounces respectively. Personally I would opt for the Nikon as optically, it gives up nothing to the Leica and boasts a $220 savings. That's a lot of money to buy a 1.2 ounce savings in weight.

If you really prefer the 8x magnification, you can buy any of these as an 8x20 and it will cost somewhat less than the figures I've given. They will also provide a wider field of view, will be physically smaller, and will weigh less. As I indicated with the Pentax, all of these options are double hinge designs that will easily meet any IPD needs you might have.