Compact comparisons: Low end vs high end (1 Viewer)

[dwatsonbirder]

Apologies in advance for a rambling thread, but hopefully this may be of use/interest to anyone considering a compact binocular. In a broadly similar vein to a previous comparison, here is a comparison of how a cheap pocket porro performs against a renowned roof - the outcome may surprise!

A while ago I decided to buy a pair of cheap compacts to use as an occasional pair when walking the dogs - enter the Opticron MCF. This is an old design (possibly late 1980's/early 1990's) but I have always been impressed with Opticron's offerings, and when a clean pair came up locally for £30, I decided to give them a try. I've waxed lyrical about their optics and form factor previously, but to summarise; small, light, good eye relief, sharp and wide FoV.

I decided to treat myself to a used (but very clean) Leica Trinovid 8x20 BCA recently as an upgrade to my somewhat old fashioned Opticron MCF 7x24 - this was largely based upon my reaction to looking through a pair of Ultravid 8x20 compacts a while ago, where I was very surprised by the image quality. I couldn't justify the £500+ price tag of a used UV, so having read generally positive feedback on here, I had hoped that the little TV would offer some of the same performance for a more modest outlay.

I've not used either extensively (and I don't really intend to - that was not their purpose) but hopefully these initial findings are of interest...

Size

There is surprisingly little between the binoculars, but at this end of the market, grams and centimetres count...
Weight: Leica 235g V Opticron 248g
Size (folded) Leica 96 x 92mm V Opticron 95 x 98mm



Optics

Field of view appears about the same, though the specs suggest that the Opticron should be noticeably better (130m v 115m). The image is just "bigger" on the Leica's compared to the Opticron, largely as a result of the difference in magnification (8x vs 7x), though this doesn't bother me as my main pair are 7x power anyways. Colour saturation and sharpness is better in the Leica (as you may expect), but saturation in the Opticron is surprisingly good (see image). The edge is perfectly sharp around the FoV of the Leica, however, some shadow effects are visible around the periphery of the Opticron.


The Leica has a better rendering of white in the image, with the older coatings on the venerable Opticron giving the view a cooler slightly pinkish rendition.


Sharpness in the centre of the image is very good on both, and to my eye, is perhaps a shade better on the Opticron, though the Leica has a larger sweet spot.


Neither are remotely a match for my Zeiss FL's, and this is very apparent in low light, or situations where glare is apparent.
The Leica is unquestionably brighter than the Opticron in low light levels, and handles glare a little better too - though the porro prism design of the Opticron helps somewhat here.

Haptics

Again, a largely personal view, but the larger exit pupil and chunky body style of the Opticron makes these undoubtedly more user-friendly. As a bespectacled individual, the view is almost immediate, with negligible repositioning thanks to the larger exit pupil, whereas it takes a second or two to get the perfect alignment with the Leica's - the difference between clinching a bird flying past the window or not! The view with the Leica has a more pleasing quality (the Leica view?), particularly when viewing for longer periods, but once again the larger exit pupil of the Opticron comes into play here, making the viewing a little less tiring.
The build quality of the Leica is superb; it really has the feel of a premium instrument at a smaller scale. The one area where the Opticron is preferential is the focus wheel, which is perfectly smooth and large enough for me to use comfortably - the Leica isn't as smooth, and is a lot lighter in action.

Outcome

A surprise for me, as my initial impression is that although the Leica is optically better, it is not noticeably so. The feel and ease of use of the Opticron are arguably better for me in a real-world situation, and I seem to be able to get onto objects a bit faster.
It feels a little like the upgrade may've been a bit misguided as I didn't try and compare before purchasing, however my wife will now have a nice bonus gift this festive season, and I should accrue some birding brownie points for next year!

 

[[email protected]]

Nice comparison and the pictures are always nice. Those little reverse porro prisms perform quite well for their price point. The Opticron is not as pocketable as the Leica, but not having to adjust the IPD every time you use it and the bigger form factor makes it easier to use in the real world. Another small vintage reverse porro that is excellent is the Nikon Venturer II 8x23. Probably 40 years ago in a Consumer Reports test on binoculars it beat out Leica's and other more expensive binoculars for a first place ranking. You can still find them on eBay.

