yarrellii
Well-known member
More pocket binoculars...
In my search for a pocket binocular that fits me perfectly, I came across something unexpected, an old reverse Porro from Nikon, that can be found for peanuts these days. Enter the curious (pun intended) 7x20 CFIII, here compared to the mighty Leica Ultravid 8x20.
So, what can an old plasticky squeacky-sounding cheap device offer against the pocket that has been at the top of the "pocket ladder" for many years.
The Leica is smaller, the Nikon is shorter, but thicker. If you stack the UV on top of the CF III cross-wise (next image), the footprint of the Nikon is wider, but not terribly so.
On the hand, although the Leica is smaller, the Nikon feels also compact enough to be truly pocketable, and its extremely light weight probably ads to that. Here's a size comparison against a 8x20 (Leica UV), an 8x25 (Zeiss Terra ED) a pretty compact 8x32 (Opticron Traveller ED) and a full size x42, the Zeiss FL 7x42. The Nikon is definitely on pocket territory.
In use, the 7,1º field of view doesn’t feel much bigger than that of the Leica, probably because both AFOV are similar. Oddly enough, comparing them directly, the 1x difference in magnification is hard to tell.
The image of the Nikon is fine, but comparing it to the UV is simply dwarfed: it lacks contrast and spark, the sweet spot is a bit of a joke (so small!), actually, my device might as well be a subpar unit, because there is a clear difference between both tubes; the left one has a greater blurry area around the sweet spot, particularly on the left side of the image. Then, the Nikon is not waterproof, and by the feel of it, it has no padding and probably lacks any shockproofing.
But then… here comes some unexpected good news.
It’s lighter than the Leica, it’s only 207 g, against 240 g for the UV, it’s even lighter than a 8x20 Swarovsky Habicht!
The good stuff doesn’t end here. While putting an 8x20 to your eyes is usually a bit of an exercise and takes some getting used to due to the common double hinge design, small exit pupil and tiny eyecups… the eyecups of the Nikon are huge (more on that later*), so much so, that they share the same width of my 8x32 Swarovski EL SV, 31 mm. The UV inner eyecup diameter is just 20 mm. That makes a huge difference: 3 mm exit pupil and regular eyecup size makes the action of taking them to your eyes a breeze. To round this up, there’s a traditional single hinge, so finding the correct IPD is so easy. Basically, these work like your regular binoculars, and that’s saying a lot about a pocket.
Top: the eyecups of the Nikon 7x20 CFIII (inner diameter, 31 mm), Leica UV 8x20 (20 mm) and Swarovski Habicht 8x20 (21 mm).
Bottom, the focus wheel of the Leica and the Nikon.
But there’s even more. While the focus wheel of the 8x20 Ultravid is on the large side for a pocket (larger than that of the 8x20 Habicht, which incidentally is located on the wrong side, which makes focusing with your pinky or ring finger a little awkward), it just pales in comparison to the focus wheel on the Nikon, it’s nearly in regular focus wheel size territory, again, quite a feat for a pocket.
So: we have a single hinge design that makes finding IPD super easy and fast, no fuss, and also regular sized eyecups, plus a 3 mm EP and a huge focus wheel. I think there are many threads about this, but all these things combined together really make a case of “convenience vs sheer performance”. Yes, the UV is simply in another galaxy, its sharpness, contrast, suppression of stray light, sweet spot size are simply miles away from the Nikon. But the Nikon is way more comfortable to use by another galaxy. In fact, while the optical difference is staggering, the usability of the humble Nikon is making me think about selling the UV (there, I’ve said it). Using the UV is a bit of an exercise, a chore, using the Nikon feels just like using any other binoculars. Yes, eye relief is probably very short for spectacle wearers, and because the Nikon is so stubby, your finger can rub your forehead when you operate the focus wheel, but is just so easy and natural.
And here’s the thing (again), what are you going to enjoy more, an incredible image in a package that makes it really hard to use, or a so-so image that you an use without even thinking about it?
Bonus track: low light performance.
