New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Binocular Magnification Debate Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Binocular Magnification Debate Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 17:47
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
I figured I wanted to respond to Steve's post in the low light binocular thread, but if we are going to beat the dead horse, we should have a horse-beating thread.

Here is the post:

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

I'll likely bid this thread good bye with this post, depending where it goes.  In truth I really do not care what people use.  I guess what bugs me is when somebody tells me I'll see more detail with a 10x on a tripod.  You will also get more detail from 7x and 8x from a tripod too. That bugs the devil out of me. Even guys like Matt, who is one of the posters here I always pay attention to.  If I could see that extra detail with the 10x, I'd be a 10x user.  I respect Matt's position because hes figured out his preferences out in the world with real optics in real situations.  So for, that matter have I Big Smile .

Like I don't see chromatic aberration either.  A bunch of PM's I seem to get are polite suggestions on how to see the detail from a tripod or how to see CA.  People are in disbelief sometimes that everyone does not see things the same way they do.

I get completely that when your target is a resolution chart, 10x will give better separation between smaller line spacing's.  The entire concept of measuring the resolution in terms of arc seconds is weighed to favor more magnification.  We now have as much pure resolving power as many eyes can  use.  Next time you are at the resolution chart try measuring the distance of separation upon the distance a binocular can separate lines and divide that distance by the magnification to get feet of separation per each single x of magnification.

There are lots of things that figure into the detail eyes can get off a target.  Resolution and magnification are certainly very important.  However they are not nearly as important as how relaxed your eyes are behind the binocular, the depth of field, . the contrast...CONTRAST, CONTRAST,CONTRAST.  CA control, Color representation and color bias in the image.  The list could go on.

Just to clarify, I have two perfectly normal better than 20/20 eyes for my age (65).  In fact a few months ago when I had to renew my drivers license I got the mandatory...well since you are 65 we better see how well you can see.  I looked in the screen thing and was asked if I could read the highlighted line.  I said sure, but I can read at least 4 lines further down the chart.  The lady clearly did not believe me, so down the chart we went one line at a time.  When we were finally done her comment was..."well we sure don't see many 65 year old men with eyesight like yours".  Maybe that's why I like 8x, because for me it is enough, I really do not know.  Put a gun to my head and I am hard pressed to tell 8x from 10x.  Side by side it is easy enough, but a blind test is something else again.  <span style="line-height: 1.4;">10x is sure not enough bigger for me to get any more detail</span>

<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Let me hereby make completely clear I have never intended to say 8x is the defacto choice for everybody.  I think it is for most.  </span>So ultimately the only way to get where you want to be is to get there by yourself with real world experience in your AO.  I cringe when I see..."well I'm going hunting out west where the distances can be pretty long, so which 10x binocular should I get"?  You can get different ideas from places like this, that's indisputable, but the only eyes that can make that choice are yours.  Just DO NOT DEVELOP any preconceived notions heading into the process.  That is both the single most important thing you can do.  It is also the most difficult...almost impossible in fact.
Big Smile

  






Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 18:08
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
So a few points:

1. I totally respect Steve's opinions, including that he finds 8x his preference in binoculars.
2. I stand by my assertion that given both an 8x and 10x binocular stabilized on a tripod, the viewer will observe more resolution with the 10x due to the magnification. I understand the viewer may not notice this as much as another viewer.
3. I dispute the notion that a person can see MORE detail with a tripod mounted 8x over a tripod mounted 10x of similar quality.
4. The idea of most magnification per "x" is a good one, and could show a more efficient design, but not a higher resolution design.

I like this discussion, and never meant to offend anybody.

Oh yea, I also have excellent uncorrected vision.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 18:55
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
I kind of like the discussion myself.  I likewise don't want to offend anybody.  Rest assured I am a long ways from being offended, a very long ways.  Being bugged is real mild in my world, so I'll be more careful in my use of terminology. Big Smile

My point Matt is that your assertions are valid in your case, not mine.  I have more than once called out points of detail with 8x that friends with what most would consider superior quality 10x binoculars did not see.  Why is that do you suppose?  I suppose it has something to do with how the eyes in your head and the eyes in my head read and react to the signal they are getting. Again, we might be coming from different angles. Speaking for myself I'm not talking about reading optics charts.  I agree that chart work will support higher magnification.  However, I've yet to see a shooter muley buck equipped with a resolution chart.  Or an about to be shot dead horse for that matter. Smile

What I was getting at was the extra detail available in 7x and 8x tripod mounted vs hand held 7x and 8x. 

Another thing is the blind test issue.  You have no realization how profound the possible effect of that test is until you do one.  I cannot explain that any further or differently.  So this magnification deal will largely remain mine because I have no idea of just how I would ever get around the logistics of getting one organized, much less attended.  Reporting the whole shebang is a whole 'nother issue. Maybe a SWFA group function with registration costs.  At least they could be a source of glass. Big Grin

To put as mild and definite point on the issue as I can... I'd have to see avowed 10x guys actually call out statistically significant differences (at ranges and targets of opportunity similar to actual hunting world occurrences) when they had no idea in the world what brand or magnification they had in their hand, or on  the tripod in front of them. I've done a few, but too limited to be of any statistical significance.  They support each other from an anecdotal standpoint. However, any number of anecdotal references do not translate into a statistically valid data set.

I full well realize the possibility that Steve could be the closing ceremony as everybody watches me eat a big old helping of Crow. Big Smile

So right now I remain an 8x first guy.  I have and use 10x, but I only see any value in them when days are crisp, the air clean...and...and...when there is no mirage.


Edited by Klamath - February/13/2014 at 19:06
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 19:37
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

I have and use 10x, but I only see any value in them when days are crisp, the air clean...and...and...when there is no mirage.


If it is acceptable to the both of you, I'd like to submit the following link for everyone's reading enjoyment.

This is a review of a Nikon 10x42 SE Porro prism binocular.

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Nikon-10X42-Superior-Es.php

Some of us 'old school' old fogies still enjoy viewing through Porro prism binoculars.

If you think that this link has 'nothing' good to offer I can delete it.

Thanks
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 19:40
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

My point Matt is that your assertions are valid in your case, not mine. 
 


I assert my assertions are valid in every case.  If an 8x bin and a 10x bin resolve more detail than the eye can (and they do), the higher magnification bin WILL bring more detail to the eye.

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

I have more than once called out points of detail with 8x that friends with what most would consider superior quality 10x binoculars did not see.  Why is that do you suppose? 
 

I would suppose you either have more skill at glassing or better vision.

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

 I agree that chart work will support higher magnification.  

Then you agree with my assertions.  The higher magnification bin does resolve more detail.

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

 What I was getting at was the extra detail available in 7x and 8x tripod mounted vs hand held 7x and 8x. 

No you said the 8x resolves more on the tripod:  
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

Matt,

I'm not wanting to start an argument here, but...sorry you cannot assure me that I'll see more detail off a tripod with a 10x vs an 8x (unless you mean in close, where you pretty much have to be with a chart).  I'll see more with the 8x (say rifle range distance).  




Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

So right now I remain an 8x first guy.  I have and use 10x, but I only see any value in them when days are crisp, the air clean...and...and...when there is no mirage.

This sounds reasonable to me, but in glassing in many variable conditions with both configurations right next to each other, IMO, I don't see significantly better mirage resistance from the 8x in all but rare and extreme conditions.  That is my experience anyway.
 


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 20:46
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
What people might be confusing is "seeing more detail" with the 10X as opposed to just seeing the object closer than they could with the 8X. If the object you are viewing is say, 80 yards away and you have a 8x bino compared to the object being 100 yards away and the user has a 10X bino, the amount of detail you can extract from that same object should be the same.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 20:47
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:


I assert my assertions are valid in every case.  If an 8x bin and a 10x bin resolve more detail than the eye can (and they do), the higher magnification bin WILL bring more detail to the eye.




Then there is no further point to this discussion, the horse seems truly dead. If you are to the point you cannot or will not see that your assertions are not valid for everyone else, then there really is no point, as the only remaining view that I can see is that you assert my assertions are invalid.  No, I'm not offended either. Smile

Also I do not now nor did I ever intent to assert my preference for 8x to be the one valid assertion.

Try this.  When 8x gets enough why is 10 better?  The perception of detail is dependent on the eye doing the viewing.  10x would be better if 8 was not enough.  If 8x is enough for me I assert there are other who share the view.  If your assertions are correct in every case why are there other magnifications?

Mirage really gets me and may well be the major reason for my 8x preference.  10x is, for me worthless in heavy mirage.  It's like rolling ball when the glass is stationary, almost enough to cause motion sickness.

I also think that there is a perception that if it looks bigger than there is more detail.


Edited by Klamath - February/13/2014 at 21:00
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 21:05
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

Then there is no further point to this discussion, the horse seems truly dead. If you are to the point you cannot or will not see that your assertions are not valid for everyone else, then there really is no point, as the only remaining view that I can see is that you assert my assertions are invalid.  No, I'm not offended either. Smile

It is funny Steve that now you are arguing my original point in the other thread!

Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Hard to say what somebody else sees or thinks.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2014 at 21:19
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
You edited your post, so I will respond again:

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:


I assert my assertions are valid in every case.  If an 8x bin and a 10x bin resolve more detail than the eye can (and they do), the higher magnification bin WILL bring more detail to the eye.




Then there is no further point to this discussion, the horse seems truly dead. If you are to the point you cannot or will not see that your assertions are not valid for everyone else, then there really is no point, as the only remaining view that I can see is that you assert my assertions are invalid.  No, I'm not offended either. Smile

Also I do not now nor did I ever intent to assert my preference for 8x to be the one valid assertion.

Try this.  When 8x gets enough why is 10 better?  The perception of detail is dependent on the eye doing the viewing.  10x would be better if 8 was not enough.  If 8x is enough for me I assert there are other who share the view.  If your assertions are correct in every case why are there other magnifications?

Mirage really gets me and may well be the major reason for my 8x preference.  10x is, for me worthless in heavy mirage.  It's like rolling ball when the glass is stationary, almost enough to cause motion sickness.

I also think that there is a perception that if it looks bigger than there is more detail.

Now you are changing my argument.  I do not argue for 8x or 10x, or if either is sufficient for anything in particular.  My only OBJECTIVE argument is that 10x shows more detail, due to magnification, of the same target, when tremors are controlled.  So I DO argue that if it looks bigger it shows more detail, so long as the quality of image remains.

SUBJECTIVELY, I argue that for me and my uses, this advantage is worth using a 10x over an 8X.  I understand this is my opinion, and true for only me and those of similar opinion.  I also fully accept that you are of a different opinion on this part, and your opinion is just as valid as mine.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2014 at 14:43
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
I fully disagree (at this point in my life) that because an image looks bigger there is an automatic increase in detail.  That is the optics textbook stance and the basis for the more detail argument. However for me, bigger does not automatically equate to better detail.

I will attempt an illustration.  This is something I managed to do a couple of months ago when the Mule Deer rut was still going on.  I live just north of a small range of small mountains called the Klamath Hills.  They are a sagebrush and Juniper habitat and have a maximum elevation of 5,165 feet.  There is a burn at about 4,400-4,800 feet according to Google Earth.  The burn is several years old, but still attracts some deer. My house sits at 4,100 and the Google Earth measured distance here is an average of 1.7 miles. 

I did all this from my porch in a chair with a SLIK Pro 700DX tripod.  Optics involved were as follows. Two  Bushnell Rangemaster 7x35’s, a Leupold Gold Ring HD 8x42, ZEN Prime HD 8x42, Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44, ZEN ED 2 10x43, Leupold Mesa porro 10x50, and a ZEN ED 2 20-60x80 spotter.  The spotter is the optical equivalent of the Vortex Razor HD.

I had just received the second Rangemaster, an early Fuji model from 1952, that day and I was looking it over.  In the process I looked up at that burn and saw some deer.  There were several bunches, from 6-10 deer each, each separated by some distance.  When panning from one bunch to another I got some peripheral movement.  Upon centering that movement it was another deer.  My immediate reaction was…it’s a buck.  That was a behavioral identification only.  Anybody reading this knows a rutting buck deer has distinct behaviors and postures.  That what was what immediately identified him as such.  So I begin looking for what detail I can get from him with 7x.  I could see antlers, and after a few moments I made a guess he was probably a 140+ with a spread about as wide as his ears.  He was bigger than the does.  That was easy enough to get, but not much more.

So I stepped back into the house and collected the above mentioned gear.  Up the magnification scale I went.  By the time I had got through the 10x binoculars I still had just the idea that I was looking at a maybe 140 class buck that was bigger than the does.  There was no more useful detail or information delivered by the 10x than the 7x.  The 10x by nature of the larger magnification of a 30% increase in size should have given me more than no improvement from the 7x.  By the time I got him in the spotter at 20x, then there was a lot more useful information.  Going to 40x got me as much as was going to be got under the conditions.  The spotter told me he was very likely a little bigger than I had thought and indicated he had decent mass, not great, just decent.  I was then be able to call him a promising, yet fairly young deer who would need a couple of years to really hit wall hanger status.  That really useful information is what I call detail extraction, not just the appearance of a larger image.  If the larger image gives me no more useful information, I see no point in arguing in favor of it.  The argument about too much distance in my example may be raised, but when hunting you deal with what the game gives you at any point in time.

There are other examples like identifying Ring Billed Ducks, Greater and Lesser Scaup at distance too.  That identification detail separation is pretty fine and 10x does it no better for me than less.

If somebody else wants to use size as a detail definition, then go right ahead.

My argument has always been for 8x.  I personally prefer the following.  8x has a generally brighter image than the same model 10x.  It also has better contrast.  It will also have better depth of focus and a better (porro more so than roof) 3-D image.  I really don’t care how other folks see things, but when I see multiple comments about eye stress, I can usually bet the comment will ultimately trace to a 10x glass. The typical conclusion drawn from the galley is better quality glass is the antidote. Our eyes are 1x and that is what our brain is wired for.  When we increase the size of the image we increase the potential for stress in our own optical system.  I am beginning to think that part of the differences seen here between Matt and me may well be age related.  I was pleasantly suprised by what I found with my eyes at the DMV a while back.  I realize it is not an eye test (which I need to get done anyway) but I didn’t think I could go as far down the chart as I did.  Having said that, my eyes are not what they once were either.  Matt said earlier he has excellent uncorrected vision.  I’m 65 and I believe Matt is quite a bit younger.  Therein may lie at least some of the difference.  

I think that the better depth, brighter, and better contrasted image of the 8x more than makes up for any difference in magnification.  I am also pretty strongly of the opinion that less stressed eyes will be a lot better off with detail after some time with 8x.  I am also of the opinion that 8x and 10x are functionally equal and differences are easier discussed than seen.  I think the older you get the quicker your eyes react to stress.

I’m beginning to think I may finally need to bite on an alpha glass, namely the Leica Duovid 8-12x42.  Use the 8x with occasional up ticks to 12x.  I had a Leupold Gold Ring 7-12x32 for a while that I basically liked, but in the final evaluation 12x is too much for 32 mm.  The 12x was great in close, but got fuzzy quick as the distance stretched.  That Leupold would disabuse anybody that bigger images have better detail at distance real quick.  The Leica might be a different story.

So, I think a person needs to figure out the magnification on their own.  Research in a place like this is fine and will certainly define some direction, and identify differences of opinion.  So my personal experience is for 8x.  

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2014 at 15:04
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3383
OK Steve,

It turns out the horse died. I didn't think it could be done, but I suspect Peddler did it. ;)

It seems to me we agree. Magnification provides more detail, but a user may not notice that increase, or find it usefull, and may need a greater increase in magnification to notice the increase in detail or find it useful. Another user may notice it and/or find it useful.

That was a long path to common ground, but I am glad we got there.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 04:30
Peddler View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: July/04/2012
Location: Oswego,NY
Status: Offline
Points: 9055
Yep Matt, the horse died!

Big Grin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 10:13
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

OK Steve,

It turns out the horse died. I didn't think it could be done, but I suspect Peddler did it. ;)

It seems to me we agree. Magnification provides more detail, but a user may not notice that increase, or find it usefull, and may need a greater increase in magnification to notice the increase in detail or find it useful. Another user may notice it and/or find it useful.

That was a long path to common ground, but I am glad we got there.


WTF...I am literally speechless Whacko.

Before the bones get picked clean, somebody will come along riding a new horse and ask the same old question. Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 10:48
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Interesting discussion. Maybe I am missing something in this discussion, but I think the quality of binos and not the magnification is what makes the difference on the image and eye strain. And the binos you listed Klamath to me are of better quality in the lower magnification range than the 10x one. My first exposure to the difference glass makes was with my Leupold Green Ring 15-45x60 spotter. I had the opportunity to look through a Kowa with a fixed 27x I think eye piece. The difference was amazing. And I can only look for a short time though my buddy's Nikon Monarch ATB 10x50 (I think that is what they were.). But my Pentax DCF ED 10x50s I can look though all day long with no eye strain.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 12:34
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Interesting discussion. Maybe I am missing something in this discussion, but I think the quality of binos and not the magnification is what makes the difference on the image and eye strain. And the binos you listed Klamath to me are of better quality in the lower magnification range than the 10x one. My first exposure to the difference glass makes was with my Leupold Green Ring 15-45x60 spotter. I had the opportunity to look through a Kowa with a fixed 27x I think eye piece. The difference was amazing. And I can only look for a short time though my buddy's Nikon Monarch ATB 10x50 (I think that is what they were.). But my Pentax DCF ED 10x50s I can look though all day long with no eye strain.

OK, I understand the thought that the ZEN ED and Leupold Mesa 10x binoculars may be considered inferior.  I do not particularly agree, if I thought they were in fact inferior I would not have them.  I have them because they function as I need them to function to meet my 10x uses.  My magnification stance is not modified if I am comparing ZEN ED 2 binoculars of 8x vs 10x.

I agree Kowa makes the best spotter money can buy.  What is not clear are two things from your spotter comment.  First does the Leupold spotter have HD glass and did the Kowa have a 60 mm objective?  Another thing is that in my experience a fixed 20-30x eye piece on a good spotter will whack the same spotter with a zoom, Kowa 884 lenses included.  I was amazed at the difference in the Kowa I reviewed here some time back when I had later opportunity to use one with both fixed and variable eye pieces.  My ZEN ED 2 20-60x80 performs much better with their  fixed WA eye piece as well.  I would say that a good spotter with a good Wide Angle fixed magnification of no more magnification needed to keep the exit pupil at 2.0 mm is about right.  In other words no more than 30 x for a 60 mm and 40 x for an 80 mm.

Did you check for miscollimation issues with the ATB?  While it is not a glass I particularly admire I had an 8x ATB for several years and found it more or less basically optically adequate.  Eye strain from very short viewing session ring a miscollimation bell very loudly for me, regardless of make and price.  If the optic is properly collimated eye strain should take awhile if either of two things are ultimately needed by the viewer, whether the viewer does indeed need to pick up the quality, or whether the viewer is stretching his eyes with too much magnification.  I submit either one is equally likely and I repeat my stance you need to figure that out for yourself.  I can give you some pointers how I work through those questions, but in the final analysis I can't make that call for you. 

I also believe the simplest solutions are the best.  If the Pentax works, don't change it. Big Smile

I'm going to edit this to indicate while my current stance on magnification is pretty firm, I have no compulsion that I may be forced to a change of some sort as my eyes get older.  In spite of my 8x preference I was impressed enough with the Leupold mesa (which I had not used in a while) that I am looking (not real seriously, but looking) at a 10x50 porro that bests it.  I would also like to have the chance to work out a Swarovski 10x40 porro too.  What views I have seen from them clearly indicate they are the best 10 x images I have seen.


Edited by Klamath - February/15/2014 at 13:00
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 13:45
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490

Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

 In spite of my 8x preference I was impressed enough with the Leupold mesa (which I had not used in a while) that I am looking (not real seriously, but looking) at a 10x50 porro that bests it.

I would also like to have the chance to work out a Swarovski 10x40 porro too.

What views I have seen from them clearly indicate they are the best 10 x images I have seen.

Steve I went to www.swarovskioptik.com & could not find the Habicht binoculars listed.

Have they been discontinued by Swarovski? SWFA does not list them.

I recently found out that the Nikon SE binoculars are no longer available for the US market.

Looks like the top-of-the-line Porro prism binoculars are becoming fewer & fewer.

You should try and have a look through this 10x50 Porro. Big Grin

http://swfa.com/Docter-10x50-Nobilem-Binocular-P8924.aspx

http://www.docter-germany.de/en/products/prod/cat/porro-prism-binoculars/prod/docter-nobilem-series.html

Or this 10x50 Bandito

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/binoculars/fmt/#fmt_10x50fmtsx



Edited by Bird Watcher - February/15/2014 at 13:51
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 13:53
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1268
Stan,

Swarovski still makes them. You have to special order them or a dealer has to special order them. You have to go to the UK site to see them at Swarovski.  There are a couple of new ones (from a dealer in Pennsylvania who keeps them ordered ahead of time for stock) from that infamous site that sells stuff.  Head for that site and do a search.  They are about $1,200 new Smile.


Edited by Klamath - February/15/2014 at 13:59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 13:55
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490

O.K.

Thanks

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2014 at 16:23
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194

The Leupold Green Ring is the enter level Leupold spotting scope at the time, so no HD glass. The Kowa I believe was a 60mm and one of their lower cost spotting scopes.

And no I do not recall if I checked for miscollimation issues with the ATB's. It was a number of years ago. And when I say a short time, it was more than a few minutes. He also has a pair of Pentax DCF 10x50s that I was able to look through and that is what lead me to purchase the Pentax DCF EDs. I was going to get the non ED version, but I was at a store that was going out of business and they had a great deal on the ED version and no non ED version.

And BTW thanks for your comment about that a good spotter with a good Wide Angle fixed magnification of no more magnification needed to keep the exit pupil at 2.0 mm is about right. I have been thinking about a fixed eye piece for my Pentax 80ED and possibly my Nikon 50ED.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2014 at 18:55
Losthwy View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: July/30/2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 78
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Binocular Magnification Debate Thread"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
the "15 extra minutes" debate ccoker Rifle Scopes 104
Looking for a low magnification scope Karl Rifle Scopes 13 8/2/2005 4:13:14 PM
magnification question carolinaflats Binoculars 12 4/23/2005 3:00:34 AM
Magnification Semper Fi Spotting Scopes 2 1/28/2006 4:01:21 PM
How much magnification? WileyCat Target 4 10/21/2006 1:14:20 AM
magnification selection steadyshot Rifle Scopes 16 11/30/2006 3:43:05 PM
magnification? jackG Rifle Scopes 15 12/5/2006 11:33:46 AM
Low magnification binoculars. Duffy Binoculars 7 1/19/2007 8:28:42 AM
How much magnification? houser52 Rifle Scopes 15 1/25/2007 8:03:46 PM
fixed powers and low magnification Jsimoneaud Rifle Scopes 28 1/27/2007 1:55:51 PM


This page was generated in 0.461 seconds.