-
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.
tenex
reality-based
No direct experience myself, but the only line Docter continued is Nobilem, in 7x50, 8x56, 10x50, 15x60. Others may also have appeared just before that under the "aus Jena" brand. I looked into them once but they all seem quite hard to find. Improvement would be in coatings, and I believe Docters no longer have the yellowish cast of older CZJ production, but don't know exactly when that changed. Perhaps someone here does? (Whether the funky armor is an "improvement" is a matter of taste.)
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I have experience with the 15x60 porro models, both the older and the newer one with updated armor.
They compare well with others such as the Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56. Docter has gone out of business in optics such as binoculars, as of several years ago. They still use the name for rifle scopes and sights part of the Noblex brand.
No longer supported with any warranty, but they are built rugged and well made, so that may not be an
issue for you.
Jerry
They compare well with others such as the Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56. Docter has gone out of business in optics such as binoculars, as of several years ago. They still use the name for rifle scopes and sights part of the Noblex brand.
No longer supported with any warranty, but they are built rugged and well made, so that may not be an
issue for you.
Jerry
tenex
reality-based
One further detail I recall: Nobilems have cemented prisms, so it's possible that aging balsam may also have affected the view in old enough models, but that too should have been improved. These are not birding bins, so Cloudy Nights may be a better source of information. Or you could ask Holger Merlitz, whose website has several reviews of Nobilems with details that may interest you: Holger Merlitz
Hey guys, thanks. I actually didn't mean the Nobilem series but what they badged as the "Classic" series - similar to the old 8x30, 7x50 and 10x50 Dekarem, Jenoptem etc. It seems like they went out of production fairly soon after Docter acquired Zeiss Jena - I've seen very few references to them and was wondering if anyone had used/tried them.
Cheers,
P.
Cheers,
P.
I have a Docter classic 8x30 porro and quite like them.
They don't have a neutral colour rendering (rather a bit yellowish, but much less than expected from reading about old bins). They are sharp, and also much brighter than I expected.
The fact that there is a sticker on the box mentioning "Betrieb der ANALYTIK JENA GMBH" suggests that it is probably quite a late one, I think, thus probably benefitting from updated Docter coatings. I would love to know it's year of manufacturing. (I bought it second hand but unused: still in box, with all paperwork etc., not a single use mark, strap not yet attached. The warranty card is not filled in, thus no year to find there either.)
The only other old porro that I have is a Komz. Thus I won't be able to say how they are compared to e.g. the older Zeiss Jena or to the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30.
They don't have a neutral colour rendering (rather a bit yellowish, but much less than expected from reading about old bins). They are sharp, and also much brighter than I expected.
The fact that there is a sticker on the box mentioning "Betrieb der ANALYTIK JENA GMBH" suggests that it is probably quite a late one, I think, thus probably benefitting from updated Docter coatings. I would love to know it's year of manufacturing. (I bought it second hand but unused: still in box, with all paperwork etc., not a single use mark, strap not yet attached. The warranty card is not filled in, thus no year to find there either.)
The only other old porro that I have is a Komz. Thus I won't be able to say how they are compared to e.g. the older Zeiss Jena or to the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30.
Some further info:
To put it into perspective in the 8x30-32 range: they are not up to my FL 8x32 (optically and mechanically), obviously, but I would have been very happy as a teenager to discover nature with those rather than the old Tasco's that I borrowed back then.
I compared them with the (current) Habicht when I got them. Again, the Habicht are more high-end regarding manufacturing, have incredibly neutral and transparent view, and are brighter (nothing new here), but the Habicht had more glare than the Docter.
Regarding the Docter being better at handling glare-enducing conditions, I remember being surprised. I knew that the Habicht had a bad reputation on that front, but I had also read that the Jena/Docter wasn't great either on that front. But when looking up pictures of the Jena/Docter online in tests/webfora, it seemed like the inner side of the objective barrels of my Docter were a bit different (better blackened/matte ribbled). Again, maybe a positive update in later versions? I don't remember the webpages with the pictures though. That was a few years ago. I would have to Google again.
To put it into perspective in the 8x30-32 range: they are not up to my FL 8x32 (optically and mechanically), obviously, but I would have been very happy as a teenager to discover nature with those rather than the old Tasco's that I borrowed back then.
I compared them with the (current) Habicht when I got them. Again, the Habicht are more high-end regarding manufacturing, have incredibly neutral and transparent view, and are brighter (nothing new here), but the Habicht had more glare than the Docter.
