[markgrubb]

I enjoy most of the threads on BF but the ones that stick in my craw are the ones relating to optics. As a fairly ordinary ability but not that experienced birder it strikes me that the optics you have have little influence on what we see or how we see it.

I have Nikon Monarch bins that cost about £100(low end) and a Nikon ED78 scope(mid/upper end) that cost around £500. Don't ask me why I bought them, I just did, whatever the influences were when I started out. Both suit their purpose just dandy.

My brother and I bought my mother an Opticrom minimidget (about £120)-she had started to go on trips with a local council run birding class.

Last winter we looked at waxwings a few hundred metres from her house
with both scopes-despite the distance the difference was not great-slightly lighter and greater field of view with my scope-but we could still see 50 or so waxwings clearlywith both scopes. A friend of mine has top of the range Swarowskis and I have tried them at our local area a couple of times-can't see much difference-again his are maybe a lttle brighter.

IMHO bins/scopes count for maybe 1% of what you see. Reality/fiction? If true why spend lots unless it gives you particular pleasure?

Not targeting the poster but I just can't get threads like 'Best glass for warblers' or threads about upgrading already decent scopes

So a case of 'the emperors new clothes' or just plain inverted snobbery when talking about buying new optics or upgrading what you have?

Discuss

[mark22c]

i've had a few friends that dont really get why i've spent so much on a pair of bins i use allmost every day and get so much enjoyment from, i often come across folk with a pair of £99.99 argos 20-100x25 super zoom bins hanging around there neck that are blown away with the brightness and clarity of my 8x42 opticrons. one friend had a look through them and my cheap bressers at home one day and just couldnt see what the differance was??? there just binoculars and they make things look bigger he said while looking out an upstairs window, i can see a cow in these... oh and i can see the same cow in these he remarked with little interest, i asked him if he could read the number plate on a car down the road without the bins... i could but he couldnt...still insisted his eyesight was fine.
nuff said i guess!

[Kevin Purcell]

Hmmm, "just plain inverted snobbery". Don't you mean just regular old snobbery? I think your view might be called "inverted snobbery".

Have you ever looked through a really through a really good pair of bins and compared them to your £100 Nikon Monarch (that's a good deal - which model?) Seriously you'd see a difference. Even the naive viewer can tell the difference. The question around here (see the Promaster and Hawke ED threads) is how much you have to spend to get to that top end view: $2000 or $500.

Scopes are even tougher optically though that Nikon 78ED is better than OK. Did you push them both out to x60? That's where the cheap and no-ED scopes fall over.

Sure you can see they're Waxwings especially if you already know they're waxwings and that cool hair-do is a dead give away. That's Giss birding. But in your bins can you tell the females from the males? Can you see the broader yellow tip of the tail and the yellow edges and Vs on the primaries? What if you were doing a count (not just spotting the birds)? Differentiating species at the limit of your range is helped by good optics. Of course some of that good optics may not be fashionable: a good porro at a third the price of a top end roof. Another thing to your "must look through" list. It will be a revelation.

Same goes for warblers especially if they were one of many warblers you've not seen before. Can you get all the field marks? Low contrast ones?

BTW, there are many more New World Warblers in the US (something like 60ish breeding species) than the Old World Warblers UK (14 breeding species). Separating them out in spring and fall migration is a challenge that isn't quite the same as in the UK. All separated by subtlety different field marks on birds that are hopping around in the canopy 30m perhaps away from the observer). So a request for bins to optimize this is not too unusual.

But good optics doesn't make you a good birder and there are plenty more forums here for people who don't obsess about their optics and try to improve other aspects of their hobby. They buy good enough and pursue the hobby as much or as little as they wish.

But for a serious birder the cost of optics is a small fraction of the cost of birding if you start chasing the birds (the Scillies? The Farnes? Norfolk? A bit of a drive/flight from Scotland!). So when you arrive to see a new bird for the list you want to optimize your chances of seeing and IDing the bird.

Next time you get a chance look through some good mid range and alpha bins. Really you may change your mind.

[Keith Dickinson]

Here here Mark.
You should go along and try the optics you are thinking of buying and then if you like it buy it. Who gives a flying f@rt whether it performs well on a star chart or has triple super duper phase corrected prisms. At the end of the day it's your eyes that are the major contributor to the system.
Better shut up now...I could go on for ever.

[Sancho]

Point taken, and it´s been made before on other threads. However, there are some really, really bad optics out there...the ones you have chosen are perfectly good and serviceable. You would need to spend a lot of money to get marginal improvements in your bins, for example, and the more you spend, the tinier these improvements become. But it´s the same with all technology....I love cycling, and have spent comparatively a lot of money on bicycles. To improve slightly on what I have would cost me a lot. At the bottom end of either bins or bikes, if you spend very little, you get rubbish. If you spend a moderate amount, you get good material. The incremental returns to your spend diminish as you move up the scale, but you choose how much the items mean to you and how much you´re prepared to spend, how good you want them, how much of your life you´ll spend using them, etc. etc. It has been said before that once you get used to using very good bins, it´s hard to use moderately good ones again, because your eyes notice the minor imperfections a lot more. I think this is true, although the "mid-price" bins are improving so much all the time, and the "top end" ones having almost reached the bounds of what is possible, that the difference between them is very, very small. Good bins and good bikes don´t make me a great birder or cyclist. But they improve my birding and cycling pleasure, and I don´t mean to offend anyone by having them. If someone is offended, that really is their concern. I choose to spend my money as I see fit....I don´t spend a lot on my car, for example, which is now 11 years old and suits me fine. I spend practically nothing on clothes and alcohol. Most people I work with and know wouldn´t be seen dead driving my car, and reckon I´m a bit odd because I never go to the pub. I don´t think they´re snobs because they have better cars than me or drink more! If you´re happy with your bins, why bother looking at anyone else´s? And if I´m happy with mine, who´s to begrudge me them? Happy Birding! (P.S: the only thing I sometimes feel is a bit guilty at having too many bins....)

[markgrubb]

Originally Posted by Sancho

Point taken, and it´s been made before on other threads. However, there are some really, really bad optics out there...the ones you have chosen are perfectly good and serviceable. You would need to spend a lot of money to get marginal improvements in your bins, for example, and the more you spend, the tinier these improvements become. But it´s the same with all technology....I love cycling, and have spent comparatively a lot of money on bicycles. To improve slightly on what I have would cost me a lot. At the bottom end of either bins or bikes, if you spend very little, you get rubbish. If you spend a moderate amount, you get good material. The incremental returns to your spend diminish as you move up the scale, but you choose how much the items mean to you and how much you´re prepared to spend, how good you want them, how much of your life you´ll spend using them, etc. etc. It has been said before that once you get used to using very good bins, it´s hard to use moderately good ones again, because your eyes notice the minor imperfections a lot more. I think this is true, although the "mid-price" bins are improving so much all the time, and the "top end" ones having almost reached the bounds of what is possible, that the difference between them is very, very small. Good bins and good bikes don´t make me a great birder or cyclist. But they improve my birding and cycling pleasure, and I don´t mean to offend anyone by having them. If someone is offended, that really is their concern. I choose to spend my money as I see fit....I don´t spend a lot on my car, for example, which is now 11 years old and suits me fine. I spend practically nothing on clothes and alcohol. Most people I work with and know wouldn´t be seen dead driving my car, and reckon I´m a bit odd because I never go to the pub. I don´t think they´re snobs because they have better cars than me or drink more! If you´re happy with your bins, why bother looking at anyone else´s? And if I´m happy with mine, who´s to begrudge me them? Happy Birding! (P.S: the only thing I sometimes feel is a bit guilty at having too many bins....)

The first pair of bins I bought were from Argos-15x mag for about £40-and they were rubbish.

And I do have to confess that my monarchs were £150 looking back at the receipt referring to another poster. I think though that if you buy a pair of low range bins from a known brand you will get good optics and i doubt that you would not see/identify any bird you would not see with much more expensive ones. But I still maintain that 99% of what you see is knowledge and experience

[StrikingSlug]

I have a couple of humble points. The first has to do with value for money. If you buy an expensive pair of binoculars and only use them irregularly, they are an indulgence. If you use them all the time, then they are an investment. Try dividing the cost by the number of times you have used them to give an indication of whether you think the purchase has been worthwhile.

Secondly, in these credit crunch times, only buy what you can afford and avoid all those tempting buy-now-pay-later offers. The birds will still be there (apart from the odd migrant perhaps) when you have saved up the readies.

Third, and last before I shut up, I find the same problem with wine. For sure a £50 bottle tastes better than a £5 bottle, but is it 10 times better? I don't think so, but I do know that if you drink the £50 bottle first the second one tastes pretty revolting in comparison!

Mind you, the hangover is the same whichever one you choose to quaff!

Richard

[markgrubb]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Hmmm, "just plain inverted snobbery". Don't you mean just regular old snobbery? I think your view might be called "inverted snobbery".

Have you ever looked through a really through a really good pair of bins and compared them to your £100 Nikon Monarch (that's a good deal - which model?) Seriously you'd see a difference. Even the naive viewer can tell the difference. The question around here (see the Promaster and Hawke ED threads) is how much you have to spend to get to that top end view: $2000 or $500.

Scopes are even tougher optically though that Nikon 78ED is OK. Did you push them both out to x60? That's where the cheap and no-ED scopes fall over.

Sure you can see they're waxwings but if they were one of many warblers you've not seen before. Can you get all the fieldmarks? Low contrast ones?

BTW, there are many more New World Warblers in the US (something like 60ish breeding species) than the Old World Warblers UK (14 breeding species). Separating them out in spring and fall migration is a challenge that isn't quite the same as in the UK. All separated by subtlety different field marks on birds that are hopping around in the canopy 30m perhaps away from the observer). So a request for bins to optimize this is not too unusual.

But good optics doesn't make you a good birder and there are plenty more forums here for people who don't obsess about their optics and try to improve other aspects of their hobby. They buy good enough and pursue the hobby as much or as little as they wish.

But for a serious birder the cost of optics is a small fraction of the cost of birding if you start chasing the birds (the Scillies? The Farnes? Norfolk? A bit of a drive/flight from Scotland!). So when you arrive to see a new bird for the list you want to optimize your chances of seeing and IDing the bird.

Next time you get a chance look through some good mid range and alpha bins. Really you may change your mind.

If you read my original posting, yes I have tried out expensive optics-and yes the bins are a little better( maybe not so with the scope)-as I said I doubt if in other than very occasional circumstances they make a difference.

Yes, we may have 14 regular warblers in the UK but many, many more or less regular vagrants being a maritime country. But as an example, here, chiffchaff and willow warbler are often not readiily identifiable apart in the field visually-how often do optics make the difference-almost never I would guess-observer skills are much more important. And as for making out the difference between a green and greenish warbler-I doubt bins have anything to do with it

I'm sure you just have a portion of the 60 warblers in you part of the country,too, probably more than 14 though

And as for optimising your chances of seeing scarce........ If you go after them (and I don't other than locally ie 25 mile radius) the presence of large number of twitchers on site will point you to the birds not the quality of your optics

And taking a big breath in, it is intriguing that most of the obsessive postings on optics come from US posters-not trying to say anything in particular, just an observation

[StuartReeves]

I agree with Mark that the most important part of any bins or scope is the bit behind the eyepieces. How good any particular pair of bins is perceived to be depends entirely on the experiences and perspectives of the user. While objective measurements of performance are possible, and can be informative, they are far from the whole story. I chose my bins based largely on ease of handling and use, that is how they fit in to my hands and produce a good image through my specs. That sort of factor doesn't feature in reviews as it is just too personal. I am not knocking the binocular threads, as I should also add that through such threads I learnt of a particular flaw with some examples of my selected model, so I was forewarned when I came to buy them.

[Kevin Purcell]

And taking a big breath in, it is intriguing that most of the obsessive postings on optics come from US posters-not trying to say anything in particular, just an observation

Just a casual anti-American statement? Not that I'm saying anything in particular (Yes, I recognize British passive-aggression).

Kevin the Scouser in Seattle. Yes, I'm English.

Perhaps there are more comments here because we buy more bins. They do cost about half what the Brits pay for them though that flatens out a bit with top end Euro 3 bins.

Trying to separate out "good observer skills" from "good optics" is almost impossible to do given the "good observers" have good bins most of the time. A good obsever will do better than poor one with any given optics. But with poor optics you aren't going to see the field marks. Most of the time you are playing the odds. The better optics stack the deck in your favor slightly.

Though the general rule in temperate regions of a constant number of bird species in given radius circle is true. But go to the south of the US (e.g. Texas) bordering on the neo-tropics and there are more species than you see the UK even accounting for Texas' size (about the same linear size as the UK vertically and the same width ). Plus there are more habitats too (real mountains!). The Texas list is more than 540 species. A scan of Peterson's Texas guide shows 44 warblers (excluding the rarities and vagrants which appear too). Being 15 degrees further south than you makes a difference.

And I'm not apologizing for my views (as Sancho said "if you have a problem with expensive bins I guess that's your problem"). Same with the number of posts. If anything I'm a price performance optics guy: I like learning about bins and using them to bird too. But I do like good quality bins. The more I use them the more I like them.

Wow, a binocular forum posting with almost no optical content ...

[NWBirder]

I would suggest to start with a medium level quality binoculars like Nikon Monarch. It will deliver 95-99% of what EL can do depending on how you look at this. Keep on using it until one day, you realize the binoculars is the limiting factors that prevent you from becoming a better birder. Then, go for a more expensive one for the extra $2000. Fortunately (or unfortunately), our ability to become a better birder is not limited by the med-size binoculars, rather, by ourself. Often time, you do a lot of birding by listening, not by watching. So my advise is, get the one you can afford first. Then, working on your skills ladder to harvest the last 1-5% improvement and splurge on the remaining $2000 savings.

[J. Moore]

I really do not see the problem. Some posters with technical expertise and knowledge enjoy talking about optics and various optics configurations. If you do not like the threads, you do not have to read them. I do not have much interest in a lot of the threads there either; the ones that do not interest me I just do not read. In any event, I think it is great that the forum has such posters as a resource to provide deeper understanding into optics and how they work.

My two cents,
Jim

[dafi]

I have to agree with mark the cutting edge of optics may come at a price but all you really need is a scope with a good solid mount and you are away birding. It dose not need to be the sharpest finest most expensive out there just as long as you can see what the birds are doing clearly enough to learn, enjoy and identify what you see.
I can understand the advantage of quality and cutting edge optics, the desire for upgrades but for every day folks out birding all that is often needed is a bit more range than the bins give you. It’s not what you are looking through it’s what you are looking at that’s the important thing.
I think the expense of the hobby puts folks off a bit as well. Seeing beginners pushed in the direction of six hundred pound set ups as a first scope just makes me cringe.

Sits back and prepares to duck…

[markgrubb]

Originally Posted by NWBirder

Fortunately (or unfortunately), our ability to become a better birder is not limited by the med-size binoculars, rather, by ourself. Often time, you do a lot of birding by listening, not by watching.

I think that this completely encapsulates my point. I could afford top of the range optics but don't see the point. I'm sure in the long run I will pick up more birds in the field from spending available time looking at the ordinary(and being confident with ID). If you're not confident in yourself then what difference do top range bins make?

And even if you are very good at I'Ding birds is it not more about fieldcraft and knowledge rather than the bins you have. Can anyone truly say they have made an ID just because their optics have given them the edge?

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by markgrubb

And even if you are very good at I'Ding birds is it not more about fieldcraft and knowledge rather than the bins you have. Can anyone truly say they have made an ID just because their optics have given them the edge?

I do not think that anyone is really disputing that the majority of the time having high quality versus medium quality optics does not make a difference in identifying a bird. I rarely see threads in the optics forum suggesting otherwise. So I think for the most part you are attacking a straw man.

Regards,
Jim

[markgrubb]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

I really do not see the problem. Some posters with technical expertise and knowledge enjoy talking about optics and various optics configurations. If you do not like the threads, you do not have to read them. I do not have much interest in a lot of the threads there either; the ones that do not interest me I just do not read. In any event, I think it is great that the forum has such posters as a resource to provide deeper understanding into optics and how they work.

My two cents,
Jim

Fine, Jim, I have not disputed that. I guess that the bottom line of this thread is that folk getting into birding or developing their skills should really ask serious questions about spending lots of money on optics

I think too some of the agonising over pros and cons of qualities of this bin and that gets a bit anal.

But as you say it's a personal thing-if it floats your boat then fine.

[Steve C]

IMHO bins/scopes count for maybe 1% of what you see. Reality/fiction? If true why spend lots unless it gives you particular pleasure?

Mark,

You said it yourself. Some birders are after the ID more than the image. Some are more concerned with the image. The second group has the ID part pretty well down and as you point out they get some extra pleasure from better optics. Some eye problems are perhaps better adressed with better optics also.

I think it to be fiction that optics are only 1%. I'd say closer to 60/40, eyes/optics. Your point that you should use your eyes more than the optics is well taken. Good optics will not cover bad technique. Neither will good technique completely cover for mediocre optics. I have always felt that if I get bested during an outing, it is because I was bested by a better birder, not because they had better optics. Get what you like and use it. Let others do likewise. If you are happy with the Monarch fine. Somebody else wants a Zeiss fine. Don't like the thread, don't read the thread.

[Tero]

You can see as many birds with the Monarchs as any other same size bins. Happy? End of story.

Now lets get back to debating those minute details of optics.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by markgrubb

And even if you are very good at I'Ding birds is it not more about fieldcraft and knowledge rather than the bins you have.

Certainly, no question about it. The knowledge is a prerequisite for successful encounter and ID.

Originally Posted by markgrubb

Can anyone truly say they have made an ID just because their optics have given them the edge?

