Review: GPO Passion HD 8x42 (5 Viewers)

[Steve C]

OK, am I losing it or what? I would have sworn I saw a comment from Dennis about Tract. I went to respond to him and poof!

Tract, hopefully, should be in the mix. The contact I need to talk to won't be back for a week.

 

[Steve C]

It is easy to trick your brain into seeing and thinking things are better/worse than they actually are. It's called preconceived notions, and it is an inarguable fact that relates to many, many products and markets.

Yes it is. We've all been there, done that.

 

[jgraider]

Yes it is. We've all been there, done that.

Steve, that was in no way meant as a derogatory statement against your perceived FOV example. Quite the opposite actually, as many here will have their minds made up before they ever tried one.

You said it best....when you get to this level of glass (including the Maven and Tract) the trouble with finding animals lies with the glasser, not the glass.

 

[Theo98]

OK, am I losing it or what? I would have sworn I saw a comment from Dennis about Tract. I went to respond to him and poof!

I saw it also...must be the "Carbonaro Effect"! :-O B

Ted

 

[Steve C]

Steve, that was in no way meant as a derogatory statement against your perceived FOV example. Quite the opposite actually, as many here will have their minds made up before they ever tried one.

You said it best....when you get to this level of glass (including the Maven and Tract) the trouble with finding animals lies with the glasser, not the glass.

Hey I know that . Mostly meant that I know I am also not immune to my own perceptions :eek!:

 

[henry link]

Henry,

To me the fov looks wider than it is when just looking through it. In side by side comparisons with wider fov,s it seems like what it is. I had no intention of stating a new optical concept. What that was is a description of my impression of the fov. That impression is just that it does not look restrictive.

I don't see much in the way of distortion. If pincushion is the only thing looked for, then there is a little there, but in my estimation it is not enough to bother anybody. There certainly is not enough there to appear to stretch the field. While there is some field curvature, it is not much and can be focused out, so that is not widening the field either. This is in my opinion a well done image, while narrower than most would like it to be, does not seem restrictive.

It seems I was in error with my tongue in cheek comment, even with the smiley, that I'd almost bet people would not think the field was as narrow as it is.

As far as your ducks in a row across the fov comment. I really do get that. However if you have 420 ducks across one fov, and 375 across the other, where do you have to put an individual duck to get the necessary information for the ID?. Seems like the answer with both fov scenarios, the answer is the duck has to go pretty much in the middle, as that where ir seems to me the human eye has to be to focus on a single object. Hard to tell a Northern Shoveller from a Mallard unless you center the bird.

Hi Steve,

I guess your positive reaction to the FOV of the GPO means that you've discovered that 54º is wide enough for you. I know from long experience that I need at least 58º "true" AFOV to be a happy guy and I prefer it a bit wider.

As for the optical term "distortion" I think it really only properly applies to three things: pincushion distortion, barrel distortion and angular magnification distortion. They affect the size, shape and position of objects across the field, but have no effect at all on sharpness. You can be certain that every binocular has some form of distortion. If the pincushion in the GPO is low, then it necessarily follows that the angular magnification distortion is high. Your corral rails only tell you about barrel and pincushion. Try moving a small circular object across the field. The shape should be a perfect circle at the field center, but what is it at the field edge?

Henry

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I guess I missed the part where your personal preferences have become the universal standard we all need to follow. I have no argument with your preference, just your seeming need to feel that it is best for everybody...

Hmm...I missed the part where I argued that my preference is best for everyone. Rather, I thought I described why and for whom clockwise to infinity is better. I have many bins that focus the other way, so I'm super familiar w/it and far from phobic. But I don't subscribe to the notion that focus direction of binoculars doesn't matter. In camera lenses, I'd accept that focus direction is of little or any functional significance, except to make it hard to switch between competing brands (e.g. it is probably not coincidental that Nikon and Canon focus in opposite directions). I doubt that concern motivates the choice in bino design.

...If you have trouble with the GPO, the problem is not with the binocular...

In a strict sense, I agree. The problem would be the match/fit of the binocular to the user's preferences. But most users would rather fit a bin to them, rather than vice-versa, especially when other products are a better match, so the bin takes the blame for being substandard (The alternative being that the user should change their standards). Sometimes it is a matter of different horses for different courses, since one bin can't do it all. But I don't see what settling for a 375 ft FOV in a full-sized 8x42 gets me these days, so I'm not sympathetic to the desire to make excuses for that inferior spec in this bin, especially given its price.

--AP

 

[Alexis Powell]

...Seems like the answer with both fov scenarios, the answer is the duck has to go pretty much in the middle, as that where ir seems to me the human eye has to be to focus on a single object. Hard to tell a Northern Shoveller from a Mallard unless you center the bird.

On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar. More specifically, I'd think even a very poor bin would reveal the completely different color patterns of males of those species, and distinguishing females by overall shape/posture or bill size shouldn't be too much a trick. In any case, you can't center the bird in the FOV if you haven't found it first, and greater FOV facilitates the finding.

--AP

 

[kabsetz]

Steve,

A very simple way of comparing the subjective FOV of two binoculars with different real fields and unknown distortion characteristics is to view sky through both binoculars at the same time, with one eye viewing through one binocular and the other eye through the other one. You don't need to align the images precisely to see which eye sees a larger circle and by roughly how much.

Kimmo

 

[Steve C]

On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar. More specifically, I'd think even a very poor bin would reveal the completely different color patterns of males of those species, and distinguishing females by overall shape/posture or bill size shouldn't be too much a trick. In any case, you can't center the bird in the FOV if you haven't found it first, and greater FOV facilitates the finding.

--AP

You come across like you are handing down a regal proclamation engraved on a stone tablet with your focus direction rant. Not to be rude, but you seemed rude in the way you went after the point. To repeat, because you feel that is natural, there are other who don't. Pretty simple.

Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50. I now own the B2, none of the Swaros. Rolling ball killed the deal. I have as yet not seen the Zeiss SF. I am aware there may be an alpha glass out there to make me fork over the $$. Maybe the SF is the one. Till I see it I have no idea. My ideal is not named Swarovski SV EL.

Good techniques facilitate finding. Too many people rely far too much on the binocular for that, and don't use their eyes nearly enough,and often don't use either very efficiently. I'm not saying wide fov is not needed, or somehow a bad thing. One of the things I like about the B2 is at 9x it has 404' fov, old fashioned afov nearly 70*. Proof enough I'm not anti wide fov. Just attempting to make the point that in my opinion the GPO will not hinder finding birds. If you can't find stuff with that, then the problem is not with the binocular. I'm fine with the notion more people will always go for the wider fov. Me too (usually) if all else is equal.

 

[Steve C]

Steve,

A very simple way of comparing the subjective FOV of two binoculars with different real fields and unknown distortion characteristics is to view sky through both binoculars at the same time, with one eye viewing through one binocular and the other eye through the other one. You don't need to align the images precisely to see which eye sees a larger circle and by roughly how much.

Kimmo

Thanks Kimmo. I do set up binoculars side by side on a tripod and use one eye then the other on a back and forth. However the sky with its no need to have them perfectly aligned is a good idea for fov. I'm usually trying to decide about sharpness etc.

 

[Alexis Powell]

You come across like you are handing down a regal proclamation engraved on a stone tablet with your focus direction rant. Not to be rude, but you seemed rude in the way you went after the point. To repeat, because you feel that is natural, there are other who don't. Pretty simple.

Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. I'm sure I haven't communicated my point because I never said anything about what feels natural. I think you are reading too much into my words and not reading my words.

Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50. I now own the B2, none of the Swaros. Rolling ball killed the deal. I have as yet not seen the Zeiss SF. I am aware there may be an alpha glass out there to make me fork over the $$. Maybe the SF is the one. Till I see it I have no idea. My ideal is not named Swarovski SV EL.

All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins. I was responding to your claim that a duck has to be centered in the FOV to be identified, a claim which you seem to think is an argument against the value of FOV for finding birds. I don't agree with either of those claims.

Good techniques facilitate finding. Too many people rely far too much on the binocular for that, and don't use their eyes nearly enough,and often don't use either very efficiently. I'm not saying wide fov is not needed, or somehow a bad thing. One of the things I like about the B2 is at 9x it has 404' fov, old fashioned afov nearly 70*. Proof enough I'm not anti wide fov. Just attempting to make the point that in my opinion the GPO will not hinder finding birds. If you can't find stuff with that, then the problem is not with the binocular. I'm fine with the notion more people will always go for the wider fov. Me too (usually) if all else is equal.

I don't disagree about the value of good technique and using eyes. I do disagree that a tool with inferior specs will not hinder (judged against a higher standard) accomplishing its purpose. A large well can be dug with a teaspoon, but one who has to dig wells with a teaspoon is, practically speaking, held back by lack of a shovel.

--AP

 

[Troubador]

On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar.
--AP

Originally Posted by Steve C
Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50.


All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins.

--AP[/QUOTE]

Alex

Looks like Steve hasn't been around for a few days so I will just remark here that it was yourself who introduced the question of whether Steve had experience of EL SV or SF (see above), so it was a bit unfair to bat away his reply to this by saying it was irrelevant.

Lee

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Lee, I would have to agree with you and Steve C thanks for taking the time to review the GPO Passion HD 8x42!

 

[Pileatus]

Without evaluating the bin under discussion...

I accept a minimum IPD of 56mm and prefer 54mm. It helps a lot on close ups.

I reject CCW focus to infinity. We have a 6X32 that operates in this manner and it's a pain because it challenges muscle memory. Follow the leader(s) seems like the smart play.

I like as much useful FOV as possible along with sharp edges. A walk-in view is instantly addictive.

Eye relief is probably number one on my elimination list. Picking up the Zeiss SF showed me just how limiting my Nikon and Swaros are...in spite of the joy those models have delivered over the years.

Finally, online sales are based primarily on published specifications and personal reviews/recommendations. Steve's review offers acute insights that are both useful and welcome.

 

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Steve C
Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50.


All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins.

--AP

Alex

Looks like Steve hasn't been around for a few days so I will just remark here that it was yourself who introduced the question of whether Steve had experience of EL SV or SF (see above), so it was a bit unfair to bat away his reply to this by saying it was irrelevant.

Lee[/QUOTE]

Yes, I've been gone for a few days. I've had the cold from hell and wonder od wonders, we've had a couple of gorgeous days, which I have been enjoying, so not much posting.

I agree with your assessment of AP's reaction.

 

[Steve C]

Hi Lee, I would have to agree with you and Steve C thanks for taking the time to review the GPO Passion HD 8x42!

Steve

Thanks!

 

[Steve C]

Without evaluating the bin under discussion...

I accept a minimum IPD of 56mm and prefer 54mm. It helps a lot on close ups.

I reject CCW focus to infinity. We have a 6X32 that operates in this manner and it's a pain because it challenges muscle memory. Follow the leader(s) seems like the smart play.

I like as much useful FOV as possible along with sharp edges. A walk-in view is instantly addictive.

Eye relief is probably number one on my elimination list. Picking up the Zeiss SF showed me just how limiting my Nikon and Swaros are...in spite of the joy those models have delivered over the years.

Finally, online sales are based primarily on published specifications and personal reviews/recommendations. Steve's review offers acute insights that are both useful and welcome.

John,

Well this is an opinion worth discussion :t:

I have no issue with the fact people prefer different focus arrangements, or that they prefer different fov parameters either. It is neither good nor bad, it is just the way things are .

I agree with your eye relief comments. One of my big beefs with the binoculars on the market is that the eye cup assemblies seem to be an afterthought instead of a design consideration, something GPO seemed to address. Out of curiosity does the eye cup extension of the SF match the stated eye relief figure?

I do wonder if the issue is really the eye relief per se. It seems the eye relief is a product of the design. It seems that is the stated eye relief is 15 mm, then that is what it probably is. I think when we get into problems the issue is not so much eye relief, but one of eye cup extension/retraction. Many eye cups are pretty thick and don't let the eye glass wearer get close enough to the lens. Conversely if the eye relief is , say, 15 mm, and the eye cup extension is only 14 mm, then the eye can't be gotten far enough away for proper placement. Call that effective eye relief if you will (which seems to be the case), but maybe we should be thinking eye cup movement. It does no good to offer a long eye relief binocular unless the eye cups will lay close enough to the lens, or to extend to the stated eye relief distance. If you need 17 mm, you won't be happy with 12 mm if that is all the extension you get. Doesn't matter what it costs either. I like the Leica Ultravid, but it has in no way enough eye cup extension for me.

You are correct in your online assessments, that is pretty indispensable in due diligence in selection options.

I'm glad you find this useful in that regard.

 

[rdpx]

Optics Warehouse in UK currently have these on clearance at £299 (branded as GECO GOLD)
(currently only shipping to UK addresses)