• 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.

Can (higher) weight be a deliberate choice? (1 Viewer)

Seems to me the heavier B1 42mm offers a bino that feels robust enough to withstand earthquakes. I still have the 7x42 version and it certainly has a reassuring feel of solidity. The 32mm versions seem aimed at folks who definitely value lighter weights so there is a logic to this.
Do you think the Leica 8x32 BN is built any less robust than the 8x42 BN? I can't see any reason a binocular would need to be built any heavier-duty than any of the older Leica lineup, and to tell the truth, don't really see the Ultravids as very far behind, if at all.
 
It's physics, not logic. Weight increases according to volume, roughly speaking size cubed (except there's a lot of nitrogen in bins too). 32mm BA/BNs were a decent weight, 42s bricks, and 50s well... I'm sure Meoptas are similar, and they even go up to 56mm. (Who knows what they're thinking. The S2 scope is described as Al and Mg construction, so they do use some Mg.)
 
Last edited:
@safaridreaming @Scott98
Yes, those are Peak Design. To be honest, getting them over here in Spain is quite pricey, but I'm pretty chuffed with the system I'm using at the moment. It's (let's say) a "dual carrying system".

On the one hand, I use the Swarovski CCS strap, which is my favourite strap. I love it because you can change from long to short strap with the flick of a small lever, really fast and convenient (no messing around with doing and undoing the strap). This way, you can swap from "birdwatching/on-the-neck mode" to "bandolier style" in a second. In fact, one of the reasons I love this strap is because instead of the usual simple strap that you have to loop to the binocular (which takes some time and fiddling if you want to change binoculars), it has a quick conector (like many old binoculars), so it was in itself a quick release system (although not as quick as the Peak Design).



As you can see, on the strap I also have a clever device to carry the rain guard (a little buckle from a Zeiss Conquest HD). It works like a charm, if I simply don't want the rain guard around (like in an observatory), I just un-click it and keep it in my pocket, so that it doesn't bounce around and doesn't bother me. But if it rains or I'm walking through a forest or other instances where some debris/sweat might fall into the eyepieces, I keep it there at all times; it's really convenient to take it off with a slight movement.

I have the Peak Design connectors on my 4 most used binoculars, so changing the strap before leaving home is a breeze. And then, the second part of the "dual" system is that I have another pair of anchors on my daily rucksack, linked to the rucksack straps with a couple of thin nylon straps like the ones you use to attach something to the backpack (or keep a picnic blanket rolled) which have some adjusters to make the strap shorter if necessary (so it doesn't hang too loose in case you need to climb something, for example).



This is one of my favourite features, because it simply makes carrying even heavy binoculars a no problem. Here pictured with a lightweight 8x32, but I use it on a daily basis with the Canon IS III 12x36 (or this Meopta)



As a matter of fact, I basically take my backpack with me 90 % of the days I go birding, so it's the option I use the most, and I can't recommend it enough. But then, even when I'm carrying the backpack, I carry the Swarovski strap, just in case I want to leave the backpack somewhere (like in the car) and go lightweight. It's just a matter of click-click, and off you go.

That's a novel way to use the Peak Design attachment system. To be honest until i saw your pictures today, i never realised that the female parts of the anchors accept narrower straps - when i first saw your pictures i thought you cut the slots but when i inspected mine, i realised they come with the narrow strap slot which opens a lot of possibilities up for binoculars!!!!

Appreciate this post was never about straps and attachments but its made me re-think how i attach neckstraps to binos with convention attachment points (basically anything that doesn't hv the Swaro Field Pro System) so thanks for the detailed info, its much appreciated.

Peak design anchor slots.jpg
 
Do you think the Leica 8x32 BN is built any less robust than the 8x42 BN? I can't see any reason a binocular would need to be built any heavier-duty than any of the older Leica lineup, and to tell the truth, don't really see the Ultravids as very far behind, if at all.
No, it is simply a fact of life that 32mm binos weigh less than 42mm models.

Lee
 
I tried out a set of 12x50 Ultravids last month and noticed that the extra weight and length actually helped in stabilizing the image. When I eventually buy one, the weight of that particular binocular will be one of the reasons why.
But bear in mind that while you may be comfortable with a heavier bino hanging around your neck and have a steadier image, this steadier image will only remain steady until arm fatigue sets in and the heavier the bino, the sooner your arms begin to complain.

Lee
 
Could be, as previously suggested, that Meopta either don’t have the experience or the supply chain to move to “plastic” or other more recent options. They know what they’re comfortable to design and build to the quality and reliability that want and so may not want to risk the costs involved. “Slimming lenses” also involves a lot more work that just adjusting a few numbers. Not sure the binocular market has the revenue to try our all the new dangled options that are available (though which may not offer any benefits when fully tested and experimented with), though companies with other activities and/or plenty of cash can do more. For instance carbon fibre composites have been with us for ages, but there’s still a lot of hesitance from people to use them.

Peter
 
But bear in mind that while you may be comfortable with a heavier bino hanging around your neck and have a steadier image, this steadier image will only remain steady until arm fatigue sets in and the heavier the bino, the sooner your arms begin to complain.
No problem there, since I don’t use neck straps.

Can (higher) weight be a deliberate choice?​

Yes it can, and is something I liked in the 12x50 Ultravid.
 
@safaridreaming I'm glad it could help you in any way. Daft as it might sound, to me the way you carry and use the binoculars (let's call it convenience) is an important part of the equation, as is the weight (what triggered this thread), so it's not a minor detail by any means. I'm really happy using the Peak Design connectors as part of the system, but I simply took the idea from other forum members, as discussed in other threads. You can check it here: How do you carry your binoculars?
I've tried harness and other solutions, but I really like the backpack & strap double option, or the fact of being able to not use any strap at all in a second.
 
@safaridreaming I'm glad it could help you in any way. Daft as it might sound, to me the way you carry and use the binoculars (let's call it convenience) is an important part of the equation, as is the weight (what triggered this thread), so it's not a minor detail by any means. I'm really happy using the Peak Design connectors as part of the system, but I simply took the idea from other forum members, as discussed in other threads. You can check it here: How do you carry your binoculars?
I've tried harness and other solutions, but I really like the backpack & strap double option, or the fact of being able to not use any strap at all in a second.
Id like to know more about this Peak Design connector. Have you pics of it on its own" or is there a model name part number to use at Peak Designs website? Thank you
 
@GrampaTom I use the "standard" anchor links by Peak Design because it's what I saw here on BF, but I've learnt that there are other less expensive options. Anyway, I'm happy with it, seems to be a quality product. In the standard package you get 2 "housings" and 4 "anchors", so enough for 2 binoculars and one strap. So I've order 2 packages, and I can use it with 4 binoculars and in both the strap and backpack.

AnchorLinks-pdp-1-HERO_1024x1024.jpg


The link to the product description with more pictures and videos is here:


You find it on their website under Camera Gear / Straps

I understand the brand has a whole "ecosystem" of proprietary accessories, but I'm more than happy with just the anchors and my favourite Swarovski strap and my daily rucksack. I hope that helps.
 
And this has nothing to do with arm fatigue.
I'm not sure why you're on about arm fatigue when it has nothing to do with any of my postings. The thread is about asking if anyone could make higher weight a deliberate choice and I gave my rationale for answering yes to that.
 
I'm not sure why you're on about arm fatigue when it has nothing to do with any of my postings. The thread is about asking if anyone could make higher weight a deliberate choice and I gave my rationale for answering yes to that.
And in Post 25 I commented on a consequence of choosing heavier binos.

Lee
 
…in Post 25 I commented on a consequence of choosing heavier binos.
Except that you posted it in reply to me when it had/has no bearing on what I posted.
The takeaway from the start of the thread was that the negatives of heavier binoculars is already a given and Yarelli was curious as to what positives there might be in some of our perspectives here, which is what I did.

At any rate, pointing out that heavier items are heavier seems a bit unnecessary, especially when in the context of ignoring the direction of a quoted post.
 
Let's remember that the starting point here was B1 7x42. The SLC was also quite heavy, in that case due to an unusual design with quite thick lenses, so given the perceived similarity between these two lines, something like that could be a possibility here. And then of course the "new" B1 "Plus" is mostly not so new either...

But really what I think it comes down to is that 30s are expected to be lightweight, as they generally are; no one even pays attention to weight in 50-56s because the size is a given for gathering so much light; but 40mm glass is expected to be the jack of all trades. Some designs prioritize light weight or compactness, many don't. UV 7x42 is 770g, B1 900g. A difference of 130g (4.5oz) could seem large if you're carrying the B1, but these are just endpoints of a range that really isn't surprisingly large. Is it to be more robust? Probably not. To save money on Al instead of Mg? Probably. To get the desired optical characteristics? Possibly. For stability? I doubt it.

It's just a few ounces. Don't read too much into it.
 
…really what I think it comes down to is that 30s are expected to be lightweight, as they generally are; no one even pays attention to weight in 50-56s because the size is a given for gathering so much light; but 40mm glass is expected to be the jack of all trades. Some designs prioritize light weight or compactness, many don't. UV 7x42 is 770g, B1 900g. A difference of 130g (4.5oz) could seem large if you're carrying the B1, but these are just endpoints of a range that really isn't surprisingly large. Is it to be more robust? Probably not. To save money on Al instead of Mg? Probably.
Nicely summed up, and I’d add that the magnesium substitution, while offering a little savings in weight, also brings the advertising and ownership cachet associated with less common materials.
 
The B.1 7X42 is certainly a nice binocular. So is the B.1 7X50. Two areas they excel are user-friendliness and eye relief. Two areas they are a little behind is weight and FOV(usually not much, BUT). SO....the Leica UVHD+ and Zeiss FL 7X42s always get the nod for me. BUT....if someone wants a good 7X42 a B.1 decently priced would certainly be a worthy purchase.

Current models...Meopta's B.1 Plus has gotten a little expensive. $1275 on sale for an 8X42. I'd have a hard time recommending it over a Nikon Monarch HG that is less expensive and lighter with more FOV.
 
Let's remember that the starting point here was B1 7x42. The SLC was also quite heavy, in that case due to an unusual design with quite thick lenses, so given the perceived similarity between these two lines, something like that could be a possibility here. And then of course the "new" B1 "Plus" is mostly not so new either...

But really what I think it comes down to is that 30s are expected to be lightweight, as they generally are; no one even pays attention to weight in 50-56s because the size is a given for gathering so much light; but 40mm glass is expected to be the jack of all trades. Some designs prioritize light weight or compactness, many don't. UV 7x42 is 770g, B1 900g. A difference of 130g (4.5oz) could seem large if you're carrying the B1, but these are just endpoints of a range that really isn't surprisingly large. Is it to be more robust? Probably not. To save money on Al instead of Mg? Probably. To get the desired optical characteristics? Possibly. For stability? I doubt it.

It's just a few ounces. Don't read too much into it.
The manufacturers do pay attention to weight in the 50-56s. In fact, that is why Zeiss designed the 8x54 HT. It is 20% lighter than the comparable 8x56 and with its high transmission probably performs as well. I think the 8x54 HT was what gave Zeiss the idea for the SFL 8x40. By reducing the aperture by 2 mm you don't lose much in performance, but you reduce the weight and size of the binocular significantly.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top