• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Do you like the VIEW better through a Porro or a Roof prism binocular? (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Porros give me eye strain, except the little reverse porros.
Probably because you are not used to them. Your eyes have to adapt to the 3D image of a Porro. The flat field of most roofs is easier to get used to but once you become accustomed to the Porro view you will never go back to the flat "pie plate view" of a roof. A roof prism is like looking at a picture on the wall. A Porro is like being "inside" the picture. With a roof you "examine" something like it is under a microscope. With a Porro you are "in" the picture with the object you are looking at.
 
Last edited:

Ivydwg

Well-known member
United Kingdom
The only issues I have with the Nikon EII is lack of contrast, and they are darker than the Habichts, Fujinons or APM Porros because of lower transmission and a red bias. Once you are used to the any of these three it is hard to go back to the EII. Of course the Fujinon and APM are much bigger

Dennis you seem to think that the view through the EII is dark/sinister....perhaps what Ivydwg meant, if the weather is good, (I would infer sunny with comfortable temperature), the EII provides some nice views which they do, I will attest to that; and hell, it is a lot easier than the 7X50 porro to lug around for a walk with the family.

Andy W.
I bought my EII's for £360 new, not long before they were discontinued in the UK. So they would have been quite a bit cheaper than the Habicht.

I remember even £360 being struggle for me to afford at the time. Budget is a limiting factor for some of us.

For me, my EII's pack of lot of punch in a compact package. I mostly use them as my lesuire bins out with family and friends, on holiday they come out for walks around seaside towns, I don't really notice the are there, so great to stick under my arm when having to deal with unhappy children, buying/carrying shopping or ordering drinks at busy pub (in England you go the bar to order!).

Of course it is possible to get compact roofs, but I don't have one to compare to.

So in answering the original post, I love the views through my EII's, particularly for the price I bought them for. I use my roofs more because they are waterproof and generally more practical. But I understand and appreciate why some people prefer the porro view.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I bought my EII's for £360 new, not long before they were discontinued in the UK. So they would have been quite a bit cheaper than the Habicht.

I remember even £360 being struggle for me to afford at the time. Budget is a limiting factor for some of us.

For me, my EII's pack of lot of punch in a compact package. I mostly use them as my lesuire bins out with family and friends, on holiday they come out for walks around seaside towns, I don't really notice the are there, so great to stick under my arm when having to deal with unhappy children, buying/carrying shopping or ordering drinks at busy pub (in England you go the bar to order!).

Of course it is possible to get compact roofs, but I don't have one to compare to.

So in answering the original post, I love the views through my EII's, particularly for the price I bought them for. I use my roofs more because they are waterproof and generally more practical. But I understand and appreciate why some people prefer the porro view.
Nothing wrong with the EII except contrast, and they are dark compared to a Habicht. I think if you tried a Habicht you wouldn't go back to an EII unless the focuser is very important to you. The Habicht focuser is pretty stiff, but the view is superb. The Habicht is waterproof and dustproof also. Porros that aren't waterproof and sealed will pull dust into them like an accordion when you focus. An EII or SE will accumulate dust and mold inside the optics on the glass, especially if you live in a humid climate. Not good.
 
Last edited:

14Goudvink

Well-known member
lvydg,

The E2's contrast is at the same level as my Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD and better than the Swaro SV 8x32 I used to own.

I have been using E2's and Nikon SE's in this little frog land for years and zero dust or mold.

Enjoy your E2!


George
 

Patudo

Well-known member
The bellows effect of external focusers (as used on most center focus porros) is real, but unless you live in/regularly use them in a demanding environment, you'll probably not need to have the optical surfaces cleaned for many years. Even if an issue does arise, the binoculars are easily disassembled and cleaned by a knowledgeable technician. I don't see this problem being mentioned even amongst the army of nitnoids here, which includes enough folks who have owned EIIs, SEs and other external focus binoculars long term.

I can't say I felt the 8x30 EII image lacked contrast or was too dark myself. The main difficulty I have with it is that its eye relief is too short for me to use it with glasses, and it doesn't focus beyond infinity enough for me to use it without. It's a good binocular (I have to admit I quite like well executed 8x30 porros in general), but one I can't use effectively.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
lvydg,

The E2's contrast is at the same level as my Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD and better than the Swaro SV 8x32 I used to own.

I have been using E2's and Nikon SE's in this little frog land for years and zero dust or mold.

Enjoy your E2!


George
Don't try a Habicht! It will spoil you for the EII. :cry:
 

Ivydwg

Well-known member
United Kingdom
lvydg,

The E2's contrast is at the same level as my Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD and better than the Swaro SV 8x32 I used to own.

I have been using E2's and Nikon SE's in this little frog land for years and zero dust or mold.

Enjoy your E2!


George
I have had no issues with dust or mold in over 5 years of ownership. I used to leave mine in the car as well overnight, I have got much better at not doing that!
Don't try a Habicht! It will spoil you for the EII. :cry:
I am sure you are correct, however, when Eii's where still widely available in the UK they were quite a bit cheaper than the Habicht.

If a get a chance to look through a Habicht I will, but I am still going to enjoy the EII's as my fair weather lesuire bins and still feel that for £360, they return a great image. When I tried several roofs for around that price last year, side by side, I felt the EIIs delivered a more vibrant image, even than those with 42 objectives.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
If a get a chance to look through a Habicht I will, but I am still going to enjoy the EII's as my fair weather lesuire bins and still feel that for £360, they return a great image. When I tried several roofs for around that price last year, side by side, I felt the EIIs delivered a more vibrant image, even than those with 42 objectives.
Well, the Habicht vs EII is not as clear a win for the Habicht as it may seem.
Yes, the Habicht are sharper and brighter, I could say that the "pure image" is better... but as a birders bin they have huge (I mean huge) disadvantages:
  • The focus wheel is rock hard. This could disqualify them for many users.
  • They have a serious glare issue.
  • The eyecups are narrow and the view can be problematic.

I personally find the EII are:
  • Way more comfortable to use, eye position is surprisingly easy for a 8x30.
  • The FOV is much wider
  • The focus wheel, while not up to contemporary roof standards, is way softer and faster than the Habicth
  • It suffers from way less glare

In short: I bought the Habicht as an upgrade over my EII. I tried the Habicht extensively, and ended up selling them because I personally find they're simply unusable as a birding binocular. So there you go, so much for image quality ;) The 8x30 Habicht have one of the most impressive binoculars I've used, one of the finest views, and I'm sure they can be a lovely naturalist binocular, a landscape binocular, but not a binocular for someone into animals that move at considerable speed through the air ;)

This is just my experience and my point of view, your mileage may vary. Binoculars are very personal things, just like shoes.
A couple of years ago I commented on this, referring to the Habicht as a Italian supercar (with amazing performance... but unusable performance and poor everyday usability). You can read it here:

 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I have had no issues with dust or mold in over 5 years of ownership. I used to leave mine in the car as well overnight, I have got much better at not doing that!

I am sure you are correct, however, when Eii's where still widely available in the UK they were quite a bit cheaper than the Habicht.

If a get a chance to look through a Habicht I will, but I am still going to enjoy the EII's as my fair weather lesuire bins and still feel that for £360, they return a great image. When I tried several roofs for around that price last year, side by side, I felt the EIIs delivered a more vibrant image, even than those with 42 objectives.
If you are in the UK you can pick a Habicht up for a pretty good price. Try one some time.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Well, the Habicht vs EII is not as clear a win for the Habicht as it may seem.
Yes, the Habicht are sharper and brighter, I could say that the "pure image" is better... but as a birders bin they have huge (I mean huge) disadvantages:
  • The focus wheel is rock hard. This could disqualify them for many users.
  • They have a serious glare issue.
  • The eyecups are narrow and the view can be problematic.

I personally find the EII are:
  • Way more comfortable to use, eye position is surprisingly easy for a 8x30.
  • The FOV is much wider
  • The focus wheel, while not up to contemporary roof standards, is way softer and faster than the Habicth
  • It suffers from way less glare

In short: I bought the Habicht as an upgrade over my EII. I tried the Habicht extensively, and ended up selling them because I personally find they're simply unusable as a birding binocular. So there you go, so much for image quality ;) The 8x30 Habicht have one of the most impressive binoculars I've used, one of the finest views, and I'm sure they can be a lovely naturalist binocular, a landscape binocular, but not a binocular for someone into animals that move at considerable speed through the air ;)

This is just my experience and my point of view, your mileage may vary. Binoculars are very personal things, just like shoes.
A couple of years ago I commented on this, referring to the Habicht as a Italian supercar (with amazing performance... but unusable performance and poor everyday usability). You can read it here:

I use the Habicht 10x40 GA which has no glare or eye cup issues since they have the bigger green eye cups as standard. The focus wheel loosens up with use and is not a problem anymore. I think the EII FOV is too wide. You can't take it all in at once. It is like a IMAX movie screen. You have to move your eyes all around to see the full FOV. The deal killer on the EII for me is the contrast, color bias and brightness compared to the Habicht. I much prefer the brighter, more color neutral Habicht. It is a matter of personal preference. I agree with Tobias on the Habicht. As good as the Habicht is though the Fujinon FMTR-SX, Steiner Shadowquest and the APM APO Porros are better and less expensive.
 
Last edited:

Birdhenry

Member
United States
What do you mean by the light gets where it needs to be? Porros are considered to have more field illumination than roofs.
I heard that porros force the light to twist and turn to get from the objective to the eye whereas the roof prisms are straight barrels from the objective to the eye. i read an article on it but im here to learn so please correct me if i'm wrong
 

dries1

Member
Yes, but once you are used to the Habicht the EII is almost depressing to go back to IMO. It lacks the brightness and high transmission "sparkle" of the Habicht. Once I had a Habicht I sold my EII. The Habicht 10x40 GA isn't much heavier than the EII and built better also. True the focus on the Habicht is not as smooth as the EII, but once I got used to it I would never go back to an EII. The view is what is important to me. IMO the EII has almost TOO big of a FOV also. It is hard to take it in all at once and seems like an IMAX movie where you have to move your eyes all around to see everything. I have changed my opinion on huge FOV binoculars after having the NL. Enough is enough when it comes to FOV. I would rather have the more natural bright 3D image of a Habicht, Fujinon, Steiner or APM Porro with a slightly smaller FOV than the huge "synthetic" flat FOV of the NL. After comparing the Fujinon with my NL I quickly decided I liked the Fujinon view better than the NL. Just preference I guess.
Dennis, I like the SVs but sorry will never own a Habicht 8X30 or 10X40, I prefer the view through the Nikon porros, it is a matter of preference. And yes I have owned the Fuji 10X50, I sold it not much use, after not being on a boat for a while.

Andy W.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I heard that porros force the light to twist and turn to get from the objective to the eye whereas the roof prisms are straight barrels from the objective to the eye. i read an article on it but im here to learn so please correct me if i'm wrong
Your technically correct, but the Porro Prism is still more efficient than the roof because there is no light loss through the prism. binoculars-porro-prism.gif binoculars-roof-prism.gif
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Dennis, I like the SVs but sorry will never own a Habicht 8X30 or 10X40, I prefer the view through the Nikon porros, it is a matter of preference. And yes I have owned the Fuji 10X50, I sold it not much use, after not being on a boat for a while.

Andy W.
I just prefer the brighter, sparkly, more transparent, neutral view of the Habicht versus the darker, redder, muddy view of the EII. As you say just a matter of personal preference. The Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 is excellent for astronomy and can be used for certain types of birding like Pelagic and birds of prey, although I admit it is not the best choice for warblers at close distance. For that I would use a 6x30. I am changing my mind on aperture size the more I use these bigger aperture binoculars. There are a lot of advantages to 50 mm and 56 mm apertures. The bigger apertures are always so bright under any condition and the eye placement is so easy and comfortable. I am really starting to appreciate the 7x50 format for DOF and even field illumination and with IF you never have to focus it. You just bring it up to your eyes and bang you have a view that blows an NL away without no fuss. The 8x56 is just the "King" of low light also. WOW, are they bright in low light!
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Here is a good thread from Cloudy Nights summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of Porro and roof prism binoculars.

