Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Binoculars [was Some B&W]

Subject: [OM] Binoculars [was Some B&W]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:33:51 -0800
I think you folks are missing my point. I am suggesting there has been a 
significant shift in the image quality of at 
least some inexpensive binoculars fairly recently.

I've noticed a general tendency to hold in high esteem great binoculars of the 
past. For example, I have a very nice 
pair of Leitz 8x35Bs. For many years, many years ago, these were the pinnacle 
of bird watching binocs. They are now just 
mid-range.

[One disclaimer to all the following. I still very much like the Pentax Papillo 
6.5x21s. They are still unique for close 
stuff. I believe Dean characterized them as like portable stereo microscopes 
for his insects. The 8x25 DCFs are 
significantly better for distance but only focus to 7-8 ft. The Papillos are 
decent general purpose binocs, but only 
outstanding close up.]

[Second disclaimer. As most of you know, I have 20/10 visual acuity in my right 
eye. I can probably see more detail in 
any situation than you can. Still, I use(d) the same eyes through all these 
binoculars.]


On 11/6/2012 1:07 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Your note on the binocs reminded me that I have a pair of 8x23 Bushnell
> binoculars that my daughter bought for me but have rarely used.
> Certainly not as good as the Pentax roof-prism pair you have but
> actually not bad.

Well, yes, they are bad. I have a couple of cheap pairs of Bushnell folders as 
glove compartment fillers. Although I was 
careful to get the "fully-coated" versions, they still aren't good enough to 
actually use for more than a quick few 
moments.

> But I always seem to forget to take them.

What I suspect you will find is that you will try them a couple of times, then 
again forget about them. I believe this 
is because the faults in the view are great enough that they make the visual 
system unhappy; my eyes get tired very 
quickly. I think they are unconsciously rejected.

On 11/6/2012 2:02 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> About 20 years ago, when I was working photo retail, I bought myself a
> really nice Minolta pocket binocular. Unfortunately, it got dropped at
> some point and the optical alignment got off kilter a touch.
> Otherwise, they have served me really well. I need to tear them apart
> again and see if I can get them fixed.

Nope, as you recently remarked about MJ's photographic desires, that past is 
gone. No matter what you do to them, 
there's a $99 pair that will put them far in the shade.

On 11/6/2012 2:40 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
> In various Leica contests, I've won two pairs of Leica binoculars.  ...  The 
> other one
> is tiny and folds up and I take it hiking.  They are fantastic binoculars.

Yup, I've played with them several times. There's a place in Mendocino* that 
stocks a wide range of optics (and now has 
a nice web sales site). Right outside their window is a fabulous view of the 
coast. A model or two of folding Leicas and 
one or two others (Zeiss & Swarovski?) are outstanding - and really expensive. 
I could never get myself to spend that 
kind of money on a pair of pocket binocs, especially after I got the excellent 
8x40s.

What I'm proposing now is that the Pentaxes I have now are within at least a 
gnat's eyebrow of that good, for pocket 
change. I haven't done a direct comparison. I have in the past compared my full 
size B&L Elites to the pocket Leicas and 
recently compared the Pentax pockets to the Elites.

I'm not proposing that the DCFs are a replacement for the great 8x35-40s from 
Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. When 
the light starts to dim, in the shade of the woods, etc., the bigger objective 
lenses will win out. Nor will I claim 
they are quite as good as those binocs in good light, but they are sooooo much 
closer than small, light, inexpensive 
binocs have been before.

On 11/7/2012 7:17 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> When I lived full-time in south Florida I used to work as a volunteer ...
> I often encountered serious
> birders in the marsh.  They often had Leitz or Swarowski binoculars that
> shamed my little Nikon 7x35s.

Yup, got a pair of those (or did I give them to someone?) that my parents used 
for birding, as well as the Bushnells, 
Nikon 9x25 reverse porros, cheaper Nature company reverse porros that were 
actually more useful for their close focus, 
some fully coated 8x50s I bought in Japan in 1960, zooms of some kind, other 
forgotten pairs, and so on.

They are all junk, compared to the new Pentax DCF 8x25s

> But, just as with the cameras, I could
> never bring myself to justify something 10 times the price of what I
> had.  But I'd still like to have a pair.  :-)

That's my point! Now, $99 gets you there, in performance, if not prestige. :-)

On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> We had some nice binocs once upon a time. My wife dropped them in a toilet at 
> Fenway Park and that was that. Haven't got around to replacing them yet.

These are fully waterproof. ;-)

Proselytizer Moose

* Northern Calif., but perhaps more familiar to many as Cabot Cove, Maine, on 
TV.

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz