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: 1692512" data-attributes="member: 665">I hope so too. "Extraordinary prices require extraordinary features!" <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />That's good to hear, and it might be enough for some people. But for me, I need a couple mm more ER, preferably four mm more so I don't have to press down hard on the EPs, which is the main reason why I don't use glasses with bins. I end up with a "unibrow" from the crossbar in the frames. I have found Nikon to be fairly accurate when it comes to ER specs. I've had quite a few Nikons over the years, and they have been consistent. Nikon tends to be conservative when it comes to close focus numbers. The 8x32 LX and 8x30 EII focus closer than listed figures. My 8x32 SE is just a bit over spec, but my first sample SE was a foot under spec, and the 12x50 SE I had focused at 16 ft. - 8 ft. under spec! So if they are going to "err," I'd rather them be too conservative than overly optimistic like Swift and Bushnell. Orion Vistas also have ER specs that are much less than stated.  Eyeglass wearers with deep set eyes or thick glasses do not have a wide selection of bins to choose from, but it is getting better for us four-eyed creatures.</blockquote>