• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Can a 30-year-old porro compete with a new alpha? Really! (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I have a 30-year-old Swarovski Habicht 7x42 GA and I like it outside of the narrow 6.5 degree FOV, so I thought I would buy a Leica UVHD+ 7x42 to replace it because it has a wider 8.0 degree FOV. I was sure the Leica would be better in just about every way, but boy was I wrong. Everybody likes the Leica, and it is a beautifully made binocular, and I was so sure it would be superior I was going to sell the Habicht 7x42, but then I thought I should wait till I received the Leica and compare them.

To make a long story short, I returned the Leica and kept the old Habicht! I kept comparing them back and forth and every time I went back to the Habicht I liked the view better even though it is tunnel like in comparison to the Leica. That narrow 6.5 degree FOV of the Habicht is just magical. I guess I am beginning to see where Dorubird is coming from in his love for the Habicht 7x42. The Habicht is just clearer, more transparent, sharper, has better contrast, handles glare better, has a more stereoscopic view and is brighter than the Leica. It is shocking, really.

The Habicht has a defined, sharp field stop that makes viewing a pleasure once you are used to it, whereas, the Leica is soft on the edges and you notice it. The Habicht 7x42 is like looking through an amazingly clear porthole that sometimes appears to not have any glass between you and the object you are looking at. On-axis the Habicht is sharper than the Leica and you can see it when you try to read print. The Habicht 7x42 GA has amazing center field resolution for a 7x. All the Habicht's are superb but the Habicht 7x42 GA is really special and if you haven't experienced one you should try one.
 
Last edited:
Ah a tale as old as time. The binocular you recently purchased and tried to sell at a markup is the greatest. But in all actuality...no. A fast achromat with a 3-element (looks like a kellner in the cutaway shared by John Roberts on this forum) eyepiece and 30-year outdated coatings is not going to be better than a modern binocular with an ED objective and 4-element eyepiece. A kellner in an f/5 or faster scope is going to show lateral color and astigmatism, there's just no way around it with the optical design. It's edges may look nicer than the Ultravid (not true in my memory but I don't currently own either) but I would guarantee that the inner 6.5 degrees of the UV are better corrected than the Habicht. As for the field stop, it's no wonder you can see it so well, it sits smack in the middle of what would be the field of view pretty much any other binocular! I am not sure if you are lying to us or your eyes are lying to you but they are not optically superior. That is not to say they are not nice. They are made to the highest quality such a design can be, it is just a dated optical design that cannot optically perform up to the same level as modern ones.
 
Ah a tale as old as time. The binocular you recently purchased and tried to sell at a markup is the greatest. But in all actuality...no. A fast achromat with a 3-element (looks like a kellner in the cutaway shared by John Roberts on this forum) eyepiece and 30-year outdated coatings is not going to be better than a modern binocular with an ED objective and 4-element eyepiece. A kellner in an f/5 or faster scope is going to show lateral color and astigmatism, there's just no way around it with the optical design. It's edges may look nicer than the Ultravid (not true in my memory but I don't currently own either) but I would guarantee that the inner 6.5 degrees of the UV are better corrected than the Habicht. As for the field stop, it's no wonder you can see it so well, it sits smack in the middle of what would be the field of view pretty much any other binocular! I am not sure if you are lying to us or your eyes are lying to you but they are not optically superior. That is not to say they are not nice. They are made to the highest quality such a design can be, it is just a dated optical design that cannot optically perform up to the same level as modern ones.
There are so many advantages of a porro over a roof that it is hard to list them, and it doesn't matter how old the design is because porro's haven't changed much in 100 years because they were a better design than roofs when Swarovski developed the first Habicht. The key factor is porros are much simpler to make perfect, whereas, a good roof is much more difficult to manufacture because of a more complex optical system requiring things like phase coatings and ED glass that a porro doesn't require. A porro has better light transmission, a better stereoscopic view due to the offset of the objectives versus the oculars and better transparency because it has a simpler optical path with no mirrored surfaces. Most people on Bird Forum that have tried a Habicht or own one will tell you there is something special about the view even compared to the best alpha roofs. Every time I come from a roof and try a Habicht I am blown away by them. A good porro is special and less expensive than a good roof.


Prisms.001.jpeg

"The first prisms used in binoculars (by a smidgen) were porro prisms, named after their inventor, Ignazio Porro; they’re still employed today. In binoculars, two porro units are cemented together at right angles to each other in each optical tube, which gives binoculars in which they are used the classic offset configuration, where the objective lenses are set outboard of the oculars (or, in some compact binoculars, inboard). The advantage to porro prisms is that they obtain perfect internal reflection using nothing but glass—no mirrored surfaces are needed. This gives them intrinsically better light transmission and clarity than Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms (see below). Additionally, porro-prism binoculars with objective lenses set outboard of the oculars can render a slightly better three-dimensional view. Disadvantages include poor close focusing ability ( also an artifact of the wide-set objectives) and more difficult weather sealing, along with greater bulk and, frequently, weight.

But there are downsides. Collimation—that is, the internal alignment—of roof prisms is critical and expensive to replicate consistently and durably. Also, every time light is reflected it loses a tiny bit of brightness, and one of the prism surfaces in the Schmidt-Pechan design reflects at less than the critical angle, so it must have a reflective coating applied. Finally, the internal reflections of the Schmidt-Pecan design first separate the light beams, then recombine them, which causes slight polarization of the beams, reducing contrast. Manufacturers counter these issues with phase-correction coatings, which porro prisms do not need, and by using either a silver or, much better, dielectric coating on the reflective surface. Schmidt-Pechan prisms employing phase-correction coatings and a dielectric reflective surface come very close to the performance of a porro prism. Nevertheless, making a high-quality roof-prism binocular is more complicated and more expensive than making a high-quality porro-prism equivalent."
 
Last edited:

Can a 30-year-old porro compete with a new alpha​

Yes, of course and I would say the question should actually be reversed: Can a modern top-dollar, sorry, "alpha" binocular compete with older, more efficient porro designs? It depends on the terms of the "competition"....if the criteria is "value" than the porro wins easily

And, for me, to answer the question, the answer is yes, the modern glass exceeds the best porros of the past, but only decisively once you reach the $2000 benchmark
 

Can a 30-year-old porro compete with a new alpha​

Yes, of course and I would say the question should actually be reversed: Can a modern top-dollar, sorry, "alpha" binocular compete with older, more efficient porro designs? It depends on the terms of the "competition"....if the criteria is "value" than the porro wins easily

And, for me, to answer the question, the answer is yes, the modern glass exceeds the best porros of the past, but only decisively once you reach the $2000 benchmark
I don't know the new Leica UVHD+ 7x42 was $2000, and I returned it. The Leica was really a disappointing and lackluster binocular. Leica has made no major improvements to their binoculars in 20 years. The UVHD+ is almost like looking through a Trinovid BN. An SF or NL would beat a porro in some areas like FOV, but the porro will still have the upper hand in light transmission, clarity and stereopsis view. I think it was Herman who said his Habicht 7x42 was the sharpest, clearest binocular he has ever looked through, and I am sure he has looked through a lot of binoculars. And another experienced birder, Maljunulo said his 8x30W Habicht wows him every time he looks through it, and his 8x32 SF has been returned to the shelf in the closet.

 
Last edited:

Can a 30-year-old porro compete with a new alpha​

Yes, of course and I would say the question should actually be reversed: Can a modern top-dollar, sorry, "alpha" binocular compete with older, more efficient porro designs? It depends on the terms of the "competition"....if the criteria is "value" than the porro wins easily

And, for me, to answer the question, the answer is yes, the modern glass exceeds the best porros of the past, but only decisively once you reach the $2000 benchmark
One of my favourite and often used binos is my 1957 CZJ Silvarem, which only has single layer coatings and is probably not even weatherproof these days, never mind waterproof. But at 6x30 it has a wonderfully large field of view, good 3-d and a pretty bright image. Even its 1984 Deltrintem sibling with its glare issues is not as comfortable and nice to look through, despite, or maybe because of its T3M multi-layer coatings (introduced in 1978).
Apparently the boffins at CZJ thought the new coatings would obviate the need for baffling/matte paint in the objective tubes. Wrongly as it turned out, hence the glare issues. Still a nice and clear view, but not as untroubled and easy-going as the old Silvarem.
I suppose neither compares directly with any of my newer binoculars, be they Swaro porros or Zeiss roofies.
But it's not all about some figures in tables, is it? In fact much of it is in our heads, and some in our hearts too.
 
One of my favourite and often used binos is my 1957 CZJ Silvarem, which only has single layer coatings and is probably not even weatherproof these days, never mind waterproof. But at 6x30 it has a wonderfully large field of view, good 3-d and a pretty bright image. Even its 1984 Deltrintem sibling with its glare issues is not as comfortable and nice to look through, despite, or maybe because of its T3M multi-layer coatings (introduced in 1978).
Apparently the boffins at CZJ thought the new coatings would obviate the need for baffling/matte paint in the objective tubes. Wrongly as it turned out, hence the glare issues. Still a nice and clear view, but not as untroubled and easy-going as the old Silvarem.
I suppose neither compares directly with any of my newer binoculars, be they Swaro porros or Zeiss roofies.
But it's not all about some figures in tables, is it? In fact much of it is in our heads, and some in our hearts too.
I might have to try a Zeiss CZJ Silvarem 6x30. That sounds like a nice porro. Thanks for the tip. A binocular like that is like driving an older VW bug. They are just a lot of fun. These are nice and light, and you just bring them up to your eyes and look at something. No lens covers or straps. Simple is sometimes best.

2588_zeisil6x30_1.jpg2590_zeisil6x30_3.jpg
 
Last edited:
The first prisms used in binoculars (by a smidgen) were porro prisms, named after their inventor, Ignazio Porro; they’re still employed today. In binoculars, two porro units are cemented together at right angles to each other in each optical tube, which gives binoculars in which they are used the classic offset configuration, where the objective lenses are set outboard of the oculars (or, in some compact binoculars, inboard). The advantage to porro prisms is that they obtain perfect internal reflection using nothing but glass—no mirrored surfaces are needed. This gives them intrinsically better light transmission and clarity than Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms (see below). Additionally, porro-prism binoculars with objective lenses set outboard of the oculars can render a slightly better three-dimensional view. Disadvantages include poor close focusing ability ( also an artifact of the wide-set objectives) and more difficult weather sealing, along with greater bulk and, frequently, weight.

But there are downsides. Collimation—that is, the internal alignment—of roof prisms is critical and expensive to replicate consistently and durably. Also, every time light is reflected it loses a tiny bit of brightness, and one of the prism surfaces in the Schmidt-Pechan design reflects at less than the critical angle, so it must have a reflective coating applied. Finally, the internal reflections of the Schmidt-Pecan design first separate the light beams, then recombine them, which causes slight polarization of the beams, reducing contrast. Manufacturers counter these issues with phase-correction coatings, which porro prisms do not need, and by using either a silver or, much better, dielectric coating on the reflective surface. Schmidt-Pechan prisms employing phase-correction coatings and a dielectric reflective surface come very close to the performance of a porro prism. Nevertheless, making a high-quality roof-prism binocular is more complicated and more expensive than making a high-quality porro-prism equivalent.
Why must we be subjected to stuff like this? By a smidgen? Critical and expensive to replicate consistently and durably? Anyone here can tell this is not Denco's writing at all, and Google easily identifies the random source it was lifted from:
"Be your own optics expert." What could possibly be more hilarious?
 
Last edited:
Why must we be subjected to stuff like this? By a smidgen? Critical and expensive to replicate consistently and durably? Anyone here can tell this is not Denco's writing at all, and Google easily identifies the random source it was lifted from:
"Be your own optics expert." What could possibly be more hilarious?
Sorry about that, I forgot to put the quotes. The author makes some good points on porro versus roof prism binoculars, and the diagrams of the light paths in porros versus roofs helps explain why porros are intrinsically better. I agree, "Be your own optics expert" is a little juvenile.
 
Last edited:
Erik Baker from Cloudy Night's regarding the Swarovski Habicht 7x42 GA.

"They are the sharpest and brightest hand held tunnel you will ever look through!"
 
From an Allbinos review on the Habicht 7x42.

" I sat and thought, what do I like so much about this new Habicht 7x42? ... Precisely these poor quality specifications and the simplicity of the mechanical and optical construction seem to reduce these binoculars to a kind of essence. These essences paradoxically attract me because, by antithesis, this seems to emphasize even more the clarity and fantastic transmission of these beautiful binoculars.

Summary: As I use this Habicht 7x42, I definitely realize the following aspect even better: I like its apparent visual field of view exactly as it is, small and narrow! It is a purely aesthetic pleasure! It\'s the binoculars with the biggest personality I\'ve met by far! Furthermore, it is a binocular that requires a lot of understanding beginning with, and it is very easy to abandon it because of the weak specifications.

But after you use it without prejudgment related to AFOV, it turns into magic with time. This narrow AFOV, which everyone spits out (including me), is illuminated by an extraordinarily clear image that floats in a totally black space, creating a unique and powerful aesthetic impression. This aesthetic impression paradoxically, if the AFOV had been increased, would disappear!

Seemingly this paradoxically experience clearly confirmed to me, once again, that a pair of binoculars cannot be characterized only by some numbers (even carefully and objective placed in tables), but also through strongly subjective impressions, but honest! The complexity of reality, even of a simple pair of binoculars, cannot be reduced only to numbers, it also has other values that escape the measuring devices, but not to our perception!"
 
From an Allbinos review on the Habicht 7x42.

" I sat and thought, what do I like so much about this new Habicht 7x42? ... Precisely these poor quality specifications and the simplicity of the mechanical and optical construction seem to reduce these binoculars to a kind of essence. These essences paradoxically attract me because, by antithesis, this seems to emphasize even more the clarity and fantastic transmission of these beautiful binoculars.

Summary: As I use this Habicht 7x42, I definitely realize the following aspect even better: I like its apparent visual field of view exactly as it is, small and narrow! It is a purely aesthetic pleasure! It\'s the binoculars with the biggest personality I\'ve met by far! Furthermore, it is a binocular that requires a lot of understanding beginning with, and it is very easy to abandon it because of the weak specifications.

But after you use it without prejudgment related to AFOV, it turns into magic with time. This narrow AFOV, which everyone spits out (including me), is illuminated by an extraordinarily clear image that floats in a totally black space, creating a unique and powerful aesthetic impression. This aesthetic impression paradoxically, if the AFOV had been increased, would disappear!

Seemingly this paradoxically experience clearly confirmed to me, once again, that a pair of binoculars cannot be characterized only by some numbers (even carefully and objective placed in tables), but also through strongly subjective impressions, but honest! The complexity of reality, even of a simple pair of binoculars, cannot be reduced only to numbers, it also has other values that escape the measuring devices, but not to our perception!"
All these are my words from my "Habicht 7x42 dissection", they are NOT from Allbinos who speak more in numbers and tables! Can you put a link where you got these?!...or you messed up the quotes!
I sat and thought, what do I like so much about this new Habicht 7x42? ...Precisely these poor quality specifications and the simplicity of the mechanical and optical construction seem to reduce these binoculars to a kind of essence. These essences paradoxically attract me because, by antithesis, this seem to emphasize even more the clarity and fantastic transmission of these beautiful binoculars.
View attachment 1502294
It's about the simple things that are refined to the extreme.
View attachment 1502295
It is about modern optical performance in the shirt of tradition.
View attachment 1502296
The new Swarovski Habicht 7x42 porro is a classic still alive! I like that these binoculars are manufactured in small quantities only when there are many requests. I waited about two months for the production to be finished. These are no ordinary stock binoculars

