I was about to pre-order the new Zen Ray Prime HD's. Then i started researching binoculars more, and learned about porro prism designs. It seems they offer great resolution, plus "3-D"
picture due to greater separation of the objective optics.

It used to be that porro prism binoculars were heavier and less likely weather proofed, and perhaps less rugged. But the Nikon
8x32SE or Minox 8x44 are the same weight as the Zen Rays and appear well sealed with internal o-rings, and the price is in the same ball park. Size is also OK.

Would either of these porro prism designs offer a better picture than the roof prism Zen Rays? I realize that roof prism design has come a long way towards optical quality, it also seems porro prism design had caught up in terms of weight, size, and weather proofness, the unknown is the ruggedness factor. But a narrow roof prism design will not offer the increased "stereo-vision" 3-D quality of the wider porro prism designs.

without being able to compare these binoculars side by side, it seems one of these porro prism designs may be better for the money.

Yes the Zen Ray will offer more light with the greater objective diameter over the Nikon SE, however I learned in my reading that at my age my pupils no longer will dilate enough to take advantage of that.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated to this optics noob.

It is now more about availability than anything else. Try actually buying a Nikon 8x32 SE or a Minox BP. Nothing much else porro in real high quality you can get. Unless you want to special order a Swarovski Habicht and wait six months for it.

The roof prisms have gotten so much better in recent years that a lot of the old porro "truths" are now largely historical anectodes. Individual eyes vary and some will see more 3-D effect. Some will think they see the supposed smaller image size at a given magnification in the porro too. I don't see either. Look at the Leupold Yosemite and still you can get the very best deal for the very least amount of money with a porro, but the Prime is a different deal.

What I can tell you is I now have three porros needing service after just a few days on the four wheeler. The fact that a roof is tougher is pretty much a real truth.

The Nikon offers a superb image, nearly as good as can be found at any price. The Minox does too,but with a much narrower field of view and a discontinued binocular.

Larger exit pupils will still have an advantage as even a 4mm eye pupil will have the advantage of using the better light in the center of a larger than 4mm exit pupil. Eye placement is less critical as well. Nothing is perfect, everything has tradeoffs.

I have two pair of 8x32 Nikon SE binoculars and a pair of Zen Ray 8x43 ED. A couple of years ago I sat on my patio and compared them along with a pair of Zeiss 7X42 ClassiC binos (and my old 9x35 B&L Zephyrs) the Nikons and B&L are porro.

For my eyes at that time (prior to cataract surgery) they were all excellent. I prefer the ergonomics of the 8x32 SE binos so sold the Zeiss.

For me the stereo effect of the porro prisms is noticeable and like it when hunting in woods because it seems to provide a better view through concealing trees and brush.

But when the weather is a question; I reach for the Zen Rays and don't feel I'm giving up much view compared to the Nikon SEs.

I think Minox porros are good. I bought some and really like them.

Only my opinions, but I certainly notice the 3-D image. It may not make too much difference depending on when/where you use them; however, for me, I think it helps differentiate the animal (or even brush) from the brush in front or behind it. I can tell the difference between the porros and the flatter picture of a roof prism. Also, the Minox has a great deal of light transmission.

I also don't buy the roofs have come a long way argument. Porros have gotten better as well, and I don't think, just by design, roofs can transmit as much light. So, if you have a quality porro, just by design it'll have better light transmission (comparing $89 porros to $1500 roofs is apples/oranges). Maybe I'm way off on this, and maybe the 95% (I can't remember exactly) light transmission of the porros has been well exceeded by roof prisms. Although, if they have, I'm willing to bet it's at significantly greater cost. It's tough to know because manufacturers seem to emphasize the stats that highlight their product.

Anyway, probably best to try a few and see what you think, especially in the conditions where you'll use them. Roofs are certainly a lot sexier.

If you don't buy the idea roofs have gotten better, then you haven't looked through many of the newer ones since Pentax phase corrected the mid price stuff in 1995 or thereabouts.

Porros bend light through the prisms one less time, but they have no real transmission advantage. Go to the Allbinos site and check for yourself. That is the only place I know that has a wide range of light transmission data. Porros range from 83-90 % total transmission, which is the same for roofs these days. The highest porros are the Swift 820 ED Audubon 8.5x44 and the Swarovski Habicht 10x40, both at 90%, which is the same as the Prime mentioned in the OP. The Nikon SE is 88-89% depending on model. The big Swift is about the only quality porro readily available these days. I doubt a couple of percentage points will make a noticeable difference.

There is some other stuff frrom Vixen and one or two others, but selection and availability clearly are areas that go to the roofs.

One reason it is often mentioned to look at as many as you can is the fact that you never can predict how different eyes will interface with different binoculars.

If you want a roof, get a roof and don't worry much about hair splitting differences. If you want a porro, get one and don't worry much about it.

My wife told me those (indicating the roof binos) look dumb.

You have gotten some good info here from Steve and I'll just add some more info regarding roofs vs porro's. Manufacturers put a heck of alot more R&D money into developing roof prism bino's than they do porro's. Why ? Because roof prism bino's are far more popular. There may be a theoretical advantage to light transmission with porro's, but when was the last time you saw a porro bino with ED, HD, APO, rain/fog resistant coatings etc etc.....With the exception of Steiner bino's, roof prism bino's are considered to be more durable and easier to make waterproof too.

That's not what I said.



That's one of the reasons I said manufacturers will highlight the specs they want to. Minox porros transmit 95% light. May not be true, but it's what the manufacturer claims. If it's not true, why consider what any manufacturer says. It's also one of the reasons I said to try different binos to see what the buyer finds best. Although, Allbinos did find that high of light transmission to be an accurate spec by the manufacturer (94%+).

edit to add: BTW, check out the Minox on the Allbinos site (per your recommendation). It had a score of 127.5/75%. Not too shabby for a something under $500 and usually found for closer to half that price.

Not too shabby for a something under $500 and usually found for closer to half that price.

I'd love to buy a pair of Minox porros if I could find them for that price. But, like the Nikon and Opticron porros it seems like availability is pretty spotty. Got any sources?

If cost is a factor and you want the very best for the least money then yes you can try to find a discontinued Minox BP, Leupold cascade porro ect. Nikon SE's can be had for decent deals sometimes (not waterproof).

IMO nothing compares optically or ergonomically to high end roof's. When Zeiss introduced the victory fl years ago it put an end to the premium porro's advantage of better light transmission. Other premium roofs have caught up .

Todays mid priced roof's are so good I can't imagine not going that route. I have never looked through a prime but I have looked through an ED3 and I would trade my Leupold cascade WP porro for one in a heartbeat. Same goes for the Minox BP I used to have.

You realize though that the prism quality is the same between the Carl Zeiss (Victory 8x42 T FL) you mention and the Minox BP (8x44), and the Minox BP still has better light transmission than the Zeiss, and has a "3D" picture? Certainly there are differences, and I'm not a binocular guru, but I keep seeing posts about roofs having caught up in certain ways but seldom does one post specific binocs that have actually caught up or exceeded the light transmission. The Zeiss you mention certainly has not put an end to the porro advantage, and I'd consider that a premium roof. The Zeiss does have some better qualities (in my mind) than the Minox BP, but light transmission isn't one, neither is the prism quality. The Minox weighs less and they are roughly the same physical size. By the way, the Zeiss Victory 8x42 T FL is the highest rated 8x42 on Allbinos reviews.

Even if cost is not a factor, if you want the best for any amount of money, you might try to find a discontinued Minox BP, as they compare optically and ergonomically to high end roofs. Ultimately though, it's a personal decision and no one binocular is going to be favored by all people, regardless of specs or quality of components.

By the way, as someone posted above, most of the mid to higher-end roof prisms are still under 90% light transmission.

IMO the best bino made to date as far as view goes ,is the nikon se...........

I would take a roof with 90% transmission, wide fov with larger sweet spot, better ergo's and waterproofing/durability and CA correcting glass any day over a roof just because that roof has 95% light transmission.

Its highly doubtful IMO that the Minox BP has true 95% light transmission and at what wavelength?

Its important to have high light transmission across the entire visible spectrum. Peak light transmission at a minimum frequency means nothing.

The Zeiss FL has been tested to 94% transmission so are you going to argue the minox and porros in general are more capable based on one report of 95%?

The premium roof's are so superior in just about every way to a porro like the Minox BP that this is a waste of time to argue about.

If that's not what you said then what does this say?

I accept the blame for opening the Allbinos can of worms too. Too bad it is the only place that has any sort of a data base. Yeah I did not look at the Minox Porros there, and yeah they do say 94.5% . Allbinos does have some problems however.

Here is a link to a thread entitled "Allbinos reviews, the Word of God?"
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=229237

Some of the problems are discussed pretty well there. One of the things seen in Allbinos data is their inability or perhaps unwillingness to seperate out individual variations or even poor, or excellent samples. The Mionox has a high transmission value...too high to be believed frankly. I always read that transmission data from Minox as transmission per lens surface. There are lots of lens surfaces in a binocular. But Minox does not have this binocular on their site now, so I can't check my memory. On the other hand there is their review of the Swift Audubon roof 8.5x44 at 75%, which is too low to be believed. I admit I looked at a range of porros there and a range of comparable roofs and flat missed the Minox...my bad. However the appearance of one stellar sample is proof of the existence of one stellar sample. The point was, and remains that through out the range of light transmission values of roof and porro prism binoculars, that the real life transmission figures are strikingly similar. The Swaro Habicht and Nikon SE are both brighter binoculars to my eye than the Minox porro, but data says different...happens all the time, just a fact of life. I'll grant the theoretical edge to porros, but real life and theory are too close together here to be significant.

The link above also gets pretty well into the statistically invalid methodologies of meaningful "ratings" in any review system. Thing is the whole base is not objective...what to include is subjective, as is what not to include. How to weight something, or not, is also subjective.

The thing is I never dissed your baby. The Minox is a very good binocular, I'd have one myself if it had a fov worthy of the optics...for me it does not. I researched these things pretty well before deciding I did not really want one. They are also discontinued. Trying to buy one today might be an adventure.

The porro vs roof thing will never be settled. They are different form each other each with pros and cons. You are right in that you have to try some for yourself and see.

Me, I'm going for a roof. I also own maybe 20 different porros too.

They aren't my baby. I don't give a sh*t what people buy with their money. I also didn't bring up a specific rater, Allbinos. That's because I know the ratings EVERYWHERE are subjective, just like yours would be if I were reading it and mine would be if you were reading it.

The argument is that roofs have gotten better without porros getting better. That's not true.

The same tests that show the Zeiss at 93.9 show the Minox at 94.5. Remember, I was the one that said manufacturers can highlight the specs they want to highlight. Again, I said to try the glass for yourself. Again, I don't give a [bleep] whether you buy $89 binos that serve your purpose or $3000 glass that serves your purpose.

What's not true is that porros can't compete with high end roofs optically or ergonomically. That's just not true. It might be a personal issue related to ergos, but optically there is no reason that porros can't compete, and in some respects be better. The Victory is good glass, but most roofs don't come close to the porros light transmission. I also said that's only one factor.

Ho, hum! What point are you trying to say that hasn't been covered all ready???? Just curious??? Not trying to start something but, your posts are pretty repetitive!!!

Just out of curiosity aces do you even own any premium glass-porro or roof? Spent any serious time looking through any of the top current roof's let alone any of the mid priced roof's???? It would be interesting to know how you are justifying your opinion.

What do you own?

I have both the Zen 8X43 ED2 and the Minox BD 10X44 BP, and while the Zen has superb CA control and a huge FOV, the Minox is light years ahead in resolution and overall image brilliance. The last two weekends I set them side by side and went back and forth between them dozens of times. Are the Minox BP, Leupold Cascade, or the Opticron HR WP true "Alpha Quality" ? I can't say for sure, but John Dracon and Roger Cox have both compared them to Alpha roof's, including the Zeiss FL, and both say they are very close.

Bruce

As a major brand building porros, Steiner, Germany, must not be over looked.

I have the Steiner XP 8x30 Nighthunter at hand. Its here to stay.

It is all just words....what is best for you is what suits your vision.
Just be aware of the pit-falls, like rotten 13 yo Daughters that decide to abscond with the Zeiss Victories that you recently purchased.......it will probably take me another twenty years to afford some more for myself.

I guess you'd have to tell me what you think premium is. I think I have owned premium glass. 20+ years ago I lived aboard a sail boat. We had premium glass, porros on that boat. We couldn't have distortion, they had to handle extreme light and glare. Good glass, quality construction, good coatings were paramount. When I got off the boat I bought roofs. Then I bought porros, roofs and porros. I've had low-end, mid and high-end depending on what I need.

I don't think you know what my opinion is, because I don't think you can pick it up though it's been repeated. I've said that specs aren't the only thing to go by, that manufacturers (and owners btw) highlight the specs that highlight their product. You in fact don't seem to care about the things where porros excel (light transmission, 3D image) based on your post. I also said people need to look through glass to see what works for them. A statement like this, "premium roof's are so superior in just about every way to a porro like the Minox BP that this is a waste of time to argue about" is meaningless. It's just not fact. It's opinion based on personal preference.

It's not my opinion porros will typically have better light transmission, 3D image quality, etc. That's fact. It's personal opinion when someone says roofs have better ergonomics. Porros are roughly the same size, but wider and shorter instead of longer and narrower, and in some cases are smaller overall. They weigh roughly the same, and in some cases less. That's not my opinion, it's fact. My opinion, again, since you don't get it, is that people will pick different binoculars for different reasons, regardless of the specs, because there will be different things they find important to them, because of and regardless of the actual/factual binocs they hold in their hand (i.e., 90% light transmission is more important to some people, regardless of the FACT, not opinion it's less than a lower priced porro). People should look through binocs to find what works for them, in the conditions (when/where) they will use them.

Sorry you got all butt-hurt thinking I don't like roofs, or the fact that porros excel in some areas. If it makes you feel all warm inside, I happen to own several roofs and one porro right now. Your choice to own whatever you own is best for you, and I'm happy you found what works for you.

Glad you like your Minox porro's.

Let me try this again (for the last time). In the vast majority of binoculars, light transmission values are 90% and under, including porros. By your own admission you say you are aware of weaknesses in reviews etc. Yet you seem to be pretty desperately trying to hang your hat on the supposed 94.5% transmission of the Minox as evidence of porro superiority, even when far more expensive porros from Nikon and Swarovski are some 4-5% less than the that. You speak of theoretical transmission differences and then trot out the differences in the Albinos transmission values of the Ziess Victory and the Minox, which is still about 1% higher than the Zeiss. I assume you are aware of the light path geometry of the Abbe-Konig prism of the Zeiss and the roof prism path of the Minox. I am assuming that you know the AK prism of the Zeiss bends light three times, only one of the bends is 90*, while all four times light is bent in passing a porro prism, all four bends are 90*. Since you know this, you can do the total degrees the light path gets bent for yourself. This gives the AK prism the theoretical advantage over the porro. The lower rate of the Zeiss may serve as the first clue that the Minox number is an abberation. Doesn't mean the Minox is not a good binocular, just that that high of a transmission value has to be viewed with some skepticism...nothing more. That and the fact that one can find the high example of the Minox does not equate to the light transmission advantage you would like to see. Again, yes there are theoretical advantages to the porro, but they pretty much fade away in light of reality.

As far as porros getting better at the same rate as roofs, sorry that evidence is not present. Binocular manufacturers have virtually abandoned the porro prism binocular. While porros remain available, they are predominately resident in lower price echelons. The Leupold Yosemite and itys related design siblings di a lot to give us great optics for astoundingly little $$, there is really nothing new there. The only "currently available" porro that that comes to mind, which has some of the modern design ameneties that are technologically available to be applied to porros is the Vixen Foresta 7x50. This has ED glass, APO objectives, improved, glass, and state of the art coatings. Sounds like a good instrument and I'm not delving further into what is there in addition to the Vixen. It's too bad the porro has been abandoned.

The list of roof prisms from $150-500 that have pretty much state of the art designs, glass, and coatings runs into many manufacturers, Alpen, Bushnell, Burris, Kruger, Leupold, Minox, Meopta, Nikon, Pentax, Steiner, Vortex, and Zen Ray (probably missed some) and dozens of models. The same thing is not true with porros. So I stick to my original contention that roofs have improved far more than porros.

Enjoy your Minox.

How about this, you're right, I'm wrong. You win! This has nothing to do with whether I like the Minox. It has to do with the original post and my response. The OP was asking about porros. I gave my opinion about them because I own them. The OP can take it or leave it.

Also, I'm not hanging my hat on superiority of any design. You just can't understand. As a matter of fact I posted that the Zeiss has some better qualities than the Minox. I also said it's a personal decision and no one binocular is going to be favored by all people, regardless of specs or quality of components (different people prefer different aspects of the binocular). You seem to have misinterpreted that to mean I think that only light transmission is important and I don't value the benefits some roof designs have to offer. I think you're just too dense and too stuck on the roof vs porro debate. It was never about that. It's about educating the OP based on his original question, not about you and me or Minox or any other brand or design. If someone wants to use a specific site to reference values, ok, I'll use it too, but when it doesn't support the argument the way you or anyone or even I want, it can't then be unimportant. It's either a [bleep] place to find value or it's not. That's why I said specs can be misleading. You probably didn't get that though.

If light transmission is important to the OP, he'd probably want to know. Probably wants to know the opinion about 3D since he brought it up. But it's not the only question and again it's a personal decision and no one binocular is going to be favored by all people, regardless of specs or quality of components (which is a direct quote from my post).

So, climb down from your high-horse and realize my "argument" has nothing to do with my choice(s). It has to do with the OP question and a reasonable answer to his questions. Your roofs are obviously the best for you. They are probably the best for the rest of us, we just don't know it yet because anyone that doesn't have what you have is just too dense. Seems the OP wants to know about porros. Why don't you address that factually and not just taking positives about porros to be some sort of attack on what you own. Thank me and if you need anything else I'll call you.

The decision between Porro and Roof is purely a personal preference. For me, the I just could not wrap my hands around the bulky barrel of the Porro binoculars to really enjoy them.

Wow! My initial post was seriously not a troll, but might as well have been Some good info there amongst the heated arguments though. In the end I went with a set of "mint, never been out of the house" Nikon 8x32 SE's from a member here, for a whole lot less than preordering the heavier Zen Ray Prime HD's. That means instead of selling my 6 months old Minox BV 10x42 BR roof prism bins ($149 delivered thanks to one of Doug's closeouts) to finance the Zen Ray Prime HD's, I will keep those for inclement weather or when I feel I need a little longer reach. I rarely get rain in my California hunting, so I think the SE's will do me fine. I like the idea of greater depth od field or what ppl term "3-D" vision, the Nikons are 25%+ lighter than the Zen Rays, and for me I prefer the shorter wider ergonomics both for holding and for toting on my chest via quick release X-back shoulder straps. Down the road someday the Minox roof prism 10x will get upgraded as needed.

Thanks again for all the input!

Enjoy!

deepcdiver,

It seems all the optics sites are snippie. After discovering they were worse than here and didn't like to hear the truth about anything that was not their brand I left. I called a friend who frequents different sites after I went to that optics only site. Anyway I asked him about it. He told me,
"I know it."
"O, you visited that site?"
"No. But every optics site I visited was the same."

It looks like you just have to get used to it.

Enjoy indeed.

You have bought yourself one of the finest optically 8x32 / 30 mm binoculars ever made! And that is the case- whether you want to talk roof or porro.

IMO- you will be wowed by the view if you have never looked through a Nikon SE.

Check out the classifieds, I have for sale a great 8x32 SE.
They are the one binocular that some use as a reference standard.

I have another one, so this one is for sale.

I so wish there was an 8x40/42 version of the Nikon SE....or an equivalent from another mfr..

Keep in mind that one of the first things you will notice about the immediate difference between your Minox roof and the Nikon porro (good choice btw, you will likely not be dissapointed :)) will be the increased depth of focus. In other words, focus on a distant object with both. You will see objects remaining in focus quite a bit closer to you with the Nikon as compared to the Minox. That is NOT the porro 3-D image effect. That is largely the effect that depth of focus has in relationship to magnification...increase magnification, decrease depth of field (or depth of focus) or that area you can generally roam aound in with your eyes with minimum focus fuss. Also, not every set of eyes will generally see the same depth of field in the same range of binocular magnification either, but by and large depth of focus is magnification dependent.

I don't think anybody thought you were a troll . This place gets cranky time to time.

Cranky maybe, but still polite enough. I think optics bring out the obsessive/compulsive qualities in all of us In the end a fine binocular is a fine binocular. We are fortunate to be able to nit pick about something of this nature.

Thanks again for all the info available here.