Thotmosis
Well-known member
They are not made in Germany i think.I wonder how the Eschenbach porro's are? The whole line reminds of a GPO in design. They could be made by somebody else like Kamakura, like GPO.
They are not made in Germany i think.I wonder how the Eschenbach porro's are? The whole line reminds of a GPO in design. They could be made by somebody else like Kamakura, like GPO.
That is a beautiful binocular and I definitely like porro binoculars, but I have tried a lot of the older WA porros and as you say there is a lot of field curvature compared to the more modern porros. Personally, I find when you start getting into a 10 degree binocular for me, it is almost too WA and the huge FOV is too much to take in at once, especially when the edges start dropping off in clarity. it is almost like looking at a picture that you have to roll your eyes around in to see it all. I still like the older porros for their classic appearance and vintage appeal, though. I wonder if the new line of Eschenbach are made by Kamakura now or as you say MIC. They look very similar to the GPO line.It states a 10° FoV which is probably a bit overstated. But it is very wide. I only have one 10° 8x30 that is even wider but my eyelashes touch the glass on that one - it's a "Luna Super" (interestingly enough also sometimes sold under the Eschenbach brand but mine is just labeled "Luna Super"). I'm a big fan of those vintage 8x30s. Nothing has a wider view for the price (maybe except for some 7x35s). But most of them have a lot of field curvature.
Cheers, Philipp
Interesting old tread where they say some are MIC and the better ones in Japan.It states a 10° FoV which is probably a bit overstated. But it is very wide. I only have one 10° 8x30 that is even wider but my eyelashes touch the glass on that one - it's a "Luna Super" (interestingly enough also sometimes sold under the Eschenbach brand but mine is just labeled "Luna Super"). I'm a big fan of those vintage 8x30s. Nothing has a wider view for the price (maybe except for some 7x35s). But most of them have a lot of field curvature.
Cheers, Philipp
Not that I wanna completely spam the thread but I got one of those, too -- the rubber armored "Marine/Military" model and it is awful. It seems like about 10% of the FoV are sharp -- the rest is a blurry mess -- it's so bad in fact that sometimes I think there might be something wrong inside, maybe fungus or some dirt on the lenses. Too bad since I actually like Steiner, as one of my first "better" binos (better than a pocket size Tasco 8x21 that is) was a 10x50E. The model with the typical shape but without the rubber armor. And I live about 40 minutes from Bayreuth, so I might one day visit the company headquarters, look through a few and if I find a good one, I might get another, but the 2 I have are not that good.I had an old vintage Steiner 8x30 but gave it away because it was not as i expected.
I have tried a lot of Steiner's and the only one I liked was the Night Hunter 8x56. The rest of them were just average. Not too many birders use Steiner's and that is probably why.Not that I wanna completely spam the thread but I got one of those, too -- the rubber armored "Marine/Military" model and it is awful. It seems like about 10% of the FoV are sharp -- the rest is a blurry mess -- it's so bad in fact that sometimes I think there might be something wrong inside, maybe fungus or some dirt on the lenses. Too bad since I actually like Steiner, as one of my first "better" binos (better than a pocket size Tasco 8x21 that is) was a 10x50E. The model with the typical shape but without the rubber armor. And I live about 40 minutes from Bayreuth, so I might one day visit the company headquarters, look through a few and if I find a good one, I might get another, but the 2 I have are not that good.
Sorry for the spam on my behalf also but just one more... I like the form factor of the rubber covered Steiner's as i like it in my Habicht GA and Zeiss 15x60 BGAT. Im looking for a nice pair of Zeiss FL for this reason.Not that I wanna completely spam the thread but I got one of those, too -- the rubber armored "Marine/Military" model and it is awful. It seems like about 10% of the FoV are sharp -- the rest is a blurry mess -- it's so bad in fact that sometimes I think there might be something wrong inside, maybe fungus or some dirt on the lenses. Too bad since I actually like Steiner, as one of my first "better" binos (better than a pocket size Tasco 8x21 that is) was a 10x50E. The model with the typical shape but without the rubber armor. And I live about 40 minutes from Bayreuth, so I might one day visit the company headquarters, look through a few and if I find a good one, I might get another, but the 2 I have are not that good.
Also because a lot of the Steiner's has IF i guess, but they surely look like they can take a beating. For my that is really important.I have tried a lot of Steiner's and the only one I liked was the Night Hunter 8x56. The rest of them were just average. Not too many birders use Steiner's and that is probably why.
Yes, I regret that i didn't buy that nice 10x32 FL last year...oh well how many binoculars does a person need?The Zeiss FL's are very nice, but they are getting hard to find, and they command a pretty high price because of that.
Hi,Yes, I regret that i didn't buy that nice 10x32 FL last year...
It was very good, weather was nice and sunny with clear skies so it was not challenging for the bino, but the image was bright and uniform with no major image degradation towards the edges. Some minor CA, on par with the Leicas (comparable to some Ultravids) but overall great performance for the price point. Little less contrast than later Ultravids but great performance. Main drawback is weight, it is about as heavy in hand as the 10x42HD Meostar which is a better binocular all in all. At least I think.How was the brightness on the Meostar 8x42?
Yes, when I was trying out the Ultravid 7x42. Noctivid felt light in hand and had great imaging, however a slight trace of CA on high contrast subjects. Too expensive for me, but as with the rest of the high end Leicas: if you get past the CA the imaging is extremely nice.Have you ever tried a Noctivid 8x42 for CA?
Well, that is nice - lucky you! Binocular life would be so much easier for me if I wasn't CA sensitive. CA is a deal breaker for me in most cases.HenRun, i guess im one of those lucky ones who -until now at least- barely notices CA. Having a Duovid 8-12x42 im very satisfied with the double magnification. The FOV at 8x is rather narrow comparing to other 8x though. When comparing the Duovid at 8x with my UVHD 8x32 (not plus) i do't see a lot of difference at day time. The smaller 8x32 is maybe even brighter. White is more white. So when compactness and weight is an issue the UV 8x32 would be a good choice.
At least 6!Yes, I regret that i didn't buy that nice 10x32 FL last year...oh well how many binoculars does a person need?
The Meopta's do tend to be on the heavy side. They are built like a tank.It was very good, weather was nice and sunny with clear skies so it was not challenging for the bino, but the image was bright and uniform with no major image degradation towards the edges. Some minor CA, on par with the Leicas (comparable to some Ultravids) but overall great performance for the price point. Little less contrast than later Ultravids but great performance. Main drawback is weight, it is about as heavy in hand as the 10x42HD Meostar which is a better binocular all in all. At least I think.
Yes, when I was trying out the Ultravid 7x42. Noctivid felt light in hand and had great imaging, however a slight trace of CA on high contrast subjects. Too expensive for me, but as with the rest of the high end Leicas: if you get past the CA the imaging is extremely nice.
Thanks, for that information. If I want a Zeiss FL, I will take a look at the German eBay.Hi,
you live in the Netherlands, it should be easy to find German ebay ads, there are still plenty of Zeiss FL binoculars for sale here.
Andreas
What is an Olivon? I have never heard of them?Well, that is nice - lucky you! Binocular life would be so much easier for me if I wasn't CA sensitive. CA is a deal breaker for me in most cases.
A good friend has the Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 which was on my short list to get myself. I get too much reflections from them using them with my glasses but the optics are great - really nice punchy contrast and a very handy format. Looking through them without glasses I think they are fantastic. He got a bargain buy on them, less than half price from new - and they are the HD Plus variant.
On the last group birding I signed up for a loaner tube. It was an Olivon and that thing was so poor I only looked through it once during the day. Massive CA and low contrast. I could not get a sharp image from it no matter what I tried.
Despite the difference in magnification there was nothing that Olivon gave more detail of compared to the Meopta 12x50. I had to drag the tube and tripod around all day.