[paj]

What are the views/experiences on the merits of 8x against 10x bins?

[IanF]

I'm no expert in the matter but for my penny's worth, I think it is entirely down to personal preference. Amongst budget bino's I find the 8x seem to have a far brighter image which out weigh's the reduced magnification of the 10x. Also that wider field of view helps in pinpoinitng birds.
Amongst the dearer brands there isn't much difference between them, they are all very good !
To me it's a question of 'try before you buy' as many different ones as you can to find what suits you rather than thinking in terms of 8x or 10x.

[paj]

Thanks for that Ian.
At the moment I use a pair of Swarovski 10x50 which are superb for hide work and sea watching but a little heavy & large when tramping for miles through farmland etc.
I intend to buy another smaller pair of bins but can't decide on 8s or 10s at the moment.
The 10x50s give a large image and a flat field of view when panning over water & fields i.e. no curvature, so would a pair of 10s with a 32 or 42mm objective distort the image to the point where an 8x would be a better choice?
I'm going to the Bird Fair next week and will try out all the optics but it is useful to hear other peoples views & experiences on the subject.

[ralph]

I used a pair of 10x50s for years Paj, and I thought they were OK. They weren't the best make in the world, and anything stronger than a gentle breeze made identification a small nightmare - they just wouldn't stay still! I was 30 years old before I realised Gulls weren't blurry!

Anyhow, I recently bought the Leica Green 8x42BNs and the difference is quite amazing. The fact they weight a ton has its good and bad points. Obviously, they drag on your neck a bit, but you need something in the region of Gale Force 10 to get them to move around! I'll never go back to anything more powerful than 8x42.

[paj]

Ralph

I went to the Bird Fair on Saturday and spent around 2 hours trying all the optics.
I thought the Leica 8x42's were quite light compared to my Swarovski's but then they weigh in about 9 ounces heavier than the Leica's!!
As I said my 10x50's are great for hide/seawatching work but
I'm after a smaller, lighter pair for woods/farmland walking.

I tried the Leica 8x32 plus the 8x42's and they were both fantastic. The 8x32's were really pleasant to use and I'm edging towards those.

Also tried the Nikon HG 8x32 & 8x42 - both great but the Leica's felt better in use.


paj

[Funky]

I always use 8x for hand held binoculars. I have a very steady hand and often get sharp pictures at 1/4 sec with a camera but I wouldn't dream of setting off with 10x bins round my neck. Even when resting ones elbows in a hide the difference in the amount of shake between 8's and 10x is striking. My 12 year old son has 7x42's and when resting those in a hide I can get almost no shake from them. My advice to anyone thinking of spending Leica prices is walk around for a week with some 8x bins then swap for 10's and see those baby's shake. Your brain has to try much harder to hold them steadier plus your eyes have to work harder to keep up. With lower mag the brain and eyes can ease off a bit and viewing is less tiring. I would rather have a small, bright, sharp, steady bird than a slightly larger, very slightly dimmer, very jittery bird. Try the Canons with the image stabilisers. I tried them at last years bird fair and believe me they are no gimmick. With those you can use 12x and still be stable, and we are talking rock steady here! The image isn't up to Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski standards but they are very, very good. Price isn't so ridiculous when you consider the uniqueness and versatility. They are also said to be very reliable and don't need batteries every 5 mins. If I were in your shoes I would choose Swarof 8x30 or Minnox 8x30 for carting around and general viewing. They are both tiny, lightweight, bright as you could wish into twilight, have an enormously wide field of view and big, big, big depth of field. (hardly ever need to focus). Plus, last but not least, they are very good value for money. (cheap'ish) Mail me for more help

[paj]

Funky

After trying all the options at the Bird fair I'm definately going for 8x bins. I've just got to decide now if it's to be 32 or 42mm objectives.
I'm a fan of Swarovski but I have to admit I found the 8x32 Leicas more to my liking than the 8x30 Swaro's.
I'm after a small pair of bins for long walks so I will probably go for the 8x32 Leica or Nikon HG but I also want a pair with 42mm objectives so I may part ex my 10x50 Swaro's for a pair of those as well.
Thanks

paj

[Funky]

Hi Paj', I suggested the Swaro's over the Leica's because of the weight disadvantage, very important over long walks. Brasher boots was founded on the premise that every half a pound in weight saved from the sole of a boot meant that a whole pound was saved every two strides. Work that out for a 3000ft ascent up a Munro and you'll see that the saving in effort and sweat and calories burned is enormous. 1/2lb less weight for every single footstep. You could lift a whole ton a distance of one pace (about a foot in mountaineers paces) with the amount of effort saved. Now do you want the Leica's???

I own Leica's and know how good they feel in the hand but the optics at the 8x30 end I think are virtually indestinguishable. Both models are bright, sharp and accurate colour, although both makes err toward our natural greenish/yellowish retinal sensitivity. But if I remember rightly the Swaro's are lighter by ounces! If weight saving is the main criteria for wanting a small set of bins then why not go for compacts from one of the top four. I owned a pair of 8x20 Leicas for a while and they knocked spots off Swift Audies 8x44's, which had a wider (apparent) field but the contrast and colour and exquisite sharpness weren't there. I took them up four munro's which is the kind of walking where I wouldn't normally take bins because of the weight. Take your time, it's not over till its over the counter!!! :)

Regards Funk'

[paj]

That's right Funky, no money has changed hands yet.
I'll take another look at the 8x30 Swaro's before I decide.
So let's see now, that's a pair of 8x30 or 32's, 8x42's and 8x20's, hope my wife is in a good mood!!!

paj

[paj]

Ian, Ralph & Funky

Thanks for all your advice on the bins.
Went to try them all out and liked the Leica 8x32's the best, so I bought them today.
I'm very pleased with them and can't wait to get out into the field!

Paj

[Funky]

Good! I think they have the edge in contrast and lack of eye strain which in my opinion out'weighs' the disadvantage of weight.

[IanF]

Originally posted by pajarero
Ian, Ralph & Funky

Thanks for all your advice on the bins.
Went to try them all out and liked the Leica 8x32's the best, so I bought them today.
I'm very pleased with them and can't wait to get out into the field!

Paj

Congratualtions on the pruchase, I am sure you will be vey happy with them

[twitcher]

Hi all was offered an old pair of zeiss dialyt 8 by 30 compact kind well dimensions being 14 cm high abouts and 11.5 wide were about 20 or 25 years old and in almost mint condition mmmm now the cost lol £272 wonder if that would be a parctical price to pay when what I had in mind only was quality for use in the feild not for adding to a collection ect would like to hear your opinions have been away from the Hobby a few years out of touch you might say maybe I'm still out of touch when it comes to binoculars always thought when it came to names like zeiss u couldent really go wrong with quality sorry for the waffel BOB or Twitcher if you prefer lol

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by twitcher

Hi all was offered an old pair of zeiss dialyt 8 by 30 compact kind well dimensions being 14 cm high abouts and 11.5 wide were about 20 or 25 years old and in almost mint condition mmmm now the cost lol £272 wonder if that would be a parctical price to pay when what I had in mind only was quality for use in the feild not for adding to a collection ect would like to hear your opinions have been away from the Hobby a few years out of touch you might say maybe I'm still out of touch when it comes to binoculars always thought when it came to names like zeiss u couldent really go wrong with quality sorry for the waffel BOB or Twitcher if you prefer lol

They are a nicely made glass, however, Zeiss only started using phase coating in 1988. Hence, these 1980-85 binocs will be rather dark by modern brightness standards. I'd pass them by.

Elkcub

[ranburr]

I think that the 10x42 is about the best all around set-up that you can get. If I wanted something a little smaller than I would drop to an 8x32.

ranburr

[twitcher]

cheers Elkcub and ranburr sorry in my delay getting back but I guess thats what these posts are like, however thank you for your input and all noted, have a new post in today about the classic 10 by 40 you might be able to shed light on for me anyhow for now happy birding to you both best regards Twitcher.

[louisneuville]

Another difference is the "depth of field":
A 7x or 8x Bin as a greater (sharp) field in depth (from you to infinity) than a 10x.
It makes a great difference in a wooden aera, when searching after wildlife.
With my 7x42 I have "everything" sharp from a few 10 meters to infinity; With my 10x42, I have to re-focus more frequently.

[Pileatus]

Originally Posted by louisneuville

Another difference is the "depth of field":
A 7x or 8x Bin as a greater (sharp) field in depth (from you to infinity) than a 10x.
It makes a great difference in a wooden aera, when searching after wildlife.
With my 7x42 I have "everything" sharp from a few 10 meters to infinity; With my 10x42, I have to re-focus more frequently.

Depth of field varies considerably with each user's eyes. Regardless of the binocular, I adjust for differences in focus at 100's and even thousands of yards. When I hear someone claim perfect focus from 60’ to infinity I long for younger eyes!

I also believe overall optical quality affects perceived depth of field more than we generally acknowledge. If a bin is very well designed, then areas in front and behind the plane of sharpest focus may look better than the sharpest focus of many mid-range bins, hence the perception of greater depth of field. I believe this is the reason the Nikon SE 8X32 is touted as having superior depth of field.

John

[ceasar]

A lightweight pair of 10X's is nice, such as Nikon's older 10 x 35E's, but you still appreciate a place to rest your elbows or shoulders when holding them for a bit of time on your object. 8 x 30's or 32's are more shake "resistant;" but the alltime best walking around bin for use in close woods and cover is still a 6 x 30 or so. They are bright, have wide fields, and minimize shake better than higher powers. The only decent one being made today is Eagle Optics Platinum 6 x 32 Roof Prism's. They also close focus to 3 feet. A warbler glass if there ever was one.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by John Traynor

. When I hear someone claim perfect focus from 60’ to infinity I long for younger eyes! John

I fully concur with this. I still have my 7x50 porros from way back. At the time, I virtually never had to focus. Now, if I try them, I have to focus all the time. What a difference a few decades make! (Paraphrasing a bit here )

[etc]

Originally Posted by Funky

I always use 8x for hand held binoculars. I have a very steady hand and often get sharp pictures at 1/4 sec with a camera but I wouldn't dream of setting off with 10x bins round my neck. Even when resting ones elbows in a hide the difference in the amount of shake between 8's and 10x is striking. My 12 year old son has 7x42's and when resting those in a hide I can get almost no shake from them. My advice to anyone thinking of spending Leica prices is walk around for a week with some 8x bins then swap for 10's and see those baby's shake. Your brain has to try much harder to hold them steadier plus your eyes have to work harder to keep up. With lower mag the brain and eyes can ease off a bit and viewing is less tiring. I would rather have a small, bright, sharp, steady bird than a slightly larger, very slightly dimmer, very jittery bird. ....

Old thread, but it is a great explanation of 8x vs. 10x difference..

On the weight difference between Swaro and Leica, I heard that Leica is heavier because it uses more lenses, and thus has a better image. You don't want it to be lighter compromising the view.

[Tero]

Another advantage, if you want 32mm, they all seem to work pretty well, good and slighly worse models. With 10x, you are stuck with expensive models to fins a 10x32 that works. And there are fewer such models.

I use 8x32 and 10x40.