Is there any of the top compact roofs that stand above the rest? I have been looking at the following list. All 8x20s: Leica Trinovid and Ultravid, Nikon Premier, Swarovski, Zeiss Victory and ClassiC (new model). Because I have a tough time justifying any compact at these prices I am leaning toward the Nikon and Zeiss ClassiC, both available under $300 US. Is there a large advantage to the more expensive Leicas or Swaros? I am quite fond of the way the ClassiCs fold up but the Nikon has the better eyecups.
I have very limited experience with this class of bins.
Robert,
For high-end compact models, please do yourself a favor and consider purchasing a 10x25 version instead of the 8x20. I own a pair of each - a Zeiss Victory 8x20 and a Nikon HG 10x25... and the optics of both are superb. However, my Nikon 10x25 gets MUCH more use than the 8x20, something about the overall image quality is just more pleasing, bright, clear, and sharp on the 10x25. As anyone on this board will tell you, I'm an outspoken fan of low-power optics (my favorite binoculars of all time are 7x42's). However, for compact models the 10x really are better all-around instruments... at least to my eyes.
As for brand, I've found the Zeiss is the best in the 8x20 configuration, while the Nikon is better in the 10x25 configuration. I found the Swarovski to be equal in all respects to the Nikon offering, with the exception of price - the Nikon was less expensive so it's the one I bought. I found the Zeiss Victory 8x20 beat out even the Swarovski in image quality, I still haven't yet found a better 8x20.
Best wishes,
Bawko
Robert,
I have not yet done a systematic test (one is in the works within this year), but based on plenty of trials and some testing, I have a couple of opinions to offer. Firstly, compact roofs require exceedingly precise manufacturing tolerances, so sample variation is likely to be more of an issue with them than with 32--50mm binoculars. The need for precision comes from the tiny size as well as the fact that a 20-25mm objective will have to work much closer to its theoretical diffraction-limited maximum performance to provide an image that appears truly sharp to the eye. As for 8x/10x, unlike Bawko I prefer eights but readily admit that I generally prefer 10x and have not used 10x25's in the field. All this said, my favorites thus far have been the Leica Ultravid and the Nikon HG L (8x20). The Leica is brighter and I really like its focus knob, while the Nikon I tried for a few days at home and in the field had better contrast and its right barrel exhibited textbook-perfect diffraction patterns of the level I thought I would never see in any binocular, period. Had the left barrel been equally good, I would have bought it in a wink, but unfortunately it had a little bit of astigmatism, and after having seen the right barrel image I was unable to forgive it, especially since my left eye is dominant.
As for general differences, the Nikon has a wider field and somewhat better eyecups (more solid, twist-out rather than pull-out) while I like the Leica's handling better in other respects.
Common to all of the models discussed here is their narrow 2.5mm exit pupil, which makes eye-placement and IPD-setting quite critical and for me makes them less pleasant to use by a fair margin compared to 8x32's or larger binoculars. That is the price of compactness, however. The Zeiss and Swarovski compacts I have not tried as much, but thus far my impressions have been that the Zeiss Victories I liked quite a lot although not as much as the Nikon and the Leica, and that the Swarovski impressed me somewhat less, although the ones I have tried may have been the pre-Swarobright models.
Hope this helps,
Kimmo