Ergonomics or Optics? (1 Viewer)

cycleguy · Dec 1, 2012

Which are you more particular about when purchasing a binocular - ergonomics or optics? (Given that you are somewhat particular about both).

I know there are other factors involved... but keeping it to these two items, which are you more particular about?

My initial response was optics, but after some thought I might be more particular about ergonomics.

Maybe 65/35.

CG

ceasar · Dec 1, 2012

If the binocular doesn't "fit" you properly you won't be pleased with it no matter how good it's optics are. The Nikon SE binoculars are the best, and probably the most extreme, example of that. There are different levels of inconvenience though and it depends on how much you will settle for.

That is why the adage "Try before you buy" is so important.

Bob

Veracocha · Dec 1, 2012

100% optics.

Troubador · Dec 1, 2012

It doesn't matter how good the view is ie how good the optics are, if the focusser is sloppy (free play) or gritty or is uncomfortably stiffer in one direction than the other (stand up some Swaros) I would not be interested.

If I go to observe nature all day the bins have got to be a pleasure to use, not just brilliant to look through.

In a way I am saying that I would give up some %ge of optical excellence for 100% ergonomics whereas I would not give up any ergonomics for 100% optical excellence.

So for me it would be 55% ergonomics and 45% optics, BUT this assumes that the level of optics is Zeiss/Leica/Swaro level and apologies to other makes who produce high qulaity optics for not including them all.

Lee

stereotruckdriver · Dec 1, 2012

I'm pretty much in agreement with what's already been posted. That said optical superiority is probably highest priority to me then ergo's! I'm finding that if a binocular isn't up to par optically it doesn't matter how good it handles or feels! Bryce...

brocknroller · Dec 1, 2012

ceasar said:
If the binocular doesn't "fit" you properly you won't be pleased with it no matter how good it's optics are. The Nikon SE binoculars are the best, and probably the most extreme, example of that. There are different levels of inconvenience though and it depends on how much you will settle for.

That is why the adage "Try before you buy" is so important.

Bob

Bob,

Could you elucidate about the SEs being the "most extreme example of that" ("that" in the prior sentence meant bins that don't fit you properly but have great optics)?

Sounds like you're saying the opposite of what I think you mean, because the SE's ergonomics have been widely praised. Then again, Frank said the 8x32 SE didn't fit his hands well, but whose hands would not fit the 10x42 SE besides André the Giant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Andre_in_the_late_%2780s.jpg

Kammerdiner · Dec 1, 2012

For me ergonomics is the icing on the cake of optics. Optics come first.

I mean holding the 8x32 mm SV is a lot nicer than holding the 8x32 FL, which is kind of a squat little chunk in comparison, but really I get along fine with either. It just so happens the SV wins in both categories so it's not an issue. But if I thought the FL had better optics, well then out the SV goes. Ergonomics wouldn't trump optics in that particular case.

I will say that over the years I have developed a definite preference for roofs. Something about the "elbows out" feel of porros just seems less inviting than the "elbows in" feel of roofs. But again, I used the 8x32 SE for a few years and got along just fine.

Guess I'm not that picky, except about the optics.

Mark

typo · Dec 1, 2012

I was tempted to say 100% optics but then realised it was total rubbish. Short ERs are total show stoppers, and the optics really have to be pretty special to tempt me at all over about 800g. Otherwise I'm pretty forgiving of ergos if it's cheap, but above about £300 I realise I'm actually very fussy.

David

ceasar · Dec 2, 2012

brocknroller said:
Bob,

Could you elucidate about the SEs being the "most extreme example of that" ("that" in the prior sentence meant bins that don't fit you properly but have great optics)?

Sounds like you're saying the opposite of what I think you mean, because the SE's ergonomics have been widely praised. Then again, Frank said the 8x32 SE didn't fit his hands well, but whose hands would not fit the 10x42 SE besides André the Giant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Andre_in_the_late_%2780s.jpg

[/QUOTE

Certainly. It has been discussed here many times. It is the "Kidney Beaning" blackout effect which many people experience while using them and as a result they cannot use them while other people rave about their optics and the view they get from them. For whatever reason the ergos of the SE's do not fit their eyes properly.

Bob

cycleguy · Dec 3, 2012

Kammerdiner said:
I will say that over the years I have developed a definite preference for roofs. Something about the "elbows out" feel of porros just seems less inviting than the "elbows in" feel of roofs.

Mark

DITTO....!!!

CG

brocknroller · Dec 3, 2012

ceasar said:
brocknroller said:

Bob,

Could you elucidate about the SEs being the "most extreme example of that" ("that" in the prior sentence meant bins that don't fit you properly but have great optics)?

Sounds like you're saying the opposite of what I think you mean, because the SE's ergonomics have been widely praised. Then again, Frank said the 8x32 SE didn't fit his hands well, but whose hands would not fit the 10x42 SE besides André the Giant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Andre_in_the_late_%2780s.jpg

[/QUOTE

Certainly. It has been discussed here many times. It is the "Kidney Beaning" blackout effect which many people experience while using them and as a result they cannot use them while other people rave about their optics and the view they get from them. For whatever reason the ergos of the SE's do not fit their eyes properly.

Bob

Click to expand...

Got it. I now see the quotes around "fit". I thought since we were discussing ergos, you meant that literally, as in they did not fit your hands well.

Yes, image blackouts had been a major complaint with the SEs, but that was before you and Steve invented MOLCET. Now, unless a user either has a bulldog face with no brow or a cliff-like Simian brow, using MOCLET should help them overcome the problem. Perhaps Nikon should include information about MOLCET and an illustration in their SE owners manual since there may be some people out there who are not aware of this technique.

Today, the weather is unseasonably mild, right now it's 59* F on Dec. 3 (weather forecasters are predicting a colder than average winter for the Northeast, so that won't last long).

If it were sunny out, it would be a good day for birding, but the skies are heavily overcast and the sun has nearly set, so it's downright dingy, another day like this and I will have to pull out my full spectrum lamp to avoid getting S.A.D,

These are the kind of days when I wish my pupils could open to 7mm. or at least 6mm so I could use an 8x50 to "brighten up" the day. I don't know where those photons are hiding, but when I put up the 8x50 Octarem to my eyes, it was as if the sun had peaked out from behind the clouds.

Chhayanat · Dec 3, 2012

typo said:
I was tempted to say 100% optics but then realised it was total rubbish. Short ERs are total show stoppers, and the optics really have to be pretty special to tempt me at all over about 800g. Otherwise I'm pretty forgiving of ergos if it's cheap, but above about £300 I realise I'm actually very fussy.

David

Optics, I am afraid, even when there are short ERs and viewers wear glasses. Porros seem to have some inherent advantages for viewers with poor eyesight, and these advantages are mainly in the optics. Centrefield sharpness is very important despite the evident virtues of edge sharpness, particularly for birdwatching. This does not mean I have always been able to choose my binoculars with these criteria in mind.
Chhayanat

Roadbike · Dec 4, 2012

cycleguy said:
Which are you more particular about when purchasing a binocular - ergonomics or optics? (Given that you are somewhat particular about both).

I know there are other factors involved... but keeping it to these two items, which are you more particular about?

My initial response was optics, but after some thought I might be more particular about ergonomics.

Maybe 65/35.

CG

For binoculars to be useful for me they have to feel right in the hand, be easy to adjust and the images have to be clear and have good color. I can't see one trait being more eignificant than the other.

brocknroller · Dec 5, 2012

cycleguy said:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
I will say that over the years I have developed a definite preference for roofs. Something about the "elbows out" feel of porros just seems less inviting than the "elbows in" feel of roofs.

Mark

DITTO....!!!

CG

Probably even less inviting for the person standing down wind from the two of you with those exposed armpits, but they invented a cure for this problem:

Tom's

The chances of me holding a closed bridge roof comfortably are slim, even slimmer if it's a slim design (besides, I use Tom's so I don't have to worry about having my arms up in the air). But people with their nose up in the air do have something to worry about when it rains. Fortunately, there's a cure for that too!

Nostril Rainguard

Most roofs are of the closed bridge design, and if Swaro keeps suing companies for using an open bridge design that really shouldn't have been theirs to patent to begin with, because it existed long before the EL, then there's little hope that I will own any roof except an EL (but I guess that was their idea to begin with). Well, there is the HT open hinge roof, that looks comfy.

Nikon should have counter sued after they developed the EDG II as an "open hinge" bridge and Swaro stole the idea by making the SLC-HD.

Here's an early example of an open bridge design: Mmmm.. maybe Zeiss should sue Swaro too!

ronh · Dec 5, 2012

Well, both. I was stargazing with my 10x56 FL last night, reared back and braced in my chair, a good fraction of the weight resting on my eye sockets. I could go on about the optics, but I kept thinking how comfortable the eyecups are.
Ron

ceasar · Dec 5, 2012

As I noted before, I don't think Nikon's "open bridge" design was very well designed.

It had thick metal covers on the insides of the hinges which stuck out and got in the way of one's fingers unlike the smooth hinge covers on the Swarovskis. It also appears that the exterior design of the objective tubes did not fit well with the thick padded coverings Nikon chose to use covering them and it resulted in these coverings bubbling and peeling.

These may have been the biggest reasons for the change. I've not seen anything that really confirms whether or not Swarovski sued over it but perhaps they threatened to do so. If so, it resulted in a MUCH better looking, and in my opinion, MORE ERGONOMIC binocular for the Nikon EDG. Note their similarities in styling with the Monarch 7, Monarch 5 and Monarch 3.

Bob

pompadour · Dec 5, 2012

Lee, some of what you say may have more to do with quality control than ergonomics. But if you're stuck with a bin with such problems and unable to try out another instrument of that model it can spoil your impression of its ergos. A widely-praised "alpha" lent by a friend for a trip had QC problems, and the associations in my mind about the handling of the model - by unfair extension - are not too happy.

David, eye relief may be more in the optics than the ergo category. If it's too long for some users it can be remedied by the eyepiece sleeve design but not if it's too short.

idaho john · Dec 5, 2012

and...

for me it is the differences between the Vortex Viper and the Conquest HD (both in 8x42)...and it has been the ergonomics that has had the most impact. With the Conquest HD, I cannot get the IPD "just right," and the eye cups do not seem to be able to be adjusted (slight tweaking back and forth between the first click) - in the full down position - to allow me a full view. That said, the optics are very nice. A side by side comparison with a Vortex Viper shows that the view through the center is better than the Vortex product - just a bit more clarity. And the Viper is no slouch there.

The Viper is easier for me to adjust the IPD, more comfortable to hold, the eye cup design works. Vortex (or whoever designed this binocular) did their homework and made a good product...at least imho.

And the Vortex diamondback has comfortable ergonomics as well and the optics, while not spectacular (compared to the Victory T* FL) is more than adequate and the pairing makes for comfortable birding.

In this case, the ergonomics win.

John

brocknroller · Dec 5, 2012

ceasar said:
As I noted before, I don't think Nikon's "open bridge" design was very well designed.

It had thick metal covers on the insides of the hinges which stuck out and got in the way of one's fingers unlike the smooth hinge covers on the Swarovskis. It also appears that the exterior design of the objective tubes did not fit well with the thick padded coverings Nikon chose to use covering them and it resulted in these coverings bubbling and peeling.

These may have been the biggest reasons for the change. I've not seen anything that really confirms whether or not Swarovski sued over it but perhaps they threatened to do so. If so, it resulted in a MUCH better looking, and in my opinion, MORE ERGONOMIC binocular for the Nikon EDG. Note their similarities in styling with the Monarch 7, Monarch 5 and Monarch 3.

Bob

Bob,

I liked the EL WB's open bridge design better too, and other than having two hinges, that's about all they had in common, which was my point! Given this superficial similarity, I doubt if this lawsuit (or the threat of a lawsuit) would have ever gotten anywhere in the US. Swaro told Nikon they couldn't sell the EDG I in Europe, which is why Europeans buyers never got the EDG until the EDG II.

On another thread, can't find that post now, or I'd reply there, Jan asked why shouldn't Swaro being able to protect its patent? The answer to that would be that the design is too general to patent, or at least, I think it would be in the US, but in Europe it apparently qualified as "unique" enough to get a patent. The maximum term of a European patent is 20 years from its filing date. So in 2019, Nikon will be able to make another open bridge roof (hopefully, better ergonomically than the EDG I).

Even in other countries this is true. When Honda came out with its second generation Insight, and it looked very similar to the Toyota Prius, I thought there would be a lawsuit since they are both Japanese companies, but nothing happened. The whole point of the Prius is to distinguish itself from the hoard of added on hybrids, which look identical to their gas counterparts, with an added "Hybrid" label.

AFAIK, Swaro didn't threaten to sue the other half dozen or more companies that are making open bridge roofs, only Nikon. Why do you suppose that is? I'll take a guess - Nikon was the only company able to produce a bin that would compete head to head with the EL. So it wasn't about protecting patents, it was about squashing the competition. Nasty business, IMO. I generally have a good opinion about Swarovski, but that litigation turned me off.

Ergonomics or Optics? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread