Have 8x32, 7x42. Worth having 10x(42 or 32)? (1 Viewer)

[LucaPCP]

I usually go birding with my Leica 8x32 UV HD+, and sometimes with my Leica 7x42 UV HD+. My typical outing involves a hike between 4 and 8 Km, just because I like hiking. The UV 8x32 are fantastic, and the 7x42 give me an easier view. I don't perceive very much the difference in magnification; what I perceive is the difference in weight, and the fact that the 7x42 have easier eye placement, and are easier to use with sunglasses, which sometimes I have to do due to high glare/UV in the sky (US west...). Both are optically superb.

In many situations, I bird in semi-open places, where I end up carefully focusing my 8x32 and try to glean as much detail as possible from a not-so-close (>20m) bird to make an ID. This is often necessary, as many birds are not easily approached, and others are highly mobile, so if I spot them on a far away tree, I better get an ID immediately. Of late, I have been wondering whether I should also own a pair of 10x42. I would likely lean towards the Leica UV 10x42: still fairly compact, I like the ergonomics, I like the traditional-style eyepiece and objective covers, etc.

My main question is: would this be a useful upgrade? When carefully trying to get an ID for a bird not on this tree, but on that tree over there (picture yourself a tree 20-50m away), would a 10x really be better than my lighter 8x? Is the tradeoff -- marginally more magnification, marginally more shake -- useful or not?

Some of you might remember I have also stabilized Kite 16x42. I like them... but... the image quality is not up to par, and I find it's often very important for me to be quick in getting an ID. I cannot switch from 8x to those 16x, often the bird has gotten away, and it's much easier to explore and find birds with an 8x. So when I carry both, I use the 8x32 98% of the time, and typically in an outing there are at most 1-2 birds I can identify with the 16x42 but I was not able with the 8x; often the bird has gotten away by the time I can use the 16x.

So I am looking for a binocular I can use as the single binocular I take with me.

I have read various threads in which some of you mentioned having Leicas 8x32, 7x42, and 10x42. I already know that if I were to get 10x42, the ones I want would be the Leicas. My question is more whether having a 10x is worth it, or -- for the same exit pupil size -- I should just enjoy my 8x32 and their light weight.

Your opinion is much appreciated!

 

[Vespobuteo]

Can you keep the 10x steady? Otherwise it's not much point. I use 7x and 8.5x and the 8.5x:s have a slight advantage at longer distance but the 7x:s are easier to hold steady for a whole day of birding.

I avoid 10x bins for that reason, and also the limited FOV and shorter depth of field make them less suitable for close up birding.

Enjoy your 8x32:s (and 7x42), they are wonderful bins.

 

[LucaPCP]

Can you keep the 10x steady? Otherwise it's not much point. I use 7x and 8.5x and the 8.5x:s have a slight advantage at longer distance but the 7x:s are easier to hold steady for a whole day of birding.

I avoid 10x bins for that reason, and also the limited FOV and shorter depth of field make them less suitable for close up birding.

Enjoy your 8x32:s (and 7x42), they are wonderful bins.

You put the finger on the problem. As I never had 10x, I don't know if I would be able to keep them steady enough, especially as I mentioned how I am often on the move (by foot or bike) when I bird, so my breathing is often not at base rate.

 

[tenex]

My main question is: would this be a useful upgrade? When carefully trying to get an ID for a bird not on this tree, but on that tree over there (picture yourself a tree 20-50m away), would a 10x really be better than my lighter 8x? Is the tradeoff -- marginally more magnification, marginally more shake -- useful or not?

This is exactly why I carry 10x and not 8x myself, so the answer is unequivocally Yes, at least for me. I think most people can (learn to) hold 10x effectively, partly because it's not just about hands, the brain also has to process an image that jitters even at 8x, so you should give yourself some serious time with 10x before concluding that it doesn't work for you. In fact, since you like and often use 8x, and 10x is only a modest improvement, you might even consider complementing it with 12x instead; there's the NL, or Leica has a 12x50. But if that sounds too ridiculous, especially after exertion, then yes, absolutely try 10x. (I have no problem with it when hiking.)

I recently grew curious about 8x again myself (after 20+ years) and just got a Nikon 8x30 E2, which I've been walking around with. It's lovely, and there are times when I could be glad to have the FOV (fast moving birds, or just enjoying scenery) but when I see a bird far enough away, I miss the reach of the UV 10x32 I'm used to... just the opposite of your situation. And when that's not enough (lakes etc) I have the 15x SLC, so choosing 10 or 15x works well for me, which is why I thought of 12 for you.

 

[[email protected]]

I find I can't ID a bird any better with 10x than I can with 8x. What you might gain in detail if you were steady, you lose because you are shaking more than with an 8x. 8x has the advantage of a bigger FOV, better DOF, and the big one is you can hold it much steadier. Of course, your 7x is a little better than your 8x for the same reasons. I would keep your 8x32 UVHD+ and 7x42 UVHD+ and forget the 10x unless you plan on using it on a tripod or monopod. Everybody differs in how steady they can hold a binocular though, and some people might be able to hold a 10x steady enough to realize the advantages of the additional magnification, but I don't think the majority of people can. IMO, 7x and 8x are the sweet spot for birding unless you are using an IS binocular or a tripod or monopod.

 

[Troubador]

I find I can't ID a bird any better with 10x than I can with 8x. What you might gain in detail if you were steady, you lose because you are shaking more than with an 8x. 8x has the advantage of a bigger FOV, better DOF, and the big one is you can hold it much steadier. Of course, your 7x is a little better than your 8x for the same reasons. I would keep your 8x32 UVHD+ and 7x42 UVHD+ and forget the 10x unless you plan on using it on a tripod or monopod. Everybody differs in how steady they can hold a binocular though, and some people might be able to hold a 10x steady enough to realize the advantages of the additional magnification, but I don't think the majority of people can. IMO, 7x and 8x are the sweet spot for birding unless you are using an IS binocular or a tripod or monopod.

I agree, Dennis, and I only take my 10x32 out when visiting sites with particularly long viewing distances but getting the benefit of the 10x usually involves sitting down and steadying my elbows on my knees. Of course this is not always possible and when standing I can only hold 10x steady enough for a very limited period. For the vast majority of habitats 8x is simply the best and most versatile of magnifications.

Lee

 

[Rg548]

I found there was very little difference between 7's and 8's , as you said, and there was less of a difference between 8's and 10's than I was expecting.
However the difference between 7's and 10's seems massive!!!

I have always championed 8's, but when I chanced upon some 10x42 Meoptas, they are quite dense, different to heavy. They are quite small for 10x42's but due to their weight, 900 ish grams, they feel 'dense' and I can hold them very steady. So much so, I bought them.

Comparing them directly to 8's, I can definately see more detail, but as Dennis said, there is unlikely to be anything you identify with a 10, but couldn't with an 8. But stability does play a part here, you need to be able to hold them well.

If you want Leicas, and I am a huge Leica fan here, then don't discount the Meoptas, they are very 'Leica like' in their view, and the build quality is superb. I really want some Leica HD+ (and Habichts.... but thats a different story)... but the Meoptas are so good that I just can't justify it.

But in answer to your question... 10's bring you that bit closer, but shake 'may' or may not be an issue.

As I always say, get a good warranted second hand pair of 10's and if you like them, keep them, or replace them for new ones, if you don't like them, sell them, enjoy the experiment, and you've not lost much, if anything.

 

[Binocollector]

I prefer 8x. But the design of the bino makes a difference in how steady you can hold them. I like my 10x45 DDoptics Pirschler with the open bridge as I can hold them steadier than other 10x models. But 8x32 or a vintage 8x30 is my preferred size, also because of the larger FoV.

 

[Vespobuteo]

You put the finger on the problem. As I never had 10x, I don't know if I would be able to keep them steady enough, especially as I mentioned how I am often on the move (by foot or bike) when I bird, so my breathing is often not at base rate.

If you have weak eye sight or access to support 10x bins might help you, but for your birding style, 10x seem superfluous.

