Opticron spotters - don't overlook them

[Newtosavage]

I'm glad that you are enjoying the MM3 Opticron. I bet it is a great scope for the cost and weight. I had a non-ED 16-48x60 that was really sharp and bright at 16x up to mid-20x. Surprisingly good, but the image started to fall apart around mid-30x.

I have to say that I am a bit skeptical that a non-ED 60mm can outperform an EDIII. At low magnification I suspect that the image is nice, but I don't think that it would handle higher magnification as well.

A member here compared his EDIII vs MM4 vs 550 at BF, and in the end came to the conclusion that they were all about the same for brightness and resolution over the same zoom range. That is more inline with what I would expect.

You also wrote that the Gen1 Vortex was comparable to the MM3, which I don't doubt. That stated, I don't think that a Gen1 compares well to an EDIII. I have owned two EDIII and each was well corrected and sharp at 60x with the MCII zoom. I have tried a few Gen1 and none would come to sharp focus at max zoom which tells me that there are optical or design flaws. Sample variation seems to be low for the Nikons and supposedly higher for the Vortex though.

The water gets a little murky with the 12mm Pentax. What magnification are you estimating? My guess is ~23x on the ED50? With the EDIII, it would be even higher.

So it is not surprising that the MM3 with fixed 23x EP appears brighter than the EDIII at higher magnification, correct? Do you have the Nikon fixed 24x DS eyepiece for closer comparison?

You obviously had to adapt the 12mm Pentax to the Nikon EP mount as well. Removed the 1.25" barrel and fabricated a thread adapter? That sounds great, but the degraded edge that you noted might be due to this adapted EP configuration and not the EDIII. Future readers of this thread might not catch onto that.

Again, I think it's great that you found a nice bright, light, and affordable scope for imaging. Just might be a little confusing for other readers unless they consider the relatively low magnification used and comparison to non-standard EP on the EDIII.

A lot of speculation going on there. Your biases are consistent with those that most people have based on what they read, what they spend, etc.

My opinions are based on actually handling the scopes in question. No guessing here.

And I'm not 100% sure the MM3 is not an HD scope. There is precious little information on the Opticron website to that effect. Some Euro birders have suggested it is, or at least previous MM3's are. I don't know and don't care because I know what I see.

As for "falling apart" above 30x - I have never seen a use for any magnification above 30x anyway. Most folks don't have the support they need for that much magnification, and even if they do, heat waves and atmospheric issues generally preclude any additional information from being gained at magnifications above 30x that can't be gained below it.

As for your last question, do you not think I know how to differentiate between an EDIII and a non-ED Nikon scope?

As I said, I'm sure some people will think I'm on drugs to suggest that such a "lowly" scope could be so good. That's fine. I don't need people to agree with me to confirm my choices. I'm just trying to help out some fellow 'sliders who are on a budget and still want the best optics available for their hard-earned cash.

 

[4th_point]

A lot of speculation going on there. Your biases are consistent with those that most people have based on what they read, what they spend, etc.

My opinions are based on actually handling the scopes in question. No guessing here.

And I'm not 100% sure the MM3 is not an HD scope. There is precious little information on the Opticron website to that effect. Some Euro birders have suggested it is, or at least previous MM3's are. I don't know and don't care because I know what I see.

As for "falling apart" above 30x - I have never seen a use for any magnification above 30x anyway. Most folks don't have the support they need for that much magnification, and even if they do, heat waves and atmospheric issues generally preclude any additional information from being gained at magnifications above 30x that can't be gained below it.

As for your last question, do you not think I know how to differentiate between an EDIII and a non-ED Nikon scope?

As I said, I'm sure some people will think I'm on drugs to suggest that such a "lowly" scope could be so good. That's fine. I don't need people to agree with me to confirm my choices. I'm just trying to help out some fellow 'sliders who are on a budget and still want the best optics available for their hard-earned cash.

So based on what you have posted,

1. One should not worry about buying ED glass, simply because of your binocular experience
2. One should never use 30x because,
   • Not enough stability
   • The environment won't allow for it
   • You personally don't have a use for it

How do you know what magnification preferences, viewing conditions, and support devices people have? Seems like a lot of speculation and bias on your part, not mine.

Your reference instrument for comparison, the Nikon EDIII, is using a non-standard eyepiece (retrofitted 1.25" Pentax astro) which may have negatively affected the field edge. You do realize that is something that can happen, right? It would be a result of the EP-adapter-scope assembly, and not the scope body itself. The Nikon 24x EP would be a better comparison, wouldn't you agree?

Again, what is the estimated magnification with the Pentax EP on the Nikon EDIII? Is it apples-to-apples compared to the MM3 23x? I don't think so, based on the focal length, but await your response.

Sorry, but I do still question whether you have an EDIII. But that really isn't the point. It's the extraordinary claim with suspect comparison method.

 

[Newtosavage]

So based on what you have posted,

1. One should not worry about buying ED glass, simply because of your binocular experience
2. One should never use 30x because,
   • Not enough stability
   • The environment won't allow for it
   • You personally don't have a use for it

How do you know what magnification preferences, viewing conditions, and support devices people have? Seems like a lot of speculation and bias on your part, not mine.

Your reference instrument for comparison, the Nikon EDIII, is using a non-standard eyepiece (retrofitted 1.25" Pentax astro) which may have negatively affected the field edge. You do realize that is something that can happen, right? It would be a result of the EP-adapter-scope assembly, and not the scope body itself. The Nikon 24x EP would be a better comparison, wouldn't you agree?

Again, what is the estimated magnification with the Pentax EP on the Nikon EDIII? Is it apples-to-apples compared to the MM3 23x? I don't think so, based on the focal length, but await your response.

Sorry, but I do still question whether you have an EDIII. But that really isn't the point. It's the extraordinary claim with suspect comparison method.

Please. You're wasting both of our times. Questioning whether I have an EDIII is clownish on your part. You also haven't read everything I wrote as is easily evidenced by your questions. Please quit trolling my thread.

 

[4th_point]

Please. You're wasting both of our times. Questioning whether I have an EDIII is clownish on your part. You also haven't read everything I wrote as is easily evidenced by your questions. Please quit trolling my thread.

Calling BS is not trolling.

If you want to help people, tell us what magnification you have on the EDIII with Pentax EP so people get the full picture of your comparison. If you don't know, then just say so.

 

[4th_point]

And while you are at it, please expand on your claim that nobody can use more than 30x. I don't agree, but would like to hear your side of the story.

 

[Matt Cashell]

What particular qualifications does Matt possess (don't know the man) that make his reviews "technical?"

No particular qualifications.

What I gather is you preferred the Opticron to the other scopes?

I know Opticron spotters have been popular in the UK for years, but I haven’t personally used them. I will have to check them out.

What was your testing method and what evaluation criteria did you use to evaluate them against the comparison scopes?

Thanks!

 

[Newtosavage]

No particular qualifications.

What I gather is you preferred the Opticron to the other scopes?

I know Opticron spotters have been popular in the UK for years, but I haven’t personally used them. I will have to check them out.

What was your testing method and what evaluation criteria did you use to evaluate them against the comparison scopes?

Thanks!

Testing method? Evaluation criteria? LOL

I'm not claiming to offer "technical" reviews or trying to fill content for a sponsored hunting forum. I'm just a guy, like you, who uses tools to go hunt things. And, I happened to have tried a lot of different tools.

My "target" (among other things) for comparison was an 8.5x11 piece of paper hanging outside the golf course clubhouse door across the highway from my house. It had the scramble schedule on it for the summer. According to OnX, that piece of paper is 282 yards from my driveway. I could read the dates on the schedule from my driveway with several of the scopes, including the Opticron. The font is about 1/2" in height which is something like 0.15 MOA. That sheet of paper was just one thing I tested the scopes against. There were others, like the famous "star test" that a lot of optics reviewers use (look it up if you're not familiar with it).

I prefer the Opticron to other scopes for my needs. It's smaller, lighter, robust enough and optically just as good as the other scopes I tried. Why wouldn't I choose it? Who wants to lug around a larger, heavier scope that doesn't offer a significant optical advantage? I mean, if a person does, then good for them. They may want the warm fuzzy feeling that comes with buying a Swaro or Kowa because they know it will be admired (or at least not questioned) by their hunting buddies. I doubt their wife will care though. LOL

So, choose to take my word for it or not. I don't really care tbh. It's just one guy's opinion based on actual experience with the scopes that were mentioned. All our eyes and needs (preferences) are different. YMMV, as they say.

 

[Newtosavage]

Calling BS is not trolling.

If you want to help people, tell us what magnification you have on the EDIII with Pentax EP so people get the full picture of your comparison. If you don't know, then just say so.

The Pentax 12mm eyepiece on my EDIII gives me 22x and if you had read the whole thread, you'd also know it's not the only eyepiece I've had on that scope, or on my ED50 before it. But you didn't bother to do that.

 

[Newtosavage]

And while you are at it, please expand on your claim that nobody can use more than 30x. I don't agree, but would like to hear your side of the story.

Please show us all where I claimed "nobody can use more than 30x." Misquoting people for the sake of trying to win an argument is childish. Again, troll somewhere else. But before you do that, feel free to re-read my statement above where I say I don't really care if you don't believe me.

Ah look. I'm feeding the troll. Shame on me.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Any chance you could post a couple of the pictures you took with it?

 

[Matt Cashell]

I’m not sure what in my post led you to get defensive.

I was just trying to discuss the scope and get a better understanding about what you liked about it and how you came to those conclusions. Your original post only listed your preference and nothing about the optical characteristics you preferred about it.

Thanks for letting me know about your resolution evaluation with the golf scramble schedule. That helps me understand more.

There were others, like the famous "star test" that a lot of optics reviewers use (look it up if you're not familiar with it).

This is really interesting. You star tested the scope? That is awesome, you really are a technical reviewer! I have star tested a few. I am still looking for the best system though. Maybe you could help me…

What did you use for the point of light? At what distance did you test it? At what magnification? What did the test show on the Opticron?

Thanks again.

 

[feanor]

I’d like to see some comparisons of other spotters too. This thread started as something that really interested me. A cheaper spotter that is a sleeper in hunting circles, and more compact than most. Let’s get some images if possible and continue.

I understand the technical part of glass is a but above my pay grade, but the birding forums can hash that out in extreme detail. Let’s get some meat and potatoes ( photos and more photos).

 

[sndmn11]

Opticron MM4 60 thoughts after a year

About a year ago I decided to track down a spotting scope that was light and compact enough that provided a view good enough that I would want to pack it around, as well as light and compact enough that it wasn’t cumbersome. I began to research 50mm spotting scopes, and put together the below...

rokslide.com

 

[feanor]

Opticron MM4 60 thoughts after a year

About a year ago I decided to track down a spotting scope that was light and compact enough that provided a view good enough that I would want to pack it around, as well as light and compact enough that it wasn’t cumbersome. I began to research 50mm spotting scopes, and put together the below...

rokslide.com

Well that’s timely

 

[sndmn11]

Well that’s timely

Four years ago.

There's a store by me that has them. I think on that small size it does really well.

 

[feanor]

Four years ago.

There's a store by me that has them. I think on that small size it does really well.

4 years?? None of that info can be accurate then.

 

[4th_point]

As for "falling apart" above 30x - I have never seen a use for any magnification above 30x anyway. Most folks don't have the support they need for that much magnification, and even if they do, heat waves and atmospheric issues generally preclude any additional information from being gained at magnifications above 30x that can't be gained below it.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote here.

You don't have a use for magnification above 30x which is totally fine. Everyone has their own needs and it seems that imaging is more important than viewing for you?

And you think that most people don't have sufficient support and even if so, the environment won't allow more than 30x.

That's what you wrote. Maybe you can help me understand what you really meant, as I don't agree but want to understand your side of it.

 

[4th_point]

Opticron MM4 60 thoughts after a year

About a year ago I decided to track down a spotting scope that was light and compact enough that provided a view good enough that I would want to pack it around, as well as light and compact enough that it wasn’t cumbersome. I began to research 50mm spotting scopes, and put together the below...

rokslide.com

I remember that review now, of the MM4. Thanks for reposting it. It has the comments from Opticron about the differences between the MM3 and MM4.

A member here compared the MM4, 554, and EDIII at another forum. In the end he found them all pretty similar across the same zoom range which is not super surprising. But the MM4 is a higher cost scope compared to the OP's MM3.

 

[sndmn11]

4 years?? None of that info can be accurate then.

I think you'd like the 60mm, some days I regret selling it to bearsear.

It's a good view until a few minutes before the well known 80mm class spotters at dusk.

 

[bigbuckdj]

I found a nice sale on a straight mm4 60 with the sdlv3 eyepiece last week. It should be here tomorrow and I can post some digiscope shots.

I had an ares 65 a while back and it was good enough but I came out of that wanting something lighter to compliment the binos for quick looks and something with a larger objective to maintain brightness at the higher mags. In my mind, i think the 60 and 77 body might do both for me. For as little as I use them, it might hit a nice spot on the performance, cost, weight triangle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk