Pocket Binoculars

S

Shann

Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
5,250
When I go to a play or a sporting event sometimes I wish I could see a little better. Are there any decent "pocket" binocs that are easy and light to carry? They probably wouldn't even have to be very strong. I've heard of "opera glasses" but I don't think I've ever seen any.
 
For under $100, I like the Nikon Sportstar. For under $300, check out the Nikon Monarch.

Jeff
 
jds1 said:
For under $100, I like the Nikon Sportstar.
Click to expand...

Nikon makes very nice binoculars - they always seem to be the sharpest within any price range.

I just visited Nikon's Binoculars page -
they only seem to list the 10x25 SportStars.

The 8x25 is much more suitable for general usage - fortunately they are still listed at several vendors priced at around $40 - which is a very good price.

The next step up and a bit bigger is the Nikon Travelite V 8x25 - which are even nicer compacts and the only real objection I have is that the view is just a little narrower than I'd prefer - one has to pay quite a bit more to match that kind of definition - but these are closer to $75

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.multiply.com/photos
 
i was able to score my "grail" optics, leica 8x20's, for a ridiculous price. so these are my traveling pair.

you can get steiner 8x20's for around $100.00. nice optics and very durable. i had issues with the eye relief on mine so i gave them away.

there is another similar thread, and ill give the same advice i gave there. you really want to try binoculars in person, if possible, because they are not always universal. especially eye relief, but also the way your eyes perceive the gathering of light.

for example, leica optics look clearer and brighter to me than do zeiss optics. my friend who has zeiss 8x20's says the opposite.

if you can't see them in person, be sure to by from a reputable dealer who will take them back. i like eagleoptics.com, but there are quite a few out there. bird watchers are as snobbish about their optics as we are about steels, so you can check the bird watcher forums as well.
 
Shann said:
When I go to a play or a sporting event sometimes I wish I could see a little better. Are there any decent "pocket" binocs that are easy and light to carry? They probably wouldn't even have to be very strong. I've heard of "opera glasses" but I don't think I've ever seen any.
Click to expand...

Just did the same search several months ago. Basic fact of the matter is it is very personal; some people can't look through small binocs for any period of time, others can, so it all depends. The smallest general size, the 8x20 works well enough for me, but there is a great leap in comfort at the 8x30 level, and then... anyway, point is, find some to try out with a return policy, unless you get a screaming deal. I personally have the nikon lx, which is supposed to be right up there with the leica. Hard to find objective reviews from optics snobs, because most of the time they're whining about not having full size ones. (no offense to the optics cognoscenti)

Additionally, though, you should specify a price range. The best ones go for up to $800 (leica), while better OK ones go for $100. I'd consider a compact porro prism (old school design) for cheap. The rule of thumb of roof prism is roughly double the money for the same optical quality of porro prism. Although they are a little bigger than most, the leupold yosemite, at under $100, is considered an optical best buy, and you can get a 6x30 or 8x30. I use my smaller 8x20 binoculars to take with me everywhere. If you're not looking for edc, then you might be able to go slightly larger.

Lastly, the term opera glasses is two fold, one part that is pertinent, the other I don't believe. First, the opera glass part refers to the fact that the action will be taking place closer than most binoculars are set up for. Hence, they usually use a 6x magnification factor, to offer a larger view of the action. Secondly, opera glasses are what you take to the opera, and as such, are dandied up with mother of pearl, brass, and other non-essential materials. Unless money is no object, and I direct you to Swarovski or Leica in that case, then I strongly urge you to eschew the need to for glued on crystals.
Zero
 
UnknownVT said:
The next step up and a bit bigger is the Nikon Travelite V 8x25 - which are even nicer compacts and the only real objection I have is that the view is just a little narrower than I'd prefer - one has to pay quite a bit more to match that kind of definition - but these are closer to $75
Click to expand...

MORIMOTOM said:
you really want to try binoculars in person, if possible, because they are not always universal. especially eye relief, but also the way your eyes perceive the gathering of light.

[ ... ]

bird watchers are as snobbish about their optics as we are about steels, so you can check the bird watcher forums as well.
Click to expand...

Two points these guys reminded me of.

If your sport is outdoors and in the open, you don't need as much light-gathering capacity -- x 20 may be fine, you don't need x 30, and certainly don't need my 7 x 50.

If you need to focus on a play, you don't need the widest field of view, like bird watchers following a flock across the sky. More detail in a narrower field is OK.
 
I picked up a pair of Nikon 7x20 on e-bay. I had some 8x23 Nikons that were great, but the 7x20s are appreciably smaller. Quality is very good given the physical limitations. I also waited and watched for 6 months until I got a smokin' deal.
 
Zero_Time said:
Hard to find objective reviews from optics snobs, because most of the time they're whining about not having full size ones. (no offense to the optics cognoscenti)
Click to expand...

There is ConsumerSearch.com - which claims to be reviewing the reviews - that is all they do is survey all the available reviews and try to come to some consensus. It's not perfect either - but it's kind of what we would do if we had the resources - I like the idea behind it.

ConsumerSearch on Binoculars

The Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42 was their top pick -
but these are medium/large binoculars and no where near compact.

The Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 was their pick for compacts -
these are very good and reasonably compact - but are just >$100

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Two points these guys reminded me of.

If your sport is outdoors and in the open, you don't need as much light-gathering capacity -- x 20 may be fine, you don't need x 30, and certainly don't need my 7 x 50.

If you need to focus on a play, you don't need the widest field of view, like bird watchers following a flock across the sky. More detail in a narrower field is OK.
Click to expand...
That's true Esav, but let me tell you, in that head to head a while back on monoculars, I really appreciated the size of the objective lens for extended viewing- less prone to blackouts, and less eye fatigue. As good as my mini-binocs are, I would definitely take a big pair if I knew I was in for extended viewing.

Yeah, the papilio is pretty good. Good close focus, porro, etc. Looks strange though. Problem with those reviews is that you can't be all cutting-edge because they don't reassess every few months, and companies can downgrade a product/ be sold/keep product name and produce something completely different- look at the inova x1 flashlight: from spot to flood without any fanfare. But I agree, the papillio is good. The monarch is pretty large, and, as previously stated, there are some jaw-dropping examples in the 42 millimeter objective lens arena that give swarovski, zeiss, and leica a run for their money at a third the price. They're very new to the scene, but have been anointed by optics nuts, so that's good enough for me.

And, lastly, consumer search is pretty good for a lot of things, and a very good tool to get a feel for what you're looking at, how to compare, etc. However, binoculars get very personal, in terms of looks, size, weight, etc. Everyone has a hidden X factor, which will speak to them more than the other factors, and unless you address the X, they won't really be satisfied.
UnknownVT said:
There is ConsumerSearch.com - which claims to be reviewing the reviews - that is all they do is survey all the available reviews and try to come to some consensus. It's not perfect either - but it's kind of what we would do if we had the resources - I like the idea behind it.

ConsumerSearch on Binoculars

The Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42 was their top pick -
but these are medium/large binoculars and no where near compact.

The Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 was their pick for compacts -
these are very good and reasonably compact - but are just >$100

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
Click to expand...
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Two points these guys reminded me of.

If your sport is outdoors and in the open, you don't need as much light-gathering capacity -- x 20 may be fine, you don't need x 30, and certainly don't need my 7 x 50.

If you need to focus on a play, you don't need the widest field of view, like bird watchers following a flock across the sky. More detail in a narrower field is OK.
Click to expand...


very true.

the larger the objective lense (the second number) the better the light gathering capability, glass quality notwithstanding. with a good optic, you can use them in low/failing light and feel like its daytime.

also, the better the quality of the glass, the better the light gathering capability. my 8x20's gather light better than many 8x32's, and even 8x40's (to my eyes, anyway). where i lose is the field of view. but portability was a necessity for this pair.

i also have a decent pair of 8x42's (eagle optics store brand, roof prism), and a pair of steiner 8x30's which are in my warbag.

for sport optics, stick with 8x. anything with more magnification is going to be very difficult to hold still. a 10x pair might seem like a good idea, but unless they are mounted or you are totally stationary you are likely going to be frustrated.
 
Thanks guys. I have a lot to look at now. You don't think I need jewel encrusted opera glasses to watch MMA fights? :)

Mostly, I want them for watching the fights (MMA and Gold Gloves) that I go see on a regular basis.
 
Shann said:
Mostly, I want them for watching the fights (MMA and Gold Gloves) that I go see on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Depending on where you normally sit - you may not even need 8x; 6x might be more suitable - so 10x probably would not be recommended.

I suggest just trying out the cheapest pair of 8x recommended here - which was the Nikon SportStar 8x25 - can be found for less than $40 on-line shipped - that's a bargain.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
 
I use an 8x42 monocular as its as lightweight as a pair of small binoculars but benefits from much greater light gathering, wider field of view and better eye relief.

However a monocular may not be ideal if you're needing something to look through constantly for the duration of a fight...
 
How long would you be watching (through binoculars) the event for? I'm huge into the idea of pocket optics, but it really is more comfortable to take (even slightly) larger for extended viewing.
Zero
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top