Yes, certainly. I've used less than superb binos in the past, and I know that they frequently prevented me from making IDs that I could have made with better optics. Actually, it still happens for me when in the company of other birders. I don't have many birding friends who are as interested in optics as I am, and I have lead many bird walks for my local Audubon chapter etc. Consequently, when I am in the company of other birders, they're usually folks with mid-range to modest quality optics. It very frequently happens that I will pick out and be able to confidently ID birds that the others cannot begin to work out because they can't see them well enough. Typically, these birds are distant soaring raptors, birds over water or mudflats (gulls, ducks, shorebirds), or fast moving warblers (Parulidae) or sparrows (Emberizidae) in situations where the lighting is tricky (strong backlight, mixed lighting). I know the problem isn't just a matter of experience because I sometimes trade binoculars out of interest in what they are seeing, and then find that I can't ID the birds anymore myself!

Experienced birders see many more species than most experienced birdwatchers because they are adept at quickly sifting through the common stuff to find the rarities, and they make a point of looking for species that are rarely seen due to the inconvenience of encountering them. Superb optics facilitate the sifting process by increasing efficiency and they allow a birder to encounter birds over a much larger distance (= deeper penetration of difficult to negotiate habitats like marshes), make solid IDs given very brief views, and thus add many more singleton finds to the list.

Originally Posted by markgrubb

I could afford top of the range optics but don't see the point. I'm sure in the long run I will pick up more birds in the field from spending available time looking at the ordinary(and being confident with ID).

I really don't see why, and so I disagree. You seem to think that acquiring great optics invokes trade-offs that impair one's capacity to develop birding skill and experience. If one spend one's whole life at work so as to afford to continually buy the latest and greatest, perhaps so, but in general, there is no reason why most birders shouldn't be able to acquire great binos AND spend as much time and energy developing their birding skills as they could if they owned lower quality optics.

--AP

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Tero

You can see as many birds with the Monarchs as any other same size bins. Happy? End of story.

Now lets get back to debating those minute details of optics.

You might see them but you might also be wondering ... was that a ... wait ... is that a ... dammit ... did it have a wing bar or not?

That said Monarch's are good mid-range bins. You have to jump up to get better performance though the Chinese are helping that by bringing the cost of good bins down.

Meanwhile I've been posting minutae on other threads

[oleaf]

Originally Posted by markgrubb

I think that this completely encapsulates my point. I could afford top of the range optics but don't see the point.

Hi Mark,

You should have ended with the above quote. What others spend on expensive bins to maximize what they get out of birding troubles you. Therapy is kind of expensive so I recommend a pair of Swarovski EL's as an alternative. You'll get more enjoyment out of them and you'll see the other side of the coin.

You make a point to say you can afford expensive bins but chose not to buy them. So, I don't see the point. I could care less what someone else has around their neck.

A bin is a tool. And the best tools make your job so much easier and more enjoyable.

Guys like you will end up buying a top bin sometime in the future and you'll love it!

Cheers

[Pileatus]

Originally Posted by markgrubb

I think that this completely encapsulates my point. I could afford top of the range optics but don't see the point. I'm sure in the long run I will pick up more birds in the field from spending available time looking at the ordinary(and being confident with ID). If you're not confident in yourself then what difference do top range bins make?

And even if you are very good at I'Ding birds is it not more about fieldcraft and knowledge rather than the bins you have. Can anyone truly say they have made an ID just because their optics have given them the edge?

Yep, two weeks ago.
If you can't see the differences, count your blessings and your cash.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

Yes, certainly. I've used less than superb binos in the past, and I know that they frequently prevented me from making IDs that I could have made with better optics.

Funny Alexis, you claimed in another thread that having a scope with a 20-60x zoom eyepiece would not allow one to identify any more birds than a fixed 30x. But somehow barely detectable differences in resolution between optics make a difference that vast increases in magnification do not? I find that difficult to believe. (Unless you are talking about a comparison to really low-end/budget brand binoculars). Moreover, I make lots of trips with people sporting their Swarovski EL's; I have never had anyone be able to see any feature on a bird that I could not with my Vipers.

Best,
Jim

[Tero]

Real men shoot the birds. Forget the binoculars, go retro.

[streatham]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

BTW, there are many more New World Warblers in the US (something like 60ish breeding species) than the Old World Warblers UK (14 breeding species). Separating them out in spring and fall migration is a challenge that isn't quite the same as in the UK.

Got to call you up on that one mate - lets face it neotropical warblers are a piece of - they're only considered tough by dudes