• 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.

Bought a pair of the new Wind River Cascades Today.... (1 Viewer)

O

Old Pirate

Youthful Grandfather
I actually stood with three pair of binoculars in front of me and tried them all at the same time.

Zeiss

Swarovski

Leupold

$1,300, $1,070, and $299 respectively.

Ok...the first two were really bright and clear...but so was the third one.

I focused on the same object over and over.

I looked hard for justification for me to pay the top dollar which I was prepared to do. I couldn't see it so I asked the shop owner and long time friend which was the best value.

He said..."if you want to see in the last light of day and the first light of morning then dig deep, but if you are going to use them in the other 95% of daylight then except for name flaunting I can't see the difference either."

I'm happy....except I bought the 10's instead of the 8's. The word is I'm too old to be using 10's.

Supposedly, Swarovski spent a lot of money studying what people should use, and in the end the answer has to do with the date on your birth certificate. Swarovski found after spending nearly a quarter million dollars that we all get tremors as we get older and after age 40 most people can't hold anything more than an eight for a long period of time steady. That of course is a "rule of thumb".

I see a lot of people on all these threads recommending 8's.

If the 10's start to shake too bad I can go back and get 8's and still not have spent half of what I could if I wanted form and not function.

If you want the top end and can afford it..then by all means, but is it truly necessary for what we as hobbyist do? Personally I didn't think so when I had them all in hand.
 
Last edited:
So you got the 10x Cascades then....how is the brightness on those?

For 8x Leupolds, the 8x30 Yosemite is the one everyone has been trying to check out. When is the 10x30 Yosemite coming?
 
They were fine as far as I was concerned...

The brightness was not appreciably different than the equivalent Zeiss and Swarovski that I could determine. I even took all three pair and walked back into a work area where there were no windows and could see little or no difference between the three pair as I scanned boxes on the shelves.

Having all three to look at with no pressure was a nice way to sample.

I messed around with them out the window till twilight tonight and I could see the sparrows in the grapevine with no trouble.

Although they were heavy and I ruled them out very early there was another pair I tried called Meopta Meostar (a couple hundred more than Leupold's) that seemed to be the brightest of the bunch, but they were very heavy and the eyepieces seemed flimsy when they extended.
 
Last edited:
Hey Old Pirate,

I am guessing you got the 10x42, is that right. I think the Cascades are one of the best bang for the buck binos out right now. They offer a really good image, particularly in the center of the view.

The thing about Leupold is I can't really tell any difference between Cascades, Olympics, and Pinnacles. They get more expensive in the order I listed them, but they all seem quite similar. Did you compare amongst the various Leupolds? If so, did you see any difference.

I will not say that the Leupold Cascades are the equal of the Leica or Swarovski, but they are a great binocular, and I am sure you will love them. I will say they are about as good as the Zeiss Conquest binoculars, for far less.
 
bodromarsh said:
...

... I will not say that the Leupold Cascades are the equal of the Leica or Swarovski, but they are a great binocular, and I am sure you will love them. I will say they are about as good as the Zeiss Conquest binoculars, for far less.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I looked through some Leupold Katmais again today (8 x 32), alongside my Ultravids (10 x 32). And Yes, the Ultravids had an edge -- but arguably not a $1200.00 edge! I might go so far as to say that the Leupold line could be the best undervalued binocular on the market today.
 
Last edited:
Old Pirate said:
I actually stood with three pair of binoculars in front of me and tried them all at the same time.

Zeiss

Swarovski

Leupold

$1,300, $1,070, and $299 respectively.

Ok...the first two were really bright and clear...but so was the third one.

I focused on the same object over and over.

I looked hard for justification for me to pay the top dollar which I was prepared to do. I couldn't see it so I asked the shop owner and long time friend which was the best value.

He said..."if you want to see in the last light of day and the first light of morning then dig deep, but if you are going to use them in the other 95% of daylight then except for name flaunting I can't see the difference either."

I'm happy....except I bought the 10's instead of the 8's. The word is I'm too old to be using 10's.

Supposedly, Swarovski spent a lot of money studying what people should use, and in the end the answer has to do with the date on your birth certificate. Swarovski found after spending nearly a quarter million dollars that we all get tremors as we get older and after age 40 most people can't hold anything more than an eight for a long period of time steady. That of course is a "rule of thumb".

I see a lot of people on all these threads recommending 8's.

If the 10's start to shake too bad I can go back and get 8's and still not have spent half of what I could if I wanted form and not function.

If you want the top end and can afford it..then by all means, but is it truly necessary for what we as hobbyist do? Personally I didn't think so when I had them all in hand.
Click to expand...


If the cheaper Leupold are just as good as the Leica's to your eyes then get the Leupold's. I have found myself after growing use to the contrast of the better binoculars I can not go back to $300.00 binoculars. Compare the Leupolds to the Leica's while looking at a bright field with alot of colors and the Leupolds will appear flat and dead while the Leica's are alive and vibrant. It takes experience to notice and grow use to the differences in the better binoculars but once you do their is no going back. I think it is not a good idea to tell people the Leupold is just as good for birding as the Leica's when in fact they are not. The birds are more beautiful through a Leica and that is what it is all about.

Dennis
 
"I think it is not a good idea to tell people the Leupold is just as good for birding as the Leica's when in fact they are not. The birds are more beautiful through a Leica and that is what it is all about."
Dennis[/QUOTE]


Ha... trust your own eyes, not what someone says about the brand they like.

That last line says it all...

Cheers
 
Well Dennis...I didn't have the Leica's in front of me to evaluate. I did however put an amount equal to any and all binoculars in front of me into my checking account before I went shopping so I could treat myself to whatever the store had I wanted.

I simply didn't see $900 to $1,200 difference between the binoculars. If you re-read my post you'll see I didn't say I saw no difference but not one big enough to part with my cash.

Birding is a hobby for me; not my life!

If I happen upon someone selling Leica's I'll try them and if they are appreciable better than my new Leupold 10's then I may buy them, but I don't feel the need to keep shopping.

I didn't tell anyone that one is better than another, I simply said for me I could not see enough of a difference to take my $1,000. In the end it was you that hung a definitive statement out there coming across as the typical elitist birder who has turned many from the hobby.

I love two outdoor sports...fly fishing and photography. Both are unfortunately filled with folks who believe brand labels are more important than the mere journey found within.

Was it not Walton who said...."people will fish all their lives and never realize that fish were not their objective."

One can only shed a tear when thoughts within silence tell us that Brother Audubon had no Leica's!

Look...if you want to go birding and you are fortunate enough to have a $10 pair of Tasco's to assist you and make it better then whose to say you are less happy than the guy standing beside you with Leica's? Not me!

Oh..Bodromarsh..these were the only version of Leupold's the store carried. They carry several brands but stock only what they consider the most often sold varieties of each. Sorry...I can't help you with your specific question.
 
Last edited:
Old Pirate said:
Well Dennis...I didn't have the Leica's in front of me to evaluate. I did however put an amount equal to any and all binoculars in front of me into my checking account before I went shopping so I could treat myself to whatever the store had I wanted.

I simply didn't see $900 to $1,200 difference between the binoculars. If you re-read my post you'll see I didn't say I saw no difference but not one big enough to part with my cash.

Birding is a hobby for me; not my life!

If I happen upon someone selling Leica's I'll try them and if they are appreciable better than my new Leupold 10's then I may buy them, but I don't feel the need to keep shopping.

I didn't tell anyone that one is better than another, I simply said for me I could not see enough of a difference to take my $1,000. In the end it was you that hung a definitive statement out there coming across as the typical elitist birder who has turned many from the hobby.

I love two outdoor sports...fly fishing and photography. Both are unfortunately filled with folks who believe brand labels are more important than the mere journey found within.

Was it not Walton who said...."people will fish all their lives and never realize that fish were not their objective."

One can only shed a tear when thoughts within silence tell us that Brother Audubon had no Leica's!

Look...if you want to go birding and you are fortunate enough to have a $10 pair of Tasco's to assist you and make it better then whose to say you are less happy than the guy standing beside you with Leica's? Not me!

Oh..Bodromarsh..these were the only version of Leupold's the store carried. They carry several brands but stock only what they consider the most often sold varieties of each. Sorry...I can't help you with your specific question.
Click to expand...



I just have a hard time accepting the fact that some people find Leupold's and other mid-range binoculars close to the quality and view of Leica's, Swarovski, or Zeiss. Once you see the difference in contrast and color saturation there is just no comparison between a $300.00 and a $1200.00 binocular and there shouldn't be. You are looking at perhaps clarity but you are over looking CONTRAST! The high dollar binoculars are worht every penny once you are discerning enough to tell the difference.

Dennis
 
I am being very discerning.

I'm discerning that those I tried aren't worth the difference in the money to me.

I went to buy a great pair of binoculars to look for birds with. I didn't go out to buy the best or the most expensive glasses made, but I was prepared to if they were head and shoulders above the rest, but in my humble opinion, they were not.

I was looking for a tool, not a standard for others to be judged by.

I'm glad you like you Leica's and know you are glad I'm enjoying my Leupolds. Other than seeing something rare, what more can we ask for?

Take care of yourself and I wish you good hunting!
 
[email protected] said:
I just have a hard time accepting the fact that some people find Leupold's and other mid-range binoculars close to the quality and view of Leica's, Swarovski, or Zeiss. Once you see the difference in contrast and color saturation there is just no comparison between a $300.00 and a $1200.00 binocular and there shouldn't be.
Dennis
Click to expand...

Dennis - I have carefully compared the view through my Leica 10 x 50 BA and the same configuration Swift Kestrel (which cost less than $300) and I, too, find the differences between the two to be extremely subtle, and not a convincing basis for spending the extra $1000 or so. In fact, I have friends who would argue that the ED version of the Kestrel actually produces the best view of all, and still at less than half the cost of the current Alpha glasses. The real differences between the two which, for me, do make the Leica worth the cost relate to all weather and all conditions durability. I have every confidence the Leica will perform flawlessly wherever I take it. The Swift Kestrel, unfortunately, like most porros, is inherently fragile and prone to miscollimation and other ills.
 
Last edited:
chartwell99 said:
I have friends who would argue that the ED version of the Kestrel actually produces the best view of all.
Click to expand...

Chartwell,

Do you mind updating me on the existence of a Swift Kestrel 10x50 ED ?

cheers,

Renze
 
Renze de Vries said:
Chartwell,

Do you mind updating me on the existence of a Swift Kestrel 10x50 ED ?

cheers,

Renze
Click to expand...

My apologies as I was actually thinking of the 804ED, which is an Audubon and not a Kestrel. Same concept, however - a binocular image equal to, and arguably better than, current roof glasses at four times the acquisition cost.
 
Dear Pirate,

As I do not know the Leupold line very well, I am uncertain as to whether you have a roof or Porro glass.
In any case, my analysis of the current U.S. market is:
Above $100, one gets an device which will make birding rewarding.
From about $150 to around $250, one can see improvement in some optical aspects
At a price point of about $300, one can get an instrument which meets most of our optical needs, but Porros provide more optical improvements than do roof binoculars, which provide a better envelope.
Between $300 and $600 there are some optical improvements, and the buyer is generally rewarded with a lot of value.
Above $600, the law of diminishing returns truly takes over with most of the improvements in the envelope, and only marginally in the optics.
Today's birds, a yellow bellied sapsucker, a distant bufflehead, juncos and a house finch were found by my patience, by my awareness and by my persistence. A woman who followed the same paths, a few steps ahead of me, with some some big green binocular with a hawk decorating the binocular, missed the bufflehead and the house finch. If I were using a $299 Nikon E2, I would have seen the same birds, with nearly the same color and detail as I did with my Dialyt which costs more than double the EII's price. However, somebody as clumsy as I probably is better off with a roof prism binocular than a Porro.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
Arthur
 
Last edited:
Pinewood said:
A woman who followed the same paths, a few steps ahead of me, with some big some big binocular with a hawk decorating the binocular, missed the bufflehead and the house finch.
Arthur
Click to expand...

:-O LOL

its the binocular AND the birder!
 
Old Pirate said:
Well Dennis...I didn't have the Leica's in front of me to evaluate. I did however put an amount equal to any and all binoculars in front of me into my checking account before I went shopping so I could treat myself to whatever the store had I wanted.

I simply didn't see $900 to $1,200 difference between the binoculars. If you re-read my post you'll see I didn't say I saw no difference but not one big enough to part with my cash.

Birding is a hobby for me; not my life!

If I happen upon someone selling Leica's I'll try them and if they are appreciable better than my new Leupold 10's then I may buy them, but I don't feel the need to keep shopping.

I didn't tell anyone that one is better than another, I simply said for me I could not see enough of a difference to take my $1,000. In the end it was you that hung a definitive statement out there coming across as the typical elitist birder who has turned many from the hobby.

I love two outdoor sports...fly fishing and photography. Both are unfortunately filled with folks who believe brand labels are more important than the mere journey found within.

Was it not Walton who said...."people will fish all their lives and never realize that fish were not their objective."

One can only shed a tear when thoughts within silence tell us that Brother Audubon had no Leica's!

Look...if you want to go birding and you are fortunate enough to have a $10 pair of Tasco's to assist you and make it better then whose to say you are less happy than the guy standing beside you with Leica's? Not me!

Oh..Bodromarsh..these were the only version of Leupold's the store carried. They carry several brands but stock only what they consider the most often sold varieties of each. Sorry...I can't help you with your specific question.
Click to expand...
"Brother" Audubon carried a rifle. I prefer a good Leica or, better yet, a good Nikon SE.
 
Man...I didn't mean to ruffle feathers among the brethren.

Arthur...I tend to agree with your assessment. The Leupold's in question are roof varieties. Completely waterproof by the way, as attested to by legions of deer hunters in my area who use them religiously to spot deer in the brush both very early and very late in the day.
 
Pinewood said:
Dear Pirate,

As I do not know the Leupold line very well, I am uncertain as to whether you have a roof or Porro glass.
In any case, my analysis of the current U.S. market is:
Above $100, one gets an device which will make birding rewarding.
From about $150 to around $250, one can see improvement in some optical aspects
At a price point of about $300, one can get an instrument which meets most of our optical needs, but Porros provide more optical improvements than do roof binoculars, which provide a better envelope.
Between $300 and $600 there are some optical improvements, and the buyer is generally rewarded with a lot of value.
Above $600, the law of diminishing returns truly takes over with most of the improvements in the envelope, and only marginally in the optics.
Today's birds, a yellow bellied sapsucker, a distant bufflehead, juncos and a house finch were found by my patience, by my awareness and by my persistence. A woman who followed the same paths, a few steps ahead of me, with some some big green binocular with a hawk decorating the binocular, missed the bufflehead and the house finch. If I were using a $299 Nikon E2, I would have seen the same birds, with nearly the same color and detail as I did with my Dialyt which costs more than double the EII's price. However, somebody as clumsy as I probably is better off with a roof prism binocular than a Porro.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
Arthur
Click to expand...


It all depends how good your eyes are I guess. To my set of peepers the $1000.00+ binoculars are ALOT better optically than the sub $600.00 glass. To me the absolutely gorgeous view that a Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski give is worth the difference.

Dennis
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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

B
Companion pair to NL pure 12x42
Replies
15
Views
998
Birdiee
B
S
New 10x42s wanted. But which ones?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
LucaPCP
L
M
Zeiss SFL 8x40 Eyecup Stray light issue!
Replies
16
Views
1K
Mac198
M
J
Brand new to everything at 68 - wanted to say hello…
Replies
13
Views
400
Jdilpkle
J
R
See how we go with these.....
Replies
13
Views
790
Rg548
R

Users who are viewing this thread

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