A few months back I bought in two of Canon’s Image stabilised binoculars: the 10 x 30 IS II and the 12 x 36 IS III for testing and evaluation. Having been suitably impressed with the smaller 8 x 20 model, I was keen to see how these larger units would perform. Of the two instruments tested, one emerged as a firm favourite- the 12 x36 IS III.
Both instruments have nice ergonomics. Focusing is precise and backlash free. These instruments focus by moving the objective lenses back and forth. The rubberised armouring affords excellent grip too. By storing these instruments in water-tight Tupperware containers with about 150g of silica gel desiccant, I was able to quickly render them fog proof. The interiors become bone dry after a few days of storage, allowing me to use them for extended periods in cold weather.
The 10 x 30 delivers crisp images from edge to edge. It is small and lightweight, and provides a good magnification boost at 10x in a 6 degree field. In a series of handheld tests against my 10 x 50 SRBC, the 10 x 30 IS II was easily shown to deliver finer details of critical targets at distance while the stabilisation button was engaged. Contrast is good as is resistance to glare. Examining the entrance pupils of both instruments shows well executed control of stray light as the photos below attest.
Both the 10 x 30 and 12x 36 exhibit modest chromatic aberration on high-contrast targets, with the 12 x 36 IS III exhibiting substantially more than the 10 x 30 unit. In contrast, the world-class optics on the 10 x 50 SRBC APO delivers virtually no colour fringing all the way across its enormous 7.5 degree ultra-flat field.
I noted no significant differences in the degree of stabilisation on both instruments, even though the 10 x 30 has a more generous range of stability at +/-1.0 degrees( as opposed to +/-0.9 degrees for the larger 12 x 36. I did note a slight defocusing of the image on both instruments as the stabilisation button began to be engaged, but a few moments later, they would settle down to give a nice, sharp image of various field targets. As well as seeing finer details than any handheld 10x binocular, I found I could tweak the focus post stabilisation ever so slightly to get the finest images these instruments can deliver.
I would recommend the 10 x 30 as a fine ultraportable platform for casual bird watching or nature studies. It’s also quite decent on the night sky but ultimately it proved to be inferior to the views garnered by the 12 x 36 ISIII.
I’ve been experimenting with various types of battery with these instruments. I found alkaline batteries to be troublesome to use on extended walks in cold weather when they would quickly discharge. I then switched to rechargeable lithium ion batteries. Despite warnings that they may overheat, I found them perfectly suitable for my purposes, delivering better cold weather performance in sub zero conditions, as well as longer lasting power delivery. I can also leave them inside the instruments while not in use without the worry of leakage and corrosion of the electrodes.
The 12 x 36IS III is an excellent, all-purpose instrument, delivering good daytime views. Weighing only a little more than the 10 x 30, it can be carried easily over miles of countryside. The extra magnification comes in real handy for identifying smaller birds at distance, though it struggles a little under dull winter light with its small(3mm) exit pupils.
What I absolutely love about the 12×36 ISIII is its astronomical performance. With the shorter days of autumn and winter, I’ve started night walks around Culcreuch Castle Estate, when I take along the 12 x 36 IS III to combine my love of stargazing with my enthusiasm for walking. In this capacity, the instrument gets regular use after dark. I have thoroughly enjoyed views of the showpiece glories of the night sky: with my eyes fully dark-adapted and away from village lights, I have soaked up magnificent views of the Pleiades, Hyades, the Double Cluster, the Alpha Persei Cluster, the Coathanger asterism and Kemble’s Cascade to name but a few. The 36mm objectives provide far more compelling views of fainter star clusters such as M36, M37 and M38 in Auriga than the smaller 10 x 30. M35 in Gemini and M34 in Perseus are well resolved. Collinder 70 is very impressively rendered, as is the Sword Handle of Orion. And while my 10 x 50 SRBC produces brighter images with more stellar sparkle, the smaller exit pupils of the 12 x 36IS III, serves up a darker hinterland, often producing more aesthetically pleasing views. Indeed the stabilised 12 x 36 shows me just as much as the larger 10 x 50 handheld.
Views of the Moon are excellent in the 12 x 36, with its 12 x delivering stunning views of maria and crater fields. Though some chromatic aberration is present, I don’t find it distracting. Jupiter shows a nice, clean, yellow-white disk. The Galilean satellites are well resolved once adequately placed away from the glare of the planet.
I’ve visited many binocular doubles with the 12 x 36 IS III. For example, Albireo is very nicely resolved handheld, the green and golden components showing up nicely. And just southeast of Vega, I was able to cleanly resolve Zeta Lyrae, the components of which are separated by 44 arc seconds with one component over a full magnitude brighter than the other. This is a challenge for a non-stabilised binocular but rendered easy using the stabilisation button on the 12 x 36 ISIII. One final thing to mention: The Porro II optical design of these Canon IS binoculars render stars as very tightly focused and pinpointed, in contrast to what many roof prism binoculars serve up.
All in all, I’m thrilled to bits with the 12 x36 ISIII binocular. Any quibbles? Maybe just one: it’s less than stellar close focusing compared with many roof prism instruments I’ve enjoyed. It’s a small drawback for birding but not a deal breaker.
Read many more reviews of binoculars of all sizes in my book, Choosing and Using Binoculars: a Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts.
The Leica Ultravid series of high performance binoculars were introduced in December 2003, followed in 2006 by their so-called HD series incorporating Schott Fluoride glass in their objectives. Finally in 2016, Leica brought the latest incarnation of the Ultravid to market with their HD Plus line of binoculars which offered slightly better coatings to improve light transmission. Long sought after by binocular enthusiasts for their elegant design and uncompromising optical performance, they’ve remained a favourite among birders and other outdoor enthusiasts.
That said, in the past few years new and highly advanced binoculars promising equal or better optical performance at a fraction of the retail price of the Ultravids have now come to the fore. I was keen to see how these expensive Leica binoculars stacked up against one of these products in particular: theSky Rover Banner Cloud (SRBC)APO 8 x 42. The results were very enlightening to say the least!
Having related highly accurate data concerning the SRBC APO 8 x 42 and 10 x 50 models – now corroborated by dozens of user testimonials – these instruments have been almost universally lauded for their sensational optical performance at an amazing price, I was keen to see how they would perform against a known quantity in the high-end binocular market, so I bought in a used Ultravid HD 8 x 42, which has essentially the same optical and mechanical features of the newer HD Plus model.
Having previously shown the SRBC 8 x 42 to be optically superior to both the Zeiss Conquest HD(see post #1069) and the Zeiss SFL binocular, I knew going in that the Ultravid HD would be facing a formidable challenge.
A Brief Look Around the Leica Ultravid HD
For many, the Leica Ultravid represents the pinnacle of optical and mechanical refinement. With a magnesium alloy chassis, a titanium alloy focus wheel, overlaid by a sexy black vulcanised rubber armouring, you can see why these instruments were drooled over by many on binocular porn sites like Birdforum.
The underside reveals thumb indents- a feature designed to baby the user into positioning their thumbs while looking through the instrument. Thankfully this feature has largely fallen out of fashion. I personally dislike them and find it patronising that a company as big as Leica would presume to know anything about how I like to handle binoculars.
