Best lightweight 8 x 32 & 8 x 42 binoculars in these price ranges? (1 Viewer)

Swedpat · May 8, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
I'm an experienced marksman, and in this case the lighter weight and resulting lower muscle fatigue will aid steadiness much more than weight will. Reducing recoil with weight and weight distribution is another matter entirely.

What I mean is that while binocular image stability and recoil are different things the mass inertia is affecting in both cases. For example there is a reason that air rifles for competition target shooting are pretty heavy weight compared to hobby rifles. Mainly to reduce the micro vibrations caused by the body, I understand.
I have practised archery and understand that there is a close relation between serious binocular use and shooting. The required concentration and relaxation is the same.

paddy7 · May 8, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
Thank you, any way to find out what size is needed for the 10 x 30?

Also where can I find objective lens covers that stay attached so you don't lose them, and find out which size is needed? Like these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...IKD0PjVsMUCFQGTfgod1UkAdw&is=REG&Q=&A=details

The objective covers come with the bins, and are fine. You'll get eyepiece rainguards too, but they are just not of the best - they work, but pop off when you least want them too (e.g. when its raining!). The opticron ones are better.
Sorry - don't know the outer diameter of the 10x. Won't be much bigger though and the opticron ones are built for a range of sizes - it may be that if they'll cover both, as i wouldn't think there's more than a couple of mm difference, if any.

ads · May 8, 2015

Swedpat said:
rifles for competition target shooting are pretty heavy weight compared to hobby rifles.

Yes, they are heavy. Depending on the class, the weight limits are 5.5 kg, 6 kg, or 8 kg. They are are heavy for a reason: In competition, results matter more than opinions, and more mass reduces vibration.

Swedpat · May 8, 2015

ads said:
Yes, they are heavy. Depending on the class, the weight limits are 5.5 kg, 6 kg, or 8 kg. They are are heavy for a reason: In competition, results matter more than opinions, and more mass reduces vibration.

Thanks for information!

PhilR. · May 8, 2015

Swedpat said:
For example there is a reason that air rifles for competition target shooting are pretty heavy weight compared to hobby rifles.

Only about one-hundreth of one percent of Americans know that there is such thing as competition air rifles, or that airguns are used in international competition such as the Olympics.

I'm a Feinwerkbau shooter myself, but I also shoot Walther and Anschutz too.

Talk about thread drift......... |

|

ceasar · May 8, 2015

I had air guns all my life when I was growing up. My dad had them and enjoyed shooting them. I remember a very old single shot Benjamin BB rifle with a long air cylinder under the barrel. You pumped it up with a rod from the end of the cylinder until you couldn't pump it up any more and screwed it tight. It had a peep sight. It could put a BB through an empty carnation milk can. The only sound it made was a soft "whift." Eventually the seals wore out.

Bob

ads · May 9, 2015

PhilR. said:
Talk about thread drift......... ||

I think it's on topic. Someone made a claim that light weight improves steadiness, which of course is false under most conditions.

It's perfectly understandable if someone prefers lightweight binoculars... I do myself... but steadiness is not one of the benefits of light weight.

Laughing Kookaburra · May 11, 2015

Trade off between Magnification (detail) and Light

PhilR. said:
Weight, or lack of, is not the issue. IMO the 10x version does not provide a view good enough to justify it's price. In fact, I've not seen an inexpensive 10x30/32 that provides a high level of performance. Decent - yes, but not good enough to make me happy. Small 8x versions are just more preferable. There is one slight exception, and that is the Zeiss Conquest 10x30, which sold for $399 and is a pretty decent bino for the price. Certainly better than the M7 and Leupy Mojave.

Phil you have been super helpful as have man others on this thread. I'm just trying to quantify differences between the M7 8 x 30 and 10 x 30 in measurable terms. "Does not provide a good enough view" on it's own doesn't mean anything quantifiable, especially since the optics are the same in the 8 x 30 and 10 x 30. The Field of View is very close, so that's not an issue. Given the same optics, what it seems to come down to is a tradeoff between better magnification/more detail, and more brightness. If there's another factor to consider in the optics/construction between these two models, please let me know.

Relative brightness for binocs is exit pupil squared, or:

(Objective / Magnification ) ^ 2 = Relative Brightness

For example for the 10x30, the relative brightness is (30/10)^2 = 9

8 x 30, the relative brightness is (30/8)^2= 14.0624

In other words, the 8 x 30 is 56.25% brighter than the 10 x 30. However, I received several private messages from members here who have the M7 10 x 30 and also feedback from friends outside the forum that prefer the 10 x 30 for the extra detail they are able to see, and they said shake wasn't an issue. It seems to split down the middle - some people prefer more magnification to see more detail, some prefer more light.

For further comparison, for a 10x42, the relative brightness is (42/10)^2 = 17.64. In other words, a 10x42 bino will appear twice as bright as a 10 x 30, given the same optics.

I plan to also pick up a very high quality heavier 8 x 42 or 10 x 42 specifically for birding, but also want a lighter pair for viewing wildlife when I'm carrying gear over longer distances in multi-day trips, or when doing higher mileage hiking in challenging terrain, or when I'm carrying camera gear in addition to binos.

FrankD · May 11, 2015

LK,

I am not specifically speaking for Phil but I think I know the general idea of what Phil is referring to. The 10x32 configuration is not an "easy view" in the sense that an 8x32 is. The exit pupil is smaller for one and, in addition, the light weight of that particular objective diameter coupled with the 10x magnfication can make it more difficult to hold steady enough to really see that "extra detail" that the 10x delivers.

That is the one issue. The other side of the issue revolves around quality of design and magnification. It has been my experience that there is a specific "quality level" that a binocular has to be manufactured to before you start seeing the same "overall optical performance" level in a 10x that you see in the 8x. This is because of the higher magnification. Any slight discrepancies in the optical design or in the implementation of the optical design become magnified, pun intended, the higher you go up the magnification range.

I don't know if this is specifically an issue with the M7 10x30 as I have never tried that model in that configuration but wanted to chime in regardless.

paddy7 · May 12, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
Phil you have been super helpful as have man others on this thread. I'm just trying to quantify differences between the M7 8 x 30 and 10 x 30 in measurable terms. "Does not provide a good enough view" on it's own doesn't mean anything quantifiable, especially since the optics are the same in the 8 x 30 and 10 x 30. The Field of View is very close, so that's not an issue. Given the same optics, what it seems to come down to is a tradeoff between better magnification/more detail, and more brightness. If there's another factor to consider in the optics/construction between these two models, please let me know.

Relative brightness for binocs is exit pupil squared, or:

(Objective / Magnification ) ^ 2 = Relative Brightness

For example for the 10x30, the relative brightness is (30/10)^2 = 9

8 x 30, the relative brightness is (30/8)^2= 14.0624

In other words, the 8 x 30 is 56.25% brighter than the 10 x 30. However, I received several private messages from members here who have the M7 10 x 30 and also feedback from friends outside the forum that prefer the 10 x 30 for the extra detail they are able to see, and they said shake wasn't an issue. It seems to split down the middle - some people prefer more magnification to see more detail, some prefer more light.

For further comparison, for a 10x42, the relative brightness is (42/10)^2 = 17.64. In other words, a 10x42 bino will appear twice as bright as a 10 x 30, given the same optics.

I plan to also pick up a very high quality heavier 8 x 42 or 10 x 42 specifically for birding, but also want a lighter pair for viewing wildlife when I'm carrying gear over longer distances in multi-day trips, or when doing higher mileage hiking in challenging terrain, or when I'm carrying camera gear in addition to binos.

As i mentioned earlier, i haven't used the 10x M7 but have compared other 8x and 10x models - usually larger, 42mm. I can't say i've ever noticed that margin of brightness difference, and a lot will depend on time of day, light levels, pupil dilation or contraction etc.
Nor have i ever been struck by a huge jump in magnification between 8 and 10x. Usually, the FOV drops with a 10x, but it appears in the Monarch's case, this is negligible. However, i've always regarded the 8x as the best 'general purpose' bin, as it's less critical at what time of day and light level you use it in (based on exit pupil alone). The 3mm exit pupil of the 10x i would regard as too much of a compromise to gain a slight magnification boost. Unless you're about 95 yrs old, though, which i suspect you're not!

ads · May 12, 2015

paddy7 said:
Usually, the FOV drops with a 10x, but it appears in the Monarch's case, this is negligible.

I thought perhaps the 10x might have less FOV (hence the 'shake' reference) but according to Nikon, it's about the same for both models.

paddy7, I think you are looking at the wrong specs.
The 8x30 Monarch 7 has an angular field of view of 8.3 degrees, the 10x30 has an angular field of view of 6.7 degrees.

Anyway, if you read through the "What 3 binoculars do you USE the most for birding?" thread you will see that many people's favorites are 6x, 7x, or 8x.

paddy7 · May 13, 2015

ads said:
paddy7, I think you are looking at the wrong specs.
The 8x Monarch 7 8x30 has an angular field of view 8.3 degrees, the 10x an angular field of view 6.7

Anyway, if you read through the "What 3 binoculars do you USE the most for birding?" thread you will see that many people's favorites are 6x, 7x, or 8x.

Yup - stand corrected. I was looking at the AFOV on the Nikon website - the 'real' field is as you stated. That would clinch it for me - 8x would have to be the one for general purpose use. I think if you're going for a 10x, you've got to be looking at 42mm objectives and above unless you have a very specific purpose in mind, and know that you won't use them in bad light (not just dusk/dawn, but also 'bad days')

Laughing Kookaburra · May 15, 2015

Nikon Monarch build quality

My primary hesitation with the Nikon is that I checked with a professional bird researcher I know with many years of experience and he said he found Monarchs tend to fall apart after a few years whereas Zeiss (as in Terra ED) in general has much better build quality. I've never heard this from anyone else but I just started researching the topic. Of course he himself has probably only handled a few Monarchs and everyone has their biases but he's regularly in the company of many other researchers and birders using a lot of different binos.

Is there anything to his thoughts on the poor build quality of Monarchs? Has anyone had this experience?

What's Nikon's warranty and product support specifically like on the Monarch 7 line, compared with the Zeiss Terra ED warranty?

As for magnification, unless I can try an 8 x 32 and 10 x 32 same model side by side, I may stick with the 8 x 32 for the brighter light.

PhilR. · May 15, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
My primary hesitation with the Nikon is that I checked with a professional bird researcher I know with many years of experience and he said he found Monarchs tend to fall apart after a few years whereas Zeiss (as in Terra ED) in general has much better build quality.

Evidently, your "professional" bird researcher does not know that the Monarch line is substantially different than what they were a few years ago. I would agree that the old Monarch was not very impressive in build quality, and is in fact why I stayed away from the brand for some time. I've not seen or read anything about the new versions that would suggest that their build quality is even slightly inferior to anything else out there that is in an equivalent price level.

ads · May 15, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
he found Monarchs tend to fall apart after a few years whereas Zeiss (as in Terra ED)

The Terra line was only introduced in 2013, right?

I think most binoculars will last an extremely long time if they are handled with reasonable care. I did see the glue between some lens elements go bad after about 50 years, making the optics unusable.

ceasar · May 15, 2015

I've been going to Hawk Mountain in PA for very many years. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary has been bringing in interns from all over the world to work there for many years. In all that time I think that the only binoculars I ever saw being used by the interns were Monarchs.

Bob

Boro Birder · May 15, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
Zeiss Terra ED vs. Vanguard 8x32 Endeavor ED II? Has anyone used both? How do they compare?

Yes had the Vanguard EDI and now own the Vanguard EDII.
The Zeiss Terra ED are has good has the Vanguard EDI but not a touch on the Vanguard EDII.
I'm no expert but I think many of the experts will tell you the same, I tried the Zeiss Terra ED when I owned the Vanguard EDI and there was no difference infact thought the Vanguards were sharper and a touch brighter, I tried the Vanguard EDII the same day and was blown away, also the first Vanguards are much cheaper than the Zeiss Terra ED and don't forget the terra are Zeiss lowest price entry level binocular and do not have the quality of the Zeiss Conquest for example and if you were glasses definitely try before you buy

Damian

Laughing Kookaburra · May 15, 2015

PhilR. said:
Evidently, your "professional" bird researcher does not know that the Monarch line is substantially different than what they were a few years ago. I would agree that the old Monarch was not very impressive in build quality, and is in fact why I stayed away from the brand for some time. I've not seen or read anything about the new versions that would suggest that their build quality is even slightly inferior to anything else out there that is in an equivalent price level.

Phil, he's not a "professional" - he IS a professional - a world class professional ornithology researcher and environmental scientist with a lifetime of birding experience and for quite a few years has been using only the very highest end equipment. However, that doesn't mean he has evaluated and owned every bino model out there. He's not an optics researcher - optics are just a tool for him. It would make sense if early Monarchs had problems that he would have heard or seen that and it would have stuck with him.

Anyway if problems with Monarchs were confined to earlier models, that's all I needed to hear.

Laughing Kookaburra · May 15, 2015

Monarch 7 8x30 and Vanguard EDII

Boro Birder said:
Yes had the Vanguard EDI and now own the Vanguard EDII.
The Zeiss Terra ED are has good has the Vanguard EDI but not a touch on the Vanguard EDII.
I'm no expert but I think many of the experts will tell you the same, I tried the Zeiss Terra ED when I owned the Vanguard EDI and there was no difference infact thought the Vanguards were sharper and a touch brighter, I tried the Vanguard EDII the same day and was blown away, also the first Vanguards are much cheaper than the Zeiss Terra ED and don't forget the terra are Zeiss lowest price entry level binocular and do not have the quality of the Zeiss Conquest for example and if you were glasses definitely try before you buy

Damian

I've read and heard a lot of good things about the current Vanguard EDII. For purposes of this thread/use, where I'm looking for lighter weight binos in a given price range, the Nikon 8 x 30 and Vanguard ED II look like great choices, with the Nikon having the edge in weight (3 oz lighter) and compactness but with the optics probably quite similar. I would think the Terra ED 8 x 32 would be a bit more of a risk in that the Terra ED is a new product that's being subcontracted to Chinese factories, whereas Vanguard is manufacturing their own bino.

Again from what I've read it looks like the Vanguard ED II tend toward warmer color compared with the Nikon.

Given timing I may have to order one before a trip before being able to try both, but I may have a chance to try both side by side in another few weeks.

ceasar · May 16, 2015

Laughing Kookaburra said:
Phil, he's not a "professional" - he IS a professional - a world class professional ornithology researcher and environmental scientist with a lifetime of birding experience and for quite a few years has been using only the very highest end equipment. However, that doesn't mean he has evaluated and owned every bino model out there. He's not an optics researcher - optics are just a tool for him. It would make sense if early Monarchs had problems that he would have heard or seen that and it would have stuck with him.

Anyway if problems with Monarchs were confined to earlier models, that's all I needed to hear.

The first monarchs that came out (about the same time that phase coatings were becoming standard for lower cost binoculars) about 12 years ago were notorious for having eye cups which would collapse while you were using them. This was no problem if you wore glasses and did not need to extend the eye cups.

I have a friend going back to 2nd grade who is now a multi-millionaire and who can buy any binocular he wants. He wears glasses and he bought that early Monarch after talking with me. He still uses it to this day and says he doesn't need anything better. I tried it, I don't wear glasses and the eye cups collapsed on me but he is still satisfied with it. Go figure.

Bob

Best lightweight 8 x 32 & 8 x 42 binoculars in these price ranges? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread