I would add one binocular for the perfect party. An 8x42.
1)8x32 (For Hiking, Backpacking, Traveling, Bird Feeder, and anytime you want to travel light)
Advantages: Smaller and lighter, Bigger FOV, Easier to pack.
Disadvantages: Not as bright in low light more difficult eye placement.
2)8x42 (Main Birding binocular, Go to binocular, Dusk or Dawn binocular or low light, Best all-arounder)
Advantages: Brighter in low light, Easier eye placement, overall more comfortable optically.
Disadvantages: Heavier and bigger, Smaller FOV, Harder to pack and carry.
A very logical presentation - might kinda depend on them being equal quality though. A top 8x32 may be as good as a lesser 8x42 (see how i avoided using the word 'alpha' Dennis?)
-
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.
Which Would You Pick....8x32 or 8x42 and Why... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MUHerd
- Start date
"A top 8x32 may be as good as a lesser 8x42 "
I agree with that mostly. A higher end 8x32 will probably have better coatings and better quality glass than a less expensive 10x42 so it will be brighter in some cases because of higher transmission but there always exists the optical advantage of that bigger aperture with the 42mm especially in low light situations. Of course the 42mm even in a less expensive binocular will have a bigger exit pupil so they have an advantage when it comes to easy eye placement but the more expensive 8x32 binoculars can make up for this advantage with more complex eyepieces such as in the Swarovski 8x32 SV and in their optical design. SV's are well known for having comfortable eye placement relative to their exit pupil size. I have heard that Swarovski even limits the baffling as a design parameter to increase eye placement comfort at the expense of more glare in certain situations.That being said from practical experience which is always the best teacher I have found 8x42's in general to have easier eye placement than 8x32's regardless of price. A big reason I preferred my Tract Toric 8x42's over my 8x32 Swarovski SV's was easier eye placement with the bigger 5mm exit pupil. Especially if you have a limited budget you are probably better off looking at 8x42's as a good all-around binocular. For a lot of reasons it seems it is easier to make a good inexpensive one. So I guess I am in the 8x42 camp for an overall general purpose binocular especially at a lower price point. I recommended the Leupold 8x32 Mojave BX-3 because of the remarkable low price at Cabelas for $200.00 with free shipping. The 8x32 is about as small as I prefer. For many reasons including the diminishing size of the exit pupil when you drop to an 8x30 format or below the finickiness increases exponentially.
I agree with that mostly. A higher end 8x32 will probably have better coatings and better quality glass than a less expensive 10x42 so it will be brighter in some cases because of higher transmission but there always exists the optical advantage of that bigger aperture with the 42mm especially in low light situations. Of course the 42mm even in a less expensive binocular will have a bigger exit pupil so they have an advantage when it comes to easy eye placement but the more expensive 8x32 binoculars can make up for this advantage with more complex eyepieces such as in the Swarovski 8x32 SV and in their optical design. SV's are well known for having comfortable eye placement relative to their exit pupil size. I have heard that Swarovski even limits the baffling as a design parameter to increase eye placement comfort at the expense of more glare in certain situations.That being said from practical experience which is always the best teacher I have found 8x42's in general to have easier eye placement than 8x32's regardless of price. A big reason I preferred my Tract Toric 8x42's over my 8x32 Swarovski SV's was easier eye placement with the bigger 5mm exit pupil. Especially if you have a limited budget you are probably better off looking at 8x42's as a good all-around binocular. For a lot of reasons it seems it is easier to make a good inexpensive one. So I guess I am in the 8x42 camp for an overall general purpose binocular especially at a lower price point. I recommended the Leupold 8x32 Mojave BX-3 because of the remarkable low price at Cabelas for $200.00 with free shipping. The 8x32 is about as small as I prefer. For many reasons including the diminishing size of the exit pupil when you drop to an 8x30 format or below the finickiness increases exponentially.
Last edited:
Perhaps I should not have put up my post #13 (copied here), which has evoked useful and interesting information.
Reading the thread again, I find that Chill6x6/Chuck, in post #5, had already made my point (my sentence 1 in #13).
More important, we sometimes tend to lose sight (I did) of a simple request by the Original Poster. Here, it is: On a limited budget, does he get an 8x32 or an 8x42, to add to a 10x42, and also which model? My query (sentence 2 in #13) has more to do with a current issue of my own.
In particular CSG and Troubador/Lee, in posts #6 and #10, have neatly answered him.
Larry, I hope all the info here is useful to you, and good luck!
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I much prefer 8x42 to 8x32 for ease of view, as I like to dart my eyes around a lot. However, given that you already have a 10x42, I agree w/Troubador that an 8x32 would be a better complement. But I would ask, do you really need an 8x bino right now? Maybe, rather than getting a cheap one you should save your money as you originally planned and get something better later on. Before then, you can take time to try some models and find the format you prefer.
--AP
--AP
There have been lots of good insights shared on this thread. Allow me to muddy the waters a bit and suggest a 7x. Two of my three bins are 7x, and I am a true believer in its value for almost any application. It would mean going to a 42mm or higher, which doesn't work for everyone...
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
Age is an important factor because as you age your eye pupil dilation reduces. Some years ago my optician told me when trying to photograph my retina that my widest eye pupil was under 4mm.
I now use 8x32s instead of my previous 7x42s and would not consider 8x42. I see no practical disadvantage in using 8x32s and enjoy having less weight to carry in the field.
I now use 8x32s instead of my previous 7x42s and would not consider 8x42. I see no practical disadvantage in using 8x32s and enjoy having less weight to carry in the field.
Indeed this seems to be the case, and a natural consequence of ageing. I'm not sure how much above 4mm i am myself. The only counter to this is that having a larger exit pupil is more tolerant of where the eye is placed. A 4mm exit pupil with a 4mm max dilation doesn't give you much tolerance.
Personally, i have no trouble with that, as the method i use to look through bins tends to adapt fairly quickly to what is required. So i reckon i will continue to favour the compactness and light weight of 8x32s, and occasionally wallow in the luxury of something larger.
The choice of 42s or 32s is also largely dependent on what sort of birding you do. If you only go out in good daylight on nice days, with max contraction of the pupil, 8x30s may be fine. For those spending evenings staring into the gloom at gull roosts, an extra 20 minutes afforded by 8x42 HTs or similar will be invaluable.
I guess that's why so many members here have so many sets of optics apparently!
Personally, i have no trouble with that, as the method i use to look through bins tends to adapt fairly quickly to what is required. So i reckon i will continue to favour the compactness and light weight of 8x32s, and occasionally wallow in the luxury of something larger.
The choice of 42s or 32s is also largely dependent on what sort of birding you do. If you only go out in good daylight on nice days, with max contraction of the pupil, 8x30s may be fine. For those spending evenings staring into the gloom at gull roosts, an extra 20 minutes afforded by 8x42 HTs or similar will be invaluable.
I guess that's why so many members here have so many sets of optics apparently!
[On posting this I find that Paddy7's post has been added after I began to type!] Robert, there is at least one benefit in an exit pupil wider than the max. eye pupil dilation, the one mentioned by Alexis in post #24. There may be others, and this matter has been discussed a lot in the forum, but not very recently, and I am afraid I will not be able to locate the relevant threads.
Last edited:
IMO....there doesn't HAVE to be a lot of size difference between 32/42mm....it depends on WHICH 32/42mm binocular. At the bottom of this post is a picture of two 42mm and two 32mm binoculars I had handy. Hmmmm...not a lot of difference.
Weight? Same goes for WEIGHT:
EO Denali 8X42- 22.20z
SV 8X32- 21oz
Vortex Viper HD 8X32- 21oz
Leica Trinovid HD 8X42- 260z
FOV?
EO Denali 8X42- 408ft
SV 8X32- 423ft
Vortex Viper HD 8X32- 400ft
Leica Trinovid HD 8X42- 370ish ft
Not ALWAYS a lot of difference although I'll have to agree MOST 8X32s have more FOV...
I find a 42mm IS easier to use, all things considered equal, in terms of eye placement. Larger exit pupil=easier to use. IF anyone using said binocular wears glasses 42mm is MUCH easier to use. ALSO, very FEW 32mm binoculars have adequate eye relief for anyone that wears glasses. Not saying the user DOES wear glasses but why not get a binocular that ANYONE can use?
Better at low light? I've proven to myself over and over...a nice 32mm WILL hang right in there with a 42mm at low light BUT...it IS easier to find the larger exit pupil of the 42mm in low light.
I'm TELLING you....you ain't gonna beat that 8X42 EO Denali for 130 BUCKS.
Weight? Same goes for WEIGHT:
EO Denali 8X42- 22.20z
SV 8X32- 21oz
Vortex Viper HD 8X32- 21oz
Leica Trinovid HD 8X42- 260z
FOV?
EO Denali 8X42- 408ft
SV 8X32- 423ft
Vortex Viper HD 8X32- 400ft
Leica Trinovid HD 8X42- 370ish ft
Not ALWAYS a lot of difference although I'll have to agree MOST 8X32s have more FOV...
I find a 42mm IS easier to use, all things considered equal, in terms of eye placement. Larger exit pupil=easier to use. IF anyone using said binocular wears glasses 42mm is MUCH easier to use. ALSO, very FEW 32mm binoculars have adequate eye relief for anyone that wears glasses. Not saying the user DOES wear glasses but why not get a binocular that ANYONE can use?
Better at low light? I've proven to myself over and over...a nice 32mm WILL hang right in there with a 42mm at low light BUT...it IS easier to find the larger exit pupil of the 42mm in low light.
I'm TELLING you....you ain't gonna beat that 8X42 EO Denali for 130 BUCKS.
Attachments
FrankD
Well-known member
Chuck,
You bring up some good points. I, for one, should have prefaced my earlier comments with "Assuming the same product line" as in an 8x32 Opticron Oregon will be 2/3rds the size, 2/3rds the weight and have a wider field of view than the 8x42 Oregon. That typically holds true across the various price points but not when you compare 8x32s and 8x42s from different product lines.
Bruce,
The easiest way for me to answer your question would be with a few statements.
1. I still have the Sightron but I don't have the Mojave. I don't think that can necessarily just be explained by the original price difference. The Sightron just has a unique blend of characteristics (optical, mechanical and ergonomic) that I personally find preferable.
2. I have to go back and re-read my original reviews/comments but I have a vague recollection of a slight issue with the focusing tension on the Mojave. That may have been the deal breaker. Though I can tolerate a less than perfect focus it may have been the deal-breaker if I was forced to choose between the Sightron and the Mojave.
Lastly, I am extraordinarily sensitive to out of focus images and how the focus in each barrel compares with the other. I am not sure how to describe it. Probably the best way is referencing a star test. If both barrels don't have similar star tests then I usually pick up on it immediately in practical use. It was 3 years ago so I can't say for sure but that may have been another reason I kept the Sightron (which is perfect in that regard) and didn't keep the Mojave.
You bring up some good points. I, for one, should have prefaced my earlier comments with "Assuming the same product line" as in an 8x32 Opticron Oregon will be 2/3rds the size, 2/3rds the weight and have a wider field of view than the 8x42 Oregon. That typically holds true across the various price points but not when you compare 8x32s and 8x42s from different product lines.
Bruce,
The easiest way for me to answer your question would be with a few statements.
1. I still have the Sightron but I don't have the Mojave. I don't think that can necessarily just be explained by the original price difference. The Sightron just has a unique blend of characteristics (optical, mechanical and ergonomic) that I personally find preferable.
2. I have to go back and re-read my original reviews/comments but I have a vague recollection of a slight issue with the focusing tension on the Mojave. That may have been the deal breaker. Though I can tolerate a less than perfect focus it may have been the deal-breaker if I was forced to choose between the Sightron and the Mojave.
Lastly, I am extraordinarily sensitive to out of focus images and how the focus in each barrel compares with the other. I am not sure how to describe it. Probably the best way is referencing a star test. If both barrels don't have similar star tests then I usually pick up on it immediately in practical use. It was 3 years ago so I can't say for sure but that may have been another reason I kept the Sightron (which is perfect in that regard) and didn't keep the Mojave.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Thanks Frank. Your answer makes me think of Lee's recent thread on members discussing their favorite binocular. There are subjective factors that go into deciding on a favorite.
I do remember trying the Mojave when it first came out and there were focus mechanism issues with the two I tried. All of recent ones I tried have been just fine.
I do remember trying the Mojave when it first came out and there were focus mechanism issues with the two I tried. All of recent ones I tried have been just fine.
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
In my case still not sure how the larger exit pupil helps if it is larger than my fully dilated eye pupil in poor light conditions. If I was younger and my eye pupil was larger I accept your argument.
In fairness I did think my 7x42s gave a brighter image than my previous 8x32s in the gloom but not when compared to my latest Swaro 8x32s.
Easier eye placement is often used as an argument for larger exit pupils which I think is important for small boat sailors in choppy waters, rarely for normal birdwatching. I should add I use 8x25s on non birding holidays with no eye placement problems. The important factor is to know your binoculars and get used to them.I should also add choose them wisely.
I sometimes use my Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts as a symbol of my longevity as a birdwatcher at RSPB Honey Pot sites but my ancient appearance probably does that more effectively.
Robert, what I referred to is this:
Some write of their eyes "roaming" around. It is even said of a 2 mm eye pupil, diminished thus by daylight, in the 6 mm exit pupil of a 7x42 binocular.
Pretty much what I did a few months back (albeit 8x33 and not exactly cheap) and haven't regretted it.
The 8s have gone in bag or pocket on days when I would have thought twice about taking the 10s and have worked well even in some pretty iffy light (that's winter in Northumberland for you).
Robert, your choppy waters remark is correct and not confined to small boats. Occasionally on ferries on the way to or from the Western or Northern Isles of Scotland the movement of the vessel made bino viewing pretty difficult even with an 8x42 and bracing ones arms against the structure of the ship doesn't help either. This only happened very rarely though.
Lee
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
Missed going to the Western Isles last year due to illness. Never had a problem on the Cal-Mac ferries luckily, the short hop around or to Skomer Island can be quite choppy as it was early April this year.
Rob I think this happened 3 times in 40 years so not often enough to influence our choice of bins (I'm also talking to you Dennis
) and the worse time was on the way to Shetland. Our ship was 12 hours late arriving there.We are headed to North Uist in September and can't wait to get there so I hope you make it this year too.
Lee
It doesn't help in terms of how much light can enter your eye - it just helps in where your eye is positioned, against the circle of light that is the 'exit pupil'. If you are dilated to 4mm maximum and the EP is 5mm, you have a little more tolerance on eye positioning, not on getting more light.
However, other elements may influence the light-gathering, as mentioned in my previous post - the transmission factor of the glass being the most obvious; that's why i said a 'good' x32 with a high transmission may equal a x42 with a lesser transmission as the light fades. Still gets dark eventually though!
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No way could differences in coatings among contemporary bins be enough for an 8x32 to match an 8x42 in low light, unless the 8x42 had massive issues with internal reflections etc that destroyed contrast.
--AP