[Mnbird] Vortex Binoculars
Peter L Gilles
gilles_peter_l at msn.com
Fri May 15 22:24:25 CDT 2015
Thanks to every one who reponded to my original post. I thnk Eric's response below concerning personal fit and feel is good. If you notice, several reponses talked about weight and hand size and even inter-ocular distance which I can see could be a problem for some people.
I personally have a pair of nitrogen filled Nikon Action EX (10 x 50) (from the National Camera Tent Sale), a pair of Olypus Exps I (12 x 50) (from my brother's estate) and two pair of compact Nikon Travelite's that I keep tucked under the seat in each car. All except the compacts seem to have enough light gathering capability to safisfy my aging eyes. So to this point I am perfectly happy with all of them. Note that these are all porro-prism binoculars and for the most part open to wide enough inter-ocular distance to fit my face. I notice that nearly all the Vortex binoculars are roof-prisms. I didn't see that addressed in any of the posts.
What preciptated the original post was a telephone converstaion with my son-in-law in TX. He is an avid hunter and building a 308 rifle for long distance shooting and wanted to know if I knew anything about Votex Optics. I tried to Google them but made the same spelling mistake as in the original post (Vostex rather than Vortex) and came up empty so I turned to MNBird. I also thought that I might upgrade myself depending on what I learned.
I am a mathmatician and retired engineer so I have been following the evaluation posts with some interest.
But I realize it is time to cut it off. Again thanks to all who responded. And a pair of Vortex are on my Wish List!
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Jeffrey via Mnbird<mailto:mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
To: Chuck Cole<mailto:cncole at earthlink.net>
Cc: MN Bird<mailto:mnbird at lists.mnbird.net> ; <tapaculo47 at gmail.com><mailto:tapaculo47 at gmail.com%3E>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Mnbird] Ferhnglasser
In my view personal opinion, in particular my own, is the most crucial element of purchasing binoculars. No pair of binos works equally well for all. Over 40 years I have found that numbers, such as those produced by Cornell, are secondary to how binoculars fit a particular individual. I have repeatedly found that some highly rated pairs do not work for me, even if they do for others. For many years I happily used Celestron ED binoculars, but they were not waterproof and over time developed non-fixable mechanical problems. To me, they provided an unsurpassed apparent depth of field, even if not quite as crisp at the very edge. I have now switched to the Vortex Viper and am thrilled with the image quality, as a are others I know. Others may find them less impressive because the simple fact is that binoculars do not exist and cannot be tested in a vacuum. The best binoculars are those that work best for you, not those that rank best on any particular test.
Falls Church VA.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 15, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Chuck Cole via Mnbird <mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Greenfield [mailto:tapaculo47 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:32 PM
>> To: 'Chuck Cole'
>> Cc: 'MN Bird'
>> Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhnglasser
>> I don't understand why you lump www.allbinos.com<http://www.allbinos.com/> (a Website
>> from Poland) in
>> with "advertising rubbish". Why is, for example, their "use [of a]
>> spectrophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of
>> wavelengths from 380 to 900 nm" not a quantitative measure?
> The mere fact that the glass has transparency that compares similarly and
> favorably with transmission of a coke bottle is not a measure of imaging
> What I saw in that link you provided was almost entirely the writer's
> PERSONAL OPINIONS, and stated as such.
>> And while they
>> report that the expensive Nikon and Swarovski models do well on that
>> measure, they enthusiastically point out that Vanguard and
>> Vortex binoculars
>> costing just over a quarter of the price do so also:
>> (Note that I didn't find that source, and am not an owner or
>> partisan of
>> expensive optics.)
>> But I have no interest in arguing; can you point us to ratings on the
>> additional measures you mention, e.g. "optical measurements of
>> multi-spectral resolution" that show conversely the lack of
>> between different binoculars?
> I merely suggested
> 1) the buyer should do a test of ability to resolve Jupiter's 4 Gallilean
> satelites, and
> 2) THEY should look for actual measurements and comparisins of optical
> performance, not just "I liked that.." reports., and
> 3) I did not offer to research or teach optics to anyone, but shared some of
> my experiences with tests and so on.
>> Stephen Greenfield
>> tapaculo47 at gmail.com<mailto:tapaculo47 at gmail.com>
> YOU can research more and learn on your own. The data may be hard to find
> and is likely to require that YOU do tests,
> such as the very simple Jupiter test I recommended.
> Happy hunting!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck
>> Cole via Mnbird
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:09 PM
>> To: 'Mark Boenish'; mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
>> Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser
>> Everything in the Swarovski 'reviews" you cite is advertising
>> rubbish and
>> thus deserving of disrespect.
>> There is NO point of optical performance measure and none of
>> comparison at
>> Geometric measures of the external bodies are at most red
>> herrings to make
>> folks think they have seen meaningful data when there is no MEASURED
>> information at all regarding OPTICAL quality. Such optical
>> measurements of
>> multi-spectral resolution are routinely used in professional
>> circles, so
>> their absence is quite conspicuous. Hobbyists may not know
>> what they mean,
>> but can learn to spot their absence and maybe also learn a little.
>> The Swarovski optical claims for flint glass, dielectric
>> coatings, field
>> flattening and so on have been common industry practice since
>> the early
>> 1970s and are in no way unique or better in their products.
>> Leica and Zeiss
>> are good, but are also over-priced and are outclassed by
>> others that are
>> also more durable. Measured performance is real and what counts!
>> These Swarovski reviews are largely author's hype and cite
>> nearly trivial
>> measurements. Lacking quantitative measures of
>> center-to-edge corrections,
>> color fringing and so on merely supports my earlier
>> statements that these
>> ads are hype, do not contain pertinent information.
>> Companies selling such
>> high-priced things merely pay writers more to build the hype
>> that makes
>> folks buy without any real data and real tests. Some of the
>> Bushnell binocs
>> I've tested match the higher priced brands easily. I've seen
>> cases where
>> different units of the same brand and model differ greatly,
>> and some are
>> truly bad. I've seen others delivered with major defects in
>> their factory
>> coatings. The "Jupiter test" is always required no matter
>> how much faith
>> and superstition a "believer" may have.
>> You seem utterly mesmerized and taken in by hype alone.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Mark Boenish via Mnbird
>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:50 AM
>>> To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
>>> Subject: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser
>>> I have to put in a word for the Swarovski EL binoculars as
>> others have
>>> expressed some disrespect for these fine instruments. These
>> are simply
>>> optically the best binoculars on the market at the present time. A
>>> similar amount of money can buy you very nearly as good of
>> a product
>>> from Zeiss or Leica, significantly less money will buy you a solid
>>> product from Meopta, a modest amount of money will buy you
>> binocs that
>>> will get the job done from a variety of makers.
>>> Personally, I worked my way up over the decades from inexpensive
>>> Bushnell 7x50s to Bausch and Laumb 7x50s to Zeiss 7x50s to
>>> 10x32 ELs about ten years ago. There is a difference as you
>> work your
>>> way up the price range. I just had my eyes examined and was
>>> to learn that my 53 year old eyes are still 20/20 with no
>> sign of eye
>>> disease (this was a concern as glaucoma runs in my family). I
>>> celebrated by ordering Swarovski EL 10x50s. They should be arriving
>>> this afternoon! I have tried these out several times and
>> they are the
>>> bomb for long range raptor viewing. Almost magical. If you don't
>>> believe me check out these reviews:
>>> Mnbird mailing list
>>> Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
> Mnbird mailing list
> Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
Mnbird mailing list
Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net<mailto:Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mnbird