Bill Oddie's binoculars

MP said:

Any one have any idea which binoculars Bill Oddie uses in his Bill Oddie

Leica Trinovid, 8x32 or 10x32.

Not much change out of £700 - but you do get a case thrown in these
days

"Nigel Crompton" <nigel&crompton.org.uk@> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MP said:

Any one have any idea which binoculars Bill Oddie uses in his Bill Oddie

Leica Trinovid, 8x32 or 10x32.

Not much change out of £700 - but you do get a case thrown in these
days

LOL! I'm looking at the 16x25 pair from Argos, price £19.99!
BTW, I saw his show last night and it's wonderful. Love the way his
enthusiasm comes over without being too aggressive.

Nick

Nick Pedley said:

LOL! I'm looking at the 16x25 pair from Argos,

16x ? You'll never hold them steady enough to use them properly.
If you use them where you've got support - car, hide etc you'll be ok
- but not walking around woodland. Also the higher the magfication
(generally) the narrower the field of view. It therefore becomes
harder to pick things up with the higher powered bins.

10x is the recommended max for hand-held use.

"MP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Any one have any idea which binoculars Bill Oddie uses in his Bill Oddie
Goes Wild series. I'm still looking for a good all round pair even thought

I

Quoted message said:

have three different makes and sizes, none of which are top of the range
mind, i.e. fog up a bit in cold weather. The most used tasco 8x21 compact
(handy take every where) next Praktica Sport 7-21x25 zoom (about as bulky

as

Quoted message said:

I want to go, but low on light) and finally the clearest optics but least
used the Commodore 8x40 (a bit heavy and bulky).

A lot depends on how much use you want from them. Spend the big bucks if
you must, but ...
I spent some time a few years ago looking through top quality binoculars,
and learning what separated the men from the boys etc. I prefered the
better 3D effect from the porro prism types at close range more than the
roof prism types, and it's easier to make a good porro than a good roof type
at an affordable price.
I ended up buying a pair of Opticron Countryman 8x42 (Porro prism) which
gave a good clear view, were affordable but unsealed, and have served me
well over many years. I now mainly use a pair of (very affordable, thanks
to a Dixon's sale) Minolta Activa 7x35 which are waterproof, superbly
collimated, and much easier to use as the focus mechanism is less stiff.
For carrying everywhere (!) I bought a pair of fully sealed, fog proof etc.
8x25s roof prism Activas. OK, they were the best pocketable types of those
I tried, and easy to carry, but as a spectacle wearer, I find them very
fussy in use, so they tend to stay at home!

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Quoted message said:

16x ? You'll never hold them steady enough to use them properly.
If you use them where you've got support - car, hide etc you'll be ok
- but not walking around woodland. Also the higher the magfication
(generally) the narrower the field of view. It therefore becomes
harder to pick things up with the higher powered bins.

10x is the recommended max for hand-held use.

I've had no problems up to 20x-ish, though I suppose you get better with
practice. Lie down on the ground and you can probably go as high as you
like.

Zoom binoculars are the obvious solution to the narrower field of view, but
would I be right in thinking they can be a bit dim in low light?

Nigel Crompton said:

Nick Pedley said:

LOL! I'm looking at the 16x25 pair from Argos,

16x ? You'll never hold them steady enough to use them properly. If
you use them where you've got support - car, hide etc you'll be ok -
but not walking around woodland. Also the higher the magfication
(generally) the narrower the field of view. It therefore becomes
harder to pick things up with the higher powered bins.

10x is the recommended max for hand-held use.

I Agree 10x is absolute max for hand-held, Traditionally 8x40 are good
field glasses and 7x50 are best for night use.

Another thing to bare into mind is the relationship between the
magnification and objective lens and then your pupil.

The first figure is the magnification, (7, 8, 10, 16) x the objective
( 20, 40, 50) the objective is the size across the lens in mm.

The smaller the magnification the greater the field of view.
The greater the objective the greater the light gathering.

Dividing the objective lens size by the magnification will give you
the pupil exit size.

In daylight your pupils close to about 2.5 mm, and open to about 5 mm
in the dark. e.g.

8x40 = 40mm/8 = 5, meaning the binoculars are gathering twice as much
light as your pupils can take in.

8x20 = 20mm/8 = 2.5, meaning your pupils are receiving the optimum
amount of light the binoculars are producing.

Hence smaller objective lenses are ideal for daytime use.

Regards Jeff.

www.astrecks.co.uk

If it works..............DON'T fix it
No Virus Checker? try this free one from AVG it is very good:-
http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
For a new experience in e-mail clients try:- http://www.pocomail.com/
Kill SPAM forever! Protect your family with Spamjab from:-
http://www.spamjab.com/

MP said:

Any one have any idea which binoculars Bill Oddie uses in his Bill
Oddie Goes Wild series. I'm still looking for a good all round pair
even thought I have three different makes and sizes, none of which
are top of the range mind, i.e. fog up a bit in cold weather. The
most used tasco 8x21 compact (handy take every where) next Praktica
Sport 7-21x25 zoom (about as bulky as I want to go, but low on light)
and finally the clearest optics but least used the Commodore 8x40 (a
bit heavy and bulky).

Bill uses Leica's as others have said. He appears to have been using the
8x32 (or thereabouts) size for some years.

If you find a decent binocular supplier (eg. at a bigger bird reserve), you
can usually try a range of things from the sub-£50 cheapy models through to
the luxury £500+ models.
You can then decide whether you can see the improvements (I can) and whether
you can justify the higher prices for what you want to do (I couldn't).

If you wear specs, check the eye relief.
If its quoted as more than 13mm it should be fine with specs on (though you
may want to check carefully if you have glasses which mean the binoculars
are a long way from your eyeball).
If its less than 13mm, you must try them with your specs. If its really low,
you get to see a dark tunnel with specs.

For light weight and portability, but reasonable performance in modest
light, I'd suggest looking at 8x30's or thereabouts. If concerned about
damp getting inside, then you need to add in the cost of the sealed designs.
There should be something which is excellent at under £250, and stuff which
is more than adequate at around £100-150. If lucky, you'll find something
for even less.

- Nigel
--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

Jeff C said:

I Agree 10x is absolute max for hand-held, Traditionally 8x40 are good
field glasses and 7x50 are best for night use.

Another thing to bare into mind is the relationship between the
magnification and objective lens and then your pupil.

The first figure is the magnification, (7, 8, 10, 16) x the objective
( 20, 40, 50) the objective is the size across the lens in mm.

The smaller the magnification the greater the field of view.
The greater the objective the greater the light gathering.

Dividing the objective lens size by the magnification will give you
the pupil exit size.

In daylight your pupils close to about 2.5 mm, and open to about 5 mm
in the dark. e.g.

8x40 = 40mm/8 = 5, meaning the binoculars are gathering twice as much
light as your pupils can take in.

8x20 = 20mm/8 = 2.5, meaning your pupils are receiving the optimum
amount of light the binoculars are producing.

Hence smaller objective lenses are ideal for daytime use.

According to your formula, 7x50 give an exit aperture size of 7mm (near
as d***it) and your pupil is only 5mm in the dark. So why have the Navy
been issuing 7x50 all these years, when 7x35 would work as well?

Andy.

"Andy Champ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to your formula, 7x50 give an exit aperture size of 7mm (near
as d***it) and your pupil is only 5mm in the dark. So why have the Navy
been issuing 7x50 all these years, when 7x35 would work as well?

Andy.

It's to help keeping them aligned with your pupils when your platform is
rolling all over the place. (I also thought that younger folks had larger
pupils (upto 7mm) in the dark - seems to be the accepted wisdom in astronomy
circles.)

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Andy Champ said:

Jeff C wrote:

<snippy snip snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

According to your formula, 7x50 give an exit aperture size of 7mm
(near as d***it) and your pupil is only 5mm in the dark. So why
have the Navy been issuing 7x50 all these years, when 7x35 would
work as well?

Andy.

Errrrr........hummmm, me thinks someone has been conning the navy to
buy more expensive binoc's than they need?

Well actually, truth is that in very bright light the pupils close
smaller than 2.5mm and the darker it gets the more the pupil will
open, so I expect at sea on a non moonlight night it would be very
very dark. Last time I tried to measure my pupils in the dark I
couldn't see to do it!

Also I'm not a teacher, so don't go there, I know wot you lot are
like!

Regards Jeff.

www.astrecks.co.uk

If it works..............DON'T fix it
No Virus Checker? try this free one from AVG it is very good:-
http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
For a new experience in e-mail clients try:- http://www.pocomail.com/
Kill SPAM forever! Protect your family with Spamjab from:-
http://www.spamjab.com/

"Jeff C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:200521215132.039847@jeff...

Nigel Crompton said:

Nick Pedley said:

LOL! I'm looking at the 16x25 pair from Argos,

16x ? You'll never hold them steady enough to use them properly. If
you use them where you've got support - car, hide etc you'll be ok -
but not walking around woodland. Also the higher the magfication
(generally) the narrower the field of view. It therefore becomes
harder to pick things up with the higher powered bins.

10x is the recommended max for hand-held use.

I Agree 10x is absolute max for hand-held, Traditionally 8x40 are good
field glasses and 7x50 are best for night use.
SNIP
Hence smaller objective lenses are ideal for daytime use.
*******

Thanks for all that guys, I might just go for the £9.99 12x25 pair when my
local Argos re-opens (they have been closed this week with 'system
problems'😉. I looked at the other styles in a local Jessops and prefer the
more compact foldaway type.

Nick

Hywel Davies said:

One factor you need to consider is that a pair of 8x20s or 10x25s in your
pocket will give you a far better view than 10x50s left in the car. Proper
twitchers won't mind carrying a heavy pair, but the rest of us, the more
casual users, just want something handy.

Well said mine are light and I don't notice them round my neck at all.
Make the strap as short as possible and they don't swing about and
they will be handy to lift to your eyes.

Quoted message said:

Regarding cost / quality, I bought a pair of Leica 10x25s, which were
something like £250. These are genuinely worth the money, but you can get
good kit cheaper. Some very cheap pairs which are (not entirely suprisingly)
rubbish, proper makes such as Swift, or the camera makers (Nikon, Minolta,
etc) are going to be a safe bet in the £50 to £100 range.

Mine are Nikon Travelites 9x25s and they are fine for what I use them
for - lugging up hills and wanting to take a closer look at the path
ahead and wondering what that birdie is.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In message <[email hidden]>

MP said:

Any one have any idea which binoculars Bill Oddie uses in his Bill
Oddie Goes Wild series. I'm still looking for a good all round pair
even thought I have three different makes and sizes, none of which
are top of the range mind, i.e. fog up a bit in cold weather. The
most used tasco 8x21 compact (handy take every where) next Praktica
Sport 7-21x25 zoom (about as bulky as I want to go, but low on light)
and finally the clearest optics but least used the Commodore 8x40 (a
bit heavy and bulky).

Bill Oddie is nearly always seen using Leica binoculars and telescopes
and his endorsements are certainly used by Leica for advertising
purposes, which means he is usually using the latest and best models.

Leica are expensive, but in my opinion they are worth considering if you
can afford them. I have a pair of Trinovid 8 x 42BN for general use
whilst out walking and birdwatching, and a lightweight pair of Trinovid
8 x 20 BCA which I take with me when I go mountaineering and
ski-mountaineering. The only way to appreciate why these binoculars are
so good is to compare them side by side with other models at a
specialist viewing event out of doors at for example a bird reserve. For
me the major selling point is the clarity and crispness of the colour
rendition even under low lighting conditions, combined with the ability
to close focus, so that they are just as good at viewing insects up
close as they are for birds on the distant horizon.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Mike Clark said:

Leica are expensive, but in my opinion they are worth considering if you
can afford them.

I'm hardly Big On Optics, but a pal is a parkie and keen twitcher and he
uses Leicas. He had some pretty good binos, but found he was always
borrowing /really/ good ones from folk he was showing around. So in the
end he bought a pair himself.

Quoted message said:

ski-mountaineering. The only way to appreciate why these binoculars are
so good is to compare them side by side with other models at a
specialist viewing event out of doors at for example a bird reserve.

We compared Adam's compact Leicas to my cheap but not /entirely/
horrible Chinese compacts for looking down the side of a fjord at birds.
IIRC both were 8 x 25. The colour definition was the really standout
difference, but we both agreed that while the Leicas were clearly better
you were up against the Law Of Diminishing Returns in a very big way.
For over an order of magnitude of price difference you'd be /very/ hard
pushed to say "these are 10 times better". But they /are/ better, and
if you want better and can afford better then "value for money" has a
different meaning from something like "Absolute Performance divided by
Cash Spent", becoming more like "Absolute Performance, Period".
I'm a casual and occasional user of binos, and the Chinese ones make
perfect sense for me. Adam uses binos regularly and professionally, so
the Leicas make perfect sense for him.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>

Peter Clinch said:

Mike Clark said:

Leica are expensive, but in my opinion they are worth considering if
you can afford them.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

The colour definition was the really standout difference, but we both
agreed that while the Leicas were clearly better you were up against
the Law Of Diminishing Returns in a very big way. For over an order
of magnitude of price difference you'd be /very/ hard pushed to say
"these are 10 times better". But they /are/ better, and if you want
better and can afford better then "value for money" has a different
meaning from something like "Absolute Performance divided by Cash
Spent", becoming more like "Absolute Performance, Period".

Yes, it's the same argument that we often rehearse on this group for
other items of outdoor equipment. e.g. "Is that lightweight mountain
tent from Hilleberg realy worth twenty times the cost of the cheapo
version from Argos?" or "Is it worth paying nearly twice as much for a
paclite jacket that weighs 1/3 less and is probably less durable?"

Quoted message said:

I'm a casual and occasional user of binos, and the Chinese ones make
perfect sense for me. Adam uses binos regularly and professionally,
so the Leicas make perfect sense for him.

For much of my professional career I spent hours of each day looking
down microscopes. It tends to make you appreciative of the quality of
the optics of different instruments. The other aspect is that my
eyesight, which is admittedly now starting to show the inevitable
effects of aging, is pretty good, and I can perceive and appreciate very
small differences in optical quality.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Nick Pedley said:

Thanks for all that guys, I might just go for the 9.99 12x25 pair when my
local Argos re-opens (they have been closed this week with 'system
problems'😉. I looked at the other styles in a local Jessops and prefer the
more compact foldaway type.

It's worth trying out cheap binocs. It's not unusual when comparing
half-a-dozen to find that some are rubbish, and that what is
distinctly the best is half the price of the most expensive in the
selection.

For something you always carry just in case it's hard to beat the
convenience/utility quotient of a good small monocular in the 6-8x
range.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Peter Clinch said:

We compared Adam's compact Leicas to my cheap but not /entirely/
horrible Chinese compacts for looking down the side of a fjord at birds.
IIRC both were 8 x 25. The colour definition was the really standout
difference, but we both agreed that while the Leicas were clearly better
you were up against the Law Of Diminishing Returns in a very big way.

I agree with this, up to a point. Twenty-odd years ago I bought 10x40
Leitz (ie Leica) Trinovids and my wife bought 10x40 Zeiss Dialytes,
@£600 each. We're still using them, week in week out in from below
zero freezing to 40degC+. Battered but in perfect working order. I'll
concede that there are binos on the market now in the £300 range that
are a distinct improvement on ours. However where these optics really
score are in continous use - ie looking thro' them for at least 30
mins or more without a break. I find that with lesser optics (and I
have some Zeiss Jena optics too) 10 mins is about all I can manage
before vision starts to go wobbly. I appreciate that most folk will
not look thro' bins for more than a minute or two at a time - but try
counting seabird breeding populations on cliffs......

"Mike Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

For much of my professional career I spent hours of each day looking
down microscopes. It tends to make you appreciative of the quality of
the optics of different instruments. The other aspect is that my
eyesight, which is admittedly now starting to show the inevitable
effects of aging, is pretty good, and I can perceive and appreciate very
small differences in optical quality.

Apart from the fact that some people can see the difference where others
can't, is it possible for different optics to suit different peoples eyes
better so that one pair of binoculars might suit someone but be not so good
for someone else?

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
AndyP <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

"Mike Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

For much of my professional career I spent hours of each day looking
down microscopes. It tends to make you appreciative of the quality of
the optics of different instruments. The other aspect is that my
eyesight, which is admittedly now starting to show the inevitable
effects of aging, is pretty good, and I can perceive and appreciate very
small differences in optical quality.

Apart from the fact that some people can see the difference where others
can't, is it possible for different optics to suit different peoples eyes
better so that one pair of binoculars might suit someone but be not so good
for someone else?

Not really. A good pair is a good pair for anyone, although if you have
lousy eyesight, or your pupils no longer open up fully, or whatever,
then a chep&nasty pair might look as good. I can't imagine a cheap&nasty
pair would actually look =better=, but there are several factors that
can reduce the apparent advantage of the good ones.

You do need to get them side-by-side though. Or to put it another way,
if you can't afford Zeiss, or Leica, or whatever, it's probably a good
plan =not= to look through any pairs you may come across, at least not
right after using your own Brand-X models. I like my Swifts just fine ..
and I'll continue to do so, as long as I don't compare them with
anything better.

I've made that mistake with cameras/lenses, with astronomical telescopes
and eyepieces, with computer monitors ... always very expensive. The
trouble is these things last for ages, and you know that what's
outrageously priced now will be even more outrageously priced next year
... 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.