As I use this Habicht 7x42, I definitely realize the following aspect even better: I like its aparent visual field of view exactly as it is, small and narrow! It is a purely aesthetic pleasure! It's the binoculars with the biggest personality I've met by far! It is a binocular that requires a lot of understanding to begin with, and it is very easy to abandon it because of the weak specifications. But after you use it without prejudgment related to AFOV, it turns into magic with time.
This narrow AFOV, which everyone spits out (including me), is illuminated by an extraordinarily clear image that floats in a totally black space, creating a unique and powerful aesthetic impression.
This aesthetic impression paradoxically, if the AFOV had been increased, would disappear!
This paradoxically experience clearly confirmed to me, once again, that a pair of binoculars cannot be characterized only by some numbers (even carefully and objective placed in tables), but also through strongly subjective impressions, but honest! The complexity of reality, even of a simple pair of binoculars, cannot be reduced only to numbers, it also has other values that escape the measuring devices, but not to our perception!
 
Last edited:
All these are my words from my "Habicht 7x42 dissection", they are NOT from Allbinos who speak more in numbers and tables! Can you put a link where you got these?!...or you messed up the quotes!
I thought it sounded like you, but it was in a review of the Habicht 7x42 by Tudor on Allbinos. Perhaps he copied your reviews. It is a very good description of the Habicht. Here is the link and the review is at the bottom. People copy my reviews all the time. Some have even made YouTube videos of my reviews with my exact words converted to speech. I don't really care, in fact it is kind of flattering! They know a good review when they see it!


"tudor24 June 2023, 18:38

IP 82.77.x.x
Owner since: 1 year
Price:
User profile: Professional
Cons: Narrow FOV, but read forwards
Pros: I sat and thought, what do I like so much about this new Habicht 7x42? ... Precisely these poor quality specifications and the simplicity of the mechanical and optical construction seem to reduce these binoculars to a kind of essence. These essences paradoxically attract me because, by antithesis, this seems to emphasize even more the clarity and fantastic transmission of these beautiful binoculars.
Summary: As I use this Habicht 7x42, I definitely realize the following aspect even better: I like its apparent visual field of view exactly as it is, small and narrow! It is a purely aesthetic pleasure! It\'s the binoculars with the biggest personality I\'ve met by far! Likewise, it is a binocular that requires a lot of understanding beginning with, and it is very easy to abandon it because of the weak specifications. But after you use it without prejudgment related to AFOV, it turns into magic with time. This narrow AFOV, which everyone spits out (including me), is illuminated by an extraordinarily clear image that floats in a totally black space, creating a unique and powerful aesthetic impression. This aesthetic impression paradoxically, if the AFOV had been increased, would disappear! This paradoxically experience clearly confirmed to me, once again, that a pair of binoculars cannot be characterized only by some numbers (even carefully and objective placed in tables), but also through strongly subjective impressions, but honest! The complexity of reality, even of a simple pair of binoculars, cannot be reduced only to numbers, it also has other values that escape the measuring devices, but not to our perception!"
 
Last edited:
Do you know the light transmission (or transmittance value) for the reverse porro Nikon Travelite EX?
No, I have never seen a light transmission on the Nikon Travelite EX, even on the House Of Outdoor which has a lot of transmission tests. Perhaps somebody knows of one because I would be very interested in the light transmission of the Nikon Travelite also.

