What would worlds best binoculars be? (1 Viewer)

[Holger Merlitz]

Interesting concept.
I wonder whether the image stabilization systems that Canon and Fuji use could be augmented to take over the focusing as well.
That would add considerable utility while eliminating a mechanical subsystem that has often been a source of dissatisfaction, as Kabsetz has noted.
More generally, given the predominance of autofocus in digital cameras, it is surprising that this feature has not yet reached the binocular market. Is the industry just too conservative or is there a real dealbreaker issue here that makes it impractical for binoculars?

But somehow one had to measure whether an object is in or out of focus. No problem with a digital binocular, but with a conventional device, one had to extract that information from the image plane, thereby losing light, adding possible sources of ghosting and all that ...

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Pileatus]

Mike,

Many on here want a premium 7x binocular, all your competition is denying us this now, so Zeiss could take a real lead here and give (some) of us what we want.

Please !

The exact same thing was said when Nikon was developing the EDG. Many clamored for a 7X, Nikon developed it and the rep at that time asked for support (i.e. buy the darn thing).

So, how many 7X42 EDG's were purchased by BF members?

 

[WiscTJK]

The exact same thing was said when Nikon was developing the EDG. Many clamored for a 7X, Nikon developed it and the rep at that time asked for support (i.e. buy the darn thing).

So, how many 7X42 EDG's were purchased by BF members?

It can't be $2,000 if you want to sell to the masses. Make it $1,000 or even $500.

Just my $.02.

 

[Hermann]

It can't be $2,000 if you want to sell to the masses. Make it $1,000 or even $500.

Even for $1,000 or for that matter $500 a manufacturer won't be able to sell a 7x42 nowadys. The number of people who are prepared to actually buy a 7x42 (rather than just talk about how nice 7x42s are) is just too low to make production worthwhile. Less than 1/10 of the number of 8x42s sold, I heard some 10 years ago from one of the top manufacturers, tendency falling.

And at $1,000 you wouldn't get top quality, that's clear.

Hermann

 

[Torview]

I come back to my viewpoint regarding 7x, how many 12x, 15x do these companies sell ?

Yet still they get made !

 

[Troubador]

I come back to my viewpoint regarding 7x, how many 12x, 15x do these companies sell ?

Yet still they get made !

I think they sell quite a lot to hunters which may be the answer.

Lee

 

[CSG]

At our local Sportsman's Warehouse, you're lucky to find any 8x in stock. The standard minimum stocked size is a 10x or 12x. I've asked why (because the two counter guys know that 7-8x is preferred for long days in the field) and they claim it's what their customers (primarily hunters) demand. You want a 7x locally? Forget it.

 

[cycleguy]

The exact same thing was said when Nikon was developing the EDG. Many clamored for a 7X, Nikon developed it and the rep at that time asked for support (i.e. buy the darn thing).

So, how many 7X42 EDG's were purchased by BF members?

Good one... How many 7x edg do i own? Zero. Now lets compare that to how many other $2k binoculars i own. Zero!

Now lets compare that to how many binoculars i own. Three 7x, two 8x, one 9x.

Waiting on a good quality 7x in a small 30 something size.

A conquest hd 7x32 would work, and a 7x30 monarch 7 would work too.

Think those could be done for under a grand.

CG

 

[Holger Merlitz]

At our local Sportsman's Warehouse, you're lucky to find any 8x in stock. The standard minimum stocked size is a 10x or 12x. I've asked why (because the two counter guys know that 7-8x is preferred for long days in the field) and they claim it's what their customers (primarily hunters) demand. You want a 7x locally? Forget it.

The fact that binoculars of low power don't sell is - at least in part - a result of poor information on the part of the manufacturers. Their marketing doesn't take the pain to inform their customers about the true merits of their instruments. Instead, it is all about simplification, if not trivialization, buzz-words and emotions.

Some time ago I have offered Zeiss to design an informative technical brochure, which would, on 20 pages or so, summarize the most relevant facts about field of view, depth of field, stereoscopic perception, day and night performance, the influence of hand-shake and so on. The brochure could have been distributed freely with every sold instrument, or to be downloaded on the manufacturers webpage. Here, the customer could learn about the true meaning behind the different specifications, and thereby appreciate the advantages of high- as well as of low-power instruments.

