-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
why no alpha reverse porro compacts? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cycleguy
- Start date
The impulse answer would be...that it might cut sales of the fanciest optics.
However, the distance between objectives is widest for porro, then comes roof, and
finally reverse porro has the 'closest set eyes', so that would be the least 3D effect.
Back to convenience: two straight barrels can be folded in more.
All that said, I'm still a big fan of reverse porro. It bmakes a bigger difference at lower
prices, though. If you want the best for less you want to go porro at the top.
Nikon reduces the objective to 30 mm to help with size. Plenty of light for me, but
others want ratios like 8x42 to help their vision.
For an extra 200-500$ you can make a little roof play like a little porro, and then just
keep on spending....because, hey, why not? ;-)
Why stop at reverse?
I love the rare little porros, like the Mirador-made special Sportview 8x24 wide.
Wide, but you can tuck it in sideways, a mini-RangeMaster.
Now that's a razor-sharp pocket of fun.
However, the distance between objectives is widest for porro, then comes roof, and
finally reverse porro has the 'closest set eyes', so that would be the least 3D effect.
Back to convenience: two straight barrels can be folded in more.
All that said, I'm still a big fan of reverse porro. It bmakes a bigger difference at lower
prices, though. If you want the best for less you want to go porro at the top.
Nikon reduces the objective to 30 mm to help with size. Plenty of light for me, but
others want ratios like 8x42 to help their vision.
For an extra 200-500$ you can make a little roof play like a little porro, and then just
keep on spending....because, hey, why not? ;-)
Why stop at reverse?
I love the rare little porros, like the Mirador-made special Sportview 8x24 wide.
Wide, but you can tuck it in sideways, a mini-RangeMaster.
Now that's a razor-sharp pocket of fun.
Last edited:
Nikon has a fancy 'bare-knuckle' commerative. I assume you are talking about the
encased 6x15. I saw one recently. Pretty neat. Oversized cases make assembly,
toughness, and stray light suppression easier. Spoils the 'spy' effect a little though.
Zeiss has some very nice little sizes, but they are monocular, and roof designs.
I think the assumption is that you're going for a quick look and want something
as small as possible. For long looks I would want 7x21 or 7x25. An advanced version
of the 7x25 "brick" would be awesome. Or a slimmed-down and downsized
7x26 Bushnell Elite, a trim 7x24.
encased 6x15. I saw one recently. Pretty neat. Oversized cases make assembly,
toughness, and stray light suppression easier. Spoils the 'spy' effect a little though.
Zeiss has some very nice little sizes, but they are monocular, and roof designs.
I think the assumption is that you're going for a quick look and want something
as small as possible. For long looks I would want 7x21 or 7x25. An advanced version
of the 7x25 "brick" would be awesome. Or a slimmed-down and downsized
7x26 Bushnell Elite, a trim 7x24.
Last edited:
Common Raven
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure there are none because the market isn't demanding them. Roof prisms are all the rage these days through all price points; I know when I'm out birding with my Custom Compacts I get odd looks (until they take a look through them -- ha!). Even the tried and true regular porros have fallen out of favor. Nikon's discontinuation of the SE series is proof of that.
It's gotten to the point where I often see people judge the abilities of birders based on the binoculars they have. Until this is broken, I see no company investing in a reverse porro, especially an alpha.
It's gotten to the point where I often see people judge the abilities of birders based on the binoculars they have. Until this is broken, I see no company investing in a reverse porro, especially an alpha.
CR: I think you're right. High powers, too, especially for those buying who never
read about or used before. And...sleek is sleek, and size is out. The bulk
of the market is driven by impulse, perhaps.
WJC: If I had one pair of binoculars it would be 8x30. It's at the crossover of so
many factors, and still decently bright. The bulk is a major step down from
x35 or x40. 8x has 'immediacy'. I've tried hard to get more into 6x,
but evaluating a view, seeing a detail, takes much longer. If I went from
an hour viewing to 2-3 hours I would up the quality at the same size instead
of getting a beast.
For quick visits, though, I am gravitating towards 7x25. Compact but not dim,
sharp, lots of field depth. A lower power with a lower aperature is bright.
For me, best for Medium-distance / 10-20 minute use, avoid dawn and dusk.
My spare time drives the ideal size right now. Great 7x25 porros are hard
to find, but nice.
read about or used before. And...sleek is sleek, and size is out. The bulk
of the market is driven by impulse, perhaps.
WJC: If I had one pair of binoculars it would be 8x30. It's at the crossover of so
many factors, and still decently bright. The bulk is a major step down from
x35 or x40. 8x has 'immediacy'. I've tried hard to get more into 6x,
but evaluating a view, seeing a detail, takes much longer. If I went from
an hour viewing to 2-3 hours I would up the quality at the same size instead
of getting a beast.
For quick visits, though, I am gravitating towards 7x25. Compact but not dim,
sharp, lots of field depth. A lower power with a lower aperature is bright.
For me, best for Medium-distance / 10-20 minute use, avoid dawn and dusk.
My spare time drives the ideal size right now. Great 7x25 porros are hard
to find, but nice.
Last edited:
Once upon a time long ago both Zeiss and Leitz sold reverse porro's. Not long ago I looked at but passed on a pair of nice Zeiss reverse porro bins up in Pa. As noted I think lack of demand for high end compact binoculars like those resulted in them being dropped. And with hign end compact roof bins doing so well there is currently no reason to introduce a competing product. If sales flatten for the smaller roofs we may at some future point see a re-introduction of improved compact porros.
Last edited:
Swift sold a reverse porro 9x36 for a short time. It had IF rather than CF. I had the opportunity to look through one at Hawk Mountain back in the late 1980s and I was quite impressed with it. It's too bad it didn't have CF because I think it would have sold pretty well.
Bob
Bob
It's the size. You are noticing how many reverse-porros have
close focusing. It's more a consequence of their high contrast
for the size that makes them popular for museums and bugs and such.
The Pentax Papilio is the ultimate macro-scope bin.
There are also roof monoculars that focus very close, though.
Yes it's all about size. And the double hinge roof prism can be folded up into a more compact package than most reverse porro bins.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Depends on the model. Usually, it's about size and cost for quality--easy way to make a cheap compact bin with good optics. But for the Pentax Papilio it's about allowing binocular vision at close range by virtue of minimal inter-objective distance. The Papilio is not compact for a reverse porro with a 21 mm objective.
--AP
That's true....the Papilio more closely resembles a dissecting microscope
(no accident). It is smaller than a regular porro would be, of course,
but the wingspan of a regular porro would cause a lot of trouble at 2 feet.
I have some 8x24 Porros that are fantastic at a distance but the eyes
feel some pain at 4 feet stitching the one-lens|two-lens|one-lens view together.
You can 2-fold 8x21 roofs quite small. They don't have porro prisms, though ;-)
Add a few hundred bucks, and they'll play almost the same.
So if we wrap around to the original post:
when you spend $900-2000 on Alphas, $200-400 in extra coatings
isn't such a big deal. You expect the slim profile and you can pay
to make it work superbly. Saving a few hundred doesn't matter to you.
(no accident). It is smaller than a regular porro would be, of course,
but the wingspan of a regular porro would cause a lot of trouble at 2 feet.
I have some 8x24 Porros that are fantastic at a distance but the eyes
feel some pain at 4 feet stitching the one-lens|two-lens|one-lens view together.
You can 2-fold 8x21 roofs quite small. They don't have porro prisms, though ;-)
Add a few hundred bucks, and they'll play almost the same.
So if we wrap around to the original post:
when you spend $900-2000 on Alphas, $200-400 in extra coatings
isn't such a big deal. You expect the slim profile and you can pay
to make it work superbly. Saving a few hundred doesn't matter to you.
Last edited:
I've often wondered if it would work to have a single objective lense, with the image (somehow?) split to two eyepieces. There would be no stereo effect at all, but you'd have the increased effective resolution that comes from using both eyes, and it would be smaller.
So it would work, but would it be practical? I assume the objective would need to be about 1.4x the diameter to get the same amount of light to each eye as two objectives.
iveljay
Well-known member
Something like.
http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=63&Tab=_rev#.Ux8Oy4VKShE
All you need now is a telescope compatible with bird watching!
In pure optical terms the Olympus 8x25 PCI used to review well against the alphas, but no waterproofing and by now they may well have changed the design.
http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=63&Tab=_rev#.Ux8Oy4VKShE
All you need now is a telescope compatible with bird watching!
In pure optical terms the Olympus 8x25 PCI used to review well against the alphas, but no waterproofing and by now they may well have changed the design.
Last edited:
