brassgbits
Member
Anybody got any recommendations for field target cost less than £100
Looks good; I may have to buy one...I tried various binoculars for field archery. problem was that any that were really good at light gathering in the woods were quite bulky. After a trip to the USA where I got to talk to a number of bow hunters they all without exception said that they used a monocular. Their monocular of choice seemed to be the Vortex 10x36, I found one on amazon. They are not cheap, but are great in woodland shooting. image quality and light gathering are superb. If I lost this one I'd get another one in a shot.
Vortex Solo 10x36 mm Monocular, Black: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo
Shop at Amazon.co.uk for Vortex Solo 10x36 mm Monocular, Black : Camera & Photo.www.amazon.co.uk
The problem I can see with them is that 10x36 will not give a very bright image. 10x50 will give an image that is twice as bright, but then you're looking at 50% extra weight (compared to the Barr & Stroud 10x50 Sprite Monocular).I tried various binoculars for field archery. problem was that any that were really good at light gathering in the woods were quite bulky. After a trip to the USA where I got to talk to a number of bow hunters they all without exception said that they used a monocular. Their monocular of choice seemed to be the Vortex 10x36, I found one on amazon. They are not cheap, but are great in woodland shooting. image quality and light gathering are superb. If I lost this one I'd get another one in a shot.
Vortex Solo 10x36 mm Monocular, Black: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo
Shop at Amazon.co.uk for Vortex Solo 10x36 mm Monocular, Black : Camera & Photo.www.amazon.co.uk
The transmission difference will be, at the very most, 15 percent. Nowhere near the 100% difference you get from having a huge hole in the front.I have found that they give very good light transmission. It's the quality and coatings of the glass that makes the difference, it's also what contributes to the relatively higher price. Do not assume that the 10x50 from one maker will transmit more light than the 10x36 from another. I have used these Vortex 10x36 now for 2 years of field shooting and as I said would by another one in an instant. I'm afraid with optics you do get what you pay for. They are certainly the equal of any 10x50 I have looked through that was under £300. One of my club mates had the B&S 10x50 and it didn't compare to the Vortex for image quality, he now has one these instead.
Yes there a big difference in glass in lens / binos as I don't want to think what I have spent over 25+ years in camera gear lens ( a bit like archery LOL)The transmission difference will be, at the very most, 15 percent. Nowhere near the 100% difference you get from having a huge hole in the front.
Before archery my main hobbies were photography, birding and astronomy - all rely on a good knowledge of optics. And in all of them you learn that you need a large might-gathering hole to get a bright image. I have spent tens of thousands on lenses. My binoculars were £1200. My scope was £1600 (although I use my £500 travel scope for archery).
You can calculate a theoretical maximum relative brightness for binoculars as the square of the (objective lens size/magnification).I was curious about this - I am fairly clued up on optics (not an optics expert but I used to run a camera development team....) but I have never really considered it in relation to binoculars.
My first reaction was: it is likely to be more complicated than just size and a few coatings.
So... I just pulled out the three sets of binoculars I have in the house. Nikon 9x25 travel, Zeiss 10x50 and Bushnell 8x42. So about £100 worth,
Agreed, which is why I wanted to make the point that specs don't tell you much. Which I think is the point relevant to this thread, Just because one is a 10x50 and other is 10x40 doesn't necessarly make the 10x50 better. It might be, but it might not......You can calculate a theoretical maximum relative brightness for binoculars as the square of the (objective lens size/magnification).
For your three bins you get - 7.7 for the Nikon, 25 for the Zeiss, 27.5 for the Bushnell.
So, in theory the Zeiss and Bushnell should be similar and way better than the Nikon. The difference you saw in the two better ones is almost certainly differences and lens (and prism) coatings. Every time light crosses (or bounces from) an air/glass interface some of it will be absorbed/reflected/scattered. Good coating can make a huge difference to this. It's why some camera lenses are prone to really bad flare and low-contrast images when shooting into the sun.
This was brought home to me in Africa. The lodge we were staying in was on a river bank and, every evening, they would leave meat out on the opposite bank for a leopard. I had my 8x42 Hawke Frontier bins and couldn't see anything apart from a moving shadow. The guy sitting next to me lent me his Leica's (also 8x42) and suddenly the shadow became a leopard.
In theory they should have been just as bright. In practice it was night and day. I bought some Swarovski bins before my next Africa trip.
But when I compare my Hawke's with the Swaros under most lighting conditions there's no real difference noticeable.
One evening we had the Swarovski guy come down to our club last summer with a crate of binos & one of spotting scopes... I swear looking through the spotting scopes was brighter than using just my eyes!!In theory they should have been just as bright. In practice it was night and day. I bought some Swarovski bins before my next Africa trip..