[Roefisher]

Hello again,

It's always interesting how the majority of people seem to go with the lower of the two choices. My own use is general countryside viewing, during riverside walks or hill rambles, with no other equipment used.

I am just about to get a pair of 8x32 and already own two similar power binoculars - 8.5x42 and 8x50. The largest ones are redundant as they're the older Zeiss 8x50 Nobilem Super and I am carrying the EL's instead nowadays.

So, I'll have the 8x32 and I'm going to change over to the new Swarovision hopefully within a few weeks for my larger carry. I've never owned a 10x binocular so would there be an argument for my looking into buying these or would you stay with the 8.5x? Any comments on benefits and downfalls to the 10x would be really appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark

[richt]

Hi Mark

I do sympathise on this having been through the 8x and 10 x horrors a few times already myself
Just when i convince myself 8 x and 8.5 x are better for field of view and shake etc i look through one of my Nikon or Zeiss 10 x and revert to believing i can see better detail with the 10 x again
After almost becoming mentally scarred over this battle (just kidding) i have finally decided imho its about more than just the magnifications
I feel its a lot to do with the ergonomics of the particuar binocular model you use and basically how they fit you personally
Also how long your viewing sessions may potentially last
If you are a "short stay" watcher and/or a watcher at fair distance then shake and lower field of view may not be all bad news
Also dont forget the effect of true and apparent fields between magnifications
Sometimes a picture can appear "bigger" due to magnification but not necessarily wider
I do tire with 10 x in extended viewing however and am a fully fledged convert of tripod mounting for 10 x to gain best views of the night sky
I often bird or nature watch at 10 x without tripods though so its not a pre-requisite imho
A binocular such as the Nikon SE 10 x42 is one i find quite holdeable in comparison to some but i have held 10 x models which invoke shake and fatigue quite swiftly
Ironically its not always weight that is the defining factor from my experience to date
Balance in the hand and fit to the hands seems more of the issue to me
Some folk do say a compromise of 8.5 x or 9 x is the ultimate and the Swarovski EL and Swift Audubon porro are 2 really good optics many users have good things to say about
There are a whole new batch of 9 x coming through in the pipes lately so maybe worth a try or have a go with a well proven 10 x for a spell
Good luck with this one as i still have tremors when deciding whats best for me even now

Regards
RichT

[Roefisher]

Originally Posted by richt

Hi Mark

I do sympathise on this having been through the 8x and 10 x horrors a few times already myself
Just when i convince myself 8 x and 8.5 x are better for field of view and shake etc i look through one of my Nikon or Zeiss 10 x and revert to believing i can see better detail with the 10 x again
After almost becoming mentally scarred over this battle (just kidding) i have finally decided imho its about more than just the magnifications
I feel its a lot to do with the ergonomics of the particuar binocular model you use and basically how they fit you personally
Also how long your viewing sessions may potentially last
If you are a "short stay" watcher and/or a watcher at fair distance then shake and lower field of view may not be all bad news
Also dont forget the effect of true and apparent fields between magnifications
Sometimes a picture can appear "bigger" due to magnification but not necessarily wider
I do tire with 10 x in extended viewing however and am a fully fledged convert of tripod mounting for 10 x to gain best views of the night sky
I often bird or nature watch at 10 x without tripods though so its not a pre-requisite imho
A binocular such as the Nikon SE 10 x42 is one i find quite holdeable in comparison to some but i have held 10 x models which invoke shake and fatigue quite swiftly
Ironically its not always weight that is the defining factor from my experience to date
Balance in the hand and fit to the hands seems more of the issue to me
Some folk do say a compromise of 8.5 x or 9 x is the ultimate and the Swarovski EL and Swift Audubon porro are 2 really good optics many users have good things to say about
There are a whole new batch of 9 x coming through in the pipes lately so maybe worth a try or have a go with a well proven 10 x for a spell
Good luck with this one as i still have tremors when deciding whats best for me even now

Regards
RichT

Hi RichT,

Thanks very much for the advice.

It's a big decision, isn't it

Cards on the table, I'm leaning towards the 10x at the moment for these reason, which you have also hit on;

I'll have a pair of 8x32 and think that getting these along with 10x42 would make a better set than 8x32 and 8.5x42. Also, I won't be using them for any great length of time at any single viewing so I would always be fresh and this should mean less shake than prolonged viewing brings (unless I have just climbed a hill in which case I couldn't pick out an elephant at twenty paces)

I suppose the pressure is on me after reading all the reviews and reports, as well as watching the TV shows, to stick with around 8x but it's refreshing to hear that you're using 10x with no troubles.

Cheers again,

Mark

[John M Robinson]

It sounds like you are going down the same path I followed a few years ago. After a lot of deliberation, posting questions here, and testing at my local sporting goods store, I bought the 8x42 Ultravids as my once in a lifetime bin. If I had quit this forum right at that time and just my new bins as I had planned, I would have been quite happy using the Leicas outdoors as I had planned for the rest of my life, but no, I had to become obsessed like most here are. So my next purchase was a very nice 10x42 Nikon SE to compliment the eight power Ultravids. But of course it didn't stop there.

Then as I realized even the slimmed down, magnesium Ultravids were a little bigger than I like carrying in the field, and reading about the wonderful, discontinued 8x32Trinovid BN, I bought the last one at my local shop. Unfortunately I found a gread deal on a Nikon 8x32 SE at the same time so bought it on inpulse. It turned out after a lot of testing that I prefered the SE over the BN, and I was able to sell the BN for what I paid for it.

I guess if I had to do it all over again, and I wasn't planning on being a collector, I would buy two bins, a very good 8x32 roof for my everyday use bin, and a nice 10x42 or 12x50 for those, rather rare times I need the extra power. With just two bins, you would have most of your bases covered. One side note; if the 7x36 Zen Rays are as good as the reviews I've read state, that could replace the 8x32 as my every day carry bin.

John

[Fireform]

The only way to be sure of this is to get comparable 8x and 10x bins and see whether you can see more detail with one or the other handheld. I've done this exercise and am quite sure I can't see more detail with 10x if handheld, and if I'm walking, climbing, hunting or otherwise exerting myself the edge goes to the lower magnification, with wider field to boot. If rested or braced it's a different story and in my case I don't use them rested or braced enough to make much difference--for someone else it might.

I have the 8.5 Swarovisions, and although the resolution of the 10x must be something to behold, I opted for the larger exit pupil and wider FOV. Others would think of it differently.

[BobinKy]

I don't think those of us with 8x, 8.5x, and 10x binoculars, ever convince ourselves about which size is the best. I think our answer changes, as described above, as our observing target, mobility, and time changes. We won't be happy until we buy all three and carry all three--and then we'll grumble about things like weight and too many neck straps.

Bob
Kentucky, USA

[Tero]

I use my 10x pairs in winter and in open areas. Mostly I walk out to look for sparrows and such, and if they are familiar enough, the 10x gives me a slight edge over 8x in getting an ID. I could carry a scope, but in familiar areas I do not. Sometimes I go back to the car to get it.

8x I use in woods, as I have missed many birds there with 10x that others found, just because the field was not wide enough. 8x32 of good quality are fine for normal partly sunny weather. 8x42, if wide enough field, can be good too.

Occasionally going out of town I will take the 10x as my only pair, more times the 8x32.

[ronh]

If you needed to catch surprise birds on a regular basis, 10x would be a hindrance. Also, I don't think I can actually see any more fine detail with a higher power than 8x without bracing the binocular. Maybe a tad, but looking that close is hard work.

But for general viewing on a country walk, the wow of higher power is a lot of fun. And the dreaded shake doesn't bother me if I just relax and enjoy the view, and don't try to constantly prove to myself that the higher power is really "worth the trouble". Bigger stuff has a certain charm.
Ron

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

...One side note; if the 7x36 Zen Rays are as good as the reviews I've read state, that could replace the 8x32 as my every day carry bin.

John

They are and they have, at least for the winter.

[CharleyBird]

Roefisher, it is interesting I agree.
Like you I don't hold bins for a prolonged period of time, I walk rather than sit for ages, though I'll contentedly sit in a hide for half an hour, and am perfectly happy with 10x44 bins and a hand-holdable 30x85 drawscope. I've even lugged both up mountains in a rucksack just to see what weight is manageable and what I prefer to use.

I consider myself very much a beginner when it comes to understanding optics, but aren't the only reasons for carrying less magnification 1.shake 2.weight 3.ease of eye position? It's down to your physiology what you can hold and use? Any modern alpha quality bin is going to have sufficient light transmission & reasonable fov for shaded woodland birdwatching?


Before Christmas I had a surprise trial of a pair of bins which has caused me some considerable reflection on what my next purchase will be. You see I'd been in a shop talking about 8x56's as I'd pretty much concluded (on paper) I'd really like the Zeiss FL's in that size for the brightness and 7mm exit pupil ease of use. The assistant in the shop handed me a pair of bins and simply said "Try these."

Well, they were obviously new Swaros so without examination to bias me I looked out of the shop window, through the stationary bus, and started watching people on the other side of the duel carriageway road in London. Fantastic clear views just like my Steiners, no apparent shake, comfortable though bulkier than my Steiners. I looked at a bloke loitering, at people walking, at a young woman eating a burger. Bus moves on, I keep looking at the shop windows.
Suddenly I was aware and unsure of the magnification, those people were close, I can read details at considerable distance.

Turned out to be 15 x 56! Ok so the bulk & weight might, after a while, be a factor, but they’re similar to 8x56’s in that respect - which is what the shop assistant was actually demonstrating, and if they balance in the hands nicely weight is of little consequence to me.
I was truly tempted at the time (£950) but it’s a lot of cash and didn’t want to be hasty as my current optics do everything I need. I also needed to try the Zeiss 8x56FL. And now I hear Zeiss are bringing out 15x56FL's.


I guess what I'm saying is don't be afraid of higher magnifications if the instrument works for you.



Regards

Andy

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by CharleyBird

...
I was truly tempted at the time (£950) but it’s a lot of cash and didn’t want to be hasty as my current optics do everything I need. I also needed to try the Zeiss 8x56FL. And now I hear Zeiss are bringing out 15x56FL's.

I guess what I'm saying is don't be afraid of higher magnifications if the instrument works for you.

Regards

Andy

Andy,

You haven't truly become a bonafied member of the bourgeoisie until you have more than everything you need.

If your ambition is to be "posh," old chum, you will have to stop thinking about what you need and start thinking about what you want. :-)

So far I've only heard one person on the planet say that he saw a 15x56 FL advertised, and that advertisement mysteriously disappeared before anyone else could see it. I give the existence of a 15x56 FL the status of rumor at this point. However, it would make perfect sense for Zeiss to add a 15x56 to its FL line up to be competitive with Leica and Swaro.

[CharleyBird]

It'll never happen; what I want and what I can get past my rather more down to earth wife are on two completely different lists

I tried a beaut little pair of Leica 8x32 last weekend. Felt strange when they didn't excite me. Do I need therapy?

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by Roefisher

I've never owned a 10x binocular so would there be an argument for my looking into buying these or would you stay with the 8.5x? Any comments on benefits and downfalls to the 10x would be really appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark

I´ve been backwards and forwards through the 8x v. 10x trials, and like an earlier poster, reckon that wide FOV 8x is usable anywher, but better for woodland than most 10x, whereas 10x is handy for estuaries, etc. One notable exception is my EII 10x35, which is very bright and has a seven-degree FOV. This I can use pretty much anywhere, including the woods. If I were to have only one binocular (which may shortly be the case!), it would therefore be 8x or 8.5x, or maybe the EII 10x.

[Kevin Purcell]

The main trade off with magnification is FOV.

As Sancho says the main selecting factor for me is the size of the FOV and the corresponding habitat.

I find a wide 8x with 8 degree (or more) FOV really is the sweet spot.

But I also like to use 7x if it gives more FOV (like the ZR 7x36) but many don't. And 10x, especially my Canon IS 10x30 and SE 10x42 when one could use the extra reach. I don't have an ED 10x right now which is a bit of a loss. I've love a wide angle (> 6.5 degrees) ED glasses 10x roof. There are not many out there.

Another thing to consider with 10x or greater bins is adding some support. I was recently testing a monopole support with 10x bins and I was surprised how much better they are when supported. Perhaps (like the military) a 7x plus a 14x are the an effective pair when the latter has IS or is supported.

[John Dracon]

Mark - There is one variable that should be considered if you plan to keep your binoculars for a long time - the aging process. Because it is normally so gradual, one often misses the slow diminishment in acuity attributed to growing older. Lower power binoculars have inherent advantages familiar to the users of this web site. To believe that our eyes are not keeping pace with our sagging skin, wrinkles, and muscle mass and tone, is to live in fairy land. Eight power is sufficient for even the "pros" who look at birds IMO. John

[etudiant]

Hi Mark,

Imo, the 10x vs 8x debate somewhat misses the point. There is a niche for the smaller, handier 8x32 glass, just as many are happy with a larger Swaro type 8.5x42 unit.
The higher power binos provide a different kind of seeing. They have narrower fields and more shake, but compensate with a more finely detailed view of the bird. Provided you can instinctively get your glass on the bird, higher magnification is better.
I birded warblers for years very happily with an old Docter Nobilem 12x50 and would still be doing so if my significant other had not replaced it for me with a Canon 10x42IS.
In your case, seen that you've been happy with a Nobilem Super, you're comfortable with a substantial glass.
So you could easily consider one of the higher power large binos, Nikon 12x50 SE's, big Zeiss Fl's or Minoxes, depending on your budget. You would have much more pleasure from such a glass than from another 8x variant.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by BobinKy

I don't think those of us with 8x, 8.5x, and 10x binoculars, ever convince ourselves about which size is the best. I think our answer changes, as described above, as our observing target, mobility, and time changes. We won't be happy until we buy all three and carry all three--and then we'll grumble about things like weight and too many neck straps.

Bob
Kentucky, USA

Bob:

I think you sum up things very well, that there is no best size, they are all
useful for whatever situation arises.

This one can be talked about, but there is only ones individual preference.

Jerry

[CharleyBird]

Originally Posted by John Dracon

Mark - There is one variable that should be considered if you plan to keep your binoculars for a long time - the aging process. Because it is normally so gradual, one often misses the slow diminishment in acuity attributed to growing older. Lower power binoculars have inherent advantages familiar to the users of this web site. To believe that our eyes are not keeping pace with our sagging skin, wrinkles, and muscle mass and tone, is to live in fairy land. Eight power is sufficient for even the "pros" who look at birds IMO. John

John, I've been trying to ignore this factor but I'm 48 in a couple of weeks and painfully aware of deteriorating eyesight, aching knees etc.

Would anyone be good enough to share when age (and assuming reasonable health) became a factor in their choosing lighter, lower magnification binoculars?


Regards

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by CharleyBird

John, I've been trying to ignore this factor but I'm 48 in a couple of weeks and painfully aware of deteriorating eyesight, aching knees etc.

Would anyone be good enough to share when age (and assuming reasonable health) became a factor in their choosing lighter, lower magnification binoculars?


Regards

I'm 48 in a few months too. I think it's happening now. As for your knees, get a pair of MBT-type shoes (cheaper copies, they work just as well). But don't wear them with IS binoculars! There's a few decades birding left in us yet...

[Tero]

Not to do with age, but I have always had problems...well, past 45...with cheaper models and the diopter adjustment. The far and near setting is not the same for me...in numerous pairs. But in the current offerings, once you get past the 300 price, I have had less trouble with it. But of course it is worse at 10x than 8x to get the diopter right. In the field, I adjust it once a day, for the most common distance of the day and do not mess with it after that. But you need to be able to set it properly to get the best resolution. If you cannot set it right for 10x, then 8x or even 7x is for you.

[John Dracon]

Gentlemen - Sorry if it appears I'm raining on our parade of ideas with my comments on age. Obviously, each person's health is on its own time table. As I near 75, I instinctively reach for lower power binoculars for a reason. I'm simply not as steady as I once was, and we all know what that means when birding. Older folks who do a lot of looking can train themselves to a degree to minimize the factors of age to be sure.

