[iebirdie]

Hi,
I have some misc thoughts going around in my head after trying out many bins in the last few months...

[1] 8x32 versus 8x42: Take any top brand 8x32. Compare it in the field with its 8x42 brother. There is no increase in magnification. The theory seems to be that the extra exit pupil is of no great advantage during the day (but admittedly it is in twilight). Assuming daytime use in various weather/light conditions, as opposed to twilight, will the 8x42 user clinch more ids in the field (particularly at longer distance) than the 8x32 user ? Feedback seems to say yes, but I don't really understand why... (there has been no mag increase and the extra exit pupil seems redundant...)

[The reason I ask is that I have an 8x32 (Leica BN) and have tried out a good few 8x42s of various brands. There is something about the 8x42 view which seems to show more detail, but am I imagining this ??? I'm not sure it's worth trading up for - although any excuses to invest in an 8x42 Ultravid gratefully received :-) ].

[2] Magnification: BVD and also this guy (http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/optics/optics5.html) believe that a 7-8 power (let's say 8 power) reveals as much of the bird as is required for an id in the majority of situations. Do you agree ? My own testing indicates the bird is smaller but, assuming good resolution bins, can be identified in 8 power bins in most situations. The lower hand shake of the 8 power also helps. But is it my imagination or are more and more birders opting for 10 power binoculars ? Is it perhaps that the 8 power gives you the id (usually) but the 10 power gives you the better view of the bird overall (from an enjoyment/appreciation perspective)?

[As an aside I have tried several 10 powers in the last while. To my eyes, the Swaro 10x42EL had a funny rotating globe effect I just could not get used to, and both it and the 10x42 ultravid I found hard to hold still. I know others have these bins but they just did not seem right for me. Interestingly the 10 power I could hold steadiest was the Victory II 10x40. I think if I was going for a 10 it would be this one. Very sharp and bright also. Did not detect chromatic aberration (for example, when compared to 8.5x42EL Swaro where some CA was immediately visible in the same view (top of building against the sky)). Not sure about the rubberised eyecups. I thought after 20 mins testing outside the shop the skin around my eye felt itchy, but maybe it's just me.

Apologies if this has all been done to death in previous posts, but I just thought I would chip it in FWIW...

Niall

[scampo]

7x = wider fov, greater dof, easiest to hold 'still', less focusing required, very bright image at dusk;
8-8.5x = a good compromise = the most popular mag. by far for birders (imo).
10x = narrower fov, smaller dof, harder to hold still, less bright - esp. good if you're young.

The idea that you can see more birds with one or the other is a bit odd: it depends how far away the bird is! I should think any half-decent birder would find id'ing a bird similar with any.

[marcus]

Scampo beat me. I was going to say what he did, that the most important factor about focusing on the bird is how far away the bird is.
Is that you singing in that picture, Scampo?

[scampo]

I can't sing in tune - and when I do my tone perfect musician of a son always points out my deficiencies! Kids!

It did seem to me that trying to define something as variable as watching a distant bird through a natural and polluted environment was asking a bit much of science and not enough of the imagination...

I think I'll change my avatar again - too conspicuous!

[JB in SC]

1.) All things being equal, the 40-42 objective should show more detail than the 30-32 objective. That's the physics part. Whether or not your eye can discern that detail is an unknown.

I recently gave up my Leica 8X32 BA for the 8X Ultravid and have no regrets. I personally feel that the image is better to my eyes.

2.) Eight power is sufficient for my uses, your mileage may vary. Lightweight tens are as easy to hold for most users as eights. The FOV, DOF, and relative brightness are the issues for me.

Some binoculars just feel right, some don't.

[scampo]

Hmm... a 10x cannot be at all as easy to hold still as a 7/8/8.5, surely? And it's somewhat less bright and narrower view will also work obviate against it allowing an easy location of the bird when compared with binoculars of lower power.

The amazing thing is that the eye itself has an objective lens that is tiny by comparison yet has quite an unusually high resolving power.

[iebirdie]

I do agree with that. All my tests indicate that an 8/8.5 can be held steadier in the field.
Niall

[Tero]

about the "funny rotating globe effect"

This seems to appear when the 10x binoculars are in the 30-40 range. I have 10x 25 pair and do not have that problem.

I also do not have any problem holding binoculars steady up to 12x power. I tend to favor light weight products. The huge 8x50 old fashioned porros that have been available always, the sort you see in old movies, are too heavy for me.

8x32 and 10x32 both work well for me. 10x has plenty of light (I'm 50, no youngster, wear bifocals) unless you go to a jungle.

[scampo]

I can't really agree - at dusk (up here in the northern hemisphere at least), a 10x32 would be struggling in dull conditions. Havbing said that, the Nikon HG 10x32 seems to be an exception - it gives a stunningly bright image.

[iebirdie]

Originally Posted by Tero

8x32 and 10x32 both work well for me. 10x has plenty of light (I'm 50, no youngster, wear bifocals) unless you go to a jungle.

No doubt true in Missouri (St. Louis must be about 37 or 38 degrees N ?) but here in Dublin we are practically polar compared to that (just over 53 degrees N). IMO a 10x32 would be bad value here.

cheers
Niall

[Tero]

I have now the compromise binoculars under testing, Bushnell 7-15x zoom. The 7x does give more light. These are sort of fun to play with, as you can compare in practice how much light each amplification gives. But between the extremes, you only can guess what number you are using, they are not marked or indexed.

On a cloudy rainy day, I'm definitely at the 7x end!

[iebirdie]

I suppose I could summarise my original musings as follows:
Conventional wisdom suggests that you can see all of the bird you need, at whatever distance, using a top 8 power. Choosing a 10 power is a matter of personal preference and you probably will see a bit more of the bird, and possibly enjoy the view better (or not, depending on shake, depth of field etc).

But using the 10 power you will not id any more birds than using a top 8 power.
Anyone disagree ?

Niall

p.s. Anyone using the Victory II (8 or 10 power) and prepared to post a mini review ? It is hard to be critical of one's own binoculars, but would be interested in feedback. For example, I have read comments on the Victory II 10x40 that it suffers from (a) chromatic abberation (above the marginal normal in all roofs) and (b) its view is soft....

[Leif]

Originally Posted by iebirdie

Hi,
I have some misc thoughts going around in my head after trying out many bins in the last few months...

..

Apologies if this has all been done to death in previous posts, but I just thought I would chip it in FWIW...

Niall

Niall: I tend to prefer an 8x42 glass to an 8x30 one, with the exception of the Nikon 8x32 SE which behaves like an 8x42 roof prism. There are numerous reasons, which I have tried to summarise:

• Higher contrast, assuming other factors such as optical quality remain unchanged. In other words, colours look more vivid and pleasing.

• Increased depth of field. To my eyes the Nikon 8x32 HG and Leica 8x32 BN have noticeably less DOF than their larger 8x42 cousins. This is the converse of photographic optics, where a larger aperture leads to less DOF.

• Greater sharpness. The difference is subtle, but I notice it, especially when I'm in a hide and resting my elbows on a shelf. I did some tests and for me the difference in sharpness is worth having, as it can make a borderline id. However, if you have a scope, the difference will be less important.

• Less chromatic aberration (sometimes). I've never seen a discussion of this, but to my eyes many mid-sized 8x32 roof prism binoculars have rather a lot of chromatic aberration. However, the Zeiss 8x30 has very little, so this does not seem to be a general rule.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by iebirdie

p.s. Anyone using the Victory II (8 or 10 power) and prepared to post a mini review ? It is hard to be critical of one's own binoculars, but would be interested in feedback. For example, I have read comments on the Victory II 10x40 that it suffers from (a) chromatic abberation (above the marginal normal in all roofs) and (b) its view is soft....

Niall: I have never used the Zeiss 8x40 Victory II in the field so cannot comment, but here is a review:

http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews...%20victory.htm

(I think this is the Victory II.)

As you see it is quite favourable to the Zeiss, but does indeed mention slightly elevated CA wrt the Leica.

The only concern to me is that I heard from a salesman at InFocus that a Zeiss man visited and converted the strap attachment to the new version. So I'm not sure how to be certain that a sample is the one with the improved optics, rather than a modified old one.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by Leif

Niall:http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews...%20victory.htm
(I think this is the Victory II.)

From the brief note added at the bottom of the specifications it is clear that the test was made with the first Victory version.

I do own this first version, and I would basically agree with the info given in that test. However there are two aspects that were not mentioned there:

1- the original Zeiss Victory version shows very much glare under certain backlight and high-contrast conditions. That point, apparently, has been taken care of in the Victory IIs by adding some internal baffling.

2- the rubbery coating looks rather worn after a while. This wear is much more severe than in any of the other top grade binoculars I know. Of course, this does not affect optical performance, but it certainly affects any potential buyer of a used model.

[Tero]

I actually started with some 12x binoculars we had for general use. I used them for over a year exclusively. They were not very good, but I just got used to them. Then getting a slightly better quality I went to the 10x as they were close to what I was used to. They were porros. Now I am thinking I want roof prism binoculars for some reason. Will compare 8x and 10x for my next pair.

So I will agree that the 12x was not what was needed, but I can work with 7x to 10x easily these days. 8x are fine, for me no real problem, and give good light. I have a slightly better time with hawks using 10x vs 8x, see more detail. Other birds generally no difference.

But back to Laws of physics vs perception, every slight detail makes a difference, as we are all looking at a bit of an unnantural view. Our eyes are not used to it. It is the same as getting new glasses.

[laika]

Originally Posted by Swissboy

From the brief note added at the bottom of the specifications it is clear that the test was made with the first Victory version.

