upgrading binoculars to higher magnification? (2 Viewers)

[Vespobuteo]

I like my zeiss 7x42 FL very much, good resolution and always a steady view,
but, lately, I have been thinking of getting a 8x or maybe 10x, or even a 12x..

Your thoughts on going from 7x to 10x bins? Pros and cons?

the candidates so far, are:

Zeiss conquest HD (not tested yet, good price, large view of field)

Swarovski EL Swarovision (90% transmission, good eye relief, good color rendering, high price)

Swarovski SLC (not tested yet, 91% transmission)

Nikon EDG (reasonable bright and good color rendering, nice focus feel, good eye relief)

Zeiss HT (bright, 95% transmission, eye relief 16mm a bit short for me?)

Leica Ultravid HD (not tested yet, eye relief?, compact and sleek design)

important for me is viewing comfort, (good eye relief and apparent field of view and also low light capacity),

 

[Troubador]

I like my zeiss 7x42 FL very much, good resolution and always a steady view,
but, lately, I have been thinking of getting a 8x or maybe 10x, or even a 12x..

Your thoughts on going from 7x to 10x bins? Pros and cons?

the candidates so far, are:

Zeiss conquest HD (not tested, good price, large view of field)

Swarovski Swarovision (90%, transmission, good eye relief, good color rendering, high price)

Swarovski SLC (not tested, 91% transmission)

Hej Vespo

Nikon EDG (reasonable bright and good color rendering, nice focus feel, good eye relief)

Zeiss HT (bright 95%? transmission, eye relief a bit short for me)

Leica Ultravid HD (not tested, eye relief?)

important for me is viewing comfort, (good eye relief and apparent field of view and also low light capacity),

Welcome to BF.

I moved from an FL 8x42 to HT 8x42 and am absolutely stunned by the improvement in both optical performance and handling. It really is a significant step forward.

Don't be put off by the 16mm eye relief of HT. The ER measurement is only a guide: it doesn't tell you anything about whether the eyecup puts your eye in the right place in relation to the ER. The FL 7x42 had 16mm ER and so does HT 8x42 but you still need to try it out to make sure it suits you.

I used to use 10x40s some years ago but holding those steady was tricky and if you go out birding in windy conditions a 10x is terrible. I have found 8x a really good compromise.

Moving from 7x to 8x you will notice some loss of depth of field and you will have to refocus a little more often because of this. Move to 10x and you will be re-focusing all of the time as the depth of field is so much more restricted.

All things being considered, since you are accustomed to a 7x I think you could easily get used to an 8x but 10x would be a shock.

BTW your BF name suggests a combination of wasp and Buzzard, is this what was intended?

Hej

Lee

 

[typo]

Hi,

I like the combination of my 7x36 with either a 10x56 for low light or a 12x50 for distance. Unfortunately I've not found a 12x roof I'd be happy with for one reason or another so it's currently a porro.

Much as I like the EDG as a 7x I think any advantage of a field flattener in a 10x is mostly lost and while all were very acceptable, optically I thought the HT and the SLC were the top of that list for sharpness and contrast, and in the time I was trying them, inseparable (though I mostly looked at the 8x). Apart from the annoying focus grittiness on the SLCs, I think it would take me a long time to figure out which of those two deserved my money (if I had any). Actually, if weight wasn't an issue I think I might put the Kowa in the race as well.

David

 

[Vespobuteo]

Welcome to BF.


All things being considered, since you are accustomed to a 7x I think you could easily get used to an 8x but 10x would be a shock.

BTW your BF name suggests a combination of wasp and Buzzard, is this what was intended?

Hej

Lee

Hej Lee!


thanks for your thoughts,
the HT:s will be tested more carefully,
I have just looked through them briefly, very bright indeed,

I guess apparent field of view also is a factor to consider,
so probably the 8x would be better with glasses than the 10x?

I wonder how the exit pupil affects stability,
would a 10x50 be more stable than a 10x42, and a 10x32 would then be even less stable? The actual weight plays a role to of course,

How much shallower depth of field has a 10x42 compared to a 7x42?

PS.

"Vespobuteo" is actually Honey Buzzard in Esperanto,

 

[Vespobuteo]

Hi,

I like the combination of my 7x36 with either a 10x56 for low light or a 12x50 for distance. Unfortunately I've not found a 12x roof I'd be happy with for one reason or another so it's currently a porro.

Much as I like the EDG as a 7x I think any advantage of a field flattener in a 10x is mostly lost and while all were very acceptable, optically I thought the HT and the SLC were the top of that list for sharpness and contrast, and in the time I was trying them, inseparable (though I mostly looked at the 8x). Apart from the annoying focus grittiness on the SLCs, I think it would take me a long time to figure out which of those two deserved my money (if I had any). Actually, if weight wasn't an issue I think I might put the Kowa in the race as well.

David

Hi David,

the new SLC looks promising,
interesting that they have higher transmission than the EL SV:s,
could it be that they miss the extra field flattener lenses?

Cons with the SLC i think is the close focus, 3,2 m for the 8x,
since I'm used to 1,5 m in the FL:s, but I guess its not a show stopper,

what do you mean by the "focus grittiness" in the SLC:s?

 

[typo]

Both the 8 and 10x appear to be listed as 3.2m close focus. It's not something I checked at the time but I use my 7x for close work.

There has been a lot of discussion on the forum about the focus on both the EL and SLC. If I understand the technical bit correctly the spring loaded anti-backlash mechanism on the Swarovski's causes a slightly uneven tension when turning the wheel in different directions and in some case a slight shudder which is usually called grittiness here. It doesn't affect all samples and not everyone considers it a problem (particularly Swarovski).

David

 

[Troubador]

Hej Lee!


thanks for your thoughts,
the HT:s will be tested more carefully,
I have just looked through them briefly, very bright indeed,

I guess apparent field of view also is a factor to consider,
so probably the 8x would be better with glasses than the 10x?

I wonder how the exit pupil affects stability,
would a 10x50 be more stable than a 10x42, and a 10x32 would then be even less stable? The actual weight plays a role to of course,

How much shallower depth of field has a 10x42 compared to a 7x42?

PS.

"Vespobuteo" is actually Honey Buzzard in Esperanto,

Hej Honeybuzz

When I used to have a 10x40 and my wife had an 8x40 and we were standing side by side on ferry boats traveling out to the western isles of Scotland (we do that a lot) I was having to refocus on almost every sea bird while my wife only did that when a bird came close. If this is true of 10x vs 8x it will be more true of 10 compared with 7.

Your question about the size of the exit pupil is interesting. It is true that with smaller exit pupils it is more difficult (especially wearing glasses) to always keep the binoculars in perfect alignment with your eyes. But generally speaking most of the time your hands don't wobble so much that the bins move from your eyes. However every little shake and shiver in your arms and hands, caused by holding the weight of the bins (although some people find higher weights a stabilising feature for a short time until fatigue sets in) and by the wind vibrating your arms, or even vibrations through the deck of a ferry boat, will all be magnified by the same magnification of your bins. So 10x is worse than 8x.

Apparent field of view is a tricky question. Take the Zeiss HT. The AFOV for the 8x is 62deg and for the 10x is 63deg. This sounds almost the same but actually the FOV for the 8x is 136m @ 1km and for the 10x is 110m @ 1km and you can see the difference. The confusing bit is that the 10x apparently places you so much closer to the 1km distance that the 110m wide FOV appears wider as the angle to each extremity appears wider.

Best stick to real or objective FOV measurements like the m @ 1km or the 7.8 deg real FOV of the 8x or 6.3 deg for the 10x.

Lee

 

[typo]

How much shallower depth of field has a 10x42 compared to a 7x42?

In theory, the DOF of a 10x is about half that of a 7x. In practice a number of other factors come into play. Some, like myself, think that a curved field of view gives the impression of greater depth with binocular vision (perceived DOF). Due to changes in eye pupil diameter the apparent DOF is better in bright conditions than in poor light. Of course visual accommodation decreases with age and with it apparent DOF. Holger has written about this in more detail.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2739070&postcount=22

For me at least, weight and balance makes quite a big difference to the stability of the view at higher powers. That 12x of mine is steadier than many 8x I've tried. Trying different binos is the only method I know of finding out what works.

David

 

[John Dracon]

Several variables enter into your decision. For example, your age, normal use, quality of your current binocular, etc. Your Zeiss Fl 7x42 (the quality of which is is indisputable) has a wider field and a larger exit pupil, greater depth of field, all important. Yes, either the 8 or the 10 power can resolve more detail - from a dead rest. But a 7 power can resolve plenty of detail and is more versatile overall. You are not handicapped with your 7x42.

John

 

[Troubador]

Several variables enter into your decision. For example, your age, normal use, quality of your current binocular, etc. Your Zeiss Fl 7x42 (the quality of which is is indisputable) has a wider field and a larger exit pupil, greater depth of field, all important. Yes, either the 8 or the 10 power can resolve more detail - from a dead rest. But a 7 power can resolve plenty of detail and is more versatile overall. You are not handicapped with your 7x42.

John

HoneyBuzz

John makes a valuable point, your FL is a top pair of bins and not outdated in the least. In addition 7x bins are being made by fewer top brands these days. Zeiss is not going to do an HT in 7x and Swaro doesn't do one, so that leaves Leica and Nikon in the big names.

Whatever you decide to do I would think long and hard before parting with your FL 7x.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

Several variables enter into your decision. For example, your age, normal use, quality of your current binocular, etc. Your Zeiss Fl 7x42 (the quality of which is is indisputable) has a wider field and a larger exit pupil, greater depth of field, all important. Yes, either the 8 or the 10 power can resolve more detail - from a dead rest. But a 7 power can resolve plenty of detail and is more versatile overall. You are not handicapped with your 7x42.

John

hi john,

you are definitely right, image stability is a key factor to resolution and viewing comfort, and several other parameters,

I do birding in both forests and in low coastal areas, in the forest the 7x is quite fine, but by the coast, its another story, but i don't know if 10x will make much difference there, maybe a 12x would.

 

[Vespobuteo]

HoneyBuzz

John makes a valuable point, your FL is a top pair of bins and not outdated in the least. In addition 7x bins are being made by fewer top brands these days. Zeiss is not going to do an HT in 7x and Swaro doesn't do one, so that leaves Leica and Nikon in the big names.

Whatever you decide to do I would think long and hard before parting with your FL 7x.

Lee

7x-bino-birders are pretty rare I believe,
my guess is that 10x binos are the most common?

 

[Binastro]

. Maybe an image stabilised 10 times or 12 times binocular would be suitable.
Such as the Canon 12×36 or 10×42L.

 

[Torview]

I`v been day off work today so spent the day birding, I took a 7x42 and 8x32 along, I`v been using the 7 exclusively of late and have become so engrossed in the view I`m finding even the 8 too much now.

The 8 has the better quality optics but the 7 offers me more of what I like.

How about a compact scope to compliment your 7xFl ?

 

[Vespobuteo]

In theory, the DOF of a 10x is about half that of a 7x. In practice a number of other factors come into play. Some, like myself, think that a curved field of view gives the impression of greater depth with binocular vision (perceived DOF). Due to changes in eye pupil diameter the apparent DOF is better in bright conditions than in poor light. Of course visual accommodation decreases with age and with it apparent DOF. Holger has written about this in more detail.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2739070&postcount=22

For me at least, weight and balance makes quite a big difference to the stability of the view at higher powers. That 12x of mine is steadier than many 8x I've tried. Trying different binos is the only method I know of finding out what works.

David

the DOF issue I was not aware of,
I will look into holgers article,

I think you are right about balance and weight,
its very important,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9M_6oH_2M
don't know what they got payed or have been drinking, but anyway…
a pair of 12x50 are very tempting,

 

[Vespobuteo]

I`v been day off work today so spent the day birding, I took a 7x42 and 8x32 along, I`v been using the 7 exclusively of late and have become so engrossed in the view I`m finding even the 8 too much now.

The 8 has the better quality optics but the 7 offers me more of what I like.

How about a compact scope to compliment your 7xFl ?

hi Torview,

I actually bought a small scope (nikon ED50) in august, along with a 20x eyepiece, I have used it with a small tripod and a small ball head,
The ED50 is very sharp and contrasty, the view is nothing but excellent, no doubt about that, but its a total of 2 kg extra weight, when hiking/biking thats a lot of weight/difficult, when birding with binos only, I feel more free,
Especially if birding is not the main activity for the day,

 

[typo]

Have you thought of an eyepiece doubler and a monopod? I think the Zeiss one is 3x but others are 2x or 2.5x. Members here or your retailer might know if they would fit the FL.

David

 

[Vespobuteo]

. Maybe an image stabilised 10 times or 12 times binocular would be suitable.
Such as the Canon 12×36 or 10×42L.

hi Binastro,

no doubt that VR/IS is a nice feature,
if optical quality is good and weight is acceptable,
the CANON 10X42 L IS WP seems to be a serious optical
instrument, not as sleek as a pair of leica:s though


have been thinking about having some kind of
monopod, or waist pod, there are some for DV-cams,

Like the "finnish stick":

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xCJpa9Nt52Q/UGqR-f-cBXI/AAAAAAAANLc/z4x4eIMuGaU/s1600/113.jpg

 

[Binastro]

. Probably give me a tummy ache. But interesting photo, thanks Vespobuteo.
Think I will stick with my Canon image stabilised binoculars.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Have you thought of an eyepiece doubler and a monopod? I think the Zeiss one is 3x but others are 2x or 2.5x. Members here or your retailer might know if they would fit the FL.

David

I tried the zeiss booster (3x) a couple of years ago,
borrowed it over the weekend from my local store,
I was not happy with it, poor eye relief,