Know any good Binoculars shops in/near LONDON, UK? (for quality binoculars)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Shiperton Henethe, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. Shiperton Henethe

    Andy Mabbett Guest

    In message <>, Chris
    McBrien <> writes
    > have you had a look at... http://www.sherwoods-photo.co.uk/ They
    >are actually based in Birmingham.



    E only optics shop now of, with no outdoor view. They merely provide a
    target, pinned to the opposite wall :-(
    --
    Andy Mabbett
    USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
    <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
    <http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
     
    Andy Mabbett, Aug 8, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. "Simon Gardner" <[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <3f32c94a$0$10783$>,
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    >
    > > "Simon Gardner" <[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > In article <3f327ccd$0$10769$>,
    > > > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Nikons may prove nearly as good
    > > >
    > > > Nope. Not a chance.
    > > >

    > >
    > > Well,
    > > almost the only review site anyone has come up
    > > with so far would beg to differ...
    > > http://www.betterviewdesired.com
    > >
    > > Rather a slow focus mechanism lets them down
    > > apparently...!
    > >
    > > I presume you've tried the ultra expensive
    > > Nikons? (is it "EHG", "High Grade", "HG/DCF"
    > > I cant work it out but they seem even pricier
    > > than the Swaros [at 10x32]...

    >
    > I stand by what I said.
    >


    Yeah but having tried them ultra expensive Nikons or not?! ;)

    Ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 8, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:QoK6Gu6QdsM$...
    >
    > In article <3f32c098$0$10772$>, Shiperton
    > Henethe <> writes
    > >> >> If you can manage it, the Bird Fair at Rutland Water is coming up
    > >> >> (15-17th August) A great day out and you can compare every single
    > >> >> model under field conditions. Warning - don't buy there though. Do
    > >> >> what everyone else does and go home and order from either Ace Optics
    > >> >> or Warehouse Express - much cheaper and first class service.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> http://www.birdfair.org.uk/
    > >> >
    > >> >Not abad plan but..
    > >> >Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    > >> >Why cant people design website properly??
    > >> >Where the heck is this fair?
    > >> >Where is Rutland Water ?
    > >> >And how would I get there by public transport?
    > >> >*Which* Oakham is it near.
    > >> >Streetmap.co.uk has about 19!
    > >> >
    > >> If you go back to Streetmap, you'll find there is just one Rutland
    > >> Water!
    > >>
    > >> And what on earth's wrong with the website? If you go back to it and
    > >> look in the left hand column of the home page you will see a very
    > >> obvious link labelled "Travel & accommodation" which contains

    everything
    > >> to answer your questions. Indeed, when you click on it, the very first
    > >> item that appears is "Where is Rutland Water", and that is followed by
    > >> links to "By car or coach" and "By Train".

    > >
    > >Okay I confess I entirely missed the critical button.
    > >Dimwit!! (Too many hours staring at a computer does yr head in.)
    > >

    > Which explains a lot about all of us!
    >
    > >HOWEVER, in my defence I still find the site deeply frustrating.
    > >It just doesn't deliver the basics fast enough.
    > >*Where the heck is the Fair held?
    > >*What time does it open?
    > >*And close?
    > >*How far is it from that Railway station,
    > > should the buses fail etc?
    > >*What a rubbish map of the UK!
    > >And the site and exhibitor plan unnecessarily
    > >hard to read...
    > >
    > >So travelling from London I could theoretically
    > >just about do a day trip by public transport.
    > >
    > >I'll give it some serious thought.
    > >

    > I think you might find it worth it.


    Have you been before?
    Is it likely that it will it be too mobbed?
    Or am I likely to be able to try out
    pretty well all the top kit?


    Ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 8, 2003
    #23
  4. "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:

    >Walking in a manner which (for my body) is
    >extreme that involves hills...
    >
    >Several thousand foot mountains all day
    >expeditions. Central Scotland.


    If you are intending to use them while walking in Scotland then you might find
    waterproof binoculars to be an advantage. At times it can be very wet indeed.

    --
    Mike Humberston
    Barnes, London

    WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion.
     
    Mike Humberston, Aug 8, 2003
    #24
  5. "Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Walking in a manner which (for my body) is
    > >extreme that involves hills...
    > >
    > >Several thousand foot mountains all day
    > >expeditions. Central Scotland.

    >
    > If you are intending to use them while walking in Scotland then you might

    find
    > waterproof binoculars to be an advantage. At times it can be very wet

    indeed.
    >

    Dont I know it!

