Classical binoculars as durable as modern ? (1 Viewer)

[Sixkiller66]

Hi there ! I have been lurking for a while but now I have to ask something I couldn't find on search

Is a good japanese/german classic, say, 7x30, as durable as those modern Nikons/Orion etc one can find for 100-200$ ?

What I mean is, can they be packed into a backpack for a long forest hike ?
Can they take the normal bump, like when you drop your backpack to the ground, or run with the backpack ? Will the good ones stay collimated ?

Reason I am asking ... I am after a new binocular and I don't mind buying one of the new Nitrogen waterproof ones but those old used ones usually have wider sharp fields from what I can see, and they look like they are made better.

Thanks !

 

[chartwell99]

Hi there ! I have been lurking for a while but now I have to ask something I couldn't find on search

Is a good japanese/german classic, say, 7x30, as durable as those modern Nikons/Orion etc one can find for 100-200$ ?

What I mean is, can they be packed into a backpack for a long forest hike ?
Can they take the normal bump, like when you drop your backpack to the ground, or run with the backpack ? Will the good ones stay collimated ?

Reason I am asking ... I am after a new binocular and I don't mind buying one of the new Nitrogen waterproof ones but those old used ones usually have wider sharp fields from what I can see, and they look like they are made better.

Thanks !

I would be wary of older porros but quality older roofs would likely be an excellent choice.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

There is an economic distortion at play when looking back.
If I look at 7x35 Featherweights of various classic brands, for example,
I might have gotten them for price+S&H of $25-45, cleaned them and
regreased them, and they seem more rugged, flatter field, and sharper
than most $100-200 binoculars now, but the rub is: they were the equivalent
of $500-1000 today when they were made. Others are not as great.
The past isn't all pretty.
They also stay smooth longer, but you have to fully clean and re-grease
....re-greasing the guide tubes is crucial to keeping dust out.

Generally, a classic Porro is more susceptible to shock than a modern roof, though.
A reverse-Porro is tougher than either, though, and smaller binoculars are
considerably more shock resistant than larger ones. So a slim 30mm roof
or a 25mm reverse-Porro with a turtle-like shell and advanced eyepieces
(comes along with long eye relief) would be good backpack material.

Many Rv-Porros have the elements inserted into the composite chassis,
which makes them extremely tough. They also spread hinge stress much more.

The square-cube Physics laws that
rule elephants and bugs also apply to optics falling: small is tough.
You don't want to go so small that the picture really suffers, though.
Extra-wide field is more sensitive to shock, both types of binos: more massive prisms.

A style that is high quality and very durable for backpacking is the
old 6x25 and 7x25 Bushnell Customs and the current Bushnell Elite 7x26.
That's durability and an excellent view, classic or modern.
The Current Elite is well-sealed. The Nikon Prostaff 8x25 is a tough binoc
at a lower price.


How the newbies and the classics will last across the decades is another matter.
New extensive O-rings and slides will cause much bigger sticking trouble with age,
and super-multicoatings are a Hi-Q resonant filter that will not take kindly
to any tiny film or bits that form inside. The newbies will likely not age as well.
I see that in units from 1990-2010.

 

[Rathaus]

Generally, a classic Porro is more susceptible to shock than a modern roof, though.
.

I'm a bit confused by this but it may be explainable. Recently I asked this very question of a high end Austrian Swarovski employee, enthusiast and historian. He stated that of the current Swarovski binoculars that the Habicht (armoured or not) was the most robust and least prone to decollimatin from rough treatment compared to the roof SV, which could indeed be decollimated by a smaller sharp knock (nothing Swarovski wouldn't fix).

It could be specific to the Habicht with its mysterious small prisms etc.

From my personal experience, I have a collection of habichts, some 40-50 yrs old, middle aged, and new, and all are perfectly collimated, and ultra sharp due to being sealed. None serviced. Equivalent vintage Oberkochens and Binuxit are nearly always infested with dust, filth or fungus or decollimated. I don't touch them generally.
I have a test mule/spare parts Habicht 6x30 (I bought it cheap mainly for the little leather case actually). 6x30 is the least desirable spec of the habicht imo.

I decided to actually test this old binocular's collimating holding ability (and general robustness). Some may find the footage disturbing, but I took a video of me beating these Habichts on a thin very hard floor covering stuck over concrete with no underlay.
I administered this Habicht three beating sessions, and the collimation remained absolutely unchanged, perfect, as did the rest of the binocular.

I can easily upload the video to youtube if anybody is interested to see the Habicht unscathed by a series of heavy beatings (by my standards anyway)....something people would not normally do.
Astonishing stuff.

Cheers Rathaus

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

It would be foolish for me to deny the durability of the Habicht, then!
I did say....generally. ;-)

Does the SV have a special prism arrangement?
One issue could be the way almost all the path is glass..it would be hard to avoid a traffic accident
of glass pieces.

I have seen a lot of damage, mostly cracked focuser arms and prisms that
'jumped the well', came up out of the punchmark dimples. Nothing is unwreckable, of course.
Jumping the well can be fixed if the chips aren't large. A cracked arm...that's tragic.
Something like a Habicht wouldn't have diecast arms....more like machined 6061-T6 aluminum.

The dust and dirt is interesting...old ones aren't usually O-ringed but there is a U-shaped gauntlet
up and down the guide tube to trap dust. If the grease shrinks and/or dries, dust makes it through.
The tar seals can fail on the plates of a ZCF too...with 50-60yrs drying.

Before the well/dimple prism trapping there were glue blobs...those aren't as good in a fall.
Mostold binocs have those trapping dimples though, and the eccentrics up front.
Setscrew-steered prisms are a horror in falls.

I probably haven't seen all the ways roofs can fail yet....just not enough history.
Focus pushrod washers jump track, slides for focuser lenses twist, the roof cage splits.
But...not too often.

Going up mountains, I take reverse Porros with that chewy-clamshell construction.
Repairs to those usually consist of smoothing impact craters in the plastic and
straightening the focuser knob rod. It's like stitching a boxer's eye. Really tough.

 

[Sixkiller66]

Excellent review thanks Sir OpticNut ! Does the Pentax Papilio classify as a reverse porro ?

 

[Rathaus]

I'd like to try this on some modern binoculars. How do you think they'd go?
The video honestly doesn't quite do the beating justice re the intensity. The habichts were completely unharmed after three such beatings as this on a thinly covered concrete slab -
The experiment has helped me to realise that I don't need to treat some of my binocs with kid gloves...esp regarding collimation. The 6x30 Habicht has a fairly narrow apov, but it's tack sharp.

http://youtu.be/SBtTDAB94lc

 

[Binastro]

. The Pentax Papilio II is a reverse Porro prism binocular. But it has more complicated sideways moving objectives as you focus closer, so I'm not sure how it would stand up to a beating, but it might be okay.
If you don't need close focus, perhaps a simpler binocular would suffice.

 

[Sixkiller66]

That is a really cool durability test
Who volunteers to sacrifice an old Porro and do some further testing on it ?
I would love to see some experiments, looks like fun

Thanks for replying regarding Pentax. But isnt the aperture on those Reverses awfully tiny ? It may not be, I am just used to Astronomical tools.

If you think a nice Reverse is a nice closer focuser/portable mountain spotter then yea I am sure it would be much more comfy than carrying 8x40 full size porros no ? Is the size/weight difference significant ?
These are sef new to me, never used them before hence my questions.

 

[Binastro]

. The size and weight of the Papilio II 6.5×21 is about half that of an 8×40 Porro prism binocular.
In bright sunshine there will not be much difference in the view if the binoculars are fairly similar in price.
The larger aperture and exit pupil is only relevant in dimmer light or at night.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

. The Pentax Papilio II is a reverse Porro prism binocular. But it has more complicated sideways moving objectives as you focus closer, so I'm not sure how it would stand up to a beating, but it might be okay.
If you don't need close focus, perhaps a simpler binocular would suffice.

Not knowing the exact mechanism, that would be my take on it too.
Also, for mountain service, you typically want more power...the distances.
Might be worth a little pampering if someone was checking out alpine
flora and fauna, the bugs and buds.

 

[John Dracon]

Six - my opinion is based on long time experience. "Good" Japanese and German (meaning mostly Zeiss ) binoculars are simply more durable compared to any $200 binocular made today. Zeiss never made a flimsy binocular, nor did Swarovski and Leitz, and the Bushnell Customs made by Fujinon are very well built. Newer models may have more modern coatings but will they stand up to the test of 50-60 years of hard use? Hardly. The Customs will. It really depends on the particular model. I have a Bushnell Custom 10x50 with virtually all the covering worn off from hard use and some abuse.Yet it functions perfectly. The old B&L Zephyrs are tough. Waterproof, no. The Bushnell 6x25 and other models are durable.

John

 

[henry link]

Surviving a torture test involves a large element of luck. My pair of 10x40 Habichts fell 17" from the edge of a coffee table onto a carpet and were knocked completely out of collimation.

The old SL Porros were almost certainly the most shock resistant of the Swarovskis. The prisms and their supports were glued together to form a block imbedded in polyurethane foam and the hinge was solid (see the photo below). I recall watching a hunting outfitter in the late 1980s throw a pair across his shop floor to impress me. They skittered along the floor and banged into the far wall without sustaining any damage.

 

[Sixkiller66]

A lot of modern binoculars are unibody single piece frames where the tubes and body are one....
That means they are not serviceable correct ?

Big deal when the binocular costs 750-2000$

 

[Binastro]

. Nearly all binoculars are serviceable, and some have very long warranties.
One-piece bodies may be tougher than other types.
You can still get into the bodies, I presume through the objective end or from the eyepiece end.

 

[Pinewood]

A lot of modern binoculars are unibody single piece frames where the tubes and body are one....
That means they are not serviceable correct ?

Big deal when the binocular costs 750-2000$

Hello Six,

I believe you describe the construction of American Porro binoculars, as well, which were certainly serviceable.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[Sixkiller66]

Thanks pal !
I had these in my mind when I thought about unibody:

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Marine...id=1437078242&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+pcf+8x40

Is that what you mean by american porro ?

Opened a more specific thread in the Pentax section, if you've got the Pentax PCF please take a minute to visit Pentax

 

[Binastro]

. The Pentax 8×40 may have a small field of view?

I had an old 20×60 which was poor, the 16x60 was better, but not great. However, the 8×40 that you show may be okay? But I don't have direct knowledge. I suspect that they vary a lot in quality in individual samples and personally I would only buy one if I tried it first.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Six,

The binocular in your link is covered in plastic, so I am not certain about its construction.

I attach a photograph of an American style 7x50 Porro, of the left and a photograph of a German style Porro, on the right. In the latter, the objective housings are screwed on.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[henry link]

Sometimes these were called Bausch & Lomb and Zeiss style. Arthur and I go back a long way.

Henry