Nice work Colvert! I often find that moving the eyecups down one step from fully extended shows me the field stops better and also cuts down on glare. Seems to work on many binoculars.
Bonjour, les œilletons sont en plastique rigide jusqu'au bord et sont recouverts d'une couche de caoutchouc souple. L' extrémité circulaire qui "dépasse" des œilletons est dépourvue de plastique.
No, I haven't. I'm not interested in the Prostaff 5 series because the field of view doesn't appeal me : [110 meters/1000 meters (330:3 = 110)] for the 8x42 or 330 feet at 1000 yards. www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/binoculars/prostaff-5-8x42.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs 98 meters/1000 meters for the 10x42 [or 294 feet at 1000 yards (98x3=294)]. www.nikon.com.au/prostaff-5-10x42 For the price, there are binoculars with wider field of view. I would choose the P7 because the P7 has attractive features to me : phase coating (for sharpness), dielectric coating (for brightness), water repellent coating (against fog on the outer surface of lenses), immersive view for the 10x42 (field of view "OK" for the 8x42). Perhaps the advantage of the Prostaff 5 series : there are 10x50 and 12x50 and they are relatively lightweight. Those formats don't exist on the Nikon Prostaff 7s/P7 series for example. There is a review of the Prostaff 10x50 on Allbinos. For example, it is said that there is an aluminizing coating (not as good as the dielectric coating).I did not find if the Prostaff 5 series has a phase coating and water repellent coating or not, so I don't think so. www.allbinos.com/283-binoculars_review-Nikon_Prostaff_5_10x50.html
@@BeginnerBirdwatcher It's not easy to answer because at this price range, there are too many compromises. Something I don't like in a pair of binoculars may be not bothersome for someone else. For example I don't like the weight of the SV202 8x42 (720 grammes) and the miror effect outside the circle of the image but they have a great value (I bought mine 135 euros). I don't like the balance of my Bresser Pirsch 8x42 but I really appreciate the fact that I can look through them with a Covid mask without getting fog on the lenses (water repellent coating like the P7 or long eyecups? I don't know but it's effective against steam). Moreover, BBR review and Allbinos can show you brands with good reputation like Vortex, Carson, Sightron, Zeiss, Bresser, Athlon, Kowa, etc... If I did not have my Nikon binoculars, I would be interested in Vortex Diamondback HD or Bresser Pirsch ED (if you wait for a voucher because one day I recently saw the Bresser pisrch 10x42 ED for only 250 euros on a French e- market) because they are lightweight and have a lifetime warranty.
@@colvertfurtif ok thanks I am split between the P7 and Diamondback HD may wait and purchase the vortex vipers I'm not sure yet. I'm stuck on the 8-42 and 10-42's I've been told that the higher the magnification the harder it is to steady them without the aid of a tripod. Thanks again
Ps it's difficult in France as so far I haven't found a shop in Limoges that is specialists in binoculars. Or I just haven't found the shop lol. And internet shopping is ok but most online shops don't allow you to try before you buy.
To me, between the 7S in 10x42 and P7 in 10x42 : -field of view = P7 winner -control of the kidney beaning effect (blackout) = P7 winner. The eyecups are much more longer on the P7. -handling = 7s winner -neckstrap : 7s winner -compactness : P7 winner. -(light)weight : P7 winner. -control of chromatic aberrations : I don't know, maybe 7s winner because the adjustement of the interpullary distance seems to be something to care about on the P7 in this regard. Besides, it is often said that when the barrels are longer (more or less, longer focal distance of the objective lens), it's easier to control chromatic aberrations. -coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating is very usefull to avoid/reduce fog due to potential water drops on the lenses). To me, between the P3 and the P7 in 8x42: -neutality of the colors : p7 winner. -coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating) -(light)weight : p3 winner, almost the same weight than P7.
I've got the 7s 8x30's, and my only major complaint is that the glare can be horrible. I use them for hunting and live in northern Canada, so by late November, any distance glassing to the south will often make the entire view look opaque. Was hoping that your review would indicate this had been fixed, guess I'll need to look elsewhere. Any recommendations?
I don't have at this price range or entry level binoculars cutting glare in a good way. The best I have in the control of the glare is the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 (score 5/5 on allbinos' review in "Internal reflection" section) but I can still see glare and other flares. In addition, I think you could expect good control of the glare if the objective lenses are very recessed but in this case with the loss of compactness.
Bonjour, Je n'ai pas de contact avec des magasins. English Neil a réalisé un examen du Svbony SA205 8x42. Ce qui est intéressant pour moi (d'après son examen), c'est le fait que le grossissement soit proche de 7 au lieu de 8, ce qui ferait donc des 7x42 : probable meilleure profondeur de champ que des 8x42 mais champ de vision apparent probablement moins large que prévu, pupille de sortie proche de 6 mm, etc... neilenglish.net/product-review-svbony-sa-205-8-x-42/
@@colvertfurtif J'avais lu cette review mais j'apprécie toujours vos vidéos en complément. Une comparaison avec des sv aurait été intéressante. Avez-vous considéré demander à votre magasin locale ou un site en ligne? cela serait bénéfique pour eux, certainement pour nous et surement pour vous aussi à moindre frais. Bonne continuation.
I first bought a Nikon Prostaff P3S 10x42 which was the crappiest Binoculars I recently bought and then bought the P7 10x42 what a huge night and day difference they're ok but not as clear or giid quality as the way cheaper ScoopX UHDs.
@@colvertfurtif n'etant pas un grand anglophone, premiere paire, essentiellement bivouac discret, observation environnement, animaus etc etc... est-ce pertinent de monter en 10*50 ou un bon 10*42 suffit ?
@@oceanworldwar Je dirais que pour le confort, le 10x42 c'est mieux. Le 10x50 me semble trop lourd à transporter Au dessus de 800 grammes, je me lasse vite au bout de 30 minutes. Cependant, certaines paires lourdes sont dotées d'un excellent équilibre. Par exemple mes Nikon action EX sont lourdes avec ses 1,1 kg avec la courroie mais je prends du plaisir à observer quand je suis en position d'observation. Je ne sais pas comment l’expliquer, c'est comme si la douleur au niveau de mes bras étaient bien répartie sur les Nikon Action EX. Il y a peut-être surement mieux, par exemple il me semble que j'avais lu des tests qui parlaient des Zeiss Victory SF avec leur ergo-balance qui les rendent agréables à porter. Donc le 10x42, c'est le choix le moins risqué pour moi car même si une paire n'est pas suffisamment bien équilibrée, elle aura quand même l'avantage de la compacité. Parce que imaginons, vous achetez une paire 10x50 moyennement équilibrée pour vous (avec le poids des jumelles essentiellement à l'avant par exemple qui fait tirer les jumelles vers le bas et qui risque de vous fatiguer les bras rapidement) de plus de 800 grammes, et admettons très volumineuse : cela ferait beaucoup d'inconvénients pour le confort, pour moi, à moins d'utiliser un trépied.
Nice work Colvert! I often find that moving the eyecups down one step from fully extended shows me the field stops better and also cuts down on glare. Seems to work on many binoculars.
Hello Neil ! Thank you for your comment and the share of your experience !
Bonjour, pouvez-vous me confirmer que les P7 ont bien des oeilletons en caoutchouc souples et non en plastique rigide? Merci d'avance. Julien
Bonjour, les œilletons sont en plastique rigide jusqu'au bord et sont recouverts d'une couche de caoutchouc souple. L' extrémité circulaire qui "dépasse" des œilletons est dépourvue de plastique.
@@colvertfurtifmerci beaucoup pour votre réponse!
Hi, have you used the prostaff 5 if so which would you recommend out of the prostaff 5 and p7 please ? Many thanks.
No, I haven't. I'm not interested in the Prostaff 5 series because the field of view doesn't appeal me :
[110 meters/1000 meters (330:3 = 110)] for the 8x42 or 330 feet at 1000 yards.
www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/binoculars/prostaff-5-8x42.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
98 meters/1000 meters for the 10x42 [or 294 feet at 1000 yards (98x3=294)].
www.nikon.com.au/prostaff-5-10x42
For the price, there are binoculars with wider field of view.
I would choose the P7 because the P7 has attractive features to me : phase coating (for sharpness), dielectric coating (for brightness), water repellent coating (against fog on the outer surface of lenses), immersive view for the 10x42 (field of view "OK" for the 8x42).
Perhaps the advantage of the Prostaff 5 series : there are 10x50 and 12x50 and they are relatively lightweight. Those formats don't exist on the Nikon Prostaff 7s/P7 series for example. There is a review of the Prostaff 10x50 on Allbinos. For example, it is said that there is an aluminizing coating (not as good as the dielectric coating).I did not find if the Prostaff 5 series has a phase coating and water repellent coating or not, so I don't think so.
www.allbinos.com/283-binoculars_review-Nikon_Prostaff_5_10x50.html
@@colvertfurtif ok thank you, can you recommend some good binoculars within a price range of €250 please ? Apart from the p7.
@@BeginnerBirdwatcher It's not easy to answer because at this price range, there are too many compromises. Something I don't like in a pair of binoculars may be not bothersome for someone else. For example I don't like the weight of the SV202 8x42 (720 grammes) and the miror effect outside the circle of the image but they have a great value (I bought mine 135 euros). I don't like the balance of my Bresser Pirsch 8x42 but I really appreciate the fact that I can look through them with a Covid mask without getting fog on the lenses (water repellent coating like the P7 or long eyecups? I don't know but it's effective against steam).
Moreover, BBR review and Allbinos can show you brands with good reputation like Vortex, Carson, Sightron, Zeiss, Bresser, Athlon, Kowa, etc... If I did not have my Nikon binoculars, I would be interested in Vortex Diamondback HD or Bresser Pirsch ED (if you wait for a voucher because one day I recently saw the Bresser pisrch 10x42 ED for only 250 euros on a French e- market) because they are lightweight and have a lifetime warranty.
@@colvertfurtif ok thanks I am split between the P7 and Diamondback HD may wait and purchase the vortex vipers I'm not sure yet. I'm stuck on the 8-42 and 10-42's I've been told that the higher the magnification the harder it is to steady them without the aid of a tripod. Thanks again
Ps it's difficult in France as so far I haven't found a shop in Limoges that is specialists in binoculars. Or I just haven't found the shop lol. And internet shopping is ok but most online shops don't allow you to try before you buy.
So which one won? I wanted to get one of these but In 8x42
To me, between the 7S in 10x42 and P7 in 10x42 :
-field of view = P7 winner
-control of the kidney beaning effect (blackout) = P7 winner. The eyecups are much more longer on the P7.
-handling = 7s winner
-neckstrap : 7s winner
-compactness : P7 winner.
-(light)weight : P7 winner.
-control of chromatic aberrations : I don't know, maybe 7s winner because the adjustement of the interpullary distance seems to be something to care about on the P7 in this regard. Besides, it is often said that when the barrels are longer (more or less, longer focal distance of the objective lens), it's easier to control chromatic aberrations.
-coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating is very usefull to avoid/reduce fog due to potential water drops on the lenses).
To me, between the P3 and the P7 in 8x42:
-neutality of the colors : p7 winner.
-coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating)
-(light)weight : p3 winner, almost the same weight than P7.
I've got the 7s 8x30's, and my only major complaint is that the glare can be horrible. I use them for hunting and live in northern Canada, so by late November, any distance glassing to the south will often make the entire view look opaque. Was hoping that your review would indicate this had been fixed, guess I'll need to look elsewhere. Any recommendations?
I don't have at this price range or entry level binoculars cutting glare in a good way. The best I have in the control of the glare is the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 (score 5/5 on allbinos' review in "Internal reflection" section) but I can still see glare and other flares.
In addition, I think you could expect good control of the glare if the objective lenses are very recessed but in this case with the loss of compactness.
Bonjour Colvert! Est-ce qu'un magasin pourrait vous fournir des SVBONY SA205 pour une revue? on a vraiment confiance dans vos avis.
Bonjour,
Je n'ai pas de contact avec des magasins.
English Neil a réalisé un examen du Svbony SA205 8x42. Ce qui est intéressant pour moi (d'après son examen), c'est le fait que le grossissement soit proche de 7 au lieu de 8, ce qui ferait donc des 7x42 : probable meilleure profondeur de champ que des 8x42 mais champ de vision apparent probablement moins large que prévu, pupille de sortie proche de 6 mm, etc...
neilenglish.net/product-review-svbony-sa-205-8-x-42/
@@colvertfurtif J'avais lu cette review mais j'apprécie toujours vos vidéos en complément. Une comparaison avec des sv aurait été intéressante. Avez-vous considéré demander à votre magasin locale ou un site en ligne? cela serait bénéfique pour eux, certainement pour nous et surement pour vous aussi à moindre frais. Bonne continuation.
@@blueaquilae Merci de votre intérêt ! Je n'y ai pas encore pensé
I first bought a Nikon Prostaff P3S 10x42 which was the crappiest Binoculars I recently bought and then bought the P7 10x42 what a huge night and day difference they're ok but not as clear or giid quality as the way cheaper ScoopX UHDs.
toi vu l'accent c'est sur t'es francais !!!!
Oui !
@@colvertfurtif n'etant pas un grand anglophone, premiere paire, essentiellement bivouac discret, observation environnement, animaus etc etc... est-ce pertinent de monter en 10*50 ou un bon 10*42 suffit ?
@@oceanworldwar Je dirais que pour le confort, le 10x42 c'est mieux.
Le 10x50 me semble trop lourd à transporter Au dessus de 800 grammes, je me lasse vite au bout de 30 minutes. Cependant, certaines paires lourdes sont dotées d'un excellent équilibre. Par exemple mes Nikon action EX sont lourdes avec ses 1,1 kg avec la courroie mais je prends du plaisir à observer quand je suis en position d'observation. Je ne sais pas comment l’expliquer, c'est comme si la douleur au niveau de mes bras étaient bien répartie sur les Nikon Action EX. Il y a peut-être surement mieux, par exemple il me semble que j'avais lu des tests qui parlaient des Zeiss Victory SF avec leur ergo-balance qui les rendent agréables à porter.
Donc le 10x42, c'est le choix le moins risqué pour moi car même si une paire n'est pas suffisamment bien équilibrée, elle aura quand même l'avantage de la compacité. Parce que imaginons, vous achetez une paire 10x50 moyennement équilibrée pour vous (avec le poids des jumelles essentiellement à l'avant par exemple qui fait tirer les jumelles vers le bas et qui risque de vous fatiguer les bras rapidement) de plus de 800 grammes, et admettons très volumineuse : cela ferait beaucoup d'inconvénients pour le confort, pour moi, à moins d'utiliser un trépied.
@@colvertfurtif un grand merci, je vais "essayer"quelque jumelles demain dans un store local. je sais dans quelle direction regarder desormais !