Comparing mid-priced with high end binoculars (1 Viewer)

[hawkeye_oo]

This may sound stupid but I need some clarification.
From what i think I have understood by reading the various posts on choosing binoculars, porro prisms are brighter than roof prisms and 42mm objectives would be brighter than 32mm objectives. Also high quality binoculars would be brighter and sharper than low quality binoculars.
Putting all this together would it right to say that for reputed brands of binoculars a mid priced 42mm roof prism would compare favourably with a high end 32mm roof where resolution & brightness is concerned? Or a mid priced 42mm porro would be equivalent to a high end 32mm roof in a similar situation?

 

[Tero]

One difference often is waterproofing, nitrogen fill etc.

 

[salty]

One difference often is waterproofing, nitrogen fill etc.

also the build quality on high end binos is often superior, so they will perform at a higher standard for years! another thing i noticed with my leicas- i dont suffer from 'eye strain', a common problem with my old cheapo binos!

 

[Leif]

This may sound stupid but I need some clarification.
From what i think I have understood by reading the various posts on choosing binoculars, porro prisms are brighter than roof prisms and 42mm objectives would be brighter than 32mm objectives. Also high quality binoculars would be brighter and sharper than low quality binoculars.
Putting all this together would it right to say that for reputed brands of binoculars a mid priced 42mm roof prism would compare favourably with a high end 32mm roof where resolution & brightness is concerned? Or a mid priced 42mm porro would be equivalent to a high end 32mm roof in a similar situation?

What you say sounds reasonable.

A premium roof can be as bright as a premium porro. The only problem is that there are not many premium porros as manufacturers focus their efforts on roofs. Probably because they can be made more compact and waterproof.

Compared to mid-priced roofs, premium roofs tend to have higher transmission, higher contrast, wider fields of view better on-axis resolution and better edge sharpness.

 

[Rich N]

-snip
Putting all this together would it right to say that for reputed brands of binoculars a mid priced 42mm roof prism would compare favourably with a high end 32mm roof where resolution & brightness is concerned? Or a mid priced 42mm porro would be equivalent to a high end 32mm roof in a similar situation?

A mid priced 42mm roof may well be brighter (for the same magnification) than a 32mm high end roof prism binocular. The same for the 42mm porro mid to 32mm high price roof. The percentage difference in area of the objective lenses is quite large compared to differences in transmission.

You should be comparing binoculars of the same size and magnification.

Rich

 

[Leif]

A mid priced 42mm roof may well be brighter (for the same magnification) than a 32mm high end roof prism binocular. The same for the 42mm porro mid to 32mm high price roof. The percentage difference in area of the objective lenses is quite large compared to differences in transmission.

Rich: Not necessarily. I don't have much experience with mid priced roofs, but one I have tried, the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP, had fairly low transmission. When I used it in a dark wood, the image was remarkably dim compared to my Nikon 8x42 Egret (a cheap porro). A premium glass is brighter still than the Egret. If I recall correctly there are 5 mirror surfaces in each optical assembly of a (Schmidt Pechan) roof prism binocular. Swarovski claim transmission per surface better than 99.5 %. But this is using expensive dielectric coatings and cheaper coatings will not be as good. The point I am making is that a mid-priced roof prism glass MIGHT be much dimmer than an equivalent premium glass. Of course some might be very close in brightness.

 

[pduxon]

A mid priced 42mm roof may well be brighter (for the same magnification) than a 32mm high end roof prism binocular. The same for the 42mm porro mid to 32mm high price roof. The percentage difference in area of the objective lenses is quite large compared to differences in transmission.

You should be comparing binoculars of the same size and magnification.

Rich

don't know if you can compare a mid priced 42 roof to a high end 32 roof. The glasss and coatings make a big difference.

 

[Rich N]

Rich: Not necessarily. I don't have much experience with mid priced roofs, but one I have tried, the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP, had fairly low transmission. When I used it in a dark wood, the image was remarkably dim compared to my Nikon 8x42 Egret (a cheap porro). A premium glass is brighter still than the Egret. If I recall correctly there are 5 mirror surfaces in each optical assembly of a (Schmidt Pechan) roof prism binocular. Swarovski claim transmission per surface better than 99.5 %. But this is using expensive dielectric coatings and cheaper coatings will not be as good. The point I am making is that a mid-priced roof prism glass MIGHT be much dimmer than an equivalent premium glass. Of course some might be very close in brightness.

You are comparing two 42mm binoculars. My comment was about hawkeye suggesting comparing a high end 32mm to a medium 42mm. The difference in sq inches or sq mm or cm, as a percentage, is quite large.

Rich

 

[Rich N]

don't know if you can compare a mid priced 42 roof to a high end 32 roof. The glasss and coatings make a big difference.

Square inches, mm or cm also make a big difference.

I would like to add that a persons perception of brightness partly depends on your pupil size when making the comparison. An 8x42 binocular has a 5.25mm exit pupil. How dark a situation would you need for your pupil to be 5.25mm? I guess this argument plays into the hands of the coating difference people since you are giving some up the difference in effective aperture and are left with other differences.

Rich

 

[Leif]

You are comparing two 42mm binoculars. My comment was about hawkeye suggesting comparing a high end 32mm to a medium 42mm. The difference in sq inches or sq mm or cm, as a percentage, is quite large.

Rich

Yes I was comparing two 42mm glasses and concluding that I saw large differences in transmission. IMO these differences were large enough that the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP would not be as bright as a premium 8x32 glass. Now I should add that I have not done side by side tests with the Pentax and a premium 8x32 glass, so this remains as a prediction since I do not know what mirror coatings the Pentax uses. A recent Bird Watching magazine review of a cheap 8x42 roof prism glass said that the image was much darker than the equivalent 8x42 porro prism glass from the same manufacturer. I won't mention the manufacturer as the products are probably quite good and I don't want to single them out. I should add that the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP is in many respects an excellent glass.

However, mid-priced roofs have been getting much better over the last 10 years, and some are probably rather good as far as brightness goes. Maybe someone on BF has done direct comparisons?

 

[Curtis Croulet]

A recent Bird Watching magazine review of a cheap 8x42 roof prism glass said that the image was much darker than the equivalent 8x42 porro prism glass from the same manufacturer. I won't mention the manufacturer as the products are probably quite good and I don't want to single them out.

Hmm. It's not like you'd be disclosing a personal confidence or "inside" information.

 

[normjackson]

Hmm. It's not like you'd be disclosing a personal confidence or "inside" information.

Reckon earlier comments by Steve have caused widespread fear, much gnashing of teeth, and biting of lips; apparently some of these guys might be lurking :eek!:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/chronology/seamonsters/index.shtml
Keep away from the old H20, I say...........
B

 

[Rich N]

-snip
However, mid-priced roofs have been getting much better over the last 10 years, and some are probably rather good as far as brightness goes. Maybe someone on BF has done direct comparisons?

I have an Orion 8x42 Savannah roof prism binocular. It is a couple of years old. The current model is the Savannah II. My old one says phase coated and made in Japan. The new ones also say phase coated and have a little different covering on the barrels.

I would consider the Savannah a mid-priced binocular. They sell for about $350USD.

Other 8x42 binoculars I have, a Leica 8x42BN and a Swarovski 8.5x42EL. i also have a 6 or 7 year old Orion Ultraview 8x42 porro (fold down eyecups).

Rich

 

[ranburr]

What do you guys consider mid-range binos? In roofs, I generally think of Kahles, Minox, Docter, Steiner, and Pentax SPs. I also look at the price range for 10x42 to be somewhere between $500-$800. I am hearing a lot of binos mentioned on this site that I would consider low-end, $300-$450 roofs. And a lot of sub $300 junker roofs. I have yet to find a descent pair of roofs for under $500 and you usually have to pay closer to $700. You can getdescent quality porros for a little less I don't have a use for porros. When I think high-end optics I picture products from Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon that start at around $1,000.

ranburr

 

[Rich N]

What do you guys consider mid-range binos? In roofs, I generally think of Kahles, Minox, Docter, Steiner, and Pentax SPs. I also look at the price range for 10x42 to be somewhere between $500-$800. I am hearing a lot of binos mentioned on this site that I would consider low-end, $300-$450 roofs. And a lot of sub $300 junker roofs. I have yet to find a descent pair of roofs for under $500 and you usually have to pay closer to $700. You can getdescent quality porros for a little less I don't have a use for porros. When I think high-end optics I picture products from Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon that start at around $1,000.

ranburr

You can see for yourself by buying an Orion Savannah or one of the Eagle Optics roofs.

I'll try to do a more careful comparison between my Savannah and Leica but I can tell you my Savannah gives very nice images, compared to what I'm used to from my high end binoculars. The field is a little less wide. If the Savannah is less rugged I wouldn't know. I've never beat the heck out of any of my binoculars.

I believe you have some of what you call, mid range roofs. Maybe you would compare them to some of the $350 to $500 roofs?

Given how close in image quality the $350+ roofs are to the high end roofs, it would be interesting to see what you get for the extra $300+ for the binoculars you call 'mid range'.

What about the big Swift Zoom binocular? Are you going to buy one?

Rich

 

[Bill Atwood]

What do you guys consider mid-range binos? In roofs, I generally think of Kahles, Minox, Docter, Steiner, and Pentax SPs. I also look at the price range for 10x42 to be somewhere between $500-$800. I am hearing a lot of binos mentioned on this site that I would consider low-end, $300-$450 roofs. And a lot of sub $300 junker roofs. I have yet to find a descent pair of roofs for under $500 and you usually have to pay closer to $700. You can getdescent quality porros for a little less I don't have a use for porros. When I think high-end optics I picture products from Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon that start at around $1,000.

ranburr

I used to think of those $300 roofs as junkers also, but after tonight I may change my mind. In fact my whole attitude on bins may change.

I just received 4 sets of low-end 8x roofs today. I bought them for the purpose of having a selection for my visiting Dad to look at. I tried to get the Nikon 8x30E II but couldn't. I got the following

Nikon Sporter 8x36 $169 (water resistant)
Bushnell Legend 8x32 $229 (wp)
Celestron Noble 8x32 $249 (wp & no fault warr.)
Celestron Noble 8x42 $269 (wp & no fault warr.)

I don't have time to go into much detail now. Center field resolution is my primary optical concern. Edge sharpness be damned. All of these are, IMO definitely worth their respective prices, especially if water proofness is a concern.

My "kitchen dollar bill" center resolution ranking was in accordance with the price ranking given above, except the Celestron and Bushnell 8x32s should be switched.

The center resolution of the Celestron Noble 8x42 may be equal to my Leica Ultravid 8x42.

I'm depressed and tired. If anyone want to know more of what my opinion is on these bins let me know.

 

[Rich N]

My old Orion 8x42 Ultra View binocular gives very sharp, very high color contrast images. It think it beats my Leica 8x42BN for image quality in the canter of the field. The big difference in the view between the Ultra View and my Leica is when you sweep a landscape. The image in the Leica is pleasant to look at when moving the binocular. The image in the Ultraview "rolls" in a way that might make some people sea sick.

I'm sure the Leica is more rugged and it's waterproof.

Rich

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The center resolution of the Celestron Noble 8x42 may be equal to my Leica Ultravid 8x42.

When I directly compared my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 ($379) to an Ultravid at Scope City last July, I reached the same conclusion. In fact, apart from the wider FOV of the Leica, I was hard put to tell the difference between them. I didn't study the off-axis performance very carefully though. I now have a Zeiss FL 8x42, and I participated in the "Zeiss Edge Resolution Debate." Having a bit more experience now, I might evaluate the EO vs the Ultravid differently in a re-test. The point here is that a $379 bin can hold its own, at least in some respects, against a high-end model. Having said that, I've found that my Zeiss is superior to the EORPC in nearly every respect, but some of it is more subtle than obvious, and a quick look in an optics shop might not reveal all of the improvement. I suspect the Ultravid's superiority would also become apparent with more careful examination.

 

[Leif]

Reckon earlier comments by Steve have caused widespread fear, much gnashing of teeth, and biting of lips; apparently some of these guys might be lurking :eek!:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/chronology/seamonsters/index.shtml
Keep away from the old H20, I say...........
B

Yup. I was referring to the Bushnell H2O porro and roof prism binoculars. Said to be pretty decent, but the roof gives a much dimmer image than the porro. I guess that is the price for a more compact form without paying too much.

 

[Pileatus]

When I directly compared my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 ($379) to an Ultravid at Scope City last July, I reached the same conclusion. In fact, apart from the wider FOV of the Leica, I was hard put to tell the difference between them. I didn't study the off-axis performance very carefully though. I now have a Zeiss FL 8x42, and I participated in the "Zeiss Edge Resolution Debate." Having a bit more experience now, I might evaluate the EO vs the Ultravid differently in a re-test. The point here is that a $379 bin can hold its own, at least in some respects, against a high-end model. Having said that, I've found that my Zeiss is superior to the EORPC in nearly every respect, but some of it is more subtle than obvious, and a quick look in an optics shop might not reveal all of the improvement. I suspect the Ultravid's superiority would also become apparent with more careful examination.

Curtis,

And all that time I thought it was a "sweet spot" debate!

John