• 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.

Binocular Advice Pet Peeves (1 Viewer)

J

Josh Exmoor

Well-known member
I've thought about starting this thread a few times. Well, actually any time I see someone ask for some advice on choosing a new pair of binoculars. Not here, where good advice is pretty easy to come by, but listservs, facebook groups, etc. It seems I see the same mediocre advice over and over again. Here's a few of them.

1. You're wasting your money if you buy any binoculars under x amount. X is almost always a pretty darn high number. $500 or $1000. The implication being that anything under $500 is junk that is useless for birding. I always assume these people last bought new optics twenty years ago and assume that nothing has changed since then.

2. Nikon Monarch! I don't recall seeing an optics thread EVER outside of here that didn't have at least one person piping up and saying that you should buy a pair of Monarchs. Now, this is not terrible advice on its face. I don't believe I've ever heard about a specific junky model of Monarchs, but at this moment there are 14 models of monarch being sold from anywhere between $200 and $1000. My impression has always been that basically none of the Monarchs are the best value at their price point.

3. X brand are great! Kissing cousin to the monarch comment above. Most brands make multiple lines of bins and multiple models in each line. Not all of them are good, or at least provide good value for money.

4. I love my pair of 20 year old $30 10x50 porros! Perhaps they have a diamond in the rough, but having grown up on cheap porros I often wonder how these people see any birds at all.

Anyone else have any optics advice that gnaws at them?
 
I find (and this is not necessarily the fault of the poster, who may not realise the extent of the options), the requests for advice with no reference to any specifics a bit difficult: where a range of contributors will try to tease details out of the requester, such as 'what are you going to use them for?' 'do you wear glasses?' 'what is your budget' etc.
With BF in particular, the more details the poster can supply, the more chance there is of getting some worthwhile suggestion.
 
Josh Exmoor said:
I've thought about starting this thread a few times. Well, actually any time I see someone ask for some advice on choosing a new pair of binoculars. Not here, where good advice is pretty easy to come by, but listservs, facebook groups, etc. It seems I see the same mediocre advice over and over again. Here's a few of them.

1. You're wasting your money if you buy any binoculars under x amount. X is almost always a pretty darn high number. $500 or $1000. The implication being that anything under $500 is junk that is useless for birding. I always assume these people last bought new optics twenty years ago and assume that nothing has changed since then.

2. Nikon Monarch! I don't recall seeing an optics thread EVER outside of here that didn't have at least one person piping up and saying that you should buy a pair of Monarchs. Now, this is not terrible advice on its face. I don't believe I've ever heard about a specific junky model of Monarchs, but at this moment there are 14 models of monarch being sold from anywhere between $200 and $1000. My impression has always been that basically none of the Monarchs are the best value at their price point.

3. X brand are great! Kissing cousin to the monarch comment above. Most brands make multiple lines of bins and multiple models in each line. Not all of them are good, or at least provide good value for money.

4. I love my pair of 20 year old $30 10x50 porros! Perhaps they have a diamond in the rough, but having grown up on cheap porros I often wonder how these people see any birds at all.

Anyone else have any optics advice that gnaws at them?
Click to expand...

You are so fortunate with your pet peeves. Try being one who loves the technically accurate and spend 45 years in optical technology and engineering, first in the Navy’s Opticalman rating and then as a civilian optics repairman. And top it off with 21 years creating and running the Precision Instruments & Optics Department at Captain’s Nautical Supplies (now just “Captain’s Supplies” in your fair city). Not only have I heard it all but heard it all a thousand times ... 80% of the time from folks who wouldn’t understand optics if it bit’em in the butt. :cat:

Bill
 
The binocular advise peeve from the OP is an understandable one. It is however, a coin with two sides. I've said this before, but the job of a marketer is to make us think that buying their stuff is our idea. They are good at it, and we are good at falling for it. That is why it works. It really works when the engineers are able to deliver on the marketing hype. This leads to the perception that a new model with a couple of new touted features is better than the old one. Better these days needs to be defined with access to an optical lab. Today's better does not necessarily translate when trying to sort out a bunch of Warblers in the foliage.

This leads to confusion among those searching for a new binocular, perhaps even their first one. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the advice they get. Choice is a good thing, but while I welcome it, I realize it can be confusing. We get to where we tend to get two basic posts, one side is asking for a comparison of several. The other side is a seemingly commonality of what to do.

I happen to think that the differences between classes of binoculars, as far at least as optical performance goes, are getting pretty slim. The days of the monumental performance advance of the phase coated Leica and Zeiss glass of the late 1980's are pretty much long gone. Schmidt-Pechan prisms have been around since 1899. I don't think there is much left there to wring out.

