Survey of your fellow birders instruments.... (1 Viewer)

several Nikon Monarch 10x42

Click to expand...

I've never though to ask the users I've seen if they're using the 8x or the 10x.

But I wonder is the 10x42 more or less popular amongst the birders who use them? Given the very similar FOVs it seems to come down to less shake/brighter image against bigger image/bigger AFOV.

Which is more popular the 8x or the 10x?

The other thing about the Monarchs is it had never twigged why they might be called that. But recently I've been reading The Big Twitch by Sean Dooley (a very funny and very Australian account of a record breaking Big Year in Oz). And of course includes some Monarchs i.e. Monarch Flycatchers. I suspect that's where the name might have come from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_flycatcher

Between 8x & 10x, I'd say it's probably a tossup. The only time I've ever found 10x (or more) to be any advantage is at lakes & rivers for shorebirds, gulls, terns, et al.

One time where I've found 10x to work very well is in IS bins. That's when 10x comes into it's own when the shakes are removed. Even with something like the Canon IS 10x30 which is relatively inexpensive.

One of the magnification trade offs is how long do you keep looking at the bird. I think for twitching/list-checking the goal is to get the field marks (that you know) and tick the bird so the 10x can help.

But if you really want to watch the bird 8x and then 7x come into their own. For behavior watching 7x really can't be beat. Well it could be no one makes a really wide 6x so 7x is it.

The other time I've found 6x useful is from a moving car in the Skagit valley trying to determine when on the move if those big white birds on the field are Snow Geese or swans. 8x don't work for that. 6x do.

It's all down to habitat and tasks. Pick the "right" bin for the habitat or task. Or just use an 8x and it sort of works most places

The north east coast USA places I have been birding seem to have a mix of high, medium and low quality binoculars.

On the high end the big four (Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon) seem to be the most common. Heck its great glass.

For the middle tier I see lots of Nikon Monarchs, Pentax, Minox, Minolta, Audubon poros, Swift, Bushnell and more. Also a lot of large antique glass with dusty prisms and fungs on the glass. The owners swear they work as good or better than the new stuff. After a good comparison I agree with them (to avoid a geezer wrestling match on the birding platform) and slip my eye doctors card into their binocular case while they are trying to figure out if they are looking at a Black Swan or a Turkey Vulture.

On the low end its a real mix of almost acceptable to "mimic bins" that are made to look expensive but are dirt cheap. These uaualy have lots more knobs and levers than a "normal" bincoular. Zooms and brightly colored objectives rank high in this group. Some have cameras, radios, Internet and cup holders built in! But I am very happy to see anyone not looking at a TV.

Scopes – Swarovski AT rules the roost at all places I bird. I could not sell my Nikon ED 82 fast enough after spending an afternoon comparing it to the AT 80 on a wetland birding platform. The AT is more expensive – But (I felt) the view quality is worth it. I spent an hour last Saturday looking at a Great Horned Owl with a chick sitting on a huge Red Tail nest in the local cemetery at about noon. I now know where the term sleeping with one eye open comes from. The Mother Great Horned was drifting in and out of sleep every min. At about 800 feet (244 meters) the view was great at 50 power (compared to the Nikon). No regrets on the AT purchase!

Most popular tripod - Manfrotto

-Backpacking and hiking trails – Nikon & Pentax reverse poros, (in my camp Leica 10x25 and Nikon 10X2 5LXL)

-Empire State building, Tasko, and no name brands with orange Objective and blue oculars.

-Statue of Liberty no name brands with blue objectives and orange oculars.

-NY Opera – No name 3x opera glasses (why bother), Nikon & Pentax compact.

-Boating – Poros the bigger physical size and the bigger the objective the better. Barska 10-30X50 Zoom (not water proof and unuseable in wave conditions).

