Tiny Monocular / Telescope.

TeeDee

Full Member
Nov 6, 2008
10,993
4,099
50
Exeter
I know 10x25 small Bino's are good but is there another option?

Something even smaller ( Telescope/Monocular ) that can give a bit more 'Ummph' for smaller Size and Weight?

Just missed a opportunity to watch a Fox as was devoid of such an article.
 

nigelp

Native
Jul 4, 2006
1,417
1,028
New Forest
newforestnavigation.co.uk
Smaller lenses let in less light and the image quality is not great. I have some quality lightweight (ish) binoculars 10 x32; those are as compact as I would go now because the trade off is not worth it. My previous binoculars and a monocular were more compact and the image quality was very poor in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeDee

Buckshot

Mod
Mod
Jan 19, 2004
6,471
352
Oxford
the problem with small bins is they only offer a limited optical diameter. 2.5mm in your example (25/10). the optimum should be much larger, around 7 or 8mm from memory.
the human eye pupil can open to about that amount and lets the maximum amount of image/ light into the pupil. Any more from bins is a waste.
the main benefit would be in lower light conditions of dawn and dusk. during bright daytime sunlight the pupil wont be that wide anyway.
therefore for the same amount of weight and size a good quality monocular might be better. some people struggle with them though.
I find holding the mono in my right hand and looking through it with my left eye means i can have both eyes open but because my hand is infront of my right eye. the brain is tricked into thinking it's looking with both eyes and winking for long periods can be a pain...
 

Forest fella

Full Member
Jul 2, 2008
2,922
214
Gloucestershire
I've got a 10x25 Monocular it's nothing special I've had it yr's was about a £15 Can't find a Brand on it though. Black Rubber Coated with landyard and Pouch.
Works well for Spotting / wildlife or free dinner's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeDee

Broch

Life Member
Jan 18, 2009
8,490
8,369
Mid Wales
www.mont-hmg.co.uk
I've had this in my pocket for 30 years. It's only 3 x 20mm and around 65mm long. It's good enough to tell you that what you're looking at is a hare not a molehill but with only 3 x magnification and 20mm lens it's limited. Probably the worst thing about it though is that it will only focus down to about 5m which means it's useless for looking at insects an the like.

The next step up, is a monocular such as the Nikon 7x15 HG which isn't much bigger but is quite a bit more expensive. That has had good reviews and it will focus down to 0.6m

I had the pleasure of using a high quality unit a few years ago - much bigger (think half a pair of bins) but the quality was outstanding. I've got a note of the model somewhere; if I can find it I'll post it.

My own bins are low/mid-range (Nikon Monarch) but they are an order of magnitude better than my old Viking ones; they seem to magnify light at dusk. My point being, I wouldn't buy cheap glass again - OK, I won't pay thousands either, but the increase in quality paying a bit more is worth it IMO.




monocular.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: nigelp and TeeDee

stevec

Full Member
Oct 30, 2003
552
149
Sheffield
I've got a Leica monovid. It's 8x20. In bright light it's equal to my 10x50 DDR Zeiss bins, though it will have less optical resolution. It looses out as light fades, but because it has excellent coating on the optical components not as bad or as quickly as one might think.
It is however not cheap, but, in my opinion it is good value. If you put a pound in a jar, every day for a year then that'll about do you. It's in my jacket/trouser pocket all year round so it's always there when I need it
 

TeeDee

Full Member
Nov 6, 2008
10,993
4,099
50
Exeter
I've got a Leica monovid. It's 8x20. In bright light it's equal to my 10x50 DDR Zeiss bins, though it will have less optical resolution. It looses out as light fades, but because it has excellent coating on the optical components not as bad or as quickly as one might think.
It is however not cheap, but, in my opinion it is good value. If you put a pound in a jar, every day for a year then that'll about do you. It's in my jacket/trouser pocket all year round so it's always there when I need it

THIS?
 

Robson Valley

On a new journey
Nov 24, 2014
9,959
2,672
McBride, BC
For years, I've carried Pentax 7x50 binoculars. Great in low light. That objective of 50mm grabs all that light and stuffs it into an exit pupil of 7mm.

I've got a Nikon Prostaff 82mm (20X -60X) spotting scope that honestly poops out about 45X. Just fine on a big surveyor's tripod to look for mountain goats and sheep with tourist visitors. It's so big that it has it's own little spotting scope on the side.

What's next will be a 4X -12X rifle scope with a 50 mm objective. I want that low light gathering capability. Maybe 4-15X or 4 - 20X if I can find one that won't destroy my entire bank account.

Also, I know I will be window shopping to see what's in the market place by reading the pages in B&H Photo/New York.
There must be a thousand binos, monos and scopes.
Bought my Nikon from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwardo
  • Like
Reactions: TeeDee

marcoruhland

Life Member
Apr 23, 2020
61
27
Germany
no one can break physics - a good optical system has a specific weight
and there is also an advantage by using a biocular vs. a mono and for long distance or twilight you need a stabilization or general larger diameter in your optical system

and after this you have to pay the price for the three big brands on the market

swarowski, leica, zeiss (yes there are some competitors like nikon - my 85 vr scope is that one but 3kg nothing to walk with - or the 14-40 stabileyes but both out of production)

10x25 (leica ultravid 10x25 br state of the art ) is something that does not work for me and this is only 250g!

i use a leica rangemaster (sub 200g) but not for observe only to get the distance

and the only small mono that works for me is the multiuse eschenbach vario plus 8x32 (over 200g without the stand) so there is no advantage against lightweight 10x25 but my smallest biocular is the old leica trinovid 8x32 bn ( 650g) and this is a difference

mr
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Robson Valley

ANDYLASER

Nomad
Mar 27, 2004
260
75
SOUTHAMPTON
Some years ago, I did a comparison between the Minox Macroscope 8x25 and Vortex Solo 8x25 monoculars. Both were very good, but different. The Minox had the edge on clarity as you would expect (it costs twice as much).

However, I found the view not to my liking as I wear glasses. The eye relief is quite short and putting the eyepiece to glasses gives that "looking down a smarties tube" effect. OK, thats a bit exaggerated, but some of the overal image size was lost. Although what remained was very bright, clear and pleasing.

The Vortex has a much longer eye relief and as such can be put to glasses without losing any of the image size. Image quality is not quite as crisp as the Minox, but its still very good. I also preferred the shape of the Vortex to hold in the hand. I preferred the larger image as well, even though it wasnt quite as bright.

If you dont wear glasses, the Minox is superior, but you pay for it. If you do, then you need to chose your compromise. Image size vs clarity? In the end, I sold both as they didnt get much use. If I was buying again, then Vortex would get my cash.
 
Last edited:

Roughneck

Full Member
Mar 17, 2021
77
44
66
Chelmsford
Having just read all the strands I feel I need a wee monocular now . Like most of us I do have a small selection of optics but not a monocular. So the Vortex Solo 8x25 is looking good and I do wear glasses so the review by ANDYLASER sounds good.
I have recently aquired a Pulsar Thermal Scope that fits in the palm of your hand and absolutely nothing gets away and the quality is spot on and able to recognise Game & Foul at a fair old distance. If it has heat and alive you'll see it
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE