View Full Version : Lightweight monocular
I found a decent lightweight 7x18 monocular on ebay: http://tinyurl.com/2athv3
It's intended for golfing, and there's a height/distance scale that's superimposed on the view. It's a little bit of a distraction. The optics are certainly acceptable, but they aren't as good as a unit costing hundreds of dollars and weighing several pounds wound be (for example, they don't compare to a Televue Pronto telescope.) It's just a little wee monocular, after all.
The unit weighs 2.4 oz. with the lanyard and case, and 1.9 oz without the case.
They shipped promptly via priority mail.
I've no connection to the seller other than as a customer.
This unit meets my need for a small, lightweight scope.
Are you telling us you bought this or, are you asking whether we think this is a good idea?
Footslogger
05-06-2007, 15:55
I bought one of these once several years ago. Learned that it takes a REALLY steady hand to use them with any degree of satisfaction. Field of view is fairly limited and once you do "lock-in" on an object of interest it's a challenge to keep it in the viewer.
Given a choice, I'd opt for a pair of tiny, lightweight binoculars.
Just my $ .02
'Slogger
Same here. Monocular are a lot more difficult to use than binos, for example apart from keeping it locked on the subject it's a lot harder to find it in the first place. Hence my lightweight Zeiss 8x20 sits on the shelf and my Leica 8x20 come with me. At the same time particularly for younger people it could be a good lightweight solution. As usual I recommend to try it out before buying.
Franco
"Are you telling us you bought this or, are you asking whether we think this is a good idea?"
Oh, I already bought the thing. Going to carry it with me, too. I've been using monoculars for years.
And yes, it does take a steady hand.
For me, binoculars are a waste - one eye isn't as good as the other, so I can't justify carrying the binos.
atraildreamer
05-06-2007, 21:27
My brother found one at a yard sale for 50 cents. It's ok, but not worth spending a lot of money on one.
"Are you telling us you bought this or, are you asking whether we think this is a good idea?"
Oh, I already bought the thing. Going to carry it with me, too. I've been using monoculars for years.
And yes, it does take a steady hand.
For me, binoculars are a waste - one eye isn't as good as the other, so I can't justify carrying the binos.
I've made an attachment for my monocular using a nipple from a baby bottle.
Cut the nipple to fit the eye end of the mono. It sure does a great job holding steady against your eye socket and eases the hand muscles that holds the monoc.
Here is a photo (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/obijiwa/cozynipple001.jpg), its the little yellow thing in the center
I like Zeiss optics and have one monocular and a few of their binoculars. Their six-power monocular isn’t all that difficult to hold steady. Rest as much of your hand as you can - which is not needed to hold the monocular - against your face. Your other hand can be used to help steady the monocular, block out stray sunlight, and mask visual information from reaching the other open eye. I use a monocular to watch things which I only encounter incidentally when hiking.
Mini eight-power binoculars, held two-handed, aren’t difficult to hold steady, either - again, bracing your hands against your face. I take binoculars with me when watching animal behavior was a major motivation to take that hike. If I lose or break my binoculars, they will take much longer to replace - they're much more expensive - than the monocular.
If you see something you wish to enlarge, large-power magnification works well.
When generally looking over an area, less powerful optics won’t show your arm and hand shake as much. Since less powerful optics are usually lighter weight, you also won’t tire as quickly; you won't shake as much.
Poor optics make objects larger; a small unrecognizable blob becomes a larger only slightly more recognizable blob.
Good optics bring you closer to the object - the object is clearer, making it much more recognizable. You also will see many more objects, with good optics, than you will with poor optics.
Brunton Echo Pocket Scope (monocular) is 7x18 and only weights 1.8oz. It has better optics(Bak-4) then most. You can easily hold it steady if you are careful. I originally got it to help find my way through snow covered passes in the Sierras which it does well and I just like playing around with it. I'm just too much a gram wienie to carry the extra weight of binoculars.
I also have a Zeus 10x25 monocular that is harder to use and weights more. The higher zoom ones are harder to hold steady. The optics isn't as good as my brunton, though it is still good. I just don't find much of a need for a 10x power scope while hiking.
SuperTroll
05-09-2007, 17:17
Lightweight Optics....Try these......
http://www.brasscompass.com/survivalbinocs.htm
Um, the reason I posted the note that this is available in the first place is because it's good quality, it's relatively inexpensive, and it's definitely lightweight.
If those are attributes that appeal, then there it is.
It's made by Meade, by the way, certainly one of the decent optics companies.
Hard to argue with the price. However the only part that is "Meade" on that is the name on the packaging. Like most low end units, it is a generic Chinese product. Give me an order for 500 and you can have your name on that same unit.
Franco