[ronh]

I came at this via astronomy, and own several big porro prism models which although optically good, are completely unbirdworthy. I analyzed my choice of a decent and well priced daytime and birding binocular, and landed on an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA, with which I am very pleased. Poor me, I am starting to think. I have noticed that while there are perhaps legitimate complaints about the Trinovid family for relatively high weight and cumbersomeness, they are thought to have very good optics, and there are quite a few enthusiasts here that dearly love their 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 10x42, 8x50, 10x50, and 12x50. Heck, 8x20 and 10x25 even. But nay, not the 8x42, supposedly the best all-around specification.

8x42phobia runs similarly throughout other brands and product lines. Optofiles and hard core birders alike seem to avoid the 8x42 like the plague. Just change the power by a mere half to 8.5, as in the Swaro EL or the Swift Audubon, and people start to swoon and salivate.

So tell me please, experienced daytime observers, what gives? Does 8x42 seem less appealing merely because it is so well compromised, and it is therefore more fun to have say, an 8x32 and a 10x50, or maybe a 10x32 and an 8x50, instead of just one binocular? I can understand that. Or, is there really something "WRONG" with 8x42?
Ron

[Kevin Conville]

Your data points are probably skewed. The 8x42 (or similar) is likely the most popular configuration, in Leica and other brands. It's merits are readily apparent and certainly many (most?) on this site own or have owned a pair of them.

Now having said the above, I've never owned a pair of 8x42s!
I guess at any given time I've wanted less of one thing or more of another than what the 8x42s were offering, but I certainly won't offer myself up as any kind of bellwhether of binocular insight. I just know what I like.

[jimtrader11]

I had a choice of either Trinovid 10x42 or 8x32 a few months back from an Ebay seller. I tried both for several days. I liked the 10x42 but finally sent it back even though the price was only $100 more than the 8x32 because of the extra weight.

Regards
Jim

[Pinewood]

Hello Ron,

You were quite right to consider the 8x42 as a good all rounder glass. Many find a ten power of similar exit pupil to be far too big and some dismiss any ten power as too hard to hold.

Over the last few years, improvements in coating and dielectric mirror surfaces give the best 8x32 roof prism binoculars a very similar light output as old 8x42 glasses. The 8x32 generally have a larger field of view, which is regarded as an asset. I would guess that the 8x32 is now heavily favoured.

As every binocular is a compromise, I generally use an 7x42 and a 10x32.

But remember bird watching is far more about patience and persistence than it is about optics.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[Tero]

If I did not have a 10x42, I would use an 8x42. But as it is, I use 8x32 and 10x42. I carry both in the car for a day of birding. Weight is an issue, so at the top end I would get 8x32 due to weight. Monarch 8x42 would be a favorite in 300 dollar class, good weight. I don't care for the 8x36 or 10x36 Monarch at all. Despite wider fov. Other brands make better 8x32s, for example Pentax.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by ronh

there are quite a few enthusiasts here that dearly love their 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 10x42, 8x50, 10x50, and 12x50. Heck, 8x20 and 10x25 even. But nay, not the 8x42, supposedly the best all-around specification.

As Kevin suggested, I think your impressions are skewed because you are basing your conclusions on discussions on an optics forum. Since 8 x 42 is one of the most common choices for birders, it is not a very interesting or thought-provoking discussion topic. Hence, the merits of other configurations tend to be discussed more. I think there are a lot of ways in which the optics discussions on this forum are not representative of general birders' experience -- they are mostly the experience of optics' hobbyists, and by their nature they want to try things different from the mainstream (whatever it may be at a given point in time).

My two cents,
Jim

[Steve C]

Ronh,

Beware buyers remorse. There are lots of choices out there in binocular land that you can pick from. I would venture the guess yopu have picked a good one. The problem people seem to have is all of a sudden they start to think "OK, I spent my money on this one, but is that one there maybe better?" Stop that. You will drive yourself nuts. Analysis paralysis. Your binocular was meant to be used, so use it. As you venture into how you will come to use a good terrestrial binocular, you may find that a lighter 8x32 may fit you better. Maybe you will go some other direction. In the meantime there is probably very little your Leica 8x42 can't that can be reasonably done with a hand held binocular. Few people who will use this forum have only one binocular anyway. Probably some have trouble deciding which of their several choices to use on a particular outing. However the 8x42 is sort of like a favorite recliner. You know what to expect. Maybe not the best for everything, but rarely a bad choice for anything. In the sense that it is the "all around" choice, there is a reason for that distinction.

[ronh]

Thanks to all of you for your good responses. True, this forum may lean to the optically obsessed edge, but hey, I'm here. Anyhow, my outings are unpredictable and varied, and for me the 8x42 would be hard to beat. Not to say it's right for any circumstance!

Dissatisfaction with my 8x42 occurs with about equal parts wishing for more and wishing for less, and put together, make up hardly 10% of the time. So, I guess it suits me fairly well. I'm kind of strange in that while at birding I'm a beginner, at optics I'm a fairly old hand, and like a binocular that seems special. The Trinovid's oddly charming weaponlike feel and fine view quality are fun, even if there isn't a bird anywhere in sight.
Ron

[Tero]

Ron, you will settle on one format pretty soon, but most of us have two in common use. The optics are much more demanding in 10x, but you can get a 10x42 for under 1000 if you want one to go with the 8x42. In fact, if you can settle for 10x32, sort of iffy to me still, the Nikon L series is on sale at Eagle Optics. I prefer 42mm, but the bigger Nikon L was heavy. I am using a Pentax now. 10x43, at 25 oz. Pretty much my maximum weight.

[etudiant]

Ron, you might eliminate your qualms about the weight of the 8x42s by getting an extra comfortable harness or carrying strap. Various members of this forum have found a better strap (from Optech, Lowes, etc) makes a huge difference. I like the Bino Manager, which is more flexible than a harness and yet holds the glass better when running or going through brush. Available from:
http://www.above-timberline.com/bino...ccessories.htm
as well as from Amazon.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by Tero

but most of us have two in common use.

I am not sure who "us" refers to. If it refers to optics hobbyists, then you may well be right. If it refers to birders in general, then I would be inclined to disagree. I certainly have never had any use for more than one pair of binoculars to bring in the field, and consider the differences between 7, 8, and 10 power to be too small to own multiple binoculars. Whenever I need to see something closer up, I use my scope, which provides a truly significant increase in magnification. And if one puts the money one might spend on another pair of binoculars on a lightweight carbon fiber tripod instead, carrying around a scope is not that much of a burden.

Best,
Jim

[Pileatus]

Originally Posted by ronh

I came at this via astronomy, and own several big porro prism models which although optically good, are completely unbirdworthy. I analyzed my choice of a decent and well priced daytime and birding binocular, and landed on an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA, with which I am very pleased. Poor me, I am starting to think. I have noticed that while there are perhaps legitimate complaints about the Trinovid family for relatively high weight and cumbersomeness, they are thought to have very good optics, and there are quite a few enthusiasts here that dearly love their 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 10x42, 8x50, 10x50, and 12x50. Heck, 8x20 and 10x25 even. But nay, not the 8x42, supposedly the best all-around specification.

8x42phobia runs similarly throughout other brands and product lines. Optofiles and hard core birders alike seem to avoid the 8x42 like the plague. Just change the power by a mere half to 8.5, as in the Swaro EL or the Swift Audubon, and people start to swoon and salivate.

So tell me please, experienced daytime observers, what gives? Does 8x42 seem less appealing merely because it is so well compromised, and it is therefore more fun to have say, an 8x32 and a 10x50, or maybe a 10x32 and an 8x50, instead of just one binocular? I can understand that. Or, is there really something "WRONG" with 8x42?
Ron

Three of the very best birders I know (and they are truly excellent birders) use the Leica Trinovid 8X42 BA as their ONLY binocular. Dings, dents, and lens scratches attest to extensive field use. All are in good working order and have never seen a repair. Need I say more?

John

[Tero]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

I am not sure who "us" refers to. If it refers to optics hobbyists, then you may well be right. If it refers to birders in general, then I would be inclined to disagree.

Best,
Jim

I have never met a local birder that did not have a spare, at least a reverse porro pocket. Some thing they keep in the car mostly. Some have 30 year old porros as their main binocular. Most people that travel abroad, say a couple goes, travel with at least one spare binocular for the two of them.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by Tero

I have never met a local birder that did not have a spare, at least a reverse porro pocket. Some thing they keep in the car mostly. Some have 30 year old porros as their main binocular. Most people that travel abroad, say a couple goes, travel with at least one spare binocular for the two of them.

Your original post said two "in common use". I took that to mean more than just having a spare or keeping one in the house or car. Instead I thought you were referring to taking different binoculars in the field depending on what type of birding you do -- which I believe is your practice.

Best,
Jim

[Tero]

Yes, I go a little overboard. But i have been known to bird mostly with 8x32 in spring and summer, then 10x42 from October to spring migration.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

Your original post said two "in common use". I took that to mean more than just having a spare or keeping one in the house or car. Instead I thought you were referring to taking different binoculars in the field depending on what type of birding you do -- which I believe is your practice.

Best,
Jim

In my experience, most birders only have one binocular that they use, though many have an old pair that might also serve as a spare, so I think Jim is right about that. Nevertheless, I don't think there is any virtue to owning or using only one bino. For birding, I think a premium 8x20, 8x32, and 8x42 (or 10x42) make a nice, and complete, set. I prefer 8x42 most of the time, but I can't deny the convenience (to the point of greater utility) of the smaller configurations for travel or carrying in my bag for opportunistic IDs (esp. during spring/fall migrations). Even someone who is not an optics enthusiast might see the sense in owning more than one configuration on these grounds. Some on this forum are also interested in butterflies or astronomy which can inspire a person to own and use more than one bino, but I guess that's a different story.

--AP

[ronh]

Thank you all for the good suggestions and deep thoughts all around. Your experienced opinions are valuable to me. But, see--only one confessed 8x42 user in all these responses.

Frankly, if I could pick two binoculars, 8x42 would not be one. At my present inexperienced place, I'd be inclined toward an 8x32 and a 10x50--now that would be an interesting difference.

But, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable owl hunting with an 8x32, or lugging a 10x50 all day around thickets with quick little birdies nearly knocking my hat off. If I had those two, and was going out like I often do now not knowing what to expect, I would go into a pitiful dither having to choose to carry one, knowing it would be terrible for some situations I might encounter. Maybe compromise is supposed to be a bad thing, but the most compromised specification of all is working pretty well for me.
Ron

[Kevin Conville]

If you're like many of us Ron you'll experiment with different layouts.
Those 8x42 Trinovids are a fantastic bino though, and I suggest using the snot out of them before concluding any deficiencies. If you ever find any.

FWIW I currently alternate between 8x32s and 7x42s, both Leicas, but carried 10x42 Trinovids for 12 years and many a mile. If they had been 8x42s I probably would still have them.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by ronh

But, see--only one confessed 8x42 user in all these responses.

I guess I forgot to confess. I do use an 8 x 42 (Vortex Viper) and quite like it. It meets all my needs in typical birding situations, and is only 23 ounces, so it is as light or lighter than many 8 x 32s, while being better in low light.

Best,
Jim

[dalat]

Originally Posted by ronh

But, see--only one confessed 8x42 user in all these responses.

I just bought a 8x42 Ultravid HD. I wanted to get a real good bin, but not to start a collection. That's why I went for the 8x42 as one-suits-all configuration.

Florian

[henry link]

I'll confess to owning an 8x42, although my wife is the main user of it now. I prefer 8x, exit pupils 5mm or larger and I don't care about weight within reason. My theoretically favorite configuration is 8x50, but there's no real 8x50 available now that I like well enough to buy. I wish I could whittle down my 8x56 to an 8x42-50, while keeping the long low aberration focal length.

[ronh]

More confessions! I feel a lot less lonesome now.

Henry, I know what you mean about the 8x56 Zeiss. I feel the same way about my 7x50 Fujinon. The world's finest little 7x35 is trapped in there. But, after carrying that 3-pound IF monster around for a couple of years, the 8x42 Trinovid seems positively svelt. "The view is not everything" was a hard lesson for me to learn.
Ron

[Tero]

I have been looking for an 8x42 that has a fov of 400ft. The Diamondback was not it. Still looking.

[FrankD]

Sadly, I seem to fit your description in the original post. I enjoy using the 8x42 configuration as the best "all around" binocular combination. There are several models in just about every price range that I would not mind owning.

Having said that, my current "selection" does not contain an 8x42 bit several close. If I had to select just one bin though I most assuredly would make it an 8x42. The slightly larger size doesn't bother me when I can benefit from the 5 mm exit pupil.

[Tero]

If I had to pick one 8x42 in my budget right now, it would be the Pentax DCF 8x43, or possibly Vortex, if I got to see them side by side. And close to a dream 8x42, Meopta at 880 dollars.