• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

7x binoculars increasing in popularity? (1 Viewer)

BobinKy

Well-known member
Are 7x binoculars becoming more popular again? If more models, higher prices, and out of stock inventories are any indications, then the 7x may be challenging the 8x. After reading an interesting thread on “8x vs 7x for forest birding,” I decided to check 7x models at a popular online optics vendor here in the U.S.

Do you use a 7x? What do you like about this size? Are there disadvantages?

… Bob
Kentucky, USA

. . .

7X at popular online vendor (U. S.)

Roof 7x36
Two of the three models out of stock . . . Hmmmm?

Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 7x36
7.0 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 20.3 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Swift Eaglet Roof CF 7x36
7.1 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 20.6 oz, 16.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil

Vortex Diamondback Roof CF 7x36
8.0 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 23.4 oz, 20.9 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***



Roof 7.5x43
Interesting size . . . look at the close focus!

Brunton Epoch Roof CF 7.5x43
7.0 FOV, 3.0 ft close focus, 26.0 oz, 20.0 mm eye relief, 5.7 mm exit pupil



Roof 7x42
Would love to own one of these, but why are they so expensive? Might be nice to try the cheaper Meopta brand--if it ever gets back in stock.

Leica Ultravid HD Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 10.8 ft close focus, 27.2 oz, 17.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Meopta Meostar Roof CF 7x42
7.8 FOV, 9.8 ft close focus, 30.4 oz, 20.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Nikon EDG Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 9.8 ft close focus, 28.6 oz, 22.1 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Swarovski SLCnew Roof CF 7x42
8.0 FOV, 13.0 ft close focus, 33.5 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil

Zeiss Victory T* FL LT Roof CF 7x42
8.6 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 26.1 oz, 16.0 mm eye relief, 6.0 mm exit pupil



Porro 7x35
This once popular size is still available, but prices appear to be rising.

Eagle Optics Triumph Porro CF 7x35
9.2 FOV, 12.0 ft close focus, 20.4 oz, 12.0 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Extreme Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 28.2 oz, 17.2 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 24.3 oz, 11.9 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil



Porro 7x50
Many choices are available for this size—long popular in military, marine, law enforcement, and astronomy environments. However, these models generally are not popular with birders because of the size, weight, and many models are individual focus.
 
Last edited:
Hi Frank,
That chart is very helpful. I just got to test a 7x42 Ultravid BR against my 8x42 BR, I was surprised to see very little difference between the two. The 7x42 was green, but if it was black like my 8x42 you could have handed them back and forth to me, and it would have been very hard to tell which was which. The 7x42 was a little easier view and I know that larger exit pupil would benefit younger guys at dusk. I guess you could look at this two ways, 1) Why not go for seven power if the additional magnification of the eight isn't noticable, and you get the benefit of the larger exit pupil with the seven, or 2) Go with the eight because there must be some extra resolution from the greater power, even if it's not noticable in general use.

Despite the unbelievably sharp view of Leica optics, I now know that there is something about Leica optics and my eyes-face that make them a little more difficult to view than either Swaro or Zeiss. I picked the Ultravids originally because I prefered the Lieca view in a pure sense, I probably would have been happier overall with one of the others, though this is really picking at straws. Anyway of your list I would go with the Zeiss as it's the lightest of the Alphas and I know it is a wonderful, easy view.

Of course it would seem to make more sense to build a 7x32 with a 4.6 mm EP over a 10x32 with a 3.2 mm EP. A seven power alpha with a reasonably large E.P at around 20-22 oz would be a wonderful bin to carry in the field. I still don't get why all the alphas build a heavy 7x42 instead.

John
 
I'm considering getting a 7x. I have a compact 8x20 Zeiss Victory and would like to get a full sized binocular with more light. Initially I thought I wanted either an 8x or 10x, but the other day I pulled out an old 7x50 that is inferior to my compacts in every other way and I was surprised how much I really liked it. The main reason I am now considering a 7x is there is less disturbance with hand shaking. It's really nice and relaxing to have that more stable image. I don't think I have super shaky hands, but all those unavoidable minute movements destroy the image more than I realized. In my opinion the lack of shaking more than makes up for the lower magnification and provides the ability to see just as much detail as with the 8x.
 
If more models, higher prices, and out of stock inventories are any indications, then the 7x may be challenging the 8x.
7X at popular online vendor (U. S.)

Roof 7x36
Two of the three models out of stock . . . Hmmmm?

Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 7x36
7.0 FOV, 6.5 ft close focus, 20.3 oz, 19.0 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

Vortex Diamondback Roof CF 7x36
8.0 FOV, 5.9 ft close focus, 23.4 oz, 20.9 mm eye relief, 5.1 mm exit pupil
***Out of stock***

The 7x36 Diamondback are new product ... they haven't actually shipped yet. SteveC posted some due dates for this from Cameralandny (May, IIRC?).

The Bushnell Excursion EX 7x36 (24-3606) are new to me and and like the Legend Ultra HD I suspect they too haven't shipped yet. As I searched the EO site last week for 7x36 I suspect they've popped up very recently.

The FOV you quote for the EX 7x36 is apparently incorrect: it's 488 feet@1000yds or 143m/1km that's 9.3 degrees. That's wider than the Zeiss 7x42 ;)

http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_excursion_ex_24-3606.cfm?section=General Use

$250 so more than the $190 Vortex but its: much lighter; open-bridge and wider FOV. And a free harness (for a 20oz bin ;) it's a new Bushnell trend). SO that may be worth $60.

http://vortexoptics.com/binoculars/view/vortex-diamondback-7x36-binocular

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/bushnell/bushnell-excursion-ex-birder-7x36-binocular

Last year I tried a Bushnell Excursion EX Roof CF 8x36 but it had too much CA for me but one lives in hope. I did like the open bridge enclosure.

It's also interesting to note that there isn't a Bushnell Excursion EX 9x36. There's the new 7x and the older 8x. Perhaps they agreed the 8x36 had too much CA ;)

This would also add more fuel to the "Diamondback and Excursion (EX)" are OEMed by the same folks. So I suspect the optics are the same the enclosure is different.

Not sure why the Eaglet is out of stock ... perhaps SteveC talking it up has caused a run on them ;)

I do have one and I like it (once I fitted a set of O rings to kill off the occoasional blackouts due to excessive ER (for me .. myope with close fitting glasses).

I used it for a week solo and went back to it yesterday after using some of my other bins and it is rather good bin. Just a bit too fast focus but it is quick. The only thing I don't like is it is a rather low "pincushion" correction bin so I get a bit of the rolling ball effect on panning. I think I'd prefer a tad more.

Porro 7x35
This once popular size is still available, but prices appear to be rising.

Eagle Optics Triumph Porro CF 7x35
9.2 FOV, 12.0 ft close focus, 20.4 oz, 12.0 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Extreme Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 28.2 oz, 17.2 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

Nikon Action Porro CF 7x35
9.3 FOV, 16.4 ft close focus, 24.3 oz, 11.9 mm eye relief, 5.0 mm exit pupil

All older designs. No one is doing modern designs here. There is a Swift non-waterproof inexpensive porro with no ER too you could add to that list (I'm I wonder if it is related to the Triumph).

Prices on most bins has been rising rising mostly due to exchange rate changes recently.

I don't think the 7x is going to take over the 8x slot. The 8x is a good compromise for all sorts of use and modern 8x design have given wide FOVs (wider than the old 7x FOV except the exceptional Zeiss 7x42) so I don't expect a rush to switch.
 
Last edited:
The 7x42 was green, but if it was black like my 8x42 you could have handed them back and forth to me, and it would have been very hard to tell which was which. The 7x42 was a little easier view and I know that larger exit pupil would benefit younger guys at dusk. I guess you could look at this two ways, 1) Why not go for seven power if the additional magnification of the eight isn't noticable, and you get the benefit of the larger exit pupil with the seven, or 2) Go with the eight because there must be some extra resolution from the greater power, even if it's not noticable in general use.

[snip]

Of course it would seem to make more sense to build a 7x32 with a 4.6 mm EP over a 10x32 with a 3.2 mm EP. A seven power alpha with a reasonably large E.P at around 20-22 oz would be a wonderful bin to carry in the field. I still don't get why all the alphas build a heavy 7x42 instead.

The extra detail seen with an 8x over a 7x (the "efficiency" of a bin depends on it's magnification and transmission) is a probabilistic thing. It is 14% (8/7) so the distance ring around you in which you can see a particular feature is expanded by 14%. If you are IDing birds by field mark at 25m to 40m with 8x then that same ring is 87.5% (7/8) smaller with 7x or 21.9m to 35m. So you might expect to miss some birds with a 7x.

The same argument with different numbers applies to 10x. There is also an additional quirk. See Vukobratovich "Binocular performance and design" paper at the University of Arizona optomech paper collection

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/papers/Vukobratovich 1989.pdf

where more magnification is worth "less" with each increase even on a fixed bin (for reason I still don't quite get) so in real life these numbers will be slightly smaller.

Of course you trade this off for shake and that leads to other ergonomic feature that might help say over a day's birding. Useful for pelagic trips too!

I agree that there should be more smaller 7x bins especially at 32mm but I suspect there is almost a reverence of tradition (playing to old fogies like us?) for "magic numbers" like 7x42 and 7x35 (well, 36 now). I think for some 7x32 just seems too odd.

I still think you need a reason to pick 7x over 8x but for some folks it's the right choice for a variety of personal reasons.

If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.
 
If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.

I agree with you there, I have 6x30, 8x32 SE, 8x42 BR and 10x42SE. If I could reset I would trade the 8x42 BRs for 7x42 FLTs and leave the rest of my collection as is. I'd be interested in seeing one of those 7x36s. I know Steve loves his, but I've always been nervous about the small FOV on the Swifts, it looks like those Bushnell's could be contenders.

John
 
If you have more than a couple of bins then one of your selection should be a 7x. I suspect this might be even more true if you are a 10x bin fan. It makes more sense perhaps to have a 7x and a 10x than say a 8x and 10x or an 7x and 8x.


This sounds like an excellent reason to get two new pairs of binoculars, one 7x and one 10x. Not that I can afford that right now, but one can always dream...

This is a very interesting website. I'd need a few hours and sleeping children to digest it, however.
 
I agree with you there, I have 6x30, 8x32 SE, 8x42 BR and 10x42SE. If I could reset I would trade the 8x42 BRs for 7x42 FLTs and leave the rest of my collection as is. I'd be interested in seeing one of those 7x36s. I know Steve loves his, but I've always been nervous about the small FOV on the Swifts, it looks like those Bushnell's could be contenders.

Yeap, the FOV of the Eaglets is their weakness. After all when you trade off magnification you want to get something for it (OK, less shake too and the size and weight is nice!). But aside from that they are good bins.

The dielectric prism coating does help the transmission (which helps the acuity of the bin/eye system).

So ideally you want you 7x bin to be as bright as possible. Either a newer silver mirror coating on the roof prism or better still a dielectric mirror coating.
 
Not sure why the Eaglet is out of stock ... perhaps SteveC talking it up has caused a run on them ;)

I do have one and I like it (once I fitted a set of O rings to kill off the occasional blackouts due to excessive ER (for me .. myope with close fitting glasses).

I used it for a week solo and went back to it yesterday after using some of my other bins and it is rather good bin. Just a bit too fast focus but it is quick. The only thing I don't like is it is a rather low "pincushion" correction bin so I get a bit of the rolling ball effect on panning. I think I'd prefer a tad more.

I was wondering if you were ever going to comment further on your 7x36. I was beginning to think maybe you didn't like it. FWIW, I checked the fov on mine the other day and it check out 393'. Seems like you got yours from mayoayo (IIRC) who posted a comment about that unit being 400'. I use O-rings on mine too, but to keep the eye cup all the way out, they collapse a bit too easy on mine. I also don't notice any rolling ball effect with mine.

I would agree that "maybe" the listed 374' could be wider than it is. But I have no recollection thinking I missed anything. or really ever wanting much more. That 7x@7* or a bit more is about minimum. I do agree that that Eaglet with 8-9* would come close to perfection. They advertise the CFT coatings as transmitting 99.8%. The CFT process is a dielectric one if I understood the Swift tech I asked about, to the brightness thing shows up.

Funny, I was just on EO the other night and did not happen to notice the 7x36 EX. I tend to think that you may well be correct in thinking that the optics of the Diamondback and the EX are the same with different enclosures. Pretty much the same specs. If the optics were different, it seems the 7x36 EX would have a wider fov than the 8x36 EX instead of smaller.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if you were ever going to comment further on your 7x36. I was beginning to think maybe you didn't like it.

Well after they arrive and I found I was having minor black outs with them (enough to be annoying so I wouldn't bird with them but not all the time. So I didn't bird with them for quite a while.

Plus the weather turned pretty anti-birding (wet and lots of it).

And I've been spending more time birding than evaluating too.

But I should write something up rather than I'm quite happy with them especially for the price I paid.

I would agree that "maybe" the listed 374' could be wider than it is. But I have no recollection thinking I missed anything. or really ever wanting much more. That 7x@7* or a bit more is about minimum. I do agree that that Eaglet with 8-9* would come close to perfection. They advertise the CFT coatings as transmitting 99.8%. The CFT process is a dielectric one if I understood the Swift tech I asked about, to the brightness thing shows up.

It two different things I think: one is FOV and the other AFOV.

The FOV is narrower than other bins I have that look almost as good but just a hair not as bright and are lighter e.g. Pentax WP 8x32 and Pentax SP 8x32. So when one is out with them I occasionally get that feeling "so what am I getting for 7x?".

The AFOV of course is narrower and you get to not fill the eye's FOV (around 65 to 70 degrees seems big) so you see the field stop clearly in front of you. And it's sort of telling me that there's more field here that getting thrown away. I think this is a general effect with lower magnifications on AFOV ("this one ain't as "big" as this one") but is the size of the field stop that bothers them more than the magnification.

That said the lower magnification is not that bad. The usual caveat applies here in that I'd rather have a good lower mag bin than poorer higher mag bin. The recent raptor migrations over Seattle have shown this with my Eaglets. Especially over Capitol Hill is both an escarpment with orographic lift plus covered with city rooftops so it generates a thermal too plus its bounded on the east by Lake Washington and the west by Puget Sound (sorta) so we get the raptors funneled up over the city to head north. Even with the 7x bins you can pretty much see all the field marks you are going to see on a soaring bird then the "Hawks in Flight" jizzy stuff takes over. But the bins are bright enough. And deal with stray light decently well so you can actually see some of the details. Plus the low mag actually helps when you spend an extended time watching them at 30 to 45 degrees above the horizon without your arms getting so shaky you have to quite looking through the bins.

Funny, I was just on EO the other night and did not happen to notice the 7x36 EX. I tend to think that you may well be correct in thinking that the optics of the Diamondback and the EX are the same with different enclosures. Pretty much the same specs. If the optics were different, it seems the 7x36 EX would have a wider fov than the 8x36 EX instead of smaller.

You did real my other post though ... they have 9.3 degree FOV. That's bigger than the 8 degrees or so of the 8x.

That would give them a "real" AFOV (using the real tan formula not the approximation) of 59.3 degrees. That's a degree larger than the AFOV of an 8x with 8 degree FOV. So they should "fill the eye" without a problem.

Of course it will be interesting to see what other compromises are made to get there (TCA at the edge of field? sharpness at the edge of field?).

I guess we'll see when they ship.

Add them to the list, Steve ;)
 
Kevin...

Thanks for the correction to the FOV on the Bushnell Excursion EX. At 9.3 FOV, the EX should gather some interest.

Still, other than weight, size, and the Swaro look, the Bushnell EX ($249.95) offers little over the older design of the Nikon Action Extreme 7x35 ($119.00 U.S.). But like you said, the proof will be in the viewing.

I wish the manufacturers would roll out some lower priced 7x42 models. There may be a few left of the Minox BD 7x42 BR still in the pipeline ($480.00). The next step up appears to be the Meopta 7x42 ($859.00). Maybe China will put their clone engineers to work on it--if they are not already.

Like Laura, I enjoy the ease of the 7x50--I have a Fujinon model that I just love at twilight and on overcast days. When I can find someone to do the driving through the mountains, I enjoy the large exit pupil of the 7x50 from a moving vehicle.

Additionally, there are also several 6x models now on the market. I use the Leupold Katmai 6x32 as my grab 'n go when I am about hither and thither--very convenient, bright views, good depth of field. However, a bit weak in the contrast category.

All in all, I may have to patiently wait for a good cheap[er] 7x42 roof.

...Bob
Kentucky, USA
 
Last edited:
It two different things I think: one is FOV and the other AFOV.

You did real my other post though ... they have 9.3 degree FOV. That's bigger than the 8 degrees or so of the 8x.

That would give them a "real" AFOV (using the real tan formula not the approximation) of 59.3 degrees. That's a degree larger than the AFOV of an 8x with 8 degree FOV. So they should "fill the eye" without a problem.

Of course it will be interesting to see what other compromises are made to get there (TCA at the edge of field? sharpness at the edge of field?).

I guess we'll see when they ship.

Add them to the list, Steve ;)

Yes I saw the post, but I checked the Eagle Optics listing, which is 414'. So somebody is mistaken it appears. I suppose Bushnell should know what their own binocular will do.

I guess I'll once again have to express wonderment about what is the deal with afov. I can see its value when dealing with two different fov of the same magnification. But when we take, oh say the Yosemite 6x@420' and the Yosemite 8x@393', what is apparent to my eye is the fact the 8x image is bigger, but the 6x is "apparently" (obviously) biting off a bit bigger chunk of territory. So, I guess for those that "see" something in it; may you live forever in peace and viewing contentment, and find all the afov you can. Don't get me wrong, I understand the concept OK, I just see no (OK little)value in it.

I may see about adding the EX to the list, but, like you, I await other options. I'm beginning to wonder about the value of the Diamondback 7x36. I sort of doubt it will really compete with the Swift.
 
Still, other than weight, size, and the Swaro look, the Bushnell EX ($249.95) offers little over the older design of the Nikon Action Extreme 7x35 ($119.00 U.S.). But like you said, the proof will be in the viewing.

If you discount the advantages then they're not that different. A bit like comparing a BMW M3 to a Model T and concluding they both get you to the destination ;)

The open bridge has much better ergonomics than the porro. It is easier to hold with reduced shake. I can hold porros pretty well but the recent discussion of the military or TUG grip shows not everyone knows how or likes it when you can't get to the focus easily.

As you say, the size is significantly different.

The weight difference between the two is significant. I find I can't neck carry with a bin > 24oz without bugging my neck. That weight makes a significant difference for me.

I wouldn't hold your breath for 7x42. The big exit pupil is a win in the very dark but it's not otherwise a significant. You don't get much more out of a 7x42 that I wouldn't trade for weight. And I suspect that's a more general view. Oh, and I own two 7x42s and quite a few porros.

This is not a trivial matter. I think ergonomics (especially grip for 10x bins) and waterproofing are why roofs took off with the end user. It's curious that the decline of the porro and the decline of the low mag birder almost go hand in hand.
 
I do think we are starting to see a very slow revival of lower powered binoculars. Look at the number of 6x, 6.5x and now 7x binoculars that are starting to or already have hit the market in recent years. I think many folks, especially in the US, are starting to realized that 10x and even 8x in certain applications is not ideal.

I continue to pick up the 6x30 Yosemite and be impressed by the optical performance of an inexpensive 6x binocular.

I would not be surprised if you start seeing even more 6x and 7x bins from relatively large players in the not so distant future.
 
. . . and maybe it is wishful thinking on my part--and not yet verified by bino sales--but I think we will be seeing more of the porro design in the coming revival of the 6x and 7x bins.

...Bob
Kentucky, USA
 
How about some discussion on the 7x42 roof?

Why, as I asked in my original post, is the distribution of the 7x42 dominated by the alpha brands? Why do 7x42s from cheaper brands seem to come and go?

What about the merits of the 7x42? Those who use it regularly--those who are loyal to the 7x42--what are the advantages? Any disadvantages?

...Bob
Kentucky, USA
 
I think a lot people who just like the 7x is because the eye relief and the larger
exit pupil make a more comfortable view and a more forgiving view. Your eyes can "move" around more behind the eyepiece without penalty of blackouts.
The extra depth of field is addictive as well.

I bet more "experienced" birders find themselves moving towards 7x after they've made the rounds with all the other formats. Only after spending lots of time with 8x or 10x can you really see the benefits of a good 7x. Those who comment negatively about 7x probably either don't have a pair or haven't spent enough time behind a pair.

As far as 7x selling more now that you see retailers "out of stock"... I think the opposite is true. The 7x is not so popular so it's either special ordered or the retailer has such low stock that they seem to go out of stock more often. A retailer isn't going to stock a slow seller.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I think Peter pretty much summed up my thoughts on the 7x42 as well. There are still a few fairly inexpensive ones floating around here and there (Bushnell Discoverer and Meade Montana for example) but other than that and then the Meopta 7x42 you really do have to pay high end prices for any 7x42 bin.
 
The old Weaver Grand Slam 7x42 is the same binocular too. Since the new Weaver binocular line up doesn't include it, there may be some upcoming deals on it begin to show up.
 
The old Weaver Grand Slam 7x42 is the same binocular too. Since the new Weaver binocular line up doesn't include it, there may be some upcoming deals on it begin to show up.

Wow, they really made an effort making it fugly ... and the Bushnell one is rather elegant in a flowing line and ergo grip way.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-binoculars-grand-slam-849627.html

I suspect this would be good in the collection (as I already have a Disco) as a pelagic bin (7x big exit pupil, OK resolution and inexpensive so you don't mind if you throw up on it).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top