Nikon Aculon compact Zoom (1 Viewer)

[Mifletz]

Have any reviews come out yet about the new Nikon Aculon zoom 8-24x32
http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0712_aculon_02.htm

compared to its predecessor
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-8-24X25Cf-Zoom-Travelite-Binoculars/dp/B00006JK6M/ref=pd_sim_sbs_ce_1

Is zoomability a worthwhile feature?

Or is it more trouble than its worth/reduced optical performance, and best to keep to fixed magnification
eg
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Trave...P15E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354826643&sr=8-1

 

[typo]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum.

I've not tried either of the zooms I'm afraid, and the Travelite only at lower magnifications. It rather depends what you are intending to use the binoculars for, but I would suggest none of those options would be a popular choice for bird watching.

The main difference between the two zooms appears to be the quality of the glass coatings. The new one should be brighter, but it will still have a number of shortcomings.

The field of view is rather narrow, making it more difficult to find what you are looking at and follow it, if moving. At 8x it has a 35.6 degree apparent field of view. The Nikon Travelite EX 8x25 for example has 47.5 degrees, which is better, but a number of popular 8x32s manage over 60 degrees. Turning up the magnification makes actual field of view shrink proportionally.

8x is the most popular magnification for birding and few choose to use more than 10x. It is very difficult to hold the binoculars steady at higher magnifications, resulting in seeing less detail unless they are mounted on a tripod or supported in another way.

If you divide the objective diameter by the magnification you get something called the exit pupil. This is a good indication of how suited it is to different light levels. 2mm is fine for a bright summers day, but you will need 4 or 5mm for a winter's afternoon. Those zooms at 8x offer 25/8=3.1mm, but at 24x it's about 1mm. It will look very dim and poorly defined, and be unusable at this magnification much of the time.

That Travelite EX 12x25 would be a bit better, but I think most here would find the 8x25 a far better choice overall (and quite a reasonable compact). At his time of year a 8x32 would be better still. Something like the Opticron Discovery 8x32 is only 40g heavier, hardly bigger and has a 60 degree AFOV and can be found at a similar price to the zooms.

Hope this helps.

David

 

[NDhunter]

Zooms are not a good choice no matter the brand. As mentioned smaller field of view.
It is a compromise to keep the focus alligned between barrells.

Go with a fixed view.

Jerry

 

[ronh]

From 25 mm to 30 mm is not a big jump, numerically. But for some reason, that's the break point between these little narrow fielded plastic things and what I think of as a real binocular. If you can compare one of these 25mms to something like a Kowa YF or Leupold Yosimite 8x30, or Nikon 7x35 EX, you'll see what I'm talking about. If the binocular must be really small and modestly priced, however, the 25mm Nikons are probably as good as any. I consider even 8x high for a 25mm.
Ron

 

[brocknroller]

There are exceptions to every rule, and for zooms its the Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom binoculars. "Very "sharp" on axis and "sharp" to the edge (no distortion but no RB either), narrow but not as narrow a FOV @ low power than other zooms (5.2* @ 8x, 4* @15), the apparent FOV increases as you go up in magnification, so the view 'opens up".

Not MC, but the last version of the blue Nikoon single MgF coatings were very good, no flaring and good color rendition. Had these been 50mm, I probably would never have sold them, but with 40mm objectives, the exit pupils shrunk down to 2.6mm at 15x. Okay for sunny days, but somewhat dim on overcast days.

The well balanced design makes them easy to hold steady. But alas, like most premium porros, this model has disappeared from the planet, seen occasionally on auction sites for a "song".

I used the bin mostly in the 12x-15x range, for which is was very good. So good that Henry uses his as a booster for measuring the resolution of other bins.

My wish is for Nikon to bring these back with 50mm objectives with more advanced MCs like they have on their Eco-Glass SE series.

Here's a stock photo, Steve might have some of my sample.

<B>

 

[Mifletz]

You've talked me out of zooms!

But I really need x12 magnification. I had a pair of 12x50s which caused me no shake problem, so I presume that 12x25 won't either.

Out of interest, if shake, field of view and dimness are such a problem on compacts at magnification >x12, why and for whom do Pentax make a 16x25?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/sport-optics/products/UCF_X_II_16x25

Would it be correct to say that the Nikon 12x25 is better quality than the Pentax 12x25?

 

[brocknroller]

You've talked me out of zooms!

But I really need x12 magnification. I had a pair of 12x50s which caused me no shake problem, so I presume that 12x25 won't either.

Out of interest, if shake, field of view and dimness are such a problem on compacts at magnification >x12, why and for whom do Pentax make a 16x25?...

For seniors whose pupils dilate 2.5mm at best and don't know what their missing?

I was outside yesterday for the better part of the day, trying to scare off a hawk from my backyard birding/wildlife habitat. Due to increasing development in the area, my "wild" backyard has become the refuge for squirrels, chipmunks, and a variety of birds. Every day I put out sunflower seeds, suet, and water for them. I also feed peanuts to the squirrels, Blue Jays and Titmice. I keep a bowl of fresh water outside for all of them and change it twice a day in the summer. So it's a "hot spot" for birds and varmints.

However, it also becomes a "buffet" for hawks in the winter. I like all animals and fowl so I don't want to harm the hawk but I did want to scare him away, but this particularly one was not so easy spooked even after I yelled, threw sticks and stones at him (I swear I saw him stick his tongue out at me). I even tried to shake the steeply slanted tree (to no avail), he was a the top of the tallest tree on the block. It was in my neighbor's yard, and he has his truck and RV close by, so I had to be careful about throwing stuff. I'm not sure I could have even reached him with a sling shot, he was so high up, but I do plan to buy one soon so I can at least let him know that I could get at him, and that might scare him off.

Some crows came by and tried to scare him off, but also to no avail, he wasn't budging. I stayed on that top branch for 5 hours and did not move from his perch. A few times squirrels and birds came close by and his head moved in their direction but I scared off the squirrels and birds by imitating the call squirrels make when there's danger nearby.

It was a dismal day, though not as dismal as today, and the 10x42 SE was starting to get dim in the afternoon. The red bias is great during the day, but as light levels drop, it tends to make things look darker (yes, redless Zeiss FL fans, I admitted it!). So I took out my Celestron 10x50 Nova, and what a difference it made. Everything was brighter and "whites" were whiter. I could see him STILL there, sitting on the steeply tilted tree like Horton on Maize's eggs.

Finally, I had to leave to go shopping. When I returned he was gone, no doubt with a varmint or bird in his talons.

Anyway, the optics point of this tale, is that despite it's high twilight factor, I probably would never have spotted him with a 16x25 bin under such dim light. The 10x50s opened up a whole new world of twilight life.

<B>

 

[typo]

You've talked me out of zooms!

But I really need x12 magnification. I had a pair of 12x50s which caused me no shake problem, so I presume that 12x25 won't either.

Out of interest, if shake, field of view and dimness are such a problem on compacts at magnification >x12, why and for whom do Pentax make a 16x25?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/sport-optics/products/UCF_X_II_16x25

Would it be correct to say that the Nikon 12x25 is better quality than the Pentax 12x25?

Agreed it's curious that many manufacturers offer zooms and high powers at the budget end of the market, but they are virtually absent at the mid and higher prices points. Obviously they know they would be shunned by the experienced user but they are still prepared to sell them to the novice.

David

 

[brocknroller]

Agreed it's curious that many manufacturers offer zooms and high powers at the budget end of the market, but they are virtually absent at the mid and higher prices points. Obviously they know they would be shunned by the experienced user but they are still prepared to sell them to the novice.

David

Except the Brunton Epoch Zoom, which costs some serious change (~$1,000) and has gotten some good reviews. Here's one of them.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/optics/binoculars-and-telescopes/Epoch-Zoom.html

I'd have to talk to the Elders, but I don't think these have been subject to the Bann.

<B>

 

[typo]

Brock,

It looks like the Bruton is discontinued. At 8x(35) it had a 272ft FOV and weighed 32ox. I wonder how many were sold at $1900.

David

 

[normjackson]

You've talked me out of zooms!

Check

But I really need x12 magnification. I had a pair of 12x50s which caused me no shake problem, so I presume that 12x25 won't either.

No one prepared to challenge this? o

Would it be correct to say that the Nikon 12x25 is better quality than the Pentax 12x25?

Not so sure one brand is necessarily better than other. Also each brand has a hierarchy of models with different specs and features (do Pentax do a WP in 12x?). If you can get to try them, you may find differences in handling sway you one way. If you're looking to long term use, maybe you can get to try out the Opticron Taiga models (they do a 12x) which come with a 10 year guarantee.

 

[Mifletz]

Between a £50 rubber-clad roof Barr & Stroud Sahara 10x25 and a £100 rubber-clad porro Nikon Ex 10x25, is there any real difference in durability and performance in the field, apart from the price?

 

[typo]

Roof prism pairs like the B&S need something called phase coating to approach the transmission efficiency of reverse porros like the Nikon Travelite EX. Unfortunately the B&S does not have it and will have about one third less light transmission and contrast than the Nikon. Unfortunately going up from a 10x25 to a 12x25 will lose a similar amount of brightness so it roughly cancels out.

As a 10x, the B&S has a much wider view than the Nikon. I don't know how the edge performance compares in those two models. On the Nikon 8x25 it was much better than the cheap compact roofs I tried at the time, so I would suggest the Nikon might have a greater usable FOV but I can't be sure. Note that neither are very wide views.

David

 

[Mifletz]

Would the lack of phase coatings on the roof prismed B&S manifest itself in the poorer image enough, compared to the Nikon, to be an issue for an average 50 year old casual user?

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,

It looks like the Bruton is discontinued. At 8x(35) it had a 272ft FOV and weighed 32ox. I wonder how many were sold at $1900.

David

The Brunton zoom bin was heavy for its size, weighing as much as the Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom, As to the TFOV @ 8x, this is the "fatal flaw' of zoom binoculars, low TFOV and AFOV at lower magnifications.

If you look at the specs of other zooms, 5.2* TFOV is actually higher than most @ 8X, same as the premium Nikon XL (not to be cornfused with the Chinese 50mm Action "XL" Zooms now on the market). At 15x, the Nikon Zoom was 4*, which gives a 60* AFOV.

With zooms, the view "opens" as you go up in magnification and becomes "tunnelesque" as you go down. Btwn that fact and that most zooms don't work well because they are cheaply made, you can understand why they have gotten such a bad rap.

<B>

 

[ronh]

if it is what is made that compels purchasing note that there is no high quality 16x 32mm, 42mm, 50mm, or 60mm. Fujinon makes a quality 16x70, although its not their best in my opinion. Maybe there something special about 16x in a cheap 25mm?
Ron

 

[typo]

Mifletz,

Referring back to what I mentioned about exit pupil at the start. A 10x25 will have a 2.5mm and a 12x25 a 2.1mm. If you compare the areas the 12x is roughly 30% smaller. Both will look quite dim on a winter's afternoon compared to your 12x50 with a 4.2mm EP which will make almost 3 times more light available.

Besides the phase coating, my guess is that the B&S will only have aluminium coatings to the prisms which reduce the transmitted light by a least another 10%. A cheap roof prism will be at least 40% dimmer than the equivalent reverse porro like the Nikon. It will be very noticeable under gloomy conditions.

The amount the pupil dilates does decrease with age but it's very variable. Perhaps you won't be able to benefit from a 7mm EP (8x56) but that is only relevant to very low light levels. Those small EP pairs are for bright conditions.

If you wan't to keep the price down, and waterproofing isn't critical, then the Olympus Tracker PCI 10x25 is very good for the money (yes they do a 12x as well). I still think the 8x25 would serve you better, and an 8x32 better still.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00006G3...de=asn&creative=22242&creativeASIN=B00006G33K

David

 

[mayoayo]

Leica has dual magnification binos and also does Leupold with their Gold Ring 7-12X32 ..The Leica series is very expensive ,but the Leupold with a more moderate price tag,has gotten excellent reviews...These are not exactly zoom binos,but they feature two fixed power choices ...

 

[typo]

Leica has dual magnification binos and also does Leupold with their Gold Ring 7-12X32 ..The Leica series is very expensive ,but the Leupold with a more moderate price tag,has gotten excellent reviews...These are not exactly zoom binos,but they feature two fixed power choices ...

Unfortunately it looks like the Leupold Switch Power has been discontinued too. As far as I know there is only the Duovid left amongst the better brands.

David

 

[normjackson]

Would the lack of phase coatings on the roof prismed B&S manifest itself in the poorer image enough, compared to the Nikon, to be an issue for an average 50 year old casual user?

In side by side tests, particularly as the conditions become more demanding (when the light fades, when it is coming at awkward angles that induce flare, etc etc) differences will become more noticeable. In practice maybe you won't be doing such side by side testing and will consider the view as acceptable most of the time and put it down to viewing conditions when it is not. I guess ultimately how casual one is and about what is a personal matter.

Rubber cladding can be nice for grip or to give an impression of robustness though of course that might also encourage more relaxed or careless handling |:d|