I’ve done several tests comparing the Nikon CF III and the UV. Well, basically is like comparing a Ferrari to a Citröen 2CV, except for the fact that this 2CV has way more comfortable seats, the suspension doesn't want to break your bones and you can drive it for hours unlike the Italian dream car. The UV is brighter, the image shows a more pure colour representation (the Nikon has a yellow/greenish hue, nothing terrible actually, only noticeable if compared to the UV). But what happens when light fades? After dawn, when light really starts to be scarce, the Nikon gains a kind of superpower, and are as bright (if not brighter) than the UV. I guess coatings in the Nikon are much simpler than those of the UV, given the difference in price and age, so probably a mix of bigger exit pupil, simpler optical construction (less glass) and Porro prism design make for this surprising performance.
After trying them outdoors, I conducted a more “controlled” experiment at home. I turned off the lights and just kept a very small lamp on in my living room. The room was very poorly lit for "regular life", you simply couldn't read a book comfortably under that light. And then I tested the UV and the Nikon trying to read two subjects (highlighted). I tried to read the text of a XIX century engraving (number 1 on the picture). The image, black and white, appeared way (but way) easier to read with the UV, by a huge margin. Through the Nikon the letters appeared thinner, less contrasted against the white background. But then, I placed a book on a further point of our living room, where less light reached the different sizes of text (number 2 on the picture). I handed both binoculars to my partner (who was unaware of what was going on) and asked her to read the title, author and subtitle of the book (in descending size). When using the UV she really struggled to get a comfortable view, and could hardly read the title. With the Nikon she just said “these are brighter”, and could read it, not without problems. That was quite surprising.
So, really surprised by the usability, not so much by the image quality, but I guess it offers a reasonable quality for very little money. I think if you get a nice sample, the Nikon can be surprisingly pleasurable compact binoculars. As far as I know, the current offering of reverse Porros by Nikon focuses on 8x25 and above, there's even a waterproof "EX" version. In an ideal world, I'd like to see a current EX 7x21, now that would be a thing.
(*I think I’m going to open a thread on the importance of eyecup diameter, since I think it’s a vastly overlooked issue)
In my search for a pocket binocular that fits me perfectly, I came across something unexpected, an old reverse Porro from Nikon, that can be found for peanuts these days. Enter the curious (pun intended) 7x20 CFIII, here compared to the mighty Leica Ultravid 8x20.
So, what can an old plasticky squeacky-sounding cheap device offer against the pocket that has been at the top of the "pocket ladder" for many years.
The Leica is smaller, the Nikon is shorter, but thicker. If you stack the UV on top of the CF III cross-wise (next image), the footprint of the Nikon is wider, but not terribly so.
On the hand, although the Leica is smaller, the Nikon feels also compact enough to be truly pocketable, and its extremely light weight probably ads to that. Here's a size comparison against a 8x20 (Leica UV), an 8x25 (Zeiss Terra ED) a pretty compact 8x32 (Opticron Traveller ED) and a full size x42, the Zeiss FL 7x42. The Nikon is definitely on pocket territory.
In use, the 7,1º field of view doesn’t feel much bigger than that of the Leica, probably because both AFOV are similar. Oddly enough, comparing them directly, the 1x difference in magnification is hard to tell.
The image of the Nikon is fine, but comparing it to the UV is simply dwarfed: it lacks contrast and spark, the sweet spot is a bit of a joke (so small!), actually, my device might as well be a subpar unit, because there is a clear difference between both tubes; the left one has a greater blurry area around the sweet spot, particularly on the left side of the image. Then, the Nikon is not waterproof, and by the feel of it, it has no padding and probably lacks any shockproofing.
But then… here comes some unexpected good news.
It’s lighter than the Leica, it’s only 207 g, against 240 g for the UV, it’s even lighter than a 8x20 Swarovsky Habicht!
The good stuff doesn’t end here. While putting an 8x20 to your eyes is usually a bit of an exercise and takes some getting used to due to the common double hinge design, small exit pupil and tiny eyecups… the eyecups of the Nikon are huge (more on that later*), so much so, that they share the same width of my 8x32 Swarovski EL SV, 31 mm. The UV inner eyecup diameter is just 20 mm. That makes a huge difference: 3 mm exit pupil and regular eyecup size makes the action of taking them to your eyes a breeze. To round this up, there’s a traditional single hinge, so finding the correct IPD is so easy. Basically, these work like your regular binoculars, and that’s saying a lot about a pocket.
Top: the eyecups of the Nikon 7x20 CFIII (inner diameter, 31 mm), Leica UV 8x20 (20 mm) and Swarovski Habicht 8x20 (21 mm).
Bottom, the focus wheel of the Leica and the Nikon.
But there’s even more. While the focus wheel of the 8x20 Ultravid is on the large side for a pocket (larger than that of the 8x20 Habicht, which incidentally is located on the wrong side, which makes focusing with your pinky or ring finger a little awkward), it just pales in comparison to the focus wheel on the Nikon, it’s nearly in regular focus wheel size territory, again, quite a feat for a pocket.
So: we have a single hinge design that makes finding IPD super easy and fast, no fuss, and also regular sized eyecups, plus a 3 mm EP and a huge focus wheel. I think there are many threads about this, but all these things combined together really make a case of “convenience vs sheer performance”. Yes, the UV is simply in another galaxy, its sharpness, contrast, suppression of stray light, sweet spot size are simply miles away from the Nikon. But the Nikon is way more comfortable to use by another galaxy. In fact, while the optical difference is staggering, the usability of the humble Nikon is making me think about selling the UV (there, I’ve said it). Using the UV is a bit of an exercise, a chore, using the Nikon feels just like using any other binoculars. Yes, eye relief is probably very short for spectacle wearers, and because the Nikon is so stubby, your finger can rub your forehead when you operate the focus wheel, but is just so easy and natural.
And here’s the thing (again), what are you going to enjoy more, an incredible image in a package that makes it really hard to use, or a so-so image that you an use without even thinking about it?
Bonus track: low light performance.
I’ve done several tests comparing the Nikon CF III and the UV. Well, basically is like comparing a Ferrari to a Citröen 2CV, except for the fact that this 2CV has way more comfortable seats, the suspension doesn't want to break your bones and you can drive it for hours unlike the Italian dream car. The UV is brighter, the image shows a more pure colour representation (the Nikon has a yellow/greenish hue, nothing terrible actually, only noticeable if compared to the UV). But what happens when light fades? After dawn, when light really starts to be scarce, the Nikon gains a kind of superpower, and are as bright (if not brighter) than the UV. I guess coatings in the Nikon are much simpler than those of the UV, given the difference in price and age, so probably a mix of bigger exit pupil, simpler optical construction (less glass) and Porro prism design make for this surprising performance.
After trying them outdoors, I conducted a more “controlled” experiment at home. I turned off the lights and just kept a very small lamp on in my living room. The room was very poorly lit for "regular life", you simply couldn't read a book comfortably under that light. And then I tested the UV and the Nikon trying to read two subjects (highlighted). I tried to read the text of a XIX century engraving (number 1 on the picture). The image, black and white, appeared way (but way) easier to read with the UV, by a huge margin. Through the Nikon the letters appeared thinner, less contrasted against the white background. But then, I placed a book on a further point of our living room, where less light reached the different sizes of text (number 2 on the picture). I handed both binoculars to my partner (who was unaware of what was going on) and asked her to read the title, author and subtitle of the book (in descending size). When using the UV she really struggled to get a comfortable view, and could hardly read the title. With the Nikon she just said “these are brighter”, and could read it, not without problems. That was quite surprising.
So, really surprised by the usability, not so much by the image quality, but I guess it offers a reasonable quality for very little money. I think if you get a nice sample, the Nikon can be surprisingly pleasurable compact binoculars. As far as I know, the current offering of reverse Porros by Nikon focuses on 8x25 and above, there's even a waterproof "EX" version. In an ideal world, I'd like to see a current EX 7x21, now that would be a thing.
(*I think I’m going to open a thread on the importance of eyecup diameter, since I think it’s a vastly overlooked issue)
Last edited:
