Can anyone comment on the field of view? I've heard (regarding another brand) a narrow field of view. How much loss, and clarity? Thnx.
911878
I can't specify "field of view," but what I can tell you - that I think is important for you to know - is that when I replace a 10x eyepiece in my low-power binocular microscope (1x objective), the image is greatly magnified from what it would appear through the eyepiece . . . perhaps about 5x as much (50x total?). I really would have liked it to stay the same, but I can understand why it doesn't. If you have a 40 or 50x eyepiece (or so) that you replace with the camera, my guess is you will see about the same picture as you see through the eyepiece. The clarity is good. Of course, it could be better, but probably not for the same price. Now that I understand the limitations, etc., I am quite pleased with it. I built my own lens and stand for it, using the barrel of a cheap flashlight and a double convex lens that just happened to fit the tube perfectly (24mm). I added a diaphragm to increase depth of field, and a baffle between the lens and camera to minimize "splash" within the tube. These are all held in position within the tube by O-rings (from Harbor Freight). The added diaphragm requires an additional light source, which I got from eBay for $3.50 (music stand LED lights on flex arms). Works pretty good!
263538
i just couldn't justify spending another $1500 MORE over the 80-200mm for 10 mm more low end range and VR .. which is just marketing hype in all but a few situations. its right up there with polarized lenses.
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
43415
I've not used them in that environment, use mostly for birding which is perhaps a more challenging use for binoculars. Thus I see no reason why they would not be very good for that. I do not think you would want greater magnification with narrower field of view because you have to move them quickly in that scenario. THese are very good overall, especially for the price. If it rains, the lenses have built in attached covers to keep them dry when not in use.
1887047
Marc, It looks like the AL2223 has slightly better features. This is the model that I will be purchasing in the coming week or so. The contrast ratio is slightly higher (800:1 as opposed to 700:1) so I think this is a better deal. Maybe others have some feedback that will add to the discussion? : Michael
1769208
I remove my glasses when I use these binoculars. I tried looking thru them with my glasses on...it clearly reduces the FOV because you cannot get your eyes as close to the lenses as you can without glasses on. I suspect that would be the same issue you would find with any binoculars.
2124813
I bought the Nikon Monarch, they are compact and pull in what I'm looking for really clear and close. I wear contacts and I can get a close and crisp sighting without having my contacts in! I thought about going for a little wider viewing but this really satisfy me for my needs. We have really viewing off our mountain and lake property, I would get them, you can always return them.
1530090
I hear you. You soon get used to these radical, whiplash tactics in technologies. Equipment of two years ago suddenly seems ancient--large and cumbersome and with fewer features, yet sometimes up to two times the price of what's current. I'm seeing Blue Rays by other manufacturers approaching the $100 level new. I try to live with it for a couple of years, then I reason I've gotten my money's worth and make the trip to the Salvation Army or the curb.
1811011
Hi again Wm. I see you've gotten a fair spread of replies. I purposely went outside at dusk this evening and panned across my pine and oak forest property so I could get a sampling of light and shadow. I could make out good detail at maximum viewing distance. There are probably more expensive products out there, but in this price range, these are probably as good as it gets.
2176874
Well, while I really can't give a technical comment on the viewing distance, I can say that my wife recently used them at a concert at Gillette Stadium and was delighted with the performance. She was seated at the far end of the stadium and was able to get close up with these binoculars. When I asked her if she would have preferred to have had some larger and more powerful binos and she said no way. The small size and weight more than make up for any relative loss in distance viewing.
1134713
I was just at the store today looking at the TM90 and the Canon M41, hard to choose between the two! Johnny, do you miss having a viewfinder? And, the green tint scares me...I've read that in a lot of reviews.
1035269
yeah, I have it... its a decent one for the money. im a little spoiled because I have it, and a sightmark 2x24 NV bino and those are really nice, but expensive. I have this one and Firefield Nvader 1-3X Digital Night Vision Monocular, and I did not like the Nvader.
1260997
That's a great question, The Talon Hd's run about $250-350 more than the Diamondbacks, I Currently own the Diamondback 10 x 42, I'm extremely pleased with them. I would recommend going to a local retailer, like maybe a Cabales? or a store that is very big, and tell the sales clerk you want to compare the Diamondback to the Talon Hd. Then pick something to focus on in the store as far away as possible, and switch back and forth between the two. You may be able to determine if the extra money is worth it? Vortex has a lifetime VIP warranty. If I had the extra money to upgrade to the Talon HD? I would, just because each step up with the Vortex bino's, gets better and better, but I have many different outdoor Items I purchase, so I have to set a budget on each item. Excellent Optics! Good Luck! Enjoy the outdoors
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
1500786
These will be great for that! I like mine very much. Clear and crisp views!!!!
1753205
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I suspected as much, so I have just been using one at a time. Nice to know that I needed to, and should continue to, in the wide angle range.
1649318
Has anyone seen any actual reviews of this camera as opposed to marketing spec lists? Sometimes I've seen pre-production models of cameras that get reviewed prior to actual release. It is the low light ability claims of the Nikon that I'll need to see put to the test. That's probably the biggest Achilles heel of all these superzooms. It may have a CMOS sensor (which explains the burst speed of this camera) but it is still the same small size sensor as all the superzooms so I'm dubious about any huge improvement in low light. All of the previous versions of this new crop of superzooms (Nikon, Sony, Fuji) only got a flat four star rating in Amazon while the Panasonic FZ35 and FZ40 both are at 4.6. This new group has longer zooms than the Pansonics but I need to know if the picture quality is improved in any way.