What's the best binocular? (2 Viewers)

[Swedpat]

These two are easy to answer, simply choose two continents

Well, I understand what you mean! :t:

 

[Alexis Powell]

...If you're referring to the focus wheel on the Sightron's when you say [...I wouldn't like the focus operation though...], I would suggest you try them before you are so sure...

Hmm...you must not have read the rest of that sentence which refers back to my previous post that spells out what my issues with the focus operation are likely to be given other's reports: speed, smoothness, turns the wrong way, and lack of close-focus. In particular, neither of the latter two aspects requires a hands-on test, unless the specs are wrong and it matches my FL by turning clockwise to infinity and by focusing down to 5 feet (for butterflying).

Unless of course you're one of those who believes that more expensive is always better, no matter what the data may show? But I am hoping you are more objective than that, which is why I asked if you had tried the Sightrons in the first place.

I'm not biased against cheap binoculars; I own a number of them, and I've bought several for others over the years (most recently the Leupold 6x30 Yosemite and Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD), but I've not encountered any that matches the top-end stuff overall, so I have little interest in them for myself. I'm a user-collector and fairly satisfied with my collection, so a bin has to be better than what I already have for me to be interested. No one claims that the Sightron is as good as the best optically, so it is already disqualified before we even get to questions of ergonomics.

--AP

 

[james holdsworth]

Oh good grief. I give up.

Why bother? Ergonomics are 100% personal, so it's a dead end discussion.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

Hmm...you must not have read the rest of that sentence which refers back to my previous post that spells out what my issues with the focus operation are likely to be given other's reports: speed, smoothness, turns the wrong way, and lack of close-focus. In particular, neither of the latter two aspects requires a hands-on test, unless the specs are wrong and it matches my FL by turning clockwise to infinity and by focusing down to 5 feet (for butterflying).



I'm not biased against cheap binoculars; I own a number of them, and I've bought several for others over the years (most recently the Leupold 6x30 Yosemite and Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD), but I've not encountered any that matches the top-end stuff overall, so I have little interest in them for myself. I'm a user-collector and fairly satisfied with my collection, so a bin has to be better than what I already have for me to be interested. No one claims that the Sightron is as good as the best optically, so it is already disqualified before we even get to questions of ergonomics.

--AP

But the subject I raised WAS ergonomics. I would not suggest the Sightrons are on par with alphas optically. Darn close, but obviously not when put to a real world test.

are likely to be

What I was suggesting is that if you actually used a pair for a while in the field, you might just find that ergonomically, they are about as good as it gets.

This morning, I handed my wife 3 pairs of binocs (Alpen Apex, Brunton Epochs and Sightron Blue Skys) and asked her to pick her favorites if/when we go birding next. We stepped out on the back patio, and it didn't take her long to pick out the Sightrons as her favorites. I said nothing about them - just handed them to her one at a time.

Then I asked her why. Her answer was how light they were, how easy they are to hold, and how nice the focus wheel was. And I just smiled. All the reasons I expected to hear.

She admitted my Brunton Epochs have a better view, but she would rather use the Sightrons.

The more I look at all the binoculars out there (and I see about 75-100 birders/month where I work), the more I realize just how important things like ergonomics (balance, weight, grip, body style, eyecups, focus wheel, etc.) are in whether I'm happy or not with a pair of binocs.

We seem to always hear about optical performance, and while important, it's not as important to me as it once was. Perhaps because there are now so many models that are within 10% or so of the best glass out there. Once you reach that 90% mark, other things become increasingly important in the field.

 

[PeterPS]

I was suggesting you try the Sightron's because IMO they have some of the best ergonomics of any binocular I've ever held, at any price.

Many people, including myself, have complained about the plastic-like feeling of their armor, its unnecessary Klingon-like protuberances that dig into your hands and the sharp edges of their eyecups that dig into your eye sockets, but for justabirdwatcher their ergonomics are the best at any price---this may look like a rather naive claim, however preferences indeed are a rather personal thing.

Ergonomics are 100% personal, so it's a dead end discussion.

Not when one compares bins with the same type of design, such as open hinge/bridge.

 

[Alexis Powell]

But the subject I raised WAS ergonomics. ...The more I look at all the binoculars out there (and I see about 75-100 birders/month where I work), the more I realize just how important things like ergonomics (balance, weight, grip, body style, eyecups, focus wheel, etc.) are in whether I'm happy or not with a pair of binocs...

Well, you'll get no argument from me against that point, because I've been saying as much myself for years, as evidenced by the second paragraph of my post written in 2005 that the OP revived to start this thread!

Quoting myself: "If your goal is to acquire a bino that will out-perform your 7x35, the improvement in performance will be primarily a matter of brightness and ergonomics (including how easily you can quickly bring the bino to your eyes, focus on a bird, and acquire a high-quality image). Here, there are huge differences between models, and issues of personal taste are a much bigger factor in the equation. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE the importance of these ergonomic factors for in-practice image quality. If a bino has superb optics, but is hard to focus quickly, or is harder to hold steady, or has to be held in a very particular orientation to your eyes/glasses to get the best image, it will be MUCH inferior to a more ergonomically compatible model when it comes to what you ACTUALLY GET TO SEE (in terms of both quantity of birds acquired, as well as quality of view), especially if you spend alot of time watching birds places where the opportunities for viewing are fleeting, and the birds are at relatively close but varied distances (flying birds, or birds in woods and brush/marsh habitats)."

But again, with respect to the Sightron specifically and for me, the counterclockwise to infinity focus and lack of close focus are deal breakers.

--AP

 

[justabirdwatcher]

Many people, including myself, have complained about the plastic-like feeling of their armor, its unnecessary Klingon-like protuberances that dig into your hands and the sharp edges of their eyecups that dig into your eye sockets, but for justabirdwatcher their ergonomics are the best at any price---this may look like a rather naive claim, however preferences indeed are a rather personal thing.

But not if someone realized how many different pairs of binocs I have personally owned, and that I see and handle on an annual basis. (Most of which are high-end optics due to the nature of our customers).

It does truly amuse me to see so much bias in optics toward expensive binoculars though. Ergonomics aren't the expensive part of a binocular, which means it's within reach of every company to produce ergonomically pleasant and efficient binoculars.

However, I agree ergonomics tend to be highly personal.

Not when one compares bins with the same type of design, such as open hinge/bridge.

Agreed.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

the counterclockwise to infinity focus and lack of close focus are deal breakers.

I can understand that.

It took me a few outings to get used to the counterclockwise focus, but not I don't even notice it.

Sure wish there was a universal direction!

 

[oetzi]

The more I look at all the binoculars out there (and I see about 75-100 birders/month where I work), the more I realize just how important things like ergonomics (balance, weight, grip, body style, eyecups, focus wheel, etc.) are in whether I'm happy or not with a pair of binocs.

We seem to always hear about optical performance, and while important, it's not as important to me as it once was. Perhaps because there are now so many models that are within 10% or so of the best glass out there. Once you reach that 90% mark, other things become increasingly important in the field.

So true!
:t:

 

[perterra]

We seem to always hear about optical performance, and while important, it's not as important to me as it once was. Perhaps because there are now so many models that are within 10% or so of the best glass out there. Once you reach that 90% mark, other things become increasingly important in the field.

Get no argument from me.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

I don't know why binocular manufacturers don't produce a long and short eye relief version of each model. As someone who does not wear glasses, I get so tired of having to extend the eye cups and keep them extended. Guess that's why I hang onto my Alpen Apex 10x42's - they lock in the fully extended position. Only bin's so far that I've seen do that.

I'm sure the eyeglass wearers would love a pair that starts out at mid-eye relief and goes even longer. I know many eyeglass wearers often complain about not enough eye relief, and I find myself often complaining about too much.

It's something the manufacturers need to consider offering IMO.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

The largest underlying cause of short eye relief is the pressure to produce a compact size for the aperture.
Eye relief is almost always a portion of the eyepiece focal length, and driving down the objective FL
drives the EP FL down to maintain power. Other than that, it's a matter of skipping some elements
that help increase the eye relief...going with a cheaper EP design. You can have trouble cramming in
an advanced EP sometimes, or a lot of its tradeoffs are squandered on countering the aberrations of
a short objective FL.

 

[Maljunulo]

The largest underlying cause of short eye relief is the pressure to produce a compact size for the aperture.
Eye relief is almost always a portion of the eyepiece focal length, and driving down the objective FL
drives the EP FL down to maintain power. Other than that, it's a matter of skipping some elements
that help increase the eye relief...going with a cheaper EP design. You can have trouble cramming in
an advanced EP sometimes, or a lot of its tradeoffs are squandered on countering the aberrations of
a short objective FL.

This.

There is no magic, and nothing is free.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

I think you guys missed my point. I think many of the current offerings provide much more eye relief than is necessary for those of us who do not wear glasses. How about producing optics with shorter eye relief, where you don't have to extend eye cups? Seems like that would make things simpler, not harder.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

This.

There is no magic, and nothing is free.

Amen.

