Stray Light/Glare in Leupold McKinley vs Viper HD? (1 Viewer)

[Inquisitor]

Hi,

I have a little 6x32 Viper HD which I am loving. They make my eyes smile. The only thing I don't quite love is some sort of glare they get around sunset when the light is strong and low.

I am pondering getting a 10x next. I was debating the 10x42 and 10x50 Vipers since I already know I love their coatings but I then got to wondering about the Leupold 10x42 McKinley.

I know the Leupold is supposed to have a flat field and I have read about the newly released revision. This seems to be a funny binocular....lots of reviews dismiss them as being optically poor immediately and others say they are very comparable with the Conquest HD level of stuff.

Anyway, I did not notice much dedicated talk in the McKinley reviews about sunset/strong light and resulting glare. Does anyone have the ability to compare them to a Viper HD in these conditions?

BTW, I don't know if I want/need a very flat field, doesn't field curvature give the perception(?) of enhanced sharpness in the center? Is it harder to get that sense of perfect focus with a field flattener? Does it cause a loss of depth of field (which is already quickly decreasing in a 10X)?

I am also sort of worried that I might need to go to the 5mm exit pupil of the 10x50 Viper to get the same sparkle that I am loving with the Viper 6x I have now. My current 10x42 Atlas Intrepids just simply don't do that even in good light -also factor in that I love watching deer early/late. I am not sure if it is a difference in glass/coating quality or simply a smaller exit pupil and higher mag issue.

Another note...I finally learned that the cheapest way to seriously upgrade your binoculars is to try them out on a tripod! Crap, what a difference that makes when studying a sunning Anhinga on the far side of a small lake! It beats the pants off of my small sorry spotter and I don't think it is a shake issue.

Thanks

 

[typo]

I'm sorry can't help you with the Viper/McKinley comparison.

Perhaps I can offer some personal observations on the subject of flat fields and the other points you raise.

Your question about different perceived sharpness with curved and flat fields is interesting. It's true that I have noticed flatter view designs are frequently marginally softer than similarly priced alternatives. I don't believe this is any sort of optical illusion. When I have have had the opportunity to test such models the flatter views have had marginally lower effective resolutions, but I suspect it's that there is some sample variation with good and not so good examples. I imagine the increased complexity of the eyepiece design might be more challenging to optimise. When I have seen this, the differences were relatively small and would often go unnoticed in normal use. I should point out that some models seem to be consistently good. As long as the light is good I don't believe exit pupil plays any part in perceived sharpness (sparkle?). Whether you need more than a 4.2mm EP for your early morning deer watching I couldn't say, but I suspect it's more to do with transmission profile and contrast.

In the strictest sense DOF only relates to magnification, but you are right that field curvature, separation of the objectives, and particularly age and light levels make a big difference to perception. At my age I need all the help I can get and appreciate the perceived advantage of curved fields in low power binoculars (a porro would be better still). I tend to use these in situations when I'd be searching around for the source of a call or in woodland etc.. My flat view 10x42 naturally tends to get used at longer range in more open situations, like on a lake, when I don't find the shallower DOF a handicap and 'edge to edge' sharpness is more of an advantage.

Using a 6x or 7x I can't say I've detected much advantage mounting a binocular on a tripod. For 8x and above, I'd agree, it can make a big difference. Weight and balance seem to be critical to the amount of shake and that's bound to be very much an individual thing. The Zen-Ray Prime 10x42 I won in the forum draw is much steadier than most 8x models I've tried and I have a pretty hefty 12x50 porro is very good as well but still a tripod makes a useful difference.

I've not tried a Viper 10x50 that I recall, but I have a very, very high regard for the Razor HD 10x50.

Cheers,

David

 

[Steve C]

I have the McKinleys, both versions, 8x and 10x. They excel at glare control. I have not used the Viper HD enough to comment. Be advised a lot of glare control issues seem to me to be related to how well the eye relief and eye cup size and fit match you. If those aren't right, some glare will result.

OK, I had a bit of an interruption there...

I have seen lots of examples of both McKinley and Prime HD. While I never will be surprised at the reaction, either positive or negative, from one set of eyes to any particular binocular, I am sort of puzzled by these claims of sample variation. I've seen enough of both to have seen this for myself, provided the variation exists to the degree forum comment suggest. While there is a range of normal specifications, I'm still looking for the degree of variation I see described. As I posted awhile ago in the Hawke Panorama thread, I think the variation is in the user sample, more so than the binocular sample. Having said that, it seems I am able to get along well with just about any well collimated binocular of decent quality. That may well be because my personal reaction is to look for things I like in any given piece of gear first. I look for flaws later. It is my belief that a binocular like the McKinley (or the Prime HD) represent all the binocular the majority of folks need. Start finding fault here, be prepared to spend to the point where your subconscious will shut up. Are there better binoculars that cost more, yes there are, but it is a pretty personal matter whether or not the difference is worth the price.

I have only brief encounters with with the Viper HD 10x50. The Viper HD series are generally pretty good binoculars. They typically have narrower fov than the McKinley. They feel smaller in hand than the McKinley. The 50 mm glass will give the optical more light energy to work with, so you may see brightness advantage, but I have no problems using the McKinley pretty late in the day. Not much of a cut and dried answer there. ANother personal evaluation you need to make. I generally have tended to shy away from 50 mm class glass as I find 42 mm stuf to be bright as I need. I also prefer the lighter weight and greater fov of the 42 mm glass.

I tend to agree with what David posted above.

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks David and Steve,

I have been away for a few days doing holiday stuff. Your posts are thoughtful and give me stuff to think about. I have nothing else to add or ask at the moment except to thank you for your time. I am currently starting to think that if I insist on a 10x50, I might be happier with a quality porro on a tripod. I think the Vortex Vipers/Razor are about the only decent roof 10x50s out there within my price range and they are limited by the field of view.

I have actually played with a 10x50 Razor since I posted. It was very nice and felt surprisingly good but I didn't feel inspired to buy it at the asking price. I still need to find a Viper to hold.