• 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.

Bins - 8 x . . or 10 x . . . ? (1 Viewer)

A

andy hunter

Well-known member
When I started being a bit more of a formal birder about 2 years ago, I went to a specialist shop and took some advice. They said that 8 x binoculars (I think mine are 8x25 opticron) would do fine.

However I am finding that in quite a few cases I amn't getting the detail I need for id and I am wondering if 10 x . .. . (or something else ?) would be a better bet. I tried a pals pair recently and although I don't remember their spec. the image was a class apart. They were very big though and I do want a smaller pair that can go in a rucksack for a day or two witout being a weight/size problem.

If anyone has comments or a pair they'd recomend, I'd be grateful. I wouldn't want to fork out too much, but £100-£150 would be a range I'd consider
 
Well, some of us claim to see more at 10x, so it could not hurt if you can hold it. The problem comes with very distant birds. In winter I scan ducks and gulls that are far away, before I take out my scope, but I need to rest my elbows on my car.

8,5x is nearly the same as 8x, so I have been pushing for 9x, not much luck.

The weight is an issue too. If it is too light, you can not hold it as steady. 700g is a good weight. If more, you get tired of the weight when walking with bins on neck. I never got the hang of the harnesses, some people like them.
 
Just bought some Opticron Imagic 8*42 from In-Focus £159 and I am very pleased with them.

I am now looking for some compact bins for my rucksack when I am out walking
 
Seems like it might be an idea, then, to try some 10 x . . . s against, say, some 8x42. That would let me see what they offer against each other.

Inevitably, though, I know its not just a question of your bins - its your eyes, (glasses !), id skills, weather, time of day, etc, as well. It'd be too easy to get into a gear-spiral.

cheers
andy hunter
 
I've found anything from 7-10x works for birding, and sometimes with all three one is left wanting for more. Those are the occasions that you either just can't get close enough (binoculars are not perfect for everything) or you really need a scope.

The difference in how FAR you can see from 7 to 10x is not as great as how BIG the difference makes the bird look.
 
andy hunter said:
... They were very big though and I do want a smaller pair that can go in a rucksack for a day or two witout being a weight/size problem. ...
Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

In addition to pondering the 8x vs.10x question, it seems you may want to consider either power in the 32mm objective size. This will give you nearly the same daylight performance as the bigger 42mms without the added weight or dimension.

Good luck,
Robert / Seattle
 
Andy,

I posted the following in a different thread a while back:

FWIW
I had a chance to look through a pretty good 10x42(43) again yesterday. It was the Pentax SP (which to me is an impressive line). Well, it was nice and good of course, not as good as the top stuff, but it's less than $500 now some places. I can be more specific if you're interested.

The problem though is this: (as others have also said) I just can't get comfortable with 10X. Considering most of my observation is woodland and backyard birds,etc., the effort required to get and remain focussed is too distracting. It seems (perhaps as you are saying), that at I at least question the diopter setting alot. The strange thing to me is, it seems that the finickiness and frustration (compared to 8x) is greater than the proportion of the power 10/8. The result is, by the time I have adequately adjusted to a new bird, or new position of the same bird, the moment has vanished.

Now, I have been thinking that, in a few fleeting 10X moments, the image was just so good that I needed to have a 10x for regular use. Those few moments were of very cooperative targets, and they were just moments. Yes, they obviously were memorable. But, the question for me is: when/where will I prefer to close the car door and go into the field with the 10X over the 8X? And the answer: Not in any of the field environments that I personally frequent - despite the fact that I may miss getting a noticeably superior view in some particular instant. In other words, I may never really use 10x if I had them. [Of course, I'll probably change my mind if I begin to watch more long range targets, or ones that move less, which I assume most 10x fans are doing(?).]

Another suggestion: To truly compare the 10x view to an 8x, it would be best to do so with the same models. I recently compared an 8x vs 10x, both Nikon EIIs. I actually thought the 8x showed the same amount of detail (though smaller) and was slightly sharper, in addition to all the other benefits of 8x.
APS
 
I use both 10x and 8x. There is no other problem, I can use both, but for identification purposes the birds look different in size. It sometimes confuses me. On a scope, size means nothing, as I zoom.

The main reason I would take the 8x out with me on a particular day is that my pair is lighter than my best 10x.
 
I have done some tests just with my 10x50 that show that I can only see as much detail as my 7x50, when hand holding. With tripod, I can see more with 10x. However, that is lost with shake.

That is with porro prisms.

However, I find I can hold roofs with much better stability. Don't know why but it's true.

I have an exceptional 8x32 now but have toyed with going to 10x42 for situations where a scope would be a pain to carry. In doing so, I'd have to prove that I could get more detail than the 8x32. The 8x32, BTW, puts my 10x50 and 7x50 to shame! And it is very light!

Big probs for me with 10x are eye relief, field of view and weight. It's very personal how impactful these and other variables are.
 
Last edited:
Matt_RTH said:
I have done some tests just with my 10x50 that show that I can only see as much detail as my 7x50, when hand holding. With tripod, I can see more with 10x. However, that is lost with shake.

That is with porro prisms.

However, I find I can hold roofs with much better stability. Don't know why but it's true.

I have an exceptional 8x32 now but have toyed with going to 10x42 for situations where a scope would be a pain to carry. In doing so, I'd have to prove that I could get more detail than the 8x32. The 8x32, BTW, puts my 10x50 and 7x50 to shame! And it is very light!

Big probs for me with 10x are eye relief, field of view and weight. It's very personal how impactful these and other variables are.
Click to expand...


Matt -- Which 8x32s did you get? -- Robert
 
I find either work, although I prefer 10x for greater magnification. However, I recently purchased 12x40 (a bargain I could not refuse - I suspect the store had messed up on the price) and I do not regret this although shake can be a problem when tired ....
 
Matt, I think they are quite similar. I have the new and it is quite sharp in the center. But otherwise not spectacular, average.
 
Tero said:
Matt, I think they are quite similar. I have the new and it is quite sharp in the center. But otherwise not spectacular, average.
Click to expand...

Either way, I think our post originator, Andy, should seriously consider the 32 vs. 42 question as much as, if not more than, the 8 vs. 10 question. Afterall, he wants a "performance compact", and that suggests 32 to my thinking.

N'est pas?
 
Last edited:
I used to think I needed a 50mm objective but it just isn't so! 32mm is a great benefit from a weight and size perspective. It's all about exit pupil. Here is some pupil info I gleaned from somewhere, which should help with those considering bins.

Age / Day pupil size / Nigh pupil size (dawn/dusk/shade, somewhere in between)

20 4.7 8
30 4.3 7
40 3.9 6
50 3.5 5
60 3.1 4.1
70 2.7 3.2
80 2.3 2.5
 
Last edited:
Hi Robert / hi all,

theres loads of good points on the thread, thanks to everyone. I think I had better try an 8x32 and and 8x42 and maybe the same in 10x . . if they're around, just in case.

I'm gathering that, by and large, theres not a HUGE difference between 8x and 10x for my purpose, its more about letting a little more light in for a better general image. The question of 32 or 42 may well be more relevant. I like to blend my birding in with my hillwalking so things like a stand/tripod and scope are not too practical.


many thanks, good debate.

andy
 
andy hunter said:
When I started being a bit more of a formal birder about 2 years ago, I went to a specialist shop and took some advice. They said that 8 x binoculars (I think mine are 8x25 opticron) would do fine.

However I am finding that in quite a few cases I amn't getting the detail I need for id and I am wondering if 10 x . .. . (or something else ?) would be a better bet. I tried a pals pair recently and although I don't remember their spec. the image was a class apart. They were very big though and I do want a smaller pair that can go in a rucksack for a day or two witout being a weight/size problem.

If anyone has comments or a pair they'd recomend, I'd be grateful. I wouldn't want to fork out too much, but £100-£150 would be a range I'd consider
Click to expand...

Hi Andy

Sorry a bit late here. ;)

I have mentioned this on another thread relating to cheap v's expensive binoculars

I have a pair of Miranda 10 x 50's and they where bought for £40.00 a long time ago, and they are not good for bird spotting at all. They are heavy to have hanging from your neck too. So they are kept for home use only now.

Now I have got a pair of RSPB 8 x 40's, and they are super at the cost of £150.00. We bought them from the RSPB shop in Edinburgh (Rose Street)

The other aspect about them is that the RSPB pair are lighter to carry for convenience.

So there is the sharpness of quality v's heaviness of binoculars themselves.

Again I will mention what I think here, and I am just adding my quota and thoughts to this thread. :t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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.

Similar threads

R
New low light weatherproof binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Scott98
S
S
Hello from Singapore, Binocular help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C
R
Choosing pocket binoculars
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
forent
forent
A
Nikon 10 x 42 SE eyecups
Replies
6
Views
1K
John M Robinson
J
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top