-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
828 HHS vs. Ultralites? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter elkhorn98
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?Robert Ellis
Larus marinus
I would agree that the Ultralights are brighter.
Robert Ellis
Larus marinus
I would tend towards the newer design among the roofs, but then again I would tend towards porros.
You know I was going to stick to porros but I with more experienced birders when I picked mine out. They looked at me like someone who was going to pick a vhs player over a dvd player every time I tried the porros and must admit that I gave in to peer pressure. I have no major gripes about the roofs though.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
I know about the peer pressure that you are talking about. I did not give in to that, because, after all, I am the wildlife biologist and ornithologist with 20 years experience in field work, and if i consider a good porro to be superior to a roof, then that is what i will get. I don't care about the opinions of some "1/2 hour per week backyard bird feeder birdwatcher", i am the one out there in the field 10-12 hours per day, every day. I am very happy with the Nikon EII 10x35, Celestron ED 9.5x44, and Swift 8.5x44 ED that i am using - all porros. I could have bought roofs with grant money, but i did not. I like the Nikon better than Zeiss Classic C and Swarovski SLC's. The porro Swift 8.5 ED is optically better that the famous Swaro 8.5 x 42. I am the professional, and i don't give a damn about what others say.lvn600 said:You know I was going to stick to porros but I with more experienced birders when I picked mine out. They looked at me like someone who was going to pick a vhs player over a dvd player every time I tried the porros and must admit that I gave in to peer pressure. I have no major gripes about the roofs though.
My advise: stick to whatever you like and can afford.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
lvn600 said:well I guess when someone asks for you opinion you don't beat around the bush.
How could i?
At 6.00 AM, every morning, i am at designated points in the grasslands of New Mexico, and i do 5 minute point counts. Think scanning on a 360 degree, looking at distant sparrows, and for half of those 360 the sun is right in your face. Sand dunes against the sun make things more interesting.
With my 12 year old 9.5 Celestron, old fashioned porro and non-waterproof, i can see the stripes on the head of a white-crowned sparrow perched on a grassblade 140 meters away, in the shadow of a sand dune and right against the sun. With premium roofs, Swarovski and Zeiss both 10x42/10x40, the lower half of the image is just white haze and blurr, while the upper half of the image shows only the dark outline of the sand dune. My Nikon EII 10x35 is lighter, sharper, brighter, and gives a more pleasant view than two separate pairs of Leica Trinovid 10x42 that i compared side by side. How do you call that?
Yeah, right, premium roofs last longer, and are waterproof to 5 meters. I couldn't care less, i don't use binoculars for scuba diving, and in many months in the tropics none of my porros fogged. Also, i take care of my binos, and don't use them for road building, so durability is not an issue for me. But yes, roofs are generally more durable. To what avail, if you don't see everything at all times?
All this is just another of those "i will get an SUV because they are safer".
Next week i will get the chance to take a new Zeiss FL 10x42 to work for the whole week. I will let you know.
On the other hand, $100-800 roofs are a waste of money.
Robert Ellis
Larus marinus
Well put. Otto, you are my kind of guy.
I would have gotten the 7x36 Nikon EII. And just like you, a 16' close focus was what made me change my mind.lvn600 said:I was just checking out specs on the Nikon EII thinking that sounded pretty good since I don't have any 10x porros but the close focus was listed as 16' and I seem to run in to a lot of situations where I focus in within 10 or so feet.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Yep, on paper the close focus is 16 feet, in reality, mine goes to about 3 meters or less, that's less than 9 feet. Give it a try. Eagle optics has them, with 30 day return policy. I might have a cherry sample,but it's worth a try.lvn600 said:I was just checking out specs on the Nikon EII thinking that sounded pretty good since I don't have any 10x porros but the close focus was listed as 16' and I seem to run in to a lot of situations where I focus in within 10 or so feet.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Otto McDiesel said:Yep, on paper the close focus is 16 feet, in reality, mine goes to about 3 meters or less, that's less than 9 feet. Give it a try. Eagle optics has them, with 30 day return policy. I might have a cherry sample,but it's worth a try.
Oh, i forgot this: at that close of a distance, you need to reduce the interpupilary distance a bit to see things clear. I just measured the close focus on my EII at 2.40 meters.
Humboldt Jim
Well-known member
The roof prism design is inherently optically INFERIOR to the poroprism design and more difficult to maufacure to near the same optical standards.
The only advantage of the roof prism design is size, weight and ease waterproofing.
Had the Swift waterproof HD porros bee available when I bought my Celestron Nobles, I would have gone for the Porros. :clap: :clap: :clap:
The only advantage of the roof prism design is size, weight and ease waterproofing.
Had the Swift waterproof HD porros bee available when I bought my Celestron Nobles, I would have gone for the Porros. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)