• 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.

Building a Better Binocular Mount (1 Viewer)

Food for thought...
Two separate cords for both the front and back of the bin.
The cords would come in from the top of the bracket and adjust with cord locks.

I understand this would increase bulk some because of the extra material needed for the cord to come through from the top. Also the cord locks will be more "outboard".

Excuse the crude drawing, I just whipped it up on the moment. No radii and not to scale
 

Attachments

  • Bin Mount Drawing.jpg
    Bin Mount Drawing.jpg
    211 KB · Views: 90
Last edited:
Alexis Powell said:
Use neoprene without self-adhesive (or something else without adhesive) along with a good adhesive (3M VHB).

--AP
Click to expand...

Thanks Alexis.
I'm already on that page but I want to use something firmer than neoprene, like thin butyl rubber, maybe leather, maybe felt.

The combination of squish (neoprene) and the adhesive back that never "sets up" is the culprit I think.
 
Last edited:
Hi Kevin,

Kevin Conville said:
I understand this would increase bulk some because of the extra material needed for the cord to come through from the top.
Click to expand...

What I had in mind simply was a different cord routing scheme.

Here's #13 with the old scheme next to #11 with the single-cord scheme ... still 4 loops in total:

P1320765s.jpg

With a single cord, some redundancy is lost in case the cord ever breaks, but it would be possible to put a safety cord stop (or a knot, simply) between the bridges that ensures at least two loops staying in place even in case of a breakage.

Part of my dissatisfaction stems from the bulk of the cord stops. I'm thinking about designing my own, or even of incorporating them into the bridges somehow.

Or maybe I could re-rig #11 to use two cords, left/right instead of front/back, with two cord stops at the objective side.

Regards,

Henning
 
Kevin Conville said:
Thanks Alexis.
I'm already on that page but I want to use something firmer than neoprene, like thin butyl rubber, maybe leather, maybe felt.

The combination of squish (neoprene) and the adhesive back that never "sets up" is the culprit I think.
Click to expand...

3M VHB transfer film adhesives or double-sided tapes also never set up, but once stuck they don't allow squirming movement or let go (except in particular instances, which is nice for rubber armor on bins or cameras that might need to be removed for service). In this case, removability is perhaps not a concern, so you could use some kind of epoxy instead, if you want something that sets up.

--AP
 
@Kevin Conville and Hauksen

With all due respect to your effort, trying to create an alternative adapter, more reasonable than the manufacturers original:

Is it not a bit disproportionate to have to take such an effort just because its fashionable to save an estimated Euro 1.5 in manufacturing costs, omitting an 1/4 thread in the front hinge with an binocular costing more than 1000 times this amount?

Hans Weigum
 
Hi Hans,

Hans Weigum said:
Is it not a bit disproportionate to have to take such an effort just because its fashionable to save an estimated Euro 1.5 in manufacturing costs, omitting an 1/4 thread in the front hinge with an binocular costing more than 1000 times this amount?
Click to expand...

I have to admit that my binoculars are actually Nikons with a front hinge thread. Great feature! However, it's not quick to use, and I wouldn't carry the binoculars around with the adapter installed to be ready to put in on the tripod at a moment's notice.

So in my opinion, the "stay on" adapter is an improvement over the hinge thread adapter.

Regards,

Henning
 
Hans Weigum said:
@Kevin Conville and Hauksen

With all due respect to your effort, trying to create an alternative adapter, more reasonable than the manufacturers original:

Is it not a bit disproportionate to have to take such an effort just because its fashionable to save an estimated Euro 1.5 in manufacturing costs, omitting an 1/4 thread in the front hinge with an binocular costing more than 1000 times this amount?

Hans Weigum
Click to expand...

You may have missed the other thread that was the jumping off point for this thread https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361138

I personally feel that pedestal type mounts that utilize a single 1/4"-20 thread are not very good, generally. In addition I contend that although platform type mounts are much more stable there are none out there that I feel are very well designed. This is why I started exploring a new design.
 
justabirdwatcher,

Some bins like the FLs 10X56 or the Leica BAs/BNs and many others do not have an access port for that accessory. Additionally, some owners do not wish to implant an outdoorsman on their glass.

Andy W.
 
Hi,

justabirdwatcher said:
I applaud your creativity, but honestly I don't see how a mount can get any simpler than this - or do a better job of staying out of the way when the bins are hand-held.
Click to expand...

It always depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly a smarter solution than the no-name single-piece adapter I'm using, but it also has a number of downsides avoided by my design:

The Vortex's adapter rod protudes below the surface of the binoculars. I can't really see how it would not "poke your chest", as stated in the article description, when you're wearing it around the neck. In fact, personally I'd consider the small cross section metal rod pointing at my sternum a safety hazard.

The Vortex adapter also leaves the quick release plate on the tripod, which means that the tripod is not free to accept my spotting scope. If you remove the quick release plate, you have to store it separately (and it features another protuding bit).

By comparison, my adapter design has a flat lower surface that's both convenient and safe to wear around the neck, and it takes the quick release plate with it so that the tripod can be used for other optics immediately. Additionally, my design (which is just a development of Kevin's original idea, of course!) does not require the binoculars to have a threaded bridge.

So I don't think my adapter design is made superfluous by the Vortex product - it simply provides a solution to a slightly different set of requirements.

Regards,

Henning
 
Hauksen said:
Hi,



It always depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly a smarter solution than the no-name single-piece adapter I'm using, but it also has a number of downsides avoided by my design:

The Vortex's adapter rod protudes below the surface of the binoculars. I can't really see how it would not "poke your chest", as stated in the article description, when you're wearing it around the neck. In fact, personally I'd consider the small cross section metal rod pointing at my sternum a safety hazard.

The Vortex adapter also leaves the quick release plate on the tripod, which means that the tripod is not free to accept my spotting scope. If you remove the quick release plate, you have to store it separately (and it features another protuding bit).

By comparison, my adapter design has a flat lower surface that's both convenient and safe to wear around the neck, and it takes the quick release plate with it so that the tripod can be used for other optics immediately. Additionally, my design (which is just a development of Kevin's original idea, of course!) does not require the binoculars to have a threaded bridge.

So I don't think my adapter design is made superfluous by the Vortex product - it simply provides a solution to a slightly different set of requirements.

Regards,

Henning
Click to expand...

I agree it's a different solution. I had a pair of Nikon LXL's for years that didn't have the 1/4x20 port and it was a source of frustration for me, enough that I eventually sold them - despite having arguably the best optics for my eyes of any bin I've ever used.

Backcountry hunters are extremely weight and space conscious. I know I am. I think for the typical birder however, your solution will work fine.
 
Hi,

justabirdwatcher said:
Backcountry hunters are extremely weight and space conscious. I know I am. I think for the typical birder however, your solution will work fine.
Click to expand...

Hm, I guess you'd have to see my adapter "in the flesh" to realize how light and compact it actually is. The latest version, complete with cords, cord stops and hex nut, weighs 26 g and when mounted protudes a mere 5 mm below the outline of the binocular barrels.

What does the Vortex adapter with its metal parts weigh? If they're from steel, I don't think they can beat 26 g. Aluminium, perhaps ...

Regards,

Henning
 
The Vortex's adapter rod protudes below the surface of the binoculars. I can't really see how it would not "poke your chest", as stated in the article description, when you're wearing it around the neck. In fact, personally I'd consider the small cross section metal rod pointing at my sternum a safety hazard.
Click to expand...
Me too I am afraid.
Perhaps someone can figure out what the manufr. can mean by that?
Also in the same description: "cancer and reproductive harm": likely material/s?
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Kevin and Henning,

I’m very impressed with your mounts and the refinements that emerged with each iteration. It would be very interesting to see what each of you could do about the challenge of holding heavy binoculars steady for extended periods. Can either of you think of a way to go beyond tripods, mono pods, shoulder stocks and image stabilization? I’ve been trying to work something up based on video camera shoulder rigs - but you’ve demonstrated an aptitude for solutions so I’m wondering if you have any thoughts or insights re image stability.

Best,
Jerry
 
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

D
Recommendation for a binocular
Replies
6
Views
459
MiddleRiver
MiddleRiver
N
Advice: Not too expensive toss in the pocket/bag compact binoculars?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
6K
julay
J
dwatsonbirder
Compact comparisons: Low end vs high end
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Rg548
R
kimmik
Ray Optics Simulation of Swarovski NL, SLW
Replies
10
Views
1K
Maljunulo
M
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

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