Docter (ex-Zeiss) Classic porros (3 Viewers)

[jan van daalen]

Last weekend, I took the Docter 8x30 with me on a walk together with the 8x32 FL.
It was not where I most often go, and it was at noon, on a sunny, but very windy day, in open field (not woods). Not very challenging light nor ideal testing conditions…

Clearly, and not surprisingly, the FL was the better one, though maybe more surprisingly might be the main reasons why…

1. The main reason was the focuser. I don’t think I’m as picky on that as some on the forum (I’m fine from the moment it’s precise, not too small and not too tight, which seem to be OK in most current decent roof binoculars, not only alpha’s). However, the véry basic focuser implementation in the old Docter, also way too tight and with a narrow focus wheel, made it slow and requiring to use a finger from each hand. It was really a blocker, making it a pain to snap on some flying or furtive birds. Maybe the focuser could be loosened by some good repairer, which would make a huge difference.
2. The eye relief: it is very small. However, it was ‘OK’ for me, as I don’t wear glasses. But I still list it here as it will very likely be a blocker for eyeglass wearers.

To be honest, I think those are the only 2 things really being a big bummer on the pleasure of some casual bird watching with the Docter.
(It not being waterproof would be the number 3 issue for me for more regular use: it regularly suddenly rains a bit when I’m out walking, and I like not to have to bother about it for my binoculars apart from checking the eyepiece covers are well placed.)

The FL is waterproof, feels like being of higher build quality, and has better optics (it would be disturbing if it weren’t, for 10x the price). Of course, I prefer the FL, but if it weren’t for the above things, I’d say the Docter is still perfectly decent, and enjoyable for actual casual use! Maybe I should find someone who could loosen its focuser a bit.

Regarding the optics, it is true that, while the FOV is very good (similar to the FL), the sweet spot is limited (much narrower than the FL). Strangely enough, it didn’t botter me thát much though, but I was observing in open field.
And the center is very sharp.
I couldn’t create any annoying glare situation, but the weather/light was very good… It would probably be different in other conditions.

More surprisingly, I found no “noteworthy practical”() difference in clarity/brigtness or even colour between the two binoculars in the field! Maybe that would have been different in fading light, woods, ... () I don’t mean the two binoculars are identical, but if not comparing them directly and just using the Docter in the field, I might maybe just say the Docter are a bit warm, without finding it a big issue in actual use. The colour difference (yellowish cast of the Docter) is much more clear when you switch between the two while aiming directly at a well lit white wall (which I did to compare them here at home), but that is rarely what I do on walks I should compare the Docter to the Komz regarding their colours, out of curiosity.

Please note that I should probably redo the comparison also in e.g. woods and fading or more challenging light (actually what I encounter more often during my walks than sunny weather at noon in open terrain…)

It’s funny how some subjective expectations-adaptation seem to occur between taking different ‘classes’ of binoculars:
I wouldn’t accept several of the limitations of the Docter if they were happening in 10x more expensive alpha binoculars like my FL. It would be more than just bothering me.
But taking the simple Docter porro on a casual walk, the implicit/silent expectations are just different and you’re just enjoying it (including its view), in a different mindset … apart from that bloody focuser, truly ruining it all too often :’-(

Just send it to Wim de Boer www.dekijkerspecialist.nl and you'll get it back as new.

Jan