How much of x10 (over x8) is psychological? (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

I've seen this topic coming up regularly, mostly from beginners hesitating which magnification to choose for their first pair of binoculars, but I’ve searched the forum and have not seen a direct thread on this.

Some background: I’ve always used x8. I think years ago someone knowledgeable told me it was “the right thing” for a beginner, so I went that way and lived happily with the various flavours of x8 I tried. However, over the last months I’ve been using x10 in both porro and roof format (mind you I like both birdwatching and “backyard astronomy”). To my surprise, although x10 do obviously offer more magnification and this would seem an advantage for distant birds (e. g. watching a gannet dive from a shore position), in birding terms (ID, enjoyment ) I don’t think I’ve been able to see much of a difference. Am I the only one?
My question is: is the biggest selling point of x10 binoculars offering the “psychological reassurance" of having "the most powerful tool in your hands”, although you can’t actually see much more with them in the real world? Or do they actually offer the great advantage (20 % more reach) they promise?

N. B. I’m always talking about handheld use of the binoculars (except for astronomy), in this situation some would say that x8 has less shake and this could compensate for the better detail of x10.
What are your thoughts?

 

[Troubador]

I used nothing but 10x for almost 30 years then I swapped to 8x (via a brief period with 8.5x) for greater steadiness and bigger depth of field. I have never walked away from a nature encounter I had using an 8x and said 'if only I'd had a 10x, the experience would have been so much better'. I do have 10x and there are places where I regularly take 10x and I enjoy using this magnification, but I really don't consider 10x as vital to my nature observations.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

I haven't found any valid reasons to go for a 10x instead of an 8x. Personally I find 7x or 8.5x to be the optimal magnifications for my type of usage.

 

[jring]

Hi,

I agree with Lee and you - in 99% of the cases, you would get the ID with either magnification or not at all - hopefully you have a scope in the latter case...

That being said, I'll take my SE 10x42 out when I know that distant viewing will be predominant at the chosen location...

Joachim

 

[Maljunulo]

With respect to all, I have never wished for a smaller image.

Having said that, after reading this thread the voices in my head have started up again and they are telling me that I need a pair of EL SV 8X32.

I'm not listening to them.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

What are your thoughts?

My girlfriend uses ("alpha") 10 x 50, I'm using non-alpha 8 x 42.

If something is just out of reach for both of us, she hands over the 10 x 50 to me because my eyes are just a little better than hers, and that usually does the trick.

So I belive I have a pretty good idea how often I can identify a bird with 10x binoculars when I can't with 8x's: Not terribly often.

Personally, I think 10 x 50 is not worth the extra bulk and weight, no matter how much my girlfriend loves hers.

Regards,

Henning

 

[wdc]

I have been using both since last spring. If a 10x could in any way be considered limiting, it would likely be for a smaller field of view than an 8, when a wider field confers an advantage, such as in dense foliage and close range habitat. At a marsh, with fewer trees, and birds at a greater distance, the 10x performs very well. For purely ID purposes, 8 vs. 10 isn't a critical different in my experience, but the opportunity to see the bird larger in frame, is an aesthetic preference for me.

As for the issue of more shake and a shallower depth of field with a 10, I use a simple technique where the binocular tubes towards the objective end are slightly pushed against the brim of my cap with just a subtle pressure, but enough to provide a more stable image, since they are damped at 3 points instead of 2. I am on the focuser more with a 10, so one just needs a binocular with a really smooth, and fairly fast focuser.


-Bill

 

[pbjosh]

There really just isn't that much difference, I agree. I think 10x suffer more in close proximity / inside dense forest than they shine in open country, so 8x is a better all around bin. However I have no problems holding 10x steady, and do prefer them in open country.

 

[james holdsworth]

Skill, ability, experience will trump a 20% mag. increase every time.

 

[Steve C]

While I have never particularly "wished for a smaller image", I think that I have never wished for a larger one either. That is until I get to a 15x or more image. If I can't get ID with 8x, 10x won't do it either. Going to 12 x begins to show a bit more over 8x, and 15 x does the trick usually. More magnification can be a pretty fickle friend, particularly depending on certain atmospheric situations.

The primary reason the 8x vs 10x debate exists is that they both work. I do tend to think the 10x is in a large degree a psychological issue. Those I know that like higher magnifications look at you like you are crazy and have some rationale that everyone knows bigger is better. They got 10x and it works, why change? The choice is ultimately personal and whatever magnification one chooses, they will usually get along fine with either one.

 

[ailevin]

I think this is very much a matter of personal preference or personal equation. My experience is that the difference in magnification is more significant for astronomy than birding. If you can hold the 10x steady enough, or brace/mount it, or have image stabilization, you can see fainter stars and more detail in deep sky objects. I find 10x hard to hold steady enough at night without stabilization so I either use IS or 7-8x. When looking at stars, my inability to hold 10x as steady as lower magnification is much more obvious.

For me, it is a very close call during the day, but I do prefer 8x. I agree with idc that the improved field of view and perhaps slightly greater depth of focus are more valuable to me than the increased image scale in many situations. It translates into getting on target and in focus quicker.

Alan

 

[WJC]

While I have never particularly "wished for a smaller image", I think that I have never wished for a larger one either. That is until I get to a 15x or more image. If I can't get ID with 8x, 10x won't do it either. Going to 12 x begins to show a bit more over 8x, and 15 x does the trick usually. More magnification can be a pretty fickle friend, particularly depending on certain atmospheric situations.

The primary reason the 8x vs 10x debate exists is that they both work. I do tend to think the 10x is in a large degree a psychological issue. Those I know that like higher magnifications look at you like you are crazy and have some rationale that everyone knows bigger is better. They got 10x and it works, why change? The choice is ultimately personal and whatever magnification one chooses, they will usually get along fine with either one.

“... depending on certain atmospheric situations.”

There you go with all that logic crap, again. :t:

As a side note, we’ve been having real, live Western Washington/Oregon RAIN most of the day! Kinda sorta makes one long for home. I think this time it lasted about 38 seconds. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Pileatus]

I have an 8.5X42 and 10X50 Swarovisions. There are definitely situations where I can make an ID with the 10X that I cannot with the 8.5X. When I cannot distinguish between a kestrel and a sharpie (unseen by naked eye) at 8.5X but I can with the 10X (just barely) the 10X proves its merits. This was at extreme limits of binocular observation and I've performed the comparison multiple times over several years.

In the situation above, a spotting scope revealed sharpies hunting dragonflies. The bottom line is simple: if the target of interest is far enough away a 10X bin will beat an equivalent 8X. Assuming, of course, you can hold the 10X bin steady.

 

[NDhunter]

While I have never particularly "wished for a smaller image", I think that I have never wished for a larger one either. That is until I get to a 15x or more image. If I can't get ID with 8x, 10x won't do it either. Going to 12 x begins to show a bit more over 8x, and 15 x does the trick usually. More magnification can be a pretty fickle friend, particularly depending on certain atmospheric situations.

The primary reason the 8x vs 10x debate exists is that they both work. I do tend to think the 10x is in a large degree a psychological issue. Those I know that like higher magnifications look at you like you are crazy and have some rationale that everyone knows bigger is better. They got 10x and it works, why change? The choice is ultimately personal and whatever magnification one chooses, they will usually get along fine with either one.

Steve:

I agree with your thoughts, well presented, there is a place for both sizes, and it is up to personal preference.

The mfrs. price the 10x models a little bit higher in the same model, and there are some buyers thinking that bigger is better, as they are priced higher.

10X is by far the most popular size sold in most sporting goods stores that cater to hunters and outdoorsmen.
That does not make it the right size for most users.

I happen to like both sizes, in no particular order.

Jerry

 

[TXdefender]

I assume we’re talking bins of similar quality. I can easily see better through high quality 8x vs poor quality 10x. That said, I find I prefer 8x for general use. The image steadiness and relaxed view does it for me. I use my 10s too but find I don’t like to look through them as long before I feel I’m getting tired. Unless they’re mounted. How much is in my head? Don’t know, maybe all of it. Be glad there’s not one flavor, that’d be boring and we’d have nothing to argue about.

 

[Pileatus]

I assume we’re talking bins of similar quality. I can easily see better through high quality 8x vs poor quality 10x. That said, I find I prefer 8x for general use. The image steadiness and relaxed view does it for me. I use my 10s too but find I don’t like to look through them as long before I feel I’m getting tired. Unless they’re mounted. How much is in my head? Don’t know, maybe all of it. Be glad there’s not one flavor, that’d be boring and we’d have nothing to argue about.

And I prefer 7X, something I use almost everyday on my property. The 8.5/10X are generally used away from home.

 

[justabirdwatcher]

I'm not sure about all you guys, but all else being equal, I can definitely see more detail with a 10x pair than an 8x pair of binoculars.

Having said that, I carry 8's most of the time because they gather more light, they are easier to hold still (or so it appears) and 90% of the time 8x magnification is plenty for what I need to see. But there is no question that on a bright enough day on a steady enough rest, 10's will allow me to see more detail.

If someone were trying to decide between 10x and 12x, the argument would be exactly the same.

Everything in optics is a trade-off anyway. There is no free lunch.

 

[Steve C]

While this is simply my opinion, it seems that to be useful to the maximum degree, a 20% increase in magnification needs to be accompanied by a greater than 20% increase in resolution, contrast, and whatever other image parameters needed to define detail. Just because an image is larger in size does not equate to increase in visible detail. I think that oftentimes more magnification is the poorer choice over a better glass.

 

[oldfortyfive]

I find this whole discussion interesting as I have told friends that asked about what binos to get to stay with 7 or 8x. I'd rather have the FOV over the very minor amount more you might see. A good lower power will beat a crappy higher power everytime. My experience tells me that you need to jump to at least 12x to see much more.

 

[wdc]

While this is simply my opinion, it seems that to be useful to the maximum degree, a 20% increase in magnification needs to be accompanied by a greater than 20% increase in resolution, contrast, and whatever other image parameters needed to define detail. Just because an image is larger in size does not equate to increase in visible detail. I think that oftentimes more magnification is the poorer choice over a better glass.

I agree that going from 8 to 10 power is not going to generally offer much perceptible change, though Pileatus has made a good case for fringe based observations being improved by such a minor increase. No reason to doubt that.

If astronomical observation is any useful guide in this issue, going from, say, 25 to 50 power when doing planetary or lunar observation might make a significant difference in levels of detail, and in those cases, one is merely swapping eyepieces, not 'improving resolution' through increased optical quality, but just by making the image larger in scale to the eye. Increasing magnification through the same objective can reveal more detail, but I couldn't claim what percentage magnification threshold is necessary to accomplish that result.

-Bill