Most popular field guide - Sibley

Most popular pants - Zip off legs with as many pockets as possible

Most popular shirt - Safari shirt with as many pockets as possible and a cup holder

Most popular vest - As many pockets as possible and 2 cup holders

Most popular hats - Free vendor logo caps (under 40), wide brimmed sun hats (for over 40). Apparently there is a fortune to be made for the inventor of a birding hat with multiple pockets. Maybe an opportunity for shoes with pockets too. Please be advised I have a patent pending for both. Be on the look out for a new product line of important and exciting - "things" - we will be markting for you to put in those pockets! We are accepting orders while we dream up the "things". Collateralized security investment opportunities and retirment dirivatives are availble now. Get in on the ground floor while you can. There is no risk - this venture is backed by credit default swaps and you can bank on that!


Most popular coffee - Dunkin Donuts in a reuseable mug, followed by high powered dark (burnt) specialty blends in disposable cups followed by green tea in recycled resuseable mugs.

Most popular sandwich on the birding platform - Turkey, Swiss, mayo, tomato and onion.

Shortest stay on the birding platform - Usualy less than 5 min. Hugely obese people on vacation who would rather watch birds on TV.

Least popular auto fuel BP and Exxon (for the same reasons).

Posted by Tvc_2000:
............................................................."But I am very happy to see anyone not looking at a TV. ..........................................."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't like to see people looking at Turkey Vultures!!! Why??

Bob

Posted by Tvc_2000:
............................................................."But I am very happy to see anyone not looking at a TV." ..........................................."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't like to see people looking at Turkey Vultures!!! Why??

Bob:h?:

ceasar said:

Posted by Tvc_2000:
............................................................."But I am very happy to see anyone not looking at a TV. ..........................................."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't like to see people looking at Turkey Vultures!!! Why??

Bob

Click to expand...

Baw haw haw!
I was refering to the TeleVision.
Not the Turkey Vulture... AKA "The Hawk Mountain Condor"!

You don't like TV? And here I've been laboring under the illusion (apparently incorrect) that your user name meant ...."TV Channel 15 until 2000 hours (8PM)."

spyglass said:

You don't like TV? And here I've been laboring under the illusion (apparently incorrect) that your user name meant ...."TV Channel 15 until 2000 hours (8PM)."

Click to expand...

You score many points for creative interpretation! TVC15 is not my birth name it’s a song!

No I do not like television.

I am one of two Americans still on “rabbit ears TV” and I live with the other person. We logged 2 hours of TV in the last 2 years (and survived) and that was for a historic event. This has forced us to do other activites such as go outdoors and have fun.

I used to watch more TV but it caused drooling in my case along with a need to buy high fat foods laced with salt and chemicals. I also had cravings for crap I did not need and could not afford. In addition I noticed a direct relationship between the size of my friends TVs and the size of their rear ends.

Sitting and looking at the wall which is presenting programing for the lowest common denominator, is not an activity in my opinion.

Like many here, I took the money some people spend on huge TVs and invested it into optics with no regrets. It’s probably a coincidence or my neanderthal genes, but my blood pressure, cholesterol and body weight all went down and my enjoyment of life up when I switched off the TV and picked up the binoculars. Its really weird what happend when I stoped watching actors live for entertainment and I started living for entertainment.

I am sure further study is needed (I think thats what the credable announcer said on TV)!

I only use the tv to watch movies. When I can watch the movies more conveniently on computer, I will not need the tv. Now we have three monitors set up, but only to set next to.

I do like to watch youtube bits.

Kevin Purcell said:

The other thing about the Monarchs is it had never twigged why they might be called that. ...

Click to expand...

I read that they're close focusing (2.5m) and named after Monarch butterflies.

Mostly Swarovski around here including scopes.
Photo wise, Canon 1D4 and 500mm f4 & 1.4x

It seems to vary by 'birding generation' around here. The longest servers seem to have lots of old porros and Zeiss Dialyts, then its Trinovids, then Swaro ELs, and most recently a mix of FLs, HDs and now increasingly the new ELs. Quite a few Nikon roofs and lots of Opticrons among those who don't want to spend a fortune.
Scope-wise - the older generation tend towards old-model Kowas and Swaros with a few Leicas. More recent birders use a lot of Swaro, though there is a sizable minority who prefer the Nikon ED82, with the odd Leica and Zeiss, and a few lucky buggers using the Kowa 88. More fiscally sensible birding is dominated by Opticron.

The Kerreran said:

fiscally sensible birding

Click to expand...

Nice phrase

I shall try to remember it next time I think of myself as a skinflint.

Post #24 is excellent.

Baw haw haw!
I was refering to the TeleVision.
Not the Turkey Vulture... AKA "The Hawk Mountain Condor"!

Click to expand...

You know you're a birder when ... someone says TV and you think: "Ah, Cathartes aura. A two tone dark underwing, long tail and a penchant for soaring with a lot of dihedral."

You know you're a optics geek when someone says EO and you don't think of the Teletubbies.

I'll be here all week

JPAC said:

I read that they're close focusing (2.5m) and named after Monarch butterflies.

Click to expand...

Interesting. But with 2.5m close focus and narrow FOV I can see them being a great butterfly bin.

The Monarch flycatchers would be an attraction to japanese birders (and others in Asia and Oceania). The Monarch butterfly is well known here.

Perhaps the name works well in different markets e.g. they sell Nikon Monarch bins in Europe that have no Monarch flycatchers or Monarch butterflies but they do have real Kings and Queens.

Perhaps one shouldn't try to overthink a marketer

Well, well. A new leader, to me, showed up with 10x42 Zen Ray second generation. I liked them. One zeiss victory 32mm, bunch of Eagle Optics, one Swarovski, me with Ultra Bushnell 8x42.

I see a lot of Nikon Monarchs, likely the single most common glass, Leupold and then Vortex in there too. Among upper end glass more Swaro ELs than any others, a few Leicas and Zeisses. The Swift Audubon has a steady local following. My own go to glass is the Sv 8.5 with Leica 8x32s for when I want to travel extra light. I'm lucky to have such good glass.

spyglass said:

Between 8x & 10x, I'd say it's probably a tossup. The only time I've ever found 10x (or more) to be any advantage is at lakes & rivers for shorebirds, gulls, terns, et al.

Click to expand...

Interingly, the Cornell uni review gives the 8x and 10x Monarchs quite different ratings at 2nd and 8th place respectively.

Yes, 10x is more difficult to make than 8x. At 8x ergonomics may outweigh optics for some.

newbirdy said:

Interingly, the Cornell uni review gives the 8x and 10x Monarchs quite different ratings at 2nd and 8th place respectively.

Click to expand...

If you look at the details of the rating system you'll find some odd quirks.

First, 10x binoculars in general are penalized for narrower true fields, which is simply a natural consequence of the increased magnification, so even though the 10x Monarch has a wider apparent field than the 8x it looses a point in the FOV category. It's really the 8x Monarch, not the 10x, that has a narrower field for its magnification.

Another oddity is that the "handling" of the 10x is downgraded compared to the 8x even though the bodies are the same.

Then the 10x is downgraded some more for "eyeglass friendliness", something that is irrelevant to non-eyeglass wearers and even to some eyeglass users if the eye relief happens to be long enough for them.

Finally there is another downgrade for subjective impressions of "image quality" without any indication of what image problems caused the downgrade. Since Cornell doesn't test for sample defects it's possible that their particular specimen of 10x Monarch was defective in some way the 8x wasn't.

Numerical systems that reduce everything to a single ranking number always have problems. Look beyond that single number at the assumptions, methods and details to see if they make any sense and how much is relevant to you.

I for one never put much stock in Rosenberg's "tests". A lot of bias seems to exist there (sponsorship and "support" are likely factors), and their methods aren't always kosher. Very subjective. He & his cohorts barely gave the SE series any mention (the roof style is de rigeur for a true recommendation from them), as porros are considered gauche and 2nd rate. Once in a while, something will come along that they can't ignore, that isn't Teutonic, and they hafta admit that it's really good (e.g. the new Kowa scopes), but I don't think they like it much.....