Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.
I'm leaning toward the NIKON Action EX Extreme 7 x 50 Waterproof Binoculars at $160 ( West Marine )
Magn. x Objective Lens Dia.: 7 x 50 Focus: Center Waterproof: Yes Prism Type: BAK-4 Eco-Glass Light Transmission Efficiency: 85% Field of View @1000yds: 420' Eye Relief: 17.1mm Compass: No Rangefinder Reticle: No Weight: 46.7oz. Warranty: 25 years limited
I've looked at the WEST MARINE Aruba 7 x 50 Compact Waterproof Binoculars many times for $179 on sale
Magn. x Objective Lens Dia.: 7 x 50 Focus: Internal center Waterproof: Yes Prism Type: BAK-4 Porro Light Transmission Efficiency: >88% Field of View @1000yds: 342' Eye Relief: 27.4mm Compass: No Rangefinder Reticle: No Weight: 29oz. Warranty: Limited lifetime
I think I like the ~ 78 increase angle of view in Nikons... Also sounds like the glass is better ( transmission ) in the Nikon given the lower weight???
Yep, Their pricing is very competative. I just hate WM. Only go there if I need somthing right away and am willing to pay their high prices. Found this also from B&H, Might get a free tote bag also. Worth a try.
Is the larger field of view (420') a good thing or a bad thing?
It seems most of the other models have less than 400', even the super expensive models.
I just picked up a second pair of WM Huahine 7x50, not waterproof, but they were on sale for 69.00. My original pair has to be well over ten years old.
I really like my WM Aruba binocs--pretty much the same specs, but 29 oz. Weight matters to us old farts. And the light transmission rating is a little better than the Nikon. That only matters for night vision. Field of view seems comfortable with the Arubas, but weight easily decided it for me.
Image stability is a lot easier to add to a digital camera (just a programming change) than to an optical device like binoculars.
Woops.. You are right stinkpotter.. I was thinking the Nikon was the lighter pair... Meaning the West Marine probably has better glass ( or at least less of it )
I prefer the wider field of view, easier to obtain/maintain a target.
Especially for the plane/bird watching, which is what I do most..
The FOV is basically a trade off with eye relief. Go for the wider field of view if you don't wear glasses. Personally, I wouldn't trade my 40 oz. Tahiti for anything within $500 of the price. Weight is good for stability and only becomes a problem if you are carrying them or using them for long stents. To look, identify, maybe take a bearing and put them down is pretty easy. For carrying and watching for longer periods, my wife"s Aruba is definitely preferred. The eye relief is sweet for my glasses. Both of the WM's have a little pin cushion distortion at the extreme edges, maybe the outer 10% of the FOV, but so do my Nikons to a slightly lesser degree. My waterproof Orions are flat across the field, have >96% light transmission and deep eye relief, but I expect that with their narrower FOV and being from a primarily astronomical telescope company. We returned her first pair of Aruba because the focus was extremely stiff. The replacement was better, but still stiffer than any of our other binoculars. Yes, we do have 6 sets from four manufacturers for different purposes.
All useful information. I can only say that, for me, the Arubas (on sale then and right now) were an amazing find for bright, sharp, compact, lightweight, waterproof, lifetime-warranteed binocs. I recommend handling them at a WM store.
I have experience with both of these options. I use the Aruba on my boat and two friends use a similar Nikon pair on their boats (they have the OceanPro 7x50).
Both are nice glasses.
I think that the Nikon has a little better clarity and build quality. My Aruba has one eyecup that has gotten sloppy, the eyecup is made of soft plastic that keys around three small bolts and the soft plastic gets beat up. We use the retracting eye cups often because my wife uses the binoculars with her glasses on, and I remove my glasses to use them.
The West Marine comes with a nice soft case.
The compass in their Nikon glasses is nice for triangulating locations. You can also get this as a feature in the West Marine glasses.
I don't think you can go too wrong with either, but the Nikon are a little nicer.
Thank you very much for the input.. Now I'm thinkin whatever I buy the real addition will be a slot to keep them in so whatever weight they are they don't crash down when I lay the boat over.
I also have Nikon Action 10x50 binoculars that the admiral gave me for Christmas one year. Sweet binoculars, nice rubber casing and good FOV, but a little harder to use on a bobbing boat. Both come with a nice soft case and neck strap.
Well dang it, since clicking on this thread, I now find myself wanting the WM Antigua, waterproof, 30oz, built in compass, with range finder reticle. On sale for $ 189.99. Thanks fellas.....
Well dang it, since clicking on this thread, I now find myself wanting the WM Antigua, waterproof, 30oz, built in compass, with range finder reticle. On sale for $ 189.99. Thanks fellas.....
That's the Aruba with additional toys. Good opportunity on the price. I think you'll like 'em--especially if you have a deck gun--you can figure the range!
One thing that I wish they would include in the binocs with compass & range markers is to have them vertical no matter what width (eye separation) the binocs are set to.
Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ. The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.