JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--

John

Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with NOYB.


I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--

John

Obviously you do as I have been mentioned in every post you have made
today. I have now put you in the Basskisser camp.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--

John

Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with
NOYB.


I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--

John

Ok...looks like you were responding to NOYB directly.......I was fooled
because JimH's post was just before yours.
My apologies.

Harry Krause wrote:
On 1/7/2007 9:58 AM, JimH wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--

John
Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with NOYB.

I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--

John

Obviously you do as I have been mentioned in every post you have made
today. I have now put you in the Basskisser camp.



Just filter Herring out and forget about him. He's never had anything to
offer here. Lousy fisherman, lousy golfer, ****-poor teacher and
professional right-wing whiner. Who needs offal like that?

Done.

Great advice!

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:11:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/7/2007 9:58 AM, JimH wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--

John
Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with NOYB.

I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--

John

Obviously you do as I have been mentioned in every post you have made
today. I have now put you in the Basskisser camp.



Just filter Herring out and forget about him. He's never had anything to
offer here. Lousy fisherman, lousy golfer, ****-poor teacher and
professional right-wing whiner. Who needs offal like that?

Thanks again, Harry. It is so damn cool to be called names by one as neat
as you!

I see you and your bud, Jimmy, are having a great morning. That's
spectacular.
--

John

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:14:15 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:44:34 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:18:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Amen! I see no reason to scrimp if you can afford the good stuff. Of
course, you'll catch some heat for having something worthwhile. But,
jealously has reared its ugly head with you many times anyway!
--

John

Ease up John. It's Sunday after all. Maybe JimH was just joking with
NOYB.


I have no idea what JimH said about anything. What's more, I don't give a
rat's ass.
--

John

Ok...looks like you were responding to NOYB directly.......I was fooled
because JimH's post was just before yours.
My apologies.


Yes, you were fooled, as was I. I had no idea Jimmy had made a post. I hope
his joke was funny and heartwarming.
--

John

Harry Krause wrote:

Don't use binocs much. The area where I mostly boat is pretty forgiving,
coast-wise, there aren't many obstructions to espy, and no real inlets
to run. Even when I lived in Florida, I rarely used binocs to help with
navigation or safety, though I usually took a look at some of the
hairier inlets I had to run when returning from the ocean to port, to
see what the sea conditions were.

The Finnish waters are a bit different, unlike most (?) boating
locations in the world - at least different from most US conditions.
The coastline is not clean - instead there's lots of beautiful little
islands, either with woods or rocks. The downside is that the rocks can
be found below water too, though many of them are marked - or rather,
the navigable water without rocks is often marked The inland waters
are the same and Finnish waters as a whole are notoriously
treacherous...

So much for advertising But that might result in some differences in
the need for binoculars, a small boat can get by fine without them in
good conditions, but I suppose serious boaters have at least one set in
the boat. Besides navigational aids you can use them to observe boats,
ships, islands and other such objects that come plenty in our waters.

Risto

Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

I can't image why the typical boater would really need something beyond
this medium price range. I'd get some good quality, genuine marine
binoculars and not worry about stepping up to the diamond studded
stuff.

Binoculars are mostly needed in bad visibility conditions - in moist
weather (with risk of fogging for binoculars) or at night/twilight.
They aid in safe navigation as one wouldn't be able to pick up all
navigation buyos in those conditions. I figure eventually I might be
boating a lot during night or in rainy conditions, too.

Very good optics mean you will enjoy using the binocs more, and so you
will end up with more and better hours with the binocs, so you get more
from your investment. The Steiners are said to have optics that make
the $500 difference in price seem small, a really worthwhile investment
for a regular boater.

If the nitrogen leaks out, the binoculars won't really be so useful any
more. If you drop the cheaper binoculars and they break, you have just
wasted $200. This consideration really makes the markup seem less.

But well, maybe you can get these features with the $200 Fujinons? This
is the original question of this thread :-) And if you invest well the
$500 saved you could get any semi-reasonably priced binoculars in a few
years...


The Steiner Commnder V and the Fujinon's have the following things in
common:

Both are are 7 power magnification with a 50mm diameter objective lens.
Both will magnify the image the same amount, and should gather about
the same amount of light. Both use
barium crown glass "porro" prisms.

A major difference between the two is the field of view at 1000 yards.
The Commander V has a 385' field of view, and the Fujinon's have a 125'
field of view. While the objective diameters are the same, obviously
the Fujinon's have a longer focal length. You would have to "scan" a
little more to pick up a nav light, etc, with the Fujinons- but when
you find it the image will fill a larger section of the lens.

Another major difference is the warranty. 30 years limited warranty on
the Steiners, 5 years parts/labor on the Fujinon products.

How important, to you, is the bearing compass? If you have a hand held
bearing compass available, and don't need the bearing down to the
gnat's tush (or if your electronics are functioning), you "could get
by" without the bearing compass in the binocs.
If distance off of a mark is an important consideration for you, you
are most likely going to be inolved in coastal navigation. I'd
definitely prioritize the compasss over the range finder. Unless you're
taking a running fix, it's probably faster to
shoot a couple of bearings (three if possible) than it is to screw
around looking up or guessing the height of something that doesn't have
a height noted on the chart, and then trying to line up the circular
slide rules on the outside of the case- particularly in the dark.

I use the bearing compass, but not the range finder, on mine.

If you don't absolutely need a built in bearing compass, consider the
West Marine model
267755 binocs. If Steiner optics are important to you; these are built
by Steiner. They are $299.99 US without a bearing compass, and about
$500 with.

On 7 Jan 2007 07:31:46 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

I suppose serious boaters have at least one set in
the boat. Besides navigational aids you can use them to observe boats,
ships, islands and other such objects that come plenty in our waters.

I think they are essential for boating at night. A good pair of 7 x
50s has excellent light gathering power and can make all the
difference when trying to find navigational aids or identify an
unknown set of lights. In many cases the running lights of large
ships can be difficult to interpret with just your eyes, but a quick
look through the binocs will reveal the outline of the hull and make
everything clear.

On 7 Jan 2007 08:11:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

Both are are 7 power magnification with a 50mm diameter objective lens.
Both will magnify the image the same amount, and should gather about
the same amount of light.

I'm told, but have no direct personal knowledge, that lens coatings
have a great deal to with effective light gathering power. Supposedly
the German U-boat commanders at the beginning of WW II had 7 x 50
binocs and periscopes with superior coatings that gave them a huge
advantage at night.

from Hans Seeger, Militaerische Fernglaeser und Fernrohre
[page 331]
===
In 1935/36, Alexander Smakula (Zeiss, Jena) developed the
lens coating, a reflection reducing coating for optical elements. For
all optics, especially thoise with numerous surfaces, the coating
(also called 'blue coating') is a valuable means to increase the
transparency and therefore the brightness of the image. In marine
optics, the coating was especially useful. U-boat periscope optics
were the first to receive this new coating, along with the Navy field
glasses. In Germany, Navy optics and tank aiming field glasses were
the only items manufactured with coated optics; and other German
military models usually didn't have coating (and when it is there,
that nearly always means it was applied later, and the original
condition is falsified.)
===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocul...tical_coatings

The reason that 7 x 50s in general are superior, is that particular
combination of optics yields an exit beam width equal to the fully
dilated diameter of the pupils in your eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil

Here is a url for an article you might find helpful in selecting marine
binoculars: http://snipurl.com/16x43

After some extensive research, I chose the Bushnell 7x50. $129.85 at
binoculars.com was the best price I found. They're perfect for my use on
my 23' center console.

--
Stan