Analysing Binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Rg548]

The recent thread regarding a chinese ED 10x42 has led to some very technical input and opinions by some very knowledgeable folk on here.
Whilst I appreciate and respect this level of knowledge, I sometimes feel it has a negative effect, and more highlights the problems, many of which are individual to the user, ie blackouts, eye relief, distortion etc.
When I look back at optics that were for one reason or another special to me, they all have their issues according to someone somewhere!!

Stand outs for me were...

1..Swaro Habicht 8x20b late 80's... wow.. couldn't afford them back then, but remember them well. Shocked at what a small quality bino could deliver!!
2..Nikon 10x42se.... should never have sold them. Stunning view.
3..Leica Ultravid 8x42.... amazed but couldn't justify the cost, so bought something else which was subsequently changed, and then changed again, to the point that I just should have bought the bloody things anyway, and save the hassle and probably some money too
4..Swaro Habicht 8x30... just incredible to look through, what a view. We all know its' shortcomings, but they are special. Yes they are!!!
5..Swaro Habicht 7x42... incredible view.... yes, i know small FOV, stiff focusser...and whatever else, but they made me go WOW as I stared down that tunnel vision!!
6..Zeiss FL 8x56... Amazing... but the itch wasn't worth the scratch.... too big and not 'enough' low light advantage to outweigh the size and weight. I nearly couldn't get them in my car!
7.. Leica BN8x32... just a lovely view, and a classic bino.... (which I just sold).... may regret that... we will see!!
8.. Just recently, the Leica 7x35 Trinovid.... this really blew me away! These really worked for me.

All of the above were memorable and special, yet all of the above can be ripped apart by technical analysis, but it doesn't change what I saw, and enjoyed.

BUT....I'm also going to put the Zeiss 8x42HT in there, as a bino that made me go WOW.

And this is why I wrote this thread....

To me, without going into analytical depths of field curvature, sharpness at the very edges etc etc etc.... I looked through them and immediately put them up there as stound out binoculars (FOR ME) !!!
The view was crytsal clear, build quality felt great, brightness (not generally one of my main criteria) was incredible, and tack sharp in the field of view.
But like the Ultravids mentioned above, too expensive at the time, but they left a very positive impression. Very positive indeed.
Yet I find myself reading a thread (mentioned above) which, probably unintentionally, sort of makes them out to be fairly average. This was most definately not my thoughts. I'm sure the optical experts at Zeiss would have an interesting opinion on this!

For me... binoculars that 'should have' blown me away, but for some reason didn't, were..

1 Swaro NL pure 8x42... obviously amazing in many ways, I absolutely DID notice the field of view and clarity for example, but I have never been compelled to get a pair.
2 Zeiss SFL... again, really good, but I was quite able to put them back.

Just 2 examples of probably technically superior binos that would stand up to scrutiny on this forum better than what is listed above, but I can't see myself getting either at the moment.

I don't really understand a lot of the technical stuff on here, but i'm aware it's good we have this knowledge available for folk who do.

But what I do understand is what I like..... which probably makes choosing a bit easier

 

[Binocollector]

Valid points. So far I never even remotely managed to capture in a pic what the view actually is through a bino. And field curvature or pincushion/barrel distortion never looks the same on pics because our eyes aren't cameras.
This often becomes apparent when older members mention field curvature in models in which I barely see any at all because my eyes still seem pretty good at adjusting to it. So I see a larger sweet spot in many models where others claim that the sweet spot is small.
It's just so many factors involved.
So far I found none of the pics comparing alphas to some of the latest and greatest China binos to be of much help.
In one image the "Sky Rover banner cloud" seemed to have a ton of pincushion almost like an old EWA Japanese porros but people who looked through it, claim it has almost no visible pincushion or even barrel distortion. Which absolutely doesn't square with the pictures I saw taken through the bino.
So often a purely verbal description is more accurate than cell phone pics or even pics taken with better cameras. It's just a bunch of extra lenses that distort the image. To then be looked at on a cell phone display or computer screen with maybe a completely different color calibration, etc.

 

[Maljunulo]

The harder you look for “flaws and defects” the more likely you are to find some, especially if someone has told you they are present.

Once seen, they are very hard to unsee.

 

[jackjack]

perfecness and preference sound similar but very different as you know.
Optically EL and NL is closest perfect but me also, don't have much preferences to those. though I have 2 els.

my recent preferences is leica trinovid bn 7x42 optically no match with EL, NL and even below MIC 250$ porro prisms but I like it's feel.

personal preferences about brand, feels and extra may be most important parts to Own a bino
but to Review it, personal preference will be the least to care about.

all review can't be perfect but at least we have to try to do so.

thats why I put more effort to explain pallet and texture of colors. since it it the most important part to influence the personal preference.

for me, leica ultravid hd / nikon edg / nikon hg / kowa genesis have similar color pallet of yellow - red spectrum.
but I think ratio of yellow - red and texture of the color make different feelings.

 

[Patudo]

I too (lacking jackjack's skills) have never managed to capture a photo that came close to what I see through any binocular. Even photos taken by pretty decent cameras at the same time have always looked duller, less vivid, most of the time less detailed (although I must admit at times they do show details that I failed to notice).

I find the binoscopes jackjack has kindly gone to the effort to take and to post really interesting to look at and to compare. Nothing beats actually looking through a binocular, but I'm grateful for his efforts. I enjoy written observations too, but so much depends on the writer. At one end of the scale you have guys like kabsetz and at the other you have the likes of d***o.

PS. I love it when folks vocally critique optics, helps bring secondhand prices down... 😇

 

[Maljunulo]

The personal reviews are all subjective and filtered through the reviewer’s eye/brain signal processors, and can be contradictory.

The objective reviews convey almost nothing of what it is like to actually look through the glass being reviewed, and can “prove” that very different instruments are “the same”.

There is, therefor, no substitute for trying them yourself. Only you can tell what glass will suit you.

 

[beacon hill]

I too (lacking jackjack's skills) have never managed to capture a photo that came close to what I see through any binocular. Even photos taken by pretty decent cameras at the same time have always looked duller, less vivid, most of the time less detailed (although I must admit at times they do show details that I failed to notice).

I find the binoscopes jackjack has kindly gone to the effort to take and to post really interesting to look at and to compare. Nothing beats actually looking through a binocular, but I'm grateful for his efforts.

PS. I love it when folks vocally critique optics, helps bring secondhand prices down... 😇

Ditto all above. On my you-tube channel have had a few asking why don`t I take photos through the
binoculars like proper channels do.