-
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.
Any experience with Steiner T750? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Last edited:
I love Steiner binoculars. I have the 7x50 Nighthunters, 8x56 Shadowquest, and the 7x50 Military Marine.
Last weekend, I put all of them side by side on a tripod. I was shocked how much brighter and better the Nighthunter and Shadowquest were compared to the Military Marine.
Steiner lower priced porros will be okay. Just don’t expect spectacular until you get into their premium products. I’m not saying the 750T will be bad. It just probably won’t be great.
If I buy another Steiner, it will be a Commander. The high end is where their best technology is.
Last weekend, I put all of them side by side on a tripod. I was shocked how much brighter and better the Nighthunter and Shadowquest were compared to the Military Marine.
Steiner lower priced porros will be okay. Just don’t expect spectacular until you get into their premium products. I’m not saying the 750T will be bad. It just probably won’t be great.
If I buy another Steiner, it will be a Commander. The high end is where their best technology is.
I want to use a 7x50 for bird watching. A very good quality Porro costs less than a very good quality roof.
I am OK with the IF.
Here is my dilema:
How to know if Commander has better optics than T750? It costs more but if have more features: tough marine binocular, larger FOV (438 ft at 1000 yds), heavier (meaning more optical elements).
About 8x56mm Shadowquest:
I know it is for hunting and some such binoculars are less adjusted for aberrations.
It is the 8x56mm Shadowquest optical very good for bird watching?
Last edited:
I think the world of the Shadowquests. But, I think there are better choices for bird watching due to limitations on close focus.
My strong personal opinion is that a Canon stabilized binocular absolutely destroys the best $3000 non stabilized binocular for handheld use.
It is not even close.
My strong personal opinion is that a Canon stabilized binocular absolutely destroys the best $3000 non stabilized binocular for handheld use.
It is not even close.
A Canon stabilized binocular offers excellent views, I know it from experience.
A 7x50mm is a master of low and very low light situations.
Same for a 8x56mm.
I used a Steiner 10x42mm Porro IF and the minimum focus distance is almost 12m.
Maybe a 7x50mm has even a shorter minimum focus distance.
A 7x50mm is a master of low and very low light situations.
Same for a 8x56mm.
I used a Steiner 10x42mm Porro IF and the minimum focus distance is almost 12m.
Maybe a 7x50mm has even a shorter minimum focus distance.
Ted, I have done a lot of testing in this area of low light. I own 3 Gen III PVS-14s and a $6000 FLIR thermal. I love spending time in the dark hunting and hiking. That being said, I have tested the Shadowquest 8x56 against my Canon 10X42L in low light conditions. I see no functional difference in brightness. I can actually resolve more with the Canons because of the stabilization.
I will sleep on this.
In low light is not easy to focus, or Shadowquest does not need a lot of focusing, because of the DOF.
Canon 10X42L is also a Porro binocular: how about the DOF?
My experience is the opposite. It is much much much easier to focus the Canon 10x42L in low light because of the stabilization. Stabilization allows you to fine tweak the focus so well.
The problem with porros with individual focus knobs is that your natural hand shake prevents you from getting a perfect focus.
I am an engineer and not a binocular expert. I come to this question with a systems level mentality. Everyone wants to compare the quality of the optics and glass when looking at binoculars. In my opinion, for handheld use, that is an incomplete approach.
The system = quality of the binocular minus image shake.
Analyzing the binocular without addressing shake doesn't account for all the variables.
Image shake = 0 on the Canon.
Therefore, handheld, the 10x42L is superior to every single handheld binocular in existence for IMAGE quality.
The problem with porros with individual focus knobs is that your natural hand shake prevents you from getting a perfect focus.
I am an engineer and not a binocular expert. I come to this question with a systems level mentality. Everyone wants to compare the quality of the optics and glass when looking at binoculars. In my opinion, for handheld use, that is an incomplete approach.
The system = quality of the binocular minus image shake.
Analyzing the binocular without addressing shake doesn't account for all the variables.
Image shake = 0 on the Canon.
Therefore, handheld, the 10x42L is superior to every single handheld binocular in existence for IMAGE quality.
Last edited:
I agree. The shake is an element underestimated and rarely mentioned.
Another reason to try the binoculars in real situations, not only in store.