 
Last edited:
No, I have never seen a light transmission on the Nikon Travelite EX, even on the House Of Outdoor which has a lot of transmission tests. Perhaps somebody knows of one because I would be very interested in the light transmission of the Nikon Travelite also.

Thank you. I asked because I seen on a website the transmittance for 2 reverse porro: Lacerta Mini 5x20 and Lacerta Mini 7x20 as being 91.5% for both. It seem too good to be true.
But in a review for the same binoculars but sold under a different brand Veber Prima 5×20 which is equivalent of Lacerta Mini 5x20 the declared transmittance was 85%.
So I started to ask myself what is the transmittance for most of the well known reverse porros.

The article about the transmittance of Veber Prima:
 
"be your own expert" I have to agree with this! I got a huge wake-up call about why birders love the modern roofs so much on New Years Day this year, the local club always does an all-day tour on the 1st of the year.

This year, it was pouring rain for the first 2 hours and drizzle/mist for the rest of the day. I discovered something - I don't like using my optics in the rain. ANY optics. I don't mind being out in the rain, I enjoyed lots of naked-eye birding and some views with binos out my car window.

But the idea of trying to view through binos with rain cascading down over and through the binos, running down my eyes, running over the lenses, does not appeal to me. It's not that rainy here! I can wait till it stops raining. I live here, I can go tomorrow. Many people had traveled an hour or two for this tour. I'm just not that serious of a birder.
 
I thought it sounded like you, but it was in a review of the Habicht 7x42 by Tudor on Allbinos. Perhaps he copied your reviews. It is a very good description of the Habicht. Here is the link and the review is at the bottom. People copy my reviews all the time. Some have even made YouTube videos of my reviews with my exact words converted to speech. I don't really care, in fact it is kind of flattering! They know a good review when they see it!


"tudor24 June 2023, 18:38

IP 82.77.x.x
Owner since: 1 year
Price:
User profile: Professional
Cons: Narrow FOV, but read forwards
Pros: I sat and thought, what do I like so much about this new Habicht 7x42? ... Precisely these poor quality specifications and the simplicity of the mechanical and optical construction seem to reduce these binoculars to a kind of essence. These essences paradoxically attract me because, by antithesis, this seems to emphasize even more the clarity and fantastic transmission of these beautiful binoculars.
Summary: As I use this Habicht 7x42, I definitely realize the following aspect even better: I like its apparent visual field of view exactly as it is, small and narrow! It is a purely aesthetic pleasure! It\'s the binoculars with the biggest personality I\'ve met by far! Likewise, it is a binocular that requires a lot of understanding beginning with, and it is very easy to abandon it because of the weak specifications. But after you use it without prejudgment related to AFOV, it turns into magic with time. This narrow AFOV, which everyone spits out (including me), is illuminated by an extraordinarily clear image that floats in a totally black space, creating a unique and powerful aesthetic impression. This aesthetic impression paradoxically, if the AFOV had been increased, would disappear! This paradoxically experience clearly confirmed to me, once again, that a pair of binoculars cannot be characterized only by some numbers (even carefully and objective placed in tables), but also through strongly subjective impressions, but honest! The complexity of reality, even of a simple pair of binoculars, cannot be reduced only to numbers, it also has other values that escape the measuring devices, but not to our perception!"
I am "Tudor" on Allbinos owners reviews section. Now I understand! I forgot that I posted the same words on allbinos Habicht 7x42 customer review section! It's my fault that I forgot that I posted these words there too!
 
I am "Tudor" on Allbinos owners reviews section. Now I understand! I forgot that I posted the same words on allbinos Habicht 7x42 customer review section! It's my fault that I forgot that I posted these words there too!
Haha! I thought that was you! Nobody expresses their feelings about a binocular quite as poetically as you do. Your reviews influenced my decision to try the Habicht 7x42 GA, and I think I understand why you like it so much now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top