Regarding the Docter being better at handling glare-enducing conditions, I remember being surprised. I knew that the Habicht had a bad reputation on that front, but I had also read that the Jena/Docter wasn't great either on that front. But when looking up pictures of the Jena/Docter online in tests/webfora, it seemed like the inner side of the objective barrels of my Docter were a bit different (better blackened/matte ribbled). Again, maybe a positive update in later versions? I don't remember the webpages with the pictures though. That was a few years ago. I would have to Google again.
tenex
reality-based
I didn't know Docter had made these at all, and will follow with interest. I wonder whether the tooling still exists to resurrect any of them...
John A Roberts
Well-known member
On Holger's site there are 28 pages of Docter Optics leaflets from the early 1990's,
and there are also earlier Carl Zeiss Jena catalogues - the last being 1985 (and the earliest 1912).
See at: Binoculars Corner
John
and there are also earlier Carl Zeiss Jena catalogues - the last being 1985 (and the earliest 1912).
See at: Binoculars Corner
John
Last edited:
Owned a Docter 12x50 Nobilem, had to sell it when I moved from a home to an apartment, was a spectacularly good glass, superb sharpness.
It compared favorably imho with earlier CZJ Nobilem Super and Spezial specimens that I owned.
The buyer wrote me to say that it was the best glass he had ever had. That suggests Docter maintained/improved product quality.
Against that, they went out of business afaik, so their efforts were not adequately recognized.
It compared favorably imho with earlier CZJ Nobilem Super and Spezial specimens that I owned.
The buyer wrote me to say that it was the best glass he had ever had. That suggests Docter maintained/improved product quality.
Against that, they went out of business afaik, so their efforts were not adequately recognized.
Hermann
Well-known member
I had one of the 8x30s, passed it on to a relative. Large field of view, sure, but low eye relief. Sweetspot only soso. Slight yellow tinge, just like the multicoated Jenoptems. Interesting binocular for collectors, but surely not for users.
Still got a Dekarem 10x50 that used to belong to my father. Its collimation is shot, some day I'll have it refurbished. I find it's about the same as the Jenoptems, maybe with slightly better transmission. Very sharp in the image centre, just like all the old Zeiss Jens 10x porros. Basically no improvement over the Jenoptems.
Hermann
Danke. I was wondering whether the Docter coatings made much of a difference - it seems not. I suppose they probably would not have used their top of the range coatings in the Classic series.
@mbb - I thought the 8x30 Jenoptem I owned was more than a little susceptible to glare (although none of the 8x30 porros I've tried have been great on that front). Interesting you thought the Docter version was better than the Habicht in that respect. Appreciate your observations.
I own a Docter Nobilem 10x50 and like it very much. A true quality optics binocular on the heavy but robust side. Back then sold for not much. I'd say much better than those Jenoptems. However after having obtained some Zeiss (West) Classic 7x50 the Zeiss gets used all the time. And the EDF on bad weather days.
For most users active on this forum probably not, as we spend time using and discussing mostly véry good or top range binoculars (often not because we really need them, though we sincerely enjoy them). But for many other casual birders/nature lovers who would in any case not spend more than €100-200 on brand new binoculars, I think my Docter 8x30 would still be competitive. (I paid less than €100 for mine.) I know I would have really enjoyed them as a teenager when I was on birding camp, even though the guide’s Swarovski were clearly better
(The ones I used the first times there were considerably worse and I still have great memories of those stays.)(Regarding eye relief, I’m lucky not to have to wear glasses (yet).)
I remember reading somewhere that Docter did improve the coatings somewhere along the few years before the company was sold again. I’m not sure where that was. I thought some page of Holger Merlitz’s website, but I’m not sure anymore. It wouldn’t be surprising considering the high transmission reputation lf some other Docter binoculars of different ages.
I should probably take mine out again for a good walk, checking how I would experience them now. Maybe my memory is playing me parts
Last weekend, I took the Docter 8x30 with me on a walk together with the 8x32 FL.
It was not where I most often go, and it was at noon, on a sunny, but very windy day, in open field (not woods). Not very challenging light nor ideal testing conditions…
Clearly, and not surprisingly, the FL was the better one, though maybe more surprisingly might be the main reasons why…
(It not being waterproof would be the number 3 issue for me for more regular use: it regularly suddenly rains a bit when I’m out walking, and I like not to have to bother about it for my binoculars apart from checking the eyepiece covers are well placed.)
The FL is waterproof, feels like being of higher build quality, and has better optics (it would be disturbing if it weren’t, for 10x the price). Of course, I prefer the FL, but if it weren’t for the above things, I’d say the Docter is still perfectly decent, and enjoyable for actual casual use! Maybe I should find someone who could loosen its focuser a bit.
Regarding the optics, it is true that, while the FOV is very good (similar to the FL), the sweet spot is limited (much narrower than the FL). Strangely enough, it didn’t botter me thát much though, but I was observing in open field.
