#2291752 - 07/04/08 08:54 AM
How much weight should be given to "durability"
|
scoutman
Member
Registered: 12/07/06
Posts: 98
|
Offline
|
|
It is a given that the roof design makes a more durable bin.
However, we see that "458 Win" has used a porro (Leupold Yosemite 6x30 porro)in what I consider extreme conditions on the Alaskan peninsula.
This begs the question. Can porro's be made rugged enough to withstand the rigors of extreme hard usage.
If so, because of their design, they can be manufactured much cheaper than roofs.
Any comments?
_________________________
If you can get closer get closer; if you can get steadier, get steadier.
A telescope helps you to see, it does not help you to hold and squeeze-Jeff Cooper.
There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2292062 - 07/04/08 11:26 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: scoutman]
|
RDFinn
Campfire Ranger
Registered: 01/02/06
Posts: 2308
|
|
Offline
|
|
Yes they can be made as durable and as waterproof.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294623 - 07/06/08 07:53 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
Eremicus
Campfire Outfitter
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 9889
Loc: Placerville,CA,USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
As waterproof, maybe so. As rugged, I doubt it.
Rolling over a bin with a truck proves only that the barrels, etc. don't collapse. What gets bins is the impacts in the field. Once the prisms loose their alginment, they become either very srenuous to use, or unuseable.
I've got an old B&L 9X35 Zephur porro that I used from 1958 until about 2001. Broke down twice on me. In spite of my best efforts to baby it.
If I'm going to send over $800 on a binocular, and lots of money on out of state hunts, etc. I want whatever I can get in reliability. For that kind of money, I expect it. E
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294707 - 07/06/08 09:22 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Eremicus]
|
RDFinn
Campfire Ranger
Registered: 01/02/06
Posts: 2308
|
|
Offline
|
|
The bino's pictured are a military grade bino. Don't compare a single example of cheap B&L's to them. Two different animals altogether. Their durability is not even debatable.
Roy
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294862 - 07/06/08 10:58 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
Eremicus
Campfire Outfitter
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 9889
Loc: Placerville,CA,USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Military grade bins are not, from what I've seen and guys like Barsness have commented, necessarily examples of extra tough binoculars. They are low bid specials which meet minimum standards of optical performance. How tough they are depends on how the specs were written.
A perfect example is the so called test of having a vehicle drive over them. Not a realistic test. E
Edited by Eremicus (07/06/08 11:02 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294881 - 07/06/08 11:09 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Eremicus]
|
RDFinn
Campfire Ranger
Registered: 01/02/06
Posts: 2308
|
|
Offline
|
|
Those bino's are the Military R grade. Nothing tested higher for durability and waterproofing. I wouldn't use these due to their weight, but the original poster asked the question and I gave him an example of the best for durability and waterproofing. If you think say a pair of Trinovids would past that stress test and still perform perfectly as those did, sent me your pair and I'll test them for you. It is only one example of how strong those bino's are. I used a pair of those for more than 15 years and they were kept in the trunk of my cruiser and they performed perfectly every time. No, they are not up to the optical standards of a Trinovid, but that was not the question.
Roy
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294971 - 07/06/08 12:08 PM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
FVA
Campfire Guide
Registered: 08/18/02
Posts: 3048
Loc: NY
|
|
Offline
|
|
As far as durabilities importance I'd say it depends on what for,where, and how close at hand is a backup. To me,generally speaking, durability ranks ahead of highest optical performance. Now meld the two and you have got something.
_________________________
The man who says he can and the man who says he can't are both right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2294987 - 07/06/08 12:26 PM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: scoutman]
|
SteveC99
Campfire Regular
Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 328
Loc: Yakima Valley, Washington
|
|
Offline
|
|
This durability question is certainly a valid one. But asking somebody else the basic question of how durable optics should be is pretty much in the same vein of asking the ubiquitious questions of which is the best brand and which is the best magnification. There are a lot of possible answers, not all of which are either right or wrong. The answer lies with you asking the question of how durable do you need binoculars and your other equipment to be.
There is little doubt that the typical roof binocular is more durable than the typical porro. However the real crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this. Just because a porro is judged, by default nowadays, to be less durable, that does not mean that it is necessarily fragile. Just becaue a porro is not as waterproof as a roof, that does not mean it is not water resistant enough for a particular use that one hunter will have for it. There are in fact some internal focusing porros now on the marketfrom Minox, Pentax, and Leupold to name three that are likely durable enough for probably 95% of hunters. The stellar aspects of the porro design kind of get pushed under the rug and most all of the development focus of nearly all binocular builders goes to roof designs. I think a good example of that is the recent discontinuance of the Nikon SE porro line. Those binoculars had every bit as good to better images for far less money than the roof design of Nikon or any of the high end euro roofs. This sort of bums me out as I had about decided to get an 8x32 SE. That decision was pretty well spurred by the appearance of the Yosemite which reminded me just how much I liked the size and shape of the mid size porro.
Eremicus has mentioned the fragility of his Zephyr binocular. That is one example of maybe mis comparing an older porro design to the improved manufacturing techniques used today. My example of old porro technology is a Swift 8x40 Nighthawk. I used (read abused) that binocular for 40 years before I finally took pity on it and sent it back to Swift for a rebuild. It got wet, it got dirty, it got its lenses cleaned with my shirttail, it rode under the seat of my pickup. on the seat, it got inadvertently knocked out of my pickup many times. Its eye cups were in tatters and much of the lens coating was gone. It was still tight, the focus still worked flawlesly and still gave a usable image. It was never advertised as waterproof or even water resistant but it never fogged internally. Most porros offered by reputable makers for the price of a Yosemite or above are likely durable enough for most. As durable as a roof, no. Durable enough? Most likely, yes.
_________________________
Steve
Theodore Roosevelt: "Do what you can where you are with what you have"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2295483 - 07/06/08 06:11 PM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: SteveC99]
|
Triggernosis
Campfire Regular
Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 308
Loc: Eastern N.C.
|
|
Offline
|
|
This sort of bums me out as I had about decided to get an 8x32 SE.
Steve,
Isn't the 8x32 SE still available at quite a few places online? Amazon, etc.: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Premier-Bino...15393076&sr=8-1
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2296354 - 07/07/08 09:41 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
Eremicus
Campfire Outfitter
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 9889
Loc: Placerville,CA,USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
RD, the B&L Zephurs were the very best binoculars of that era. Even the roof designed Zeiss Classics, which came much later, didn't surpass them in optical quality. They were, in no way, some cheap binocular by B&L.
What is this "military R grade ?" What is involved with this testing ? Which make and models of binoculars are you refering to ? Might be helpful for us to know what makes up this group if we are interested in a really tough binocular.
When I hear about "military grade" binoculars, I always recall the hype that Steiner has always spouted. Their binoculars have never had a rep for being very good optically or very tough. Or at least the ones I've seen and played with. Another example which comes to mind are the older Zeiss-Jenas. Another glass with below average optics and no particular rep for being tough. E
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2296672 - 07/07/08 12:22 PM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Eremicus]
|
RDFinn
Campfire Ranger
Registered: 01/02/06
Posts: 2308
|
|
Offline
|
|
Steiner makes two grades of bino in their porro lines, half with a 10 year warranty the others have a 30 year warranty. The model I was referring to is called the Military R(30 year) series. This "hype" you refer to is a prov-en fact literally around the world with practically every military organization using them. Their reputation is built on durability. You always seem to "play" with the things you speak of so often so how could you possibly know about their long term reliability? I, on the other hand, own, use and still use the bino's I am speaking of for over 20 years. Again, for the second or third time now, the original poster spoke nothing about optical qualities, yet you, in your self serving contributions here, insist on ignoring the subject matter as usual. So tell me Eremicus, which model Steiner did you "play" with and how long did you use them for. Hopefully, longer than everything else you claim to have knowledge of. In the end, you cannot speak of anything being durable or reliable with little or no experience with the subject. For a summary of the test procedures you summon, you can find all the info you need by looking up Mil.STD-810E.
Roy
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2297476 - 07/07/08 07:50 PM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
EagleEye54
Campfire Regular
Registered: 02/09/07
Posts: 535
Loc: AB, Canada
|
|
Offline
|
|
Roy, thanks for another great post. I am sure I am not alone when I say it is always enjoyable reading your knowledgeable and well put together comments.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2298253 - 07/08/08 09:57 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: RDFinn]
|
Eremicus
Campfire Outfitter
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 9889
Loc: Placerville,CA,USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
OK, RD. If all you want to do is talk about experience, fine. My old B&L's didn't spend their life in the cab of a truck. They spent it in the field geting knocked around at times.
My experience with Steiner is limited to casual examinations. But the people who formed my opinion of them were those who I met that actually tried them and hunted them in the field. None were impressed, none. You are the very first fan of their's that I've run into. And your belief in their durability is based on a binocular that you carried in a truck. Doesn't say much to me. E
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2298331 - 07/08/08 10:26 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Eremicus]
|
dodgefan
Member
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 66
Loc: Colorado
|
|
Offline
|
|
I know the 7x50 steiners we were issued in the Cav spent their life riding around in the turret of Bradley's, M1A2's and hanging off radio racks in HMMWV's and I can't say I ever remember any of them being knocked out of alignment(they don't handle being caught in a slewing turret however), and if you've never ridden in a tracked vehicle at 30mph+ you wouldn't believe the amount of vibration stuff has to deal with. Not to mention GI's have well deserved rep for being able to break anvils. Optical clarity left a lot to be desired after years of being cleaned with whatever was handy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2298347 - 07/08/08 10:33 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: dodgefan]
|
Lorne
Member
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 99
Loc: Saskatchewan
|
|
Offline
|
|
Dodge
Sounds like pretty solid proof of durability to me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2298366 - 07/08/08 10:43 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Eremicus]
|
JGRaider
Campfire Ranger
Registered: 08/23/05
Posts: 1756
Loc: W. Texas
|
|
Offline
|
|
OK, RD. If all you want to do is talk about experience, fine. My old B&L's didn't spend their life in the cab of a truck. They spent it in the field geting knocked around at times.
My experience with Steiner is limited to casual examinations. But the people who formed my opinion of them were those who I met that actually tried them and hunted them in the field. None were impressed, none. You are the very first fan of their's that I've run into. And your belief in their durability is based on a binocular that you carried in a truck. Doesn't say much to me. E
...another example of E not knowing schittt about the subject, but pretending to be JB reincarnated. If you don't even know what the "R" series stands for , how can you argue how tough they are? I don't know squat about it, but I admit it. Your mommy must not have taught you the phrase "I don't know", or "you're right", or "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about".
_________________________
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2298374 - 07/08/08 10:45 AM
Re: How much weight should be given to "durability"
[Re: Lorne]
|
dodgefan
Member
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 66
Loc: Colorado
|
|
Offline
|
|
Definitely durable, but not what I would choose for a hunting bino, but they work fine for spotting other armored vehicles.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: SYSOP, RickBin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19390 Members
65 Forums
204851 Topics
2527570 Posts
Max Online: 1366 @ 08/07/07 07:51 PM
|
|
|
