Conference unifix::sailing

For daylight use, 7x35s are fine. For night use, especially on dark
nights, 7x50s are essential. They gather twice as much light as 7x35s.
Center focus is convenient, but you need a visible target to focus on.
Individual focus of each eyepiece allows you to set the focus without
being able to see anything. This is an extremely useful feature for
night use in limited visibility or on cloudy nights. Forget about
built-in rangefinders or compasses. 7x50s tend to be heavier (much) than
7x35s. 

The big question is how much do you want to spend? We have an
inexpensive (~$100) center focus 7x35 for ordinary use. After several
years of use they are getting foggy inside and suffering the effects of
salt spray. We also have a waterproof, rubber armored, individual focus
7x50 Fujinon. Much sharper focus and really impressive at night. About
$250 to $300 discount. Generally, the inexpensive binoculars are not too
well aligned and the optical quality leaves much to be desired -- be
sure to try before buying. My recommendation is, as always, buy the
best. It is much cheaper in the long run (as long as you don't make a 
habit of dropping things over the side). 

Alan

    I agree with .1, with added emphasis on purchasing 7x50's over 7x35's.
    
    I have used a Nikon 7x35 on an extended trip with a friend and would
    not recommend any 7x35 on a boat no matter how good the optics.
    
    I also used the Fujinon 7x50 on another trip (another friend), and
    they would be hard to beat.  The fact that they are waterproof and
    allow you to leave them in the cockpit without fear and rinse off the 
    salt spray in the sink is almost a neccesary feature in a boat.
    
    Travis
    

    I have a pair of Swift SeaHawk binoculars (7x50) that I am very
    happy with.  They are less sensitive than Fujinon's (Swift RLE=85%,
    Fujinon RLE=99% (RLE = Relative Light Effeciency)) and sell for
    about $125 at discount marine and some department stores.  
    
    I prefer a fixed focus, sealed/pressurized, rubber coated binocular
    with individual eye focus to correct to 20-20 vision. I wear glasses
    and like the rubber eyepieces as well (both Fujinon and Swift have
    these features).  The main advantage of Fj's is brighter images
    at night, I dont believe the Swift gives up anything in ruggedness.
    
    My advise: If you are ready to spend >$200 buy Fujinon, <$200 buy
    Swift SeaHawk.
    
    Walt

    I have a pair of Nikon rubber-coated individual 7X50 binoculars
    which I am extremely happy with. I find them extremely useful for
    night sailing - the light gathering abilities make night sailing
    a whole new experience. I recommend them if you can find them
    discounted - I lucked into a half price deal (they list over $400).
    Probably the equivalent of the Fujinon.
    
    I second others' recommendation of 7X50; this is particularly important
    for night work (which I consider to be a binocular's most valuable
    use.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

    I finally bit the bullet and ordered a pair of Fujinon MTRC-SX's
    (7x50) from Defender only to get my check returned yesterday.
    
    Seems that due to dollar devaluation Defender has added $50 to their
    catalog prices. What used to sell for $269.95 is now $319.95.
    
        

    Re: .3, .5
    
    I used the Swifts extensively on this past vacation, both at nite
    and in the daytime and was extremely pleased.  The help at nite
    was better than I recall from Navy issue glasses (OK it was over
    10 years ago).  
    
    The only lighting on clear nites was from starlite, yet I easily 
    spotted bouys about 1 mile off.   
    
    They spent the 2 weeks next to the helm, and except for rinsing to 
    remove salt from the lenses, required no care.

    Although I didnt have Fj's on board to A-B with, based on this
    experience I would have trouble justifying the $200 delta (unless
    of course I already had Fj's, in which case I could easily rationalize
    the extra expense).
    
    Walt 

    Just got my West Marine catalog.  Fuginon now offers GYROSCOPICALLY
    STABILIZED 10x40 binoculars.  A battery powered motor operates
    a small gyroscope which dampens the jiggling that normally occurs with
    high powered glasses.   The ultimate nautical visual experience
    can be had for only $4999.00 (yes, the decimal point is in the right
    place).  By bringing a pair of these on board, I could double the value
    of my boat. ;^) 

    The gyrostabilized binocular is great to use.  I used a pair back
    in the late sixties while in the Navy and we got to "sea test" a
    few units.  They work great.  The weight, however, was excessive
    and after only a few minutes my neck had had it.  Maybe the newer
    units are a bit lighter.
    

    Some of the previous replies alluded to the water-tightness of
    the binoculars, and I am wondering how important this would be
    for my purposes.  I got a pair of Minolta 10x50s as a gift and
    am considering trading them for Marine 7x or 8x32s after reading
    this and note 1179.  They will not be in heavy use; only for
    sporadic daytime sails.  The major difference between the Marine
    types and the Standards seems to be that the Marines are 
    more water-resistant, but this puts them generally out of my
    price range.  If the binocs are not heavily used and I try to 
    keep them clean, how long might I expect the standard types to
    last?  
    
    thanks
    
    Mark
    
    

re .9:

How long? Who knows? Our non-marine 7x35s became so foggy internally that 
they were unusable after 10 years or so. We bought a pair of Minolta 7x35 
binoculars (also non-marine) for about $110 to replace them. Very nice. 

    re. .9:
    
    Note .2 mentions light gathering ability of binocs, which is something
    you really should keep in mind. Here's a simple way of determining the
    light gathering ability of your existing or proposed binocs:
    
    Let's use 7x35, 7x50, and 10x50's as an example; Take the first number
    and divide it into the second number, take the answer and square it;
    That's the light gathering coefficient.
    
    So a 7x35 would be: 35/7 = 5; 5 squared=25.
       a 7x50 would be: 50/7 = 7; 7 squared=49.
       a 10x50 would be:50/10=5;  5 squared=25.
    
    You can see why the 7x50's work so much better at night; they let in
    double the amount of light to you eye. The 7x35's and the 10x50's are
    identical from a light gathering comparision; It then becomes one of 
    magnification and field of view preference.
    
    Hope this helps someone out there.....
    
    Robert

    re: .09
    
    Recently, I purchased a pair of Swift Dolphins, 7x50 and not sealed.
    The 'salesman', who was really the optical tech at the store, said to
    be sure to keep the glasses in a bag with a silicate moisture absorber
    pad when storing, try to keep temperature changes minimized when
    storing long-term, and absolutely do not keep them in the car trunk (CO
    and moisture make crazy on the prism coatings). 

    As a general purchasing recommendation, quality control is lower on
    lower priced glasses, so check the alignment on the actual pair of
    glasses you intend to walk out of the store with.  An optical bench
    test is fast and accurate if you can get it! It took me two years to
    "replace" a pair of badly aligned Jasons my loving wife gave me for a
    Christmas present...she had bought them at a "closeout" warehouse
    (guess why!). To have them repaired would have cost more than the
    purchase price. 
    
    FYI, this was at the Seattle "Captain's" at Fisherman's Terminal.

Re:	.11

>    So a 7x35 would be: 35/7 = 5; 5 squared=25.
>       a 7x50 would be: 50/7 = 7; 7 squared=49.
>       a 10x50 would be:50/10=5;  5 squared=25.

Light gathering capability is a critical factor in any considered 
purchase.  When shopping I would strongly suggest taking a look at 8x56's.
They offer as much from a light gathering perspective in addition to more 
magnification.

I have a pair of 8x56 Swarovski's and love them.

Carl    

    Re: -.1
    Swarovski's are my favorites by far!  They have thumb grips molded in
    and are smaller than Steiners or Fujinons.  Quality is superb, but you
    do pay for it.  Marine glasses are roughly $800.  They are coming out
    with digital compass and range finder glasses using a technology that
    is supposed to be better than either Steiner or Fujinon.  Hood
    sailmakers have entered into a marketing agreement with Swarovski
    and will be selling their top end marine glasses.
    
    Dave
    

RE:.13 by SSGVAX::REDFIELD

> Light gathering capability is a critical factor in any considered 
> purchase.  

I've used a pair of WWII surplus ~2x60's.  Wonderful at night,  as they allow
you to see in starlight like it was almost daylight.  The two times is also
a feature,  as you have a very wide view.  They were RAF issue,  I guess for 
night flying or aircraft spotting.  Not for daylight use.  I'd like to own a 
pair,  has anyone seen a pair like this for sale anywhere?


Phil

RE: Note 335.1   by: PULSAR::BERENS 
    
>> Forget about built-in rangefinders or compasses. 
    
   I've been eyeballing the Tasco #322BCW 7X50 waterproof marine binoculars
    for a year now...I'm waiting for the Bayside Boatshow to make my
    purchase. They're priced around $225. nitrogen purged to prevent
    internal fogging, coated lens, and come with carrying case etc.
    
    These binoculars have the built in compass which I thought would be
    great as an aid in obtaining bearings. A would expect a hand bearing
    compass for this same use would be less accurate.

    Any comments about not opting for the built in compass?
    
    /MArk
    

re -.1:

Warning: Heresy follows.

Almost everyone uses electronics for navigation these days (even me). 
All that piloting nonsense you've struggled to learn you'll never use, 
unless, of course, your electronics fail. We have a good handbearing 
compass which I've probably used for navigation once in the last five 
years. I've used it occasionally to check for anchor dragging. Thus I 
wouldn't spend extra money for binoculars with a built-in compass. I 
would spend extra money for better optics (image sharpness and light 
transmission -- Fujinons are hard to beat). 

The usefulness of a built-in compass would depend greatly on how 
well-damped the compass is -- in a lumpy sea holding binoculars steady 
enough to get a good compass reading might be difficult. Getting a good 
reading with a normal handbearing compass is hard enough. 

Now it is time for someone with experience with binoculars with an 
internal compass to comment. I've used such binoculars only briefly. 

re: .17  by Alan 
    
> Almost everyone uses electronics for navigation these days (even me). 
    Agree. Peel the numbers off the loran and mark the chart. I have
    yet to take 2 bearings to establish a fix. 
    
I received the new Boat U.S. Marine Catalog yesterday. The Tasco #322BCW
with build in compass were $56. more than the same Tasco binoculars w/o the
compass. I also spotted an ad in the new Goldberg catalog which showed
the view through the binoculars. The compass heading was viewed at the bottom
and the range scale smack dab in the field of view (obviously). If one
rarely uses the range finder....you might get tired of its presents
every time you use the binoculars.

What model# of Fujinon Marine binoculars do you own Alan?
    
/MArk

    
    ok, I admit it, I own a pair of the TASCO's that you mention.  On
    the whole I've been pleased with them, but there are a few things
    which deserve mention:
    
       o  The compass is not as well damped as you'd like on a small
    	  boat, but it is adequate for confirming your estimated
    	  position as determined by other means.
    
       o  I like using the vertical reticle for estimating distance
          to an object, but I've found it very difficult to get an
    	  accurate reading when there's more than about 2' waves, which
    	  is almost always.
    
       o  The finish on the case is annoyingly cheap; it can be scratched
          by a strong fingernail.  Not that it matters, it's just
          disappointing that TASCO didn't care enough to build more
          quality into it.
    
    From what I've seen looking through catalogs, the light admitting
    properties are quite good for the price.  If you're not price
    sensitive, higher quality binoculars can be found elsewhere.
    
    If the compass is used in conjunction with a depthsounder and the
    appropriate chart, I've found that I can usually get a fix which
    is adequate for my purposes.  Consider the number of ways that
    you can double/triple/... check your estimated position:
    
    	-  bearing and height of a known object 
        -  horizontal angle of an object, e.g. an island or building
        -  depthsounder plus bearing on an object
        -  lop from two or three known objects
        -  two lop's plus heading and distance run with knotlog
    
    If in addition to this you use a LORAN to estimate your position,
    your crew will likely mutiny and throw you overboard for obsessive
    behavior long before you collide with a rock!
    
    Finally, I think that the internal compass is just plain fun to
    use, even if it is not absolutely necessary.  I wouldn't worry
    excessively about damping unless it was my primary means of
    navigation.
    
      /Jim
    

    re .17
    
    Everyone uses electronics for navigation?
    
    My experience is that electronics will fail when you need them most. 
    Usually this is when you are close to the rocks.  I can recount some
    specific horror stories.  
    
    Additionally, I find that one of the most difficult things to teach new
    sailing students and new racing skippers is to get their eyes out of
    the boat (or their navels).  Learning to pilot, and pilot well, does
    more than almost anything to increase the safety and performance of a
    vessel and the (deserved) self confidence of her crew.  Staring at a
    bunch of blinking lights and digital displays does little to enhance an
    understanding of where you are in reference to the planet Earth and
    pieces thereof.  Maybe there are folks who enjoy sailing as a kind of
    theoretical mathematics.  I am not one of them, though with regard to
    celestial, I can understand the fascination.  Piloting with compass,
    chart, dividers, straightedge, sextent and binoculars (mine are Fujinon
    A+!) is aesthetically pleasing and can save your butt!

    I have done a fair amount of short and medium length races, oftne doing
    the nav work.  I have one primary rule NEVER NEVER NEVER rely on the
    electronics.  We always did normal non-electronic piloting.  The
    elctronics were great for VERY VERY VERY accurate information for
    racing when we new they were working correctly.  We new they were
    working because we validated the position with non-electronic piloting
    and then trusted the electonics for accurate positioning.