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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 1498709" data-attributes="member: 665">Ihr Willkommen, Herr Tom,I have 20-year-old Nikon porros that have better resolution and better edge sharpness than more expensive roofs. Of course, they don't have 60-layer MC, but even so their old fashioned bluish coatings produce good contrast and color rendition. The problem with sharpness in roofs doesn't seem to be with grinding, but rather trying to compensate for the inherent loss in image sharpness and brightness due to the inferiority of the roof prism design. I think this is the reason why manufacturers are using ED glass and aspheric lenses today in roofs. They have reached the limit of what they can do with p-coatings and MC.They need to make highly reflective roof prism coatings, which have evolved from plain jane p-coatings, to silver zoot and p-coatings, to dielectric coatings, to compensate for this design inferiority, and we, the consumers, pay through the nose to buy roofs that need improvements to make them as sharp and bright as cheaper porros! After Minox and Leupold pioneered internal focus porros, I had hoped that other manufacturers would jump on board and develop internal focus porros with larger fields of view, but it didn't happen. That innovation would have removed one of the two areas in which porros could not complete as well with roofs - submersible waterproofing sealing.The other area where roofs excel is in their robustness. They rarely get knocked out of collimation like porros. However, porros can be made robust. My SEs have taken some knocks and are still in proper collimation. And they are well sealed, though not submersible in water (nor do I need them to be for my purposes). So I think manufacturers could make porros that are not only as good as roofs but superior to them, because of their more natural 3-D views and lower costs, but either the public demanded roofs (as manufacturers claim) or birders were coerced into buying them, because roofs are where the innovations in design have been happening. Chicken and egg problem, as I see it.  Nikon, though they didn't admit that they made "unpleasant stuff in the past" but rather stated that they are now using healthier stuff. This puts a good spin on it, without admitting to guilt. They have this written in their ads for LX Ls ("Non-vinyl chloride body materials for comfortable, safe, secure touch"):<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Premier-LX-L-8x20-Binoculars/dp/B0002VAI0E" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Premier-LX-L-8x20-Binoculars/dp/B0002VAI0E</a>I gather what they mean is "non-POLYvinyl Chloride" (PVC), which is nasty stuff. Companies who used PVC in their products have lawsuits pending against them: <a href="http://www.weitzlux.com/pvcresourcecenter/learnmore/pvcalternatives_4309.html" target="_blank">http://www.weitzlux.com/pvcresourcecenter/learnmore/pvcalternatives_4309.html</a>Maybe I can persuade Nikon to send me an 8x32 EDG if I trade in my PVC covered 8x32 LX and agree not to sue them!  As stated above, the problem is more than "aromatics", but it's good to know that non-black rubber doesn't have them. Green rubber is found in many bins today. Leather-coverings seem to have lost fashion. The Orion Vistas still have them (very luxurious feeling, but I'm sure they would show wear before rubber armoring and not protect the bins against knocks as well), and some of the old Swaro Habicht porros still have leather coverings even though the are waterproof. They must have some type of protective layer on the leatherette (perhaps made from plastic! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.Once oil prices hit the roof again (after China has gobbled up most the oil in Africa and elsewhere, or banks and brokers decide its time to bring the world to its knees again by speculating on oil futures), perhaps leather coverings will re-emerge, though it seems unlikely since they don't hold up as well, but perhaps a synthetic will be used that isn't petroleum based. As we move away from oil, new materials will have to be developed, and they will need to be safe. The real health threat today with plastics are those used to package and store foods. The bisphenols in plastic act as estrogen mimics, which are harmful to ingest:<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plastic-not-fantastic-with-bisphenol-a" target="_blank">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plastic-not-fantastic-with-bisphenol-a</a>Alles gut,Brock</blockquote>

Verification