Difference between 7x and 8x? (1 Viewer)

Thinking (dreaming) about the Bushnell Custom 7x26, but 7x might be to little magnifycation.
Has anyone compared these 7x´s with other 8x´s for example? How big is the difference. I even read once that roofs showed a comparable bigger image at the same mag. compared to a porro. Or maybe it was the other way round..

I believe the Elite version must be better(?) it has a 60 layer multicoating, but it can only be bought in the USA, so if the 7x isn´t too much of an issue, the old Bushnell custom 7x26 it will have to be.

Thanks a lot
Carsten

keithdrengen said:

Thinking (dreaming) about the Bushnell Custom 7x26, but 7x might be to little magnifycation.
Has anyone compared these 7x´s with other 8x´s for example? How big is the difference. I even read once that roofs showed a comparable bigger image at the same mag. compared to a porro. Or maybe it was the other way round..

I believe the Elite version must be better(?) it has a 60 layer multicoating, but it can only be bought in the USA, so if the 7x isn´t too much of an issue, the old Bushnell custom 7x26 it will have to be.

Thanks a lot
Carsten

Click to expand...

I've never found 7x vs 8x to be a meaningful difference, but the advantage of the 7x in a compact is that you end up with a bigger exit pupil which makes eye placement easier. Pocket roofs don't have an apparently larger image than reverse-porro compacts like the 7x26--in fact, the opposite is the case because in this instance the objectives of the porro are closer together than the roof (in full-sized binos the effect is the opposite because the porro objectives are farther apart than those of a roof).

I have two previous incarnations of the Bushnell 7x26, and I like both a lot, but I must say that I end up using my Leica 8x20 Ultravid much more these days. The Leica is more compact and has better contrast (especially resists flare better). The latest version of the Zeiss 8x20 Victory is just as good and is much cheaper than the Leica. I consider the 7x26 to be on the pricey side ($300) because I don't think it is substantially better than many $125 reverse-porro compacts.

--AP

I have a Custom 7x26 and believe me it is not too little magnification. If you were handed an unmarked sample, I doubt 7x would be your guess if you were not already familiar with it. That binocular actually changed my opinion on 8x being the best for all around use. I now prefer 7x. The Custom will resolve detail better at distance than my 8x42 Nikon Monarch. The reason I have switched to 7x is that 6-7x glasses handle mirage far better than 10x and better than 8x. There is often a lot of mirage when I am using binoculars so this makes a difference to me. My all around use glassesnow are a 6.5x32 Fury and 7x36 Swift Eaglet. I take the Custom when I need small and use a 10x Viper in combination with one of the other three as conditions warrant. I really do not notice much size difference in the image between 7x and 8x untill 3-4 km or so. Usually at that distance the 10x really will assert itself if conditions warrant.

The only real downside to the Custom is that it is too large for a shirt pocket (works ok in a jacket or vest, or cargo pocket) and it is too small to hold comfortably for long periods.

Thanks..
Alexis Powell, how pronounced is the flare in those Bushnells?
And what 125 Dollar reverse porros would be somewhat in the same class?

Steve C,
What is Mirage?
Other than detail, how does it compare to the Monarch?

Thanks again.
Carsten J.

keithdrengen said:

What is Mirage?

Click to expand...

Go outside on a hot day and look down a long stretch of straight road. You will see that, in the distance, the road, the ground, any foliage, etc. appear to be fluid and "shimmering." This is mirage. It is caused by atmospheric instabilities and is the same thing that causes people in hot deserts to think they are seeing water in the distance.

Mirage is present pretty much all the time, though its effects are greatly reduced when the weather turns colder. Because of mirage, using optics with magnificatons greater than around 25-30x becomes a largely "iffy" prospect during most daytime hours and even in mid-powered optics of 10-15x mirage can prove problematic on really warm days.

When atmospheric conditions are perfect, high magnifications can be used with great succes. When they are not (which really, is most of the time), high magnifications are largely useless - no matter the quality of the optic in question.

Lucznik has defined mirage it as well as it can be. When it exists, the whole FOV acts like it is moving and the effect is sort of like vertigo. Magnification increases the effect of mirage as well as everything else, so when it is bad it can destroy the usefulness of any optic over 8x.

I guess my Custom is best described, as compared to my Monarch as having a brighter, sharper image with less eyestrain than the Monarch. The big downside to the Custom while it has all day long, all around use sort of optics, its ergonomics are not suited for that. If I use it for very long my hands get a feeling akin to "writers cramp". It is also a little large for anything but a vest, jacket, or cargo pocket. WIth the reverse porro design, the binocular is sort of "humped up in the middle" at the hinge. I have not looked ay another small compact roof that has caught my attention at all, so I have really stopped looking at others.

The decent, small ,phase coated, compact roofs would be better binoculars if they were available in 6-7x. The more magnification one asks from a small package, the worse the image generally gets.

keithdrengen said:

Alexis Powell, how pronounced is the flare in those Bushnells? And what 125 Dollar reverse porros would be somewhat in the same class?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that flare is a big problem--they're better than many inexpensive binoculars, but I find that there are times when looking against the light that they do not perform to my satisfaction (i.e. I feel handicapped by my use of the 7x26 rather than one of my premium 8x32 or 8x42 binoculars), whereas the Leica 8x20 Ultravid (and my newest version Zeiss 8x20 Victory) always seem to deliver (so I carry them with the confidence that they'll let me see whatever I can reasonably expect a binocular to allow we to see). On the other hand, if image brightness in a very compact binocular is important, you'll find the 7x26 much superior to the 8x20 models, and better than its 8x25 competitors. It also has a wider FOV than most other reverse porros.

All in all, it isn't image quality that keeps me from using the 7x26 these days, so if you have the money and you like their specs, by all means get them in confidence. For me, the packed size of the 7x26 is too close to that of my Leica 8x32 (which I much prefer in all respects) so I pack the latter into the same space (it is much heavier, but weight is less of an issue for me). If I really want a compact binocular, the leather version Leica 8x20 is about half the packed size of the 7x26 and I prefer its optics and ergonomics overall.

As for other reverse porros, I really haven't spent much time looking at these in recent years because I haven't much use for them anymore (except the Pentax 6.5x21 Papilio), but I've always found the image quality to be quite good at the ~$100 price point (wish the FOV were wider though). I guess I'd take a look at the 8x25 models from Nikon (Prostaff) and Pentax (UCF) to start. For me, the benefit of these binoculars is the quality/price they deliver. The 7x26 has been expensive as of late (often $300+), putting it too close to the price of the Zeiss 8x20 Victory (until recently, ~$420) which I like better. I note however that the Zeiss has increased in price and that Eagle Optics has the new 7x26 for $240 and it is even less at B&H). I haven't seen the 7x26 at that price in a long time, so I suspect they must have moved production of this latest version to China from Japan in order to make it more cost competitive.

--AP

AP,
thanks for that thorough answer.
Thanks for the Mirage - answer as well, fata morgana thing, i get it now.

CJ