|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
No, I don't think any binocular is perfect. I think the closest I've come to an ideal binocular for me is the Nikon 8x42 LX, although I have a soft spot in my heart for the pugnacious 8x30 EII. It's homely appearance appeals to me but it's main flaw is the clumsy way in which it hangs on its neckstrap. Still, it's a "friendly" instrument to use; lightweight, nimble, and very nice optically...but not perfect, by any means.
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
Edited by ngc6475 (09/06/06 10:23 PM)
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Walter,
I WISH I felt the way you do about your 8x42 LX. It was the best birding binocular I've tried, but as you know, I found the barrel distortion excessive and intrusive.
Like Kenny scratching his head over why he hadn't heard of binocular focus accommodation problems with farsightedness on the "focussing peculiarities" thread, I am very puzzled how I could have read so many reviews of the 8x42 LX and not once come across anyone who also had been bothered by the barrel distortion!
Even when I wasn't panning, I could still see the field curve like a ball. In reviewer parlance, "the optics got in my way."
I apparently have the dubious distinction of being the only human being on the planet to see this distortion or at least the only one not able to ignore it.
Your 8x30 E2 with a much wider FOV only had slight barrel distortion by comparison, and I've always associated barrel distortion with wide fields of view.
Scratch, scratch, scratch... 
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
mooreorless
Just worried
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 2248
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Brock,I know I have said this before,but this distortion "went away" for me with the Nikon 8x42LX.I very much enjoyed the view,there would be a smile on my face everytime I used this binocular.
regards,Steve
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
|
edwincjones
Close Enough
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 7980
|
|
My fuji 10x70s were close to perfect for binocular astronomy, but just a little too haevy (and they say the 16x70s are better), my current swift audubons are near perfect for handholding, my pentac papilipo are perfect for close ups--I give up!
edj
--------------------
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
Hello Brock,
I recall you mentioning barrel distortion in the 8x42LX and, for me, it is barely noticeable; not significantly more intrusive than the EII, in fact. I have an inexpensive, but very decent, Minolta Activa 7x35 WP/FP and, in comparison to the LX, barrel distortion is very apparent when panning across a landscape. In my Cold War era Russian BPO 7x30, I can actually become queasy when moving it quickly around, its rolling ball effect is that severe. Still, I wonder if I may be less observant than you, or if there are eyes for which certain effects optical are more annoying. To my eyes, however, the 8x42LX provides a very pleasant view!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Walter,
I also had a Minolta 7x35 Activa WP/FP, but I only noticed the "rolling ball" while I was panning, and it had 8.2* FOV. With 7* FOV, and a price 10X more than the Minolta, I wasn't expecting to see an even greater level of barrel distortion on the 8x42 LX.
Using my glasses helped reduce the problem some, but still not enough for me to want to own one. While your 10x42 LX also had barrel distortion, I found it much less bothersome.
I have never been completely comfortable with a 10x binocular (except the 10x30 IS), because the jitters created by the higher power seemed to offset any gain I would have made with the larger image scale and higher resolution.
PLUS, I've found that at least for some series of binoculars, the 10x42 model does NOT yield greater resolution than the 8x42 model. This is true even of the LX series, according to Steve's measurements.
So there's little or no gain in measured resolution, and perhaps some hand held resolution lost in chosing a 10x42 over an 8x42. The 10x model usually has less DOF so for deep woods, the 8x would be preferrable.
Birders who watch birds of prey or seabirds during the day or owls at dusk might benefit from the larger image scale and better twilight factor of a 10x42.
In the Swift Ultralite series, the 10x42 is reportedly NOT as sharp as the 8x42 (ref. Dana Bunner reviews). I've read this about other series 10x vs. 8x42 binoculars too, though I can' t recall the brands or models. This difference might be because 10x EPs are harder to make than 8X.
For STARGAZING, l find that size matters, so a 10x42 binocular can be a good "dual purpose" bin.
My 12x50 SE, though the "closest to perfect" mid-power bin I've used for stargazing, sits on my shelf during the Monsoon Seasons (spring and fall) and a good part of the hazy summer.
Despite its better than usual close focus (14'-17', depending on your eyes), I find the shallower DOF, smaller FOV, and shakier images make it less appealing to me for birding than the 10x42 LX.
Due to its hefty weight, the 10x42 LX dampens my shakes to the point where the images are almost as steady as those seen through my 8x32 SE.
So after much deliberation and auction watching, I "gone and done it." I bought a 10x42 LX off eBay (demo model). Hopefully, it will be as good as yours.
As Kimmo and I both found out, there ARE sample variations in the LX series. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
chhayanat
member
Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 15
|
|
Quote:
I bought a 10x42 LX off eBay (demo model). Hopefully, it will be as good as yours.
As Kimmo and I both found out, there ARE sample variations in the LX series. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
Brock
Unless you think it would confuse people, a short review of the 10x42LX which you have just bought would be quite useful to determine sample variation. Since handling characteristics are unlikely to vary, image quality evaluation might be worthwhile.
Chhayanat
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< I bought a 10x42 LX off eBay (demo model). Hopefully, it will be as good as yours. >
Brock ,
I must say I'm full of both surprise and admiration at the same time !
I'm surprised not just by your decision to go for the Nikon LX / High Grade / Venturer / Premier Roof MODEL , given all you mentioned in your recent review / comments , but that you've elected for the 10x version , given what you said in your last post .
I'm presuming that your MAIN intended usage for this will be ASTRO ?
Perhaps -- just perhaps -- a Swarovski EL or SLC may have been worth a closer look -- or even a Fujinon FMT SX 10 x 50
OR -- dare I say it ? -- a CANON 10 x 42 IS L !
Having said that , the Nikon HGL 10 x 42 certainly pushed most of the right buttons and ticked the right boxes for ME when I last tried one .
But I ADMIRE your courage ( given your previous experience ) and wish you all the VERY best of luck with this new one .
I very much look forward to reading about your impressions .
Clear skies ,
Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
grbrown
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/09/05
Posts: 645
Loc: Ampthill, UK, 52:02N 0:30W
|
|
Kenny,
I have only owned four pairs of binoculars in my life! And only two at any one time. I exclude my BTs, as they are really a binocular spotting scope.
I find it interesting that there are people who obviously enjoy owning several or even many pairs, as I cannot imagine myself doing so.
Much of my enjoyment (on just four occasions!) has come from extensive (even protracted) research and agonising, before buying the pair that comes closest to my ideal at the time. I have then used them until feeling there has been a sufficient shift in the market to warrant an upgrade.
After that rambling introduction my current major bins are Leica Trinovid 12x50s, which are distinctly superior from an optical perspective to my previous Zeiss Dialyt 10x40s (bought over 30 years ago), yet the Zeiss were the more satisfying to use. A perfect pair of bins would be a marriage of the two!
Interestingly, the Dialyts employ two prisms in their roof system, whereas the name Trinovid derives from the three prism system Leica used at the time I bought my Zeiss. The Leicas of that era were not easy to use, which is why I bought the Zeiss. Today Leica, despite continuing to use the 'tri' in their name, employ a similar prism system to Zeiss. Their current bins are thereby, in my view, the better for it.
--------------------
Graham
"one eye good, two eyes better...the more I look, the more I see"
BT100-45 degrees, plus 35,24,17,13,9mm Sieberts
15x80, 7x50 Steiners
12x50, 10x42, 8x20 Leica Trinovids
7x35 Minolta
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 2447
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Kenny,
As you know, I've developed an unfortunate habit of collecting binoculars which have at least one major design flaw.
Of my good quality binos, the AP 15x70 is my best big bino. But it is quite heavy and therefore not perfect.
The Oberwerk 12x60's are nice. Unfortunately the focuser is getting sticky and the eyepiece bridge is wobbly.
I've two smaller quality binos, the Nikon 7x15 porro and a 20 year old Leica trinovid 8x20. Both work very well and are great small bino's. The Nikon definately wins the "wierd is good" award, but there are ergonomic issues due to its odd shape. Not so with the trinovids.
So, of my binos, I would go with my 8x20 trinovids. I find it ironic that the binos I bought when I knew absolutely nothing about optics are still the best ones I own. Beginners luck I guess.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 12 - 100 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Kenny,
As you know, I've developed an unfortunate habit of collecting binoculars which have at least one major design flaw. >
Peter ,
If the truth is known , I wouldn't mind betting there are , or have been , more amongst us " guilty " of this most unforgiveable trait than may like to admit it ! :-)
" Sticky focussers and wobbly bridges " would make a good title for a book about ? -- now let me see ! :-)
Thanks for responding so honestly Peter .
Smooth focussers and firm bridges !
Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
"So after much deliberation and auction watching, I "gone and done it." I bought a 10x42 LX off eBay..."
I salute your good taste in binoculars and I am looking forward to hearing more from you on your new LX. By the way, will it be the LX or the newer, lighter LX L?
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
< I bought a 10x42 LX off eBay (demo model). Hopefully, it will be as good as yours. >
Brock ,
I must say I'm full of both surprise and admiration at the same time !
I'm surprised not just by your decision to go for the Nikon LX / High Grade / Venturer / Premier Roof MODEL , given all you mentioned in your recent review / comments , but that you've elected for the 10x version , given what you said in your last post .
I'm presuming that your MAIN intended usage for this will be ASTRO ?
Perhaps -- just perhaps -- a Swarovski EL or SLC may have been worth a closer look -- or even a Fujinon FMT SX 10 x 50
OR -- dare I say it ? -- a CANON 10 x 42 IS L !
Having said that , the Nikon HGL 10 x 42 certainly pushed most of the right buttons and ticked the right boxes for ME when I last tried one .
But I ADMIRE your courage ( given your previous experience ) and wish you all the VERY best of luck with this new one .
I very much look forward to reading about your impressions .
Clear skies ,
Kenny
Kenny,
I would have preferred the 8x42 LX, but as I mentioned ad nauseum, I could not adjust to the barrel distortion. With the 8x32 LX, the "fatal flaw" is the ultra fast focuser, due to my recent conversion as a Presbyopian. So that leaves the 10x32 LX and 10x42 LX.
The 10x32 only has a 3.2mm exit pupil, which would probably make eye placement finicky and be too dim for typical days in Cloudy Valley, and have a fast focuser like the 8x32. So the 10x42 LX was my choice by default.
If I had my druthers, I'd prefer a custom-made 8x42 SE (7.5* FOV, 20mm ER) with LX coatings and LX twist-up eyecups. But only guys like Bill Gates can afford those kind of druthers.
Also, I sold my EO 10x50 ED, which left a hole in my power line up (7X, 8X, 9X, ...12x).
The 10x42 LX is NOT chiefly for stargazing. The opportunities to observe the night sky are so few and far between in Cloudy Valley that any binocular dedicated solely to stargazing is likely to end up on the shelf next to my 12x50 SE. In the past month, we had ONE partly clear night, that's it. The rest were either cloudy or hazy.
Buying the 10x42 LX is probably more crazy than brave, but I also found it "pushed most of the right buttons and ticked the right boxes" when I borrowed Walter's. But perhaps the reason I bought it was to keep up with the Joneses. :-)
We shall see! I'll post my impressions for you, Walter, and Chhayanat.
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 2039
Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
|
|
For me, the close to perfect binocular is the one at hand when suddenly, for some reason, I need to use a binocular.
--------------------
"May I have the ability to reduce the uncertainties I can; the willingness to work with the uncertainties I cannot; and the scientific knowledge to know the difference."
Based upon an adaptation from Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, by J. Barsugli, C. Anderson, J. Smith and J. Vogel.
|
Jeff Lee
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/17/06
Posts: 709
|
|
Hi:
For me, its my 10 x 50 Eagle Ranger Optics (a version of Celestron). I bought a pair for me and a pair for wife, as we are birds. They are small, light, rugged, and will only cost me $25 to place when I fall and kill them:)
I like them with and without my glass. They are light years ahead of my last pair (a 12 x 60 pair of Visoners which I got when they first came out). I looked at a lot of the $1K binoculars in the 10 x 42 to 10 x 50 range, and quite honestly my eyes couldn't tell the difference and every birder I ran into love their Rangers.
At only $320 I best a "best buy for Performance and Build" item. Lots of times they travel with me and I never fail to be amazed what a pair of 10 x 50 can see both here on earth and in the heavens above.
Regards,
Jeff
--------------------
Jeff Lee
C90,C5,C8, 10 x 50's
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 5024
Loc: 38°21'N 120°55'W
|
|
Hi Jeff,
It sounds like you have a great binocular! I've heard good things about it!
--------------------
Walter
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin
|
|
0 registered and 9 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: MMICKELS, okiestarman56
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