So for the original query of, " which one of these is best and are others to consider?". That seems to presume there is more difference between the several than will exist. Define a price point, you basically define a quality point. The thing they need to do is concentrate on finding one what fits their hands and face , has a nice balance point, has a good for them focus, and do the eye cups extend out far enough. Then look for a dealer, warranty, service, and company history that they feel comfortable with. What is asked for is an objective answer to a subjective question. The question is easy, the answer impossible.

There are a number of ranges of responses to the question. Many of these may seem to presume there is more difference in their choice vs others than may exist. Again a subjective response to an objective inquiry. I used to think there was a best binocular, and that all I had to do was frame the right question and ask it in the right way, and bingo, the answer would appear! Well...wrong, really wrong! There are always a few of the responses that are quite germane to the question, kind of adds to the confusion figuring out which ones they are if you asked the original question. I actually can get peeved dealing from this side of the coin.

There is my subjective response ;)
 
Last edited:
The biggest thing I don't understand is how emphatically people shoo all others away from 10x42 binoculars, as if you'd have to be mad to use them. Magnification is a core function of binoculars—it is, in fact, the reason optics were invented in the first place—and it is very often worth trading off other things to get more of. 10x binoculars magnify more. And like Chandler Robbins, Noah Strycker, and David Sibley, many highly skilled and contented birders find 10x binoculars to be the best all-around solution for looking at birds—despite the notorious appeal of greater magnification to the non-cognoscenti. So long as we're indulging pet peeves.
 
Last edited:
Steve C said:
There is my subjective response ;)
Click to expand...

From Understanding & Attaining 3-Axis Binocular Collimation:

"Possibly the most troubling thing of all is that so many of the differences in optical quality people claim to see when comparing binoculars with similar apertures, magnification, and production qualities are demonstrably below a human’s ability to recognize. Even so, some people think they can get around this to make their point by constructing “tests,” and if the blood of Superman, Thor, or God runs through their veins, they might be able to prove a certain Swarovski specimen made last Thursday afternoon at 2:00 is a gnat’s whisker better, optically, than a Leica of the same aperture and magnification made Tuesday morning at 9:00." At least to ONE person with quantifiable visual accuities. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Something I take with a pinch of salt is opinions based on comparisons in shops. Demo samples are often not looked after well (near me anyway), sometimes with caps left off and can have pretty grubby optics that don't give a true representation of how a model can perform (even after a shop assistant gives them a wipe with an old cloth). Also birds really are the most demanding of subjects for binocular viewing and so how anyone thinks they can gauge how birds will look from a bit of time in a dingy store or at the shop door looking down a high street at chimney pots and shop signs is somewhat questionable. Still, if that's the only experience someone has I'm glad to hear it, I just reserve judgment until others who've spent time in the field with hopefully a well looked after sample have commented.
 
My gripe is that so much of the debate and advice is based on specifications.

"Buy binocular A because it has 2% greater transmission across the visible he spectrum." or "Buy binocular B because it has a 5 meter greater field of view at 1,000 Meters."

Examples abound.

No one ever asks "What can I see with A that I either won't see with B, or will not see as well?" THis would seem to me to be the whole point.
 
Maljunulo said:
My gripe is that so much of the debate and advice is based on specifications.

"Buy binocular A because it has 2% greater transmission across the visible he spectrum." or "Buy binocular B because it has a 5 meter greater field of view at 1,000 Meters."

Examples abound.

No one ever asks "What can I see with A that I either won't see with B, or will not see as well?" THis would seem to me to be the whole point.
Click to expand...

Too often, good people just don't know how to ask meaningful questions:

Which is Better?

Perhaps the most asked question on binocular forums is, “Which is better?” Or some variant of the same question. Here, too, so many observers ask questions or give answers that are subjective. You may see questions concerning a “decent” binocular, a “quality” binocular, a “dependable” binocular, or a “vintage” binocular. But exactly what constitutes “decent”? Should that be defined by a 16-year old student in Texas or an aerospace engineer in Washington State? And where is the line separating “decent” units from all the others arbitrarily considered to be something less than “decent”?

Likewise, what constitutes “affordable” when at any price point there may be 200 or more entries? Should “affordable” be defined by the person who refuses to use anything less than a Leica or Zeiss, or the person who thinks spending more than $69.95 for a binocular is a waste?

My favorite is “vintage.” That word is used without restraint by many people on Internet auction sites who are trying to sell an older binocular, which is sometimes little more than chum for a plastic-eating shark. When the word is used to describe something other than a year of winemaking—better quality winemaking at that—it’s too frequently used to describe an instrument that’s old, junk, or both. Yes, of course, there are “vintage” binoculars, if you allow the term to be used that way. But the majority of the instruments described by the moniker are actually anything but. Not only will these unanswerable questions reverberate for days, it’s more than likely the same question will be asked several more times before the year is out with each receiving as many idiosyncratic opinions as the first. Certainly, there will be valuable answers in the mix. However, as often as not, those answers will be swept aside as they are prone to force observers out of their comfort zones of understanding. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
In both astronomy and birding it is fantastic how helpful, welcoming, and patient folks tend to be with enthusiastic newbies. I've benefitted from that, and I do try to make an effort to help people who are finding their way. The biggest issues that I see are misunderstandings about objective/subjective and I see this in the list of peeves here as well. Subjective includes how one intends to use the binocular as well as one's experience of using it.

As others have noted, comparison (which is best) questions only pose as objective. The implicit question is more like, "which binocular will please me?" Essentially, one person is asking a set of folks which one they would prefer (subjective) in the hope that the group preference and/or the rationale of individual reviewers will inform their (subjective) choice. I actually think this works reasonably well for more experienced users who better understand their needs and tastes in optics and perhaps have a calibration on the different reviewers/responders. For someone new to binoculars or new to birding it is much tougher.

In my view, the good news is that there really are good options today at a range of price points, and most questioners either specify a price point or reveal it fairly quickly. Also, there seems to be a fair bit of consensus here about those options are at a given price range. I know there is debate, but I think a reasonable answer to questions about which is best is, "Here are some you should try."

As to what people can and cannot see, that certainly bears on the rationale that people use to rationalize their preferences in terms of specific performance parameters. But the subjective preference itself and the joy of using a preferred instrument is rather immune to these objective arguments from the optician or optometrist.

Alan
 
Steve C said:
The binocular advise peeve from the OP is an understandable one. It is however, a coin with two sides. I've said this before, but the job of a marketer is to make us think that buying their stuff is our idea. They are good at it, and we are good at falling for it. That is why it works. It really works when the engineers are able to deliver on the marketing hype. This leads to the perception that a new model with a couple of new touted features is better than the old one. Better these days needs to be defined with access to an optical lab. Today's better does not necessarily translate when trying to sort out a bunch of Warblers in the foliage.

This leads to confusion among those searching for a new binocular, perhaps even their first one. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the advice they get. Choice is a good thing, but while I welcome it, I realize it can be confusing. We get to where we tend to get two basic posts, one side is asking for a comparison of several. The other side is a seemingly commonality of what to do.

I happen to think that the differences between classes of binoculars, as far at least as optical performance goes, are getting pretty slim. The days of the monumental performance advance of the phase coated Leica and Zeiss glass of the late 1980's are pretty much long gone. Schmidt-Pechan prisms have been around since 1899. I don't think there is much left there to wring out.

So for the original query of, " which one of these is best and are others to consider?". That seems to presume there is more difference between the several than will exist. Define a price point, you basically define a quality point. The thing they need to do is concentrate on finding one what fits their hands and face , has a nice balance point, has a good for them focus, and do the eye cups extend out far enough. Then look for a dealer, warranty, service, and company history that they feel comfortable with. What is asked for is an objective answer to a subjective question. The question is easy, the answer impossible.

There are a number of ranges of responses to the question. Many of these may seem to presume there is more difference in their choice vs others than may exist. Again a subjective response to an objective inquiry. I used to think there was a best binocular, and that all I had to do was frame the right question and ask it in the right way, and bingo, the answer would appear! Well...wrong, really wrong! There are always a few of the responses that are quite germane to the question, kind of adds to the confusion figuring out which ones they are if you asked the original question. I actually can get peeved dealing from this side of the coin.

There is my subjective response ;)
Click to expand...

Excellent response Steve. And with the differences in optical quality diminishing, other aspects of performance such as focus speed, ergonomics, close-focus distance and viewing comfort, assume a greater importance.

Lee
 
Two things based on my experience....
1. Buy the next lower power than you think you need.
2. Make sure there is enough eye relief for easy viewing.
 
"Save your money and get ________ (the most expensive Swaro made), otherwise you'll just be disappointed and you're going to end up there anyway..."

LOL

Just once, I'd love to see a TRULY blind comparison conducted on the lemmings. It would be very enlightening.
 
ailevin said:
In both astronomy and birding it is fantastic how helpful, welcoming, and patient folks tend to be with enthusiastic newbies. I've benefitted from that, and I do try to make an effort to help people who are finding their way.....
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is done sometimes through gritted teeth, and with glaring eyes wide open (as my following answer will elaborate on ....)

