[SvenSambrook]

Dear all,
after I decided to get 1 compact zoom-model for concerts in stadiums I would like to have a second bino for birding and nature watching. It should have large magnification and a bright optic, I think 16x50 is good, maybe it could be also 20x50 or 20x60, but these are normally bigger and more heavy. I saw that the Nikon 16x50 is offered between $89,99 and $150 in the net and read a lot of good reviews about it. Maybe the Pentax 16x50 is better, but also more expensive.
I know Nikon from the cameras as a very good company, I hope the binos are the same.
Maybe you have other suggestions. I do not know all brands as I´m new in this hobby and in Germany we only know Nikon, Leica, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Zeiss and Steiner as producers of good binos. I´m not sure about companies like Celestron or Bushnell, but maybe you can give me a hint for a really good but cheap bino from a brand I dont know yet.
Thanks in advance!

Sven

[Bill A]

Guten Morgen, Sven:

Are you going to put your 16x50 binocs on a tripod? You will find such a powerful glass very frustrating if you try to hold it by hand. For that you want a 7 or 8x pair. Ten power is the maximum for hand holding, and many find even that too much.

Bill A

[Bruce B]

I have some 16X60 Pentax and you pretty much have to put them on a tripod. I really can't make out details when trying to hand hold them and they will give you a headache with all the movement. Even on a tripod you have to be careful not to bump them much while observing. I do enjoy using them on a tripod but my new 8X40 should be here today. I have an old cheap pair of 8X40 but they must be out of alignment because they are horrible to look through. Anyway, the new 8X40's I'm getting are Nikon Action series. The price couldn't be beat and I've heard good things about them as far as low end bins go. I wouldn't go higher than 10X for hand holding but the 16X are very nice on a good tripod. But if you are going to be using a tripod you might want to just go for a spotting scope. I got the 16X bins because I got a steal of a price on them and I also use them for some moon observing.

Bruce

[Bluetail]

I agree with Bruce and the others here. 10x is the maximum practical magnification for birding binoculars. If you want a bigger magnification than that, go the whole hog and get a spotting scope that will give you 20x or 30x. I once bought a pair of 16x50 binoculars and instantly regretted it. They were barely usable.

[SvenSambrook]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Guten Morgen, Sven:

Are you going to put your 16x50 binocs on a tripod? You will find such a powerful glass very frustrating if you try to hold it by hand. For that you want a 7 or 8x pair. Ten power is the maximum for hand holding, and many find even that too much.

Bill A

What is the problem of the 16 (or more magnification)? Is it a weight problem, the size of the binos or optical problems? In the past I had only 7 or 8 times but the objects has been often far away and too little with such a magnification. I also thought about a spotting scope, I only once tried one in an english birding place, but I´m not sure if I would prefer them against binos. Binos coukd be used for different things, with or without tripod. Spotting scopes could one be used on a tripod.

[SvenSambrook]

Originally Posted by Bruce B

I have some 16X60 Pentax and you pretty much have to put them on a tripod. I really can't make out details when trying to hand hold them and they will give you a headache with all the movement. Even on a tripod you have to be careful not to bump them much while observing. I do enjoy using them on a tripod but my new 8X40 should be here today. I have an old cheap pair of 8X40 but they must be out of alignment because they are horrible to look through. Anyway, the new 8X40's I'm getting are Nikon Action series. The price couldn't be beat and I've heard good things about them as far as low end bins go. I wouldn't go higher than 10X for hand holding but the 16X are very nice on a good tripod. But if you are going to be using a tripod you might want to just go for a spotting scope. I got the 16X bins because I got a steal of a price on them and I also use them for some moon observing.

Bruce

As I understood you and the others mean 16x is too much. What about 12x50 for example? I think a bino below 1.000gr is ok, its a lot (especially in comparison to a compact) but I think more comfortable in handling than a spotting scope.

[Bluetail]

I guess some people light be able to hold 12x binoculars steady. You'd have to try them (for a long enough time) and see how you get on with them. However you'd probably find the field of view too narrow. Even with 10x binoculars finding a moving bird is not always easy. I still wouldn't recommend anything over 10x.

[scampo]

Looking at your other thread, 'Sven', I have a suspicion that all the answers you seek have already been given there. Good birding!

;-)

[Bluetail]

Originally Posted by SvenSambrook

What is the problem of the 16 (or more magnification)? Is it a weight problem, the size of the binos or optical problems? In the past I had only 7 or 8 times but the objects has been often far away and too little with such a magnification. I also thought about a spotting scope, I only once tried one in an english birding place, but I´m not sure if I would prefer them against binos. Binos coukd be used for different things, with or without tripod. Spotting scopes could one be used on a tripod.

I don't have enough experience personally with the different types, but with the pair I did have, yes, weight was a problem. Also the image was too dark. And the quality of the optics was atrocious (but it was a very cheap brand and all their different sizes of binoculars were atrocious!) Keeping them steady is the biggest problem of all. I doubt that it's possible to keep any pair of binoculars rock-steady unless you rest them on a wall or put them on a tripod, but with the lower magnifications it's not a problem and you don't notice it. The higher the magnification, though, the more it will magnify the effect of your hands shaking.

[Bruce B]

Sven,

When you hand hold a binocular there is a certain amount of movement in your hands, arms, face etc. This movement is magnified to the power of your binocular. With 16X it is pretty much impossible to hold them steady enough to get a good image. Your little movements are just magnified too much. That's why most people will say not to go over 10X for hand held. I would suggest trying different powers out a shop somewhere to get a feel for what you will be able to hand hold. You can hold 16X but you probably won't be happy with the results.

Bruce

[Bruce B]

Also, since you are looking at the Nikon Action series - I just got a Nikon Action 8X40 today and I'm very pleased with them so far. I haven't used them much yet but so far I think they are fantastic for the price. When I upgrade they will make great loaners as well. :)

Bruce

[Kimballcorson]

For years I had a Swarovski 15x56 I took to concerts, ballets and operas. Bracing my elbows on the armrests of my seats, they did just fine. So well in fact others (family and friends along) wanted to use them too and my use time was cut in half. Bringing along another binocular for others didn't work. All, even the children, wanted to use the Swarovski. In other contexts as well I found ways to brace them and myself. They were quite usable. The problem with jumping to a spotting scope from say 10x or 12x is that you need a tripod and if you are going to use a tripod, I find the stereoscopic view of a high powered binocular on a tripod so much more relaxing and pleasant. Just my two bits.

[ceasar]

With a 15 x 50 Canon IS (Image Stabilized) you could lean back in your seat and watch the action.

Bob

[ronh]

The Action Extreme is well thought of over on the astronomy forums. It gives you waterproofing and better coatings for a few dollars more.

I enjoy using my 12x50, hand held. I certainly can't hold it steady, but I don't mind the jiggling. But image shake is only part of the difficulty of using 12x. The focusing is very critical, and it can take me about 3 seconds to focus to the sharpest view. The depth of focus is extremely limited. And the field, although very wide for 12x, is narrow in the true sense, so catching and focusing on a nearby bird in flight requires mainly luck. Also mine is a hefty 40 ounces--carrying it is a labor of love, and a statement to the world of my optical madness. So, while it is excellent for long distance birds and sightseeing, it is a very slow and cumbersome instrument for average to close-in birdwatching, and I don't recommend it for that.

I also own a 15x binocular, and there, I must just draw the line! I have tried, but no way. I use it only braced in a comfortable chair, for stargazing.

So, after these experiences with high powers, for all around birding I would
still stick with the old party line: 7x for close and furious action, 8x a good compromise, 10x maximum.
Ron

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Kimballcorson

For years I had a Swarovski 15x56 I took to concerts, ballets and operas. Bracing my elbows on the armrests of my seats, they did just fine. So well in fact others (family and friends along) wanted to use them too and my use time was cut in half. Bringing along another binocular for others didn't work. All, even the children, wanted to use the Swarovski. In other contexts as well I found ways to brace them and myself. They were quite usable. The problem with jumping to a spotting scope from say 10x or 12x is that you need a tripod and if you are going to use a tripod, I find the stereoscopic view of a high powered binocular on a tripod so much more relaxing and pleasant. Just my two bits.

Welcome to our new friend from Oceania!

You must have strong children to hold up 56mm Swaro even leaning on their elbows! I'm not sure I could hold them up for very long myself.

I agree with you about the stereoscopic view of mounted binoculars being more "relaxing and pleasant" on the eyes, and they also provide about 40% more contrast over a scope. However, mounted binoculars are not always more comfortable on the neck if you're watching birds in the sky.

In the spring I tried a Zeiss Diascope 85 and a Swaro 65, both with 45* angled prisms, and a straight through Nikon XL II spotter. The Zeiss's zoom EP was so wide, a small child might get two eyes on it!

The angled spotters were more comfortable to use while looking at high flying hawks and eagles on the other side of the lake whereas I had to get down on my knees to look at the birds through the Nikon spotter and crane my neck at an unnatural angle.

If God meant man to use spotting scopes, he would have made us Cyclopses! :-)

I'd like to buy one of these leviathons as a dual purpose day/night scope, though I wonder about chromatic aberration for daytime use:

http://www.monkoptics.co.uk/Astronom...00-review.html

Brock

[lilcrazy2]

I had a pair of the 10x50 Action EX's and replaced them about 4 months ago with a pair of Bushnell Legend 12x50's. I really don't notice any more handshake with the 12x50 Legends and use them quite a bit for that extra punch and reach. Since they weigh 8oz less than my old 10x50's they are actually easier for me to hold, particularly for any extended viewing time, but I did have to give up about 50ft of FOV which I really didn't notice that much. The 12x50 Legends show a lot less glare than the 10x50 Action EX's which was a reason I was looking to replace the Nikons in the first place.

I am quite happy with the 12x50 Legends. At 28oz. 290 ft FOV, waterproof, and lifetime warranty, they are hard to beat.

Tom

[ronh]

Tom,
My wife and I went birding late this afternoon. She with her 8.5x42 EL, me with my 12x50 BN. I saw spots on a young bluebird that she couldn't. I saw this year's first Lewis's Woodpecker's collar, (a prize, summer has turned the corner!) she couldn't. I bet you know exactly the feeling. Power corrupts.

Do you mean the Legend Porro?
Ron

[Kimballcorson]

As a former shooter for many years, I have no trouble holding medium weight 12 power binoculars steady and prefer them to lower powered binoculars by far, especially if the fov is greater than 5 degrees. I only wish my newly factory refrurbrished 10x42 EL Swarovskis was 12 power. [Anyone interested in a trade here?] So I disagree strongly with the discussion about lower powers. You simply get much more information through the glass at 12x. That said, 16x (and I have those binoculars) is too much to hand hold except for a minute or two well braced. Too, the fov is very narrow; that is the larger problem to my mind.

[ceasar]

12x binoculars have very short depth of field. That is OK when used in an area where nearby brush, trees, tall grass and such do not interfere with the view. They aren't as useful in close distance hunting for deer and wild turkey etc. in the boreal woods of Northeastern America. As a matter of safety here it is a good idea to be able to see things deep into the undergrowth.

Bob

[mooreorless]

Bob, I sort of miss the 7x30 SLC compared to the 8x30SLC and a little more shake with the 8 as well.

[vop]

Originally Posted by Kimballcorson

... So I disagree strongly with the discussion about lower powers. You simply get much more information through the glass at 12x. ...

Well, maybe it's not always the amount of close up detail that is the most important to everyone. Could a beautiful, relaxed "whole picture"-view be something someone would want?

[bh46118]

Hi Tom

I have a pair of 12X42 H20's that I get along with fairly well. Do you know how big of a step up optically the 12X50 legend would be over the H2O ?

Thanks Bruce

Originally Posted by lilcrazy2

I had a pair of the 10x50 Action EX's and replaced them about 4 months ago with a pair of Bushnell Legend 12x50's. I really don't notice any more handshake with the 12x50 Legends and use them quite a bit for that extra punch and reach. Since they weigh 8oz less than my old 10x50's they are actually easier for me to hold, particularly for any extended viewing time, but I did have to give up about 50ft of FOV which I really didn't notice that much. The 12x50 Legends show a lot less glare than the 10x50 Action EX's which was a reason I was looking to replace the Nikons in the first place.

I am quite happy with the 12x50 Legends. At 28oz. 290 ft FOV, waterproof, and lifetime warranty, they are hard to beat.

Tom

[NDhunter]

UOTE=bh46118;2352542]Hi Tom

I have a pair of 12X42 H20's that I get along with fairly well. Do you know how big of a step up optically the 12X50 legend would be over the H2O ?

Thanks Bruce[/quote]

Bruce:
Sounds a bit off topic. Maybe post this on the Bushnell.

Jerry

[bh46118]

Hi Jerry

The 12X50 legend is the topic of the post I quoted. If the guestion needs to go to the Bushnell section I can move it there.

Bruce

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by bh46118

The 12X50 legend is the topic of the post I quoted.

The "original" post here is the Nikon 16x50 Action, go back and see.
Have you anything to share about the Nikon?

Jerry