Opticron MM4 ED Travelscopes 50 & 60 v. Nikon ED Fieldscopes 50 & 60 (1 Viewer)

[Nethero]

Recently I picked up two Opticron MM4’s because of good sales I found. I acquired both the 50 and 60 MM4 and the SDLv3 and HDF T eyepieces and compared them to my Nikon ED 50 with MCII (13-40) eyepiece and my Nikon ED III 60 with MCII (20-60) eyepiece. Both Opticron eyepieces are 12-36 on the 50mm and 15-45 on the 60mm.

Regarding the MM4 50 v. 60, the 60 is brighter in most conditions other than bright daylight. Significantly? Not 50mm v. 80mm significant, but noticeable.

When comparing either Opticron eyepieces on both of the MM4 scopes, neither eyepiece is noticeably different. To me they appear the exact same. They might appear different on larger aperture scopes (77 and up) but I’m not sure. I see no difference in any lighting conditions and cannot see the supposedly better edge resolution of the SDL eyepiece.

Optically the Nikon 50 ED v. MM4 50 ED is very close. But, I will say the MM4 is brighter. Not significantly so, but noticeably so. Resolving power is the same. The Opticron feels more robust but this comes with a slight weight penalty. The Nikon is not fragile feeling, but you do have a sense to be more careful with it.

When comparing the 60mm scopes I appreciate the higher magnification ability of the Nikon ED III 60 (20-60) vs the MM4 60 (15-45) but do notice the Opticron is again brighter than the Nikon (even when at the same magnification). The resolving power is equal when comparing at the same magnifications. They both feel quite robust, but the Nikon feels heavier. Not much heavier, but slightly so.

I don’t notice any loss in resolution between either Nikon (50 & 60) v. Opticron (50 & 60), but the brightness difference is real. Whether this is because of new (Opticron) v. old (Nikon) eyepiece designs/coatings used, I’m not sure.

At the end of the day the Nikons are still fantastic scopes as are the Opticrons. Both Opticrons have rotating collars which I personally prefer. The Nikon ED 50 (straight and angled don’t rotate) and with the Nikon ED III it depends. Straight does not rotate and angled does. I think the ability to rotate is less important in a straight scope than an angled, but that is my personal opinion. Out of all of these scopes the only ones with lens hoods that extend out are the Nikon ED III 60’s.

My personal preferences lean toward the higher magnifications of the Nikon ED III 60 and the ability to rotate of the Opticron MM4 50.

You cannot go wrong with any of these scopes and eyepieces.

 

[mbb]

Thanks a lot for the hands-on comparison!

The difference in shape between the two 50mm’s is fun to see.
It seems as if the Nikon has a slimmer objective while they are both specced as 50mm. Is it due to the picture, due to the Opticron having a thicker barrel (theNikon is often mentioned to be of more fragile build quality than the Opticron), or one of the two not having a 50mm objective (glass)?
There is one thing the Nikon seems to have been better designed for: balance. The tripod shoe seems to be better located, closer to the balance point. Do you notice a significant difference? On a good fluid head, for such a small scope, it probably doesn’t matter that much, but it might matter if used as travel setup on a small ballhead (especially if not with good friction).

 

[Nethero]

Thanks a lot for the hands-on comparison!

The difference in shape between the two 50mm’s is fun to see.
It seems as if the Nikon has a slimmer objective while they are both specced as 50mm. Is it due to the picture, due to the Opticron having a thicker barrel (theNikon is often mentioned to be of more fragile build quality than the Opticron), or one of the two not having a 50mm objective (glass)?
There is one thing the Nikon seems to have been better designed for: balance. The tripod shoe seems to be better located, closer to the balance point. Do you notice a significant difference? On a good fluid head, for such a small scope, it probably doesn’t matter that much, but it might matter if used as travel setup on a small ballhead (especially if not with good friction).

They both have 50 mm objectives, the Opticron is just that much thicker with the rubber armoring. Again, the Opticron feels more robust but the Nikon doesn’t feel like a toy either.

On a Gitzo GHF2W, which I consider the best lightweight video head with a counterbalance, the Opticron definitely is off balance . A longer lens plate is needed to balance it on the head.

On a ballhead (RRS BH-40 & BH-30) neither flop with appropriate tension applied to the ball. I personally have a series one Gitzo traveler with a BH-40 and panning clamp and find it perfect but recognize weight could be cut using a smaller (BH-30) head and using a simple clamp instead of the panning clamp without loss of function for the spotting scopes.

 

[4th_point]

Thanks for the comparisons. I have been wondering how the MM4 models compare to the Nikons.

I also like the 60x capability of the MCII on the EDIII.

 

[4th_point]

Can you comment on the eye relief with the SDLv3 and HDF T eyepieces?

I can deal with the narrow FOV with the Nikon MCII, but the eye relief is poor especially with eyeglasses.

 

[Nethero]

Can you comment on the eye relief with the SDLv3 and HDF T eyepieces?

I can deal with the narrow FOV with the Nikon MCII, but the eye relief is poor especially with eyeglasses.

I find I am able to get a perfect picture on both eyepieces with the eyecup fully extended on both eyepiece. Except for around 40-45X, then I twist the eyecup down one click to again achieve a perfect image.

I don’t wear glasses and cannot comment regarding ER with them.

On the Nikon MCII eyepiece I find I have to really press my eye into the eyecup while it is at maximum extension to achieve a perfect image.

 

[4th_point]

Thanks for the information on eye relief.

 

[Bill Atwood]

I wear glasses, the MM4 w/HDF zoom has plenty of ER.

 

[Nethero]

To muddy the water, I got a good deal on a Kowa 553 and bit the bullet to compare these small scopes even more.

The Kowa is hands down the best of the bunch in regards to optical performance. It is slightly brighter than all of the mentioned scopes. It is equal in sharpness at lower magnifications, but starts to shine at maximum magnification. It is the brightest of the bunch at 45x. The Nikon and Opticron 60mm scopes are equal in sharpness and detail at 45x but the Kowa pulls ahead with the fact that it is the brightest, even brighter than the 60mm scopes at this magnification.

Personally, I don’t like the fact that the eyepiece is fixed AND that there is no rotating collar. I shouldn’t have bought all of these to try but my curiosity got the best of me and now I don’t know what to do 🤦🏼‍♂️. In reality I only need one small scope, decisions decisions!

I am aware that sample variation is big with the Kowa’s, but without having done a star test yet, I do believe I have received an excellent sample.

Lastly, regarding build quality, the Kowa feels like it sits in between the Nikon ED 50 and the Opticron MM4 ED 50. It feels more substantial than the Nikon but not as robust as the Opticron.

Again, all great scopes!

 

[4th_point]

I wear glasses, the MM4 w/HDF zoom has plenty of ER.

Thanks!

 

[fazalmajid]

Given how many reports there are of the ED50 tube simply snapping in half with no provocation, I'd be very wary of the build quality on the Nikon. That's why I opted for the MM4/50 with the SDLv3 eyepiece.

 

[Hermann]

Given how many reports there are of the ED50 tube simply snapping in half with no provocation, I'd be very wary of the build quality on the Nikon.

Hm. I read a few reports here, definitely not many. And in at least some cases I can recall the scopes were dropped. That's not "snapping in half with no provocation".

Hermann

 

[Richard D]

Hm. I read a few reports here, definitely not many. And in at least some cases I can recall the scopes were dropped. That's not "snapping in half with no provocation".

Hermann

I've had an ED50 since 2006 and it is still in one piece. Yes it's clearly not as solidly built as my Fieldscope III but in my experience it really isn't that fragile.

 

[Nethero]

Given how many reports there are of the ED50 tube simply snapping in half with no provocation, I'd be very wary of the build quality on the Nikon. That's why I opted for the MM4/50 with the SDLv3 eyepiece.

I was just trying to say that the Nikon ED 50 felt less robust. But it doesn’t feel fragile either. Honestly it probably just has to do with how light and small the scope is and it’s lack of rubber armor.

The Kowa 553 has the same feeling plastic exterior as the Nikon, but it feels slightly larger and heavier, thus giving a sense or more mass/robustness. In fact they are probably exactly the same in this regard. However, I am not going to do a drop test on either to find out.

And as one last “update”, I played around with all of these scopes more over the last week and no longer know what I think about the Kowa 553 in regards to comparing its optics to the Opticron MM4 60 with either eyepiece or the Nikon ED III with 20-60 EP. As I used them more, side by side, they all started to look the same in clarity/sharpness and brightness when viewed at the same magnifications. Simply put, I could not see any more definitive differences. Maybe I just tired my eyes out or I am overthinking it, who knows. I will say that I also have an angled Nikon ED III that I compared against the Opticron and Kowa this time around and it does appear slightly brighter than my straight Nikon ED III. Whether this difference in brightness between the angled v. straight is because of prism design (are they different?) or sample variation (I have not heard of much variation in the Nikon fieldscopes, though) I don’t know.

At this point, I would call the Kowa 553, Opticron MM4 60, and Nikon ED III a draw over their overlapping ranges.

So my conclusion is I know nothing other than I have way too many optics to possibly use.

 

[bcskr]

I think your conclusion is a good illustration of the necessity for field testing optics (when possible) to determine what feels most comfortable to one’s body and birding style.

 

[Hermann]

I was just trying to say that the Nikon ED 50 felt less robust. But it doesn’t feel fragile either. Honestly it probably just has to do with how light and small the scope is and it’s lack of rubber armor.

The Kowa 553 has the same feeling plastic exterior as the Nikon, but it feels slightly larger and heavier, thus giving a sense or more mass/robustness. In fact they are probably exactly the same in this regard. However, I am not going to do a drop test on either to find out.

Not really. But drop tests are never a good idea with any scope.

And as one last “update”, I played around with all of these scopes more over the last week and no longer know what I think about the Kowa 553 in regards to comparing its optics to the Opticron MM4 60 with either eyepiece or the Nikon ED III with 20-60 EP. As I used them more, side by side, they all started to look the same in clarity/sharpness and brightness when viewed at the same magnifications.

I personally believe the Kowa suffers a bit from the eyepiece they put on the scope. It should really be better than the other two. Not much, but a bit.

I don't doubt all three scopes are very good indeed. From what I know the Opticron has probably got the best zoom eyepiece for spectacle wearers, that's why I'll have a look at the MM 50mm some day.

Simply put, I could not see any more definitive differences. Maybe I just tired my eyes out or I am overthinking it, who knows. I will say that I also have an angled Nikon ED III that I compared against the Opticron and Kowa this time around and it does appear slightly brighter than my straight Nikon ED III. Whether this difference in brightness between the angled v. straight is because of prism design (are they different?) or sample variation (I have not heard of much variation in the Nikon fieldscopes, though) I don’t know.

The prism designs of the EDIIIA (oversized Schmidt) and the EDIII (porro) are different. These should, however, be very similar in transmission. I've also got both the EDIIIA and the EDIII, and using the same type of eyepiece I don't see any meaningful differences. Sample variation - no, I don't think so. We've got several Fieldscopes in the family, and in some extended testing I didn't see any real differences. One was possibly just a bit weaker at 60x, one was possibly just a bit better than the rest of the bunch at 60x. No comparison to the variability I've seen in other scopes.

Hermann

 

[mbb]

Thank you for all the info and pictures!
The update is also interesting to read. I have also had times where I thought a difference was bigger or, on the opposite, just negligible compared to previous time I had two specific optics together.

Is the Kowa tsn-553 significantly shorter than the Opticron 60mm?

Do you see a significant difference in FOV between the Kowa and the Opticron with SDLv3 zoom?
On paper, the (A)FOV of the Kowa at its smallest magnification of 15x seems disappointing, but I am wondering how it is at e.g. 20x, 25x and 30x, where it will probably be used more often. It’s a pity they don’t give the FOV‘s in the specs except at the extremes of the 15-45x zoom range. The same for Opticron, actually.

 

[GrampaTom]

Opticron HDF T and SDL v3 Zoom FOV

Hi, can anyone point me to the FOV (m) for both ends of the magnfication scale for the HDF T and SDL v3 when fitted to an MM4 60. I can't seem to find the info on the Opticron website.

www.birdforum.net

see #18 for FOV of Opticron 60 and 77

 

[Nethero]

Thank you for all the info and pictures!
The update is also interesting to read. I have also had times where I thought a difference was bigger or, on the opposite, just negligible compared to previous time I had two specific optics together.

Is the Kowa tsn-553 significantly shorter than the Opticron 60mm?

Do you see a significant difference in FOV between the Kowa and the Opticron with SDLv3 zoom?
On paper, the (A)FOV of the Kowa at its smallest magnification of 15x seems disappointing, but I am wondering how it is at e.g. 20x, 25x and 30x, where it will probably be used more often. It’s a pity they don’t give the FOV‘s in the specs except at the extremes of the 15-45x zoom range. The same for Opticron, actually.

Regarding length, I only have the straight MM4 60 and angled 553, so it’s not exactly apples to apples. But looking at specs of the angled MM4 60 compared to my angled Nikon ED III, and seeing how similar in size the straight MM4 60 and ED III are, AND comparing the angled ED III and 553, I would presume the MM4 60 is roughly an inch longer than the 553.

For reference, you can see the photo I had shown of the straight MM4 60 and straight ED III and that they are about even in size. The Opticron MM4 60 with HDF T eyepiece specs say 12.8” in length. The 554 (straight) specs say 11.4” in length. So for straight scopes it’s a difference of 1.4”.

As for FOV I can’t say it was significant. The Opticron appears larger when looking for it, but it didn’t jump out at me at any magnification. Others may have different opinions of course.

 

[wllmspd]

The angles 60mm MM4 with sdl3 eyepiece about 30cm long, about 16cm high.

Peter