Zeiss had no interest. They added that they had a glossary on their webpage and that this would have to be sufficient. In fact, this glossary just summarizes a couple of key-words, with trivial explanations and without any true background - apart from the question, who was going to browse through such a glossary to learn about binoculars?

So, I think this problem (not being able to sell any non-standard, yet useful specification) is partly a result of the poor and one-dimensional marketing of the manufacturers.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Holger,
Your analysis is in my opinon only partly true. Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and other companies have published over the years many flyers, catalogues and small booklets with basic information necessary to understand different technical aspects of binoculars in order to educate their and offer them the opportunity to make a good choice. I have also written information material for the general public, but one of the problems is, that many consumers do not want to read more than 10 lines, so you have to use many informative illustrations to guide the reader and even than many stop reading if they have the feeling that it is far too technical for them to understand. As a volunteer binocular salesman I have spent a lot of time to explain basic properties to customers, but there is a strong believe among many that high magnifications are better than low magnifications.
Wise binocular companies (and many are wise) produce instruments they can sell otherwise they do not exist long and if only a very small amount of customers is interested in 6 or 7x magnification a decision is quickly made.
regards,
Gijs

 

[dalat]

Some time ago I have offered Zeiss to design an informative technical brochure, which would, on 20 pages or so, summarize the most relevant facts about field of view, depth of field, stereoscopic perception, day and night performance, the influence of hand-shake and so on.

Perhaps they weren't so interested because they had done this 20-pager already

http://www.star-shine.ch/download/wissenswertes_ueber_fernglaeser.pdf

Advantages of low powers is mentionned as one of the first things.

Anyway, if anyone is responsible of providing good information to buyers, it's the dealers rather than the producers of the products (the linked brochure is indeed directed more towards the dealers than the customers). And for those customers who really want to know, there is plenty of information easily available (including your website).

 

[Pileatus]

I parted with a 7X42 Ultravid in favor of an 8.5X42 Swarovision and I've never regretted it. In fact, the 8X does everything the 7X did and then some! :-O

 

[hinnark]

At our local Sportsman's Warehouse, you're lucky to find any 8x in stock. The standard minimum stocked size is a 10x or 12x. I've asked why (because the two counter guys know that 7-8x is preferred for long days in the field) and they claim it's what their customers (primarily hunters) demand. You want a 7x locally? Forget it.

AFAIK that's more of a phenomenon in the US. As birders we tend to overlook sometimes the fact that hunters still hold the biggest share among the buyers of optics. One reason for preference of higher mangnifications in the US is that long distance hunting is far more common at the other side of the pond. But at least in Central Europe the 8x56 is by far the most selling configuration of binoculars for hunting and not for instance 10x56 or even higher.

Regarding any offers to assist the manufacturers with their brochures I am sure they have all knowledge needed (and still some more) on board.

Steve

 

[A2GG]

AFAIK that's more of a phenomenon in the US. As birders we tend to overlook sometimes the fact that hunters still hold the biggest share among the buyers of optics. One reason for preference of higher mangnifications in the US is that long distance hunting is far more common at the other side of the pond. But at least in Central Europe the 8x56 is by far the most selling configuration of binoculars for hunting and not for instance 10x56 or even higher.

Regarding any offers to assist the manufacturers with their brochures I am sure they have all knowledge needed (and still some more) on board.

Steve

At the sports shop down the street from me the hunting section has some binoculars and most of them are 10x. I asked the guy behind the counter if 10x is preferred by hunters and he said it was although they did sell some 8x too. But, there are a lot of 10x in the glass case.

 

[cycleguy]

AFAIK that's more of a phenomenon in the US. As birders we tend to overlook sometimes the fact that hunters still hold the biggest share among the buyers of optics. One reason for preference of higher mangnifications in the US is that long distance hunting is far more common at the other side of the pond. But at least in Central Europe the 8x56 is by far the most selling configuration of binoculars for hunting and not for instance 10x56 or even higher.

Regarding any offers to assist the manufacturers with their brochures I am sure they have all knowledge needed (and still some more) on board.

Steve

It is a phenomenwhatever... most can't hand hold 10x steady enough to reap the benefits. Throw in hunting conditions... strenuous hiking, cold mornings that give you the shivers, and windy conditions, and all to frequently nothing to brace against... all of which contribute to an already shakey binocular view.

I'm convinced it is macho ego that is satisfied by 10x... as does magnum, heavy duty, and turbo diesel.

As far as long range hunting is concerned. I hunt in what is considered the worlds largest alpine valley which stretches over 90 miles and i can see no reason that would justify the use of 10x. I can easily find more reasons not to have it, in addition to those mentioned above, it is common to encounter heat vapors rising from the valley floor which is best.handled with less magnification, as are dense forests.

I think 7x is the best hunting binocular available and find no issues with 8x, but 10x and 12x for most is a poor choice.

Ok, i'll shut my trap,

My .02,

cg

 

[perterra]

It is a phenomenwhatever... most can't hand hold 10x steady enough to reap the benefits. Throw in hunting conditions... strenuous hiking, cold mornings that give you the shivers, and windy conditions, and all to frequently nothing to brace against... all of which contribute to an already shakey binocular view.

I'm convinced it is macho ego that is satisfied by 10x... as does magnum, heavy duty, and turbo diesel.

As far as long range hunting is concerned. I hunt in what is considered the worlds largest alpine valley which stretches over 90 miles and i can see no reason that would justify the use of 10x. I can easily find more reasons not to have it, in addition to those mentioned above, it is common to encounter heat vapors rising from the valley floor which is best.handled with less magnification, as are dense forests.

I think 7x is the best hunting binocular available and find no issues with 8x, but 10x and 12x for most is a poor choice.

Ok, i'll shut my trap,

My .02,

cg

I wouldnt claim it as all ignorance, most of the people I know who hunt hard have spent 10's of thousands of dollars in gear. They wont make a dumbass purchase.

If you say 10X would be a bad choice for your conditions I wouldnt argue, but a south Texas or Texas hill country horn hunter set up on a sendero 100 to 200 yards from a feeder is likely well braced in his stand, he will be looking for any sign of horns on a white tail. Those horns may well be no longer than your little finger but if he doesnt see them and makes a shot he has wasted his buck tag. In some counties you may get one buck tag and 3 doe tags, you dont want to waste it on a spike when some decent 12 pointer may be next at the feeder.

They wont be hiking and they will likely be shielded from the cold wind, if there even is a cold wind. I have been on hill country whitetail hunts where T shirts and shorts were the wear for most of the hunt.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I parted with a 7X42 Ultravid in favor of an 8.5X42 Swarovision and I've never regretted it. In fact, the 8X does everything the 7X did and then some! :-O

So true.

 

[cycleguy]

I wouldnt claim it as all ignorance, most of the people I know who hunt hard have spent 10's of thousands of dollars in gear. They wont make a dumbass purchase.

If you say 10X would be a bad choice for your conditions I wouldnt argue, but a south Texas or Texas hill country horn hunter set up on a sendero 100 to 200 yards from a feeder is likely well braced in his stand, he will be looking for any sign of horns on a white tail. Those horns may well be no longer than your little finger but if he doesnt see them and makes a shot he has wasted his buck tag. In some counties you may get one buck tag and 3 doe tags, you dont want to waste it on a spike when some decent 12 pointer may be next at the feeder.

They wont be hiking and they will likely be shielded from the cold wind, if there even is a cold wind. I have been on hill country whitetail hunts where T shirts and shorts were the wear for most of the hunt.

Dumbass or not, here sre my findings:

I just finished a secomd year of hunting with 7X. I was side by side with other hunters using 8x and 10X, I could spot the spikes (not yet past the ear) on the mule deer and the small two points (fork just past the ear) more regularly than the other two at all distances. At some distance you can't tell with any of them, that is when a spotting scope becomes necessary. FWIW, large bucks are easily recognized with 7X at distances well beyond 1000
yards, and at 100 to 200 yards can be identified without the use of binoculars.

CG

 

[perterra]

Dumbass or not, here sre my findings:

I just finished a secomd year of hunting with 7X. I was side by side with other hunters using 8x and 10X, I could spot the spikes (not yet past the ear) on the mule deer and the small two points (fork just past the ear) more regularly than the other two at all distances. At some distance you can't tell with any of them, that is when a spotting scope becomes necessary. FWIW, large bucks are easily recognized with 7X at distances well beyond 1000
yards, and at 100 to 200 yards can be identified without the use of binoculars.

CG

I dont mean past the ear, I mean no longer than your little finger nail.

Maybe your just better than them.

 

[JabaliHunter]

he will be looking for any sign of horns on a white tail. Those horns may well be no longer than your little finger

If he is intent on finding horns on a whitetail it won't matter what magnification he chooses!