Binoculars - Compact "Quality" Budget

[UnknownVT]

What do I look for for use with glasses? (severe astigmatism, progressive lenses).
Also, I want a small pair primarily to use at the fights I always go to see (MMA and boxing in a ring). The ring is always well lit and looking from dark to light. I don't think I care about field of view, because the action all takes place in a small (ring size) area. Anything in particular to look for?

Probably your best bet is to find someone with binoculars and try them out at a fight....

Generally 8x is the most recommended general usage power/magnification. Most people can manage to hold them steadily.

Looking from dark to bright area could present some problems depending on how bright and contrasty the scene is - it may cause some problems on internal reflections - probably the sort of problems I had with "against the light" tests.

If you intend to use the binos with glasses on, then look for good eye relief as Cougar Allen above - with your glasses off - I'm afraid that would have to be by trial and error - perhaps make a shortlist of binos and go try them out in a shop first - but know what to look for and if possible have a "benchmark" pair to compare to.....

Having said all that the Nikon Sportstar 8x25 at about $20 just seems too good a bargain to pass up - that is if our BladeForum members haven't already bought them all up .

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Bruise Lee]

Having said all that the Nikon Sportstar 8x25 at about $20 just seems too good a bargain to pass up - that is if our BladeForum members haven't already bought them all up .
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos[/SIZE]

Well, based on VT's review here, I went ahead and ordered two of 'em. Maybe I'll do a quick comparison of the 4 cheapie Simmons binoculars I bought awhile ago.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391468&highlight=binocular+review

I had photos to go with my review, but it looks like somehow they disappeared.

 

[UnknownVT]

Well, based on VT's review here, I went ahead and ordered two of 'em. Maybe I'll do a quick comparison of the 4 cheapie Simmons binoculars I bought awhile ago.

Look forward to seeing what you think......

Last night for grins I was looking through some of my binos in my dimly lit living room -
lit with just a single 10watt SoftWhite CFL (=40watt equiv) in a desk lamp housing.

I looked at an area just off to the side of the CRT TV that was on at the markings on some black equipment - so against the light - a pretty severe test.

I was surprised in this casual, non-scientific, ad-hoc and non-quantitative "test" that the Nikon SportStar 8x25 seemed to do better than the more expensive and mostly optically superior Travelite V 8x25 -
internal reflections/flare robbed the Travelite V from doing better -
whereas the simpler roof prism Nikon SportStar 8x25 seemed to do better.

Note this is not definitive by any means but mere casual observation.

Generally on cheaper compact binoculars (reverse) porro prisms are recommended (typically W shaped)
whereas cheaper roof prisms (typically H shaped) are usually a no-no
until one reaches nose bleed territory -
so this makes these Nikon SportStars really surprising -
but generally for normal daylight viewing they are good
but kind of 93% of the Travelite V or Venturer II -
so don't expect miracles -
having said that these Nikon SportsStar 8x25 are surprisingly good -
esp for $20!

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[HikingMano]

Excellent post, VT. I really appreciate the hand on, nuts and bolts utility approach (and the pictures!!!)

I have been thinking of buying a good pair or small binocs for a while, but didn't know which way to turn. Information like you posted is worth its weight in gold.

Thanks -

Robert

Ditto :thumbup: Thanks VT!

 

[Cougar Allen]

Mine arrived today. A few minutes comparison on my front porch doesn't show any difference in resolution between the SportStar and my 1970 vintage 8x24 reverse porro prism Look. It's much lighter and it does work with my glasses on, so I'll be using the SportStar from now on. :thumbup:

 

[UnknownVT]

Mine arrived today. A few minutes comparison on my front porch doesn't show any difference in resolution between the SportStar and my 1970 vintage 8x24 reverse porro prism Look. It's much lighter and it does work with my glasses on, so I'll be using the SportStar from now on. :thumbup:

You have the Nikon Look 8x24?

Those are somewhat classics in their own right - the predecessor of the now legendary Nikon Venturer II 8x23 -
so I would think they are very good
- although I think the main complaint was that they do not have any soft eye cup per se just ends in hard metal eye piece -
but then at least they used real metal......
they're supposed to be waterproof too - so have a plain glass in front of the objectives -
so may cause more internal reflections for against the light views.

Thread at BirdForums

and see this post #12 which has links to small pics of the Nikon Look.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Cougar Allen]

We figured out the one I found in the thrift store a couple of weeks ago is a Look, remember? http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734128

 

[UnknownVT]

We figured out the one I found in the thrift store a couple of weeks ago is a Look, remember? http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734128

Ooops!
yes, I now remember...
old-timers' disease....
don't worry I'll have forgotten this incident/embarrassment by tonight.
I also have convenience memory
($2 at the 7-11)

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Bruise Lee]

I just did a quick and dirty and comparison of my new Nikon SportStar 8x25 binoculars to my older, very budget priced Simmons binoculars.

First, a few words about my optical test lab. I basically leaned a copy of my local paper against the garage door, and used a tape measure to see how far away I could go and still read the fine print. I should also mention my eyesight is not the best, and also this test was done in the late afternoon when daylight was already starting to fade. In fact, when I was putting everything away, I reran the test, and found I could not read the newspaper at the distances I could just over 1/2 hour earlier. So, if you have good vision, and conducted a similar test in broad daylight, you probably would have been able to read the paper at a slightly greater range.

With my Simmons 8x21 binoculars, I was able to read the paper out to about 20 ft. Note these binoculars are quite a bit smaller than anything else in this test.

For the heck of it, I threw in my Simmons 8x40 full size binoculars. With them, I was able to read the paper up to about 22 ft. With these babies, the field of vision was much wider.

With my Simmons 10x25's, I was able to read the paper at 24 ft.

So, how did the Nikons fare, you ask? Well, just like the Simmons 8x40's, I was able to read the paper up to about 22 ft. I really didn't notice any difference in sharpness between the binoculars with the naked eye. However, there was a big difference in brightness between the two, the Nikon being much brighter. I should also mention, the Nikons came with a nylon carry case with a Velcro closure. They also came with a 25 year repair or replacement guarantee.

All of these compact binoculars had very similar fields of vision, except of course, the full sized Simmons, as I already mentioned.

In conclusion, I'll be taking the Nikons around with me on my hikes and to sporting events due to its superior light gathering, or perhaps light transmission, capabilities.

 

[UnknownVT]

Let me apologize ahead of time for the centerfold size images, I just bought a new digital camera, and this is my first time posting with images taken by it.

First, thank you for your input.

Yes, well, it causes horizontal scrolling on most browsers, and makes seeing your pics and reading your text very awkward.

Can you please edit your post with Resized images?
Please either resize your images to less than 800 pixels width/horizontally on you computer before upload -
or , I see you're using ImageShack,
simply use ImageShack's own upload dialog to resize:

I should also mention my eyesight is not the best, and also this test was done in the late afternoon when daylight was already starting to fade. In fact, when I was putting everything away, I reran the test, and found I could not read the newspaper at the distances I could just over 1/2 hour earlier. So, if you have good vision, and conducted a similar test in broad daylight, you probably would have been able to read the paper at a slightly greater range.

Without meaning to take anything away from your efforts.

Fading light means changing light - that could mean each pair of binoculars are tested under a different lighting condition with I guess possibly the last being under dimmer light than the first - so that could make possibly a (big) difference.

It may be better if you have the time and inclination to re-run your tests (now that you have the routine down) again during say early afternoon just to see if there is any difference in your results.

So, how did the Nikons fare, you ask? Well, just like the Simmons 8x40's, I was able to read the paper up to about 22 ft. I really didn't notice any difference in sharpness between the binoculars with the naked eye. However, there was a big difference in brightness between the two, the Nikon being much brighter. I should also mention, the Nikons came with a nylon carry case with a Velcro closure. They also came with a 25 year repair or replacement guarantee.

In conclusion, I'll be taking the Nikons around with me on my hikes and to sporting events due to its superior light gathering, or perhaps light transmission, capabilities.

This surprises me - I am glad you can see that the Nikon had a "brighter" image - I wonder if you mean more contrasty/clearer looking image - or just brighter?

Either way if it is noticeably "brighter" (or more contrasty/clearer) then I am surprised that it did not do better at reading/resolution - especially if you're talking about matching/rivalling the larger Simmons 8x40?
- the Nikon obviously has a "better" image by your description........

Was there any difference between the two pairs you got - or were they basically consistent?

What did you think of the construction since Cougar Allen brought up two reviews that thought they were flimsy?

Thanks,

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Cougar Allen]

I should comment on that now that I have a SportStar in hand. I wouldn't call it "flimsy." The rubber armor doesn't seem very thick and it's smooth, and it's fairly lightweight at 9 ounces. A binocular with thick deeply checkered rubber that weighs more might well give an impression of more shock resistance, but would it really be more shock resistant? The heavier anything is, the harder it hits when you drop it. I don't have a lot of confidence in any center-focusing binocular to survive a drop without being knocked out of alignment. I don't think the tubes or the hinge will break. I think that's all we can say without doing drop testing, or collecting a lot of reports from people who've dropped them.

I have more confidence in the Nikon guarantee than in subjective impressions of the look and feel. We have the some problem with knives -- some knives impress people as very tough just because they're thick and heavy, but they're made of brittle materials or badly designed and put together.

 

[UnknownVT]

I should comment on that now that I have a SportStar in hand. I wouldn't call it "flimsy."
I have more confidence in the Nikon guarantee than in subjective impressions of the look and feel.

Thank you for that input -
Then on what basis did the previous review you quoted base their "flimsy" plastic findings?

Look at the Nikons especially the central hinged area and compare with the typical lower priced roof-prism binos (H shaped) like those huge pics posted by Bruise Lee of his Simmons 8x21 and 10x25 -
or these two pairs of cheapie roof-prisms:

I think mechanically these Nikons are a lot better, and more confidence inspiring - without even having the need to take into account of their 25 year guarantee.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Bruise Lee]

Well, I resized my pictures - much better now!

I haven't even opened the box of my other Sportstar. I was gonna give it away as a gift this Xmas, but I guess I could take it for a quick spin without ruining my gift.

As far as ruggedness is concerned, the Sportstar didn't strike me as being particularly flimsy, or rugged. I mean the things only weigh a few ounces, so how rugged can they be? Unless, the body was made of titanium or some other exotic lightweight material, of course. The rubber armor isn't super thick, but it's thick enough to protect the binoculars from everyday dings and dents.

I guess there was more contrast in the Nikon image than in the Simmons. But, like I said, the main difference was brightness. It was like looking in a room lit by a 100 watt bulb versus one lit by a 60 watt bulb. Again, I really didn't notice any difference in the sharpness or clarity of the newsprint letters.

I may or may not run my test over again. I had a rare day off, and if I hadn't done it then it would have been weeks later.

 

[UnknownVT]

Well, I resized my pictures - much better now!
As far as ruggedness is concerned, the Sportstar didn't strike me as being particularly flimsy, or rugged.
I guess there was more contrast in the Nikon image than in the Simmons. But, like I said, the main difference was brightness. It was like looking in a room lit by a 100 watt bulb versus one lit by a 60 watt bulb. Again, I really didn't notice any difference in the sharpness or clarity of the newsprint letters.

Thanks for the resize, and the input.

I was just a bit surprised that the Nikons could be brighter and perhaps more contrasty - but don't seem sharper.

However I forget we're talking about the SportStar 8x25
and not the Travelite 8x25 or Venturer II 8x23 (sorry old-timers again).

Your results would kind of be in line with my old comparison from back 5 years ago - link to Post #14.

My cheapo Sakar 8x21 did quite well against my then benchmark Nikon Venturer II 8x23 (same pair compared in this thread) scoring 90% of the Venturer II with good indoor lighting.

The SportStar 8x25 scored basically 89-93.4% of the same Venturer II and the more current Travelite V 8x25.

In theory those cheapo Sakar 8x21 would be "on par" with the Nikon SportStar for reading/resolving newsprint (perhaps with the Nikons being just slightly better - but within margin of experimental error) -
this is kind of in line with your findings since your Simmon 8x21 were 20/22x100% = 91% of the Nikon SportStar.

However in my case the Sakar 8x21 having novelty "Ruby coated" lenses have a horrible and noticeable cyan (blue/green) cast - even if it may have resolved about the same as the Nikon.

So resolution isn't everything - there are other attributes to the binoculars' image quality -
such as color rendition/lack of casts, and overall brightness/contrast.

By the sounds of it the Nikon SportStar has the better image over your Simmons?

Did you also mean your Nikon SportStar were brighter than your larger Simmon 8x40 too?
I would be truly impressed and surprised if they were.....

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[Bruise Lee]

UnknownVT, I did a quick check with my second pair of Sportstars. Optical performance was the same as far as my naked eye could tell. I'd say light gathering capability of the Sportstars was roughly the same as the full size Simmons binoculars, which was a pleasant surprise.

Like I said, these are now my choice for hiking, the opera, the ball game, etc., mainly due to the brighter image.

 

[UnknownVT]

UnknownVT, I did a quick check with my second pair of Sportstars. Optical performance was the same as far as my naked eye could tell. I'd say light gathering capability of the Sportstars was roughly the same as the full size Simmons binoculars, which was a pleasant surprise.

Like I said, these are now my choice for hiking, the opera, the ball game, etc., mainly due to the brighter image.

Very cool! Thank you so much for the follow up report -

It's nice to hear they are consistent
(even though it was a sampling of only two -
but not many people get two pair of the same binoculars -
so this was quite a unique opportunity).

To be able to match the brightness of your Simmons 8x40 is actually quite a feat -
astounding (on paper) at least to me -

8x40 have an exit pupil of 5mm
Vs.
8x25 have exit pupil of 3.125mm

So in theory by the exit pupil alone
the Simmons 8x40 should be
(5^2)/(3.125^2) = 25/9.77
= 2.56 x brighter
than the Nikon SportStar 8x25.

This is a very good illustration why one cannot rely on specs alone
when it comes to buying binoculars.

I'm glad you like them
and for anything that's visibly "better"
one really has to go to the Nikon Travelite 8x25
at about 3x the price we paid -
(or about 50% more at normal prices)
for about 7-10% improvement....

So I'd say we got a bargain?

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[UnknownVT]

Just an update - there is or will be a new Nikon Travelite -
it's called the Travelite VI in the rest of the world
whereas Nikon USA is just calling it the Travelite.

The USA model # 7277 for the 8x25
(Travelite V 8x25 USA is #7508 )

Nikon USA page for the new #7277 Travelite 8x25

Nikon USA page for #7508 Travelite V 8x25 - the model I compared above.

They kind of look very similar.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos

 

[UnknownVT]

More follow up...

one of life's mysteries solved....
OK, maybe not so dramatic -
for a while now I had been "jealous" of a Nikon Travelite EX model
that adds water- and fog-proof (very desirable feature)
seemingly available anywhere else in the world other than the USA
(one can buy it from Canada).

That is until I looked more closely at the specs of the Travelite EX (8x25) and noticed that it had a field of view of 6.3deg -
this is noticeably wider than my Travelite V 8x25 at 5.6deg (one of my complaints about the Travelite V - that's why I noticed) -
what gives?
so maybe the Travelite EX isn't just the regular Travelite with water- and fog- proofing.

So I downloaded the latest pdf Nikon (international) catalog of Sports Optics 2010-11 ( Brochure Download ) and looked more carefully at the pics I could find on-line and the specs of the Travelite EX.

Nikon Travelite EX at Nikon Global site

That's when I noticed in the USA the Nikon ProStaff ATB 8x25 looked suspiciously too similar both in specs and pics.

and I started to strongly suspect that the ProStaff ATB 8x25 are actually the same binoculars as the Travelite EX 8x25 elsewhere in the world....

Nikon ProStaff ATB 8x25 on Nikon USA site

(also there is no ProStaff model in the pdf international catalog)

Finally doing a search on Travelite EX vs. ProStaff ATB - I found this thread/post #7 (link) on BirdForum that seems to confirm my suspicions.

Better confirmation BirdForum review page on the Travelite EX/ProStaff ATB

Of course finding the US model means that the purchase price can be lower - eg: from Canada the Travelite EX 8x25 is about $140, whereas in the USA the ProStaff ATB 8x25 is closer to $90...
still I think the regular Travelite V 8x25 is better value -
it is true that they might get ruined by a downpour -
but then again one probably can just buy another pair......

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos