What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (2 Viewers)

[brocknroller]

I think it has to be the Nikon 8x30 EII.
Don't get me wrong, the 8x32 Se is fantastic, but the wider field makes the wow for me.

I just came back from a walkabout with my 8x EII. Went down to the old Lowe's lot to look for the bluebirds and goldfinches I saw the other day with the 8x32 SE in the open areas near the strip of woods near the highway where 70 acres were cleared for development.

With a mist in the air leftover from fog earlier in the day (it was 58* F this afternoon and most of the snow has melted). My EII is the charm for backyard birding and for dense brush, but for out and about on a dim and dismal day, I was disappointed with the image, which was lackluster. I was also more aware of the distortion across the field than I am in closer environs.

I think my SE would have done a little better under these field and weather conditions, but would still be lacking. Despite the "warm" temperatures for January, it was not a good day for birding. Perhaps only a bin with larger aperture and exit pupils and a slight yellow bias could cut through the "din" and have made nature watching a pleasant experience for me and MIchelle Phillips on such a winter's day. The Docter 7x42 B/GA might fit the bill. If they ever phase coat the prisms, the Docter 7x42 might someday become my winter bin:

http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.binomania.it

<B>

 

[[email protected]]

I just came back from a walkabout with my 8x EII. Went down to the old Lowe's lot to look for the bluebirds and goldfinches I saw the other day with the 8x32 SE in the open areas near the strip of woods near the highway where 70 acres were cleared for development.

With a mist in the air leftover from fog earlier in the day (it was 58* F this afternoon and most of the snow has melted). My EII is the charm for backyard birding and for dense brush, but for out and about on a dim and dismal day, I was disappointed with the image, which was lackluster. I was also more aware of the distortion across the field than I am in closer environs.

I think my SE would have done a little better under these field and weather conditions, but would still be lacking. Despite the "warm" temperatures for January, it was not a good day for birding. Perhaps only a bin with larger aperture and exit pupils and a slight yellow bias could cut through the "din" and have made nature watching a pleasant experience for me and MIchelle Phillips on such a winter's day. The Docter 7x42 B/GA might fit the bill. If they ever phase coat the prisms, the Docter 7x42 might someday become my winter bin:

http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.binomania.it

<B>

Brock. It was a dim and dismal day so that is what the EII showed you. It shows reality. What do you want something that is going to change the color and hues of nature. Perhaps a 7x42 would be a little brighter under such conditions but I doubt it would be that noticeable. The 7x42 might show a little less distortion across the field because you are looking through the sweet spot of the objective. The EII showed nature for what it was on that dull and dismal day. The older Swarovski's had a yellow tint for cutting through fog and din.

 

[brocknroller]

Brock. It was a dim and dismal day so that is what the EII showed you. It shows reality. What do you want something that is going to change the color and hues of nature. Perhaps a 7x42 would be a little brighter under such conditions but I doubt it would be that noticeable. The 7x42 might show a little less distortion across the field because you are looking through the sweet spot of the objective. The EII showed nature for what it was on that dull and dismal day. The older Swarovski's had a yellow tint for cutting through fog and din.

That's easy for you to say, because Colorado gets a whopping 136 clear days a year. I've been out there when there was a thunderstorm and the humidity was only 18%! We never, and I mean never, get that low in humidity. If we go as low as 40% that's "dry" for us.

We only get 87 clear days a year in Pa., and I suspect if that were further broken down into region, in the ridges of Central Pa. that number is probably lower.

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php

Also, the weather is very changeable in CO, but when the clouds move in here, they often stay for a week at a time. The weather fronts moving in from the west collide with weather coming up the coast and the "low" often stalls out over our area. Same thing can happen with "highs" but that's usually during the winter when it means we get a week of unrelenting cold weather where the daytime temps are about the same each day, which is what's going to happen this week where the temps will be hovering just above the freezing point for the highs of the days.

In addition, our town's airport is the "ditch point" for this area of the state, so there is always a crisscross of jet contrails overhead and by the end of the day those contrails join together into a thick blanket of clouds, so the number of clear nights is even lower than the number of clear days. Hence, my migration from stargazing to birding and from Cloudy Nights to Bird Forum.

So while the 8x30 EII showed me "reality," reality is vastly overrated, and if anybody should know this, I think it would be you with your "stretches". :smoke:

I know have to turn off my full spectrum S.A.D. lamp off and go to bed.

<B>

 

[Giorgio]

I just came back from a walkabout with my 8x EII. Went down to the old Lowe's lot to look for the bluebirds and goldfinches I saw the other day with the 8x32 SE in the open areas near the strip of woods near the highway where 70 acres were cleared for development.

With a mist in the air leftover from fog earlier in the day (it was 58* F this afternoon and most of the snow has melted). My EII is the charm for backyard birding and for dense brush, but for out and about on a dim and dismal day, I was disappointed with the image, which was lackluster. I was also more aware of the distortion across the field than I am in closer environs.

I think my SE would have done a little better under these field and weather conditions, but would still be lacking. Despite the "warm" temperatures for January, it was not a good day for birding. Perhaps only a bin with larger aperture and exit pupils and a slight yellow bias could cut through the "din" and have made nature watching a pleasant experience for me and MIchelle Phillips on such a winter's day. The Docter 7x42 B/GA might fit the bill. If they ever phase coat the prisms, the Docter 7x42 might someday become my winter bin:

http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.binomania.it

<B>

<B>

I feel sad for you after reading your disappointment of the EIIs in grey weather.
Perhaps the coatings are better on the SEs, and the view would have been brighter even by mediocre weather.
How about you trapped yourself assuming the EII would be good for a grey weather. As you intuitively know that their huge FOV is what you prefer, your instincts told you to grab that to bird that day. But huge fov doesn't mean bigger lens apperture, perhaps your brain instinctively made this mistake.
You are not choosing your favorite binoculars, a part of your brain does.
The SE could have been better as it's a 32, dunno about the coatings.

I know the Habicht 8x30 is excellent even in grey weather with low lights, their coatings are extraordinary, even it's a 30.
The colours representation through the Swaro is perfect (no yellowish tint)on a dim day, and i'm almost sure that a yellow artificial added colour would ruin my binocular natural trip.

PS.: i tried the EX 7x35 that i received on a dull and rainy day yesterday. They give a yellow-green-gray colour, and made me feel of the Conquest regarding their image. But they aren't very bright, the image was too greying yellowish, and it was bad.

<G>

 

[John In Ireland]

For what it's worth I think the original question has answered itself. There are not many on this thread that are of the same opinion for the amount of replies!

Your wow may not be your neighbours wow!

 

[[email protected]]

For what it's worth I think the original question has answered itself. There are not many on this thread that are of the same opinion for the amount of replies!

Your wow may not be your neighbours wow!

I get the Nikon 8x20 LX's Wednesday so get ready for the big comparison to the Swarovski 8x20. I know you all are waiting on my opinion so you will know which one to buy. Coming on Wednesday......

 

[Leif]

I get the Nikon 8x20 LX's Wednesday so get ready for the big comparison to the Swarovski 8x20. I know you all are waiting on my opinion so you will know which one to buy. Coming on Wednesday......

I can't wait.

 

[Troubador]

I can't wait.

From this and some of your other posts I can tell that Irony is your middle name

Lee

 

[Sancho]

I can't wait.

You've been away too long, Leif. The DVD-test is now the benchmark in optics-testing.

 

[Leif]

Pomp,

It seems this is a fairly delicate subject and not everyone here agrees with my interpretation of what is going on, so don't take it as gospel. I've preached this story before, so apologies for the repetition.

For someone with good eyesight I've found that the apparent resolution of binoculars is frequently limiting, and it's quite possible to distinguish view quality differences where the apparent resolution is a little beyond the acuity limit of the eye.

Note I used 'apparent' in the statement above, because what you 'see' is not what is normally measured by boosted resolution methods. That is a value for the whole instrument, mostly governed by the overall accuracy of the full diameter objective. Valuable information in it's own right, however the image that reaches your retina is controlled by the diameter of your pupil. In bright conditions the light from the peripheral area of the objective is blocked by the iris. If your pupil is 2mm diameter in bright conditions then you would only see the image passing through the centre 16mm of the lens of an 8x binocular. It's the optical quality of this central region only that is relevant to what you see under these conditions.

Visual acuity changes with light levels. It's best in fairly bright condition when the pupil diameter is 2-2.5mm. It gradually decreases as the pupil dilates due to aberrations in cornea and lens of the eye and other factors, so our ability to evaluate the performance of the binoculars decreases as well.

I've checked out the full aperture, and stopped down boosted resolutions for several low and mid priced pairs and found that many of them are indeed limiting for my eyesight in the centre. In low light my eyesight is limiting.

I don't know how many, if any companies QC the optical performance of the central region of the objective, but I've been told that at least one well respected company does not.

I suggest that many users if not all would be able to detect differences in optical accuracy in bright conditions, and these differences may not be evident from full aperture boosted resolution testing which is more an average value for the whole system.

I don't look at the night sky, but it seems obvious that wide aperture performance is more relevant, but I've also seen reports that stopping down the objective to give a smaller exit pupil improves the ability to 'split doubles' with some instruments. That could be explained by either improved performance of the eye with a smaller EP, or eliminating peripheral aberration from the optics, or possibly both.

Ed Zarenski from CN wrote something about this some years ago.
http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/binoexit.pdf


David

David, that is interesting. I tend to use the term 'effective resolution' when referring to the resolution of the binocular stopped down by the eye, given that the stopped down aperture is often called the 'effective aperture'.

As you say, in good light the pupil stops down to 2mm, and for an 8x40 binocular that means it is stopped down to 8x16. So far so good. You then say that the theoretical resolution of a 16mm objective magnified 8 times is close to the resolving limit of the eye.

I had assumed that the 'sharpness' was a measure of the contrast in the image at the scales resolvable by the eye. It seems that might not be the case on a bright day. I suspect most people who carry out 'apparent resolution' tests - by which I mean the resolution as measured by an observer - do so on a good day, using a resolution chart.

 

[Leif]

You've been away too long, Leif. The DVD-test is now the benchmark in optics-testing.

It is not surprising that sharp minds come up with innovative tests that knock aside all that precedes them.

 

[[email protected]]

It is not surprising that sharp minds come up with innovative tests that knock aside all that precedes them.

So true!

 

[[email protected]]

I can't wait.

The Nikon 8x20 LX comes today. Look for the comparison to the Swaro 8x20. Later......

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lief,
If we take the optimum visual resolution of a young person in daylight than many investigators report a resolution value of 1 minute of arc (resolution due to the optimum of the fovea centralis and taking into account the optical errors of the eye). With a magnification of 8x, regardless of the objective diameter, a theoretical resolution will be 60/8=7,5 arcseconds. The Rayleigh limit at 560 nm predicts a resolution for a 16 mm binocular of 8,75 arcseconds, perhaps that is what David is referring to.
Gijs

 

[Leif]

Lief,
If we take the optimum visual resolution of a young person in daylight than many investigators report a resolution value of 1 minute of arc (resolution due to the optimum of the fovea centralis and taking into account the optical errors of the eye). With a magnification of 8x, regardless of the objective diameter, a theoretical resolution will be 60/8=7,5 arcseconds. The Rayleigh limit at 560 nm predicts a resolution for a 16 mm binocular of 8,75 arcseconds, perhaps that is what David is referring to.
Gijs

Thanks Gijs, yes David clarified that to me in a PM. I had not realised that the eye could under certain conditions (good light) reach the resolving limit of the (stopped down) binocular.

 

[[email protected]]

The Nikon 8x20 LX comes today. Look for the comparison to the Swaro 8x20. Later......

I got the Nikon 8x20 LX and was able to compare it to my Swarovski 8x20 tonite just at dusk. Mechanically the Nikon is fine. The hinges were tight and the focus was smooth and similar to the Swaro. The design of both binoculars is very similar with the focus at the far end which works well and both were smooth and not too hard. The Nikon is bigger and bulkier and 2 oz. heavier which is noticeable. The Swaro weighs 7.5 oz. and the Nikon weighs 9.5 oz..They both come with a nice leather case that attaches to your belt. Optically they are both very good but the Swaro is better. Edge sharpness and sweetspot size is similar but the Swaro's advantage is in it's contrast and brightness. It is brighter and has noticeably better contrast. The Swaro's image is more alive and when switching back and forth the between the two the Nikon almost appears kind of dull and lifeless compared to the Swaro. The Swaro has more punch to it's image. One advantage of the Nikon is the extra 1mm of Eye Relief which sets you eyes further back from the eyepieces. With the Swaro your eyes are pretty close to the eyepieces. This difference in contrast is with out a doubt due to better coatings on the Swaro. If I had to keep just one It would be the Swaro but since the Nikon was only $400.00 I think I will keep it since it is considerably better than the Leica Trinovid 8x20 and I like compacts lately. As I predicted the Nikon falls in between the two in performance. The Nikon LX is an exceptional compact binocular it is just the Swaro is little better. Compacts can be a little dim and dull due to their smaller aperture but the Swaro compensates for that with really exceptional coatings and it is really bright for a 20mm binocular. The Swaro presents a clearer and more lifelike image than the Nikon. The Nikon is the 2nd best compact I have ever tried though. Both compacts have a lot of wow though.

 

[brocknroller]

You've been away too long, Leif. The DVD-test is now the benchmark in optics-testing.

No, I think he was being patronizing (at least unconsciously). But after reading dennis' review, I can't blame him.

(Btw, I won the pool, I put down "Two Weeks" for how long before the Swaro compacts would go on the auction block).

<B>

 

[Leif]

No, I think he was being patronizing (at least unconsciously). But after reading dennis' review, I can't blame him.

I find the above offensive. Yet again you apply to me unconscious motivations that do not exist. :C

 

[Brigadier]

The Nikon is bigger and bulkier and 2 oz. heavier which is noticeable... Optically they are both very good but the Swaro is better. Edge sharpness and sweetspot size is similar but the Swaro's advantage is in it's contrast and brightness. It is brighter and has noticeably better contrast. The Swaro's image is more alive and when switching back and forth the between the two the Nikon almost appears kind of dull and lifeless compared to the Swaro. The Swaro has more punch to it's image.

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the review. I've often wondered about the Nikon LXL/HGL compacts; the 10x25 in particular seems to be well liked on this forum.

Am I right in thinking that the Nikon still uses silver on its prisms, while the Swaro uses dielectric coatings? That might account for the Swaro's superior brightness and contrast.

Speaking personally I've never found my Swaro 8x20's eye relief to be a problem, but I do appreciate its ultra-compactness. I think the Nikon's extra size and weight would be a hindrance in a pocket bino.

The Swaro's only real downside is that it's very expensive for a compact.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the review. I've often wondered about the Nikon LXL/HGL compacts; the 10x25 in particular seems to be well liked on this forum.

Am I right in thinking that the Nikon still uses silver on its prisms, while the Swaro uses dielectric coatings? That might account for the Swaro's superior brightness and contrast.

Speaking personally I've never found my Swaro 8x20's eye relief to be a problem, but I do appreciate its ultra-compactness. I think the Nikon's extra size and weight would be a hindrance in a pocket bino.

The Swaro's only real downside is that it's very expensive for a compact.

True. But you get a good warranty and you have a good company behind them. I want to check on the silver and lack of dielectric coatings on the prisms. That could be the difference. I also like the smaller size and weight of the Swaro because 2 oz. is noticeable. The Swaro's are noticeably brighter and have better contrast. They are amazingly bright for a 20mm aperture!