Help and advice please Binoculars.
Discussion
With Bino's you need to try before you buy.
Suggest going to an independant shop that stocks several brands.
DON'T be Conned/Psyched into buying expensive brands like Leica, Zeiss or Sworovski.
I was in this predicament, ended up with a pair of Nikon 'Action' bino's which cost less than £50. they're at least the equal performance wise of any of the Stupidly expensive brands I've mentioned.
Of course you might be a brand snob - if that's the case then it's gonna cost you a good 4 figures to prove it.
Hope this helps
Suggest going to an independant shop that stocks several brands.
DON'T be Conned/Psyched into buying expensive brands like Leica, Zeiss or Sworovski.
I was in this predicament, ended up with a pair of Nikon 'Action' bino's which cost less than £50. they're at least the equal performance wise of any of the Stupidly expensive brands I've mentioned.
Of course you might be a brand snob - if that's the case then it's gonna cost you a good 4 figures to prove it.
Hope this helps
Try before you buy, certainly, but the concept that you don't get a return for paying more isn't my experience. I have some Nikons, my wife has Swarovski and are undoubtedly better.
You need to be able to judge the level or magnification you want, more isn't necessarily better, it's not just about how close it brings things but also how bright which is also down to how big they are.
But decide your budget first, you don't want to be trying ones you can't/don't want to afford!
You need to be able to judge the level or magnification you want, more isn't necessarily better, it's not just about how close it brings things but also how bright which is also down to how big they are.
But decide your budget first, you don't want to be trying ones you can't/don't want to afford!
My experience of binos is from hunting use rather than ship-watching, I use a pair of 7x36 Zen-Ray ED2 which are generally regarded as optically performing a long way above their price point - certainly in another league compared to cheaper Bushnell and Steiner and my brother's Burris rangefinder binos. Guys with Swarovski, Leica etc do rave about them too though, and I've looked through some more expensive Steiners which were very nice. Often the extra $$ is most noticeable in low light (dawn/dusk) which is very important to hunters but may not matter to you.
7-8x is most common for all-round use as beyond that they can be harder to hold steady, but if you're planning to use them on a tripod then a 10x or 12x with 50mm+ objective might suit you.
7-8x is most common for all-round use as beyond that they can be harder to hold steady, but if you're planning to use them on a tripod then a 10x or 12x with 50mm+ objective might suit you.
Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 23 February 07:46
http://r.ebay.com/tBmlWU
I have a set of russian 20x50 similar to these and they are superb. Handheld is difficult, really you need to rest your elbows on sonething, but if you can stabilise them you are rewarded with a bright, 3d image that allows observation of a human at 1000m. For use on a tripod for watching distant ships they would be ideal, and they are great for observing bright celestical objects like the moon and orion nebula.
I have a set of russian 20x50 similar to these and they are superb. Handheld is difficult, really you need to rest your elbows on sonething, but if you can stabilise them you are rewarded with a bright, 3d image that allows observation of a human at 1000m. For use on a tripod for watching distant ships they would be ideal, and they are great for observing bright celestical objects like the moon and orion nebula.
I have a pair of Celestron 9x33. You can fit an adapter if you want to use them on a tripod, but they are small and light enough to be handheld without problem. At 9x mag they are close to the ubiquitous 10x50, and despite only having a 33mm objective lens, being good quality glass they don't feel like they let in less light than something with a 50mm objective.
Gravelben
Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her's
Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket
But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her'sEdited by S47 on Sunday 23 February 15:32
I have a bunch of them, posh to cheap, tiny to large. Fun to have up here.
One pair is a VERY large pair of these 25 x 100 - looking permanently out to sea, and they are the sort of thing I'd recommend as a fixed option... as most of the 'land' bins work well in the field, but are not suited for long range, tripod fixed, high magnification, very distant bins. However, they are NOT the sort of things one carry around (and you'll need a decent tripod, they are huge and heavy). Minimum focus distance 30 metres.
From memory, they were only £250 ish... and are used every single day. A bit of chromatic aboration, but for this price and magnification...
ETA Here they are: http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Helio...
One pair is a VERY large pair of these 25 x 100 - looking permanently out to sea, and they are the sort of thing I'd recommend as a fixed option... as most of the 'land' bins work well in the field, but are not suited for long range, tripod fixed, high magnification, very distant bins. However, they are NOT the sort of things one carry around (and you'll need a decent tripod, they are huge and heavy). Minimum focus distance 30 metres.
From memory, they were only £250 ish... and are used every single day. A bit of chromatic aboration, but for this price and magnification...
ETA Here they are: http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Helio...
Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 23 February 16:44
S47 said:
Gravelben
Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her's
Well if you can't see a difference and you are happy with a £50 pair then that's great, you are the lucky one, you get something you are happy with for hardly any money.Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket
But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her'sBut to me even though I only have some cheap Nikon ones I can see a difference in the better quality ones. I don't use them enough to justify any, but to my eyes with Swarovski what I see sharper/clearer and brighter, as I say, if you don't see that - that's great, no need for you to spend the money but others may justify it to themselves.
Siscar said:
S47 said:
Gravelben
Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her's
Well if you can't see a difference and you are happy with a £50 pair then that's great, you are the lucky one, you get something you are happy with for hardly any money.Of course you're correct - people with expensive Bino's are always gonna rave about 'em, if I was stupid enough to pay £1500 or so for a pair, I'd want to try on impress on other's who used cheaper Bino's just how much superior my £1500 Zeicaovskis's are than their £50 pair. Reality is though when out in the field using Bino's there really ain't NO difference.
Anyone who's paid £1500 for a set ain't EVER gonna tell you that they're no better than my £50 pair, Coz that's gonna make 'em look even more stupid for buying 'em in the first place.
Of course in your wife's case no doubt her Green Zeicaovski's match the colour of her jacket
But then that's women for you, and she bought 'em with your money not her'sBut to me even though I only have some cheap Nikon ones I can see a difference in the better quality ones. I don't use them enough to justify any, but to my eyes with Swarovski what I see sharper/clearer and brighter, as I say, if you don't see that - that's great, no need for you to spend the money but others may justify it to themselves.
GetCarter said:
Owning both cheap and posh, and having no axe to grind, I can confirm expensive bins are much better than the cheap ones (there's a surprise)
/\ this.Four of us went on a safari recently and between us we had one cheap pair of bins, two mid price and one outrageously expensive pair.
The cheap ones were markedly inferior to the least good mid price ones.
The very expensive pair were optically the best (but not the nicest to hold in terms of where the strap lugs were positioned).
The two mid priced pairs were very different in optical quality, one of them representing excellent value compared to the high end pair, the other being a waste of money.
Get Carter/Elderly
Like I mentioned in my first post you MUST try any Bino's B4 you buy, QC is more variable on lower priced brands, you may find a pair that suit your eyes for very little money - like I did. I would hope the Very expensive brands have better QC though this still doesn't guarantee that you'll see any difference to a much cheaper pair when in use. An 8x42 pair of cheapies have the same light gathering abilities as an expensive pair of 8x42's all decent binos are waterproof even cheap ones.
I have no axe to grind, but whenever I use my Bino's I often get asked why I use Nikon Bino's, when all my expensive Camera kit is Canon, I tried Canon Bino's they were optically poor and heavy compared to my Nikon's, I'm never Brand loyal, always search for best available for my hard earned cash.
I'd love someone to Explain/Justify how the Zeicaovski's can cost up to 30 times as much as my Nikon's? IMO Nikon is a Very respectable Brand with a long track record in optics, unlike many other Unknown brands who make Bino's, at both lower priced & top end of the market.
The OP wanted advice on buying a pair of Bino's - hopefully some of my comments help him make the correct choice, without getting ripped off - If I asked for advice on buying something here on PH I'd hope to elicit similar diverse comments from the respondents
Like I mentioned in my first post you MUST try any Bino's B4 you buy, QC is more variable on lower priced brands, you may find a pair that suit your eyes for very little money - like I did. I would hope the Very expensive brands have better QC though this still doesn't guarantee that you'll see any difference to a much cheaper pair when in use. An 8x42 pair of cheapies have the same light gathering abilities as an expensive pair of 8x42's all decent binos are waterproof even cheap ones.
I have no axe to grind, but whenever I use my Bino's I often get asked why I use Nikon Bino's, when all my expensive Camera kit is Canon, I tried Canon Bino's they were optically poor and heavy compared to my Nikon's, I'm never Brand loyal, always search for best available for my hard earned cash.
I'd love someone to Explain/Justify how the Zeicaovski's can cost up to 30 times as much as my Nikon's? IMO Nikon is a Very respectable Brand with a long track record in optics, unlike many other Unknown brands who make Bino's, at both lower priced & top end of the market.
The OP wanted advice on buying a pair of Bino's - hopefully some of my comments help him make the correct choice, without getting ripped off - If I asked for advice on buying something here on PH I'd hope to elicit similar diverse comments from the respondents
S47 said:
An 8x42 pair of cheapies have the same light gathering abilities as an expensive pair of 8x42's
Yes and no - while a cheap pair may well have the same light receiving area, the inferior coatings and quality of lenses and prisms means a lot more of it gets reflected/wasted and never makes it to the eye of the viewer. Then there is contrast, clarity, resolution etc which can be a lot different as well.It becomes quite obvious when you're (for example) watching a rabbit feeding at 200m in fading light, then swap to inferior optics for comparison and wonder which fuzzy brown blob was the rabbit.
I agree with try before you buy though, different eyes do prefer different optics. I haven't tried Nikon binos to compare but I have a Nikon riflescope which is quite nice.
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 24th February 10:17
Nikon do them to different levels as well, they have some pretty expensive ones as well as the cheaper ones.
But it is all about the optics, the quality of the lenses and coatings. It also actually matters how good your eyesight is anyway, whether when you use the higher quality ones there is the ability to see the differences it brings. And of course there may be people who are just snobs about it as well!
But it is all about the optics, the quality of the lenses and coatings. It also actually matters how good your eyesight is anyway, whether when you use the higher quality ones there is the ability to see the differences it brings. And of course there may be people who are just snobs about it as well!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff