New GPO PASSION HD 15x50 (1 Viewer)

[GPOSurujh]

Prism type: . Schmidt-Pechan
Magnification: . 15x
Field of view (FOV) ft at 1000y: . 262
Field of view (FOV) m at 1000m: . 80
Objective diameter (mm): Effective diameter 50
Ocular diameter (mm): Effective diameter 24.2
Exit pupil diameter (mm): Measurement of the pupillary ocular beam 3.4
Eye Relief (inches): From the last optical surface 0.67
Eye Relief (mm): From the last optical surface 17
Housing: Main body and hinge Magnesium
Close focus (feet): Shortest focal distance 8.2
Close focus (meters): Shortest focal distance 2.5
Interpupillary Distance (IPD): Center pupil to center pupil measurement 58-76
Dioptric compensation range: . + / - 6
Waterproof (nitrogen filling) Mbars / cm 300
Transmission Daylight: ISO 14490-5:2005 92%
Height (inches): Without covers 2.5
Binocular Height (mm): Without covers 64
Binocular Weight (ounces): Without covers 34.2
Binocular Weight (grams): Without covers 970
Length (inches): At outside diameter 6.9
Binocular Length (mm): At outside diameter 175
Binocular Width (inches): Fully extended 5.3
Binocular Width (mm): Fully extended 135

MSRP: 1 399 EUR

 

[Canip]

Are you selling, buying or just advertising?

 

[GPOSurujh]

Are you selling, buying or just advertising?

Only sharing information

 

[Ignatius]

Riiight 😂

 

[tenex]

This can be such a hard crowd. No one would have objected if anyone else had posted about a new GPO model.

The recent trend toward smaller "big" bins is interesting: 15x50 (or 14.5x52) instead of 56, 12x42 instead of 50. People are either wimps today, or only using these on sunny days? And so few think they can handhold 15x anyway. Your perspective on this, Surujh?

 

[GPOSurujh]

This can be such a hard crowd. No one would have objected if anyone else had posted about a new GPO model.

The recent trend toward smaller "big" bins is interesting: 15x50 (or 14.5x52) instead of 56, 12x42 instead of 50. People are either wimps today, or only using these on sunny days? And so few think they can handhold 15x anyway. Your perspective on this, Surujh?

There definitely is a demand for this type of high mag, smaller objective configuration in Western USA, Australia, Africa, etc... where good visibility is easier to come by than say Central Europe. I think that plays a part in it. Also, I think the industry and market have enough data on 12 x56 and 15x56 models (as examples) to now that they are super-niche, so why not try an alteration to those configs and see if there will be more appeal.

 

[crinklystarfish]

...so why not try an alteration to those configs and see if there will be more appeal

Just out of curiosity, have you ever contemplated the impact or otherwise that altering configuration to a clockwise-to-infinity focus mechanism might have on sales? A few years ago I was seriously contemplating a 12.5x50 but the CCW focus put me off. All the optics I own or have ever owned are / have been CW to infinity and - I freely admit - I'm hung up on this consistency. I may be alone: maybe not... Just wondering if you've done any market research around this?

 

[GPOSurujh]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever contemplated the impact or otherwise that altering configuration to a clockwise-to-infinity focus mechanism might have on sales? A few years ago I was seriously contemplating a 12.5x50 but the CCW focus put me off. All the optics I own or have ever owned are / have been CW to infinity and - I freely admit - I'm hung up on this consistency. I may be alone: maybe not... Just wondering if you've done any market research around this?

In all honesty it is not a question or topic that gets brought up by our partners or customers, so we have not considered it.

 

[adhoc]

GPOSurujh: Thank you for the info. What is the correct angle of the FOV? The ft and m figures as posted give different results (5.0 and 4.6 deg). Don't bother if it'll be up soon in a GPO website/s. Thanks.

 

[GPOSurujh]

GPOSurujh: Thank you for the info. What is the correct angle of the FOV? The ft and m figures as posted give different results (5.0 and 4.6 deg). Don't bother if it'll be up soon in a GPO website/s. Thanks.

It is 4.6 degrees, but the FOV in m@1000m is 80 and the FOV in f@1000f is 262.

 

[tenex]

It is 4.6 degrees, but the FOV in m@1000m is 80 and the FOV in f@1000f is 262.

4.6° is ~240 ft, not 262. You have apparently succumbed to the common error of multiplying m/m by 3.3 to get ft/yds, instead of the correct 3. (It's about feet in a yard, not ft vs m.)

Thanks for your responses here. Count me as another who can't deal with CCW focus. For some reason a number of hunting-oriented brands (Vortex, Maven also) seem to have adopted this, but it is otherwise unusual.

 

[adhoc]

GOPSurujh: I was going to point that out, when I read Tenex, and that I hope GPO won't make this mistake in their consumer lit. like other manufrs. Looking forward to reviews of this instrument. But, there'll soon be other manufrs. offering ~15x~50s, following after Swaro, so, after viewing the field--and my wallet--this may or may not be it, for me!

Crinklystarfish, Tenex: I think you will get over the "wrong" rotation if you do get this bino (and like its image)! I too dislike that. But when my CCW Alpen (also a hunting market co.) 15x showed me clearly in a beautiful image the iris color of a raptor critical for its ID (as to sex or age, I now forget) which my excellent 10x and mediocre 12x could not I did not care that I got there going this way and not that.

 

[crinklystarfish]

Crinklystarfish, Tenex: I think you will get over the "wrong" rotation if you do get this bino (and like its image)!

Agreed that once actually on a subject and focusing the brain seems able to largely take over. There are a couple of reasons that still put me off, though.

One is that I've become accustomed to 'pre-focusing'. What I mean by that is I seem to quite naturally retain in mind roughly the distance I'd last focused at, and then if I spot something nearer or further I quite instinctively begin a re-focusing process whilst still bringing binoculars to my eyes. It can save vital moments and is sometimes the difference between a decent-if-fleeting view and missing something. I have tried, but routinely using different binoculars with focus-to-infinity in different directions completely scuppered that 'instinct'.

The second reason is that I'm just more at peace internally when things like focus-wheel direction are a matter of consistency and routine. I suspect people will either totally get this, or just not get it at all.

In all honesty it is not a question or topic that gets brought up by our partners or customers, so we have not considered it.

Fair enough and I appreciate the response. I still just wonder, though.

Existing customers have already expressed their demand, so wouldn't raise it as a potential obstacle to ownership. It's the extent or otherwise of the latent demand of potential customers that have been put off even before auditioning your products that I'd be interested in, were I in your position.

It may indeed turn out to be something totally unworthy of consideration, but - at the Passion price point - I can't help suspect that a focus direction the same as the larger esteemed brands would certainly do sales no harm.

 

[tenex]

Yes, pre-focusing is a big part of the issue, along with the need (in birding) for quick reactions generally, no time for confusion or mistakes.

Cameras had this problem too, when Leitz and Zeiss (and then all the Japanese makers who copied one or the other) chose opposite rotations for their rings and dials, not just focusing but shutter speed and aperture too. But it was never much of a problem for me, perhaps because I could normally take my time, and of course presetting. (Today one can choose direction of control rings in firmware.)

 

[NDhunter]

Only sharing information

You are welcome here, this looks a nice size to bring to the marketplace. Mike Jenson formally of Zeiss USA, is
a part owner of GPO, and I like what they are doing.

For those that may be interested, large power such as 15X, don't need prefocusing, as they are best used
on a tripod, and are focused out to a distance. These are not used for warblers.

Most optics in the 15X range are used by hunters, and they do require great low light performance, so
the objective size is very important, that is why 56mm rules.

Jerry

 

[adhoc]

Crinklyst., Tenex: I did instantly get what you, C., describe tentatively as 'pre-focusing'. (Actually, and you may've tried, it's tricky to coin a term for it. My best after some frustration is 'focus turn anticipation'!) Yes, that is pretty difficult with "mixed" binos.

But then, you're fine if you use only one bino (with either 'sense of rotation', another awkward term)! There was a discussion in BF a week back (in the thread linked here) about the merits of binocular monogamy. Let's please not get into that here though!

Now another pearl of wisdom from me, a theory of why some of us prefer CW vs CCW: it could be at least two conventions we're used to. Threaded things (mostly) move away when turned CW, and we similarly expect also focus distance. Control knobs increase parameters when turned CW, e.g. sound, brightness; similarly also the "power" of the bino to bring things closer. FWIW.

 

[forent]

(...) Now another pearl of wisdom from me, a theory of why some of us prefer CW vs CCW: it could be at least two conventions we're used to. Threaded things (mostly) move away when turned CW, and we similarly expect also focus distance. Control knobs increase parameters when turned CW, e.g. sound, brightness; similarly also the "power" of the bino to bring things closer. FWIW.

To add a third theory - the (printed or engraved) scale on a photo lens: CCW means that the left side of the scale starts with the lowest values (distance or aperture) and the scale ends with the highest at the right side just like any ordinary ruler. This might be intuitive for many.

 

[adhoc]

• Now available in the US! Very much looking forward to reviews, here in BF or elsewhere, as the configuration is a sweet spot for me, and I have no way to access binoculars before buying.

• The FOV error (please see above) continues in GPO's data, at the retailer's website that I just visited.

• Forent, it's only now, on reading your post again, that I "got it", 2½ months on. (Reports of my lightning brilliance are exaggerated.) Yes, of course. The other half, too, I now realize, are reasonable, not obstinate and contrarian.

 

[adhoc]

GPOSurujh: The field width figure given, only in imperial, i.e. non-metric, units, in GPO's consumer texts, e.g. in the GPO USA website, and hence the angular FOV calculated from it, are incorrect, as pointed out above, significantly overstated, and can mislead a customer, significant not just as a percentage, but moving from high side of average to remarkable, for a 15x~50 configuration. At its actual FOV of 4.6 deg. the width across at 1000 yards is 241 ft. Previously in this thread it is stated as 262 ft, and now in the website 266 ft, giving FOVs of 5.0 and 5.1 deg.