Good marine binoculars good enough?
Varis
Commander V model is excellent, and it costs about 700 eurobucks. For
example it would have these features:
-outstanding brightness for twilight use
-rangefinder reticle
-autofocus
-nitrogen filled, the nitrogen won't leak out and there is a guarantee
for 10 years they will not get fogged in any conditions
-shockproof - drop them and the prisms still won't move
-really waterproof
http://www.steiner-binoculars.com/binoculars/marine/392.html
The high price however makes me doubt whether this is a good investment
at this point. There are some very good marine binoculars for around
200 bucks with similar specs (nitrogen filled etc). The Fujinon models
have been praised:
http://fujinon.binoculars.com/series/fujinon-mariner-xl-series-binoculars-2501.html
The question is which of these would be worthwhile - Fujinon, maybe the
cheaper Steiners (eg. Observer), others? How much of the above features
would I give up by not going for the Commanders right away? Would I get
around with the cheaper ones for the few first years, and should they
last for years to come after that? I would prefer a model with an
integrated compass.
Or alternatively I could go for compact generic travel binoculars at
first (7x25 or 8x20 or something like that for maybe just 100 bucks),
then upgrade in 1-3 years to a real binocular, and use these as the 2nd
boat binoculars and just generic binoculars everywhere. Would this be a
bad idea - ie. are these kinds of binoculars of any use while boating -
for now I'd stick mostly to daylight conditions with fair visibility
anyway?
Risto
Varis
Harry Krause wrote:
> Steiner makes waterproof binocs in 8x20, or maybe 8x30. Those might be
> used more successfully on a small boat.
Wouldn't a heavy magnification (8x) however make the movement of the
boat more pronounced than with the standard 7x - the field of view
would appear to bob and heave more? (Following your advice one might go
for say 6x18 binoculars from Helios, which are waterproof and dirt
cheap...)
Risto
Chuck Gould
I've got a wonderful pair of marine binocs that cost around $300 US
many years ago.
I can't image why the typical boater would really need something beyond
this medium price range. I'd get some good quality, genuine marine
binoculars and not worry about stepping up to the diamond studded
stuff. I agree with most of Harry's binocular comments, particularly
including the fact that the range finder is a PITA to use and for most
of us not really necessary. My binocs have a range finder, and I don't
think I've used it 3 times.
Ernest Scribbler
> I need binoculars for my little boat.
Sounds like you need a bigger boat ...
Wayne.B
>The high price however makes me doubt whether this is a good investment
>at this point. There are some very good marine binoculars for around
>200 bucks with similar specs (nitrogen filled etc). The Fujinon models
>have been praised:
The right size for marine use is typically 7 x 50 because that gives
the best night vision, and can still be held steadily enough on most
boats. Steiner and Fujinon both make great binoculars but the Fujinon
image stabilized models are reported to be in a class by themselves.
I currently have a nice pair of Steiner 7 x 50s on my boat but my next
pair will be the 12 x 50 stabilized Fujinons.
Dan
> I dunno. I can't use my 7x50 Fujis on my 25' Parker. I can use a pair of
> 8x30 Steiner Navigators, though. There's too much motion usually for me
> to use the 7x50s.
>
> I use the binocs mainly to pick out channel marker buoy numbers and to
> see what the guys in boats nearby are reeling in when they fish. Where I
> boat, there's little need to do long-distance gazing.
If you had a lobster boat, that would be different.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
JimH
> >first (7x25 or 8x20
>
> useless.
>
> Stabilised binocs are fine, but they vary in technique from wet bag to
> gyro stabilised. The gyro binocs are the best.
>
> But for a small boat, go with the 7x25s.
I have a pair of 7x35 Nikon's I purchased for less than $50 on sale
from a boat store. They have never failed me for my recreational
needs.
Why folks seem to think they have to spend big bucks for these things
is beyond me.
JohnH
<onetw...@four.com> wrote:
>There have been times where I could have used a set of gyro stabilized
>binoculars - hasn't been often though.
>
>If I had my druthers, I'd opt for a good set of light amplifying
>binoculars for night viewing.
And, if you can easily afford the best, why settle for something well down
the line. The Canon 10 x42 stabilized is a fine pair of binoculars!
--
John
Wayne.B
<onetw...@four.com> wrote:
>I'd prefer gyro to wet bag stabilization - personal preference.
The IS Fujinons use piezo cyrstals to create an electronic gyro that
drives minature servo operated prisms. Very fast and accurate, best
technology available from what I've read.
DownTime
pretty cheap.
here's a handy conversion chart:
1 "Boat Dollar" is the equivalent to $100 to a non-boater.
Wayne.B
<Down...@SpammersMustDie.com> wrote:
>as was was explained to me, in terms of "Boat Dollars" it is actually
>pretty cheap.
>
>here's a handy conversion chart:
>
>1 "Boat Dollar" is the equivalent to $100 to a non-boater.
That's for smaller boats. Once you get up into the 30/40+ range you
are usually talking about Boat Bucks or Boat Units, currently about
$1,000 USD.
When your total investment is measured in hundreds of Boat Units,
what's another one for a good pair of binocs?
JohnH
Amen.
--
John
Tim
Wayne.B wrote:
\
> When your total investment is measured in hundreds of Boat Units,
> what's another one for a good pair of binocs?
"investment"?
JimH
Touché.
Reminiscent of.....'please pass the Grey Poupon'. ;-)
NOYB
"JohnH" <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ip3vp29gh7bbsclra...@4ax.com...
I have Canon's image-stabilized 10x30's and they're awesome.
JimH
Hey! You are a dentist and can pass the cost along to your next
patient for those expensive toys.
JohnH
The dictionary defines investment as: : the outlay of money usually for
income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the property
purchased.
Notice the word *usually*. Some of us make an investment in a boat knowing
we're going to lose our shorts!
--
John
JohnH
Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--
John
Varis
JohnH wrote:
> The dictionary defines investment as: : the outlay of money usually for
> income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the property
> purchased.
>
> Notice the word *usually*. Some of us make an investment in a boat knowing
> we're going to lose our shorts!
Ironically enough some people make money by investing in boats.
Professionals who buy low, fix up and sell high are one thing. But
around here boat prices have been on the rise so much that a few people
get more from their old boat than they paid!
Risto
Helsinki, Finland
Varis
Harry Krause wrote:
> It's your semi-socialist economy. You have a growing middle class. We
> have a shrinking one.
Could be, but I don't have enough expertise to really answer that. :-)
In the last decade or so, it seems we've been experiencing some new
stratification in the middle class too, some people can buy company
shares while others are happy if their boss extends their contract by
another month...
Risto
Varis
Harry Krause wrote:
> I dunno. I can't use my 7x50 Fujis on my 25' Parker. I can use a pair of
> 8x30 Steiner Navigators, though. There's too much motion usually for me
> to use the 7x50s.
It's a bit weird - maybe the Navigators are lighter and better balanced
than the Fujis or something?
Risto
Varis
They're selling a set of Fujis for 56 eurobucks on ebay :-) I wonder if
all the Fujinon Techno-Stabi TS 1440 are built with the gyros or was
there multiple generations of the model?
Risto
Reginald P. Smithers III
subject should stop your from taking a firm stand on an issue. Some of
our most prolific regulars have no idea what they are talking about and
it doesn't stop them from responding to each and every topic.
Varis
Ernest Scribbler wrote:
> "Varis" wrote
> > I need binoculars for my little boat.
>
> Sounds like you need a bigger boat ...
Definitely! Everybody knows the length of the average boat is 5 feet
too little, and my boat is smaller than the average ;)
The point is, binoculars are cheaper than the boat! But, eventually,
maybe I'll upgrade to a 30 feet plus sailing yacht or something...
Risto
Peter
> I need binoculars for my little boat. I have been told the Steiner
> Commander V model is excellent, and it costs about 700 eurobucks. For
> example it would have these features:
My recommendation: try both binoculars, at best at twilight. It is not
only a question of facts, but also of the subjective preference.
I decided to buy a Commander III a couple of years ago, but I also
thought about buying a Fujinon. After testing both, I decided to take
the Steiner (which was much more expensive). However, it is a lifetime
investment.
The quality of Steiner is excellent. But I also know people who are
very happy with the quality of Fujinon and made very good experiences
with them.
Peter
--
http://www.skipperguide.com
Ernest Scribbler
> Everybody knows the length of the average boat is 5 feet
> too little, and my boat is smaller than the average ;)
>
> The point is, binoculars are cheaper than the boat! But, eventually,
> maybe I'll upgrade to a 30 feet plus sailing yacht or something...
I was just making light of the way your opening statement was phrased, not
knocking little boats. My personal theory on recreational boating is
E/F=1/LOA. (The amount of enjoyment versus frustration you get out of a boat
is inversely proportional to its size.)
Don White
Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with NOYB.
Varis
Chuck Gould wrote:
> I can't image why the typical boater would really need something beyond
> this medium price range. I'd get some good quality, genuine marine
> binoculars and not worry about stepping up to the diamond studded
> stuff.
Binoculars are mostly needed in bad visibility conditions - in moist
weather (with risk of fogging for binoculars) or at night/twilight.
They aid in safe navigation as one wouldn't be able to pick up all
navigation buyos in those conditions. I figure eventually I might be
boating a lot during night or in rainy conditions, too.
Very good optics mean you will enjoy using the binocs more, and so you
will end up with more and better hours with the binocs, so you get more
from your investment. The Steiners are said to have optics that make
the $500 difference in price seem small, a really worthwhile investment
for a regular boater.
If the nitrogen leaks out, the binoculars won't really be so useful any
more. If you drop the cheaper binoculars and they break, you have just
wasted $200. This consideration really makes the markup seem less.
But well, maybe you can get these features with the $200 Fujinons? This
is the original question of this thread :-) And if you invest well the
$500 saved you could get any semi-reasonably priced binoculars in a few
years...
> I agree with most of Harry's binocular comments, particularly
> including the fact that the range finder is a PITA to use and for most
> of us not really necessary. My binocs have a range finder, and I don't
> think I've used it 3 times.
Isn't the range finding just simple maths? Not even trigonometrics
involved. The real problem I would suppose is knowing how high a
particular object is, but probably one knows the approximate measures
of different boat models, islands can be pre-measured and other objects
you might find lengths for from internet sources for example... Well of
course there is the movement of the boat too, so aiming the reticle
could be a bit of a challenge - were you referring to this?
Anyway range finding is more in the category of a cool toy than
essential tool, though any extra information to navigation can be a
help. Wouldn't it be just cool to say: "Captain, according to my
measurements we are approximately 10.56 miles from that tower over
there..."
Risto
JimH
Everyone but John knows I was kidding with NOYB.
It is strange that I have been the subject to all of Herrings posts
today. Maybe John will find peace within himself sometime in 2007. I
will keep him in my prayers in hopes that happens.
JohnH
wrote:
I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--
John
JimH
Obviously you do as I have been mentioned in every post you have made
today. I have now put you in the Basskisser camp.
Don White
Ok...looks like you were responding to NOYB directly.......I was fooled
because JimH's post was just before yours.
My apologies.
JimH
Harry Krause wrote:
> offer here. Lousy fisherman, lousy golfer, piss-poor teacher and
> professional right-wing whiner. Who needs offal like that?
Done.
Great advice!
JohnH
wrote:
>On 1/7/2007 9:58 AM, JimH wrote:
>Just filter Herring out and forget about him. He's never had anything to
>offer here. Lousy fisherman, lousy golfer, piss-poor teacher and
>professional right-wing whiner. Who needs offal like that?
Thanks again, Harry. It is so damn cool to be called names by one as neat
as you!
I see you and your bud, Jimmy, are having a great morning. That's
spectacular.
--
John
JohnH
wrote:
>
>"JohnH" <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6g22q2djh1a4evvao...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White" <whi...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JohnH" <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9dq1q2t0dbc43743a...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
>>>> course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
>>>> jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with
>>>NOYB.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
>> rat's ass.
>> --
>>
>> John
>
>Ok...looks like you were responding to NOYB directly.......I was fooled
>because JimH's post was just before yours.
>My apologies.
>
Yes, you were fooled, as was I. I had no idea Jimmy had made a post. I hope
his joke was funny and heartwarming.
--
John
Varis
Harry Krause wrote:
> Don't use binocs much. The area where I mostly boat is pretty forgiving,
> coast-wise, there aren't many obstructions to espy, and no real inlets
> to run. Even when I lived in Florida, I rarely used binocs to help with
> navigation or safety, though I usually took a look at some of the
> hairier inlets I had to run when returning from the ocean to port, to
> see what the sea conditions were.
The Finnish waters are a bit different, unlike most (?) boating
locations in the world - at least different from most US conditions.
The coastline is not clean - instead there's lots of beautiful little
islands, either with woods or rocks. The downside is that the rocks can
be found below water too, though many of them are marked - or rather,
the navigable water without rocks is often marked ;) The inland waters
are the same and Finnish waters as a whole are notoriously
treacherous...
So much for advertising ;) But that might result in some differences in
the need for binoculars, a small boat can get by fine without them in
good conditions, but I suppose serious boaters have at least one set in
the boat. Besides navigational aids you can use them to observe boats,
ships, islands and other such objects that come plenty in our waters.
Risto
Chuck Gould
Varis wrote:
> Chuck Gould wrote:
>
> > I can't image why the typical boater would really need something beyond
> > this medium price range. I'd get some good quality, genuine marine
> > binoculars and not worry about stepping up to the diamond studded
> > stuff.
>
> Binoculars are mostly needed in bad visibility conditions - in moist
> weather (with risk of fogging for binoculars) or at night/twilight.
> They aid in safe navigation as one wouldn't be able to pick up all
> navigation buyos in those conditions. I figure eventually I might be
> boating a lot during night or in rainy conditions, too.
>
> Very good optics mean you will enjoy using the binocs more, and so you
> will end up with more and better hours with the binocs, so you get more
> from your investment. The Steiners are said to have optics that make
> the $500 difference in price seem small, a really worthwhile investment
> for a regular boater.
>
> If the nitrogen leaks out, the binoculars won't really be so useful any
> more. If you drop the cheaper binoculars and they break, you have just
> wasted $200. This consideration really makes the markup seem less.
>
> But well, maybe you can get these features with the $200 Fujinons? This
> is the original question of this thread :-) And if you invest well the
> $500 saved you could get any semi-reasonably priced binoculars in a few
> years...
The Steiner Commnder V and the Fujinon's have the following things in
common:
Both are are 7 power magnification with a 50mm diameter objective lens.
Both will magnify the image the same amount, and should gather about
the same amount of light. Both use
barium crown glass "porro" prisms.
A major difference between the two is the field of view at 1000 yards.
The Commander V has a 385' field of view, and the Fujinon's have a 125'
field of view. While the objective diameters are the same, obviously
the Fujinon's have a longer focal length. You would have to "scan" a
little more to pick up a nav light, etc, with the Fujinons- but when
you find it the image will fill a larger section of the lens.
Another major difference is the warranty. 30 years limited warranty on
the Steiners, 5 years parts/labor on the Fujinon products.
How important, to you, is the bearing compass? If you have a hand held
bearing compass available, and don't need the bearing down to the
gnat's tush (or if your electronics are functioning), you "could get
by" without the bearing compass in the binocs.
If distance off of a mark is an important consideration for you, you
are most likely going to be inolved in coastal navigation. I'd
definitely prioritize the compasss over the range finder. Unless you're
taking a running fix, it's probably faster to
shoot a couple of bearings (three if possible) than it is to screw
around looking up or guessing the height of something that doesn't have
a height noted on the chart, and then trying to line up the circular
slide rules on the outside of the case- particularly in the dark.
I use the bearing compass, but not the range finder, on mine.
If you don't absolutely need a built in bearing compass, consider the
West Marine model
267755 binocs. If Steiner optics are important to you; these are built
by Steiner. They are $299.99 US without a bearing compass, and about
$500 with.
>
Wayne.B
>I suppose serious boaters have at least one set in
>the boat. Besides navigational aids you can use them to observe boats,
>ships, islands and other such objects that come plenty in our waters.
I think they are essential for boating at night. A good pair of 7 x
50s has excellent light gathering power and can make all the
difference when trying to find navigational aids or identify an
unknown set of lights. In many cases the running lights of large
ships can be difficult to interpret with just your eyes, but a quick
look through the binocs will reveal the outline of the hull and make
everything clear.
Wayne.B
<chuckgou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Both are are 7 power magnification with a 50mm diameter objective lens.
>Both will magnify the image the same amount, and should gather about
>the same amount of light.
I'm told, but have no direct personal knowledge, that lens coatings
have a great deal to with effective light gathering power. Supposedly
the German U-boat commanders at the beginning of WW II had 7 x 50
binocs and periscopes with superior coatings that gave them a huge
advantage at night.
from Hans Seeger, Militaerische Fernglaeser und Fernrohre
[page 331]
===
In 1935/36, Alexander Smakula (Zeiss, Jena) developed the
lens coating, a reflection reducing coating for optical elements. For
all optics, especially thoise with numerous surfaces, the coating
(also called 'blue coating') is a valuable means to increase the
transparency and therefore the brightness of the image. In marine
optics, the coating was especially useful. U-boat periscope optics
were the first to receive this new coating, along with the Navy field
glasses. In Germany, Navy optics and tank aiming field glasses were
the only items manufactured with coated optics; and other German
military models usually didn't have coating (and when it is there,
that nearly always means it was applied later, and the original
condition is falsified.)
===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binoculars#Optical_coatings
The reason that 7 x 50s in general are superior, is that particular
combination of optics yields an exit beam width equal to the fully
dilated diameter of the pupils in your eye.
Stan (the Man)
binoculars: <http://snipurl.com/16x43>
After some extensive research, I chose the Bushnell 7x50. $129.85 at
binoculars.com was the best price I found. They're perfect for my use on
my 23' center console.
--
Stan
Dan
> On 1/7/2007 7:57 AM, Varis wrote:
>
>> JohnH wrote:
>>
>>> The dictionary defines investment as: : the outlay of money usually for
>>> income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the
>>> property
>>> purchased.
>>>
>>> Notice the word *usually*. Some of us make an investment in a boat
>>> knowing
>>> we're going to lose our shorts!
>>
>>
>> Ironically enough some people make money by investing in boats.
>> Professionals who buy low, fix up and sell high are one thing. But
>> around here boat prices have been on the rise so much that a few people
>> get more from their old boat than they paid!
>>
>> Risto
>> Helsinki, Finland
>>
>
>
> It's your semi-socialist economy. You have a growing middle class. We
> have a shrinking one.
Harry's right. We still have labor unions. Go figure...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
NOYB
"Harry Krause" <harry....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qrCdnf_8_q-xwD3Y...@comcast.com...>> news:ip3vp29gh7bbsclra...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:44:56 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>>> <onetw...@four.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 Jan 2007 16:46:33 -0800, "JimH" <osud...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Jan 2007 06:54:00 -0800, "Varis" <rvar...@luukku.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or alternatively I could go for compact generic travel binoculars at
>>>>>>> first (7x25 or 8x20
>>>>>> 7x25 is all you need for a small boat - range finding binocs are
>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stabilised binocs are fine, but they vary in technique from wet bag
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> gyro stabilised. The gyro binocs are the best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for a small boat, go with the 7x25s.
>>>>> I have a pair of 7x35 Nikon's I purchased for less than $50 on sale
>>>> >from a boat store. They have never failed me for my recreational
>>>>> needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why folks seem to think they have to spend big bucks for these things
>>>>> is beyond me.
>>>> There have been times where I could have used a set of gyro stabilized
>>>> binoculars - hasn't been often though.
>>>>
>>>> If I had my druthers, I'd opt for a good set of light amplifying
>>>> binoculars for night viewing.
>>> And, if you can easily afford the best, why settle for something well
>>> down
>>> the line. The Canon 10 x42 stabilized is a fine pair of binoculars!
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> I have Canon's image-stabilized 10x30's and they're awesome.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Speaking of awesome, I was at my friend the dentist's office the other
> day, and he showed me a milling machine that makes crowns right in his
> office, and some other neat new stuff.
CEREC. It's cool technology, but there are some limitations with it.
It's not capable of making a crown as esthetic as a lab-fabricated
one...unless you do your own in-office porcelain staining. Then you end up
doing lab work instead of income-producing tasks like seeing additional
patients.
It also costs $100k...or $2000/mo. for 60 months. You'd have to do 17
single unit crowns/mo. just to break even (assuming your lab bill for
lab-fabricated crowns runs about $125/unit). Those 17 crowns don't include
bridges because the CEREC cannot do bridges yet. And it doesn't include
veneers or anterior (front teeth) crowns (unless you're staining them
in-office as mentioned before).
It's gee-whiz technology at this point, useful mostly for the "wow" factor.
They try to tell the dentists that it will make us more profitable, but the
ROI just isn't there IMO.
NOYB
> course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
> jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
> --
They run about $400...which is not that expensive considering all of the
other costs for a boat.
osu...@comcast.net
NOYB wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of awesome, I was at my friend the dentist's office the other
> > day, and he showed me a milling machine that makes crowns right in his
> > office, and some other neat new stuff.
>
> CEREC. It's cool technology, but there are some limitations with it.
>
> It's not capable of making a crown as esthetic as a lab-fabricated
> one...unless you do your own in-office porcelain staining. Then you end up
> doing lab work instead of income-producing tasks like seeing additional
> patients.
>
> It also costs $100k...or $2000/mo. for 60 months. You'd have to do 17
> single unit crowns/mo. just to break even (assuming your lab bill for
> lab-fabricated crowns runs about $125/unit). Those 17 crowns don't include
> bridges because the CEREC cannot do bridges yet. And it doesn't include
> veneers or anterior (front teeth) crowns (unless you're staining them
> in-office as mentioned before).
>
> It's gee-whiz technology at this point, useful mostly for the "wow" factor.
> They try to tell the dentists that it will make us more profitable, but the
> ROI just isn't there IMO.
Cool A small CNC machining center in a dentists office. Who would
have imagined such a thing just 5 years ago!
NOYB
<osu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1168815163.5...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Sirona would have! The CEREC has been around since 1987. They're currently
on the third generation, CEREC 3. The other 2 really weren't worth a damn.
This one isn't bad. If it were $30k instead of $100k, I'd own one by now
just for the novelty of it. But the potential ROI just isn't there yet.
http://www.cereconline.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=Cerec_history