Choosing between three next options (1 Viewer)

[Dr. K]

Hello.

With a significant occasion coming up in my life, I decided that I would allow myself to explore one of three options to enhance my enjoyment via birding tech. I expect many of you have faced similar decision points and I would be happy to read how your made your decision - no doubt you've come up with some insights I have not considered.

Option 1 - Swarovski CL curio 7x21 pocket binos to walk around with, to/from work, and around campus during breaks
Option 2 - High-mag stabilized binoculars for longer-range, on the fly viewing, to compliment my EL8x32 on dedicated birding outings
Option 3 - "super zoom" camera for double duty - higher mag option than my binos and image capture, on dedicated birding outings

Why?

Option 1 - pocket swaros - I use some cheap nikon pockets and some old beat up leica trinovids for walking around but I find them to be a little uncomfortable and clearly inferior to the 30 and 32mm swaros I use on dedicated outings. I would like to not feel like I'm using junkers when I do have the occasionally opportunity to see something unexpected on a work day.

Option 2 and 3 - high mag compliments - I have a scope but I almost never use it because it don't usually go to a single location to see birds, much preferring walks/hikes with frequent pauses. However, I miss the option of higher magnification, so I know that at some point I will want a more mobile alternative to a scope. I like the notion of watching birds with binocular vision with the stabilized binos (e.g., fujinon 14x40), but I can't help but think it would be a missed opportunity to get a higher-mag camera for a similar price ($1000-1500usd) and then I get the proof(!) that I saw what I saw and can sort of prolong the joy after the outing.

Thanks for your time and input.

 

[Mono]

I would go for Option 1. My most used binoculars are my pocket ones. Certainly not on dedicated birding trips but just when I am out and about. I will even pop them in my pocket when I go to the shops. I have not had a chance to look through the new Swarovski 7x21, no physical store I have been to has had them in stock, but they have been well reviewed. They are definitely on my wish list.

Regarding options 2&3. The magnification of high mag binoculars doesn't match the magnification of scope. If you are used to a scope for longer range identifications then some 14x binoculars aren't going to cut it, they may very well just induce frustration. In my view cameras are great for taking pictures and that's it. Sure you can get magnification, but again not matching a scope, but you are just looking at pixels on a screen it lacks a connection for me.

One additional possibility if you want lighter-weight high magnification is to get a drawscope. They certainly aren't hip cool and trendy and there are only a few on the market but they lighter and more packable than a conventional spotting scope and tripod. I bought a cheap second hand one from eBay and whilst it is not my most used optic it is great for taking on longer walks. The length makes it easier to find a rest on fences, wall and trees and you can use quite high magnifications without a tripod.

 

[[email protected]]

I am not a big fan of compact binoculars because I find them finicky and most of the time the eye cups have a smaller diameter, so they go too far into your eye sockets creating black-outs. The Fujinon 14x40 TSX is one of the best stabilized binoculars, but it is very heavy at almost 48 oz. and very bulky with poor ergonomics compared to a regular binocular and stabilized binoculars as good as they are at increasing the detail you can see all still have some optical artifacts which can affect the quality of your view. Instead of having to carry two different binoculars if you want a higher power binocular to compliment your EL 8x32, why don't you try either a Leica Duovid 8-12x42 or 10-15x50? The 8-12x42 is only about 38 oz. and the ergonomics are a lot like a regular roof prism binocular, or in other words very good. The view at both powers in the Duovid is equal to the Leica UVHD+ in quality but a little smaller in FOV, so you are not losing much, and you have the flexibility of two different magnifications in one binocular. They are expensive, but it is like getting two binoculars for the price of one.

 

[Richard D]

I'd already got the CL 8x25 when the Curio was launched, and didn't think the size difference was significant enough for me to swap. Optically they seemed on a par. I use my compacts more than I expected to, but still need to get into the habit of always carrying them!

IS has never really appealed to me - If I want extra reach I use an ED50 (fits in a very small camera bag). I am experimenting with a 2x booster and SLC 7x50s as an option though - just about hand holdable for short periods.

Just ordered a used P900 - not arrived yet, but I can see a use for it.

Options 1 and 3 for me - if you're happy with ex-demo 8x25s and a near new P900 you could probably get both for under $1500...

 

[Stephen Prower]

Dr K

I support Option 3 ('Super-zoom' camera) for enhanced enjoyment of birdwatching: Low weight, substitutes for a scope, and as well takes i/d photos of distant birds 'in the field'. The ability of a super-zoom camera as well to take ordinary photos of birds is of course a bonus.

Before Lockdowns started in UK, my final kit on birdwatching day trips was, according to location and weather, an old Porro or modern waterproof Roof binocular (one to be left in the coach), a 650gm Canon SX50 'Super-zoom' bridge camera, and a packed lunch.

There are other bridge cameras suitable for bird photography on the market, but the Canon SX50, although it was discontinued some three years ago, set the standard.

After much experimenting, the combined weight of the above kit was the lowest for trips that I managed to achieve.


Stephen

I also used a red dot sight with the Canon SX50, but that is a different subject! Just note that, if you ever come to buy a bridge camera, some bridge cameras on the market, I think the Canon SX70 is one, now come without the flash socket that is necessary to mount a red dot sight

I attach (1) my usual speciment full-size i/d shot of a Spoonbill taken with the Canon SX50, and (2) a crop of the same shot

 

[dorubird]

My opinion: option 1!
Small binoculars have many flaws! But all these weaknesses disappear in front of the portability and compactness advantage. Small binoculars are used only occasionally. For predetermined and long observations we have other larger binoculars from 30mm up anyway!
So, small eyepieces, small exit pupil and finicky use are accepted compromises in pocket binoculars, because with very small binoculars will be used only in emergencies and occasionally situations. Go for 7x21 "beast" !

 

[yarrellii]

My vote for Option 2.
Actually, it's exactly what I've done After trying many formats I decided that 8x32 is what works best for me as an all-rounder and, after trying many 8x32, I settled for the 8x32 EL SV, I like it very much, it's so capable and so easy on the eye that I think of it as a "compact 8x42".

And then, I've always wanted something with more reach. I tried several 10x but they were basically underwhelming, I saw very little difference between 8x and 10x to justify having both. So I tried several conventional 12x, both Porro and roof, both classic and contemporary. And then, swallowing my prejudices and the many (MANY) drawbacks, I got an IS 12x, the Canon IS III 12x36, and I'm so happy I did. I think it complements the 8x32 EL in a wonderful way. Many times, when I can't/don't want to carry my scope, I simply take the 12x and everything I can say is that they show a whole lot more than 8x and non-IS 10x. So much so, that it really makes a difference when it comes to ID distant birds. No, it's not like my scope at 45x, but it's enough to be able to see things no other friend can see with a conventional binocular. So I can wholeheartedly recommend it... as long as you are aware of the many caveats (lower image quality, need for batteries -not terrible, they last very long-, not waterproof).

(OK, I confess I'm also interested in a very compact 8x20, lately I've been trying different models at different price points, and I agree it has its place, but in my case I don't use it that much, and I think the 12x36 IS is a much better investment for what I do; the amazing bonus point of the 12x36 IS is astronomy where it simply blows your mind).

 

[wdc]

Option 3 would be my choice, as you've already got some smaller bins to use. The Canon that has been mentioned is good, and a bit larger camera might be the Nikon 950. If you're trying to stay light, go with the Canon, but the Nikon has a longer zoom. Super zooms do what they set out to do: provide absurdly long lenses in a portable format that, thanks to IS can be handheld. A great birding tool.

all your ideas are good, just a question of priorities I guess. Enjoy!

-Bill

 

[mwhogue]

Hello.

With a significant occasion coming up in my life, I decided that I would allow myself to explore one of three options to enhance my enjoyment via birding tech. I expect many of you have faced similar decision points and I would be happy to read how your made your decision - no doubt you've come up with some insights I have not considered.

