November 16, 2012
Today is totally overcast at noon. I compared the Zen-Ray 7X36 ED2 (477 feet field of view / $375) with the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD ED2 (426 feet field of view / $160 with rebate) and the Swarovski z5 5-25X52. After adjusting the diopter on both binoculars to my eyes till I really liked them I fiddled with the Swarovski. I tuned it up from 5X till I could clearly make out the �Can you read� at 127 yards. Then I fiddled with the side focus until the image was as sharp as I could get it. I turned the power ring down again till I could not make out the first line and turned it back up till I could easily read the first line. I looked at the power ring: barely past 8X. I looked again through the scope to check if I could read the second line but could not. I could make out some of the letters.

Both binoculars appeared to be about the same when I looked into the woods beyond the pump house. To really check out their ability to resolve detail, though, I went back to the �Can you read this?� chart. With the Bushnell I could read Lines one and two but could not make out number three. The Zen-Ray allowed me to easily read the first line but could not read the second line. Its value was the increased field of view if it was as good as the Bushnell. It will be returned for a refund. I will keep trying.

Did you get sour mother's milk as a kid?

Since Bushnell doesn't make a 7x Ultra HD, you were comparing apples with oranges--or at least grapefruits with oranges.

And comparing either to a Swarovski riflescope is like comparing apples to watermelons.

Did I step on some toes? Your favorite, or at least prefered brand, didn't come out on top?

You boys don't get it. I compare optics I have with optics I have. When I purchased the Bushnell 8X42 I liked them better than anything else I compared them with except the Swarovski 8.5X43 (I think that is the size.) The Swaro was $2,430. The field of view was slighty smaller than the Bushnell.

Oh, we get it. And all of my optics purchases are based solely on FOV.

Then you can understand why I wanted to take a look at some Zen-Ray 7X36. But unlike you I not limited to field of view. I want something better than what I already have before I keep the new product.

Then you should have compared an 8x Zen-Ray with the Bushnell, instead of wasting your time making the comparison you did.

You're not stepping on my toes. I have bunches of Bushnell stuff--as well as most other optics out there. But I have learned to make valid optical comparisons, rather than screw around aimlessly.

If Bushnell did make a 7x36 ultra HD patterned after the "bowhunter" they'd have a massive hit on their hands.

Digress...

Fixed it, because I remembered you're slow.

I guess you don't understand. Why should I compare an 8X Zen-Ray with anything? The 7X is the one with the 477 feet field of view.

What you think is "aimlessly" is a valid optical comparison for me. It told me my Bushnell is better than the Zen_Ray for what I am doing.

I am way slower than I used to be. Fifty years ago I ran ten flat in the hundred.

You're right, I don't understand why anybody looking for a wider FOV would believe a 7x would provide as much detail as an 8x.

All you did was "prove" that 8x beats 7x when looking for detail, and 7x has a wider FOV than 8x, when everything else is approximately equal. These are hardly startling optical revelations, but you presented them as if you'd performed a significant experiment.

Mule Deer,



Everything was not aproximately equal. The Zen-Ray's cost more than twice as much. I expected the Zen-Ray's to be slightly better optically because they cost so much more.



What I have proven again is one does not get what one pays for. One gets what one shops for. That is significant to many of us hunters who cannot put high dollar stuff in our back packs. The Bushnell's I have are significantly better than the same magnification Bushnell I used to have and the image is way better than the the higher magnification Tascos I used to have. Occasionally one does get a better quality image when one spends more money. I was hoping that would be the case with the Zen-Ray's but it didn't happen.

Like I recommend so often to folks here who asked about optics, one has to compare them side by side and forget price.

My son-in-law looked through both at the antlers 121 yards away. He really liked the Zen-Ray's till he looked though the Bushnell's. He preferred the image the Bushnell's gave.

This makes no sense whatsoever, because in the same paragraph you describe also using a Swaro Z5.

Ringman,

Sorry, but you're about as logical as a box of rocks. All you proved in your "experiment" is that a binocular with 14% more magnification provides more detail.

I wouldn't put it quite so plainly except I also saw your post on being extremely offended when a nude woman showed up in an R-rated movie. If I were as careful a shopper as you claim to be, and naked women offended me, I wouldn't have paid to get inside the movie theater.

You didn't read where I mentioned the higher magnification binoculars of one brand didn't show as much detail as a lower magnification from another brand? I learned a valuable lesson when I compared them side by side. Using your present argument, though, no one would carry anything but Tasco binos.

Occasionally someone here will mention a larger objective with a cheaper optics produces no more than a brightly lit blurry view. They suggest one spend a little more money on a higher quality optic with a smaller objective to get better results. I was hoping for he same kind of results by spending more money, in fact more than twice as much, on a bino with a larger field of view (which happened to be a lower magnification) and getting the best of both worlds. Spending more money does at times get one better quality. Not this time.

This thread reminds me of why I use high magnification scopes. When I was looking to purchase a 3-9X and looking at a "line" on a roof about three blocks away. All the scopes were set on 9X. I finally settled on the Swarovski. The guy behind the counter suggested I try one more: The LPS 2 1/2-10X. It was instantly and obviously better. When I noticed it was a 10X I tuned up the magnification ring and right away realized the "line" was an extension cord. Now in a scope I use all the magnification I can get in as light a package as is available: Swarovski z5 5-25X52.

I'm still in the searching mode for binos and am thankful when someone here suggests something. That's why I tried the Zen-Ray.



Edited to add:
You're on a roll. You couldn't stop at bashing me for the optics so you went on to another topic from another forum to bring something else up. Congratulations.

Ringman,

I'm not going to bash...I appreciate all informed opinions like yours. I've looked through the HDs and they're top on my list as far as bang for buck goes.

I'm interested in these binos and curious where you found them for $210 (cost before the rebate). The best I've found is about $225. PM me if that is best. Again thanks for your input.

NTG,

It's been over a year since I purchased them. My memory is terrible lately so I don't remember. When I buy optics I spend as much as two hours on BING clicking on every link until I find the price I am willing to pay. The Zen-Ray is the same price no matter how many links I checked.

I got my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for $620 including shipping and the 2 1/2-16X50 for $512 including shipping. It's been a few years since I purchased them. I waited one day on the first 2 1/2-16X to check with my gunsmith to see if he wanted to try to beat the price. He told me it was below wholesale. The next day the guy had already raised his price by a hundred bucks so I had to start over.

Mr. B,

In regards to Ringman, best sit back and shake your head and chuckle as any attempt at education on your part would be akin to banging your head against an immensely dense brick wall.

Time and again it has been brought to his attention that the various "experiments", "evaluations", and "comparisons" he's presented are flawed and irrelevant.

Stubbornly, he clings to his "methods" and refuses to understand and appreciate why his "findings" and "observations" are not taken seriously.

He just started a new thread asking about "wow" factor. I get the "wow" factor everytime I read one of his dumbazz posts, as is in "wow", how can anyone be so dense?!..

FOsteology,

Thanks, I finally realized that!

I'm going to publish a new hunting optics book next year. Though I've 'em, optics aren't usually very amusing. Might have to include chapter with some funny stuff in it, and the Campfire optics forum would sure be a good source....

Please also provide a comparison between 15x56 Minox vs 8x30 Swarovski. I want to know if image looks bigger and Wow'er with 15x binoculars.

Hang tight, I'm working on a comparison between a Tasco 7x monocular, Swarovski 10x42 EL's, and a Nikon digital camera.

Some folks are hard up for finding good entertainment as the apparently have to create their own here. And I'd say they have poor taste in it...

And I'd say, GFY

Plese throw in an opera glass in your test to be comprehensive. Many thanks.

Boy, it's a good thing we're all friends here or this could get downright ugly.

WeePeePee:

You have sure been grumpy lately, go out, and get in the outdoors.
Go hunting, and enjoy things.

Think about it !

Thanks for your concern. I just got back fron 10-days hunting elk. What have you been up to other than catching the Midnight Twilight release?

I've been hunting this week, Whitetail, got my buck on Tues. Today, I was out with my Brittany, hunting pheasants.

Good to see, you can post something other than negative.

The discrepancy lies simply in the fact of comparing an 8x binocular to a 7x model. The 8x should resolve finer detail simply because it is a higher magnification . I am surprised it only resolved one line higher though. The easier way to resolve this is simply to walk a few feet closer to the target to compensate for the lower magnification.

The comparison criteria seems to have been simply on apparent resolution. What about the other optical characteristics of each bin? What about apparent brightness? Color fringing control? Size of sweet spot? Contrast?

I would agree that the comparison would have been more valid if the 8x43 ED3 would have been used in the comparison. It still has a very impressive 426 foot field of view....the equivalent of the Legend Ultra. You won't find many, if any, 8x roof prism models that better that....maybe the Kruger Caldera at 438 feet.

I don't fancy myself an optics conuseur (Spelling?), just a guy trying to find something better than what I now use.



Over the years I often tell my wife I have trouble with communication. Here's the thing about the 8X and the 7X. I couldn't care less what magnification the second one is to start with. I was looking for something with a larger field of view that was at least equal in image to the one I already have. Why would I look at an 8X43ED3 when it has the same field of view? I would not mind if the binocular is a 10X of equal quality if it had the field of view I was looking for.

Yes, that sounds correct ?

Quote: and the Campfire optics forum would sure be a good source.... UnQuote

Laffin..........

Ring,

If you fancied a wider field of view then the 7x makes more sense. However, then your comparison should have been done strictly on that criteria and not apparent resolution.

You could have compared a $1700 7x42 Zeiss FL and it would not have faired any better if apparent resolution was your only comparison criteria to determine which was "better"."

Now that I understand your reasoning I can offer reassurance that your current choice of binoculars cannot be bettered even by the likes of $2400 binoculars.

FrankD,



Why do you say that? I want resolution as good as the Bushnell gives me with something offering a wider field of view.



You mean a $1700 7X42 Zeiss FL does not show any better resolution than a Bushnell binocular. I'm not surprised. Beyond a doubt my 4200 4-16X40's match my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 up to 16X for resolving detail.



This reassurance might explain why I have made about a dozen wildcat cartridges. But alas I can't modify optics.

I happen to disagree with the notion that a 8x will always show more/better resolution than 7x. Perhaps I'm not understanding the definition of "apparent resolution".

RDFinn,



I absolutely, positively, indubitably, heartily and completely agree. To modify a statement made by someone here about objective size, A brightly lit blob is still a brightly lit blob. This same concept can be stated about magnification.

By the way I checked the field of view of the 7x42 Zeiss FL. It is only 450 feet so I wouldn't even have considered it. My original goal the other day was something in the neighborhood of 500 feet.

Roy,

Of course just any 8x will not always show better resolution than any 7x.

But there is a limit to how much an optic of any magnfication can resolve, and it has to do with the limits of the human eye. A person with 20/20 vision (average) can resolve about 1" at 100 yards with their naked eyes. A 7x binocular can help 20/20 eyes 1/7th (.143) of an inch, and an 8x binocular can help resolve 1/8th (.125) of an inch.

Yes, quality of optics and individual eyesight makes a difference, but there s no 7x binocular on earth that will help resolve as much detail as a really good 8x--and an 8x will not resolve as much detail as a 10x.

Of course, objective size also makes a difference. The larger the objective, the more a binocular of a given magnification can resolve. Quality does matter, but only up to a certain point. Twenty years ago I was guiding on a ranch in central Montana, and the outfitter was really proud of a Zeiss compact binocular a client had given him as a tip. I can't remember the exact objective size, but it certainly wasn't over 28mm. I was field-testing a very "affordable" 10x50 some company had sent for me to try out, and the outfitter was quite dismayed to find I could see more detail through cheap 10x50 than he could through his Zeiss.

All of this is why the only valid comparisoin between various binoculars is between models of the same magnification and approximate objective diameter. It's also why I run my night-time brightness tests for riflescopes with each scope set on 6x. Otherwise you're not testing pure optical quality, because magnification and/or objective size throws everything off. As I said earlier in this thread, you're not comparing apples to apples.

I agree completely John that optics, any optics, have to be similar in size and magnification for fair comparisons. It's when someone says that a mid priced 8x (Like the Legend HD) would outperform a $1700 or $2400 7x is when I start to question those statements. Maybe I'm just taking the entire view (color, contrast, resolution etc) into account and not just resolution that has me thinking that way.

You forgot about the most important factor, FOV...rolls eyes

Roy,

You might be surprised these days. I've tested a bunch of mid-priced optics in the past 3-4 years that do extremely well compared to the $1000+ stuff. The gap is CONSIDERABLY narrower than it was even 10 years ago.

I've never really considered FOV unless it's really narrow for some reason compared to others. You have to remember that when a manufacturer tries to push any one particular quality, some others may suffer. For example, there is thing the optic makers call the "optical triangle" that balances magnification, FOV and eye relief when designing a riflescope. You want more eye relief ? FOV can suffer. Now makers have figured out that by designing a larger ocular assembly, they can get good ER and good FOV, but the trade off is a larger ocular that can get in the way of cycling a bolt action.

I'm sure you are correct and I haven't spent any time behind all the new Asian stuff that's hit the market.

In general I've found FOV is one of the most overrated aspects of both riflescopes and hunting binoculars.

Let's take the original two binoculars as an example. The 7x has a FOV of 477 feet at 1000 yards, the 8x 426 feet. Let's also say a deer is 20 yards away in thick cover, and we want to check the antlers, or make sure which way the deer is standing. With the 7x the FOV at 20 yards is about 9-1/2 feet, with the 8x 8-1/2 feet.

Are we going to miss finding the deer in the FOV at 20 yards because of THAT? A deer is normally much shorter than 8-9 feet long. The only way you'd fail to find even part of one at 20 yards in either binocular's FOV is if you were looking at least 15 feet off-line--about 15 degrees at 20 yards.

I've had a similar experience with riflescopes. I usually prefer 6x as an all-around magnification for general non-dangerous big game hunting, whether using a variabel set on 6x or a fixed 6x. Some people will tell you 6x isn't enough for 500-yard big game hunting--and many more people will say it's way too much for close range. Yet I've shot a number of animals with 6x at 350-500 yards, and shot an equal number at 50 yards or less, including a running deer at 20 yards and a running wild boar at 10 yards.

Even at 10 yards the FOV of a modern 6x is typically close to 2 feet. Yeah, the shoulder of the boar was somewhat fuzzy, but I could still tell it was the shoulder, not the butt or the head--and when I shot the bullet went through both shoulders.

Somewhat off topic, but the good news is that Mule Deer is going to publish a book on modern optics next year. Count me in for one! I'd like to upgrade my binocs and could use the help wading through all the latest products to find a good fit without taking on a second mortgage.

There's a lot of good news in "affordable" optics these days! I'm using a number of sub-$500 binoculars that are astonishingly good.

Mule Deer,

I tried 6X about thirty-five years ago. Consistant with my desire for more field of view it was too small in the 6X. I switched to Burris 4-12X's. I used and sold them until the '90's when I switched to Tasco.

[quote]Somewhat off topic, but the good news is that Mule Deer is going to publish a book on modern optics next year. Count me in for one!/quote]

You are forgiven. I want one too.

Mule Deer, P.M. me with the specifics: Ho much, where to send $.

Ringman,

I apologize as well. Thanks.

I'll be making an announcement on the Campfire when the book comes out.

Ringman, there is an old saying, "You dont get something for nothing".....ponder the meaning...................

Now adays one can get some very optics for very litle compared to several years ago. I keep hoping to get the best there is for the money I spend. My Bushnells prove to anyone who looks through them that a Z5 is no better in normal light for decerning detail and is no better in low light when on the same magnification setting. It is not something for nothing, but a lot for a little.