• 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.

Latest Optics not floating my boat ... (1 Viewer)

adhoc

Well-known member
Chosun, when I asked, "What were those threads?" I also meant, what were they about, what happened, etc! I have tracked back your posts and found the locked one.

About the smaller-objective models, you say in post #1 up here, "too physically small for my comfort". Sorry I missed, and now see, the importance of the word "physically" there.

In your post(#5) replying mine you say, "I would prefer it to be 600-650grams, sharper, across an even wider field, have better transmission and colours at the extremes, with better ER, and glare handling - so quite a lot could be improved !" The only response I could imagine, from the manufrs. and all of us, is, "Sure, but how?" Had you spend some of those Australian pesos on some Australian tequila! And in your next post(#6) you firmly bring that weight down to 580 grams, but then sober up and say, "It looks like what I want doesn't yet exist, and may not for quite a while unless I have it specially made..." Seems what you want, with your very unusual personal needs, is a longer, slightly lighter Zeiss SF 32 or a much lighter SF 42. And this is leaving aside your price limit of less than Nikon Monarch HG!

With a bit of web browsing I find that of the models cited by Binastro, all old, all porro, probably not waterproof, the Optolyth Osirises had a lot of plastic and Hensoldts had external central focusing (where the eyepieces move). Were those Hensoldts as tough as today's Zeisses? Apart from the effort needed by the manufrs., I repeat, not many consumers really want light weight! Indeed some prefer heavy. While on that browse, came across a BirdForum post by Binastro where he recommends a handy tree to steady the Optolyth Osiris!

Yes, watching, or experiencing, or observing, nature without binoculars can lead to "an increase in attunement of other senses." But also, on the contrary, binoculars can help in that, by enabling a person to better co-relate the sounds and wider visual cues of the ecosystem to what we see in (more) detail through them. The best field observers of the present day, many of them pretty crack at bird id. by sight and sound, have all, or nearly all, grown up with binoculars. In giving up these (in your opinion) sub-optimally designed gadgets you give up a lot more!

Chosun, I do understand your disappointment. I, too, had unusual needs/wants for a long time, in my case, unlike yours, a bit quirky and obstinate, but I then had perfect relief with the miracle appearance of the Zeiss Victory Pocket 4 years back. Let's hope you soon find at least a compromise with today's tech, or full contentment with some new, unforeseen distance-viewing system!

Re your comments on John's award-winning work: (a) The shaft does not change length. (b) Yes, there is a threaded sleeve and rod system there. It's for factory adjustment of the length of the focus shaft. (c) The outer tube is a slide guide for the shaft. It's located within the body as seen in Fig.13 of that document. Geometry at the eyepiece end is solved by a swivel arrangement 71+72, Fig.12.

John, thank you for that! There is an English description. Here is the link I used. Chosun, the figures are seen in the PDF version there (with German text).
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Lee, I think that's a great demonstration of everything I have said about the SF32 - it's a great sawmiller's or butcher's bin ..... ie. those blokes walking around with no more than 8&1/2 fingers ! coz there's no room for any more in there !

Chosun 🙆
Well they suit me perfectly as I only have 6 fingers to wrap around the optical tubes, not 8 or 8.5, and I use the other 2 for focusing. I am wondering just how many fingers you have got! These fit me like a favourite pair of gloves and according to hand sizes off the internet I have average-sized hands with fingers slightly longer than average.

Lee
 

Binastro

Well-known member
Hi adhoc.

The Osiris 12x40 was on my desk gathering dust.
The view this morning through it was good.
A bright image without a colour cast. CA near the edge and pincushion. Very good resolution.
Not waterproof.
Plastic doesn't really matter, as modern binoculars are also plastic.
The main thing I don't like is the blue ring around the edge of the image circle.

But the binocular is too light weight.
I much prefer the heavier Russian 12x45.

The Hensoldts were roof prism.
I only have the 16x56 Nacht version. Perhaps 670 grams or less and incredible quality.
Not waterproof and not phase coated.

I may have a smaller Hensoldt monocular. I'll weigh that.

So a very light weight 42mm binocular can be made, but it may be too light for many people.

For people who really need the lightest possible binocular then the Beecher Mirage is a quarter the weight of a standard binocular.

Regards,
B.
 

adhoc

Well-known member
Binastro, thank you for correcting me. Chosun, sorry about that.
Thought that the bodies of all the best models of the best makes are metal!
Did not know or had forgotten that there were roofs back then!
Looked up Beecher Mirage on the internet. Never knew there were such things!
Regards, Adhoc
 

tenex

reality-based
Let's have a crack for the third time shall we ..... (after 1 thread was locked, and the other was unceremoniously 'disappeared')
The first wasn't about binoculars, just a puzzling snippet of your internal monologue. The second (which I sadly missed) must have been still worse. The third try seems to have succeeded, demonstrating that members you haven't totally pissed off yet have the patience to filter the baggage it always comes with, and create a productive discussion about binoculars. You could make this all much more straightforward if you simply chose to, so it's silly to complain.

Back on topic (now that there is one), your concern with weight and ideas of ergonomics just don't seem to be the current mainstream, and in all sorts of products today there's convergence on similar features targeted to a particular market segment, without the sort of diversification or specialization there often used to be. I miss consumer capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
The first wasn't about binoculars, just a puzzling snippet of your internal monologue. The second (which I sadly missed) must have been still worse. The third try seems to have succeeded, demonstrating that members you haven't totally pissed off yet have the patience to filter the baggage it always comes with, and create a productive discussion about binoculars. You could make this all much more straightforward if you simply chose to, so it's silly to complain.

Back on topic (now that there is one), your concern with weight and ideas of ergonomics just don't seem to be the current mainstream, and in all sorts of products today there's convergence on similar features targeted to a particular market segment, without the sort of diversification or specialization there often used to be. I miss consumer capitalism.
Thanks for the chuckle Dr Freud ! 😁

I'm sure if you bothered to search back through the annals of the bino forum you'd find many more obscure intro's, and many more obscure topics .....

Indeed you might (now) head over to Ruffled feathers to contribute to the moved Spanish speaker thread ! 😁

Oh, and Gordon Murray may take umbrage at your market analysis too .....



Chosun 🙅
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
In your post(#5) replying mine you say, "I would prefer it to be 600-650grams, sharper, across an even wider field, have better transmission and colours at the extremes, with better ER, and glare handling - so quite a lot could be improved !" The only response I could imagine, from the manufrs. and all of us, is, "Sure, but how?" Had you spend some of those Australian pesos on some Australian tequila!
adhoc - definitely no tequila ! .... and definitely not far fetched.
The Nikon Monarch HG is 665grams - so not too far above that target. It is also 100grams lighter than my Zen. However in Australian pesos it costs ~$1400.
That's not an equation that makes any sense to me ..... especially since optically there's very little in it - swings and roundabouts.

All the technology is there - it's just a matter of ....
(It might help if I read less materials engineering advances !) 😁


Chosun 👧
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Thanks.
Am I the only one who has absolutely no clue what is going on in this thread, and how it is relevant?

What am I missing?
It's about trying to find a suitable bino offering lightweight, fantastic edge to edge sharpness, true colour rendition etc all for under A$ 1,000 = Holy Grail of binoculars = ramblings.
🌠 Ideal for insomnia.
Goodnight.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Thanks.

It's about trying to find a suitable bino offering lightweight, fantastic edge to edge sharpness, true colour rendition etc all for under A$ 1,000 = Holy Grail of binoculars = ramblings.
🌠 Ideal for insomnia.
Goodnight.
It was also to find the weight of the Swarovski NL optical train - which John has helpfully come up with some information on.

If someone would care to go through the xray image in the OP for a more accurate estimate, or has access to other more accurate figures (inside or not) - then please post. Thanks.


Chosun 🙅
 

adhoc

Well-known member
I said, "Were those Hensoldts as tough as today's Zeisses?" Have to apologize to Zeiss (of old) for that. There are many of that vintage for sale on the internet that appear to be in superb condition. Not sure whether by "incredible quality" Binastro means the optical side and if so then that adds to it.

Also, "Thought that the bodies of all the best models of the best makes are metal!" Are there exceptions? What is/are the material/s?

Binastro, Chosun, others, what makes today's best binoculars this heavy, compared with the 670 grams of the roof-prism Hensoldt 16x56 (note, 670 g, 56 mm)?
 

Tringa45

Well-known member
Europe
The engineering calculations involved are only moderately complex, but I'm not impressed by reduced or negative moments of inertia due to forced artificial deviations from the 'natural' hand hold position ... not to mention all the extra uneccessary weight and ergonomic fallout from a superfluous number of bridges.
Chosun,

Is binocular moment of inertia the latest rabbit hole? ;)

John
 

wdc

Well-known member
8x25 Zeiss Victory Pocket.

If it was the only binocular you owned, you might use it, albeit with initial reluctance. I expect that it may meet some of your needs, and perhaps fail miserably at others, as it appears all binoculars are doomed to do in some capacity, with the exception of your beloved Zen Ray. Since you've been so faithful to this one binocular, which nothing on the market can best, perhaps your search for the perfect bin has been over for some time. I get the impression that you are so used to a single optical device that everything that differs from it falls short in comparison for one reason or another. If you had to use a few different ones in rotation, you might find each has some merits, and some faults, but would be able to adapt more readily to each one in short order, like different musical instruments.

Due to your physical circumstances, it seems weight of said object is a primary issue, hence my suggestion. If you can alleviate that one issue, maintain physical comfort, still get good optical performance, and your enjoyment of observing nature improves, your opinion may evolve about what your critical needs truly are.

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:

Maljunulo

Well-known member
In my limited experience, binoculars only "fail" when we spend time looking for flaws. (unless we shop in the lowest tiers)

Once we find them they continue to bug us, so they are a constant annoyance.

I see so much that I would never even know was there that I don't seem to ever notice failures.
 

wdc

Well-known member
In my limited experience, binoculars only "fail" when we spend time looking for flaws. (unless we shop in the lowest tiers)

Once we find them they continue to bug us, so they are a constant annoyance.

I see so much that I would never even know was there that I don't seem to ever notice failures.
Then you're a lucky individual!

I agree that, as a tool, a binocular provides that 'magic window' experience that is unique to its function, relative to what we are capable of without them. I love it when the binoculars 'disappear' when I'm out birding. But there is also the fact that they are akin to a pair of prescription eyeglasses that are not designed for the individual, and are not supported by the ears and the nose, so must be strapped on and lifted to the eyes, etc. All variables which help comprise the lists of gripes folks on this forum regularly have with them, admittedly mostly first world problems, until we get to the specific physical issues unique to an individual, which directly impact more acutely what will work for them. For me, its the need for a relatively narrow IPD, and enough eye relief for my eyeglasses. Chosun has a different set of 'needs'. Many, especially those without glasses, won't run into these issues at all, though they may (and do) complain about 'too much eye relief'... etc.

I remember writing Maven a letter a few years back, asking if they could swap out the eyepiece of one of their binoculars to increase the eye relief, as they advertised the 'customization' of their product as a feature, however it is only an aesthetic option, not an optical one. It would be interesting if they could, though. I expect not an empire building enterprise.

One more thought: One can build up a bicycle from off the shelf components, on a variety of frames, or have a frame custom built to the physical characteristics of the user. In the realm of consumer optics, one can order frames of different weights and materials, including Titanium, specify bifocals, blended or non-blended between prescriptions, specify magnification, coatings...
With the ability to print many 3d elements these days, it seems the prospect of ordering a binocular customized to an individual's specific needs is at least feasible, if not profitable.

-Bill
 
Last edited:

Maljunulo

Well-known member
With the ability to print many 3d elements these days, it seems the prospect of ordering a binocular customized to an individual's specific needs is at least feasible, if not profitable.

-Bill
The rub there in that slightly Utopian view is that it must, of necessity, be both feasible and profitable. (and I don't think you would be at all pleased with the price)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top