GPO HD 10x42 (2 Viewers)

[PeterPS]

GPO eyecups

As I mentioned in post #1 the eyecups have only one intermediate stop, but they stay put at any position from fully collapsed to fully extended; they are of very good quality.////Peter.

 

[PeterPS]

Do you happen to know the thread diameter needed? As my Canon 10x42 takes 52mm glare shields, that might be the size here as well.

It appears that the thread diameter is 38mm---Mike of GPO will try to confirm that with his German partners.

Peter.

 

[etudiant]

It appears that the thread diameter is 38mm---Mike of GPO will try to confirm that with his German partners.

Peter.

Thanks, Peter, that makes the hood selection easy.
If it is 38mm on the 8x32 version, presumably the 8x42 will be somewhere around 50-52mm.
Hoods are a surprisingly helpful addition to a binocular, they really improve the view.

 

[adhoc]

...the Swedish saying is...Another similar one is "There's no cow on the ice (as long as the ass is on land)."

Vespobuteo, I thought the 3-letter word meant the other animal, and possibly other readers might make that mistake: apologies if I insult them. "Jag anar ugglor i mossen," I said to myself, "Här ligger en hund begraven!" Then I turned to Google and was corrected. This is the webpage that helped me out (it also has the other 2 sayings).

 

[mjensen6577]

It appears that the thread diameter is 38mm---Mike of GPO will try to confirm that with his German partners.

Peter.

To clear this up, I need to confirm that I gave Peter incorrect conversion data. Sorry Peter. I just put a caliper on this myself and the inside diameter of the objective hold ring on the PASSION HD bino measures 1.654", equaling 42.01mm.

 

[PeterPS]

Thanks, Peter, that makes the hood selection easy.
If it is 38mm on the 8x32 version, presumably the 8x42 will be somewhere around 50-52mm.
Hoods are a surprisingly helpful addition to a binocular, they really improve the view.

Thanks, Etudiant, for posting. Like you I believed that the figure of 38mm that I received from GPO was for the 32mm HD, but there is no such a model so it must have been an erroneous measurement for the 42mm. So I have looked at the objectives again and used a ruler to approximately measure the diameter---got about 42mm so this is not a threaded fitting for a hood or filter but the usual threads that most binoculars have. As far as I know only Kowa, Canon and Leupold have threaded fittings of the type you desire, but not the GPO.

Peter

 

[PeterPS]

Thanks, Mike, for your clarification. So there you have it: it's the usual objective hold ring, not threaded fittings for hoods and filters.

Peter

 

[Troubador]

Not quite, the Swedish saying is (if you translate it word by word) "there's no danger on the roof"
Another similar one is "There's no cow on the ice (as long as the ass is on land)." :-O

FOV for the 8x42 GPO 125m/1000m, I guess is OK for the price range.
Only sold in the US?

Thanks for clearing that up VB. The next time I see a cow on the ice in Sweden I will make sure I keep my ass on the land :-O

Lee

 

[Binastro]

Filter thread sizes and inside measurements are not the same.
Also somewhere I saw that T2 and 42mm camera lens fittings are the same. They aren't. They have different pitches.
Even the form of threads differ.

I made the bad mistake of putting a new 50mm f/1.1 Zunow lens, Nikon bayonet fit on A Kiev. I marked the lens. They are not the same. Neither is the old Contax bayonet.

I have used 2 inch astro eyepiece fit filters on Canon IS binoculars with two step up or down rings on each barrel to get the correct threads.

 

[etudiant]

Thanks, Etudiant, for posting. Like you I believed that the figure of 38mm that I received from GPO was for the 32mm HD, but there is no such a model so it must have been an erroneous measurement for the 42mm. So I have looked at the objectives again and used a ruler to approximately measure the diameter---got about 42mm so this is not a threaded fitting for a hood or filter but the usual threads that most binoculars have. As far as I know only Kowa, Canon and Leupold have threaded fittings of the type you desire, but not the GPO.

Peter

Hi Peter, hi Mike,
Thank you for tracking this down completely, no threads on the GPO objective ends. Too bad.
It seems an inexpensive nicety, which allows filters or lens hoods to be fitted easily. Adding hoods, a suggestion initially made iirc on this forum by Rathaus, has improved the view from my Canon 10x42s. The GPO view probably does not benefit as much.

 

[NDhunter]

I'm not sure about why anyone wants to put a filter on your
binocular. Looking at the sun ?

I tried a protective filter on a spotter once, harmed the optics
big time.

Find an optics designer or company rep who recommends it.
You won't.

Binoculars are not designed for filters, unless a specialty for
military, etc.

Jerry

 

[etudiant]

I'm not sure about why anyone wants to put a filter on your
binocular. Looking at the sun ?

I tried a protective filter on a spotter once, harmed the optics
big time.

Find an optics designer or company rep who recommends it.
You won't.

Binoculars are not designed for filters, unless a specialty for
military, etc.

Jerry

No argument on filters, I switched to a hood to protect the objective lens on my spotter because the space between the filter and the lens fogged routinely. That said, protective neutral filters or polarizing filters can make sense on seawatch, or when pushing through brush, so there is use for them.
Hoods do cut glare and improve contrast, at the cost of increased bulk. Worth it for me, ymmv.

 

[jgraider]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does a hood (whatever that is) on a spotter have anything to do with a hood for a binocular (whatever that is, too)? No offense, but I find filters useless on any optic.

 

[NDhunter]

A hood will help shield, side or direct lighting that adds glare, flare
to the front of your optic.

Just try putting your hand over the front side of your objective when
viewing in difficult conditions. It helps a lot.

The newer Nikon Fieldscopes have a retractable hood, that is very
nice for the purpose.

The only drawback is the added length.

Jerry

 

[PeterPS]

Just try putting your hand over the front side of your objective when
viewing in difficult conditions. It helps a lot.

That does not work for me, at least not in a satisfactory manner: doing so helps you get rid of glare in the lower part of the FoV, which becomes almost glare free, but you see....your hand in the upper part---so you gain some and lose some.

The only drawback is the added length.

Found this pic of a Canon 10x42 IS with hoods attached, it does not look bad at all.

Peter

 

[PeterPS]

Allbinos review of the HD 10x42

As pointed out by several other members, Allbinos has posted a review of GPO HD 10x42:
http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?art=173
I take exception of their comment on CA: the sample that I reviewed controls CA quite well. On the other hand, I agree with their finding that the FoV is probably smaller than 6.4*---I did not measure it exactly, but it seemed slightly smaller in an empirical comparison with other binos.

Peter

 

[Troubador]

It is also odd that they describe the CA issue as 'serious' in the body of the review but then say the GPO was only a 'tad' worse than the competition in the summary.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

It is also odd that they describe the CA issue as 'serious' in the body of the review but then say the GPO was only a 'tad' worse than the competition in the summary.

Lee

I think the bins mentioned in the comparison are all close around 7 when it comes to CA (according to Allbinos) and thus not top notch in the area. So I guess slightly lower than that could be expected. Perhaps 6:ish. Probably OK for most people but not for those sensitive to CA (including myself).

 

[Troubador]

I think the bins mentioned in the comparison are all close around 7 when it comes to CA (according to Allbinos) and thus not top notch in the area. So I guess slightly lower than that could be expected. Perhaps 6:ish. Probably OK for most people but not for those sensitive to CA (including myself).

OK got it. Thanks VB.
Lee