Hi. I've got the Opticron imagic 80 scope with the 32x HDF eye piece - its my first scope, and so far its doing fine for a beginner like me. Weight for me is a big issue, and at some point when I look to upgrade I'm curious as to whether a more expensive scope (i.e. kowa, nikon, leica etc etc) that was a 65 would still be an improvement in terms of image quality in dim light over my cheaper 80. Can anyone advise?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Opticron imagic 80 versus 65 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ashl
- Start date
Perry Grin
Well-known member
You will get a much improved image with one of the big boys - but it will cost you! I use a Nikon ED82 and an aluminium Manfrottos tripod - a heavy combo but found that a stretchy neoprene tripod strap made the weight much more bearable - I did 4 miles with it last weekend with very little discomfort. Much cheaper than a scope upgrade if you are happy with your current scope.
Perry
mayoayo
Well-known member
I had an old Vixen Geoma ED80 .This scope has the same body and specifications than the Opticron Imagic..
This is a very good scope,very good indeed,although the final quality of the image would be determined by the quaity of your particulat unit..My scope had a bit of Coma,or slight misaligment,but the image was excellent all the way to 45X,or well passed 30X in any case...passed this point it got a bit soft,but totally usable.A few times I even boosted the image with my binos in the field and got good enough images to get a really distant identification.
Color correction was very good,as you expect from the best ED glass..the scope was lightweight and waterproof and the eyepieces selection ,huge..
This scope compared VERY well with the Kowa 824 I had at the time,and with Nikon´s ED50 that I also owned at the time..both the Kowa and the Nikon were proportionally Sharper ,but only marginally..
I also had the Pentax PF65 ED ,not at the same time,but almost ,and I think the GEOMA was slightly better,..it definitely showed a better star Test and held magnification better.
I am not totally sure the Geoma and Imagic models are the same scope with different brand name,but knowing the similiraties of other Vixen and Opticron models,and the exactitud of the body design,I am more than inclined to believe this..
The Geoma had an ED and a NON-ED versions,not sure If the Imagic is the same or ,as I mentioned,Your scope is an ED version.
If the scope is Non ED, then YES, a smaller ,60 or 65 mm ED scope would be better ,granting more clean and contrasty images, that You CLEARLY be seeing as superior and that You would remember being superior..
If You have the ED version a side by side comparison would necessary to notice the difference and maybe not worth the upgrade unless You really want to get something DEFINITELY better ,and as Perry said,at a cost...
Take Your scope to an optics shop and do the side by side test,or dont hessitate to ask people you meet in the field to let you do some comparisons,and then decide
This is a very good scope,very good indeed,although the final quality of the image would be determined by the quaity of your particulat unit..My scope had a bit of Coma,or slight misaligment,but the image was excellent all the way to 45X,or well passed 30X in any case...passed this point it got a bit soft,but totally usable.A few times I even boosted the image with my binos in the field and got good enough images to get a really distant identification.
Color correction was very good,as you expect from the best ED glass..the scope was lightweight and waterproof and the eyepieces selection ,huge..
This scope compared VERY well with the Kowa 824 I had at the time,and with Nikon´s ED50 that I also owned at the time..both the Kowa and the Nikon were proportionally Sharper ,but only marginally..
I also had the Pentax PF65 ED ,not at the same time,but almost ,and I think the GEOMA was slightly better,..it definitely showed a better star Test and held magnification better.
I am not totally sure the Geoma and Imagic models are the same scope with different brand name,but knowing the similiraties of other Vixen and Opticron models,and the exactitud of the body design,I am more than inclined to believe this..
The Geoma had an ED and a NON-ED versions,not sure If the Imagic is the same or ,as I mentioned,Your scope is an ED version.
If the scope is Non ED, then YES, a smaller ,60 or 65 mm ED scope would be better ,granting more clean and contrasty images, that You CLEARLY be seeing as superior and that You would remember being superior..
If You have the ED version a side by side comparison would necessary to notice the difference and maybe not worth the upgrade unless You really want to get something DEFINITELY better ,and as Perry said,at a cost...
Take Your scope to an optics shop and do the side by side test,or dont hessitate to ask people you meet in the field to let you do some comparisons,and then decide
Last edited:
Many thanks for the replies - exactly the info I was looking for. I'm very happy with the scope atm as I'm just getting used to using one, but I made the mistake of looking through a friends 77 leica on a very dull day. Then I started wondering about saving up...! The 77 though is too heavy for me so I was wondering whether a 65 would still show an improvement in light over my 80.
I don't know whether my Imagic is the ED version or not, but it doesn't say ED anywhere on it so I'm assuming not. Based on that therefore, from what you're saying a 65 of a nikon/leica etc make would show an upgrade in brightness etc in dim light, which is really helpful to know for the future. I take your point about testing - think I'll pop along to a few bird fairs in the spring and enjoy my Imagic in the meantime
I don't know whether my Imagic is the ED version or not, but it doesn't say ED anywhere on it so I'm assuming not. Based on that therefore, from what you're saying a 65 of a nikon/leica etc make would show an upgrade in brightness etc in dim light, which is really helpful to know for the future. I take your point about testing - think I'll pop along to a few bird fairs in the spring and enjoy my Imagic in the meantime