Why was Hawke Panorama on the market for only a short time? (1 Viewer)

Hi,

am I right in thinking that the Panorama was not released on time due to technical problems (with the diopter?) and then when it was released, it wasn't around for long before it was taken off the market.

Anyone know what the full story is? Are there unresolved issues with it?

I ask because I am thinking of getting an 8.5x42 bin and the Panorama could be the way to do it without spending a small fortune.

Thanks

For at least £50.00 less you could have a Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45 delivered to your door, tax paid, from the US ; for me a far better balanced and handling binocular with nicer ergos given the comparatively high weight and that's despite the very slightly narrower view.

Samandag said:

For at least £50.00 less you could have a Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45 delivered to your door, tax paid, from the US ; for me a far better balanced and handling binocular with nicer ergos given the comparatively high weight and that's despite the very slightly narrower view.

Click to expand...

Hi Samandag,

never seen or heard of that one. Kind of interesting but I wouldn't like to order from the US, it would be expensive if I didn't like them and had to send them back.

Thanks for the idea though.

There's lots to like about the Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45, the focus wheel position pre-dates the new Zeiss Victory SF by five years.

Image here : http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=523721&d=1417202904.

And I take your point !

Most of these are available, and no doubt there are others :

Weaver Grand Slam 8.5x45, 700g, 104m
Bushnell Infinity 8.5x45, 708g, 104m
Delta Optical Titanium 8.5x45, 850g, 105m
Nikon Monarch X 8.5x45, 720g, 110m
Vanguard Endeavor ED 8.5x45, 770g, 114m
Leupold Northfork 8.5x45, 765g, 115m
Bresser Montana ED 8.5x45, 885g, 115m
Eschenbach Farlux Selector D 8.5x45, 880g, 117m
Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45, 885g, 122m
Vixen Artes ED 8.5x45, 907g, 122m
Kowa Genesis Prominar XD 8.5x44, 940g, 122m
Hawke Panorama ED 8.5x42, 890g, 129m
Swarovski EL SV 8.5x42, 835g, 133m

Best wishes,

Swift 8.5x44 HR/5 821g measured, 144m (8.26 deg measured).

It was a troubled project with the dioptre mechanism being one of a number of issues that repeatedly delayed it's launch. I understand the key technical issues were pretty much resolved when the program was canned. That little report I wrote was one from the last batch I believe.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=265831

The Bynolyt Albatross II 8.5x45 is a bit on the heavy side but otherwise really impressed me.
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/431/limit/recent

David

As far as I know, the Panorama is based off the initial approach by Zen Ray into their Prime HD binocular. I had a prototype of this glass and it stunk, to put it mildly. The diopter was essentially non functional. The prisms were too small and the technical degree of difficulty in correction of the prism problems was enough to make ZR decide to drop this whole design and start over.

It was very shortly thereafter this decision that the Panorama appeared in the Hawke literature. My reaction to seeing that was on the order of ..."good luck with that one Hawke, I do wish you well". I do not know for sure that it is the same binocular, but there is NOTHING in the specs and appearance to differentiate the prototype I had from the Panorama in the literature. My assumption (being careful with assumptions) is that it is the same binocular and that Hawke likely was forced to drop it and seek another direction. I hope it did them no serious harm.

Looking closer it seems the last Panorama was somewhat different from the initial one, so that suggests they tried to alleviate the problems, but evidently they were not satisfied with their effort, or they have a grander design in mind.

Thanks everyone for your input. You've made a decision easy. The Panoramas aren't for me.

Intrigued by the ZR Primes now. And the Leupold BX-4 McKinleys. Although sample variation seems to be an issue for both of them.

Happy Christmas to all, may Santa bring you the optics you want

Boogieshrew said:

Thanks everyone for your input. You've made a decision easy. The Panoramas aren't for me.

Intrigued by the ZR Primes now. And the Leupold BX-4 McKinleys. Although sample variation seems to be an issue for both of them.

Happy Christmas to all, may Santa bring you the optics you want

Click to expand...

Pretty much the same binocular. Get the McKinley if you like more normal sized eye cups. The Prime has a better ergonomics feel to my hand, but the eye cups are quite large in diameter. The McKinley is a tad warmer in color bias, the Prime a bit cooler.

The more I look, the more convinced I become that the sample variation in the binocular that finds is way onto the forum is less the binoculars fault and more a reflection of great variation in the sample of the users. Too many people expect perfection, something which does not exist anywhere. A good binocular is like one of your friends. They are friends because their good points outweigh their bad, none of them perfect, but all of them friends nonetheless. I tend to think that nowadays too many people start off their initial experience with a binocular looking for flaws. Since nothing is perfect, flaws will be found. This must surely be a fault that lies with the binocular rather than with the user. The results would be different if the initial experience began with looking for points of agreement.

Steve C said:

Pretty much the same binocular. Get the McKinley if you like more normal sized eye cups. The Prime has a better ergonomics feel to my hand, but the eye cups are quite large in diameter. The McKinley is a tad warmer in color bias, the Prime a bit cooler.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the pointers. Not too bothered about eyecup size as I wear specs.
The colour bias info is good to know. I like cooler so perhaps the ZR is the better choice for me. Especially as it's cheaper here.

[/QUOTE]The more I look, the more convinced I become that the sample variation in the binocular that finds is way onto the forum is less the binoculars fault and more a reflection of great variation in the sample of the users. Too many people expect perfection, something which does not exist anywhere. A good binocular is like one of your friends. They are friends because their good points outweigh their bad, none of them perfect, but all of them friends nonetheless. I tend to think that nowadays too many people start off their initial experience with a binocular looking for flaws. Since nothing is perfect, flaws will be found. This must surely be a fault that lies with the binocular rather than with the user. The results would be different if the initial experience began with looking for points of agreement.[/QUOTE]

Tha's a very eloquent way of describing things. You can put whatever word you like instead of binocular in "A good xxxxxxx is like one of your friends. They are friends because their good points outweigh their bad, none of them perfect, but all of them friends nonetheless." It stands good for a car, a coat, a house, whatever.

And yes, people do look to find fault first. One can be more content if one looks for the good points first in whatever your looking at. I try to remind myself of that often.

I'll keep it in mind when I don't get the presents I really want this Christmas!

The Panorama has been officially dropped by Hawke. I tried it a few times and quite liked the view, but there was a yellow tint to it. The focusing was awful. Very stiff. Focusing is a real issue with Hawke binoculars, although I have a Frontier ED 8x43 with a perfect focusing mechanism and tried a Sapphire 10x42 recently with good focusing, but the majority have poor focusing.

. The fields of view of various binoculars has been listed above.

I have a question to ask, which perhaps Holger or another mathematically inclined person can answer.

If you have a binocular with a field of view of 0.2 rad or 11.46° (11.459°), is this expressed as 200 m at 1000 m or 600 feet at 1000 yards, or is there some correction to be made to these figures.

Taking it to the extreme if an instrument has a field of 1 rad or 57.296°, is this expressed as 1000 m at 1000 m or 3000 feet at 1000 yards or is there some correction to be made to these figures.

If there is a correction, what is it and how is it calculated?

Hope somebody can help.

Binastro said:

. The fields of view of various binoculars has been listed above.

I have a question to ask, which perhaps Holger or another mathematically inclined person can answer.

If you have a binocular with a field of view of 0.2 rad or 11.46° (11.459°), is this expressed as 200 m at 1000 m or 600 feet at 1000 yards, or is there some correction to be made to these figures.

Taking it to the extreme if an instrument has a field of 1 rad or 57.296°, is this expressed as 1000 m at 1000 m or 3000 feet at 1000 yards or is there some correction to be made to these figures.

If there is a correction, what is it and how is it calculated?

Hope somebody can help.

Click to expand...

No correction is needed, as the same angle is given by 200m@1000m or 200yds@1000yds.

Giving the FoV in those terms, so many ft@1000yds, was an effort to translate view angle into something more tangible. Not sure it helped.

. Thanks etudiant.
No, that is not what I meant.

If one looks at tables of the fields of view of binoculars up to about 5° the linear measures correspond with the angular measures.
However, with wide-angle binoculars and extra wide-angle binoculars as the angle gets wider the difference between the angular measure and the linear measure begins to differ.

Answering my own question, but I'm not at all sure if I'm correct.

I think that the difference between angular measure and linear measure depends on the distortion of the binocular.
It is possible that real fields of view as with apparent fields of view may sometimes need the tangent of the half angle and sometimes not.
The angle in degrees or radians is a spherical measure, whereas the number of metres at 1000 m and the number of feet at 1000 yards is a linear measure on a plane surface.

But I would like an active mathematician such as Holger to confirm or give another explanation as to the differences in tables as one gets angles of view beyond 5°.

Thanks for the interest anyway.