Josh Exmoor said:
.... Anyone else have any optics advice that gnaws at them?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is the questions here on 'BirdForum' rather than the advice that gnaws the most ! :storm:

:brains: To wit:
From 'Cooter - TX: post#1, binoculars forum
"Hiya all - I'm new here so take it easy on me ...."
[translation - I couldn't be bothered "saying hello" and introducing myself properly in the correct forum, as essentially I have zero interest in birds, or any form of appreciation, or conservation. In fact I'm here as a purely self serving exercise to 'mine' the wealth of information here on the BirdForum Binoculars Forum as I have it on good authority from my good ol' buddy BillyBob that you folks really know your stuff and this is the place to come]

** "I'm looking for the best binocular between $629.95 and $849.95 in a 10x42 format for "viewing" wildlife 'out west' - which is best out of the Vortex Grand Slam DXXD, the Remmington Predator Ultimate, the Weaver Euthanizer PRO, the Nosler HP, the Mil-Tac SureFind, the HuntaBin Stealth 4000FPS, the NevaHeardOfEm Rebranda Camo GTX, or the DedaNDoorNailz NevaMiss SP's ..... ?????"
[translation - the only "viewing" I'm going to be doing, is of some poor critter moments before I pull the trigger. I couldn't give less of a stuff about watching birds {unless they're the thong wearing greater booby kind! lol} and your community!]

** "Doya'll think these suppress glare and CA better than the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, or the Zeiss 10x42 SF? and which one is brighter? and iffin' yer granma was hogtied by some back country boys at dinner time, an' her life depended on ya see'in whether it was with a slip knot, or a half hitch from 800 yards away - which one would ya choose?"
[translation - the boyz over at OpticsCampFireHutKillumUpGood Forum - reckon birders don't know jack when it comes to real huntin' situations in the field, and besides you don't really need to be able to count the tines on a deer after dusk, just work out whether that bit of it you can see through the bushes is at least a 50:50 chance of bein' a deer, instead of Jeb over in the next camp - you'd be better off spendin' the extra green on the new flat as a tack magnumizer instead .... ]
|:p|

The influx of these types, and their fool no-one leopards spots is prolly the reason I haven't posted much in the Bino forum of late ...... if I sound like a cranky bi*t,ch - then blame it on chocolate withdrawals ! :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun Juan said:
Perhaps this is done sometimes through gritted teeth, and with glaring eyes wide open (as my following answer will elaborate on ....)


Perhaps it is the questions here on 'BirdForum' rather than the advice that gnaws the most ! :storm:

:brains: To wit:
From 'Cooter - TX: post#1, binoculars forum
"Hiya all - I'm new here so take it easy on me ...."
[translation - I couldn't be bothered "saying hello" and introducing myself properly in the correct forum, as essentially I have zero interest in birds, or any form of appreciation, or conservation. In fact I'm here as a purely self serving exercise to 'mine' the wealth of information here on the BirdForum Binoculars Forum as I have it on good authority from my good ol' buddy BillyBob that you folks really know your stuff and this is the place to come]

** "I'm looking for the best binocular between $629.95 and $849.95 in a 10x42 format for "viewing" wildlife 'out west' - which is best out of the Vortex Grand Slam DXXD, the Remmington Predator Ultimate, the Weaver Euthanizer PRO, the Nosler HP, the Mil-Tac SureFind, the HuntaBin Stealth 4000FPS, the NevaHeardOfEm Rebranda Camo GTX, or the DedaNDoorNailz NevaMiss SP's ..... ?????"
[translation - the only "viewing" I'm going to be doing, is of some poor critter moments before I pull the trigger. I couldn't give less of a stuff about watching birds {unless they're the thong wearing greater booby kind! lol} and your community!]

** "Doya'll think these suppress glare and CA better than the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, or the Zeiss 10x42 SF? and which one is brighter? and iffin' yer granma was hogtied by some back country boys at dinner time, an' her life depended on ya see'in whether it was with a slip knot, or a half hitch from 800 yards away - which one would ya choose?"
[translation - the boyz over at OpticsCampFireHutKillumUpGood Forum - reckon birders don't know jack when it comes to real huntin' situations in the field, and besides you don't really need to be able to count the tines on a deer after dusk, just work out whether that bit of it you can see through the bushes is at least a 50:50 chance of bein' a deer, instead of Jeb over in the next camp - you'd be better off spendin' the extra green on the new flat as a tack magnumizer instead .... ]
|:p|

The influx of these types, and their fool no-one leopards spots is prolly the reason I haven't posted much in the Bino forum of late ...... if I sound like a cranky bi*t,ch - then blame it on chocolate withdrawals ! :cat:



Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

Wow!

Just wow!
 
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.

Similar threads

F
Decent High Powered Binoculars
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Jkloz
J
D
Is Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 the best choise for me?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
R
Old porro 7x50
Replies
8
Views
335
ReinierB
R
S
Copyright of optical system? Why no replicas of high grade binos?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Elkhornsun
E
R
New low light weatherproof binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top