Nikon Venturer II Binoculars with 8X23 6.3 Degree | eBay

No case or box or strap included. Works well and in nice condition.

www.ebay.com

Binoculars - Compact "Quality" Budget - PentaxForums.com

I recently acquired a pair of Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 binoculars which do particularly well at ConsumerSearch.com at a very advantageous price - and I

www.pentaxforums.com

 

[Elkhornsun]

With more expensive binoculars you get better lens coatings and better waterproofing and a better exterior grip and better eye relief. Whether paying 5 times as much is worthwhile is a subjective matter. On the other hand a Swarovski 10x25 binocular sells for less than $1000 and so is a third the price of ones with larger objectives.

I keep binoculars in my SUV and in my truck and these are Nikon Monarch 5 binoculars so if damaged by heat inside the vehicle or stolen by someone breaking into the vehicle the loss is much less.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Nice comparison and the pictures are always nice. Those little reverse porro prisms perform quite well for their price point. The Opticron is not as pocketable as the Leica, but not having to adjust the IPD every time you use it and the bigger form factor makes it easier to use in the real world. Another small vintage reverse porro that is excellent is the Nikon Venturer II 8x23. Probably 40 years ago in a Consumer Reports test on binoculars it beat out Leica's and other more expensive binoculars for a first place ranking. You can still find them on eBay.

Nikon Venturer II Binoculars with 8X23 6.3 Degree | eBay

No case or box or strap included. Works well and in nice condition.

www.ebay.com

Binoculars - Compact "Quality" Budget - PentaxForums.com

I recently acquired a pair of Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 binoculars which do particularly well at ConsumerSearch.com at a very advantageous price - and I

www.pentaxforums.com

View attachment 1542153

Thanks Dennis, you've hit the nail on the head.
The profile of that Nikon looks suspiciously familiar!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

With more expensive binoculars you get better lens coatings and better waterproofing and a better exterior grip and better eye relief.

I suppose the point of my post was that in this instance, the opposite was true. Sadly neither binoculars are waterproof, though the coatings of the Leica are undoubtedly better, the difference in the efficiency of the design (porro vs roof) demonstrates what gives better value for money!

 

[yarrellii]

Really interesting read, Daniel. It's always surprising to see what amazing value gems sometimes slip under the radar. I've seen those Opticron come up on sale every now and then, and I've always been extremely interested in then.

In my case, I made a somewhat similar comparison on the same subject, but I compared the Ultravid 8x20 and the Nikon 7x20 CF II.

You can find it here.

Yes, it might seem completely apple to oranges, since the quality of the Nikon is nowhere near the Leica, but in the end, the Nikon are what I use as that tiny inconspicuous binocular you carry in the very "just in case" scenarios. Otherwise, in many opportunities I've discovered that I just simply take the 450 g Opticron Traveller ED 8x32. If I'm commuting by bike, there's room enough in my handlebar bag for the Opticron; if I'm going outside with a backpack, there's room for the Opticron, even if I'm walking the dog... the Opticron are so light and compact that I carry them on a belt case that I hardly notice. So my use for the pocket binocular is limited.

In my case, while the optical quality of the Nikon simply can't match the Leica, I find it's good enough for its intended purpose, and what really sets them apart is:

• Regular size eyecups (the Ultravids are just too narrow).
• Single hinge, just so convenient (the combination of double hinge and narrow eyecups is a recipe for ergonomic/usability disaster in my personal experience).
• Bigger focus wheel. Again, Nikon scoring more points on usability.
• Larger FOV.
• Larger exit pupil, which, together with the more stable view, bigger eyecups and single hinge add up for a great usability (almost in "regular binocular" territory), while in my case using the UV8x20 ended up being a chore.

The icing on the cake is that they Nikon are lighter, and because of their plasticky (almost toyish I admit) construction make them feel way less dense, and lighter than they really are. And last but not least, size-wis the Nikon have a very slightly larger foot print: check the picture on top, that's the Leica on top of the Nikon, you can barely see the objective end of the Nikon protrude.

And yes, there's a billion areas or so where the Nikon can't even begin to compete with the Leica, but in my personal case, the Nikon fulfill my requirements better... which (coming back to the OP) just go to show that sometimes you can't just dismiss a "worse" binocular, because it might turn out that sometimes for someone in some circumstances, the objectively "worse" can actually be the preferred option, which I find nothing short of fascinating!!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Really interesting, thanks for sharing that @yarrellii ! If you get the chance to try the Opticron, it is probably worth it for a modest outlay, it would be interesting to see how it compares with the Nikon (a similar vintage I think?), though the 24mm objective should render it a touch brighter. There is a lot to be said for the single hinge design of compact porros, if a manufacturer could squeeze a 7x or 8x with a 28-32mm objective into the design, with good eye relief and waterproofing, it could be a winner!
As an aside it looks like we have identical tastes in binos, with my most used kit being the FL 7x42 and Traveller 8x32 - the latter I may start using again if my wife prefers the Leica...

 

[dries1]

Good thread, sometimes there are diamonds in the rough. This is my favorite compact 8X23, the original Nikon Venturer, built more solid than the Venturer II. This was from 1986, these were sold with a ticket for the new York Opera with the date stamp. These can also be found for less then $50.00, though might need service. I just prefer the single hinge.

 

[gweller]

I've also had the Opticron 7x24 MCF, and although they were quite nice they can't compare to modern compacts such as the Swaro 7x21. They have a very poor close focus and very little eye relief. On the other hand they were a lot, lot cheaper!

 

[Patudo]

Thanks for taking the time to bang out this writeup! I've seen the parties of schoolkids visiting the London Wetland Centre, provided with small Nikon reverse porros, and always wondered what they would actually see/how useful they really were. I wonder what the best model is of that type, or indeed small conventional porros like the Komz 6x24...

As a bespectacled individual, the view is almost immediate, with negligible repositioning thanks to the larger exit pupil, whereas it takes a second or two to get the perfect alignment with the Leica's - the difference between clinching a bird flying past the window or not!

My god - someone who actually birds!!!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

I've also had the Opticron 7x24 MCF, and although they were quite nice they can't compare to modern compacts such as the Swaro 7x21. They have a very poor close focus and very little eye relief. On the other hand they were a lot, lot cheaper!

I don't find the eye relief too bad, but that could be to do with physiology and my glasses. The close focus is abysmal though - something like 4.5m!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Thanks for taking the time to bang out this writeup! I've seen the parties of schoolkids visiting the London Wetland Centre, provided with small Nikon reverse porros, and always wondered what they would actually see/how useful they really were. I wonder what the best model is of that type, or indeed small conventional porros like the Komz 6x24...


My god - someone who actually birds!!!

Thanks @Patudo The clue was in the username all along

I think for kids reverse porros aren't a bad choice, good to hold, easy to use, cheap and optically fine - the view only has to be good enough to get them hooked once, and in good light, something like a Kingfisher or Teal may be more than enough to do that. I'd be happy to contribute to a scheme whereby such an instrument could be made available to youngsters or people who can't afford a pair of bins to help them get more out of a visit to a reserve. Unsure how practical RP's would be in the tropics unless waterproof though.
The latest Nikon travelite EX are also quite good - my father swapped his old Optolyth Alpin for a pair a few years ago (size and weight were becoming an issue in advancing years) and I was quite impressed when I had a peep through them.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Good thread, sometimes there are diamonds in the rough. This is my favorite compact 8X23, the original Nikon Venturer, built more solid than the Venturer II. This was from 1986, these were sold with a ticket for the new York Opera with the date stamp. These can also be found for less then $50.00, though might need service. I just prefer the single hinge.


View attachment 1542259

Very classy looking bin that!

 

[dries1]

They are really easy to use and can be had for low cost. Much better construction than the later one, the Venturer II shown above. They do provide that Nikon warm view.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks @Patudo The clue was in the username all along

I think for kids reverse porros aren't a bad choice, good to hold, easy to use, cheap and optically fine - the view only has to be good enough to get them hooked once, and in good light, something like a Kingfisher or Teal may be more than enough to do that. I'd be happy to contribute to a scheme whereby such an instrument could be made available to youngsters or people who can't afford a pair of bins to help them get more out of a visit to a reserve. Unsure how practical RP's would be in the tropics unless waterproof though.
The latest Nikon travelite EX are also quite good - my father swapped his old Optolyth Alpin for a pair a few years ago (size and weight were becoming an issue in advancing years) and I was quite impressed when I had a peep through them.

Nikon Travelite Binoculars Review: Why Every Birder Should Own A Pair • PAUL ROEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY

Binoculars are something every serious birder owns. With so many features and numbers attached to them, how do you know which ones to buy

paulroeddingphotography.com

 

[wllmspd]

. I'd be happy to contribute to a scheme whereby such an instrument could be made available to youngsters or people who can't afford a pair of bins to help them get more out of a visit to a reserve. Unsure how practical RP's would be in the tropics unless waterproof though.

The British Trust for Ornithology have a donation scheme that you might be interested in… and anyone else who might have any unloved and less used equipment that could help the next generation.

Equipment donation form

www.bto.org

Peter

 

[yarrellii]

I also find the Nikon Travelite 8x25 are truly remarkable (I understand they are called Prostaff ATB 8x25 in some markets). The image is simply on another level compared to the Nikon CF III 7x20. They feel like a contemporary binocular, the colour balance appears neutral, like more true to life (less warm/yellowish), and the level of contrast is simply several steps above, as is the perceived sharpness. Add to this that they are waterproof and come with a nice a grippy rubber armour and this makes for an amazing feel in the hand. Very reassuring, and the image simply performs at a great level for the price. Only caveat is the narrow FOV of 6,5º for a 8x. But then, when going small you probably know there will be compromises. Really very nice. Personally, I find the eyecups on the narrow side, but acceptable. In this case, the outer diameter is OK, it's the inner diameter of the rubber that's on the edge.

However, I see an issue with the pocketability of this model. Have a look:



The 7x20 CF III are 207 g, the Travelite 8x25 are 350 g and the Traveller 8x32 are 450 g. I can squeeze the CF 7x20 in the side pocket of some "cargo" trousers, or inside the pocket of my fleece. It's OK. I can feel it's there but it's not very annoying. However, the 8x25 Travelite is another story. That feeling of reassurance and build quality has a downside, and it's that they feel heavier than they are, and carrying them on the pocket of the fleece is not as nice.

So, to my eyes, the 8x25 Travelite fall in an in-between category. I would not call them pocket binoculars, but I would say that they are a compact+, or "ultracompact", like an Opticron Discovery 8x32 (that is also in 300 g territory). They view has more to do with an 8x32, but I also feel the size and bulk are more related to that size as well. So for me the 8x25 Travelite would be great for someone who really values small bulk and size, but who is thinking of a compact 8x25, not to miss a lot from 8x32, but not able to take as many compromises as a 7/8x20/21.

Now talking about hidden gems. I also happen to have (and like very much) a Nikon 7x20D. Judging by its squarish shape, the design (and maybe production era) is related with @dries1 Nikon Venturer. Here it is side by side the 7x20 CIII.



The 7x20D seems to predate the CFIII, and not 100 % sure but it also seems to belong to an upper category/range. The build quality seems far superior, there's no squeak or rattle (as in the CF III), everything is really well put together, and the view is just better. Better sharpness, a less "washed" image, compared to the CFIII, better control of glare (which is all over the place in the CFIII). The focus action is again splendid (as in the three Nikon on this post... how can Nikon always get focusing this well on inexpensive models, seriously. It's just so praise worthy). However, eyecups are just too narrow for me. I feel forced to adopt the "pocket binocular" position, where in order to get a comfortable and nice view I have to tilt my head downwards a bit, just a few degrees... enough to make using the binoculars a bit of a pain after a few minutes, where the back of my neck starts to hurt. Same with the Leica Ultravid 8x20 or the Swarovski Habicht 8x20 (or most pockets, for that matter). Probably as a result of that perceived superior build quality, they also weight more: 240 vs 207 g, but had the eyecups been the right size, that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

 

[[email protected]]

I can't believe compact junk binoculars like this get such high reviews. 20x25 really! That is a .8mm EP, and they are advertising it for low light! Watch the video on them. The idiot is looking through the wrong end of the binoculars.

Amazon.com

 

[[email protected]]

I kept thinking about your comparison of high end to a low-end compact binocular, so I bought a Nikon Prostaff 8x25 which is the same as the Traveller EX to compare with my Nikon HG 8x20. To cut to the chase, I sold the Nikon HG 8x20 and kept the Prostaff. You were correct. The Prostaff is more comfortable to use, the focuser is better placed and smoother, and there is not a huge difference in the optics.

The HG might have a little higher transmission, but the Prostaff makes up for it with a bigger 25mm aperture versus the 20mm on the HG. Neither one has much CA to speak of, and both are tack sharp on-axis. The HG might be a tad sharper on the edges, but not much. The Prostaff has easier eye placement because of the bigger EP, which I really like.

Like you say, it is nice just to pick the Prostaff up and put it to your eyes without having to set the IPD, and the eye cups are bigger and more comfortable than the HG also. When the HG is unfolded it is almost as big as the Prostaff and the Prostaff fits in your coat pocket just as easy, and it is ready to go when you take it out. The Prostaff is waterproof and fog proof, so no advantage for the HG there. All in all the Prostaff is easier to use and doesn't give up much in the view with the FOV being only slightly less at 1/4 the costs.

 

[tenex]

Looking at this range, I notice that Nikon's Trailblazer ATB 8x25 (even cheaper at $87) claims an 8.2° FOV. Can that be correct, and how is the quality?