------------------Maljunulo---------------------
I think you guys missed my point. I think many of the current offerings provide much more eye relief than is necessary for those of us who do not wear glasses. How about producing optics with shorter eye relief, where you don't have to extend eye cups? Seems like that would make things simpler, not harder.
------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reminding me.....we really did stray on the bit.
You are describing what I call "forced eye relief"....that you have to
put your eyes at a distance, or frequently experience 'blackouts'.
I know what you're saying, and I can even experience that with glasses
sometimes, since I only need 13-15mm. I also like to use without
glasses, for a 'darker theatre'. It's still not under control, good on some,
fussy on others. Long variable cups, like on the Meopta MeoStars,
handle that well, but most do not. The kindest, most approachable
eyepieces I have experienced were on 7x50 Bushnell Customs,
7x35 Customs, and 7x26 Customs. There are likely other great ones
that have good eye relief but don't force you to use it. It does come
with a tradeoff in terms of field-edge quality. As field flatteners propagate,
more super models will probably have less trouble with forcing eye relief,
but the pressure for the ultra-super-best field quality often results in
them forcing your eyes into a fixed location. Your eye is the last element
in their designs. Looking at a real store and relaxing the ultimate-performance
requirements can help you find something a lot more comfortable to
actually use than the fussy thorobreds.

Even at the lower prices, there is a tension over eye relief.
Leupold 8x30 Yosemites can be tough to place sometimes, but although
the Barska 8x30 Crossover looks almost identical, it has vastly better
eyeglass and non-eyeglass ease of use. There is not the same
sudden spherical aberration outside the perfect eye distance.
It's also a little softer at the last 10% of the field. For a family hike
or grab-n-go, I have to pick that one.
Quicker for me and easier to pass over to the wife or a friend.

This does not happen with pre-1975 Japan product.
Works w/o glasses, unscrew eyecups, works with glasses...

 

[etudiant]

Amen.

------------------Maljunulo---------------------
I think you guys missed my point. I think many of the current offerings provide much more eye relief than is necessary for those of us who do not wear glasses. How about producing optics with shorter eye relief, where you don't have to extend eye cups? Seems like that would make things simpler, not harder.
------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reminding me.....we really did stray on the bit.
.

No binocular has ever been rejected because of excessive eye relief, but many have died in the market because they had too little.
Manufacturers have no incentive to offer short eye relief designs.
It would be an interesting test if you could provide two versions of the Swaro 8.5x42, one regular and the other with say only 13mm of eye relief but a 450'@1000yds FOV. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

Your eye is the last element
in their designs. Looking at a real store and relaxing the ultimate-performance
requirements can help you find something a lot more comfortable to
actually use than the fussy thorobreds.

Agreed. This is one reason the Sightron Blue Sky rates so high on my list of "useable" binocs. I've never had to fidget with eye position on those. Not even once.

No binocular has ever been rejected because of excessive eye relief,

By the market? Perhaps. By me personally? yes, I have rejected several pairs I either owned or was considering purchasing because of excessive eye relief. When I extend the eye cups to their full-out position and STILL have to hold the binoculars away from my face, that's ridiculous.

And as you say, we who do not need all that eye relief, are giving up precious FOV against our will.

It would be an interesting test if you could provide two versions of the Swaro 8.5x42, one regular and the other with say only 13mm of eye relief but a 450'@1000yds FOV. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.

Me neither. But it's fun to think about. I think Swaro should try at least one pair like this. Just one to test the waters and see what happens.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I have rejected several pairs I either owned or was considering purchasing because of excessive eye relief. When I extend the eye cups to their full-out position and STILL have to hold the binoculars away from my face, that's ridiculous...

This problem has come up a lot over the last few years. From what I can tell, the problem is that to save money, the eyecups designed for the 10x version of a bin (which typically have shorter eye relief) are used on the 8x version.

--AP

 

[NDhunter]

No binocular has ever been rejected because of excessive eye relief, but many have died in the market because they had too little.
Manufacturers have no incentive to offer short eye relief designs.
It would be an interesting test if you could provide two versions of the Swaro 8.5x42, one regular and the other with say only 13mm of eye relief but a 450'@1000yds FOV. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.

Swarovski has offered 2 different eyecups for the Swarovision, and
that was to address that difference in eye relief that some may like.

Zeiss has also 2 different eyecups for the Conquest HD, and from a
recent post the new SF will also be addressing this same thing.

Don't expect a binocular redesign for eye relief, most users can find a compromise with eyecups.
If you can't then time to move on to another.

Jerry

 

[justabirdwatcher]

I didn't realize that. That's good to know.

his problem has come up a lot over the last few years. From what I can tell, the problem is that to save money, the eyecups designed for the 10x version of a bin (which typically have shorter eye relief) are used on the 8x version.

Well that would explain it, as I've encountered this with 3 pairs of 8x binocs now.

Very annoying!