Telescope Reviews: My New Favorite 10x50 Binoculars

Over the years several on this group and at other forums have mentioned that they like the Leupold Wind River binoculars very much. About 4 or 5 months ago I was able to catch the Leupold Wind River 8x42 porro prism binoculars on sale at Cabelas. I also had a discount certificate which made these very appealing (about $139.00). They were ordered, received and tested and will be one of the prizes this fall at the Deep South Regional Stargaze. They are very nice, one of the best 8x42 porro prism binoculars currently available.

The point of this post is to give my impressions and review of the Orion Savannah 10x50. So why lead off with the Leupold 8x42? My impression comparing the photos and specifications of the two Savannah porro prism binoculars that Orion sells to the photos and specs of the Leupold 10x50 and 8x42 is that with the exception of some of the external skin, these binoculars are the same. To my satisfaction I feel confident in now saying that they are the same, the only difference being the external skin. All component parts are identical except for the external covering over the frame. Beyond that the only differences that I see is that the Leupold Wind River Mesa has a focus lock feature, while the Orion Savannah does not and the Orion Savannah has a more sophisticated adjustable eye cup feature, something that may now be a feature of newer versions of the Leupold porro prism binoculars.

In any event I do like the Orion Savannah better, primarily because it has the better eye cup adjustments and, at least to me, I like it's externals better. My primary problem with the Leupold is the studded dog collar look on the focuser and around the rim of the eyepiece barrels. This is essentially small spikes, presumably to aid in a better grip when the focuser or eye cups are adjusted by someone wearing gloves. Additionally the Leupold binoculars have some screen printed lettering on the dorsal surface of the prism housing just where your hands would go. Over time this labeling will have a tendency to wear off. The Orion Savannah has it's labeling on the top flat of the prism housing and on the dorsal surface of the prism housing, but by the focus wheel. The design of these binoculars is such that your fingers going for the focus wheel will not easily come into contact with this labeling so it is unlikely that this labeling will be worn down.

The picture attached to this post shows the Orion Savannah along with the Nikon Action Extreme and the Pentax PCF
WP, all in 10x50.

Here are some comparitive specs, not from manufacturer's literature, but from my testing and measurement -

Weight - (with straps, using handheld digital fish scale) -

Nikon Action Extreme - 2 lbs, 8 oz

Pentax PCF WP - 2 lbs, 7 oz

Orion Savannah - 2 lbs, 5 oz

Near Focus -

Nikon - 22 feet, Pentax 23 feet, Orion 28 feet

Interpupilary Adjustment Range -

Nikon - 56 mm to 73.5 mm, Pentax PCF WP- 57mm to 73.5 mm, Orion Savannah - 58 mm to 72 mm

Eye Cup Adjustment Positions (all with positive detents/click stops)

Nikon - 4 positions, Pentax - 2 positions, and Orion - 5 positions

Note - the Pentax is either all the way up or all the way down, there are no stops for intermediate positions. Additionally the Pentax upper position will collapse under moderate pressure and it would seem that continued use/adjustment will tend to compromise whatever mechanism is employed to keep the eyecups in the upper position. I believe the latest version of the Pentax PCF (the WPII) has an eyecuparrangement similar to the Nikon, the next one to be described.

The Nikon Action Extreme has an eyecup which twists up and has stopsat two intermediate positions plus the top position. Direct pressure will not shift eyecups from an upper to lower positions. The Nikon system works very well.

The Orion Savannah has an eyecup which twists up and has stops at three intermediate positions plus the top position for a total of 5 positions including the bottom position. There is some rotational movement at each position, but no change in height due to this rotation. The Orion eyecup mechanism seems to work very well.

With the Pentax the eyecup range from bottom to top is 11 mm, with the Nikon the range from bottom to top is 9.5 mm and with the Orion Savannah it is 10.5 mm. In addition the focusers for each binocular move the eyepieces by these distances - 8.5 mm for the Nikon from the racked in position, with the Pentax the focus range is 7.5 mm and with the Orion Savannah it is just 6 mm.

Adjusted for my interpupilary separation of 63 mm, each of these binoculars have the following maximum width from the outer edge of the left objective housing to the outer edge of the right objective housing - Nikon - 181 mm, Pentax - 166mm, and Orion - 181 mm.

The maximum height of these binoculars with the eyecups all the way out and the focusers racked all the way out is - Nikon 194 mm, Pentax 195 mm, and Orion 181 mm.

As important as some of these figures may be to some of you, it is likely not the primary reason(s) to decide on a binocular purchase. You want to know how they work. I have to say that the Orion Savannah works very well. It somewhat combines the best qualities of both the Nikon and the Pentax PCF WP binoculars.

I have found that the Nikon Action Extreme is a very nice binocular. Ruggedly built, nice eyecups, and extremely sharp at field center. The real shortcoming as with virtually all wide field binoculars is a degradation of image quality away from the field center. How bad this fall off in quality is depends upon how critically individual observers evaluate (or care about) this, the interaction with an individual's own eyes and variances among pairs of binoculars or even from one barrel side to the other. Some feel that the Nikon Action Extreme only has about a 60% useable field on stars, other push this out to about 80%. Still others feel that if you concentrate your critical attention at field center, the fall off in quality is not that noticeable. In any event, when compared to binoculars that do a better job at image correction near the field edge, the quality fall off is noticed. However there are many binoculars similar to the Nikon Action Extreme in this regard; these would include the Minolta Activa, Orion UltraView, Bausch and Lomb Legacy, Fujinon 2000 and the Carton Adlerblick 10x50. I have tested and compared all these binoculars. The better binoculars with 50 mm objectives would include the Pentax PCF series 7x, 10x and 12x, the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50, the Carton Adlerblick 7x50, all of which I have tested. Others that have been reported by many to have very good edge performance include the Nikon Superior E 12x50 and the Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50, however I have not used these. (I have evaluated Nikon Superior E 10x42 and I agree with many who really feel they are superior binoculars.)

One other point in respect to the field of view of many wide field binoculars is that the field measured, using known distances between stars, does not often equate with what the manufacturer says the field is. Sometimes this has to do with eyecup placement (you generally can see a bit more field with the eyecups down) and it has to do with how the eye and the eyepieces interact (it is hard to see the whole field at once thru Nagler eyepieces). Irrespective of the reasons, I think most would agree that what we want is a measurement that says what we should see all at one time. Some binoculars will measure out on stars what the specs say and a very few will give you a bit more. The Nikon will generally not give a 6.5 degree true field on stars, with some feeling that the best they will do is about 6.1 to 6.2 degrees. My measurements of my Nikon Action Extreme is in agreement with this. So multiplying that 6.1 degree field by the percentage of reasonably useable field, about 65% at best, if you critically look at the field edge stars and maybe 80% if you are just aware of these stars peripherally, the useable field may be as little as a 4.0 degree field and as much as a 4.9 degree field. Let me say that the edge fall off is noticed far less for terrestrial observation and the central sharpness of the Nikon is excellent.

At the other extreme we have the Pentax PCF WP 10x50. The WP adds waterproofing and a minor body change to the PCF V. The PCF V added the eyecups that it shares with the WP when it became the upgrade to the PCF III (traditional rubber fold-down eyecups). In addition the PCF V moved production from Japan to China. While now upgraded again with the introduction of the WP II, the WP is still available from many sources. One problem as I see it with the WP, as well as with the Nikon Action Extreme, and also the Orion Savannah is one drawbackof virtually all water proof binoculars - the focusing action is just not as smooth as non-waterproof binoculars. Sometimes this is of little consequence, but it to a degree does take away from the pleasure of using binoculars. My Nikon Action Extreme proved to be somewhat difficult to focus at altitude (above 6000 feet) on two occasions, and the Pentax WP are far less smooth and far more difficult to focus well than is the Pentax PCF V which is the previous (non water proof model). Apparently the o-ring and lubrication seals make the focusing much more of a challenge.

In respect to image quality the Pentax WP is very good. However my personal opinion is that the Nikon Action Extreme is better at field center. The Pentax advantage is that the image quality remains good over a larger percentage of the field. Good out to 80% when viewed critically and perhaps 95% if the field edge is just viewed peripherally. However these are standard angle binoculars with a 50 degree apparent, 5 degree true field. Fortunately a full 5 degrees can be measured on star fields, so a good field will range between 4 degrees and 4.75 degrees. This is virtually identical to the Nikon if you look at star fields critically.

I always admired the styling of the Pentax but I do find that in actual use the Nikon Action Extreme is more comfortable in my hands.

Moving on to the Orion Savannah, I will say that we do not see that much written about either the Orion Savannah or the Leupold Wind River. I mention them again, because as I said before, comparison of both the Orion Savannah and the Leupold Wind River will convince you that they have to come from the same source. Minor cosmetic differences will distinguish each, but internally they are virtually identical. Externally the Orion Savannah looks more like the Pentax WP than it does the Nikon Action Extreme. Looking at the photo I have posted below,the external size difference between the eyepieces (Savannah and Pentax) is striking, but the actual diameter of the eye lens is
larger with the Orion Savannah. I was impressed by the feel and performance of the Orion Savannah. It feels right when I hold it and the 5 settings for the eye cups is a big plus ( I go to the 4th setting up). The focusing action while still fairly typical of a waterproof binocular, is smoother than either the Nikon or the Pentax. The fit and finish is excellent. The case is a nice leather, very well done; I like it better than either the cordura cases that the Nikon and Pentax have.

Terrestrially I could tell that the Orion Savannah has a larger field than the Pentax. The Orion is advertised as a 5.3 degree true, 53 degree apparent field. The image quality at the field edge on terrestrial targets looked pretty good. Last night I had the opportunity to use the Orion Savannah on the sky and I found that
performance there was excellent. Image quality at the edge was at least as good as the Pentax WP. Almost the equivalent to the Carton Adlerblick 7x50 and the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50. I would say that for critical use the Orion Savannah has a good field out to between 80 to 85% and that peripherally it is good to 95%. The big pleasant surprise is the measurement of what it actually sees size-wise. It
could just barely capture both Megrez and Alioth in Ursa Major. Those guys are 5 degrees, 25 minutes apart in the sky; and considering that I could capture both, this equates to a 5.5 degree field of view, not 5.3 as advertised. Plugging that into the equation, the good field on stars is 4.4 degrees critically and 5.2 degrees if edge stars are just noted peripherally. So for astronomical targets it has a larger effective field than the Nikon
Action Extreme!

I also noted no ghosting as I did in the Pentax WP and the overall image in daytime appears slightly brighter and crisper. For the money these are really, really great binoculars. Perhaps not quite the equal of the Nikon Superior E series, but they are less than 1/3 the price and they are waterproof. I think for anyone wanting a good
10x50 binocular at a moderate price point, the Orion Savannah (or the Leupold Wind River Mesa) have to be a primary consideration. At least in my opinion, I consider them to be the best 10x50 binoculars in a moderate price range.

Barry Simon

Post Extras