Nikon Action EX Extreme 7237 Binocular

Price seems about $130. Comments?

B

As long as you don't expect too much in the way of light gathering, they should be fine for that application. Make sure you get a good telescopic walking staff to steady them for looking at those aves pequenos. I have a couple of late model Nikon rifle scopes that I have been very pleased with.

You can spend as much as you want on optics--the differences get smaller as the price gets higher, imo. Jeff has done a lot of reading on optics--may shoot him a pm.

Bastid puts crosshairs on everything.

I'm with you on the staff thing. I've been frustrated recently by 3 groups of birds: shorebirds, warblers, and sparrows. I went with a group for a winter bird count and was astonished how much binoculars have improved since I bought mine, 35 years ago. The moderns are lighter, stronger, waterproof and the optics are incredible. That's just the modestly priced ones that I looked at. I also used Lietz, Zeiss, and another German optic called something that sounded Russian, --ended in -off. O. M. G! They were variously configured with Image stabilizing, roof lenses, light and a field of view that is insane. Plus the image was so sharp that I could actually see the individual thistle petals from about 75 yds without needing a rest. Those were 10x50's mostly but they were as easy to handle as the 7x35's I'm looking at. That's what you get for $1,200 - $1,800 vs $130!

The Russian one was probably Swarovszky (or somethng like that) but from what I have read the best deal around for price vs. optical quality are Pentax bioculars.

__________________
dtf
1994 E320 Wagon (Died @ 308,669 miles)
1995 E300 Diesel (228,000)
1999 E300 Turbodiesel ( died @ 255,000)
2006 Toyota Tundra SR5 AC 4X4 (115,000 miles) rusted frame - sold to chop shop
2011 Audi A4 Avant (165,000 miles) Seized engine - donated to Salvation Army
BMW 330 xi 6 speed manual (175,034 miles)
2014 E350 4Matic Wagon 128,000 miles
2018 Dodge Ram 21,000 miles

I am a fan of anything Zeiss. East or West. it doesn't really matter. There are some great optics out there with the east German Zeiss (aus Jena) mark on them. Also beware--there are many cheap japenese knocks off of the true Zeiss aus Jena stuff. The real Zeiss will have 7 digit s/n and the knock off only 6. Also the position of one of the screws is an indicator.
There are also some passable Russian versions of the Zeiss binoculars that can be very good; they can also be less than very good. QA/QC was not/ is not a hallmark of the Russian optical industry. But when they are good, they are a great bargin. If you can get a 2 week trial with return option, they may be an alternative for you. Not everyone is comfortable carrying stuff with cryillic writing on it.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

That sounds right. The fellow who has them said the company started as an ornamental crystal company and branched into optics, iirc.
http://www.swarovskioptik.at/index.php?l=en&css=&c=produkte&nID=x434b769e932b90.44843491&techInfo=1&detail=en1129102236__ID434cbb9cbaff88.00618154&produktname=EL

If I remember right the two different kinds are Roof type and Prism type with the Prism the more expensive and the Roof type lighter in weight. Always go with 'fully multi coated optics' to gather in as much light as possible.

__________________
dtf
1994 E320 Wagon (Died @ 308,669 miles)
1995 E300 Diesel (228,000)
1999 E300 Turbodiesel ( died @ 255,000)
2006 Toyota Tundra SR5 AC 4X4 (115,000 miles) rusted frame - sold to chop shop
2011 Audi A4 Avant (165,000 miles) Seized engine - donated to Salvation Army
BMW 330 xi 6 speed manual (175,034 miles)
2014 E350 4Matic Wagon 128,000 miles
2018 Dodge Ram 21,000 miles

I am a Zeiss guy but i don't think the Cabela's branded binoc's can be touched at almost any price.

In the $134 range your options are limited but Steiner would be a good start, like JD said in low light (shade) a set of toilet paper tubes would be more useful.

Sorry about the weird post my Speck chekker gone wild on me.

Ditto the comment from dtf regarding the value offered by some of the Pentax optics.

I got a screaming deal a few years ago on a pair of their 8x42 DCF WP binoculars (roof prism, waterproof). We liked them well enough that I ran down a pair in 10x50 (still new in the box) on eBay a couple of years later. I know they're not the equal of the top stuff from Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, etc., but they fit our budget well enough, and the quality of the view still amazes. I see one of the Pentax spotting scopes in my future.

You might take a look at the basic education articles at Better View Desired. Keep in mind the age of the articles; the specific models and prices aren't going to be up-to-date, but some of the discussion might provide food for thought.

Your binocular desires have to be in line with those of at least some other birders, so a little Googling applied in that general direction might help, too. It would surprise me if the question, "What are the best binoculars under $XXX?" were not to turn up with some frequency on birding forums.

Best, of course, would be to do what you just did a little bit during the bird count: drive 'em around for real. If that's not possible, then do what you can to find out what other real-world users have to say about their experience with them.

I have not owned any Pentax but have heard that they are good for the money.

Useful links for birdwatcher's and others opinions.

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/sports_and_leisure/binoculars/reviews.html
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html

From the looks of the bird watchers link Nikon Monarch seems to be the most common binoc under $1000 mentioned.

I don't have any reason to disagree I have limited experience with the binocs but they make great scopes.

"Editors say binoculars in the $500 to $1,000 range are not worth the extra money over those in the $200 to $500 range, "

This is a quote from the article and is what I was trying to say initially if I was unclear.

I have looked at binoculars in the $300-$800 range and I couldn't detect a significant quality gain. However, I understand that in those binoculars you improve on the image quality where the cheap models tend to break -- low light, color in fog. The binoculars that were in the greater-than-$1,000 were a dramatic improvement over the $100-$300 binoculars. Even in bold, bright, high-contrast conditions where differences should be minimal, the high-quality of the expensive binoculars really stand-out. It just knocked me down it was so amazing. If I were a hunter on the plains or mountains there is no question that the > $1,000 is a tremendous advantage, IMO. Or if you need to read newsprint at 50 yards.

I even tried some that had image stabilizing. They were heavy glasses, 12X50, iirc. The image stabilizing was very welcome for holding a view as muscle shaking at high mag is a big distraction. But for lighter glasses, I don't think it would be worth it.

Anyway, thanks, one and all for the always appreciated advice and comments. A great forum for dang-near anything.

B

This is going to sound a little contrary, but the image stabilizing is really more for the lighter, longer glasses than the heavy ones---match rifles are heavy for the same reason at least this is my experience. With heavier stuff, the "shake" is not as pronounced ("shake" per minute osscilations). That said, there is a pair of high $ Zeiss mega goggles on my dad's boat, and I don't think they are quite there with image stabilization on binocs as they are with cameras. But I can see diving gannets w/o fog at 3 or four miles.