• 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.

Excellent Monocular (2 Viewers)

PeterPS

Well-Known Member
Kiribati
Monoculars are not as good as binoculars for nature observation (except for people who lack binocular vision). However monoculars are much lighter and can be easily carried by sliding them into a jeans pocket. This was my main reason for wishing to buy a monocular. When I go for a walk I would not like to carry even a 500-600g binocular set on my neck just for that improbable encounter with a special member of the wildlife. Good compact binoculars are small enough for a big jacket pocket but not for a jeans pocket, and when you pull them out you would still have to open them at the right IPD etc.; and very good monoculars are not only both smaller and lighter but they can be better optically too.

Specwell and Walters monoculars appear to be very little known in the birding community. Both are made in Japan (likely by Specwell). They are similar to some Orion and Kenko monoculars, but are offered in many more versions than the latter and appear to have better specs. I have bought the Specwell 7x25 with a FoV of 10* (for the other specs see, e.g.: http://www.monocular.info/specwell.htm). It goes from 50cm to infinity in about two CCW turns by extending its body. It is easy to focus and has a good DoF at inf, but of course it requires most of the 2 turns for close focus. The coating of the lenses has a light purple color, and the optics are excellent: no CA, and I really mean none (just to put this in the context, I have seen CA even in the EL-SV and Kowa-Genesis) and the glare/flare is very well controlled (IMO better than in the EII and the SE, the latter being among the best at this in the binos world). What really led me to the Specwell and Walters monoculars is their FoV---they have one of the widest FoV, if not the widest. Their 8x30 has a FoV of 8.5*, pretty close to the 8.8* of the EII 8x30!
Before acquiring the Specwell I had a Nikon HG 5x15 monocular----it has very good reviews and many happy users, but I found it hard to use--the small AFOV of 45* (compare this with the 70* of the Specwell!) made it hard to locate (and track) any bird, and it was not comfortable to use due to the fact that it had no eyecup and its focuser was too close to the ocular (the Specwell has a soft-rubber eyecup and a good ER, and its focuser is close to the objective lens and can be easily turned).
I suggest you go ahead and try one---I am sure most are going to like it, and with its close focus of 50cm/20in it is very good for insect and butterfly watching too. In fact something that I forgot to mention before---the eyecup is removable, which makes it easy to clean the ocular, but more important makes it possible to use the monocular (via an adapter) as a telephoto lens for cameras; also by buying an additional stand one can transform the monocular into a microscope which can be used for.... mite watching (which would be the next logical level after insect watching....).
All other monoculars out there (including Leica's Monovid) did not interest me due their small (A)FoV and my bad experience with the Nikon 5x15 which seemed almost unusable to me partly because of its small AFoV (perhaps I did not give it enough time..). Finally a piece of advise: before you buy a monocular try to see if you can close only one eye (preferably the non-dominant one)!

Peter.
 
Nothing personal, but you couldn't run fast enough to catch me to give me a monocular.

To me, what you give up is so much greater than the weight "savings".
 
Hi Peter,

Agree entirely with your take on monoculars, they are my ticket for always available optics. Size is really critical, a 30mm glass hulks too much imho.

My Leica Monovid is small and robust, as well as waterproof. It is also 2x the price of the Specwell 8x20, so you may have discovered a much better deal.

The question would be whether the Specwell is waterproof and whether anyone in the US carries the line.
 
Hi Etudiant and Henry:

The principal market for Specwell and Walters appears to be visually impaired people and the camera crowd. They are readily available in the US, even Amazon carries them, but the prices vary a lot.....If you shop around you can buy a brand-new monocular for less than 100$, which is 5 times less than a Monovid.

The built quality is excellent, it really is (they also come in a rubber coated version that should be quite robust), but I do not think they are waterproof, and I do not known if they are phase corrected. As I tried to mention in my previous post, for me the big surprise was the total elimination of CA--I have seen CA in every other glass that I have looked through before, but not in these monoculars.

It would be good if somebody can compare them optically with the Monovid. Their wider FoV should make them more usable, but that remains to be seen.

Peter.
 
Specwell and Walters monoculars

Here is some potentially interesting info I have just received from a seller (I was unable to find this info on the producer website):
"These are all glass prismatic Keplarian style telescopes fully super multi anti reflective coated crown glass aspheric a platonic optics with super Abbé value and minimal chromatic aberration distortion free."
It confirms my observation as to the total absence of CA and good glare control.

Peter.
 
Here is some potentially interesting info I have just received from a seller (I was unable to find this info on the producer website):
"These are all glass prismatic Keplarian style telescopes fully super multi anti reflective coated crown glass aspheric a platonic optics with super Abbé value and minimal chromatic aberration distortion free."
It confirms my observation as to the total absence of CA and good glare control.

Peter.

Wow, the seller does like to throw around the descriptives.
Not sure what a Keplarian style telescope would be, or a platonic optics, but the other terms seem legit and your experience backs that up.
Maybe they just need to hire a decent copywriter. Many candidates are standing by right here on BF. o:D
 
Hello Etudiant:

I agree, that was a mouthful! My "best guess" is that platonic glass is a set for which you have... a platonic love; but if you google the term the definition is different (as expected...). Anyway, as the saying goes we learn new things everyday
(your pseudonym, "student", is quite appropriate in the context).

Regarding the Specwell 7x25, after using it again today for about 30min I got the feeling that the FoV is visibly less than the published 10* (which is also marked on the body of the monocular). Possibly the FoV gets towards 10* if you squeeze your eyeball in the eyecup; but, while that can actually be done, it is not very comfortable. Interestingly the similar design by Walters has a much smaller published FoV, which also makes the 10* of Specwell a bit suspicious. For the 8x30 monocular both Walters and Specwell list the same FoV=8.5*, which might suggest that's a more reliable estimate.

All in all, the Specwell is a very usable monocular. People usually complain about the fact that monoculars are hard to hold in a stable way, but I have no problem with this one at all---it feels good in the hand, likely due to the fact that it's light but too light, and it's small but not too much so.

Peter.
 
Useful thread Peter, and thanks to all.

These would seem ideal for someone with tunnel vision.

I use a Nikon Laser 800S 6x21 for work and find that wearing glasses it will flare readily if the rubber dioptre cover is in place but flare and glare are completely eliminated if the rubber dioptre cover is removed ; it's just about eye placement and available ER. CA control in this model is good for me, none in the centre field but some apparent laterally, and not a bad view.

Not being a compact user I carry the very small Kenko DH MS 8x32, in a belt case to use as a conventional strapless grab and glass compact, worth considering if your requirements are size critical.

Best wishes,
 
Hello Samandag:

Thanks for taking the time to post.
By diopter cover you mean the rubber eyecup? Anyway, I agree that glare can be partly eliminated by eye placement within the available ER.

The Kenko DH MS 8x32 looks like a good glass, its body reminds me of the Nikon HG 8x32. However with its 560g it would not qualify as a pocket set. My intention with the monocular is to slide it in a pocket and have it ready just in case, when I am in the nature for other reasons than birdwatching (some might wonder if there can be any other reasons....).

Regarding my previous post on the FoV, I am wondering if there is a clear industry standard for measuring the FoV of a monocular, or binoculars for that matter. It seems that even in the case of the FoV, which appears to be one of the most straightforward specs of a set, there is ambiguity in the way different manufacturers measure it. In the specific case of the Specwell 7x25 monocular the FoV is claimed to be 10*, but it seems to be visibly less when you use the monocular with unfolded eyecups; when you fold them down you see more of the field stop but blackouts start to appear due to ER problems. To give the manufacturer the benefit of a doubt, possibly the FoV is 10* but how did they measure it? It is amazing how many specs are wrong (see: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=295651) or ambiguous in an industry that's
supposed to be very precise!

Peter.
 
. Hi pesto,
I suspect that a platonic relationship is not what they mean, maybe they mean aspheric.

If you find the top left star in the constellation of Orion and the leftmost star in the belt of Orion, which has three bright stars.
The distance between these two stars is almost exactly 10°, perhaps a shade more.

If however, the 7×25 monocular does not encompass both these stars then try the bottom two bright stars in the constellation of Orion, from memory 8.35° apart but I will check.

The distance between stars can be calculated to high accuracy and it is very clear what the field of view is. But this may vary from person to person, I suppose depending if they are shortsighted or longsighted etc and also where they place their eye.

In my experience, only the top binoculars accurately describe their field of view, and other specifications. The majority of binoculars are not as described, even the weight can be wildly different, which seems very odd to me, as it is not difficult to weigh a binocular.
 
By diopter cover you mean the rubber eyecup? Anyway, I agree that glare can be partly eliminated by eye placement within the available ER.

The Kenko DH MS 8x32 looks like a good glass, its body reminds me of the Nikon HG 8x32. However with its 560g it would not qualify as a pocket set.

Peter.

Hello Peter, Yes the eyecup and on the Nikon it just serves as a dioptre cover. The ocular is small !

Regarding the weight of the Kenko DH MS 8x32, and to echo Binastro, the bare weight of this bino is 537g (that's without the eye-piece and objective covers and without the strap). I use a belt outside my coat to have the case easy to hand in this weather. It's a nice little binocular, I had some new run samples delivered from Japan a week or so ago and will post a brief review in due course.
 
I have a couple of the Vortex ones and the littlest Zeiss. All get used due to their smaller size. I leave them in handy places like the car glove box.
 
Binastro: Like you I also am puzzled by the fact that even the listed weight is often wrong. Thanks for your hints about estimating the FoV; unfortunately, as you admitted, the estimates would be rather inaccurate as they depend on the user. My question was if there was an universal industry standard for measuring the FoV.

Samandag: Looking forward to your review of the Kenko. Was I right that it looks a bit like the Nikon HG 8x32?

MPeoples: Most of us have two eyes (surprise...) but we prefer carrying a light pocketable monocular, just in case, during a long hike/walk that has another purpose than birdwatching.
 
Pesto thanks for the nice review.I like to use monoculars when i cant use bins(a lot of times).I wonder how they perform with glasses or sunglasses.I am a litle confused about the er and their FOV. I use a Zeiss 6x18.Thanks
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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