Which ones are your dream binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[Swedpat]

Completely non-existent or just another configuration of an existing model.
I have these desires:

Leica Ultravid 6x20
Swarovski NL Pure 5x25*
Swarovski NL Pure 12x60
Swarovski NL Pure 25x100□

The list may be edited.

*But I welcome a WA high grade 5x25 of any brand.
□yes, that one would be pricy! 😎

 

[Ruff-Leg]

Nikon WX bins in a Zeiss SFL wrapper.

 

[Ries]

7x35 NL pure design, with Leica glass, Meopta Meostar B1 price, max Conquest 32mm size, fast smooth focus, 1,2m close focus, 10degr fov.

 

[etudiant]

A modern version of the Sony DEV 50, image stabilized recording binocular, with a 3x to 20x variable zoom, plus better screen and software..
Binastro has pointed out elsewhere that a cheap Canon 740 pocket zoom camera substantially outperforms Canon's big 18x50IS glass.
Imho the birding community is fixated on antediluvian optical specifications, rather than considering the real world utility of the equipment.

 

[tenex]

That NL 25x100 will require fairly wide-set eyes.

A 7x35 with ~10° FOV might be very tempting. Otherwise, I think I own my dream binoculars. A bit more FOV would be nice but I could have bought NLs and didn't...

 

[Maljunulo]

If I lived in the desert southwest, Fujinon 25X150 45° on a pedestal, but alas, I live in CT.

For everyday use, I have my Zeiss SF 8X32.

 

[[email protected]]

An SLC 8x56 in a Carbon Fiber frame that weighs 30 oz.

 

[Trinovid]

Leica Ultravid 6x20
…I welcome a WA high grade 5x25 of any brand.

I want that 6x20 you’ve got there and very interested in the 5x, even if it was only a 5x20!

 

[Swedpat]

That NL 25x100 will require fairly wide-set eyes.

A 7x35 with ~10° FOV might be very tempting. Otherwise, I think I own my dream binoculars. A bit more FOV would be nice but I could have bought NLs and didn't...

Yes you are right. A 100mm binocular really needs to be a porro. Maybe even 70mm?

Kowa 6,5x32 is very close with 10° FOV. Have you tried it?

 

[Rufus1401]

Fujinon 25/40x150 with stand and team of Sherpas to lug it around for me.
Any decent 7x50 or 8x56.

 

[wllmspd]

10degree 7x35 are very nice - improved edges and transmission over the old porro models would be handy. I already have an “NL 30x70” with a 76degree apparent field, lovely views, just needs a tripod to use and the individual focus isn’t best for tracking moving things.
I’d like some “shrunk WX”, but it’ll take more than filling with helium and using lead-free glass to make the required difference ;-)!

Peter

 

[albie...]

Nikon 8x30 EII with 18mm of ER , twist out eyecups and their best coatings/glass . We'll call it the Nikon 8x30 EIII .

 

[fazalmajid]

Quadnoculars with one of the extra tubes being a camera and the other an infrared sensor to locate nocturnal animals like owls, projected on a LCD screen behind a semi-silvered mirror or prism in the primary optical system like the hybrid OVF/EVF on the Fuji X100 series of cameras.

 

[wllmspd]

Nikon 8x30 EII with 18mm of ER , twist out eyecups and their best coatings/glass . We'll call it the Nikon 8x30 EIII .

Maybe a little wider field and certainly with some field flattening to keep the sharpness across the whole field. Waterproofness would be nice to have too…. But no bigger or heavier, be a good upgrade from the EII!

Peter

 

[Patudo]

Binastro has pointed out elsewhere that a cheap Canon 740 pocket zoom camera substantially outperforms Canon's big 18x50IS glass.

In what respect? Certainly not trying to follow birds (or anything else really) through the display screen of a pocket camera compared to looking through image-stabilized binoculars...

re the original post: I suppose a 10x50 NL with image stabilization would be quite the dream, but just getting my older binoculars appropriately multi-coated would be enough for me!

 

[Binastro]

The resolution is superior in the pocket camera than with the 18x50 IS.

I have no trouble following and taking photos of aircraft although birds are less predictable.

The only way the binocular is superior is that it has superb glare control nearly into the sun, whereas the camera loses contrast in these situations.

Also at night the binocular is superior, say with Jupiter's moons.

But it is surprising that a small aperture camera lens can produce higher resolution than a stabilised 18x50.

Also most cameras are stabilised, whereas most binoculars aren't, which seems daft to me.
And they have excellent autofocus.

But I use normal binoculars, IS binoculars, the excellent Minolta 8x23 autofocus camera, pocket cameras and the Sony A7S which shows objects at night invisible to the unaided eyes.

I am quite happy with the equipment I have, and am not interested in getting the latest and greatest binoculars, which in all probability are not much different to what we already have.

As to camera lenses, I have already had decades ago the Zoomar 180mm f/1.3, and f/0.75, f/0.95 and f/1.1 lenses.
2,000mm lenses, 1,000mm lenses. etc. etc.
The 1950s Minolta 50mm f/1.8 lens on their rangefinder cameras was probably close to the best lenses produced today.
Same with the Cooke movie and T.V. Broadcast lenses.
Or the Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 Hassleblad lenses in the 1960s.

Telescopes also.

Regards,
B.

 

[Maljunulo]

I much prefer to be happy with what I have, for what they are, rather chasing something non-existent, or disliking what I have because of what they are not.

They enable vision beyond my wildest dreams, no matter what I point them at.

I am content.

 

[takitam]

Nikon 7x50WX

 

[Maljunulo]

Quadnoculars with one of the extra tubes being a camera and the other an infrared sensor to locate nocturnal animals like owls, projected on a LCD screen behind a semi-silvered mirror or prism in the primary optical system like the hybrid OVF/EVF on the Fuji X100 series of cameras.

Just out of vulgar curiosity, how much would you estimate such a device would weigh, and how much would you be willing to pay for one?

 

[fazalmajid]

In all likelihood, 1.5kg and at least $5,000–$10,000 since an infrared monocular costs around $3,000 to $5000 by itself. We're talking about dreams, not reality...