Low power wisdom

[Pileatus]

"Extracting detail from an 8 power image is even easier, and, in objective tests conducted by Zeiss, birders consistently extracted the most detail (at least on eye charts) from a 7 power image. As noted above, my experience has been that there is no practical difference in the amount of detail you can see in hand held binoculars of equal quality between 7 and 10 power"

Source
http://betterviewdesired.com/BirdW.html

It's a classic article many should read before coming to any conclusions about magnification, objective size, brightness, etc.

John

[Robert Ellis]

That is, in fact, one of my favorite Mr. Ingraham quotes. The other being something to the effect of, if you cant see it in 7x, 10x isn't going to help either, you need a scope.

I think many times we find that the resolution and detail that high end binoculars deliver is much beyond our ability to discern. I do not doubt that there are those who love to see the bird bigger, myself preferring to see with more stability and context.

Personally, when I identify a bird I use shape, behavior, and habitat/time of year as much as or more than wingbars and supercilium stripes.

[Grousemore]

It's a classic article many should read before coming to any conclusions about magnification, objective size, brightness, etc.

John

One man's opinion and one with which I disagree, based on my extensive birding experiences.
I admit to having never looked at resolution/eye charts however.

[Robert Ellis]

One man's opinion and one with which I disagree, based on my extensive birding experiences.
I admit to having never looked at resolution/eye charts however.
It is an opinion I support. Lucky us, opinions are like noses...

About 80% of my lifers were with 7x to 8x, 15% with a scope, and maybe, maybe 5% with 10x or more. My is closing in on 600 species and I am a not yet thirty years old. Plenty of "birding" experience.

To each his own. It serves to show that each is useful to one man or another.

[Katy Penland]

To each his own. It serves to show that each is useful to one man or another.Or woman. ;)

Well, until I get some kind of palsy or tired blood, and having used an 8X until I got my 10X, I'll stick with the latter. Especially for pelagic birding.

[Swedpat]

"Extracting detail from an 8 power image is even easier, and, in objective tests conducted by Zeiss, birders consistently extracted the most detail (at least on eye charts) from a 7 power image. As noted above, my experience has been that there is no practical difference in the amount of detail you can see in hand held binoculars of equal quality between 7 and 10 power"

Source
http://betterviewdesired.com/BirdW.html

It's a classic article many should read before coming to any conclusions about magnification, objective size, brightness, etc.

John


I am not convinced about the validity of this article, but it's a fact that the higher power the less will be our ability to make use of the fully theoretical resolution of binoculars handhold.

Comparing two binoculars of equal quality I always experience a 7x model sharper than a 10x model, and the reason is of course that the hand shakings increase with the higher power. I surely see more details with 10x, but the gain will not be proportional to the magnification.

[Otto McDiesel]

Comparing two binoculars of equal quality I always experience a 7x model sharper than a 10x model, and the reason is of course that the hand shakings increase with the higher power.

I agree to that to some extent. However, when i sit down by the side of a pond, or in the shade of a tree, and rest my elbows on my knees and use the 10x42 Ultravids to watch sandpipers or vireos, there is no binocular that i would rather have.
Just climb on top of Buyuk Camlica above the Bosphorus, find yourself some shade, order a coffee and some crepes from the nearby cafe, sit as comfortable as you can in the chaise long, and enjoy the flocks of Levant Sparrowhawks and Honey Buzards. Thats when you will truly appreciate the wisdom of a good 10x42. Spend the rest of the day playing backgammon with the old folks in a teahouse, with a feeling of accomplishement.

[Swedpat]

Otto,

Nice description, I don't doubt you are right...
When it comes to binoculars, I think it's like music; different occasions works best with different kinds. Sometimes I appreciate rock music, but other times I prefer to relax with classic music.
Sometimes I want high resolution and want a 10x42 or 10/12x50. Other times I like to have a good overview and real stable image and can enjoy a wide field 7x35, or maybe a 6x32...

[Robert Ellis]

We have reviews that tell us the best binoculars deliver more than twice the resolution our eyes can perceive have we not? I am of the mindset that magnification is more a personal preference than a make or break specification when concerning birding binoculars.

I also use microscopes quite a bit, a 30% change in magnification would be hard to find on such and instrument. Most increments are at least a 400% increase, so that there is noticeable and useful change I suppose. Frankly I would not want binoculars that went from 7x to 28x or even 70x!

[Pinewood]

Perhaps we should acknowledge that no binocular is useful in all applications. I get along very well with an 8x30/32, most of the time, but on a cloudy day I like a bigger objective for looking under the canopy of trees. I was very happy to have a 12x50 on a monopod for an excursion to Jamaica Bay, as I picked out a cattle egret among all the great egrets at a great distance. I would not carry that kind of kit, all the time.

The worst thing is not to have a binocular with you, at all. I got my first glimpse of a boreal owl in Central Park, only because I was carrying an old 8x30 and had it available when I arrived at the Park after a day at work.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

[Mike Penfold]

Unfortunately, Steve Ingraham's article doesn't provide details about resolution testing with magnification as the variable, or the primary source.

Assuming a range in involuntary movement while holding binoculars, and acknowledging the intrinsic differences among binocular magnifications/applications, wouldn't you choose a 7x or 8x if the image in a 10x binocular was degraded by movement to the point where the image was larger, but showed no greater detail?

Ingraham is more convincing when he talks about holding 10x when you're tired.

Mike

[Tero]

4x is not 7x is not 10x.

They all show you a different view. Those 4x's must be really sharp and bright. ;)

[Mike Penfold]

Huh?

Mike

[Robert Ellis]

4x is probably not a useful magnification for birding, whereas 7x is. Don't confuse "low power birding glasses" which would be around 7 or 8x with "low power binoculars" which could be anywhere from 2.5 to 5x and high power binoculars, which depending on application could start around 10x for birding or even more for astronomy.

There is a useful range for birding. 7x is near the low end, but still good for birding. Some may see giving up magnification as a handicap, I see adding stability to be a benefit.

[xenophobe]

9x would be interesting. I've viewed 8x and 7x and found that I prefer 10x better.

[Tero]

Huh?

Mike
I was just trying to extend the ridiculous notion that lower power must always be better. Lots of people are amazed at the brightness and clear image of a good 7x binocular. But you don't ID more birds, it just looks pretty.

[Robert Ellis]

But I do ID more birds than I would with 10x. Whats your point? My point is that both are useful and folks should not be so quick to dismiss the usefulness of a low power birding binocular.

Shall I take the hundreds of birds off my list that were ID'ed with low power binoculars? Shall I explain to them that I could not really see them like I thought I could?

[Tero]

Whatever works for you, buddy. It's a hobby. ;)

[Robert Ellis]

Not for me, this is what I do for a living, call it an obsession even, but much more than a hobby.

It is funny, people here tell me it can't be done, then I tell them I have done it, then they tell me it wasn't important whether it could be done or not.

[iporali]

...folks should not be so quick to dismiss the usefulness of a low power birding binocular.
Or vice versa - Mr. Ingraham, Zeiss engineers etc. can't convince me against using my 10x, when I know that I can see more details with a 10x than 7x.

Best regards,

Ilkka

[Robert Ellis]

I have never been of the camp that dismisses 10x. Because I strongly prefer a lower power it does influnce me to give advice to that end, though I have never made the blanket statement that all birders will see more with low power either, like others above with regards to 10x. We know why I like low power, we know why others like high power, but there seems to be more in the high power camp that will not admit that the other's are just as useful for birding.

[Grousemore]

Seems to me to be solely a matter of opinion; although I can't recall seeing any Threads entitled "High Power Wisdom"...

[Robert Ellis]

Seems to me to be solely a matter of opinion; although I can't recall seeing any Threads entitled "High Power Wisdom"...

Good point, though this is maybe due the the high power bias that is already present? Or if nothing else the lacking interest in 7x in itself?

[Grousemore]

Good point, though this is maybe due the the high power bias that is already present? Or if nothing else the lacking interest in 7x in itself?

I wouldn't have thought so.

I'm sure the majority of birders use 8x, which is the most sold mag, and which is nearer to 7x than 10x.

[Robert Ellis]

Possibly true, though 10x users tend to be the ones who claim they will never use anything less. Such phrasing gives a strong impression to people loooking for advice.

[elkcub]

Or vice versa - Mr. Ingraham, Zeiss engineers etc. can't convince me against using my 10x, when I know that I can see more details with a 10x than 7x.

Best regards,

Ilkka

Ilkka,

I agree with you. Although I admire Steve's writing and enjoy his insights, I never thought this particular statement was one of his great moments. Within the context of the paragraph I'm sure he didn't mean what folks seem to think. Then again, I'm not quite sure what he did mean, and it's perplexing. Note that he's the same guy who innovated the NEED score, which increases linearly with power. And only reluctantly did he finally agree to normalize that so it could be interpreted as a measure of aided visual acuity — which it really is. So, like most of us, he learned and developed over time. Unfortunately, he's also become such an icon there's a tendency to dwell on every word he uttered as if it were etched in stone.

Just call me a heretic. ;)

Elkcub

[Tero]

I actually bird at 7x with a pair of zoom binoculars I have never had much use of as zooms. So the 7x gives me a decent FOV at 25mm. This is a pair that is in my car at all times.

When I go on longer outings, I use 10x, unless it is sunrise or sunset, then I use 7x as it is the brightest.