Why do midrange binoculars exist? (1 Viewer)

[NDhunter]

This is a hobby. And it's a pretty sensible one in the scheme of things with a very narrow price band. Wives, husbands and lovers should be greatful.

....there is no $250,000 super alpha with a further 1% increase in performance....unlike hifi. Otherwise, I guarantee, there would be some on here with them. There is no hand made grand complication Patek Phillipe which took three years to hand build, weighs a hundred grams and costs a million bucks.

Wrist watches, headphones, motorcycles, cycling, hi fi, R/C jets, rockets, horses, boats, sailing, virtually any musical instrument - all interests and hobbies that many are obsessed with, spend time and potentially mega..mega money on. Even photography and amateur astronomy are cheap in this company.

We are on the Amish Paradise side of things around here where it all peters out at a couple of thousand bucks for a handheld 'Alpha'. Maybe that's what I like about it :-O

Just my thoughts
Rathaus

I agree with your post, optics can be a hobby, and they are one of mine.

They are a nice diversion, and one can get the very best binoculars
for a nice price, at least it is for some buyers.

I like and appreciate optics at all levels, and have recommended many
models at all price levels.

This thread is about midrange binoculars, and right now I am very interested
in the new Leica Trinovid HD. I have not owned a full size Leica, but have
always wanted to own a Leica.

Now, I am ready to see the user reviews on the new model.

Jerry

 

[Rathaus]

Just thinking, From a purely optical perspective - The mighty Fujinon FMTSX 7 and 10x50 sell as midrange bins. If any other bin on earth is superior to them in those mags - optically...any price...I'd be interested to know.

It's all a bit like meat cuts...some great pickings to be had in the mid and lower range.

 

[[email protected]]

Thank you, that's really well put.

I don't mean to have stretched this thread out past its usefulness. I think I just got rattled by some of the replies and tried to give people the argument they seemed to want. What I meant to say was rather simple: the B3 strikes me as falling into a range that's neither cheap enough nor good enough to be interesting. Which is an opinion, but one I'm entitled to. And the story told on its website to make it sound interesting isn't supported by its actual (especially mechanical) quality. Which seems pretty clear. If negative reviews are unwelcome here, that should be clearly stated somewhere. That's all. Thanks for listening.

This is a very interesting thread and I totally understand where you are coming from. It is a decision we all have to make when we purchase a binocular. What price range of binocular should I buy and will it satisfy me in the long run? I have had a LOT of mid range binoculars and have experienced the same frustrations you have with them especially the Chinese made ones which are the majority any more. Optically many are very good with excellent ED glass and sharp bright images but their downfall as many have said is their mechanics. The top binoculars are not perfect but in my experience I have had less problems with them. The QA on the mid level binoculars is not as good as the alphas so you are probably going to have more initial problems with them. They can't spend the time individually checking each binocular when they are selling them for a 1/3 the price. The company selling the Maven's said they were individually checking each binocular and maybe they are which is good but my particular Maven B3 8x30 developed a critical focus issue after using it for an hour. Something loosened up in the focus wheel and all of a sudden it has this excessive slop or play in the focus. I returned them to Wyoming. Just my actual experience with them. My sample could have been a fluke.

 

[[email protected]]

Just thinking, From a purely optical perspective - The mighty Fujinon FMTSX 7 and 10x50 sell as midrange bins. If any other bin on earth is superior to them in those mags - optically...any price...I'd be interested to know.

It's all a bit like meat cuts...some great pickings to be had in the mid and lower range.

I have had them both and I found the Swarovski 10x50 SV superior to the Fujinon FMTSX 10x50 optically. Also, at 50 oz. the Fujinon is way to heavy to use a birding binocular but I will agree with you in it's price range it is one of the best binoculars you can buy. Definitely the best value and it makes a great astro binocular on a tripod.

 

[ceasar]

On the matter of Chinese binoculars and their careless quality control: I believe that Maven is a Japanese made binocular from Kamakura, a highly regarded Japanese manufacturer.

 

[[email protected]]

On the matter of Chinese binoculars and their careless quality control: I believe that Maven is a Japanese made binocular from Kamakura, a highly regarded Japanese manufacturer.

That may be but the pair of Maven's B3 8x30's I received certainly were disappointing ,as far as, QA was concerned. They were purchased right at start up so maybe they have any problems ironed out now or maybe mine were just 1 in a 1000. They may not be representative of all Maven binoculars. Other's on the forum have been totally satisfied. I guess my point is I have had more problems with quality on low and mid range binoculars than I have had with alpha level binoculars. The one exception are the alpha porro's which could be considered mid range in price. The Nikon SE and EII porro's have always been excellent quality for me and I have had 0 problems. It is the mid range roofs that I have had issues with. Which is probably to be expected.

 

[Rathaus]

I have had them both and I found the Swarovski 10x50 SV superior to the Fujinon FMTSX 10x50 optically. Also, at 50 oz. the Fujinon is way to heavy to use a birding binocular but I will agree with you in it's price range it is one of the best binoculars you can buy. Definitely the best value and it makes a great astro binocular on a tripod.

Both great bins. Enjoy.

Someone just posted a great comparison up on the Leica forum.

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/10x50BinocularshootoutVersion2.pdf

Cheers
Rathaus

 

[Pinewood]

If negative reviews are unwelcome here, that should be clearly stated somewhere. That's all. Thanks for listening.

Hello Eric,

Negative reviews should be welcomed by perspective buyers of any glass. However, those who have purchased a glass have been known to become defensive about their purchases. Even in this thread you might discover a "fanboy," or someone who cannot grasp the fact that some binoculars just do not work out for everyone.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[jremmons]

Which is an opinion, but one I'm entitled to. And the story told on its website to make it sound interesting isn't supported by its actual (especially mechanical) quality. Which seems pretty clear. If negative reviews are unwelcome here, that should be clearly stated somewhere. That's all. Thanks for listening.

No comment I read indicated issue with your review, but rather your sweeping generalizations made in the OP in relation to a) mid-range binoculars in general and b) the ability/desire of an individual to spend the money for an alpha.

 

[[email protected]]

Both great bins. Enjoy.

Someone just posted a great comparison up on the Leica forum.

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/10x50BinocularshootoutVersion2.pdf

Cheers
Rathaus

How do you translate that link? Thanks.

 

[birdrousta]

How do you translate that link? Thanks.

I searched Google for the link, then used the translate this page option to see most of the document translated.

the translation omits the figures, so you'll want the PDF available as well.

 

[[email protected]]

Here is the translated link. The Swarovski 10x50 SV was tested against these binoculars and beat them on the night sky.
● Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision ● Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD ● Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX ● Pentax 10x50 DCF ED

https://translate.google.com/transl...0x50BinocularshootoutVersion2.pdf&prev=search

And the results of this quite extensive test on the night sky. The Fujinon was actually close to the Swarovski 10x50 SV considering it's low price but it is impressive that the Swarovski beat out the Fujinon at it's own game which is astro use. The Swarovski was equal to the Fujinon at deep sky observing but actually beat the Fujinon on the Moon and color reproduction of stars. The Swarovski was rated the most comfortable binocular to use which is expected.

"The Swarovski is in my opinion the best all viewers, especially if it goes use for detecting birds. Fujinon has kept a brave, confident because he is by far the cheapest binoculars from the test. He makes the saying "Poor man's Swarovski "completely true"

"Contrast / Sharpness: Here the Swarovski was clearly the highest performing binoculars kwa contrast sharpness, followed immediately by the Fujinon and at least the Pentax. I had that suspect after studying the exit pupils, for the Swarovski had clearly the least internal reflections"

 

[mfunnell]

What I meant to say was rather simple: the B3 strikes me as falling into a range that's neither cheap enough nor good enough to be interesting.

That's a really great one sentence summary.

Which is an opinion, but one I'm entitled to.

You most certainly are, and moreover you gave the reasons you hold it. Can't ask for much more than that.

...Mike

 

[Rathaus]

[/B]

Here is the translated link. The Swarovski 10x50 SV was tested against these binoculars and beat them on the night sky.
● Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision ● Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD ● Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX ● Pentax 10x50 DCF ED

https://translate.google.com/transl...0x50BinocularshootoutVersion2.pdf&prev=search

And the results of this quite extensive test on the night sky. The Fujinon was actually close to the Swarovski 10x50 SV considering it's low price but it is impressive that the Swarovski beat out the Fujinon at it's own game which is astro use. The Swarovski was equal to the Fujinon at deep sky observing but actually beat the Fujinon on the Moon and color reproduction of stars. The Swarovski was rated the most comfortable binocular to use which is expected.

"The Swarovski is in my opinion the best all viewers, especially if it goes use for detecting birds. Fujinon has kept a brave, confident because he is by far the cheapest binoculars from the test. He makes the saying "Poor man's Swarovski "completely true"

"Contrast / Sharpness: Here the Swarovski was clearly the highest performing binoculars kwa contrast sharpness, followed immediately by the Fujinon and at least the Pentax. I had that suspect after studying the exit pupils, for the Swarovski had clearly the least internal reflections"

On pure optical terms they were almost inseparable in the review....yet the reviewer states that -

"Deepsky fourth test: several galaxies in Canes Venatici and Leo
Temperature: 10 degrees (falling back to 5 degrees during the night) Location: Camping forest, Laren
Seeing: 4/5
The ultimate test between Fujinon and Swarovski took place on March 23, 2012 during astroforum.nl Achterhoek Weekend. This is a weekend, in which several dozens of observers observe the joint spring sky with the use of a large range of telescopes.
Deep sky observation Whale galaxy NGC4631:
The hardest object of the evening was NGC4631, this faint galaxy could perceive in network peripheral to the Fujinon, while in the Swarovski just could not."

The review stated that during the ultimate test between the bins The Fujinon in fact outresolved the SV10x50 on this difficult DSO object - because the object wasn't even detectable in the Swarovski. That bit really interested me and I wondered why. Could it be the higher light transmission of the fujis? He thought the Swarovski had a slight advantage on some other objects...but they were still all impressive in the fujinon.

I certainly wouldn't be betting my house on either being superior optically...you'd need them side by side with your own eyes.

The author closes by stating -

"There was only one binocular a astroforummer which came near the Fujinon : that was the Nikon 12x50 about five years ago. Know the type , but then also cost around 1000 Euros.

I thought it was a good write up and a solid performance from the midrange fujis...though I certainly wouldn't say no to the SV either :t:

Rathaus

 

[perseid28]

[/B]
I thought it was a good write up and a solid performance from the midrange fujis...though I certainly wouldn't say no to the SV either :t:
Rathaus

This shows why it's rarely helpful to distinguish between binoculars based on price. The Fuji FMT series is decidedly not "midrange" in its optical or mechanical quality. Taking product quality into account, I don't think many people would consider the Nikon SE series "midrange" either. The SE easily competes with the $1000+ class of roof prism binoculars, and according to the review above the FMT can compete with the very best for astronomical use. Those IF eyepieces and 3 pound weight would make it a bear for birding, though.

 

[[email protected]]

[/B]

On pure optical terms they were almost inseparable in the review....yet the reviewer states that -

"Deepsky fourth test: several galaxies in Canes Venatici and Leo
Temperature: 10 degrees (falling back to 5 degrees during the night) Location: Camping forest, Laren
Seeing: 4/5
The ultimate test between Fujinon and Swarovski took place on March 23, 2012 during astroforum.nl Achterhoek Weekend. This is a weekend, in which several dozens of observers observe the joint spring sky with the use of a large range of telescopes.
Deep sky observation Whale galaxy NGC4631:
The hardest object of the evening was NGC4631, this faint galaxy could perceive in network peripheral to the Fujinon, while in the Swarovski just could not."

The review stated that during the ultimate test between the bins The Fujinon in fact outresolved the SV10x50 on this difficult DSO object - because the object wasn't even detectable in the Swarovski. That bit really interested me and I wondered why. Could it be the higher light transmission of the fujis? He thought the Swarovski had a slight advantage on some other objects...but they were still all impressive in the fujinon.

I certainly wouldn't be betting my house on either being superior optically...you'd need them side by side with your own eyes.

The author closes by stating -

"There was only one binocular a astroforummer which came near the Fujinon : that was the Nikon 12x50 about five years ago. Know the type , but then also cost around 1000 Euros.

I thought it was a good write up and a solid performance from the midrange fujis...though I certainly wouldn't say no to the SV either :t:

Rathaus

On the four nights of deep sky observation the Swarovski 10x50 SV won twice and the Fujinon won twice and the Swarovski 10x50 SV beat the Fujinon on the moon by quite a margin and color reproduction of stars. That is an impressive performance for a ROOF prism when usually a porro like the Fujinon will have the advantage of greater light transmission because of the simpler optics and Fujinon's are known for their high transmission's. It is really startling that he said the Swarovski 10x50 SV was sharper and had better contrast than any of the other binoculars including the Fujinon. Star tests like this are one of the best and toughest test for optics so it is telling of the optical quality of the SV that it could even compete with the Fujinon on astronomical use much less beat it overall. For birding the use the Fujinon's weight is a deal killer but on a tripod on the night sky it is a real bargain. The Swarovski 10x50 SV is a great all-around binocular for birding and astronomical use. It beats the Fujinon 10x50 on the sky and yet you can hand hold it and it is 20 oz. lighter.

 

[jan van daalen]

[/B]

On pure optical terms they were almost inseparable in the review....yet the reviewer states that -

"Deepsky fourth test: several galaxies in Canes Venatici and Leo
Temperature: 10 degrees (falling back to 5 degrees during the night) Location: Camping forest, Laren
Seeing: 4/5
The ultimate test between Fujinon and Swarovski took place on March 23, 2012 during astroforum.nl Achterhoek Weekend. This is a weekend, in which several dozens of observers observe the joint spring sky with the use of a large range of telescopes.
Deep sky observation Whale galaxy NGC4631:
The hardest object of the evening was NGC4631, this faint galaxy could perceive in network peripheral to the Fujinon, while in the Swarovski just could not."

The review stated that during the ultimate test between the bins The Fujinon in fact outresolved the SV10x50 on this difficult DSO object - because the object wasn't even detectable in the Swarovski. That bit really interested me and I wondered why. Could it be the higher light transmission of the fujis? He thought the Swarovski had a slight advantage on some other objects...but they were still all impressive in the fujinon.

I certainly wouldn't be betting my house on either being superior optically...you'd need them side by side with your own eyes.

The author closes by stating -

"There was only one binocular a astroforummer which came near the Fujinon : that was the Nikon 12x50 about five years ago. Know the type , but then also cost around 1000 Euros.

I thought it was a good write up and a solid performance from the midrange fujis...though I certainly wouldn't say no to the SV either :t:

Rathaus

Patrick Duijs is a well known amateur astronomer and moderator of Astroforum.nl in Holland. We often lent bins out for field tests by experienced end users since they judge only on performance. No mambo jambo and/or hidden agenda's.
This was indeed a solid testreport.

Jan

 

[[email protected]]

Patrick Duijs is a well known amateur astronomer and moderator of Astroforum.nl in Holland. We often lent bins out for field tests by experienced end users since they judge only on performance. No mambo jambo and/or hidden agenda's.
This was indeed a solid testreport.

Jan

A star test and deep sky test done like this one with multiple people doing the observing is hard to fault. Especially since you said the binoculars were just on loan and no test samples were given free. The human factor is reduced a lot when you are trying to see sky objects with different binoculars under the same conditions. Really good test of optics.

 

[FrankD]

I don't mean to get back to the original post but one question occurred to me today and I don't know why I didn't ask this initially.

Tenex,

Several of your concerns are quality control issues. Did you contact Maven to voice your concerns and to see how they would address them?

 

[[email protected]]

I don't mean to get back to the original post but one question occurred to me today and I don't know why I didn't ask this initially.

Tenex,

Several of your concerns are quality control issues. Did you contact Maven to voice your concerns and to see how they would address them?

I talked to Maven Frank about my problems with my loose focuser on the Maven B3 8x30 and he said to just return it. He said he was checking every binocular going out but my focuser loosened up with use and developed too much play before it would engage.