rookelkhunter

I am snooping around at some compact binoculars,and am in need of some suggestions. I will be doing alot of ground hunting in search of elk/blacktail, so close range stuff mainly. I' ve done a fair amount of research on them, and it seems the Bushnell' s (12x25) are dang near better than some of the compact Steiner' s I' ve looked at, with fully-multi coated lenses, etc..

What do you elk hunters (and blacktail) hunters suggest in the way of manufacturers/magnification/size/etc..

Thanks in advance.

Rook

Angus74

I like full size binocs and the slide and flex bino system, you dont feel the extra weight around your neck. The extra field of view is nice in thick timber especially in low light anound dawn and dusk. The wide view makes it easier to spot movement in cover at close ranges like 100 yds and under. I use Brunton Lite Tech 10x42 binocs, they are fully-multi-coated and very clear, and best of all; reasonably priced.[8D]

PABowhntr

I am also sort of fond of the 10x40 streamlined design though I did just pick up a pair of Brunton LiteTech 10x25s that I found very good in clarity with decent brightness levels. Nothing like the 10x40s but they may be good enough for most bowhunting situations that I find myself in.

davidmil

RookElkhunter.... your research has been flawed. A pair of any brand that is 12x25 is just about as pee poor as you can get for low light viewing. This doesn' t necessarily mean at dark or daylight either. Get in the deep shadows and you won' t see a thing. Really, the best thing you could do and get.... for what you say you' ll be doing( thick and mostly tight quarters) is get something in the 7 or 8 X 40- or 42. Optics are the one true thing in life where you get what you pay for. You can walk in a store with nice florescent lights and look at the other end of the building and all that,.... but it' s not a true guide of how they' ll function in the woods. In the store lighting you will NOT truly see the difference between a pair of Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss and many of the cheaper brands. But if you can step outside at dusk or dawn and look into a brushy thicket or try to read a road sign in the dark..... you' ll see ......" You get what you pay for" . I cold go into all the whys and whereofs that cause this but it would take a lot of reading. First off, all the top binos have superior glass and coatings. Just because it says " coated lenses" doesn' t mean XYZ brand is worth a crap. The ability to see in poor light is directly related to a couple things.... the GLASS itself and most important maybe... the relationship of objective diameter to power. Divide objective diameter by power and get a factor. Example: 7 x 42. Dived 42 by 7 and get a factor of 6. Because of the make up of the human eye the best factor is at or near 7. The lower the factor the less light, less viewing and more eye strain. Your proposed 12 x 25s it' s a factor of 2. I don' t know I' ve ever seen one that low. It' s in fact a piece of crap at any price. You' re better off buying some new socks. For all day, low light, little eye strain... you can' t beat a pair of 7 x 50s. BUT, we must consider size to. I found a pair of 7 x 42s is a good compromise. Factor of 6, light weight, low profile, first quality glass. Never have to buy another pair of binos. I have Swarovskis but would feel the same with Leica or Zeiss. Below that there are 3 or 4 more economical binos($400-600) that don' t loose so much to be considered crap. Below them is crap.

P.S. Most humans cannot hold a pair of 12 power anything still enough to gain benefit over a pair of 10 power. Half the world probably can' t hold a pair of 10 power still enough for really good viewing.

rookelkhunter

If I were interested in your opinion on my socks, I would have asked.

I am quite sure my information isn' t flawed. I know the difference between porro/roof, different coatings of lenses, twilight factors, etc., I was simply curious what everyone used or preferred, and if compacts were in their day packs.

In addition, if you think anything under 400 bucks is junk, then I honestly could go without your opinion. You are either uninformed, or cannot comparison shop worth a damn. I' ve found many a pair of $500+ glasses for less than $200 on ebay and many online stores. I' ve also met many a hunter who has had the $1,000+ pair and prefers his much more sane $300 pair.

I don' t have $800, $1,000, or whatever insane amount of money you spent on the Swarovskis that you saw in the window and looked so pretty.

Thx Angus and PA, I appreciate your input.

dick cress

The discussion of optics is about like the argument between Momentum and Kinetic Energy. Of course Zeiss, Nikon, Swarovski names are well worth owning but they are not the only good optics available.

By the best you can afford; it is as simple as that.

I use a pair of compact Minolta [at $300.00+] in 8X22X8.2 and I have had owners of more expensive named units say that mine are GREAT. They are lite, fit into a pocket and share time with my Bushnell Laser Rangefinder; but they also have their limitations. If I had only the larger units, I simply would not carry them because of weight. I hunt on foot far off roads and trails and weight is definitely a factor.

davidmil

You ask, I told you. I was going on MSRP. I wasn' t talking deals and price reductions. You ask for opinions. I gave you mine. I' m not taking it back. [>:] The compacts you' re looking at are not much better than reading glasses. I too did some research. I read and shopped and compared binos for 2 years from Maryland to Colorado. I visited shops at first thing in the AM, last light and after sundown. I took them outside and compared side by side. IF I ask for suggestions or comments I meant it and listened. IF you only want people to answer that agree with you.... state that in the opening line.[:-]

Rickmur

The following reply boarders on violating rules # 8 and 12.

If I were interested in your opinion on my socks, I would have asked.

I am quite sure my information isn' t flawed. I know the difference between porro/roof, different coatings of lenses, twilight factors, etc., I was simply curious what everyone used or preferred, and if compacts were in their day packs.

In addition, if you think anything under 400 bucks is junk, then I honestly could go without your opinion. You are either uninformed, or cannot comparison shop worth a damn. I' ve found many a pair of $500+ glasses for less than $200 on ebay and many online stores. I' ve also met many a hunter who has had the $1,000+ pair and prefers his much more sane $300 pair.

I don' t have $800, $1,000, or whatever insane amount of money you spent on the Swarovskis that you saw in the window and looked so pretty.

Thx Angus and PA, I appreciate your input.




#8.
* Do not engage in " flame-wars" or excessive exchange of confrontational postings. Debate is important, but users should not try to " pick a fight."


#12. *


* While we encourage lively debate, we will not tolerate personal attacks. Any person attacking another forum member, will receive a warning and have their message removed. Any future incident thereafter, will result in that member being removed from the forum.


Lets keep this thread from going south if you know what I mean.

Thanks

VAboy

Might want to check this out. They just did a comparison on compacts. http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compacts/index.html As for the $$$$$ binos. I am not rich by any means, but I bought a pair of 7x42 Leica' s, and will never go back. They will outlast a dozen $$$$ bow set-ups and you get to use ' em year round, plus most come with a lifetime warranty. I have tried the compacts and could only use them a little at the time without getting brain strain.

davidmil

VAboy..... I couldn' t agree with you more.

MDBowhunter: Sorry for the post I made. I guess I could have been a little more gentle in my reply. I probably contributed to my own semi-flame/burning at the stake by RookElkhunter. I' ll try to play nicer in my replies.