The twist up eyecups are excellent: some of the best in the industry. They offer plenty of eye relief and can be unscrewed to assist cleaning the ocular lenses.
The objective lenses have excellent multilayer coatings that maximise light transmission (of the order of 90 per cent) and the outer lenses of both the objectives and eyepieces are treated with the company’s patented AquaDura film designed to prevent the build up of water droplets while glassing in adverse weather conditions.
The focus wheel is large and centrally placed, with a built-in dioptre adjustment accessed by pulling out the top part of the objective. Once you’re done with that adjustment, you simply pop the focuser back down to lock it in place.
But while many of these features first found on European- made binoculars were considered state of the art only a few years ago, cutting-edge Chinese-made binoculars like the SRBCs now share many of these features, and then some. It has comparable or slightly higher light transmission, excellent hydrophobic coatings on its outer lenses and twist-up eyecups of comparable quality. They can also be unscrewed for cleaning.
Thankfully though, the SRBC dispensed with a locking dioptre. Instead it is smooth and continuous, avoiding the common problem of shifting out of place as it is slotted into position. Examining the exit pupils of the Leica Ultravid HD showed excellent results as you can see below. The pupils are perfectly round and have very dark surroundings indicative of excellent stray light control
That said, the same is true for the SRBC binoculars as my review link above shows.
Comparative Testing
High-end, full-size binoculars like the Ultravid HD series are necessarily chunky. They just have many optical components that make them so. Recent efforts by Zeiss to cut the weight down by mounting thinner lenses etc invariably result in compromises, as I was to discover field testing their SFL range. Accordingly, the 8 x 42 Ultravid HD weighs 792g while the SRBC 8 x 42 tips the scales at 883g, so not much difference there.
The differences did begin to show however, once I began to handle both instruments.
For one thing, I was shocked to discover that the vulcanised rubber armouring on the Leica Ultravid had come loose on the underside of the binocular, manifesting a crunching sound as I pressed my thumbs on the belly of the instrument. Worse still, I was sorely disappointed with the focus wheel on this unit. It was sluggish, with uneven kinematics, and to top it all off, displayed an alarming level of free play. Granted this was an older binocular but Leica has supposedly prided itself in creating products with great longevity. Indeed, this was one of the more desperate manoeuvres by the bino porn stars, who, having conceded the optical excellence of the SRBC (more on this shortly), began looking for other ways to diss them. Well, based on my experience with this Leica Ultravid HD, it’s clearly in need of a service. So much for longevity eh?
The Leica Ultravid HD has a short and stocky frame compared with the SRBC 8 x 42. I found it harder to hold it steady, as the large bridge makes it more difficult to wrap one’s hands around compared with the longer barrels and shorter bridge found on the SRBC. Moreover, the silky smooth focuser and lack of free play on the latter renders it much more responsive to making quick focus adjustments. Overall, I much preferred the ergonomics on the Sky Rover.
The SRBC hydrophobic coating proved the equal of the Leica(Aqua Dura) in being able to disperse a thick layer of condensation applied to the 42mm objectives. Both instruments dispersed this condensation with equal speed.
Unquestionably, the Leica Ultravid HD has very fine optics, but I judged the SRBC to be superior overall. Shining an intensely bright beam of white light from across my living room showed up excellent results with both instruments. I would give the SRBC the nod though in having slightly less internal reflections (read very minimal).
Glassing rocks and the grain on the trunks of trees in the middle distance showed their sharpness to be identical in the centre. The Ultravid HD might have had slightly more ‘sparkle’ and slightly more saturated colours but the differences were very subtle to say the least. Glare suppression was very good in the Leica but it was inferior to the SRBC, as evidenced by glassing some shaded vegetation immediately below a bright afternoon Sun.
Off axis aberrations were better controlled in the SRBC too, especially pincushion distortion, which was much more pronounced in the Ultravid HD. Chromatic aberration was excellently controlled in the centre field of both instruments, but was a little bit more pronounced in the Ultravid HD near the field stops. This appears to be a recurring issue with all Leica binoculars, including their flagship Noctivid model.
Close focus was considerably better in the SRBC (2.09m)than in the Leica, which came in very near 3m in comparison. With a field of view of 9.1 degrees, the SRBC serves up a portal 50 percent larger than the Leica Ultravid HD and it really shows! To my eyes, the SRBC view was just far more compelling, with excellent edge-to-edge sharpness. In contrast, the image looked noticeably softer at the edges of the Ultravid HD. Image brightness appeared the same in both instruments after sunset, and far into the dusky twilight.
Left disappointed, I contacted the seller of the Leica requesting a refund, explaining the deficiencies of its ergonomics, and advising that it be sent in for a service. After resisting for a while, the seller eventually agreed to refund me the money.
In summary, these comparative tests left me in no doubt that the SRBC is a better, more technologically advanced binocular than the Leica Ultravid HD. Indeed, another report issued by a chap in South Korea revealed the 10 x 42 SRBC was also superior to Leica’s flagship Noctivid 10 x 42 as well.
I’m delighted and excited to provide my initial impressions of a charming little Porro prism binocular newly launched by Opticron: the Discovery SP 7 x 28. I ordered a unit from the Birder’s Store, Worcester for £69, who I highly recommend, and two days later the package arrived. A small blue box greeted me inside, containing the instrument tucked safely inside a soft padded black case, together with a logoed neoprene neck-strap, rubber ocular rain guard, and tethered objective caps, a lens cleaning cloth, instruction card and warranty (5 years) details. Tipping the scales at just 380g, it weighs scarcely more than a typical pocket binocular, yet delivers a much more satisfying and comfortable optical experience than any pocket glass I’ve personally encountered.
The accessories provided were all excellent too – something I rarely see in products costing many times more!
The Discovery SP 7 x 28 is small, sleek and good looking, with a very well armoured, thick rubber substrate protecting the aluminium and polycarbonate chassis. The central hinge is strong and holds your ideal IPD very well. It features modern, twist-up eyecups that work well for those who wear glasses and those who don’t. Three positions are offered and all lock in place firmly. The large, ribbed focus wheel on my unit operates smoothly with a fair amount of friction, turning through 1.5 revolutions anticlockwise from closest focus ( a decent 2.76m) to well beyond infinity. This will therefore be good news for those with very short sightedness!
The right eye dioptre is located under the right eyepiece, and is reassuringly stiff, ensuring it won’t easily move out of place during field use. There is also provision to mount the instrument on a tripod if required.
I detected only the smallest amount of play in the focus wheel which didn’t detract much from my visual impressions after testing it in dull, overcast conditions and in bright, sunny conditions. The view is very impressive: bright, accurate colours, tack sharp in the centre and only a little softer at the edges of its 7.8 degree field. Depth of field is also noticeably better than an 8 x 30 glass. Star testing showed precise collimation as well as excellent, pinpoint stars nearly all the way to the field stops, with only a trace of field curvature and astigmatism creeping in at the extreme edges.
What really surprised me was the darkness around the exit pupils: truly remarkable for a binocular costing so little! Indeed, they were substantially better than those exhibited by the Kowa YF II unit I recently showcased. Control of internal reflections was also very impressive, as judged by observing a very bright light source across a darkened room. In addition, when I turned the glass on a bright gibbous Moon on the night of October 14, it showed a very impressive image, with Saturn just a few degrees away from it. Lunar details were crystal clear and sharp, showing remarkably little chromatic aberration, and with only a moderate amount of ghosting that didn’t bother me that much.
Briefly comparing the Opticron to the Kowa YF II, I formed the distinct impression that these were cut from the same cloth, so to speak, with similar build quality and overall optical performance, showing only moderate levels of pincushion distortion off axis.
Like the venerable Kowa YF II, the Discovery SP feels great in the hands. It provides a very comfortable, stable and pleasant viewing experience, with its generous 4mm exit pupil. While the AFOV is noticeably smaller than the Kowa YF II( 55 vs 60 degrees), it never felt constrained to my eyes. Performance against the light is surprisingly good – even a tad better than the Kowa costing twice as much!
It is small enough to slip into an ordinary coat pocket.
I captured a few hand-held images through the Opticron Discovery SP 7 x 28 using my Canon Powershot Zoom monocular giving a power of 8.4x( See below):
It’s exceptionally easy to capture images with this feather light instrument.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Cor, Blimey!
What a delightful little instrument!
Who says you have to cough up a lot of dosh in order to enjoy a pleasant optical experience? Those days are well & truly behind us!
With its generous IPD range, the Discovery SP is ideal for kids and those with smaller faces. Optically very impressive and surprisingly well built, most anyone would be pleased with this little instrument. It’s an ideal travel binocular with its pocket-glass weight and diminutive physical dimensions, ideal for stowing away in a small space. Opticron has hit the ground running with this new arrival, and I think it will prove to be very popular!
Very highly favoured!
Neil English delights in bringing exceptional binocular bargains to the masses. Please support his ongoing work by purchasing a copy of his latest book: Choosing & Using Binoculars: a Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts.
Arguably the most charming binoculars are embodied in the small and versatile 8 x 30 Porro instruments. Small enough to take everywhere, they’re easy to make well and deliver excellent views even in compromised lighting conditions. That together with their modest pricing compared to roof prism models, render them a compelling choice for the budget savvy consumer. I was once again reminded of these facts when I tested Kowa’s YF II 8 x 30 over a few weeks. What follows is a summary of my findings.
Ergonomics:
The unit I ordered up proved to be a perfect sample. Assembled in the Philippines, its twist up eyecups locked firmly into place and has generous eye relief for eye glass wearers. The focus wheel has small depressions to assist in its rotation. It proved to be very smooth with zero free play. It’s neither too fast or too slow: just perfect in fact! I love the thick, textured rubber armouring of the chassis which is easy to grip. It feels great in my medium sized hands.
Tipping the scales at just 476g , it’s featherlight but completely waterproof and dry nitrogen purged for complete reliability in adverse weather conditions. Kowa applied their proprietary KR hydrophobic coatings to the outer lenses to help keep the lenses clear of condensation on the wettest days. The Kowa YF II features fully multicoated optics, which were perfectly applied to the lenses and prisms for bright, crisp images. Though you’ll probably not need to mount the instrument owing to its low weight, it can be mated to an adapter for use on a tripod or monopod.
Just like the very similar Opticron Savanna 8 x 30 previously reviewed, its lower minimum IPD of 50mm makes it ideal for those of us who have small faces. All in all, I was very impressed with its well thought through ergonomics: something I’ve come to expect from a well established spirts optics firm like Kowa.
Optics:
The Kowa YF II responded well to my bright light test, revealing some very minor internal reflections and no diffraction spikes. Examining the exit pupils gave decent results with perfectly round pupils. I did note some minor light leaks around the exit pupil however which would introduce some glare in low light conditions. However, considering its modest retail price, and since this would not be of much use in such situations, it’s quite an acceptable compromise.
The view is quite excellent, sporting a decent 7.5 degree field. It’s tack sharp inside its generously wide sweet spot. Objects take on a vivid three dimensionality in the middle distance thanks to its traditional Porro design. Contrast and colour rendering are also top notch. Despite not having field flatteners, edge of field performance is very good with only very mild field curvature creeping in in the outer 15 per cent of the field, as affirmed by monitoring the quality of star images after dark. Close focus was much better than advertised too: I measured 2.9m as opposed to 5m in the specifications.
In summary, the Kowa YF II offers exceptional value for money, delivering very high quality views in a brilliant, light weight package. It will serve as a fine birding and travel binocular and is an excellent choice for children.
Highly Recommended !
Read much more about budget-friendly binoculars in my latest book, Choosing and Using Binoculars: a Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts.
The Japanese sports optics giant, Nikon, has firmly established itself as one of the most successful marketers of binoculars in the modern world. What sets them apart from the European manufacturers of sports optics is their excellent bang for buck. Another distinguishing feature of all the Nikon products I’ve tested is their excellent quality control. But, as we shall see, there are apparently limits to this.
In the last few years, Nikon gave their entry-level and mid tier binoculars – the Prostaff and Monarch series- a makeover, incorporating more advanced features into these models that would have been quite out of the question only a decade ago. In this review I’ll be discussing my thoughts on the new Prostaff P7 8 x 30, the successor to the original Prostaff 7S 8 x 30 I reviewed back in 2020.
So What’s New?
Quite a few things actually. There’s a new hydrophobic coating applied to the lenses, which causes condensation to bead and slide off the optics in damp weather conditions. The right eye dioptre is now lockable and the field of view is substantially wider, going from 6.5 degrees to a whopping 8.7 degrees! And while it’s about 60g heavier than the first-generation Prostaff 7S, it still tips the scales at a featherweight 476g. The rubber armouring is also new with a more textured grippy feel than the original model.
I liked how it feels in my medium-sized hands. The textured rubber affords a good grip and the barrels protrude far enough beyond the bridge to allow your fingers to securely wrap around the instrument. But other things about its ergonomics niggled me. For one thing, the central hinge was too loose, so much so that I had to keep adjusting the IPD while in field use. The focus wheel is covered in thick black rubber with deep ridges. It turns smoothly enough but my unit had a small amount of play which detracted from the overall viewing experience. The eyecups are excellent, clicking firmly into well-established detents. I’m not really a fan of lockable dioptre mechanisms, especially the designs used by Nikon and Vanguard. I find them overly delicate and a bit flimsy to say the least. And while the dioptre locked well enough on this unit, I was always left wondering when it was going to snap. In this capacity, a simple rotatable ring under the right ocular lens, like that exhibited on the less expensive Prosfaff P3 would have been more welcome …. and more durable I suspect!
Optics Examining how the instrument handled a bright light source from across my living room showed up a few significant internal reflections as well as a small diffraction spike, which also showed up on a bright sodium street lamp after dark.
Daytime views are very good: it’s got a great big sweet spot, with excellent central sharpness and contrast owing to its phase corrected roof prisms and highly effective multilayer coatings. Colour tone looked neutral to my eyes, and its performance against the light proved to be above average. Testing on the brighter stars of summer in a twilit sky showed good off-axis control of aberrations with only mild field curvature slightly bloating the stellar images in the outer 20 per cent of the field. That said, what most impressed me about the little Prostaff P7 8 x 30 was its huge field of view: an enormous at 8.7 degrees! It really has to be seen to be believed! Indeed, it’s noticeably wider than the more expensive Monarch M7 8 x 30.
1.3 revolutions clockwise takes you from closest focus(a decent 2.28m)to infinity. But there was not much ‘beyond infinity’ focus in my test unit. Eye relief is decent but nothing to write home about: I struggled to see the entire field using glasses with the eye cups fully retracted.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Clearly, the little Prostaff P7 8 x 30 has a lot of things going for it. It sports very good optics and a huge field of view. But in my unit at least it was let down by a somewhat dodgy focuser and a loose central hinge. The presence of internal reflections and a diffraction spike on bright light targets after dark didn’t endear it to me either. Maybe I got a bad sample? Maybe if I bought another unit it would turn out fine? If you purchase from a reputable retailer capable of checking these features prior to dispatching, then you might win the jackpot. All in all, I would cautiously recommend this binocular to the community and hope Nikon can iron out some of these mostly mechanical issues in newer batches. It downright deserves that much at least!
Dr Neil English is the author of Choosing and Using Binoculars: A Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts, first published earlier this year.
Back in 2014, Zeiss launched their new flagship binoculars embodied in the Victory SF, which were offered in both 8 x and 10 x 42 configurations. Then in 2020, two smaller models were launched, the Victory SF 8x and 10 x 32. While these offered class leading optical performance, they were rather long (15cm)and heavy(over 600g) in their compact class. The demand for something smaller and more lightweight impelled Zeiss to re-imagine their Victory SF series, and to create a new line of instruments offering top-notch optical performance in a more diminutive and lightweight package. In 2022, Zeiss answered their fans with the new SFL series, first introduced in 8 x and 10 x 40 configurations, but followed soon after with their smallest compact models yet developed: enter the 8x and 10 x 30 SFL.
Just like in the Zeiss Victory line, the SF stands for “ smart focus” while the L designates its light weight. So what did they do? Under the aegis of a newly head-hunted optical engineer from Swarovski, they made the lenses a little bit thinner(2mm) and smaller, which allowed them to be mounted in a shorter tube assembly. They also jettisoned the centrally placed locking dioptre mechanism to shave off even more weight, with the result that the new SFL 8 x 30, for example, tipped the scales nearly 150g lighter than the Victory SF 8 x 32. But there were other changes to the optics. The Ultra FL glass was replaced by Zeiss’ proprietary Ultra HD( UHD), of slightly lower grade. The field of view shrunk a bit too. Compared with the Victory SF 8 x 32( 8.8 degree field), the 8 x 30 SF sports an 8.1 degree field. In addition, while the SFL line does have field flattening optics, it’s not the ultra-flat system exhibited by the Victory SF series, as I was to discover during field testing. Light transmission took a small dive too: down from 92 percent in the case of the Victory SF to 90 in the case of the SFL series. The reader will note that these SFL binoculars are not made in Germany, but in Japan, under the supervision of Zeiss. In this capacity, they share that distinction with the Zeiss Victory Pocketseries. Here, I’ll be taking a close look at the Zeiss SFL 8 x 30 model.
Ergonomics
This is one small binocular. Check it out compared with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32.
Despite its small size, the Zeiss SFL 8 x 30 is surprisingly easy to handle. Its short bridge allows the barrels to protrude enough to enable the user to wrap their fingers round them for a secure grip, although those with larger hands may struggle a little with it. The black rubber armouring is lightly textured which also helps with gripping the instrument. The eyecups are well made and very comfortable to view through for prolonged periods. They can be unscrewed from the eyepieces to assist cleaning, though I did discover that if they’re not screwed in securely they can be accidentally unscrewed while extending the cups upwards.
A little extra care is definitely required here. It’s not an issue for me, as I leave the cups permanently extended. There are four positions, each of which locks into place firmly with an audible ‘click.’ Eye relief is plenteous: I can easily engage with the entire field while wearing my eye glasses.
The focuser is excellent: big and easy to engage with. Just 1.4 revolutions clockwise brings you from closest focus to infinity and beyond. I was delighted to see that there’s a decent amount of ‘post infinity’ travel too which will be music to the ears of those of you who have extreme short-sightedness. A single finger can rotate it smoothly and accurately. Just a slight turn of the wheel brings objects into sharp focus from close up to far off. While there is no play or backlash in the movement, it does show some resistance to movement near the end of its anticlockwise travel.
I really like the right eye dioptre on the SFL. It’s got excellent resistance to movement. Simply rotate it into your preferred position and leave well alone.
Zeiss claim that the SFL is watertight to 400mbar water pressure. Why they use millibar units is a bit of a mystery to me. Isn’t immersive depth much more accessible to the average Joe? Both Swarovski and Leica publish depths and not pressure. Quite sensibly I’d say. Indeed I note that the two well known binocular reviewers linked to in the preambles above parrot this nomenclature too. C’mon guys: a bit of high school physics will clarify this for your readers. Follow this procedure:
Optics
Examining how the binocular coped with shining a bright white light source from across a room showed very good results. Internal reflections were well controlled and unlike the Zeiss Conquest HD I tested it against, it didn’t show a prominent diffraction spike. I did however pick up some faint ghosting when examining the blue super full Moon shortly after local midnight on August 21.
Examining the exit pupils showed excellent results as you can see below.
Optically, the view is very impressive: wide, bright, tack sharp within its generous sweet spot, with plenty of high resolution details on display. It is significantly better, for example, than the image served up by the Conquest HD 8 x 32 I tested along side it. Glare suppression is excellent against the light. Colours are vividly but naturally portrayed.
There is some mild pincushion distortion off axis and I detected some softening of the images near the field stops. The nature of this edge-of-field softening became all too clear when I monitored the bright star, Vega, high overhead. The bright white luminary remained tightly focused within the inner 60 per cent of the field or so but thereafter began to distort. At the field edge it was quite noticeably bloated. Because I was able to focus much of this out showed it was field curvature in the main. The same was true when I trained the SFL on a waning gibbous Moon in the wee small hours of August 24. While it was tack sharp within its sweet spot, it became quite blurry near the field stops. Which brings me to the subject of field flattening optics. Clearly not all field flatteners are created equal. Comparing it to the ultra flat field of my full size Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8 x 42 APO, for example, which showed pinpoint stars right across a significantly wider field from edge to edge, the result for the Zeiss SFL was rather disappointing, especially considering its rather steep retail price.
Chromatic aberration was essentially absent from the centre of the field but crept up as I moved my test subjects off axis. Near the edge of the field, the images of dead tree branches against a uniformly bright overcast sky showed significant lateral colour. It was noticeably more pronounced than in my control binocular(the Banner Cloud mentioned above). Again this was a bit disappointing as I know of much cheaper binoculars that have much better colour correction. These results were also clearly seen when examining a silvery white Moon.
Notes from the Field
Close focus was measured at 1.57m: very good indeed, though I was half expecting it to be a tad shorter, based on all the comments I read or heard about during my researches, which almost invariably claimed sub 1.5 m close focus. The view is very comfortable: perhaps the most comfortable compact I have personally experienced. Panning showed up no rolling ball effect which I attribute to the influence of Dr Holger Merlitz, whose research findings were taken into consideration by Zeiss in the overall optical design of the SFL series.
The big selling point of the SFL series, of course, is their light weight, and at 462g it certainly is light! But this can be somewhat of a disadvantage in some circumstances, as I discovered when I brought it out during a blustery spell prior to the arrival of Storm Lilian during the third week of August. With strong winds whipping by me in the open air, I found it much more challenging to hold steady compared with a full size 8 x 42 under the same conditions.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Without question, the Zeiss SFL is a premium compact binocular that excels in many areas: feather light, small size, a comfortable wide field of view and razor sharp optics within its sweet spot, but it doesn’t quite reach the dizzying heights of optical performance seen in the current line of ultra-flat field APO binoculars in the 32mm format. It will appeal greatly to daytime birders and those who like to travel.
Still, for me at least, like all compact binoculars I’ve gradually discovered, it leaves something to be desired compared to the more immersive and engaging views garnered by top quality full-size instruments. So something to bear in mind.
Very highly recommended!
Dr Neil English is the author of Choosing & Using Binoculars: a Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts. Please support his ongoing work by purchasing a copy of the book.
Back in April of this year, I took possession of a new high-performance binocular marketed by Sky Rover: the Banner Cloud(SRBC) 8 x 42 APO. Since then I’ve used and tested it extensively in every conceivable lighting condition, from dawn til dusk and even under the dark skies of northern Italy. These collective experiences have made this author do a great deal of soul searching, to such an extent that I now believe the 8 x 42 to be superior to my beloved Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30W. As a consequence, it’s now become my workhorse birding binocular. The reasons are as follows:
In good light, it offers the same central sharpness and better off axis sharpness than the Habicht
It puts much more real estate before your eyes -36 percent more than the Habicht
It has much better performance against the light – substantially less glare – than the Habicht
It has significantly closer focus than the Habicht
Its focus wheel is much easier to rotate accurately and precisely than the Habicht
Its larger aperture produces brighter, higher contrast images of targets in strongly backlit situations e.g tree branches against a grey sky
Its larger aperture and exit pupil makes it a much better instrument to use in low light situations or when glassing under a dense forest canopy.
Its significantly greater mass gives a more stable view with less shake than the lighter Habicht.
I have no doubt the images served up by the 8 x 42 SRBC are absolutely world class. A well known binocular hoarder, and self-proclaimed elitist, possessing all the very best binoculars, described its appeal to a sceptic:
“Yes, the wide field of course, but even more perhaps the very well corrected image across most of that wide field. So far, that was the preserve of the NLs and SFs of this world, so Sky Rover seems to have surprised the market with a „non-premium“ version that imitates the original amazingly well. I am myself truly impressed with the optics of the SRBC.”
Unlike my elitist friend, who probably stores his gear away under glass, I’ve built up a great deal of experience using the instrument in the field, both here in Scotland and abroad in the searing heat of an Italian summer, and so can offer constructive feedback on its robustness and the likelihood of it malfunctioning over time. Well, I’ve immersed these instruments in water with no issues. I tested the functionality of the focus wheel after storing the instrument in a freezer at -20C with no issues. And it coped admirably in temperatures well above 40C(out of the shade). So I have no doubts about its robustness and potential longevity. After all, binoculars are relatively simple instruments with few moving parts. What could potentially go wrong?
Armed with this knowledge and experience, it’s my belief that the hegemony of the European-made binocular has come to an end. I would add that it’s a complete waste of money, in my opinion, to invest in something like a Zeiss Victory SF or Swarovski NL Pure when you have the no frills SRBC giving you the same quality views. The old adage is still true; a fool and his money…..
Birding Experiences with the SRBC
The enormous 9.1 degree field of view allows your eyes to monitor a significantly larger area to spot movements in trees, scrub or open fields. For example, since using the SRBC regularly, my notes show that I’ve glassed substantially more Wrens than I’ve ever done before. These tiny birds are more often heard than seen, but the huge flat field of the SRBC and its amazing sharpness conspire to make seeing their movements within bushes much easier.
It’s superlative sharpness and excellent colour correction makes picking off targets at distance much easier. I have no problems distinguishing airborne Goldfinches from Pied Wagtails for example, at distances up to 150m away.
The SRBC’s excellent glare suppression makes glassing against the light much more productive. Lesser instruments, drowned out by glare, makes it much more difficult to pick off targets when the Sun is close to the horizon.
The silky smooth focus wheel makes following moving targets very easy. Tracking a fast-moving bird flitting from a tree just a few metres away to another location tens of metres away is effortlessly achieved by a gentle twirl of the focuser.
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed glassing open meadows decorated with wild flowers. The huge field, devoid of blackouts is exceptionally immersive: you really get a sense of being in the image. Such carefree glassing has proven very profitable for birding too. For example, just the other day, I was doing just this with the 8 x 42 SRBC, strolling along a country road when a female pheasant together with her clutch of youngsters emerged from the long grass just a few yards from me. The SRBC revealed extraordinarily fine details of its plumage and long, elegant tail. Astonishing!
A lucky find in a summer meadow.
I’ve also enjoyed glassing long into the evening twilight, watching badgers treading their paths across nearby fields, stopping every now and then to sniff the dew-drenched grass, and using their powerful front paws to dig for roots. Pipistrel bats emerging from Culcreuch Castle often descend on the nearby pond to feast on insects and its been thrilling to watch them with both the 8 x 42 and its larger 10 x 50 sibling.
I’ve ordered up a custom iPhone adapter to do some imaging, as well as some extra eye cups to store as backups if need be. I’m also considering a bino harness to support the weight of these instruments for longer duration glassing events. I’ll let you know how I get on with these in a future blog.
All in all, I’m thrilled to bits with these new optical wonders from Sky Rover and heartily recommend them to other members of the birding community.
Optical Perfection.
Notes from the Field
Upon my return from Italy, the instrument was found to have a significant amount of dust. It was everywhere: on the rubber armouring, on and around the objectives and eyepieces. When I unscrewed the eyecups from the instrument, I found a layer of fine dust there too. The instrument was throughly cleaned.
I store my SRBC binoculars in sealed Tupperware containers with large quantities of desiccant even though they are water proof and gas filled. That way they are ready to use at a moment’s notice. My ongoing experiments show that regardless of how well sealed a binocular is, it’s only a matter of time before the dry nitrogen will outgas. These containers draw all the water from the inside of the barrels and so will remain fog proof. And provided they are returned to these small containers when not in use, there is no need to have them refilled with nitrogen.
While the 30-32mm aperture class is good for many purposes it is not optimal. Even on bright days, there will be many scenarios where the greater contrast garnered by the larger 42mm aperture will prove superior to the smaller class. In particular, I’ve noticed the superior performance of the 42mm glass glassing trees against a bright overcast sky. In addition, the larger eye box makes for a more comfortable viewing experience.
Thanks for reading!
Post Scriptum: August 1 2024
Battle of the Alphas.
I recently bought in a Leica Ultravid HD 8 x 42 to compare it with my SRBC 8 x 42. The Leica is lauded for its crystal clear views and excellent resistance to glare. Here’s the breakdown based on a couple of days of daylight testing.
Ergonomics: while the Leica is shorter and more compact, it’s still quite hefty at about 790g( the SRBC is 863g without ocular and objective caps). In my medium sized hands, the Leica was harder to get my fingers around the barrels. The SRBC was much more comfortable for me with its shorter bridge. The focuser was a real disappointment on the Leica. It was not silky smooth like on the SRBC, with quite a bit of uneven resistance. It also had some significant free play which really niggled me. The eyecups were judged to be equally nice on both instruments. Hydrophobic coating test: the SRBC coating proved the equal of the Leica( Aqua Dura) in being able to disperse a thick layer of condensation applied to the 42mm objectives. Both instruments dispersed this condensation with equal speed.
Optics: The Leica Ultravid has very fine optics to be sure but I judged the SRBC to be superior overall. Shining an intensely bright beam of white light from across my living room showed up excellent results with both instruments. I would give the SRBC the nod though in having slightly less internal reflections (read very minimal). Glassing rocks and the grain on the trunks of trees in the middle distance showed their sharpness to be identical in the centre. The Ultravid HD might have had slightly more ‘sparkle’ and slightly more saturated colours but the differences were very subtle to say the least. Glare suppression was very good in the Leica but it was inferior to the SRBC, as evidenced by glassing some shaded vegetation immediately below a bright afternoon Sun. Off axis aberrations were better controlled in the SRBC too, especially pincushion distortion, which was much more pronounced in the Ultravid HD. Chromatic aberration was excellently controlled in the centre field of both instruments, but was a little bit more pronounced in the Ultravid HD near the field stops. Close focus was a tad closer in the SRBC than in the Leica. With a field of view of just 7.4 degrees the Leica Ultravid HD has a portal fully 50 per cent smaller than the SRBC and it really shows! The SRBC view is just far more compelling IMO. Image brightness appeared the same after sunset. The Leica has a measured transmission of 90 per cent for reference. In summary, I have no doubt that the SRBC is a more technologically advanced binocular than the Leica Ultravid HD. Kudos to the PRC!
Update August 6
Testing Against a Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32
Some background: the Zeiss Conquest HD series is widely regarded as upper mid-level in terms of optical performance and in general rates among the best of the $1K priced binoculars on the market as of very recently. The following observations were made only during bright daylight, either in bright sunshine or bright overcast skies. But I also tested for artefacts by shining a bright white light beam through the instruments.
Bright light test: The Zeiss Conquest HD(CHD) showed excellent control of internal reflections but did display a very prominent diffraction spike. The SRBC also showed no internal reflections and no diffraction spike. The same result occurred when I turned it on a bright sodium street lamp after dark about 100m in the distance. The spike was annoying to see in the Zeiss CHD. Not an instrument I’d choose for glassing harbours or cityscapes at night.
Colour tone: Comparing both instruments, I was immediately struck by the cooler colour tone of the Zeiss. This is well documented in the literature. Glassing flower baskets and beds showed the SRBC to have richer, more vibrant colours.
Sharpness: Central sharpness was a tad better in the SRBC and maintained better sharpness as the target was moved off axis. I would say the SRBC image displays significantly more ‘bite’ than the Zeiss CHD.
Image Immersion: The wider flatter field of the SRBC produced a much more immersive experience,as if one were sitting in the image. That said, for a 8 x 32, the 8 degree Zeiss is very nice!
Off Axis Aberrations: These were well controlled in both instruments. The SRBC had a tad less pincushion distortion and significantly better edge-of-field sharpness compared with the Zeiss CHD.
Chromatic Aberration( CA): Glassing through several layers of defoliated branches on a dead tree against a bright overcast sky showed very little longitudinal CA in the centre of the image, with the SRBC being a little better in this regard. It was a totally different matter with off axis(lateral) CA though. The Zeiss CHD showed significantly more, both in extent and intensity.
Glare: Both instruments display well above average suppression of glare against the light, but the clear winner, once again, was the SRBC.
Focusing: the Zeiss CHD has a very fast and silky smooth focus wheel displaying no free play or uneven resistance to movement throughout its travel both clockwise and anticlockwise. But it’s so fast that one can often overshoot on the target and so requires a little bit more concentration to get it just right. In contrast the SRBC focus wheel is more refined in my opinion. it’s smooth but has more traction allowing one to get the focus right first time, every time.
Close focus: the Zeiss CHD has a shorter minimum close focus(well under 2m) compared with the SRBC.
In summary; the Zeiss Conquest HD is a good step down from the SRBC 8 x 42. Nearly everything about it is underwhelming in comparison. If weight is not an issue the SRBC is clearly the better choice for birding and general daylight glassing etc.
Update August 14
Zeiss SFL 8 x 30 versus SRBC 8 x 42
Introduced in 2022, the SFL series retail for £1300 to £1600 here in the UK.
Summary: Much closer than I expected but still no cigar. The Zeiss SFL is a real class act with some of the best images I have experienced in a compact class binocular, but it exhibits higher levels of colour fringing in its outer field compared with the SRBC, as well as noticeable field curvature which softens its edge performance.
Details:
White light test: the Zeiss SFL has higher quality prisms than the Conquest HD, as evidenced by the absence of a diffraction spike. It proved as good as the SRBC in this regard, with very subdued internal reflections.
Glare suppression: is a step-up from the Zeiss CHD, and is as good (if not a tad better) than the SRBC against the light.
Colour tone: These looked almost identical to my eye under a variety of different lighting conditions. The SFL showed the same vibrant but accurate colours of flowers and shrubs as the SRBC and distinctly different from the cooler tones seen in the Conquest HD. A very pleasant surprise!
Central Sharpness: As good as the SRBC in good light i.razor sharp, excellent.
Off-Axis Sharpness: the SFL loses critical sharpness gradually as it’s moved off axis. The outer 20 per cent of its field is noticeably softer than the SRBC which I suspected was due to field curvature. Star testing confirmed this. Centring pinpoint sharp Vega in the field of view of both binoculars and panning off centre showed a pronounced bloating of the star which was very obvious in the outer 20 per cent of the field of the SFL Much of this could be focused out however, indicating that field curvature was indeed the major contributor. In contrast, the SRBC showed very little or no departure from pin sharp all the way to the field stops.
Chromatic aberration: The UHD optical system in the Zeiss SFL provides crisper images with higher contrast than the Conquest HD. That said, it was no match for the SRBC in terms of colour correction. While both instruments showed essentially none in the centre, moving off axis in the SFL showed significantly higher levels of lateral colour than the SRBC, which in contrast showed very little. I feel the SFL is a high quality ED binocular but can’t match the true APO billing of the SRBC.
Focus Wheel: The SFL has a super nice and responsive wheel with near perfect amount of traction. More refined than on the Conquest HD. And just like my SRBC, it shows a little bit of resistance at the end of its anticlockwise travel.
The Overall View: Both are very relaxing to pan, showing very little or no rolling ball effect, and no annoying kidney beaning. Eye relief is a little better in the SFL. The significantly wider (8 vs 9.1 degrees) and flatter field of the SRBC creates a more immersive and majestic view that is just so addicting.
Conclusions: Superior colour correction(owing to the use of Ultra FL), ultra flat, and ultra wide field are hallmarks of Zeiss’ flagship models: the Victory SFs. The SRBC should rightly be compared to the SF or indeed the Swarovski flagship line, the NL Pure, which may close or exceed the performance gap.
Update August 24
CNer Koh from South Korea did a shoot out between a 10 x 42 SRBC and a Leica Noctivid 10 x 42, declaring the SRBC the easy winner. Later in the same thread he compares the 12 x 50 SRBC with the Swarovski EL 12 x 50 and found the former to be superior over all. Details here.
Just for the fun of it, I cross posted Koh’s review over on the bino porn site on Birdforum. Ruffled a brood of vipers and flushed out the haters. The reader will note it’s the same folk who have never looked through the SRBC that are most critical of it. Yip, the classic argument from pure ignorance.
Infamy!, Infamy! ….. they all have it in for me! Lol
Job done.
Maybe now I should take up collecting watches or something?
Modern technology is a wonderful thing. But sometimes it’s good to take a step back from modernity to enjoy life in a slower lane. 21st century cars, for example, are packed full of state-of-the art innovations but who wouldn’t relish the opportunity to take a spin in a fine, open-top classic car with the wind flowing through your hair, soaking up the scenery along a winding country road? Well, just like classic cars, classic binoculars can also evoke such feelings.
Of all the binocular genres available today, it is the 8 x 30 Porro I that remains the most iconic, combining optical excellence within a small and lightweight chassis. They’re all over Hollywood- the old, non-woke one at least. You’ll see these in old James Bond and World War II movies. They even made an appearance on an Indiana Jones film. Back in the day, all the great European and Japanese binocular manufacturers including Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon and Leica produced their own renditions of these instruments. The first big company to discontinue the 8 x 30 Porro binocular was Leica, or rather E Leitz, Wetzlar, Germany, which manufactured their Binuxit 8 x 30 continuously from 1927 until 1962. Zeiss followed suit in the early 1990s with only Swarovski Optik now keeping these traditional instruments in continuous production as of the time of writing. Thankfully, companies like Nikon, Kowa and Opticron still offer economically priced but excellent compact Porros to fill the market gap.
The Binuxit 8 x 30 was a highly regarded instrument, prized by birders, naturalists and outdoor explorers for its robust design and optical excellence. For a few years now I’ve cultivated a solid curiosity for these instruments. How would they hold up today? Were the optics as sharp as some veteran birders had made out? A few would show up on Fleabay but more often than not there were significant cosmetic issues – the leatherette armouring had worn off, or the metal tubes had sustained dings, while others had been infested with fungus, and what not. One day a Binuxit came up for sale in what appeared to be excellent condition – at least from first appearance. The asking price was higher than usual too – about £250! Maybe it was time to make my move. So I bit the bullet and bought the instrument.
Upon arrival, everything looked good. The leatherette was well preserved, with no significant deterioration after all these years. Judging by the serial number this was a more recent model; most likely dating to the late 1950s. The central focus wheel had not frozen up but was very smooth and responsive. The black bakelite eyecups were also in tip top condition and finally, the right eye diopter ring was rotating smoothly with a fair amount of resistance.
The E Leitz Binuxit 8 x 30 serial # 610331.
The instrument also came with its original sandpaper-brown leather case with its original leather carrying straps.
The beautiful & original leather case accompanying the Binuxit 8 x 30.
First handling the instrument was a real pleasure. This instrument was probably pushing 70 years of age but it was in quite remarkable condition as the following photos attest.
The famous maker.
Model & Serial number.
Well preserved coatings on the objectives.
And eyepieces…
The perfectly functioning dioptre adjustment ring under the right ocular lens.
The one sign of deterioration was seen on the focus wheel, where some of the original paintwork had worn off.The central hinge was still nice and stiff, enabling the user to accurately adjust it for their particular IPD. The focus wheel was still super smooth, wobble free and accurate too. Remarkable! The only synthetic material I could find on the instrument was the shiny black bakelite eye caps – perhaps a symbol of the spirit of the age – in excellent condition. The seller claimed that this sample was probably as good as one could reasonably expect given its great age, and I can only agree.
Very impressive!
Servicing
When I examined the interior of the glass, I was relieved to see it was quite clean with only a thin layer of haze having built up on the prisms. And when I looked through the glass I was very pleased with what I saw: and not at all what I expected. Nonetheless, I felt it could do with a professional service, so I gave Tony Kay of OptRep a call to see if he was willing to take on the job. He agreed and so off it went down to the south coast of England. After my return from Italy in mid-July, I noticed a small box had been delivered just a few weeks after I dispatched it. I had the Binuxit back, all cleaned up, finely-tuned and ready to go! Having had several instruments serviced by OptRep, I have no hesitation in recommending them. As usual, it was quick, thoroughly executed and reasonably priced. On the accompanying invoice I got a breakdown of the scheme of work:
Scheme of work.
Optics
Check out those exit pupils: exemplary!
Shining a bright light through the objectives showed very unexpected results. I anticipated very prominent internal reflections but it was not the case! Yes there were a few seen but they were quite subdued. There was however a significant amount of diffused light around the light source.
Examining the exit pupils aimed at a bright daytime sky(see above) revealed super nice results: no truncation and no light leaks around them. This is perfectly in keeping with modern Leica binoculars,which show great attention to detail with internal blackening and baffling.
So what is the view like? In a phrase: excellent but dim! Central sharpness is right up there with the best modern 8 x 30s. It’s got quite a wide sweet spot, with only the last 20 percent of its 8.5 degree field showing the classical off-axis aberrations, including field curvature and astigmatism. Pincushion distortion is modest off axis. Colour tone is quite neutral, which again came as a surprise to me, as I expected it to have a yellowish hue, which is very characteristic of old optical glass that exhibits poor blue light transmission. Glare suppression was also excellent, much better in fact than a state-of-the-art Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30W.
Because of the simple, monolayer coating of magnesium fluoride applied to the lenses (but not the prisms apparently) light transmission is well below modern standards. Indeed what really shocked me was how much dimmer it was looking at some street lighting at night compared with a small Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 manufactured in November 2021! Having said that, it works very well in bright afternoon sunshine or overcast conditions.
The Binuxit 8 x 30 produced dimmer images than a modern Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 (right).
Notes from the Field
This is a charming binocular from yesteryear. Optically and mechanically, I would put the Binuxit well ahead of the Zeiss Jenoptem. The latter has a less well built chassis and is plagued with glare. The sharp, well-corrected optics from this near-on 70 year old glass show that the lenses were beautifully figured and polished into their ultra-precise geometrical shape. If this glass were treated with a modern multi coating it would surely rank among the best compact Porro prism binoculars out there.
Comparing the coatings on the objectives of a state-of-the art Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30W shows just how far optical engineering has advanced in terms of the reduction in light loss.
Check out the differences in the objective reflections between the Binuxit(left)and Habicht(right).
Close focus was estimated to be about 4m: not great by modern standards but I guess we ought to remember that the requirements for ultra close focus was probably not a high priority for glassers of yesteryear.
I’ve enjoyed glassing the hills round my home, watching Siskins and Goldfinches feasting on ripened thistle flowers in open fields and it’s accompanied me on long walks along the riverbank, watching Kingfishers, Dippers and majestic Grey Herons hunting for fresh fish and crustaceans in the shallow rapids. Its low light transmission works rather like using sunglasses on bright sunny days which can reduce eye fatigue. I can also foresee its use during snowy episodes in winter, when the reflections from fresh snow are attenuated.
I’m not a collector but this is glass that will remain in my stable. Let’s just say I’ve made a good investment in a beautifully fashioned optical instrument from one of Germany’s most prestigious optics houses. Should the Lord tarry, it ought to last well into the 22nd century AD.
Read much more about classic binoculars in my new book, Choosing and Using Binoculars.
Over the last century, scientists have made the most remarkable discoveries about our universe. We have learned more about its vast size, its finite age, and that it is peppered with countless trillions of galaxies, which are like veritable “island universes,” each home to billions of stars and vast clouds of gas and dust ripe for the creation of future stars. In more recent years, cosmologists have unearthed a whole string of cosmic coincidences that are necessary to make life in general, and human life in particular, even possible. Such coincidences have caused quite a lot of philosophical disquiet in recent years among atheists, who have desperately tried to explain away our significance as a mere fluke – chance caught on the wing, as it were.
But other thoughtful scientists see this evidence as unmistakable signs of deliberate design by a mind far more powerful than ordinary human understanding. It was these remarkably fine-tuned properties that inspired the teaching of new university modules on the fruitful intersectionality of science with philosophy and even religion. This is where we pick up the story of one such scientist, Dr. Eric Hedin, a former professor of physics at Ball State University, who developed a course entitled ‘The Boundaries of Science’ for undergraduates in philosophy and the sciences.
After successfully teaching this interdisciplinary module to students for several years, Hedin’s teachings came to the attention of the outspoken atheist and evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who, together with lawyers from the militant atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation, pressured the university to shut down the course because it was allowing room for discussion of intelligent design-based ideas. Hedin and his colleague, astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, were subsequently denied tenure, which forced them to seek employment elsewhere. In the wake of these events, Hedin wrote a provocative book entitled Cancelled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See,which recounts his ordeal while also delivering some of the key ideas he had presented to his students at Ball State.
The Cosmic Beginning
The opening chapters discuss some of the main evidence for a cosmic beginning, such as Hubble’s Law, which established that the universe had a definite beginning around 14 billion years ago. And despite attempts by the greatest cosmologists to refute such a conclusion, the evidence of a beginning has only grown stronger. All matter, space, and even time itself had a definite beginning in the finite past, and that implies that the agent that caused this hot Big Bang event must exist beyond, or outside of, the space-time continuum of our universe.
But as Hedin explains, the ensuing expansion of the universe was no haphazard expansion. The rate of its inflation had to be highly fine-tuned. If it had been just a little slower, gravity would have eventually turned everything into black holes, and if it had been any faster, all the matter would have been hopelessly diluted, preventing stars and planets from ever forming. As Hedin concludes:
This opening act of our universe was anything but a random explosion. It was more like an orchestrated expansion, or like the opening of an elaborate “pop-up” book, in which a castle with turrets, moat, and drawings unfolds perfectly as the first page is opened.
“Balanced on a Knife-Edge”
Chapter 4 discusses the constituents of our universe with its odd mix of ordinary matter and so-called dark matter and dark energy. Hedin explains that while we are still unsure regarding the nature of both dark matter and energy, the latter component had to be fine-tuned to within one part in 10^120 to enable life to eventually flourish in the universe. This extremely fine-tuned property prompted the physicist Paul Davies to declare that “the cliche that life is balanced on a knife-edge is a staggering understatement.”
Hedin makes it clear that the universe is old and vast. Furthermore, he offers some compelling reasons why the cosmos must be the age it is (about 13.8 billion years old), since it takes a considerable amount of time to create the heavy elements needed for planets and life to eventually come into existence. And while many atheist astronomers see the size of the universe as an indicator of our insignificance, Hedin turns this suggestion on its head by asserting that the universe’s vastness actually “underscores our significance.”
The “Thorny” Question of the Origin of Life
In chapters 7 through 10, Hedin provides a fascinating overview of the incredible sequence of events that made Earth habitable. Central to his arguments is the notion that life appears to be an extraordinary addition to our universe that defies all attempts to explain its origins and subsequent flourishing on Earth. Hedin casts his critical physicist’s eye over the thorny issue of the origin of life using several arguments from the physical sciences to highlight the highly improbable emergence of the first living cells from inanimate matter. In Hedin’s words:
As technology has advanced to where we can observe the inner workings of living cells, we are confronted with a shockingly high-tech arrangement of atoms and molecules. The biomolecular metropolis inside a cell is unlike anything observed anywhere else in nature. The arrangement of atoms in a cell is neither a random atomic jumble, nor a simple, repetitious, crystalline pattern … Neither chance, nor law-like processes, nor chance and natural selection together possesses so much novel information, even granting the entire history and breadth of the Universe.
The End of Neo-Darwinism
In chapter 10, Hedin launches a robust attack on Darwinian ideology, raising his suspicions that it’s just not sufficient to explain the evidence. He writes:
Modern Darwinism seeks to establish that random mutations, however generated, coupled with natural selection, changed a single original species of life into every species of life that has ever existed on Earth. This theory corresponds with some evidence, but conflicts with other evidence, and the conflicts are substantial. There are still no observed examples of one species gradually evolving into a distinctly different one, as Darwin envisioned.
Hedin brilliantly likens the sorry state of the so-called Neo-Darwinian synthesis with the final stages of the old geocentric model of the solar system stubbornly held onto by Renaissance astronomers despite new and compelling evidence for the heliocentric model now universally adopted:
The theory of evolution shares characteristics in common with the geocentric model of the solar system. The geocentric model explained some things tolerably well, but it had to be jury-rigged more and more to explain away contrary evidence that continued to accumulate … for the geocentric model, it was the convenient idea of epicycles, messy add-ons to the geocentric model that became necessary to get it to fit the data. For evolutionists, it’s punctuated equilibrium, or co-option, or a dozen other highly strained just-so stories.
Wisdom is Older than Nature
In Chapter 11, Hedin defines human consciousness as yet another manifestation of design. Our world and the wider universe are arranged in such a way that it is comprehensible by the human mind, which sifts the chaos and brings out if it order, creating beautiful abstractions in the forms of music, art, mathematics and science. He points out that beauty is a reliable indicator of truth. In his own theoretical work, Hedin has argued that if a system of equations he’s working on don’t converge on something simpler and deeper, he’s probably not on the right track. Moreover, the surprising success of mathematics in describing the inner workings of nature strongly points to the existence of a great mind that must have existed, before space, time, and matter came into existence.
Hedin draws on the work of philosophers such as Richard Swinburne, C. S. Lewis, and Alvin Plantinga to effectively argue that materialistic accounts of how human consciousness arose frankly don’t stack up. Moreover, if rational thought was really the outworking of a mindless evolutionary process, we would have no reason to trust rational thought to begin with.
All in all, Cancelled Science is an inspiring and thought-provoking story of intellectual courage, powerfully demonstrating that the latest findings from origins science boldly proclaim a universe that was exquisitely designed from the bottom up by a masterful artist and Creator, whom Hedin implicitly identifies as the God of the Bible. It’s a must read for all Christian apologists.
