Nikon M7 8x30 vs. Kite Lynx HD 8x30 (1 Viewer)

[henry link]

Gijs,

Sorry, I thought you misread my post #16.

Chris is also in a good position to tell us how the actual FOV differs in these two. He doesn't need to measure them, just compare them. For instance, if the Nikon FOV includes 50 bricks of a brick wall, then the Kite should include 52 bricks. The AFOVs can be easily compared by placing an eyepiece of each binocular to each eye and merging the field circles. A 4% difference in the diameters of the field circles should be obvious.

Henry

 

[Chris 37]

Some more observations:


The View:
First of all, I´m a little confused as the difference in FOV between the Kite Lynx and the Monarch 7 seems more obvious than the difference between Kite Lynx and Conquest HD, which cannot be true if the numbers on paper are correct. The Kite Lynx has obviously the largest Field of View. I think the problem is some difference in magnification. The Conquest HD seems to show objects a little bigger. Gijs has pointed out, that they measured the Kite Lynx 8x30 to have a 7.8x magnification. Same might be true for the Nikon. So, if the Conquest HD has 8.0x or even a little more, that would give a different impression.
They all have a big FOV, which in every case is good enough at the edge to be useful. But that little Kite Lynx is pretty impressive!

The Kite Lynx and the Nikon M7 are very easy to look through. No fiddling around with eye placement and such – this is really nice! The Zeiss Conquest HD is more difficult for me in this regard.

Colours, Contrast & Brightness:
Both (or all three) binoculars have vibrant colours. The contrast of the Nikon seems a little higher. There is a slight colour bias in the Nikon and Kite towards Red, whereas the Conquest HD is more creamy-beige for me. I could not detect an advantage of colour, contrast or brightness in the Conquest HD over the Kite and the Nikon. I read about different light transmission figures, but using these three binoculars I cannot find the differences, neither by day nor at night.
But, to be fair, the view through the Conquest HD has a certain quality to it, which is difficult to describe and which the other two don´t have. Is it plasticity? When I look at the last brightly coloured leaves on bushes and trees it´s like looking at a painting, maybe a Dutch painting from the 17th century – beautiful!

Chromatic Aberration(CA):
No problems here. All about the same for me. A little colour fringing starts about half way out from the centre, very little.

Glare/Stray Light:
For me, this is where most of the money goes, if you spent more of it. The Nikon creates definitely quite a bit of reflections in difficult light, like viewing against the sun and also has a little washed-out look under these conditions. The Kite Lynx is a bit better here, but you can still see reflections. The Kite has additional coatings to protect the lenses from scratches and to let water run off easily, which the Nikon doesn´t have. This might be a reason for the slight advantage. The Conquest HD is really a lot better here! The other two are no match, which could be expected.
The view at night towards street lights shows the same result: Conquest HD, then Kite, then Nikon.

Low-light performance:
All three are about the same here, quite surprisingly, as I think the Conquest HD is quite good at it. So these little two 8x30s perform amazingly well in my view. I even thought the Nikon had a tiny advantage in resolving of details due to a slightly better contrast.

Pincushion distortion:
Very little, in all of them. 50 meters away I have an antennae at eye level, just a straight pole. When I move it from the centre outwards it starts to bend in the Nikon at about 50%, but very, very little! Some might not see it at all. The other two start further out, maybe at 70 to 80%.

Fazit:
Both of these two new binocular models are amazingly good, in my view. When you see what a powerful package you get at this price in this small size, it is astonishing!
The Kite Lynx has the widest field of view, has definitely the better quality armoring and has additional lens coatings (PermaVision coating) which protects the lenses from scratches and makes them water and dirt repellent. The eyecups are of higher quality and are more comfortable. It has also a little better glare control than the Nikon. Kite´s warranty period is 30 years and their service is supposed to be very good.
Nikon has only a 10 year warranty in Europe.
On the other hand, there are a few things I liked better about the Nikon M7. It fits my hands just a little better and I like the softer, grippier(is that a word at all???) armoring. Its focus action is so smooth and precise. And of course, it is also cheaper. I just don´t know what is after ten years or so. The Kite may then really show their higher quality and give you more joy in the long run.
Both are amazingly sharp, the Kite Lynx has the wider sweet-spot, but the Nikon has a small advantage in contrast (I mean really small!).
All of this is only valid for the two samples I have at this moment. The sample variation is rather high, I guess.
.