About a year ago I was out on a walk with a friend on a back country highway, he on one side and I on the other. I thought I was moving along at a good clip, until I glanced over to him. My God, he looked slow! But I couldn't say, but for the grace of God go I since I'm already there.

Being steady reminds me of a story. In 1967, I lived in a remote area of southcentral Montana. Mule deer were plentiful and hunting pressure was low. A friend from a city telephoned me and asked me to take him and his two adolescent children on a hunt. So we piled into my universal jeep with fourteen year old son and twelve year old daughter in the back. We ran across a small herd of mule deer with a mature buck. The distance was about 200 yards, a long but doable shot for a rifle with a scope. The young lad took his rifle, sat down with a sling on and took a shot. He missed, and the deer including the buck ran off.

Back at the jeep, his sister began to chide him for missig the shot. Both were enrolled in marksmanship classes - small bore. He of course was disappointed and did not take kindly to his sister's persistent comments on his shooting ability. So I decided to intervene with some of my own comments. I asked her she could have hit the deer. She replied, "Yes." I then commented that one had to be pretty steady to shoot that well. Her reply was "I'm pretty steady," said in a matter of fact way. Hmmmmm.

I lost track of the family, but about ten years later the local paper had a front page feature. The young lady had just won the gold metal in the Olympics for the United States in the air rifle category. She beat the world's best men. Yes, she was "pretty steady."

John

[John M Robinson]

Great story John.

[John M Robinson]

Back to the 8 vs 10 debate and age issues.

My wife has been out of town on business all week, and being pretty bored I have take all of my six pair of bins out, and set them on our dining table to play with this week. I have 6x30 Yosemite, 7x50 Fujinon, 8x32 SE, 8x42 Ultravid and 10x42 SE. I have mentioned in the past that I only use the 10x42 SEs about 10% of the time. I'm finding myself using them about 60%-70% of the time now with them sitting there so handy.

This isn't hard core testing, just viewing wildlife and scenery out our big windows. I love the view through thos SEs. Now I realize the reason I use the smaller bins out in the field 90% of the time is beacause they are smaller. The 10x42 SEs are bigger than I like to carry in the field, the little Yosemites and 8x32 SEs are perfect, the 8x42 Ultravid is as large and heavy as I like in the field. So I guess a good 10x42 roof would be ok for me. The one place I do carry the 10x42 SEs is the wide open country of eastern Montana.

Oh and I'm still good to go at sixty.

John

[Steve C]

Age does factor into the equation, but each of us reacts differently as we age.

A number of years ago at the Bald Eagle Conference, then held at the local college, there was a optics booth and seminar run by Brunton. This was the year they introduced their original Eterna binoculars. There were a couple of these Eternas that were unmarked as to magnification. One was a 7x42, the other a 10x42. They were used during the course of the workshop to gather data on peoples reactions to different magnifications.

I was standing at the booth talking to the Brunton guy running the seminar. There was an elderly lady who came up and said to him something to the effect "...young man, I need to see your most powerful binoculars. My eyes are not what they once were and my old 10x just don't work for me any more". Well the fella asked her a few questions and then handed her an unmarked binocular and suggested she try it. Her reaction was "just how powerful is this?". He said that all she needed was to just see how she liked it. It was a cold gray March day and looking through the large plate glass windows of the student union across the mall there was a fountain with a couple of Ravens nearby. Well she looked and her reaction was "...OMG these are terrific, I can even see their eyes blink!". It turned out that they were the 7x42. It made the point that she could see what she was looking at better because she could hold them steadier than the 10's, which she did not particularly like. He sold her a 7x42 on the spot.

The moral is that a steady lower magnification trumps a shakier higher magnification. I'm almost 62, and can still hold a 10x pretty well. However I have come to really like the 6-7x magnification range. I have a 10x I use occasionally, for when the conditions favor it,it can be nice to have. But I will take a little less almost every time. I tend to find that if I need more magnification then 6-8x, a jump to around 15x is really needed.

[Kevin Conville]

Didn't the US military prove that even young fit men cannot see better than with about 7-8x when handheld, about umh... 60 years ago?