Binoculars for birding in tropical rainforest (1 Viewer)

WoW, thanks to all of you for the fast and informative comments!

Marek - Good summary of points to consider, definately keeping those in mind and I think that you are probably right about the 10X magnification (particularly after Wrenman and njlarsen's comments).

Tim I agree with your comments about field of view, but reading color bands (rings) is a very important aspect of my study (home range mapping), otherwise I'd probably go with the 8X.

Tim & Andy and all thanks for the mozzie and DEET tips, makes sense since most of it's similar to an organic solvent, I've had it dissolve plastic surfaces in the past. I've found that although extremely noxious, the 95% is the only may to go when in areas like the tropics or even temparate areas with lots of biting flies.

Dandrough & Grousemore which Minolta is that? I have the 10X50 Activas but was thinking that the optical quality and field of view aren't quite what I need for this project.

Dandrough I have a slide and flex harness (crooked horn outfitters) so that should help carry the load, even for the Nikon HG/LX and will also be using my Mountainsmith Daypack bumpack (I highly recommend it for it's size if anyone needs one, keeps your back cool and lighter than a backpack).

Seawatcher thanks for getting the discussion back on point, after Tim's comments about Swaro's fogging, and given my additional desire for relatively close focus (I also do butterfly work), I'm leaning toward the Nikon LX/HG 10X42.

But more comments regarding Nikon LX/HG 10x42 vs. Swarov SLC are welcome. Those ELs are nice and would be a lot easier to carry, but they're just out of my price range.

FYI, for those that have not seen this, the Cornell Bird Lab did a bin comparative test with multiple birders and picked the Nikon LX 10X42 as their best in class, although the Swaro EL was not included in their review. You can see the review at the link below.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/publications/livingbird/spring99/binos.html

Thanks again!

10x shouldn't be too bad, certainly a slight loss of light/f.o.v. but I'd gues you will have plenty of tree trunks to brace yourself against to improve stabilty.
Nikons do tend to get plenty of good reviews in the U.S.

cigarette smoke is a good mossie repellant, a lit cigarette could also remove a leech or two ... and it's also carcinogenic

Close focussing is another point to consider. I used a Leica 8x32 BA and that 3.25 m minimum definitely was not close enough for certain observations. Of course, it depends what kind of species you are working on.

In addition, I had several frustrating encounters where my binoculars did not allow to identify colors because the picture was too dark. So go for something like 8x42, unless you get a Zeiss. They are brighter. I would assume that the Zeiss Victory II 10x40 might fit your bill. Particularly so, as it might be had at a lower price with its replacement being around the corner. But be sure not to get the Victory (I), it has too much glare when you need to look up into the trees with the sky in the background.

Nitrogen filling is a must, as well, but others have already pointed that out.

Hope you find a good solution for your needs. And all the best for your exciting project.

Robert

Tony Adkins said:

FYI, for those that have not seen this, the Cornell Bird Lab did a bin comparative test with multiple birders and picked the Nikon LX 10X42 as their best in class, although the Swaro EL was not included in their review. You can see the review at the link below.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/publications/livingbird/spring99/binos.html

Click to expand...

One more thing, I gave that table a brief look again: This review is a bit dated as there have been many new models since. But, apparently, there are also some mistakes. The close focus indicated for Leica's 8x32 BA is certainly not 6'. It's possible they tested the BN model, but I seem to recall that the 10x32 BN has closer focussing that the 8x32 BN. And the table gives 8' for the 10x32. Thus, something must have been mixed up at least in that case. So it makes you wonder about the other numbers as well. Before you buy, make sure the model you have decided on really has the specifications you need. Don't decide just by looking at a less than perfect compilation. However, such tables are a good way to start.

Robert

Robert,

Thank you for your recommendations and encouragement. I'm very much looking forward to getting into the field. I wasn't aware of Zeiss' brightness, that is a very important factor for me to consider. I'll have a look at the Victory IIs hadn't really considered them.

Regards,

Tony

FOV aside, I would still favour the 8x42HGs. I've looked through the 8x and the 10x side by side on a few occasions, and far prefered the 8x. I would be surprised if you could see much more detail with the 10x, unless you were braced against a tree or using a tripod. The additional brightness of the 8x should also be useful. I have the 8x32HG, and they are superb bins with an extremely bright image for their size. I would have bought the 8x42HG but found them a little heavy, so you should be certain the weight wont bother you. To my eyes, there are very few weatherproof bins that compete with the nikon hg optics at any price.

Hello All,

I wanted to follow up on this post in the interest of others that may have to deal with my original question (which bins for the rainforest). After much contemplation and 'in-store' comparisons of Swarov, Leica, Nikon, and Zeiss, I purchased a pair of Zeiss Victory II 8X40. I'm happy to say the these bins provided what I considered the most important features for the birding conditions of research project - conducted in the rainforests of northern Queensland. Particularly, good field of view, low weight, very good brightness in low-light conditions, and close focus. They are very durable and held up well in the humid and wet conditions. I almost bought the nikon 8X42 HG but decided that they were just a bit too heavy, even with a harness. Please keep in mind though that I was going to be birding over large areas in very challenging conditions with lots of concern about lightness/mobility/fatigue. My only negative comment about the Victory II would be that I did notice considerable CA while looking into a bright canopy form the darkly lit forest floor. It looks like the Victory II has been replaced by the Conquest, but I would highly recommend the Victory II, you can probably find them these days for a good price too.

I must admit though that if cost had not been such a limiting factor for me at the time, I very well may have purchased the Swarv 8.5X42 EL. They are incredibly light, have great optics, and feel really nice in the hand.

One last thing, I'd like to recommend Alex at www.eurooptic.com he actually sent me both the Victory II 8X40 & 10X40 so that I could compare them in field conditions - without a deposit requirement!!! Because of that, I was able to definitively decide on the 8X40 at a great price of $850 USD!!! (in May 2004)

Swissboy said:

Close focussing is another point to consider. I used a Leica 8x32 BA and that 3.25 m minimum definitely was not close enough for certain observations. Of course, it depends what kind of species you are working on.

In addition, I had several frustrating encounters where my binoculars did not allow to identify colors because the picture was too dark. So go for something like 8x42, unless you get a Zeiss. They are brighter. I would assume that the Zeiss Victory II 10x40 might fit your bill. Particularly so, as it might be had at a lower price with its replacement being around the corner. But be sure not to get the Victory (I), it has too much glare when you need to look up into the trees with the sky in the background.

Nitrogen filling is a must, as well, but others have already pointed that out.

Hope you find a good solution for your needs. And all the best for your exciting project.

Robert

Click to expand...

agree about close focusing I've just retired my baush and lombs for nikon hg 8x32, partly becuase they almost focus on my feet. Think the difference between 32
mm and 42mm is exaggerated. I always used to be a fan of 42mm until I sat at dusk comparing the two. It was amost completely dark before I could see a difference. Now I go for the lighter weight, if they are round your neck for 14 hours a day it is very important.

Steve

Tony Adkins said:

It looks like the Victory II has been replaced by the Conquest, ..........

Click to expand...

It's the FL that replaces the Victory!