I was recently comparing 10x30 bins and 8x32 bins by mounting them on a tripod and viewing UPC labels and small text on various food containers from a distance of about 30 ft, going back and forth several times. In all cases the 10x binos were able to read finer text and separate more closely spaced UPC code lines than the 8x. Both binos are premium brands. Would this indicate that the 10x bins have better optics/resolution or can the difference be chalked up solely to the increased magnification? In "real world" viewing outside of plants and birds both look sharp with maybe a slight edge to the 10x, but other factors become more noticeable (control of CA, brightness, intensity hue of colors, etc.). Thoughts?
-
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.
More detail/resolution with 10x versus 8x? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ostracod
- Start date
As a general rule, a good binocular's effective resolution will exceed the visual limit of the majority of users. Mounted on a tripod you should see exactly 8 fold smaller detail with an 8x binocular and 10 times smaller with a 10x. However if your eyesight is good enough you may well spot other differences in the fine detail contrast of some, particularly complex targets. This is generally referred to as sharpness.
Hand held is a different matter. The magnification amplifies hand shake as well and many on the forum have said that this wipes out the 10x advantage over an 8x. I suspect this very much depends on the individual.I've found a nicely weighted and balanced 10x or even 12x binoculars can hold their advantage over lower power alternatives.
Cheers,
David
Hand held is a different matter. The magnification amplifies hand shake as well and many on the forum have said that this wipes out the 10x advantage over an 8x. I suspect this very much depends on the individual.I've found a nicely weighted and balanced 10x or even 12x binoculars can hold their advantage over lower power alternatives.
Cheers,
David
Steve C
Well-known member
Resolution tests, in my opinion, since they are done at relatively close distance always favor increased magnification. At those ranges it is reasonable to see more detail. I have always thought higher magnifications are better closer in. Magnification preference is a largely personal matter. The 8x vs 10x debate lingers because both work and both are useful in hand held binoculars.
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
For what it's worth I used a Leica 10 - 15X50 Duovid all but daily for 12 years in my role as Wildlife & Conservation Officer and the closest said instrument came to a tripod was on the day I took photographs to sell in the classified section.
Whether set to 10 or 15 power the only support used or required to deliver wobble-free viewing in the field, other than elbows and knees, was a single hazel stick cut to a length associated with the Scouts or an Alpine chamois hunter. The last 3 fingers on the left hand grasp the stick at head height and the remaining finger and thumb support the bin's left barrel. Try it. You may be pleasantly surprised and it costs nothing.
The comment that the higher mag' comes into its own at close to mid range viewing is in line with my findings. One of the most pleasurable experiences was when hunkered down between the exposed roots of a storm-felled tree and watching for more than an hour a wren busying itself in the understory just 10 yards away and tree creeper at about 20. The detail at 15 power in what was perfect light was truly heart stopping.
If these bins had been better in low light; they wern't bad just not perfect, I would still have them. Still can't figure why Leica didn't go for a 56 objective.
All a long-winded way to say don't be afraid of a higher than 8 magnification but do be prepared to be imaginative with your approach to improvised support.
LGM
Whether set to 10 or 15 power the only support used or required to deliver wobble-free viewing in the field, other than elbows and knees, was a single hazel stick cut to a length associated with the Scouts or an Alpine chamois hunter. The last 3 fingers on the left hand grasp the stick at head height and the remaining finger and thumb support the bin's left barrel. Try it. You may be pleasantly surprised and it costs nothing.
The comment that the higher mag' comes into its own at close to mid range viewing is in line with my findings. One of the most pleasurable experiences was when hunkered down between the exposed roots of a storm-felled tree and watching for more than an hour a wren busying itself in the understory just 10 yards away and tree creeper at about 20. The detail at 15 power in what was perfect light was truly heart stopping.
If these bins had been better in low light; they wern't bad just not perfect, I would still have them. Still can't figure why Leica didn't go for a 56 objective.
All a long-winded way to say don't be afraid of a higher than 8 magnification but do be prepared to be imaginative with your approach to improvised support.
LGM
Great insights all, thank you. In this case I'm not deciding between 8 and 10 so much as trying to decide if a pair of used bins I purchased to replace/upgrade my current bins is up to snuff. My current bins are 8x30 Swaro Companions, less than a year old. The potential replacement is a 12 year-old Zeiss Victory 8x32. My only substantive complaint about the Swaros is too much CA. The Zeiss bins fix that and improve other areas as well, but I'm a little concerned they didn't put up a better fight in my impromptu resolution test. Maybe I should give it another shot but at 20' and 25' for the 8x and 10x, respectively.
Light level is quite critical in this kind of comparison as it can affect your acuity quite substantially so it's worth checking your results a few times. You need fairly bright, but usually not direct sunlight conditions for optimum acuity.
To be pedantic, normally with binoculars costing more than £200, you are doing a magnified acuity test not a resolution test. The CL may well be an exception.
It's a couple of years since I last looked at the Swarovski CL x30s but they have had a pretty notorious reputation since their launch, and indeed the 20 or so I've tried have been bad for effective resolution in my opinion. In your original post you said you had a 10x30. If your eyesight is above average you might well might find even an old Victory FL 8x32 you could see more detail than with a 10x30 CL. With below average acuity, magnification should win. In your latest post you say they are both 8x, so I'm a bit confused about what you are comparing.
There is a certain charm in using using a high power binocular at close range. It often tweaks the brains process pathways for sharpness for birds and butterflies and with a quality binocular it is quite a buzz. However, for more practical reasons, I generally use a 7x for more enclosed, closer range birding but favour a 10 or 12x for longer range use. Distance makes no difference to acuity, resolution, and at least in technical terms, sharpness, though what you are looking at is a consideration.
David
To be pedantic, normally with binoculars costing more than £200, you are doing a magnified acuity test not a resolution test. The CL may well be an exception.
It's a couple of years since I last looked at the Swarovski CL x30s but they have had a pretty notorious reputation since their launch, and indeed the 20 or so I've tried have been bad for effective resolution in my opinion. In your original post you said you had a 10x30. If your eyesight is above average you might well might find even an old Victory FL 8x32 you could see more detail than with a 10x30 CL. With below average acuity, magnification should win. In your latest post you say they are both 8x, so I'm a bit confused about what you are comparing.
There is a certain charm in using using a high power binocular at close range. It often tweaks the brains process pathways for sharpness for birds and butterflies and with a quality binocular it is quite a buzz. However, for more practical reasons, I generally use a 7x for more enclosed, closer range birding but favour a 10 or 12x for longer range use. Distance makes no difference to acuity, resolution, and at least in technical terms, sharpness, though what you are looking at is a consideration.
David
wdc
Well-known member
Thanks very much for the advice on technique and the fine description of your experience.
Bill
Rathaus
Well-known member
LGM,
Great info in there cheers. Most of my viewing is firmly braced in some creative way. I might whittle a Hazel type monopod stick and give it a go :t:
Rathaus
Sorry for the typo on the magnification. The CL is 10x30. You are right about the light levels. Finding one's best acuity is pretty complex just on the lens/pupil side of things with nothing said about the signal processing side.
Anyway, the CLs were the best I could afford at the time and although not in the same league as the true alphas, they were the only ones in the shop within my price range that could begin to show the same fine textures and color saturation when viewing the feathers and fur of the various taxidermy within the store. At the risk of being thrown out on my head, I admit to being more of a hiker and nature enthusiast than a birder. And to be fair, with the exception of too much CA, the CLs have served me quite well in that endeavor. Again, not to say they are the equal of the true alphas, just that they do have a place.
FWIW, I retested at comparable distances and the Zeiss did outperform the CLs so order has been restored, haha. (When viewed at the same distance, the CLs still came out ahead.) And overall I thought the Zeiss was a good match for the optical characteristics that are most important to me. The only things I didn't like were the eyecups and the overall chunky look and feel. I prefer the sleek, almost elegant package of the CLs.
I have also come to the conclusion that I'm one of those weird 10x people. No matter the bins, when I have the opportunity to spend time with both 8x and 10x, I always end up with the 10x in hand at the end.
I love the forum, btw. Thanks for all the help and sorry for being such a chatterbox. That should wear off quickly.
Last edited:
The CL has sold well for Swarovski, and I understand the appeal. As you say, the physical attributes and view characteristics may well suite your needs very well. I'm sure most owners are very happy with their purchase. However I've met a few who mostly bought them on brand reputation and have been angered when they realise it can't match a $200 Bushnell or Vortex for detail.
There is an ISO standard for some of the optical characteristics including resolution. Unfortunate the standard is quite pathetic, particularly when applied to smaller objectives. It looks to me that in order to distinguish the CL from their flagship EL Swarovision they have pushed to the limit allowed by the ISO. If your eyesight is good, you will find more detail elsewhere, but you will need to judge whether the other physical and optical characteristics suite your needs as well as the CL.
David
There is an ISO standard for some of the optical characteristics including resolution. Unfortunate the standard is quite pathetic, particularly when applied to smaller objectives. It looks to me that in order to distinguish the CL from their flagship EL Swarovision they have pushed to the limit allowed by the ISO. If your eyesight is good, you will find more detail elsewhere, but you will need to judge whether the other physical and optical characteristics suite your needs as well as the CL.
David
No argument here. The 2 to 3 hours or so I spent comparing bins in the store was an eye-opening experience. I looked at pretty much every 30-ish mm model they had topping out price-wise with a pair of Ultravid HD (not plus) at $1,500. My current bin then was a 10x42 Carson HD ($250) and I was looking for something smaller with a slight improvement in optics. I immediately discarded both the Ultravids and the CLs as they both had far more CA than the Carsons. (Something that still astounds me, frankly.) The Ultravids also had more distortion and a smaller sweet spot. To my eye and the sales clerks, the Carsons also bested the substantially more expensive offerings from Vortex, Leopold and others. The early winner was a pair of $325 Nikon Monarch 7. It was only later in my testing, when I turned the bins to the taxidermy and their super-fine linear details that the resolution advantage of the UV and CL started to show through in the visible texture and color saturation. (I suspect that is because our vision is most sensitive (not sure that is the right word) to linear features.) In the end, I would have been happy with the Monarchs as the best bargain in the store had I not had to return 3 consecutive pairs for various focuser and diopter issues. That said, this particular pair of Swaros did best all less expensive models in resolution but was still a step behind the UV.
8X vs 10X...
Where terrain/foliage allows, I believe one CAN see things with a 10X that they otherwise would not see as well with an 8X. Of course this is assuming using the same model binocular. In open areas I'll always pick a 10X, maybe even a 12X.
CL 8X30...
I read all the negativities associated with this binocular. Quite honestly, it sounded like a lemon and one of Swarovski's biggest mistakes based on some of the things I've read. I never considered it or even LOOKED thru it until this past May. To say I was surprised is an understatement. Surprised in a GOOD way. It certainly holds it's own in the group of 30-32mm binoculars I own. YMMV.
Where terrain/foliage allows, I believe one CAN see things with a 10X that they otherwise would not see as well with an 8X. Of course this is assuming using the same model binocular. In open areas I'll always pick a 10X, maybe even a 12X.
CL 8X30...
I read all the negativities associated with this binocular. Quite honestly, it sounded like a lemon and one of Swarovski's biggest mistakes based on some of the things I've read. I never considered it or even LOOKED thru it until this past May. To say I was surprised is an understatement. Surprised in a GOOD way. It certainly holds it's own in the group of 30-32mm binoculars I own. YMMV.
Attachments
Chuck,
I fully agree with you on this. The CL (I got one myself) may not be one of Swarovski's top binos, but it is definitely better than its reputation imho, and I know even people who prefer it over the 8x30 Habicht (I would, however, strongly disagree on that).
Zeiss has the Terra to cover the lower end of the market (less than half the price of the CL), , Leica only sells premium stuff. Would be interesting to know how well the CL sells.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Leica recently introduced a Trinovid 8X32 that sells for about $849. That compares to about $1,079 for the Swarovski 8X30 CL Companion.
I tried an 8X30 CL Companion several years ago at the Bass Pro shop. They had a high large window facing south with the animal heads mounted around it. I used the CL to look at heads and the view was very washed out with glare. I then did the same with a Vortex Viper 8X32 and the difference was significant with the Viper showing very little wash out. I recall thinking the image was a little soft with the CL but did not pursue it after the washed out image as my looking came to a stop with the CL at that point.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
I owned the CL 8x30 for a while and sold it after I began wearing eyeglasses.
It was a sad day selling it. I wasn't used to wearing glasses and I found the small EP and ER bothersome, but I wonder if I should have kept it and tried to adjust to it.
It is my second all time Fav bino of all I've owned.
At one time I think I may have been the only person who really liked it here on the forum.
I found it very bright for 30mm. Loved the ergonomics and small size.
I sometimes think of trying again and ordering the 8x30 black since now I am used to using bins with glasses.
Glad to hear someone else finds the optics good enough. I had no problem with the view. It's not the best , but I still thought it was quite good...especially the apparent brightness.
Last edited:
looksharp65
Well-known member
To make a long story short, I used to carry a 6,5x32 and a 10x32 all the time (one of them resting in the backpack). I disliked the 8x format. But when I tested my 10x32 FL against my (then newly acquired) Nikon E II 8x30 I failed to find any differences in details perceived. I looked at White-fronted Geese among Greylag Geese at 2000 meters distance. The white fronts were minuscule, just barely perceptible with the FL but the E II didn't fail or lag behind. After that, I largely abandoned the 10x format.
When performing resolution tests, 10x should always beat 8x if they both are good specimens.
Looking through 10x binoculars can be awesome, a real in-your-face experience. But is it the resolution that makes people wow? I don't think so.
I think it's the 56% bigger image area compared to the 8x. Provided you can keep them steady, accept the narrower FOV and decreased brightness you can experience that WOW every time.
I think 8x and even 7x is a better, more versatile alternative. YMMV.
//L
When performing resolution tests, 10x should always beat 8x if they both are good specimens.
Looking through 10x binoculars can be awesome, a real in-your-face experience. But is it the resolution that makes people wow? I don't think so.
I think it's the 56% bigger image area compared to the 8x. Provided you can keep them steady, accept the narrower FOV and decreased brightness you can experience that WOW every time.
I think 8x and even 7x is a better, more versatile alternative. YMMV.
//L
Last edited:
Jack Speer
Well-known member
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how are you arriving at 56%?
I would think it would be calculated like (10 - 8) / 8 = 0.25 = 25% bigger image. Though I was never the best in school.
Area magnification, which is frowned on by some.
5/4 squared is 25/16 or 1.5625.
Personally I use various magnifications depending on what I am looking at.
3.5x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x, 8.5x, 10x, 12x, 15x, 18x, 20x, 22x and 30x binoculars.
Before anyone says 30x binoculars are useless, the 30x50 Yukon folded refractor optics binocular that I have is bl...y marvelous on double stars. I use it braced against window glass, which does not affect the image if the angle is small. But beware ghost images. Tripods are not used, but I brace on anything handy.
Sometimes 8x is better than 10x, sometimes the opposite. It depends what one is observing.
5/4 squared is 25/16 or 1.5625.
Personally I use various magnifications depending on what I am looking at.
3.5x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x, 8.5x, 10x, 12x, 15x, 18x, 20x, 22x and 30x binoculars.
Before anyone says 30x binoculars are useless, the 30x50 Yukon folded refractor optics binocular that I have is bl...y marvelous on double stars. I use it braced against window glass, which does not affect the image if the angle is small. But beware ghost images. Tripods are not used, but I brace on anything handy.
Sometimes 8x is better than 10x, sometimes the opposite. It depends what one is observing.
wdc
Well-known member
Good information. The idea of a 10x bin is starting to get under my skin. Now to find one with enough eye relief... ;-)
Bill
