Ownthenight
Active member
Is Kowa really producing that many lemons, or that many; not cherries? I'm getting nervous.
-
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.
883 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ownthenight
- Start date
kwikstaart
Well-known member
I do not know what you mean by "that many". It seems that quality control with the 99 has slipped a bit but I am not aware that the same applies for the 883. But they have in common that there are many very happy users, "professional" reviews rave them, you can try them yourself before keeping one, and.... I and every one who looks through my 883 is beyond thrilled!
Ownthenight
Active member
Well... This thread has stemmed from the number of threads on this website that have been speaking about the 883, and of how many copies they had to go through before finding a "good" one.....
The Kingfisher
Well-known member
I owned a Kowa 883 for some years ago, but didn't use it much. Can't remember how optically good that speciman was. I sold it after a couple of months. For three years ago I ordered a new speciman of the Kowa 883, but it was not good enough for me at high powers (50-60x). The ordered a third specimen for some weeks ago, but it was like the second one. I was not satisfied with that one either. I sent it back to the dealer and ordered a fourth speciman of Kowa 883. That one is sharp all the way to 60x magnification, but if it is a perfect specimen or just a good one...I don't know. Maybe there are even sharper specimen out there, but I'm satisfied with this one. Maybe it's not as sharp at 50x magnification as my old Nikon Fieldscope ED82 with the 50x eyepiece, but it's a little bit sharper att lower mag (30x) I think. I think the Nikon Fieldscope ED 82 is a brilliant scope and I prefer it in some ways, but the Kowa 883 with the 25-60x zoom is more flexible because of better eye relief and much larger field of view than the Nikon 25-75x zoom.
Ownthenight
Active member
I see, thank You.
BoldenEagle
Well-known member
Kowa and every other maker will produce variable quality samples. Some seem to do better though; Nikon Fieldscope Monarch has been praised often here and maybe Swarovski with their Atx line (maybe 115 excluded) does better than others.
You may be lucky and find good 883 specimen right away or more probably have to try few samples, depending on how "perfect" sample you want. If you know how to star test a scope (plenty information in many threads here) and/or to measure it's resolution, then it is just a matter of patience to get enough samples to be tested...
I was hoping to find good specimen of Kowa 99-A but after 6 samples my patience was gone...Luckily I already have a reasonably good sample of 883 so I can try to go on with my search sometime in the future.
When I bought my 883, first sample was quite bad and I send it back and the dealer pre-selected the next sample among 12 samples if I remember correct. He said it was best of that group. Nevertheless it is not a perfect sample; there are some minor optical aberrations, which together cause it not to be faultless and I'm sure better samples exists.
I also tried two 883 samples afterwards and the first one was "average" at best but the other was very close to my sample but just little less sharp (probably caused by more comatic optics judging by the star test).
Is it more probably to find a good sample of a 883 than 99-A? I don't know, maybe, but at least the 6 99-A samples I tested were all less sharp (and showed worse star test results, mainly due spherical aberration) than my current 883 sample and there has been quite many bad experiences by others.
Regards, Juhani
You may be lucky and find good 883 specimen right away or more probably have to try few samples, depending on how "perfect" sample you want. If you know how to star test a scope (plenty information in many threads here) and/or to measure it's resolution, then it is just a matter of patience to get enough samples to be tested...
I was hoping to find good specimen of Kowa 99-A but after 6 samples my patience was gone...Luckily I already have a reasonably good sample of 883 so I can try to go on with my search sometime in the future.
When I bought my 883, first sample was quite bad and I send it back and the dealer pre-selected the next sample among 12 samples if I remember correct. He said it was best of that group. Nevertheless it is not a perfect sample; there are some minor optical aberrations, which together cause it not to be faultless and I'm sure better samples exists.
I also tried two 883 samples afterwards and the first one was "average" at best but the other was very close to my sample but just little less sharp (probably caused by more comatic optics judging by the star test).
Is it more probably to find a good sample of a 883 than 99-A? I don't know, maybe, but at least the 6 99-A samples I tested were all less sharp (and showed worse star test results, mainly due spherical aberration) than my current 883 sample and there has been quite many bad experiences by others.
Regards, Juhani
Ownthenight
Active member
Acknowledged, thank You for your response.
The Kowa 883 we ordered fairly recently has no issues. Didn't have to order multiple copies. Image holds up well at full magnification using the 1.6 extender. The image's depth of field can get shallow at full magnification with the 1.6x extender so it takes more finesse to focus. So, depending on the angle or position of a bird it can be possible to have one part in focus and one part out of focus due to depth of field - just like with a camera.
Our Kowa shows nice sharp CA free images when looking at the night sky too.
We compared this side by side with a Swaro ATX. Our daily use binoculars are Swaro EL series. Personally we found the Swaro ATX to have noticeable amounts of CA compared to the 883, and the ATX's ergonomics did not fit us as well. We found that disappointing given the higher price of the ATX.
No complaints here about current Kowa 883s.
Our Kowa shows nice sharp CA free images when looking at the night sky too.
We compared this side by side with a Swaro ATX. Our daily use binoculars are Swaro EL series. Personally we found the Swaro ATX to have noticeable amounts of CA compared to the 883, and the ATX's ergonomics did not fit us as well. We found that disappointing given the higher price of the ATX.
No complaints here about current Kowa 883s.
Ownthenight
Active member
In comparing the 883 and the ATX side by side, we felt both scopes were equal in terms of clarity and sharpness. The level of CA on the ATX at the edges really surprised me. The 883 had very very minimal amounts.
I found the color cast to be slightly different with each scope.
In our area/conditions the Kowa's color cast appeared to offer slightly increased contrast over the ATX at long distances because of the base colors of everything around us. This allowed things in the Kowa to pop a little more than in the ATX. In different area/conditions the ATX might have the edge.
Some people may interpret that difference in contrast as "clarity" of image.
Borjam
Well-known member
My 883, purchased two years ago now (right before the pandemic, I had to abort a "first light" trip to Doñana) is fine as far as I know. I haven't done a star test but in good atmospheric conditions in September I could observe both Jupiter and Saturn with good detail using the 1.6x extender.
The image of Jupiter was good enough to see the main cloud bands.
Mine is the Special Edition version. I wanted the neoprene case only to learn that the traditional cordura one is better.
The image of Jupiter was good enough to see the main cloud bands.
Mine is the Special Edition version. I wanted the neoprene case only to learn that the traditional cordura one is better.
henry link
Well-known member
Low lateral color at the field edge in the Kowa 883 is a nice characteristic of the Kowa TE-11WZ zoom eyepiece (I use that eyepiece on a different scope and get the same low lateral color). Longitudinal color in the 883 is also well corrected thanks to the use Fluorite and well chosen mating glasses in the objective group. Those two chromatic aberrations will be well corrected in every 883 specimen because they depend only on using the right glass types and optical designs.
When it comes to fabricating the scopes nothing else is that predictable. The mediocre to bad 883 samples tend to have too much spherical aberration, astigmatism, coma, pinching or a poorly made roof prism edge; sometimes one or two of those defects, sometimes all of them in varying amounts. The effect on image quality may be anything from subtle or drastic. Don't be comforted by anyone else's good experience. Every individual scope should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
When it comes to fabricating the scopes nothing else is that predictable. The mediocre to bad 883 samples tend to have too much spherical aberration, astigmatism, coma, pinching or a poorly made roof prism edge; sometimes one or two of those defects, sometimes all of them in varying amounts. The effect on image quality may be anything from subtle or drastic. Don't be comforted by anyone else's good experience. Every individual scope should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Last edited:
DRodrigues
Well-known member
...I suggest ordering 883 from vendors with good return policy. Compare with your present scopes (if any) side by side. If you like it, keep it.
Every manufacturer makes cherry and lemon products. And everyone’s eyes are different. IMO, decision is personal and subjective.
Every manufacturer makes cherry and lemon products. And everyone’s eyes are different. IMO, decision is personal and subjective.
The Kingfisher
Well-known member
I have not star tested my speciman of 883, but I did compare it against my old Nikon Fieldscope ED82 that I know is a very nice and sharp one. I have had hard to say which one of them is the best scope. Sometimes I feel the 883 is the sharpest of the two and sometimes I think the Nikon ED82 is the sharpest. But I think my final view is that the Nikon ED82 have more neutral colors, a better focusing at low magnifications, better build quality and maybe is a little bit sharper at high magnifications. The Kowa 883 is a little bit sharper at low magnifications, shows just a little less CA, is sharper at the edges and have a better focusing at high mags. Sometimes I feel the Kowa has lower contrast than the Nikon ED82, but not allways. So..with these things in mind I can not say which one is better overall, but Kowa has one thing that the Nikon ED82 can not match...and that is a good zoom eyepiece. With that zoom in the game the Kowa 883 become more flexible than the Nikon ED82 and also the better package overall.
paulwinclad
Well-known member
Bought my 883 just after they first came out in 2008 I think, I would have no hesitation in buying the same again, it has been brilliant and extremely well used !
Ownthenight
Active member
Indeed, thanks for the reply.
I have an 883 and I think it's flat out incredible. Everyone who looks through it seems to have the same reaction. I had a Nikon ED82 series 3 previously. The 883 is a definite step up. I did buy two copies of the 883 - one was better than the other - difference was excellent vs outstanding+. Two other good birders were on hand when doing the comparo and we all agreed on the difference. Sample variation is unfortunate but it is what it is. I love my 883 and baby it, unlike almost all my other optical gear.
And just to be clear - I think very highly of the ED82. If I were to go to Alaska for an extended trip, that's what I'd take - seems way tougher than the 883, which seems more like fine jewelry. The ED82 is field gear.
And just to be clear - I think very highly of the ED82. If I were to go to Alaska for an extended trip, that's what I'd take - seems way tougher than the 883, which seems more like fine jewelry. The ED82 is field gear.
Ownthenight
Active member
Thank you for your response. I find the ed82 interesting as well.
