-
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.
Baigish 12X45 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stol2004
- Start date
. Hi there,
the previous leatherette covered 12×45 was my main binocular for 10 years.
In fact I have several of them all bought new. I think they are from 2001 from memory.
The ones you are offered is a new version which is probably artificial rubber covered rather than leatherette.
Are the optics blue coated or multicoated?
Whatever they are, I would buy them for myself. I think that £40 is a good price.
However, although I think that the manufacturer has kept his standards up even after the breakup of the Soviet Union one can never be sure how good they are.
I don't particularly like the jazzy lettering, it seems more directed to China and to modern tastes rather than being the good basic binocular that it is.
Some people here have denigrated the 12×45 saying that it has a narrow field.
In fact I measured the field of mine again a few nights ago and it is 5.55° with my eyes centrally placed.
It doesn't have much eye relief so it may not be good if you wear glasses.
In short, I would buy it if the price is okay.
Good luck.
the previous leatherette covered 12×45 was my main binocular for 10 years.
In fact I have several of them all bought new. I think they are from 2001 from memory.
The ones you are offered is a new version which is probably artificial rubber covered rather than leatherette.
Are the optics blue coated or multicoated?
Whatever they are, I would buy them for myself. I think that £40 is a good price.
However, although I think that the manufacturer has kept his standards up even after the breakup of the Soviet Union one can never be sure how good they are.
I don't particularly like the jazzy lettering, it seems more directed to China and to modern tastes rather than being the good basic binocular that it is.
Some people here have denigrated the 12×45 saying that it has a narrow field.
In fact I measured the field of mine again a few nights ago and it is 5.55° with my eyes centrally placed.
It doesn't have much eye relief so it may not be good if you wear glasses.
In short, I would buy it if the price is okay.
Good luck.
LeadLenses
Active member
I haven't seen too many Baigish binoculars here in the States. I did see a pair of 8x30 at a flea market once and I thought they were nice and sharp. If I had $100 to blow, I would give these Baigish 10x40 a shot. Has Holger reviewed a center focus model like these?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/10x40-Jumel...7?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_210&hash=item5667700083
http://www.ebay.com/itm/10x40-Jumel...7?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_210&hash=item5667700083
those are some fake chinese ...
Hi stol,
I think that the 12x40 you have and the 12x45 are from different factories.
They have somewhat similar eyepieces.
The 12x45 has a small brother 10x40, which is only version that is NOT good. There is a ring of light around the view, probably from incompatible front barrels. It was an afterthought to the normal range. This 10x40 is not the same as your 12x40.
P.S.
The 10x40 camo is not fake. It is the Baigish camo brother of the one you want to buy, but as I said above it has a ring of light. It is o.k. but not very good.
Also 8x30 and 15x50 versions which are good.
I think that the 12x40 you have and the 12x45 are from different factories.
They have somewhat similar eyepieces.
The 12x45 has a small brother 10x40, which is only version that is NOT good. There is a ring of light around the view, probably from incompatible front barrels. It was an afterthought to the normal range. This 10x40 is not the same as your 12x40.
P.S.
The 10x40 camo is not fake. It is the Baigish camo brother of the one you want to buy, but as I said above it has a ring of light. It is o.k. but not very good.
Also 8x30 and 15x50 versions which are good.
Last edited:
please show me the displayed binocular in their catalogue ...
I have the original Baigish 8X30from 1967
I have the original Baigish 8X30from 1967
Hi stol,
I am closing for the night and I must not download on this XP machine.
There are many varieties of Baigish.
I may try to download on my Windows 7 machine.
If they have a 10x40 in the catalogue, please show a photo here.
I have several 10x40s with and without reticle. They are consumer rather than strictly military.
I am closing for the night and I must not download on this XP machine.
There are many varieties of Baigish.
I may try to download on my Windows 7 machine.
If they have a 10x40 in the catalogue, please show a photo here.
I have several 10x40s with and without reticle. They are consumer rather than strictly military.
. Hi stol,
No.
Your 12×40 is much better than the 10×40 in the images in the above post.
Firstly, KOMZ and ZOMZ (I will check the spelling as I'm not a Russian or Ukrainian speaker) are not the same firm.
And the second one is not a zoom such as in a zoom lens or in a zoom binocular. So using the word zoom may confuse people.
The following is the reason I think why the Baigish 10×40 does not work.
The range is 8×30 then a 50% size increase to 12×45.
The 15 times binoculars could have been 15×56.25. I.e. 15÷12 is 1.25.
1.25×45 is 56.25 mm.
Maybe sensibly they chose to reduce the aperture to 50 mm clear aperture. This would I think produce a better image by reducing aberrations.
They obviously wanted a 10 times binocular in the range.
So this should have been 10÷8 which equals 1.25 this is multiplied by 30 mm to give a 37.5 mm aperture.
So the binoculars should be 10×37.5 rather than 10×40. This I think is the cause of the problems with the 10×40 version.
Whether, simply stopping down the aperture of the 10×40 by putting a mask of 37.5 mm in front of both objectives, will regain the good performance of the other binoculars I don't know. I never bothered trying this.
It has to be appreciated that all these binoculars share a common body.
This is common in many many ranges of binoculars by most manufacturers.
The problem with this is that as you increase magnification you have to have tighter tolerances regarding collimation and image quality. An 8×30 may be very good but simply increasing to 12×45 or larger, one has to work to tighter tolerances.
The problem with trying to do research on the Internet is that the information is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. It leads to red herrings.
The best way by far is to do original research in this case by physically having the binoculars.
Incidentally, mine were brought directly from the factory through the Russian importer, with whom I had a good personal relationship.
Hope that helps.
There are some Soviet/Russian binoculars that I don't have and which I would like to have had.
For instance the 15×110 and 20×110.
Also the strange but I think easily obtainable 16×50 image stabilised which also has other brothers.
And maybe all the Futuras, although I have the 12×50. It is actually quite good except that it has low transmission.
P.S.
the two binoculars in your images above are optically identical. They have just different body coverings. There are also other coverings such as camouflage. They are also offered with different coatings including the horrible so-called ruby coating. I've never actually seen one of these and hope that none of the retailers actually bought them.
It has to be appreciated that I think the factory were forced to reduce quality control when presented with customers who wanted absolutely minimum prices.
This means that the average quality may well have reduced over the years.
For instance, each binocular used to have full paperwork including the signature of the final quality control technician.
This is a great pity, when price means everything instead of quality and a good reputation meaning everything.
This is what happens when the final customer buys things for the lowest possible price and is unfortunately how the world is going.
No.
Your 12×40 is much better than the 10×40 in the images in the above post.
Firstly, KOMZ and ZOMZ (I will check the spelling as I'm not a Russian or Ukrainian speaker) are not the same firm.
And the second one is not a zoom such as in a zoom lens or in a zoom binocular. So using the word zoom may confuse people.
The following is the reason I think why the Baigish 10×40 does not work.
The range is 8×30 then a 50% size increase to 12×45.
The 15 times binoculars could have been 15×56.25. I.e. 15÷12 is 1.25.
1.25×45 is 56.25 mm.
Maybe sensibly they chose to reduce the aperture to 50 mm clear aperture. This would I think produce a better image by reducing aberrations.
They obviously wanted a 10 times binocular in the range.
So this should have been 10÷8 which equals 1.25 this is multiplied by 30 mm to give a 37.5 mm aperture.
So the binoculars should be 10×37.5 rather than 10×40. This I think is the cause of the problems with the 10×40 version.
Whether, simply stopping down the aperture of the 10×40 by putting a mask of 37.5 mm in front of both objectives, will regain the good performance of the other binoculars I don't know. I never bothered trying this.
It has to be appreciated that all these binoculars share a common body.
This is common in many many ranges of binoculars by most manufacturers.
The problem with this is that as you increase magnification you have to have tighter tolerances regarding collimation and image quality. An 8×30 may be very good but simply increasing to 12×45 or larger, one has to work to tighter tolerances.
The problem with trying to do research on the Internet is that the information is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. It leads to red herrings.
The best way by far is to do original research in this case by physically having the binoculars.
Incidentally, mine were brought directly from the factory through the Russian importer, with whom I had a good personal relationship.
Hope that helps.
There are some Soviet/Russian binoculars that I don't have and which I would like to have had.
For instance the 15×110 and 20×110.
Also the strange but I think easily obtainable 16×50 image stabilised which also has other brothers.
And maybe all the Futuras, although I have the 12×50. It is actually quite good except that it has low transmission.
P.S.
the two binoculars in your images above are optically identical. They have just different body coverings. There are also other coverings such as camouflage. They are also offered with different coatings including the horrible so-called ruby coating. I've never actually seen one of these and hope that none of the retailers actually bought them.
It has to be appreciated that I think the factory were forced to reduce quality control when presented with customers who wanted absolutely minimum prices.
This means that the average quality may well have reduced over the years.
For instance, each binocular used to have full paperwork including the signature of the final quality control technician.
This is a great pity, when price means everything instead of quality and a good reputation meaning everything.
This is what happens when the final customer buys things for the lowest possible price and is unfortunately how the world is going.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for all these good info's !!
As much as I bragged my Zomz 12x40 I just discovered that are slightly decollimated... I would like to collimate them my self but I can't find any adjustment screws and is quite difficult to access the prisms . I collimated my Karl Stein 8X30 perfectly but it was quite easy to access the prisms.
I cant find either any info regarding collimating these russian binoculars.
P.S. the Komz 8X30 are not collimated either and they are not easy to access (same case as the Zomz) ...
Any tips on how I could tune them would be very helpful
brocknroller
porromaniac
Hi guys.
I intend to buy a pair of Baigish 12X45 Binoculars .
It's a new model as much as I see also listed on KOMZ website
It's exactly the one shown in the photo.
Anybody has any experience with this particular model? Please share your thoughts
Thank you!
Haven't tried them, but Holger Merlitz praised the 10x42 model:
"Image sharpness: The Baigish 10x42 is by far superior not only to its competitors, but to any binocular of this price class, except for its little 7x30 brother. The star test delivers point-like stars over more than 90% (radial) of the field, and even at the edge their distortions remain low. In fact, such an outcome is rarely found in binoculars of any price class, and the reward for its extremely sophisticated ocular construction, containing as many as 7 lens elements."
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kronos10x50.html
They are low in pincushion, so if you are bothered by "rolling ball," they wouldn't be the best bins for scanning the landscape. If they are like the 10x42s, they will also have a strong yellow tint.
Right now, with what's going on in the Ukraine and the sanctions that countries including yours have imposed on Russia, I wouldn't buy anything made in Russia even if were dirt cheap.
Brock
. Hi Brock,
unfortunately, the 10×42 is quite different from the 12×45. So there is no comparison between the two.
The 10×42 has an unusual seven element, and originally I think eight element, distortion free eye piece.
The 12×45 has I think a five element Erfle wide field eyepiece. Also they look completely different, and are mechanically different. The 10×42 is also usually more expensive.
I actually find that the 10×42 is weird to use as suddenly at the edges the magnification changes drastically.
But it is an interesting optical device.
unfortunately, the 10×42 is quite different from the 12×45. So there is no comparison between the two.
The 10×42 has an unusual seven element, and originally I think eight element, distortion free eye piece.
The 12×45 has I think a five element Erfle wide field eyepiece. Also they look completely different, and are mechanically different. The 10×42 is also usually more expensive.
I actually find that the 10×42 is weird to use as suddenly at the edges the magnification changes drastically.
But it is an interesting optical device.
I love the iq on my 12X40 Zomz.I just received the Baigish 12X45 like new perfect collimated very nice IQ with ruby coatings ( very good flare resistance compared to the 12X40) but is not as wide as the 12X40 
that disappointed me...
P.S. I payed for the Baigish 12X45 only 25Euro
Now I'm ready for my holiday in Danube Delta for birdwatching
that disappointed me... P.S. I payed for the Baigish 12X45 only 25Euro
Now I'm ready for my holiday in Danube Delta for birdwatching
brocknroller
porromaniac
I've always been "Curious Yellow" about these binoculars, the 10x42s that is, because on one hand, they sound great for stargazing, as Holger described, and the ER is sufficient that I could use glasses to correct my astigmatism if the rubber eyecups were soft enough to be folded down, but for day use, the AMD and yellow tint might be a turnoff, certainly for birding, but perhaps not for general wildlife observation, particularly in the winter where the yellow might be an advantage.
The KOMZ BPO 7x30 also looks interesting, but as I mentioned, right now I wouldn't buy anything from Russia. I have relatives who live in the Ukraine and Russia's return to Cold War tactics needs to be quashed. May not seem like a big deal not buying a relatively inexpensive bin, but practically it's the only thing that I can personally do at this point and to encourage others to do the same.
Brock
Last edited:
. Yes Brock,
the 10×42 is quite interesting but for me the narrow field which is mentioned as being 5.6° is just too small for me for stargazing. I cannot find my measure of the field. My Minolta 10×50 gives a minimum of 7.65° and the full 7.8° is also possible.
The 10×42 do seem to be more of a military optic as it has such distortion free eyepieces, and it does have long eye relief for eyeglass wearers.
The 7×30 is basically the same binocular with shorter barrels as far as I remember.
Although the 12×45 is basically of similar quality to the Nikon action as regards field of view, transmission et cetera.
I must admit that the 12×45 I used was the best of six, although all of them were okay. And I like to see as perfect star images as possible and there are many binoculars that fail badly regarding the quality of the star images.
It is indeed sad that there is conflict in the world.
Some strange things have occurred regarding optics.
My friend informs me that Zeiss binoculars were supplied to the British during World War I.
And at the height of the Cold War, Britain imported large quantities of Soviet optics, both cameras and binoculars and even other items.
These events seem very strange, but that's how they were.
What I find strangest of all is that maybe the best photographic lens that I ever owned and tested, namely the first type of 1000 mm MTO mirror lens, which has a serial number in single digits and which uses the lip of the lens hood as part of the optics, was supplied by them to us clearly for looking back at them. This lens is better than the Questar and only equalled by a Den Oude Delft Mirror lens of about 5 to 5 1/2 inch aperture that I tested but which the owner would not sell me. Had I not told him how good the lens was he would have sold it to me, but I would not lie to him when he asked me to test it. I could have said that it was not much good, but it is not how I do things.
If one compares say the 10×42 HD conquest to the 12×45 Russian binocular, the Zeiss binocular is far superior, but it costs 10 or 20 times as much.
the 10×42 is quite interesting but for me the narrow field which is mentioned as being 5.6° is just too small for me for stargazing. I cannot find my measure of the field. My Minolta 10×50 gives a minimum of 7.65° and the full 7.8° is also possible.
The 10×42 do seem to be more of a military optic as it has such distortion free eyepieces, and it does have long eye relief for eyeglass wearers.
The 7×30 is basically the same binocular with shorter barrels as far as I remember.
Although the 12×45 is basically of similar quality to the Nikon action as regards field of view, transmission et cetera.
I must admit that the 12×45 I used was the best of six, although all of them were okay. And I like to see as perfect star images as possible and there are many binoculars that fail badly regarding the quality of the star images.
It is indeed sad that there is conflict in the world.
Some strange things have occurred regarding optics.
My friend informs me that Zeiss binoculars were supplied to the British during World War I.
And at the height of the Cold War, Britain imported large quantities of Soviet optics, both cameras and binoculars and even other items.
These events seem very strange, but that's how they were.
What I find strangest of all is that maybe the best photographic lens that I ever owned and tested, namely the first type of 1000 mm MTO mirror lens, which has a serial number in single digits and which uses the lip of the lens hood as part of the optics, was supplied by them to us clearly for looking back at them. This lens is better than the Questar and only equalled by a Den Oude Delft Mirror lens of about 5 to 5 1/2 inch aperture that I tested but which the owner would not sell me. Had I not told him how good the lens was he would have sold it to me, but I would not lie to him when he asked me to test it. I could have said that it was not much good, but it is not how I do things.
If one compares say the 10×42 HD conquest to the 12×45 Russian binocular, the Zeiss binocular is far superior, but it costs 10 or 20 times as much.