I do own this first version, and I would basically agree with the info given in that test. However there are two aspects that were not mentioned there:

1- the original Zeiss Victory version shows very much glare under certain backlight and high-contrast conditions. That point, apparently, has been taken care of in the Victory IIs by adding some internal baffling.

2- the rubbery coating looks rather worn after a while. This wear is much more severe than in any of the other top grade binoculars I know. Of course, this does not affect optical performance, but it certainly affects any potential buyer of a used model.

If you read both reviews of Zeiss Victory at www.betterviewdesried.com you can see that there have been at least 3 versions of these binocular.In the second version i understand the optics were improved. I'am not sure if the optics were further improved in Victory II.To make it more complicated Zeiss only call this version 3 Victory in Europe and Victory II in USA.

[iebirdie]

I checked out the Zeiss Victory 10x40 at the weekend in Dublin's main "serious" binocular shop. Some of the models had the "new" strap attachment, some the old. The clerk hadn't a clue and I was educating him. The boxes for the bins with the "new" attachments had a little red sticker on the outside but that may mean nothing. Otherwise, there was nothing to indicate it they were Victory, Victory improved or Victory II ! Also nothing to indicate if just a retrofit.

Certainly out in the street they were impressive, but if I have learned anything about bins it is that you just can't tell in the street, even if they look great in the street and you test them thoroughly. You need the 360 degree view in the field and field conditions to really see what they're like to use.

Given the uncertainties about the Zeiss Victory and its price I cannot really justify the risk. (This particular dealer is not into "take it home for a day and bring it back if you don't like it" - that's what a monopoly does for you I suppose).

I think I will hold off for another while, maybe I will get over to the UK in the near future to somewhere with more realistic viewing facilities and combine it with a day or two birding. Any of those near civilisation (e.g. London, Manchester, Bristol, Bermingham - somewhere with an airport ?)
cheers
Niall

[Leif]

Originally Posted by iebirdie

Certainly out in the street they were impressive, but if I have learned anything about bins it is that you just can't tell in the street, even if they look great in the street and you test them thoroughly. You need the 360 degree view in the field and field conditions to really see what they're like to use.

I think I will hold off for another while, maybe I will get over to the UK in the near future to somewhere with more realistic viewing facilities and combine it with a day or two birding. Any of those near civilisation (e.g. London, Manchester, Bristol, Bermingham - somewhere with an airport ?)
cheers
Niall

I agree with your comments regarding evaluating binoculars. I would recommend trying a field day where a shop takes some kit to a reserve. Do you not get field days in Ireland? Also InFocus in the UK do allow you to return an item if purchased on the Internet. I suspect they will allow an exchange, but might not refund your money? They don't stock Leica though which is a major problem IMO. I once bought from one of their shops a compact binocular for my mother as a christmas present, and then went back a week later and exchanged it for a more expensive item. They were very helpful.

BTW The new Zeiss FL series are due out some time this year, and might offer the best view. (Good specs. and appearance, but untested.)

[iebirdie]

hi Leif,
Nope, no field days. There is really only one serious shop where they know anything about binoculars (from birder's perspectives) and they stock the main Swaros, Leicas, Zeiss etc. But they are camera people at heart, and not birders. (And the word "monopoly" springs to mind too). All they can tell you is that Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers. In my experience they don't really know why. When you mention chromatic aberration, depth of field, resolution etc. to them their eyes glaze over, and they repeat "Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers". You get the idea. Also, while they price match on Swaro you can pay Euro 200 or more extra for a Leica or Zeiss with them than going through the UK, even allowing for the exchange rate.
cheers
Niall

[laika]

iebirdie
Only the last version have the "new" attachement.
Still in doubt? Send a mail to Zeiss and ask them!

[scampo]

"All they can tell you is that Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers"...

Of course, that's code for "Swarovski makes us the most profit...".

(-:

[Tero]

Ask them for 2nd best for bird watchers. Does that mean second most expensive, then?

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Tero

Ask them for 2nd best for bird watchers. Does that mean second most expensive, then?

Probably, though the price is not always directly related to the profit, so you can't always tell.

To be fair, only some shops are like this. Many are very honest. I've stayed away from the ones I thought were dodgy, so I'm sure it doesn't benefit them in the long run.

It could genuinely be that they believe that Swaro are best for birders. Their kit is exceptionally well made and looks neat too!

[iebirdie]

Had an hour to spare this afternoon so went back to the bins shop. Tried the ultravid 8x42 versus the Swaro 8.5. Swaro definitely has the larger image but felt the colour, contrast and steadiness (including balance) better in the Ultravid, but only marginally. Impossible to pick between the two, I suspect people's choices will come down to feel and look.

Interestingly I tried the 10x32EL (in bad cloudy afternoon light). I was impressed by their brightness, which I did not expect. I have been eyeing up 10s recently, and did not consider 10x32s because thought they would be darker, but this one surprised me.

Anyone else thought this ?

Anyone got one ?

N