[elkcub]

John,

It gets weirder and weirder. I downloaded the official manuals for the Leica compacts and here is what the specs are for ER: 13.9mm for the 8x, and 13.7mm for the 10x. They never miss an opportunity to say they are different, or ever agree with what was said before. Where the heck did the 15mm numbers go to? The AFOVs compute to 50.4º and 52º, incidentally. Not much difference, but clearly not the same.

My conclusion is that Leica is so profoundly screwed up about their own product specs, no vendor should be held responsible for anything they say. Although I would have to raise an eyebrow (if there were room) for EO showing 16mm for the 8x 20, I'll give them a pass.

But I do like the 8x20 more and more.

Regards,
Ed

[Surveyor]

Originally Posted by elkcub

John,

Leica compacts and here is what the specs are for ER: 13.9mm for the 8x

Regards,
Ed

Ed,

I just made a crude, quick attempt at measuring the ER of one of my 8x20 BR Ultravids. The results were ≈>12.1 and <13.3 of usable ER with ≈1.2 mm (somewhere between 13.3 and 14.5 mm ER) from the eyecup to lens. I did not have enough magnification or a rigid enough mounting to do much better than that and I do not know my exact accommodation or DOV at this lighting value. The 13.9 mm you quoted looks quiet good.

On a side note, I have been looking for a good, commercial dynameter for years. If anyone out there has one, or know someone who has one, for sale I would appreciate knowing about it.

[14Goudvink]

For me (fairly deep set eyes, close fitting glasses) the 8x20 ultravid has enough eye-relief. I have to pull out the eye-cup a bit (1-2 mm) to avoid black-outs. Subjectively for me it has more eye-relief than ultravid 8x32 and 10x25. It feels like about 15 mm for me (if 8x32 has 13.3 mm).

In this (old) comparison measured eye-relief is presented for Swarovski 8x20B and Trinovid 8x20. Ultravid 8x20 has 1-2 mm more than trinovid 8x20.
http://www.tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kij...actkijkers.htm

BTW You can look up measured eye-relief on a lot of other bins in the other reviews:
http://www.tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kijkers.htm

George

[looksharp65]

Anyhow.

Although I wrote that I prefer a dual-bin arrangement, in reality I can't always bring more than the 6.5x depending on where the 10x is placed at the moment.

So for a long time I have considered having an 8x32 placed at my workplace.
This is not because the 6.5x doesn't do what the 8x does, because it DOES, but because it doesn't do what the 10x does.

So either I get myself another 10x32 (but that's conspicuous consumption since it will not be in much use while the FL is #1) or a nice 8x32 as a stand-alone bin beneath the Nikon ED50. The Talon HD is a top contender atm.

//L

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by elkcub

John,

It gets weirder and weirder. I downloaded the official manuals for the Leica compacts and here is what the specs are for ER: 13.9mm for the 8x, and 13.7mm for the 10x. They never miss an opportunity to say they are different, or ever agree with what was said before. Where the heck did the 15mm numbers go to? The AFOVs compute to 50.4º and 52º, incidentally. Not much difference, but clearly not the same.

My conclusion is that Leica is so profoundly screwed up about their own product specs, no vendor should be held responsible for anything they say. Although I would have to raise an eyebrow (if there were room) for EO showing 16mm for the 8x 20, I'll give them a pass.

But I do like the 8x20 more and more.

Regards,
Ed

Sure enough, just checked my manual and got the same results: 13.9/13.7. Never noticed that before. In addition, I just checked the 8x20 UV against my 8x32 FL, just by bringing them up to my glasses, and yes the FL does have discernibly more eye relief. Nothing dramatic, but discernible.

As for the OP's question I really only want one bin at a time and it's mostly come down to 8-8.5. I might try a 10x again someday, especially now that the ER is getting longer and the FOV is getting wider.

Mark

[NWBirder]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Part I

Like I wrote, I will argue that a set of two will perform better than one single binocular. This is nothing remarkable, everywhere around us people have sets of golf clubs, shoes, cars and bikes, whatever.

Well, isn't that a known fact? I have been using my ZEN ED2 7x36 and 10x43 to cover both short range/wide angle and long distance viewing. But if I have budget only for one pair, I will opt for 7x or 8x. So 8x is still a good compromise if you have to do so.

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by NWBirder

Well, isn't that a known fact? I have been using my ZEN ED2 7x36 and 10x43 to cover both short range/wide angle and long distance viewing. But if I have budget only for one pair, I will opt for 7x or 8x. So 8x is still a good compromise if you have to do so.

Aaah, thanks for throwing fuel on the OP debate. For me, it's a fact, but there seems to be no general consensus about it. Even re what single magnification one should use, opinions seems to vary a lot.

Remember I'm arguing that both binoculars have to be right there, as a 10x in the cupboard doesn't see much birds.
Carrying two full-sized bins would be a bit on the heavy side, though.

//L

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Aaah, thanks for throwing fuel on the OP debate. For me, it's a fact, but there seems to be no general consensus about it. Even re what single magnification one should use, opinions seems to vary a lot.

Remember I'm arguing that both binoculars have to be right there, as a 10x in the cupboard doesn't see much birds.
Carrying two full-sized bins would be a bit on the heavy side, though.

//L

True enough although two polycarbonate "inbetweeners" such as 8x36 and 10x36 Pentax NVs, which each weigh 22 oz., might not be that bad.

I don't find carrying both my 8x and 10x EII that burdensome, and after looking at my x-ray my doctor said that my neck looks like a chicken's that has been rung more than once.

The 8x EII weighs 20 oz. and the 10x EII weighs 22 oz. = 42 oz.

If that were a 37 oz. Duovid I'd have to put my chiropractor on speed dial, but with two bins, the weight gets distributed. I haven't carried a Duovid all day but I have a 36 oz. 10x42 HG. Oh, my aching chicken neck!

I found having both EIIs with me in ideal situations where I'm sitting and there are "targets" both close and far is quite handy. For example, at last year's Big Sit we had woods close by, and were also watching birds on the shoreline and birds of prey riding the thermals off the ridge on the other side of the lake.

We had a spotting scope available for the harder IDs at a distance, but for most birds, the 8x/10x set up did the trick. When it didn't, Birdman Bob could ID the bird by its call (good trick to learn if you can).

However, I suppose if you are on the hoof all day, having two binoculars swinging around your neck even if they are relatively lightweight might not be everybody's cup 'o joe.

Brock

[looksharp65]

I have serious problem seeing myself with two binoculars hanging on my chest, but since I can have one in the backpack, the dual concept is not too burdensome.

//L

[black crow]

I usually strap an extra pair on my dog.

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by black crow

I usually strap an extra pair on my dog.

Did you also train it to take the appropriate position vs direction of light and with regard to preset focus distance?

[black crow]

We're working on it. He's kind of stubborn but fortunately loves dog treats.

[giankun]

Well.. for me, 10x is the best compromise. That said, sometimes even that is not enough, that's why I am going around with a scope in my back pack (luckily I don't carry a camera.. ah well.. except my compact which I am trying to use with my scope).

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Aaah, thanks for throwing fuel on the OP debate. For me, it's a fact, but there seems to be no general consensus about it. Even re what single magnification one should use, opinions seems to vary a lot.

Remember I'm arguing that both binoculars have to be right there, as a 10x in the cupboard doesn't see much birds.
Carrying two full-sized bins would be a bit on the heavy side, though.

//L

LS:

I think you've been a bit overun on your dissing the 8X binocular.

Now, just figure it like this. 6X + 10X = 16. Take the sum and divide
by 2 and you get 8X.

Now there is nothing wrong with 6 or 10 or anything in between, but don't
dismiss the 8X. Try a quality 8X, and spend some time, and you may be
there.

Jerry

[vop]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

LS:

I think you've been a bit overun on your dissing the 8X binocular.

Now, just figure it like this. 6X + 10X = 16. Take the sum and divide
by 2 and you get 8X.

Now there is nothing wrong with 6 or 10 or anything in between, but don't
dismiss the 8X. Try a quality 8X, and spend some time, and you may be
there.

Jerry

Does this mean that one should carry around two eights, instead of a six and ten?

By the way, I agree with Looksharp on this, but maybe a 7 & a 10... (Which would translate to two 8,5's) :)

[normjackson]

Don't know if this disadvantage has been mentioned in this thread.

Few years back we had a visit from a Spanish birder (a waiter from Barcelona) who was a bit hightly strung (as it turned out). Doing birding round the edge of woods with his 10x and 7x round his neck, over the course of several hours continually swapping between the two bins he hadn't realised he was slowly garotting himself. Found him lying in the leaf litter poor chap; nothing we could do. We managed to wedge the bins up between two branches of a tree; he was still lazily spinning an hour later when the police arrived...

[black crow]

That sort of thing is to be expected from time to time. Birding being one of the more dangerous pastimes.

[Nixterdemus]

Secure the 6 & 10 neckstraps together at the end of a leash for a bola in case you're hungry and run across an emu.