BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Finnan" data-source="post: 394001" data-attributes="member: 17675">I'm sure that the Pentax PIFs are also great binoculars, I've never read anything bad about them except that they're very heavy.However, I have to take issue with everyone of your characterizations of the 7x50 Nikon Prostars with the exception of your correct and honest acknowledgement that they do have great optics.  First, regarding "tunnel vision".  Their true field is 7.1 degrees and their apparent field is 53 degrees.  Those are the exact same specs that Pentax lists for their 7x50 PIF model.  I have not looked through the Pentax model so I can't say how they compare with respect which one has the more "tunnel vision" feeling.  However, I currently have 4 binoculars that have apparent fields ranging from 62 degrees to 69 degrees plus 1 with 53 degrees (the Prostars), 1 with 51 degrees and 1 with 46 degrees.  Based on my experience with these binoculars (plus many others) I don't find that the Nikon 7x50s give me anything approaching a "tunnel vision" effect at all.  They have a standard size field but not a wide apparent field (although their true field is quite large).  On the contrary I find that I often grab them over a wider field model precisely because they're so optically superb and are very comfortable to observe with.  To be sure, different people have differing opinions about what constitutes an acceptably wide field for a binocular.  However, given my real world experience with the Prostars and the fact that their field width specs are exactly the same as the Pentax PIFs, I don't see the "tunnel vision" issue is any issue at all.With regard to the characterization of them as being "mechanically awkward" could you please elaborate on what that means?   No, they're not as ergonomically comfortable to hand hold as my 8.5x42 ELs or 12x50 Ultravids, but I don't think that they are that bad and I never give this issue a second thought whenever I go to use them (which is quite often).  On the strictly mechanical side, I think they're superb and every bit as good (and maybe better) than my Zeiss 15x60 B/GATs.On the "no armoring" issue that should be clarified to say they have no "rubber armoring".  These binoculars are made of steel and that is one of the reasons why they weigh 50 ounces.  Furthermore, they were made by Nikon specifically to cater to the astronomy market and not the hunting/search & rescue teams markets.  Astonomers don't need the rubber armoring it bulks up the size of the binocular and adds to their already hefty weight.  The Prostars are fully waterproof.On the "handle like an eggshell" advise.  I try to handle all my binoculars carefully, but not like eggshells and certainly not the Prostars.  I found that I liked the Prostars so much that I also purchased their larger brothers, the 10x70 Nikon Astroluxes.  Several months ago I dropped them about 4.5 feet onto hard pavement while attempting to mount them on a tripod.  When I picked them up I saw that there was a good size dent on the front left barrel (outside of where the front left lens is).  I've been using those binoculars for several months since then and it has not affected their optical performance in anyway.  Perhaps if they had more rubber armoring they wouldn't have acquired that dent.  Nevertheless, it is obvious that they (and the Prostars) are exceptionally well made and durable binoculars.One other factor that should not be overlooked is that the Nikon Prostars have 16mm of eye relief and the Pentax PIFs have 20mm.  While many users who must wear eyeglasses while using binoculars might favor the Pentax for that reason, the originator of this thread said that he was looking for a 7x50 with shorter eye relief because he didn't like observing with his long eye relief 7x50 Fujinon FMTs.  Hence that was one of the reasons why I specifically recommended the Prostars to him (plus I knew from experience that they were great).  Also, used Prostars occasionally come up for sale on Astromart for prices ranging from $425 - $550.  I got mine for $435 US and they were in almost new condition.John Finnan</blockquote>

Verification