An Unusual Group (1 Viewer)

FrankD · Oct 9, 2006

I found this one page commentary on an unusual quartet(?) of bins. For those Nikon fans out there it shows that not everyone ignores the SE and apparently not outdoor writers reviewing bins for the hunting public. In addition I am surprised, but not totally, to see the little Yosemite put in with such optical giants.

marcus · Oct 9, 2006

Did you get that page online? Is there a web page to go to read that report? Or is it just a photo of a page from a magazine?

elkcub · Oct 9, 2006

Frank,

Any idea which companies advertise in "Sporting Gear" magazine?

Ed

FrankD · Oct 9, 2006

Marcus,

I tore the page out of an Outdoor Life magazine at the doctor's office. It was only that one page so not much of a review though I am still surprised to see the Nikon in there considering I have never heard it mentioned anywhere but here and on BVD.

Ed,

Ofcourse, Nikon and Leupold are advertised heavily in hunting circles as is Swarovski but I rarely, if ever, see anything on Leica and other than a few rifle scope references not much on Zeiss. From any perspective I just thought it was interesting to see....

..... two porros and two roofs together, not to mention the disparity in price
.....32 mm glass being promoted instead of the 42 mm or 50 mm in a hunting/fishing magaizine
....6x and 8x instead of 10x, again, with the specific targeted audience.

Just thought it would make for interesting discussion.

elkcub · Oct 9, 2006

FrankD said:
...
Ofcourse, Nikon and Leupold are advertised heavily in hunting circles as is Swarovski but I rarely, if ever, see anything on Leica and other than a few rifle scope references not much on Zeiss. ...
Just thought it would make for interesting discussion.

Frank,

It does. I'm trying to not be cynical, but it's hard. |:S|

Ed

Otto McDiesel · Oct 9, 2006

The fun part of all this is that i have or had all the models in that picture.
I also have used all of them for stalking deer (i am too hyper to still hunt from a blind - i'd rather read the wind and crawl for hours than wait 5 minutes). I have also used them for birding. They are excellent for any kind of use, even the Leu 6x30 (i just whish that it had better edge sharpness, well this one is maybe not the best for very distant hawk watching, but surely very good for deer judging).
What i find interesting is that hunters are still anchored in a 1960's mentality, and think that they need a 12x63 for hunting. It's the bigger is better crowd i guess, 30 foot boat with huge offboards, V8 trucks, .300 Mag rifles, 56 mm rifle scopes, 3 pound binoculars, 6 bedroom homes...should i continue?
And working like a slave to pay for all that junk.

ceasar · Oct 9, 2006

How well I remeber the controversial thread I started from an article in "Gray's Sporting Journal" by introducing an article from that magazine titled (to the best 0f my remembrance) "8 x 30. All the binocular you will ever need!" It got alot of comment, pro and con, mostly con. Someone even downloaded the article to Bird Forum. I'm having trouble finding it but maybe someone with better computer skills can find the thread for us. Maybe a year ago? No longer than that.

Hopefully,
Bob

FrankD · Oct 10, 2006

I would be interested to see that thread Bob if you can find it.

..and I definitely agree with your comments Luca. Overkill in many cases. And, as for the Yosemite, I agree and disagree at the same time. I have owned/handled 4 pairs of the Yosemites thus far and there are definitely issues with quality control. My "cherry" pair has fairly good edge sharpness. Two of the others are "ok" but not great in that regard and one is just poorly collimated so I beg not to comment on it further. Up at the hawk watch the edge sharpness level is definitely noticeable but when birding at typical heights I do not seem to mind it as much.

As for the others, well, I am just glad to see them mentioned as opposed to their larger counterparts. It is nice to remember the "little guys".

ceasar · Oct 10, 2006

Well, I guess my Yosemites are in the "cherry" category. I remember when they came out, I called Eagle Optics to ask about them. The salesman on the phone said everyone in the office was surprised at how good they were. Bright and sharp across a generous wide view. So I told him to pick me out a good one and send it to me. I just had it out on the deck looking, among other things, at the neighboring farmer's Holsteins about 250 yards distant, the neighbors flowers, a couple of Capital letters nailed to the cross bars of a telephone pole a 100 yards away, the changing leaves and the occasional bird. They are still everything the salesman said they were. Bright and sharp across a wide field. Not as good as my Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid, especially in the colors, but nevertheless a remarkable binocular for $99.00 including shipping. The neck strap worked loose where it is attached to the binocular and they almost fell from my neck off the deck to to the ground 8 feet below, but I caught them in time, or I would have been able to give you a report on their durability!

Bob

FrankD · Oct 10, 2006

Bob,

For what it is worth I would not trade my cherry pair for anything under $100. Heck, if they were 7x or 8x I wouldn't trade them for anything up to $300. It is a shame that many manufacturers have given up on making porros. They seem to offer such excellent image quality for such of a fraction of the price of equivalent roofs.

Otto McDiesel · Oct 10, 2006

FrankD said:
It is a shame that many manufacturers have given up on making porros.

When i registered my warranty for the 6x30 i included a note and suggested that they make a similar (price, size, etc) 8x30 with a 8* field. I don't think that they paid attention.

bradshrike · Oct 11, 2006

ceasar said:
How well I remeber the controversial thread I started from an article in "Gray's Sporting Journal" by introducing an article from that magazine titled (to the best 0f my remembrance) "8 x 30. All the binocular you will ever need!" It got alot of comment, pro and con, mostly con. Someone even downloaded the article to Bird Forum. I'm having trouble finding it but maybe someone with better computer skills can find the thread for us. Maybe a year ago? No longer than that.

Hopefully,
Bob

Here's the article:

http://grayssportingjournal.com/stories/022306/shooting.shtml

bradshrike · Oct 11, 2006

Would also add the article mentioned above is by Bill McRae, a Montana resident who is quite a bit more knowledgable regarding optics than many who write in the various hunting rags.

Tero · Oct 11, 2006

Terry Wieland is Shooting Editor of Gray’s and a believer that cheap optics wear out good boots.

LOL
the guy has wit

FrankD · Oct 11, 2006

Thank you Brad. That was very interesting reading. I found it difficult to dispute some of his points but didn't totally agree with them either. He ignores two basic tenets with regard to his favorite configuration...low light performance and exit pupil size (comfort level). I would be interested to see what he would say in relation to those issues.

bradshrike · Oct 11, 2006

FrankD said:
Thank you Brad. That was very interesting reading. I found it difficult to dispute some of his points but didn't totally agree with them either. He ignores two basic tenets with regard to his favorite configuration...low light performance and exit pupil size (comfort level). I would be interested to see what he would say in relation to those issues.

Frank, I'm a Big Game hunter and have used 8x30 sized binoculars for over 20 years. I currently use an 8x32 Ultravid. I've found, apples to apples comparison, that a 42mm objective gives you approx five minutes more light at the beginning and end of each day. For me, not enough to justify the added weight and bulk.

In a 10X bin I completely agree the larger exit pupil really aids extended viewing comfort... personally I'd not own a 10X with less than a 40/42 mm objective and tend to think the 10x30/32 mm bin is one of the worst ideas ever conceived for the reasons you mention. In the 8x's, at least in the high quality models, the comfort difference between the 8x32 and 8x42 isn't very pronounced (to my eyes).

I use my bin's constantly this time of year in all sorts of lighting and weather conditions and have never found any practical reason to switch from an 8x32 (unless Leica would build a 7x32!).

Brad

mooreorless · Oct 11, 2006

FrankD said:
Thank you Brad. That was very interesting reading. I found it difficult to dispute some of his points but didn't totally agree with them either. He ignores two basic tenets with regard to his favorite configuration...low light performance and exit pupil size (comfort level). I would be interested to see what he would say in relation to those issues.

Hi Frank,In the 2001 Outdoor Life Gear Test under Binoculars and Spotting Scopes,the Nikon 10x35 E2 scored just under the Minox BD 10x52 BR for low light performance. In this "Test" the Pentax 10x50DCF WP scored the highest in low light followed by Zeiss Victory 8x56 BT P. The little Nikon 10 E2 placed 5 from the top with an exit pupil of 3.5, the other four above the 10E2 had and average exit pupil of 5.4 or 7 for the highest[Zeiss 8x56]and 4.2 for the lowest and all had above 45mm objective lens. The way Bill McRae checks for low light performance is that he uses a 10 inch -diameter disc covered with alt. inch wide black and white strips and sets up at 100 yds.,they rotate the disc every few seconds [the tester is supposed to say which way it is facing] to determine how many min. after sunset the lines remained visible.
Some comments about the Nikon 10x35 E2 from this test are: clear view,very good in low light,an excellent binocular, & don't like the eyecups.
It is no surprise to me that he[Bill McRae] would show a picture of the Nikon 8x32SE and the Leupold 6x30 as hunting binoculars.
I use a Swarovski 7x30 SLC for hunting as well a other things and have had no problem as far a small exit pupil for comfort level under lower light levels.
Regards,Steve

FrankD · Oct 12, 2006

Hmm, interesting comments. I do not entirely disagree with you gentleman either as my own experiences with 30 mm binoculars pretty much mirrors your own. My comments in the previous post were more quoting conventional wisdom rather than stating it as a personal belief. My apologies for not being clearer in that regard. However, it did bring forth important comments and discussion. With those thoughts in mind though then what would be a benefit, if any, of the larger objective sizing?

ceasar · Oct 12, 2006

In response to your question, Frank, you can see the answer yourself if you take out your 7 x 42's, or 8 x 42's for that matter, on a rainy, cloudy, overcast day (like today) and look into the woods with them and then compare that view with any of your 30 0r 32mm binoculars. My Leica 7 x 42 Trinovids blow the others away under these conditions.

Cordially,
Bob

ceasar · Oct 12, 2006

Brad_A said:
Here's the article:

http://grayssportingjournal.com/stories/022306/shooting.shtml

Brad,
Thanks for finding that article. I'm still looking for our BF thread.
Bob

An Unusual Group (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Guest

Retired

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread