Celestron Nature 8x30? (1 Viewer)

On the German Amazon (but not on the US one), I find a Celestron Nature model that is cheaper than the Cypress which is also offered. While the Cypress has the customary 7x30 specification, the Nature is listed as 8x30. Prices are around 60 Euros for the Celestron Nature, almost 120 Euros for the Cypress. And the Nature is also offered by Hama for over 160 Euros. Talk about pricing :-C !

Except for a kind of inlay on the bulge on the upper body, the Nature looks pretty much like the Cypress. And it is also waterproof and comes with fully multi-coated optics. So what's the reason for another - essentially look-alike - model by the same company?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61cmGGbV4tL._SL1200_.jpg

One problem with the info on the site mentioned is that they mix all Nature models in the reviews section. So there is only one review dealing with this porro model (the others are all concerning roofs). That particular review is very positive, but I'm looking for a wider selection of opinions.

Edit: I found three more reviews, one each on the UK, Italian and French Amazon. All different ones, not translations. Two reviews were 5 stars as well, the third one 4 stars, with the main criticism being rather noticeable vignetting.

Hi Robert,

The Celestron Natures were extensively discussed in this old thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=177768&highlight=Celestron+Nature

Since the real magnification of the Nature was around 7x I suspect the later Cypress was just the Nature rebadged to reflect the true specs. The Barska Crossover appears to be mostly the same binocular (also around 7x) except for single-layer coatings on the prisms.

Henry

henry link said:

Hi Robert,

The Celestron Natures were extensively discussed in this old thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=177768&highlight=Celestron+Nature

Since the real magnification of the Nature was around 7x I suspect the later Cypress was just the Nature rebadged to reflect the true specs. The Barska Crossover appears to be mostly the same binocular (also around 7x) except for single-layer coatings on the prisms.

Henry

Click to expand...

Thanks Henry,

I must have missed this discussion when it was new. And it seems that the Celestron Nature version is only sold outside of North America nowadays. But in my attempts to provide affordable (to me) binoculars for my grandchildren, I'm out to explore the market. At this point, one of them (living in Switzerland) has got a Celestron Cypress 7x30, and another (living in the US) just has a Kowa YF 8x30 on its way. The latter a cheap no warranty version (direct import but sold via Amazon.com). I'm not giving away my own original Yosemite 6x30 pair. But I want the kids to get something useable at least. They will bang them around at some point, so no need to spend a lot. And here in Switzerland, that Celestron Nature model seems to be the most affordable model right now. So there is the dilemma whether I take the risk or not. The kid will get a decent glass, so if it's lousy, I'll not pass it on to the grandchild.

Robert

Here's my take on the possible original re-badging of the Kunming United Optics BW11 7x30 as the Celestron Nature 8x30 Porro:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=308790

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Post #16 refer.


Stephen

Stephen Prower said:

Robert

Here's my take on the possible original re-badging of the Kunming United Optics BW11 7x30 as the Celestron Nature 8x30 Porro:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=308790

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Post #16 refer.


Stephen

Click to expand...

Thanks Stephen.
I looked into your alibaba instructions from the other thread. So far, I'd have to order 10 minimum. Don't have that many grandchildren. But I need to look around a bit more. Anyway, it would seem obvious that much of the cheap yet optically decent stuff comes from the same place.

Robert

1. Here's the only other binocular that I have seen that looks like a re-badged Kunming Optical Company 7x30 BW11:

http://www.birders-store.co.uk/hawke-nature-trek-7x30-binoculars.html

It's the Hawke Nature Trek 7x30.

The price at Birders' Store is £64.95.

2. Looking for a better price, I have just found the following page, which suggests that the Hawke has been discontinued in the USA:

http://www.opticsplanet.com/hawke-sport-optics-nature-trek-porro-7x30-binoculars.html

Also:
* There is a hint from the header of one of my Google hits that the Hawke may be 'out of stock' at some/?all UK outlets.
* In particular Hawke outlet, London Camera Exchange, does not list the Hawke on their website.

3. Good luck with the hunt!

4. I think FrankD rated the Celestron on the thread that Henry Link mentioned as an acceptable alternative purchase to the Nikon Action VII 7x35: ie a very good 'optical package' at the price.

Certainly that's my view. The much lower weight is a clincher. I've given away my old Nikon Action VII 7x35 to a friend.

5. Because of the quality control issue though, I made sure to buy 'Try before you buy', and phoned the shop before travelling to make sure that there were more than two items in stock for me to choose from.

In the end, given MicroGlobe's very low price at the time of £33, I bought four, all good ones. I gave one away to family. One is promised to a friend. The other two I have kept for myself: they remain good performers.

6. The design of the Leupold 6x30 porro 'family' means, I believe, a stiff focusser in cold weather. My Celestrons are not an exception.

A badge fell off one of mine. Celestron in the UK did not have spares. They said that they would have taken a replacement off a scrap binocular for me, but did not have a scrap binocular to hand at the time.

I use bicycle inner tube (I think the right tyre section size is in the mountain bike 2.25-2.35in range) to make the eyecups stay up*.


Stephen


* I have also made wings from bicycle inner tube to help position the eyes correctly 'horizontally' (eye placement at centre of ocular) and vertically (eye placement at point of eye relief). The wings sleeve over the inner tube that holds up the eyecups, and are only lightly stretched, so that the correct section size is probably around 2.5in*.

The mod in question is routine for me--I have modified a couple of other models of binocular the same way--, and not a reflection of any problem particular to the Celestron

Stephen Prower said:

Robert

1. Here's the only other binocular that I have seen that looks like a re-badged Kunming Optical Company 7x30 BW11:

http://www.birders-store.co.uk/hawke-nature-trek-7x30-binoculars.html

It's the Hawke Nature Trek 7x30.

The price at Birders' Store is £64.95.

2. Looking for a better price, I have just found the following page, which suggests that the Hawke has been discontinued in the USA:

http://www.opticsplanet.com/hawke-sport-optics-nature-trek-porro-7x30-binoculars.html

...............Stephen


* I have also made wings from bicycle inner tube to help position the eyes correctly 'horizontally' (eye placement at centre of ocular) and vertically (eye placement at point of eye relief). The wings sleeve over the inner tube that holds up the eyecups, and are only lightly stretched, so that the correct section size is probably around 2.5in*.

The mod in question is routine for me--I have modified a couple of other models of binocular the same way--, and not a reflection of any problem particular to the Celestron

Click to expand...

Stephen, did you notice the distortion of the picture in the Opticsplanet link? It looks like a 7x50 model there.

Edit: I just found out that they used the picture of the 7x42 model that can be seen on the birder-store page.

Anyway, so there is another of the clones, that I had not known.

Now for your modifications using inner tubes. Is there a link where you show pictures, or could you post some here? Not sure I understand why such modifications are needed for these binoculars.

Bicycle inner tube wings

Robert

WHY NEED FOR MODIFICATIONS

1. Here's a thread that addressed the need to modify binoculars because the point of eye-relief in relation to the eyecups did not suit the user:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=295539

2. I can't find a thread I once read where a poster described in terms precisely what you may see through a binocular when your eyes are positioned forward of, or backward of, the point of eye relief.

But here's the Eagle Optics' description:

http://www.eagleoptics.com/articles/technical-guide/understanding-eye-relief-a-closer-look

3. With the Celestron, if you position the eyes forward of the point of eye relief, instead of a clear cut view of the field stops, you see, seeming to look 'from inside the binocular', what appears to be the metallic rim of the inside of the field stop.

If you position the eyes backward of the point of eye relief you get shadow effects or 'kidney beaning'.

4. I first used bicycle inner tube to fix the eyecups of a binocular in the up position with a Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite. I also fitted bicycle inner tube wings to the Bushnell to cut out distracting sidelight.

I then found, accidentally, that by adjusting the wings I could also move my eyes to a point further back from surface of the oculars than was permitted by fully extending the eyecups -- and that that point further back was where my eyes in fact needed to be in order for them to be at the exact point of eye relief.

5. I then repeated the fix with the Celestron, and other binoculars, such as my old Swift Ospreys, where the point of eye relief, as manifesting itself in kidney beaning and shadowing, was further back from the eye cups than suited my eyes.

In the case of the Celestron I would also, when pressing the binocular to my eyes to avoid kidney beaning, instead get the 'inside view of the rim of the field stop' effect.

6. With other binoculars, and possibly I believe from memory the Celestrons, you can sometimes get shadowing effects when scanning.

I fancy that the effects may be related to the placement of the eyes within the orbit of the field stops. However optics is not my field.

But it can do no harm that wings assist one to place ones eyes at the centre of the orbit of the field stops.

PICTURES

7. I attach pictures herewith of:

a) Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite as modified first using bicycle inner tube:
* To fix eyecups in fully-extended position
* To provide a couple of millimetres additional extension of the eyecups
* To provide a soft contact of the additional extension with the face (ie inner tube doubled back on itself

b) Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite as modified second by sleeving bicycle inner tube wings over modified eyecups

[At this point I had not realised that the wings could serve to increase the distance of the eyes from the ocular lens without the need to add extension to the eyecups. I fitted the wings rather solely to cut out distracting sidelight]

c) Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite as later further modified by addition of skimpy rainguard

[The design of rainguard still needs to be refined so as to cater for different field settings of the Inter Pupillary Distance]

d) Celestron 8x30 Nature Porro as modified using bicycle inner tube to fix eyecups in fully-extended position. Section of eyecups left uncovered by inner tube in order to allow for the attachment of the supplied rainguard.

[Unlike with the Bushnell, the purpose of the modification was solely to stop the eyecups from repeatedly slipping down the fully-extended position. I had not then learned from the web that the cause of kidney-beaning was insufficient extension of the eyecups]

e) Celestron 8x30 Nature Porro as later modified by sleeving bicycle inner tube wings over section of eyecups left bare for the attachment of the rainguard

[When I get hold of some inner tube of the necessary section, I shall re-do the modification of the Celestron in the same way as the Bushnell. In this case the purpose of doubling over the inner tube that fixes the eyecup in the fully-extended position will not be to add extension to the eyecups, but to enable me to increase the diameter of the wings to a more comfortable figure]


Stephen

Robert

I ran out of my allowance of photos.

I continue:

--------

f) Opticron 8x32 Discovery WP featuring a simple use of bicycle inner tube to add extension to the eyecups

g) Swift Osprey 7.5x42 featuring a simple installation of wings cut from bicycle inner tube to increase the distance of the eyes from the ocular lens

[I plan in due course to re-do the modification of the Osprey using an inner sleeve of doubled over inner tube for the same purpose as for the Celestron]


Stephen

Stephen Prower said:

Robert

I ran out of my allowance of photos.

I continue:

...................................
Stephen

Click to expand...

Thanks so much Stephen. Great selection of explanations, links as well as most appreciated illustrations. As I'm wearing eyeglasses, the "wings" are out of the question in my case. Though they would often be most convenient, as side light is getting in from behind my glasses.

Another point is, your modifications are strictly for your personal use. Quick adjustments if one shares binoculars (even for just a particular bird) are no longer possible.

Robert

Essentially you're right that the modifications are personal.

However:

1) If you get in a selection of inner tubes of different section, you won't need to compromise on the fit of the wings: the section can be chosen so that the wings easily pull off, or fit back on.

2) As WJC emphasised in Post #7 on the thread that I linked to, the distance between the point of eye relief and the front surface of the lens is fixed. So if one person finds that the point of eye relief is located too far backward of the eyecups for their eyes, quite a few other persons should also find that to be so for them.

So at least some of the persons who I might hand the binocular to might find it equally as comfortable to use as me.

And indeed vice versa an unmodified binocular that suits me that I hand them might not suit them!


I have to leave it to the optical whizzes to take the point further:

* Why do some designers' eyecups give one a good location of the eyes at the point of eye relief, and others not?
* Do I have special trouble because I am not the average 'Ford man' that most designers design their eyecups for?

Certainly Typo at Post #3 commented how often, with a new binocular, he experienced that he definitely was not the designer's Ford man. I am sure he won't mind my quoting the Post in full:

Typo said:

I think only one binocular out of the ten I currently have work for me with eyecups full extended and the rims right in the eye socket. All the others need some sort of adjustment in the amount of eyecup extension and the positioning under or over the brow for comfortable use. Sometimes you are lucky and the correct distance falls on one of the set positions but a number of mine have assorted O-rings, hoops of wire or elastic bands setting intermediate positions. Everyone's face is different and no doubt some are more fortunate with their features than I am () but I'd suggest fine tuning the positioning is usual.

David

Click to expand...

Stephen