Porro prism binocular advantages:
-brighter image vs. roof prism
-cheaper to manufacture to a high standard
-more fully illuminated exit pupils vs. roof prism
-wider TFOV vs. roof prism (shorter light path vs. roof prism)
-better depth of field vs. roof prism (improved stereoscopic view)
-accommodates bigger hands

Porro prism binocular disadvantages:
-collimation can be more easily misaligned
-external focusers w/bridge can be more difficult to truly waterproof
-longer close focus vs. roof prism
-larger apertures can be too big and bulky for smaller hands


Roof prism binocular advantages:
-more compact vs. porro prism
-lighter vs. porro prism
-fixed prism housing that holds collimation better than porro prism
-better close focusing ability vs. porro prism
-smoother focuser operation which is more adaptable to observing moving subjects
-better waterproofing vs. porro prism due to internal focuser

Roof prism binoculars disadvantages:
-much more expensive per aperture due to smaller prisms, phase coatings, and dielectric coatings
-dimmer image vs porro prism
-worse depth of field vs porro prism
-maximum aperture limited to 63 mm due to interpupilary restrictions
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
Here is a good thread from Cloudy Nights summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of Porro and roof prism binoculars.

Quote EDZ...
"FWIW, I would say that a lot of these comments are too generalized to be consistently true. A number of them are definitely model specific, and a number of them are price/quality specific, but would not necessarily hold true across a porro/roof debate."

Andreas
 

tenex

reality-based
Your technically correct, but the Porro Prism is still more efficient than the roof because there is no light loss through the prism.
You're technically incorrect, because there's light loss through any glass element. Also because there are several types of roof prisms; some (like Schmidt-Pechan) have an inefficient mirrored surface, others (like Abbé-König) don't.

I heard that porros force the light to twist and turn to get from the objective to the eye whereas the roof prisms are straight barrels from the objective to the eye. i read an article on it but im here to learn so please correct me if i'm wrong
No, there's no real difference in that respect. The point of either type of prism is to bounce light around inside them, making the instrument shorter and flipping the image so it's upright. (Straight Keplerian telescopes have inverted images.) The illustration Dennis posted, showing a straight line right through the roof prisms, is inaccurate and misleading. Here's a better one.
 

Attachments

  • Bino cutaways EL vs SF.jpg
    Bino cutaways EL vs SF.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
You're technically incorrect, because there's light loss through any glass element. Also because there are several types of roof prisms; some (like Schmidt-Pechan) have an inefficient mirrored surface, others (like Abbé-König) don't.


No, there's no real difference in that respect. The point of either type of prism is to bounce light around inside them, making the instrument shorter and flipping the image so it's upright. (Straight Keplerian telescopes have inverted images.) The illustration Dennis posted, showing a straight line right through the roof prisms, is inaccurate and misleading. Here's a better one.
210128

Dennis,

I know you hate it whenever I enter your playground, I am sorry and will be gone momentarily.

You say, “... but the Porro Prism is still more efficient than the roof because there is no light loss through the prism.”

Regardless of AR coatings, some light is LOST at every glass-to-air surface, and there are 8 of those (16 if you count all the places where total internal reflection is SUPPOSED to take place) in the standard Porro prism binocular. Then, there are several places where glare affects the light you are getting. You have shown you are easily disgusted by those who try to supplant what you say you KNOW with all their optical Ph.D. hocus pocus.

Like you, I am a fan of Porro prism binoculars. However, I like quantifiable truths even more.

When you get a moment, you might want to view: http://buphy.bu.edu/py106/notes/Refraction.html

I’m outta your hair, now.

Bill
 
Last edited:

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
Although small there are also intensity losses when light passes optical glass. And porro prisms have some distance to go also through porro prisms.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top