 

[typo]

Chris,

Really appreciate the comparison.

Obviously there are differentiators between the Kite and Nikon in the design and specification. It's sounding like there are also differences in the sweet spot and pincushion as well even if the reflection pattern doesn't appear to offer an explanation. Poses the question is it by design or sample variation? The Nikon M7 x42 appear to have quite a bit of sample variation. I hope the x30s are not similarly afflicted.

David

 

[pompadour]

Chris, much appreciated, thanks. Just the three models I needed compared right at the present, and so well done. Amazing that these so much lighter and smaller 8x30s are as bright as the Z. Conq. HD, with all those other attributes. I wonder how much credit for the design of each is due to the Japanese "generic" co/.s. A very minor point: seems by mistake you have attached a second pic of the focus-knob side instead of the "thumb side" - the way I always place a bin indoors (by a window, etc.) that is what is seen!

 

[Chris 37]

Thank you, David & Pompadour.

David,
yes, it´s impossible to know just yet wether the small differences between the two is because of sample variation or a different design - apart from the bigger FOV, because that is obvious.

Pompadour,
your are right, the second photo was probably unnessasary, but I thought I turn the eyecups up (and let them change positions) .

Henry,
that brick counting method is a good idea. Next time.
But what is when the magnification differs slightly?
.

 

[pompadour]

Oops, didn't notice that (but you do show this anyway in pic 4). Getting inobservant - maybe I too should not sneak out bins in this electronic age (with ref. to another current thread) - was getting a bit desperate about that Conquest.

Actually, magnification will not affect the brick wall method - it shows real not apparent FOV.

Henry, in your last suggestion you present yet another neat magic trick! (Unfortunately I don't have two same-x - or supposed to be same-x - bins to try it out.)

Gijs, your word "actual" (followed by Henry there) instead of "real" will make both acronyms "AFOV"! Reminds me of the hotelier in Canada who labelled the water taps with the initials for cold in English and hot in French - which is "chaude".

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Pompadour,
You are right, I meant "real" FOV; such things happen when English is not one's native language.
Gijs

 

[pompadour]

Gijs, in this matter both these words are used (to mean the same thing) even by those to whom English is their native language - seen this several times in Bf. As I remember when that is AFOV the apparent FOV is called perceived FOV or PFOV (?).

 

[looksharp65]

Gijs, in this matter both these words are used (to mean the same thing) even by those to whom English is their native language - seen this several times in Bf. As I remember when that is AFOV the apparent FOV is called perceived FOV or PFOV (?).

Pomp, I'm an avid promoter of the PFOV concept.
Unfortunately, PFOV is not an established concept, just like "depth of field" is not.
In these technical discussions, only FOV (or TFOV for True Field of View) and AFOV (for Apparent Field of View) should be used.

//L

 

[pompadour]

Ls65, seems I got that wrong! What I remembered is that "perceived" is just a different word for "apparent" in regard to FOV. Seems from your post that the PFOV you mean is different and has been explained in Bf, perhaps by you. If so could you pl. give a link?

 

[looksharp65]

Ls65, seems I got that wrong! What I remembered is that "perceived" is just a different word for "apparent" in regard to FOV. Seems from your post that the PFOV you mean is different and has been explained in Bf, perhaps by you. If so could you pl. give a link?

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220415
In the first post, there's a link to another Birdforum thread. Have a look at that thread first, in particular the images.

//L

 

[pompadour]

Ls65, thanks. Your knowledge and enthusiasm have taken those threads pretty far and where I cannot digest the material too quickly at this moment. The outcome about the FOVs, then, is that we have: real or actual or true FOV, apparent or real apparent (!) FOV and perceived or "apparent apparent" FOV. I really (/actually /truly!) think it's better just to use "RFOV" and "AFOV" for the first two and for perceived FOV not use an acronym but write it in full, as it is subjective and impossible to quantify. I would add: re perceived FOV, although acc. to you the feeling of "no bin between viewer and view" wouldn't be achieved at pocket size, several people I know incl. me get this with the two Leica Ultravids (8x20 and 10x25).

 

[Chris 37]

Nikon´s warranty

Just a small update on the “small print” of the Nikon warranty.
The warranty card says: 5 years for repair work and materials + 5 years for materials only. This is for Europe (at least for the EU) of course.
And it says furthermore: The warranty is not transferable!

If this is the warranty, and I believe it is, you get in Europe for buying one of the most expensive binoculars around, the EDG, then it must be one of the worst in the business (please correct me if I´m wrong). Imagine you pay 1800€ for a binocular and you get a 5+5 year warranty and when you want to sell it after 3 years, the buyer doesn´t get any warranty at all.
.

 

[looksharp65]

I would add: re perceived FOV, although acc. to you the feeling of "no bin between viewer and view" wouldn't be achieved at pocket size, several people I know incl. me get this with the two Leica Ultravids (8x20 and 10x25).

Sounds nice and I would like to clarify that. Small pocket binoculars have a smaller apparent FOV which to some degree will be compensated by their small dimensions so that the "PFOV" still may appear very good.
But the same small dimensions also require that the hands come closer to the eyes and hide significant parts of what's outside the actual binoculars.
My Nikon Mikron 6x15 (48 degree AFOV) does not feel particularly narrow since it is extremely small. But if I could mount on a stick like some opera binoculars, my hands would be out of the way and the "PFOV" might feel very good.

//L

 

[Hermann]

Just a small update on the “small print” of the Nikon warranty.
The warranty card says: 5 years for repair work and materials + 5 years for materials only. This is for Europe (at least for the EU) of course.
And it says furthermore: The warranty is not transferable!

If this is the warranty, and I believe it is, you get in Europe for buying one of the most expensive binoculars around, the EDG, then it must be one of the worst in the business (please correct me if I´m wrong).

This is precisely why for instance Gijs is so unhappy about Nikon: A lousy warranty and a customer service that is more often than not also pretty lousy means that if you buy a Nikon binocular (or scope), you can only hope you'll never ever have any problems with your bins or scope.

A real shame, because Nikon sure knows how to make binoculars and scopes.

Hermann

 

[brocknroller]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220415
In the first post, there's a link to another Birdforum thread. Have a look at that thread first, in particular the images.

//L

This is from your post that you linked to:

"The thing is, I use eyeglasses most of the time, and occasionally contacts.
When using glasses, and the eyecups are down, I have a feeling that the AFOV is greater. Of course it is not, but the "Wow!" comes when using glasses. When eyecups are extracted, and that wide black rim surrounds the image, I somehow get a feeling of tunnel vision. And reversely, when the eyecups are retracted so the rim appears thinner, the field seems to widen,:

I know what you mean even though I don't use eyeglass with my bins. As truly awesome as the SE image is, I always feel like I'm looking through a porthole because of the black space around the view even then when my eyes are sunk into the eyecups deeply enough to see the field stop. Whereas in the 8x30 EII, the view is more expansive, with the black space around the view so far from the center as to be barely noticeable.

In order to achieve that same perceived openness with the SE, I have to take off the eyecups and place my thumbs and forefingers on the EP housing such that the tips of my thumbs and forefingers rest on my cheeks and eyebrows, respectively. Then I feel like I'm "in the view" like I am with the EII.

Brock

 

[henry link]

Oops, didn't notice that (but you do show this anyway in pic 4). Getting inobservant - maybe I too should not sneak out bins in this electronic age (with ref. to another current thread) - was getting a bit desperate about that Conquest.

Actually, magnification will not affect the brick wall method - it shows real not apparent FOV.

Henry, in your last suggestion you present yet another neat magic trick! (Unfortunately I don't have two same-x - or supposed to be same-x - bins to try it out.)

Gijs, your word "actual" (followed by Henry there) instead of "real" will make both acronyms "AFOV"! Reminds me of the hotelier in Canada who labelled the water taps with the initials for cold in English and hot in French - which is "chaude".

Pompadour,

If you mean my suggestion for comparing AFOV by looking through two binoculars simultaneously, that works fine even if the two binoculars are different magnifications. I usually just look at a blank wall or ceiling to remove any image content from the field circles.

I didn't intend to use the word "actual" as a proper term for real or true FOV. I was thinking more of how the FOVs of these two binoculars "actually" compare as opposed to how their FOV specifications compare.

BTW, neither the simple math nor the ISO methods for computing AFOV are likely to be accurate because neither includes the effects of distortion, which causes the radial magnification to vary from the center to the edge of the field. However, it's easy to directly measure the "true" AFOV if you have a tripod with a panning scale expressed in degrees. Just sight through the objective lens with the binocular mounted on the tripod and pan to move a small object from one side of the aperture you see at the back of the binocular (the eyepiece fieldstop) to the other side and note the change in degrees on the panning scale. That's the "actual" number of degrees subtended by the apparent field.

Henry

 

[pompadour]

Henry, thanks. Responding to the points in the order you mention them.

Afraid your two bins method doesn't work too well for some people, i.e. me. I called it "neat" and "magic" because it sounded simple and I imagined one sees two clear concentric cicles with the same magnificn. Trying it with a 6x and an 8x, on your tip above, found it difficult, causing eyestrain, and the circles wouldn't merge. Maybe clumsiness and/or a personal eye placement problem. Could compare roughly, though.

I now see how you used the word "actual" there. That and the ideas in the thread linked below give a set of dizzying combinations including "actual true real apparent FOV". (I really, truly, etc. mean that.)

What you mention about other factors is explained in <this other thread> a few months back started by me with valuable contributions by several people including you. There, too, you give the method you do here for "actual AFOV".

The "brick wall" method, easily adapted - I've used a patterned screen indoors - can give, of course, not only comparative but absolute RFOV. Noting the the ends of the field on either side, by id'ng bricks, say, using some marks, from 10 m or 10 yds away, measuring the dist. between them in m or ft (respectively) and xng by 100 gives m at 1000 m or ft at 1000 yds (the latter always 3x the former).

On the topic of the present thread, I should think the remaining lapses of these two 8x30s vs the Zeiss 8x32 can be solved in this size - at a price - because they have been in the smaller "alpha" pockets at 8x20 - 10x25. Wonder if the config. will then catch on, and eventually 8x32 will go the way of 10x40, in this case "attacked from below"! Possibly then the next larger 8x will be 36.

 

[pompadour]

Ls 65, I have written "RFOV" only because I've got used to "real". "TFOV" is fine. But, of course, better be consistent, whichever way. I only wish to avoid the Canada situation (see my post #26).

 

[henry link]

Henry, thanks. Responding to the points in the order you mention them.

Afraid your two bins method doesn't work too well for some people, i.e. me. I called it "neat" and "magic" because it sounded simple and I imagined one sees two clear concentric cicles with the same magnificn. Trying it with a 6x and an 8x, on your tip above, found it difficult, causing eyestrain, and the circles wouldn't merge. Maybe clumsiness and/or a personal eye placement problem. Could compare roughly, though.

I now see how you used the word "actual" there. That and the ideas in the thread linked below give a set of dizzying combinations including "actual true real apparent FOV". (I really, truly, etc. mean that.)

What you mention about other factors is explained in <this other thread> a few months back started by me with valuable contributions by several people including you. There, too, you give the method you do here for "actual AFOV".

The "brick wall" method, easily adapted - I've used a patterned screen indoors - can give, of course, not only comparative but absolute RFOV. Noting the the ends of the field on either side, by id'ng bricks, say, using some marks, from 10 m or 10 yds away, measuring the dist. between them in m or ft (respectively) and xng by 100 gives m at 1000 m or ft at 1000 yds (the latter always 3x the former).

On the topic of the present thread, I should think the remaining lapses of these two 8x30s vs the Zeiss 8x32 can be solved in this size - at a price - because they have been in the smaller "alpha" pockets at 8x20 - 10x25. Wonder if the config. will then catch on, and eventually 8x32 will go the way of 10x40, in this case "attacked from below"! Possibly then the next larger 8x will be 36.

I only use the "two bins method" for comparing AFOV, not for trying to discern small differences in magnification. It's much easier to evaluate the relative sizes of the field circles and avoid eyestrain if you point the binoculars at a blank wall or a cloudless blue sky so you're not tempted to try to fuse together images from the two bins. For judging relative AFOV sizes I usually align the fields so they overlap, but are slightly de-centered horizontally with the bottoms level.

I had forgotten about that older thread, and there are several more similar ones going back about 5-6 years. It would be nice if we had a sticky with references to old threads on technical questions that come up again and again, like calculating or measuring FOV, DOF, etc.

Henry