TomD wrote:I had the chance to look through a pair of Swarovski binoculars a couple of weeks ago 8x42's and they were great; however, $2k for a pair of binocs was a bit much.

After some looking I popped for a pair of Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 binocs. They may not be as good as the Swarovski's but are pretty damned good and saved over 300 gallons of av gas.

TD

I love how we don't compare costs to hours worked or the cost of groceries, insurance, clothing, heating oil or insulin... It's always gallons of 100ll

Those Swarovski's do take a bite out of the budget, no doubt.

I haven't looked through the Monarch's, but they look nice and light and the ED glass really makes a difference. I remember watching my camera bag go through the airport x-ray and the ED elements would pop up on the monitor a completely different color than the rest of the glass...sort of cool.

What was it that made you pick the Monarch's over other similarly priced pairs?

A few years ago a buddy was retiring from the army and he asked me if I wanted anything from the PX before he left. I'd always admired the clarity of his binoculars so I asked for a set.

He said he couldn't get the exact same ones (they had a cool but not particularly useful artillery reticle) but he had friends in the gun business that had access to good optics. I said yes without inquiring about price because I thought $500 would probably be the high end.

Imagine my surprise when he handed me a pair of 8x32 Swarovskis and a bill for $2000.

That taught me two lessons: 1) always ask the price 2) good optics are worth the price.

They are small and light enough that I carry them everywhere. Definitely one of my favorite pieces of kit.

I've also had a good Vortex spotter and several Leupold scopes. Good glass is worth every penny.

I think I learned it on this forum: Cheap shit ain't cool and cool shit ain't cheap.

What was it that made you pick the Monarch's over other similarly priced pairs?

I read a lot of reviews and went down to the Audubon shop and looked through Leica, Zeiss, and another brand I cannot remember the name of along with the Nikon Monarch 7's. The 7's were very bright, good resolution, pretty flat field ( not as good as Svaroski), and had a depth of field that I did not notice as much in the others. They are also relatively light (polycarbonate body), waterproof, and filled w/ inert gas.

The high eye points allow me to use them with my glasses on which is a good thing for someone with an astigmatism. The eye cups come up in increments if you want to use them without glasses.

I have been in the microscopy business for many years looking through some high class glass and was pretty impressed with the image I see with these binocs.

Others might come to different conclusions, but they fit my face and seem to fill my needs.

TD

I have a pair of Leica 10x40,and put them on a outdoorsman tripod with micro pan head. Very nice setup.
I was a elk guide in new Mexico and made my living with good glass.
The tripod makes it nice.
Charlie

A few days ago, I discovered that Svaroskis are available at one of our locally owned outdoors stores, but having already read much of this thread, I chose not to ask the clerk to pull them out of the case. I have a habit of falling in love with high priced things I hardly need, and after just buying a new car in December and putting 10 AMUs into my airplane last month and more coming up this month, I thought it best not to take the chance. But it was oh so tempting!

Cary

Finally decided to pony up for the Swarovski BTX eyepiece and a 95mm lens. The BTX eyepiece gives binocular vision...the only spotting scope eyepiece that does. The trade-off is that it's fixed power...35x with the 95mm lens; 30x with the two smaller lenses. For comparison, the 95mm lens will go up to 70x with a monocular eyepiece.

I can say without hesitation that I LOVE it. I've never enjoyed spotting scopes because of the monocular vision, but this is basically a 35 power binocular, and crisp enough to hurt. I can easily pick out elk at eight+ miles if the light is decent and there isn't too much heat distortion, and I can look through it for hours at a time without eye fatigue.

A tripod is mandatory of course. Some reviewers say you need a gimbal head, but I've found the Arca-Swiss ball head works very well, and it's cheaper than a Wimberley Gimbal by a fair margin. I've always used Gitzo legs and highly recommend them.

Swarovski doesn't give them away, but with three elk herds within viewing distance of my porch I think it's a good value for the entertainment. I'm hoping to see some wolves in action, but haven't as of yet.

An interesting aspect is how close it will focus...about twenty feet, maybe less. It's surprisingly fun to watch toads and other garden fauna at that magnification. I can look at a poppy flower for ten minutes...and no, I'm not stoned. It's just fantastic the detail you can get that the naked eye cannot achieve.



It's overkill for scoring targets, and it may not be as good as the more powerful monocular eyepiece for some hunters, but if glassing slopes for hours on end is your idea of good entertainment, I highly recommend it. FWIW, a little store called Out of This World in Mendocino, CA had the best price I could find. They beat out everyone else by a bit over a hundred dollars, and no tax if you live outside CA.

Hammer- thanks for the pirep on the BTX. I have the ATX 95 objective and the 30-70 ocular. Have not had a chance to test drive the BTX yet. My application involves multiple users, so I think the diopter on the BTX might be a little inconvenient. How easy is it to adjust the interpupillary distance?

I also have ATS 80's and an ATX 85 mounted to the old Swarovski pan heads, but I find with the ATX 95 that stability is substantially improved with the Swarovski gimbal head and balance rail. It is silky smooth.

-DP

Hammer, thanks for the PIREP! Curious, have you looked at the moon with it? Although probably not as good as a dedicated telescope, I bet the detail would be amazing.

Kurt

denalipilot wrote:Hammer- thanks for the pirep on the BTX. I have the ATX 95 objective and the 30-70 ocular. Have not had a chance to test drive the BTX yet. My application involves multiple users, so I think the diopter on the BTX might be a little inconvenient. How easy is it to adjust the interpupillary distance?

I also have ATS 80's and an ATX 85 mounted to the old Swarovski pan heads, but I find with the ATX 95 that stability is substantially improved with the Swarovski gimbal head and balance rail. It is silky smooth.

-DP

Multiple users is an issue with the BTX. The diopters are fully adjustable with finger pressure, but the alignment of the users' head to the eyepieces is rather critical. A person can contort their neck and head to look through one ocular pretty easily, but it won't work for two. Two people with similar heights and ocular separation could swap back and forth, but it won't work well for people of significantly different statures.

Alignment to the oculars is important enough that Swarovski incorporated an integral, adjustable head rest. It works very well, but you have to learn how to use it correctly. They also added a really slick aiming device that works amazingly well.

The Swarovski gimbal head looks really nice, and a fair bit lighter than the Wimberley gimbal I use with my big camera lenses. But at north of six-hundred dollars even I have to draw a line somewhere...for now, anyway... The BTX on the 95mm lens balances quite well, even on a (quality) ball head.

Kurt: Ya, the moon is pretty fun to watch through it! Stars, too. Amazing the detail you cannot get with the naked eye.

Hammer, what are we talking here with tri-pod, 4 or 5 grand?

Kurt

G44 wrote:Hammer, what are we talking here with tri-pod, 4 or 5 grand?

Kurt

The binocular (BTX) eyepiece with the largest (95mm) lens will be just shy of 5k. The 85mm lens saves $300, and the 65mm lens saves $1000, but both those lenses only give 30x, not 35x magnification. There is also a loss of low light capability, and reduced field of view. A tripod and head worthy of this glass will be about another 1k, more if you want to shave some weight, though there are some pretty decent deals to be had on ebay. You might save a few hundred dollars on the tripod legs and head that way.

DO NOT buy a tripod or head from the sporting goods or optics store. Virtually no retail stores cary the good stuff, and the not-so-good-stuff is truly wasted money. For some reason you can go into a good camera store and buy a $22,000 Lica body and lens, but they won't have a decent tripod or head. Not sure why. I'd MUCH rather buy used ten-year-old good stuff on ebay than brand new retail-quality legs and heads, and I'd save money doing it.

It's worth noting that a poor tripod or poor tripod head will make a $5,000 spotting scope essentially worthless. Without the ability to hold the scope steady and to move it easily and fluidly, the best glass in the world is of little value. The tripod legs, head and hardware need to be of a quality and robustness that you can pick the whole unit up by the legs and cary it on your shoulder, fearless of any part of the tripod failing and dropping the scope. They also need to be ergonomic and engineered well enough that using them isn't a chore.

Frankly, if I had to choose between the 95mm lens and a poor tripod, or the 65mm lens and a good tripod, I'd choose the later.

Hammer wrote:

G44 wrote:Hammer, what are we talking here with tri-pod, 4 or 5 grand?

Kurt

The binocular (BTX) eyepiece with the largest (95mm) lens will be just shy of 5k. The 85mm lens saves $300, and the 65mm lens saves $1000, but both those lenses only give 30x, not 35x magnification. There is also a loss of low light capability, and reduced field of view. A tripod and head worthy of this glass will be about another 1k, more if you want to shave some weight, though there are some pretty decent deals to be had on ebay. You might save a few hundred dollars on the tripod legs and head that way.

DO NOT buy a tripod or head from the sporting goods or optics store. Virtually no retail stores cary the good stuff, and the not-so-good-stuff is truly wasted money. For some reason you can go into a good camera store and buy a $22,000 Lica body and lens, but they won't have a decent tripod or head. Not sure why. I'd MUCH rather buy used ten-year-old good stuff on ebay than brand new retail-quality legs and heads, and I'd save money doing it.

It's worth noting that a poor tripod or poor tripod head will make a $5,000 spotting scope essentially worthless. Without the ability to hold the scope steady and to move it easily and fluidly, the best glass in the world is of little value. The tripod legs, head and hardware need to be of a quality and robustness that you can pick the whole unit up by the legs and cary it on your shoulder, fearless of any part of the tripod failing and dropping the scope. They also need to be ergonomic and engineered well enough that using them isn't a chore.

Frankly, if I had to choose between the 95mm lens and a poor tripod, or the 65mm lens and a good tripod, I'd choose the later.

Great stuff! Thanks Hammer!