And the center is very sharp.
I couldn’t create any annoying glare situation, but the weather/light was very good… It would probably be different in other conditions.
More surprisingly, I found no “noteworthy practical”() difference in clarity/brigtness or even colour between the two binoculars in the field! Maybe that would have been different in fading light, woods, ... () I don’t mean the two binoculars are identical, but if not comparing them directly and just using the Docter in the field, I might maybe just say the Docter are a bit warm, without finding it a big issue in actual use. The colour difference (yellowish cast of the Docter) is much more clear when you switch between the two while aiming directly at a well lit white wall (which I did to compare them here at home), but that is rarely what I do on walks I should compare the Docter to the Komz regarding their colours, out of curiosity.
Please note that I should probably redo the comparison also in e.g. woods and fading or more challenging light (actually what I encounter more often during my walks than sunny weather at noon in open terrain…)
It’s funny how some subjective expectations-adaptation seem to occur between taking different ‘classes’ of binoculars:
I wouldn’t accept several of the limitations of the Docter if they were happening in 10x more expensive alpha binoculars like my FL. It would be more than just bothering me.
But taking the simple Docter porro on a casual walk, the implicit/silent expectations are just different and you’re just enjoying it (including its view), in a different mindset … apart from that bloody focuser, truly ruining it all too often :’-(
It was not where I most often go, and it was at noon, on a sunny, but very windy day, in open field (not woods). Not very challenging light nor ideal testing conditions…
Clearly, and not surprisingly, the FL was the better one, though maybe more surprisingly might be the main reasons why…
- The main reason was the focuser. I don’t think I’m as picky on that as some on the forum (I’m fine from the moment it’s precise, not too small and not too tight, which seem to be OK in most current decent roof binoculars, not only alpha’s). However, the véry basic focuser implementation in the old Docter, also way too tight and with a narrow focus wheel, made it slow and requiring to use a finger from each hand. It was really a blocker, making it a pain to snap on some flying or furtive birds. Maybe the focuser could be loosened by some good repairer, which would make a huge difference.
- The eye relief: it is very small. However, it was ‘OK’ for me, as I don’t wear glasses. But I still list it here as it will very likely be a blocker for eyeglass wearers.
(It not being waterproof would be the number 3 issue for me for more regular use: it regularly suddenly rains a bit when I’m out walking, and I like not to have to bother about it for my binoculars apart from checking the eyepiece covers are well placed.)
The FL is waterproof, feels like being of higher build quality, and has better optics (it would be disturbing if it weren’t, for 10x the price). Of course, I prefer the FL, but if it weren’t for the above things, I’d say the Docter is still perfectly decent, and enjoyable for actual casual use! Maybe I should find someone who could loosen its focuser a bit.
Regarding the optics, it is true that, while the FOV is very good (similar to the FL), the sweet spot is limited (much narrower than the FL). Strangely enough, it didn’t botter me thát much though, but I was observing in open field.
And the center is very sharp.
I couldn’t create any annoying glare situation, but the weather/light was very good… It would probably be different in other conditions.
More surprisingly, I found no “noteworthy practical”() difference in clarity/brigtness or even colour between the two binoculars in the field! Maybe that would have been different in fading light, woods, ... () I don’t mean the two binoculars are identical, but if not comparing them directly and just using the Docter in the field, I might maybe just say the Docter are a bit warm, without finding it a big issue in actual use. The colour difference (yellowish cast of the Docter) is much more clear when you switch between the two while aiming directly at a well lit white wall (which I did to compare them here at home), but that is rarely what I do on walks
I should compare the Docter to the Komz regarding their colours, out of curiosity.Please note that I should probably redo the comparison also in e.g. woods and fading or more challenging light (actually what I encounter more often during my walks than sunny weather at noon in open terrain…)
It’s funny how some subjective expectations-adaptation seem to occur between taking different ‘classes’ of binoculars:
I wouldn’t accept several of the limitations of the Docter if they were happening in 10x more expensive alpha binoculars like my FL. It would be more than just bothering me.
But taking the simple Docter porro on a casual walk, the implicit/silent expectations are just different and you’re just enjoying it (including its view), in a different mindset … apart from that bloody focuser, truly ruining it all too often :’-(
Last edited:
I've not tried the Docter version, but own and occasionally use a 1980's Deltrintim which apart from a possible change in coatings is essentially the same. Considering they're basically an unchanged 1920's design they're still remarkably usable, and enjoyable to use.
You should be able get the focuser adjusted by a good repairer - one finger operation should be achievable although they'll never be fast.
Thanks for the write up.
You should be able get the focuser adjusted by a good repairer - one finger operation should be achievable although they'll never be fast.
Thanks for the write up.
Similar threads