Option 1 - Swarovski CL curio 7x21 pocket binos to walk around with, to/from work, and around campus during breaks
Option 2 - High-mag stabilized binoculars for longer-range, on the fly viewing, to compliment my EL8x32 on dedicated birding outings
Option 3 - "super zoom" camera for double duty - higher mag option than my binos and image capture, on dedicated birding outings

Why?

Option 1 - pocket swaros - I use some cheap nikon pockets and some old beat up leica trinovids for walking around but I find them to be a little uncomfortable and clearly inferior to the 30 and 32mm swaros I use on dedicated outings. I would like to not feel like I'm using junkers when I do have the occasionally opportunity to see something unexpected on a work day.

Option 2 and 3 - high mag compliments - I have a scope but I almost never use it because it don't usually go to a single location to see birds, much preferring walks/hikes with frequent pauses. However, I miss the option of higher magnification, so I know that at some point I will want a more mobile alternative to a scope. I like the notion of watching birds with binocular vision with the stabilized binos (e.g., fujinon 14x40), but I can't help but think it would be a missed opportunity to get a higher-mag camera for a similar price ($1000-1500usd) and then I get the proof(!) that I saw what I saw and can sort of prolong the joy after the outing.

Thanks for your time and input.

Dr. K,

Given what you say about your intended and present use I would lean slightly in favor of the Curio. For context I own and regularly use the Curio, Canon 12x36 IS III and SW SV 8x32. Opinions differ but if you upgrade your pockets with the Curio you may well find them much more enjoyable and useful than your present pockets and therefore use them even more often. That said, either the Curio or Canon (dare I say both?) would be an excellent addition to compliment what you already have.

Mike

 

[Dr. K]

Thank you all for your helpful comments and suggestions. The tipping point in my weighing the options came when I considered the potential of sharing my joy from birding with my wife, and prolonging that experience. Here’s a hint about which way I went…


… alright alright, here’s another hint…

…and just one more…

 

[Richard D]

Nice photos!

 

[dorubird]

Enjoy your new device!

 

[Dr. K]

Enjoy your new device!

Thank you - and, in case my hints weren’t clear, I bought a camera. The Sony rx10iv. Still getting used to it, and I am not a photographer (birder w/camera), so I won’t be posting any award winners but on the other hand I don’t have the high standards of a photographer so I may get to enjoy more of my pics!

 

[Stephen Prower]

Dr K.

The following site may be helpful to you over the coming months:

Fixed Zoom Cameras

<script data-ad-client="ca-pub-6082104652278420" async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> On thi...

cameraergonomics.blogspot.com

The site owner Andrew Smallman is a rigorous independent reviewer and analyst.

His major beef is deficient camera ergonomics.

He was the first reviewer to identify 'jitter' as a fault of the Panasonic FZ80/82. From memory he was not satisfied with a 50% success rate at full zoom, and went on to investigate in depth why.

I was most pleased for you--and Mrs K.!-- to remind myself that the Sony RX10 Mk4 passed scrutiny in his first two years of ownership with flying colours:

"Sony RX10 Mk4 series

Sony RX10.4 Two year user review 5 March 2020
Sony RX10.4 The best all in one camera ever made 14 February 2020
Sony RX10.4 on Lord Howe Island November 2019
Sony RX10.4 in the Pilbara Western Australia 10 September 2019
Setting up the RX10.4 the streamline way
How the RX10.4 could be even better: Improve the user interface 30 March 2019
Photographing birds in flight with the Sony RX10Mk4 8 October 2018
RX10 Mk4 Settings Chart 17 April 2018
RX10Mk4 Options for carry bags 13 February 2018
Bridge camera comparison Sony RX10M4 vs Panasonic FZ1000 8 February 2018
Setting up the RX10Mk4 Part 5, 29 April 2018
Setting up the RX10M4 Part 4, 29 January 2018
Setting up the RX10M4 Part 3, 27 January 2018
Setting up the RX10M4 Part 2, 26 January 2018
Setting up the RX10M4 Part 1, 26 January 2018
Four way bridge camera comparison 7 January 2018
Sony RX10 Mk4 Ergonomic evaluation 13 January 2018
RX10Mk4 Ergonomic score January 2018"


Stephen