    But... (at risk of going off topic!)
    I've discovered across rather a good type of raincoast called
    Paramo (I think) which is made out of water-repelling
    artificial fibre inpregnated with special nikwax stuff
    which you wash in. You have to re-treat every so often
    but it's absolutely incredible! It's much softer than
    most Gortexes (hence minimal russle), massively
    more breathable (you can literally suck a lung-full
    through it in seconds), and best of all there is
    no membrane to go wrong! The latter means that if
    you happen to walk through some brambles/gorse etc
    you merely get pricked, but you dont trash your
    jacket for ever after!

    The down-side? Well, it's definitely heavier than
    a gortex, and probably wont compact so tightly.
    Hence extreme mountaineers may not like them.
    But I've got through countless gortex jackets
    over the years. The nice soft 2-layer thin ones
    cant handle a even a small rucksack on your back
    repeatedly, and the thicker 3-layer? Well they
    are horrible I hate them. So noisy and readily
    trashed by a bit of undergrowth.

    Ofcourse if you're serious about tackling prickles
    you need a "thornproof" barber - which in a
    sense works on similar principles... However it
    also weighs about 10x as much! (I'm guessing here
    you understand).


    Sorry, where was I ?

    Yes rain. So I just pop the binoculars under
    my jacket and the seem fine.

    However, you're absolutely right of course
    waterproof would be a God-send in the Highlands!!
    But well you have to compromise on *something*
    and if you're vaguely sensible the odd light
    shower doesnt seem to do much damage!
    In the end if I could shave off 25-33% (??)
    by not going the nitrogen-filled waterproof route
    [why the heck dont they use helium BTW?] then
    I definitely would, other things being equal.

    Phew! Me in verbose mode tonight... Apologies.


    Ship
    Shiperton Henethe
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 8, 2003
    #25
  6. "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote in message
    news:3f32c35e$0$10769$...
    > At a bit of a tangent.
    > >
    > > What is extreme hillwalking??
    > >

    > Walking in a manner which (for my body) is
    > extreme that involves hills...
    >
    > Several thousand foot mountains all day
    > expeditions. Central Scotland.
    > Peregrine. Eagles. Merlins.
    > Getting the picture?
    >
    > What I dont need is extra weight to carry.
    >
    > I currently own an old pair of Zeiss Jena
    > Jenoptem 10x50W with a rather spoilingly
    > wide field of view
    > "visual field 7,3° or 128 at 1000m"
    > according to here, at least:
    > http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2170
    > (what's that in ft/1000yds... 384??!)



    If you're an old Zeiss enthusiast why not have a look at the new Zeiss
    Victory II series? The 10 x 40s can be had for around US $999 and the 8 x
    40s are a bit less. They are $300-400 less than comparable Swarovskis. Plus
    they are easily the lightest in their class (the 10 x 40s are only 27.5 oz).
    You'll have to decide whether you want a wider FOV or more magnification.

    http://www.eagleoptics.com/search.asp?q=Zeiss&pid=3702


    dcr
     
    David Rheault, Aug 12, 2003
    #26
  7. "David Rheault" <> wrote in message
    news:bhbaok$f31$...
    >
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f32c35e$0$10769$...
    > > At a bit of a tangent.
    > > >
    > > > What is extreme hillwalking??
    > > >

    > > Walking in a manner which (for my body) is
    > > extreme that involves hills...
    > >
    > > Several thousand foot mountains all day
    > > expeditions. Central Scotland.
    > > Peregrine. Eagles. Merlins.
    > > Getting the picture?
    > >
    > > What I dont need is extra weight to carry.
    > >
    > > I currently own an old pair of Zeiss Jena
    > > Jenoptem 10x50W with a rather spoilingly
    > > wide field of view
    > > "visual field 7,3° or 128 at 1000m"
    > > according to here, at least:
    > > http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2170
    > > (what's that in ft/1000yds... 384??!)

    >
    >
    > If you're an old Zeiss enthusiast why not have a look at the new Zeiss
    > Victory II series? The 10 x 40s can be had for around US $999 and the 8 x
    > 40s are a bit less. They are $300-400 less than comparable Swarovskis.

    Plus
    > they are easily the lightest in their class (the 10 x 40s are only 27.5

    oz).
    > You'll have to decide whether you want a wider FOV or more magnification.
    >
    > http://www.eagleoptics.com/search.asp?q=Zeiss&pid=3702


    Hmmm 330ft/1000yds is okay-ish but the weight could be better
    it's 25.7, BTW not 27.5! Because I'm not too worried about
    dim lighting conditions, my thinking is that 10x30-ish would
    be fine and I could save that critical weight...!

    I find it strange that Zeiss havent built a quality
    10x30 (or x32?) spec with a nice wide field of view.
    Can it be so hard?
    (Maybe they'll have to follow now
    that Swarovski have launched exactly that!)

    To be honest, I think one problem is that the very top
    manufacturers are gunning for pin sharp edged to edge
    of the FOV. Whereas when looking for a flying bird
    you just need to know *roughly* where it is and then
    inevitably one brings the bird into the middle of the
    FOV.

    My old Zeisses get rather ropey towards the very edge
    but it is *so* much better than looking down a tunnel
    that is pin sharp edge to edge...!

    It would be very interesting indeed for a top manufacturer
    to throw caution to the wind and built two almost identical
    10x binos one pin-sharp say 320ft/1000yds edge-to-edge
    and the other say 400+ft /1000yds or atleast beating my
    old Jenoptems (384ft) simply to help one zero in on
    the moving bird! Justa thought. Dont suppose any
    binos designers listening to us humble customers...


    Ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 12, 2003
    #27
  8. It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)

    And it would (at a guess) probably increase the
    refective index of the lenses.
    (This may or may not help - over to the lens
    designers for this.)


    Ship






    "Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    >
    > Re: gas filling binoculars...
    >
    > >[why the heck dont they use helium BTW?]

    >
    > What would be the advantage of helium over nitrogen?
    >
    > --
    > Mike Humberston
    > Barnes, London
    >
    > WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not

    oblivion.
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 14, 2003
    #28
  9. Shiperton Henethe

    Terry Harper Guest

    "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote in message
    news:3f3be0c5$0$10768$...
    > "Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > Re: gas filling binoculars...
    > >
    > > >[why the heck dont they use helium BTW?]

    > >
    > > What would be the advantage of helium over nitrogen?
    > >

    > It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)
    >
    > And it would (at a guess) probably increase the
    > refective index of the lenses.
    > (This may or may not help - over to the lens
    > designers for this.)


    One problem of helium is its ability to permeate many materials, which may
    cause a problem. The single atom helium molecule is much smaller than the
    twin-atom nitrogen molecule.

    I doubt if you could measure the change in refractive index.
    --
    Terry Harper
    http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/
     
    Terry Harper, Aug 14, 2003
    #29
  10. "Terry Harper" <> wrote in message
    news:bhgre0$evo$...
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f3be0c5$0$10768$...
    > > "Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Re: gas filling binoculars...
    > > >
    > > > >[why the heck dont they use helium BTW?]
    > > >
    > > > What would be the advantage of helium over nitrogen?
    > > >

    > > It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)
    > >
    > > And it would (at a guess) probably increase the
    > > refective index of the lenses.
    > > (This may or may not help - over to the lens
    > > designers for this.)

    >
    > One problem of helium is its ability to permeate many materials, which may
    > cause a problem. The single atom helium molecule is much smaller than the
    > twin-atom nitrogen molecule.


    True though arent binoculars all metal and glass?!
    Actually Ive no idea what the seals are made of.

    > I doubt if you could measure the change in refractive index.

    No idea.


    Ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 14, 2003
    #30
  11. "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:

    >It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)


    ....and I bet that you would have extreme difficulty in measuring the difference.
    ;)

    It would also cost more!

    --
    Mike Humberston
    Barnes, London

    WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion.
     
    Mike Humberston, Aug 15, 2003
    #31
  12. "Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    >
    > >It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)

    >
    > ...and I bet that you would have extreme difficulty in measuring the

    difference.
    > ;)


    It would weigh about the amount less that a small
    balloon the size of the optics could lift.
    (Plus the weight of the balloon itself when
    deflated). All in that could be an ounce or so, no?


    > It would also cost more!


    Pence more. My guess is that you can buy enough helium to fill
    several thousand binocs!

    Rather a cool gimick for the likes of Swarovski, me thinks...


    Alec
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 15, 2003
    #32
  13. "Terry Harper" <> writes:

    >I doubt if you could measure the change in refractive index.


    Me too. I'd expect the refractive index of helium gas to be somewhere
    between that of a vacuum (1.0 by definition) and air, which is only a
    tiny bit larger than 1.0.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 15, 2003
    #33
  14. "Shiperton Henethe" <> writes:

    >> One problem of helium is its ability to permeate many materials, which may
    >> cause a problem. The single atom helium molecule is much smaller than the
    >> twin-atom nitrogen molecule.


    >True though arent binoculars all metal and glass?!
    >Actually Ive no idea what the seals are made of.


    Normal helium-neon laser tubes enclose the working gas in glass and
    metal. Yet the helium slowly diffuses right through the glass,
    eventually rendering the tube useless. That's one reason the tube is an
    inch or more in diameter, though the active laser bore it tiny: the
    larger volume of gas makes it take longer for the tube to fail.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 15, 2003
    #34
  15. "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:bhhkhb$m54$...
    > "Shiperton Henethe" <> writes:
    >
    > >> One problem of helium is its ability to permeate many materials, which

    may
    > >> cause a problem. The single atom helium molecule is much smaller than

    the
    > >> twin-atom nitrogen molecule.

    >
    > >True though arent binoculars all metal and glass?!
    > >Actually Ive no idea what the seals are made of.

    >
    > Normal helium-neon laser tubes enclose the working gas in glass and
    > metal. Yet the helium slowly diffuses right through the glass,
    > eventually rendering the tube useless. That's one reason the tube is an
    > inch or more in diameter, though the active laser bore it tiny: the
    > larger volume of gas makes it take longer for the tube to fail.


    Right through glass? crikey. I stand corrected.
    An likewise Hydrogen no doubt...
    What about a vacuum, then - suppose the focus
    mechanism would be tricky.

    But thinking about it if you did start with
    Helium what would happen? If helium could get
    out but nothing could get back in, then a
    partial vacuum would be set up, this dimishing
    the flow of helium, but in either cas not
    increasing the weight of the device...

    A bit tenuous?

    Okay I give up. Maybe Nitrogen will have to do after all.


    ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 15, 2003
    #35
  16. On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 02:51:30 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
    <> wrote:

    >"Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)

    >>
    >> ...and I bet that you would have extreme difficulty in measuring the

    >difference.
    >> ;)

    >
    >It would weigh about the amount less that a small
    >balloon the size of the optics could lift.
    >(Plus the weight of the balloon itself when
    >deflated). All in that could be an ounce or so, no?


    No. Internal capacity of typical bins is somewhere about half a litre,
    so the weight reduction would be well under one gram - you wouldn't be
    able to feel the difference.

    --
    Stephen Poley
    uk.rec.birdwatching FAQ: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/ukrb.htm
     
    Stephen Poley, Aug 15, 2003
    #36
  17. "Shiperton Henethe" <> writes:

    >What about a vacuum, then - suppose the focus
    >mechanism would be tricky.


    A vacuum would certainly prevent condensation. The problem is that (a)
    everything now needs to be strong enough to withstand the pressure
    difference, and (b) you need vacuum-capable seals everywhere. A
    rotating or sliding seal around the focus shaft would be particularly
    tricky, though it might be possible to do the focus externally. (Make
    the eyepieces a separate sealed system from the objective/prism, and
    focus by changing the distance between the two sealed units).

    The nice thing about filling binoculars with *any* dry gas to
    atmospheric pressure is that you don't need the extra strength in the
    housing, and you don't need perfect seals. Nitrogen is just the
    cheapest dry gas, since 75% of the air is nitrogen. On the other hand,
    atmospheric pressure isn't constant even if you stay at sea level, and
    even less so if you climb mountains. To avoid pressure differences from
    distorting binocular frames, even a "sealed" binocular has to be able to
    breathe to equalize pressure, and over time this brings humidity from
    outside air into the binoculars. I don't know how the manufacturers
    deal with this.

    >But thinking about it if you did start with
    >Helium what would happen? If helium could get
    >out but nothing could get back in, then a
    >partial vacuum would be set up, this dimishing
    >the flow of helium, but in either cas not
    >increasing the weight of the device...


    For this to work, you'd again need seals that could withstand a pressure
    difference without leaking at all - for years. And a housing that could
    handle the pressure difference too.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 15, 2003
    #37
  18. "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 02:51:30 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Mike Humberston" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> "Shiperton Henethe" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >It would weigh less! (Thinkaboutit...)
    > >>
    > >> ...and I bet that you would have extreme difficulty in measuring the

    > >difference.
    > >> ;)

    > >
    > >It would weigh about the amount less that a small
    > >balloon the size of the optics could lift.
    > >(Plus the weight of the balloon itself when
    > >deflated). All in that could be an ounce or so, no?

    >
    > No. Internal capacity of typical bins is somewhere about half a litre,
    > so the weight reduction would be well under one gram - you wouldn't be
    > able to feel the difference.


    Shame. Nice idea though.
    However, in calm weather you understand, maybe I could blow up a couple of
    large-ish Helium baloons and attach them to optics to help
    me get them up the hill. Do they make ballons in camouflague green??!

    Ship
     
    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 18, 2003
    #38
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shiperton Henethe
    Replies:
    88
    Views:
    5,480
    Shiperton Henethe
    Sep 4, 2003
  2. WP20032
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    WP20032
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. Myles

    Good camera shops in Central London

    Myles, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    9,029
    Bernhard Mayer
    Sep 9, 2003
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,540
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Joe Kotroczo

    UK: good London camera shops

    Joe Kotroczo, Mar 29, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    9,824
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page