And those dang Leicas 8x32 UVHD+ are so good, if only the ER was a bit longer I would have gotten a pair hands down.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree, Dennis, and I only take my 10x32 out when visiting sites with particularly long viewing distances but getting the benefit of the 10x usually involves sitting down and steadying my elbows on my knees. Of course this is not always possible and when standing I can only hold 10x steady enough for a very limited period. For the vast majority of habitats 8x is simply the best and most versatile of magnifications.

Lee

"For the vast majority of habitats, 8x is simply the best and most versatile of magnifications."

Agreed! If I had to pick one, 8x is the best overall. 7x is a close second and probably better than 8x for closer in habitat's like woodland and closer in birding.

 

[Richard D]

Personally I disagree that 8x is the best magnification for the vast majority of habitats, but it is probably the best compromise. For woodland birding I prefer a 7x and for marshland and other areas where there are long distance I prefer a 10x (or greater), but an 8x is okay for both. If you're thinking of buying a 10x though do try before you buy - weight and balance really impact how steady you can hold them, with heavier generally being better and don't discout using simple support.

 

[dorubird]

Try a 10x binoculars carefully, especially in terms of ergonomics and comfort You will get used to it. If I had problems with a 10x stabilization I'm sure I would have had stabilization problems with an 8x as well because they are quite close. But I have no problems! Personally, if I were forced to have only one pair of binoculars, it would be 10x42. But beware: it must be as comfortable as possible for you to not feel the difference with an 8x. For example: Zeiss SF 10x42, is for me the most comfortable and versatile for me: good for birding at sea and in the woods also good. Excellent for wide angle astronomy (10x sees more stellar magnitudes than a similar optical 8x). And last but not least I often appreciate a little extra magnification when looking at the great distance (t's not just a psychological perception).
So, depending on everyone's taste and experience ... it's not an absolute answer

 

[GrampaTom]

Ive been out averaging 3 days week for the winter migration, since September, now sadly winding down. Its been spectacular. Went out today mostly for the walk, with dwindling hope much would still be around. I carried my 8s, for the first time since last summer. I can not say I have ever wished for 8s when I had 10s to hand. The reverse however was confirmed today, when Im carrying 8s, I want my 10s....

 

[eitanaltman]

While a 10x will provide more resolution on a test bench, in a practical real world sense you’re not going to get much ID benefit from 10x instead of 8x to justify the weight. Not when handholding while hiking. And the 10x42 UVHD is even slightly heavier than than the 7x42.

It certainly won’t help for speed ID (the first use case) as the wider FOV and greeter DOF of the lower magnification allows for more rapid “getting on the bird”. That was one of the biggest reasons I ended up keeping the 7x42 UVHD over the 10x42, while the 10x shows a bit more detail and had that wow factor at first, over time I realized everything else was better and easier on the 7x.

So the only real benefit would be in longer distance ID of less mobile birds, and again I don’t think there is much if any real world benefit jumping from world class 7/8x optics to only 10x.

As an alternative option for something which IMO would be a better complement for what you describe — what about a small image stabilized binocular like the 14x32 or 12x36 Canon IS? You can keep it stashed in the pack and pull it out when you have a relatively stationary bird that you can’t quite ID and just need that extra bit of reach. Think of it like an emergency mini-scope that doesn’t require a tripod; with the IS engaged the 12/14x mag will feel like using a 20x scope and be a truly noticeable jump in resolution.

 

[[email protected]]

Here is another idea. How about a Leica Duovid 8+12x42? That way you could have the advantages of the 8x including the bigger FOV, better DOF and less image shake and then if you need to a closer look for an ID pop it up to 12x, and you would still only have one binocular to carry.

Leica Duovid 8+12x42 | Leica Camera AG

leica-camera.com

 

[GrampaTom]

While a 10x will provide more resolution on a test bench, in a practical real world sense you’re not going to get much ID benefit from 10x instead of 8x to justify the weight. Not when handholding while hiking. And the 10x42 UVHD is even slightly heavier than than the 7x42.

It certainly won’t help for speed ID (the first use case) as the wider FOV and greeter DOF of the lower magnification allows for more rapid “getting on the bird”. That was one of the biggest reasons I ended up keeping the 7x42 UVHD over the 10x42, while the 10x shows a bit more detail and had that wow factor at first, over time I realized everything else was better and easier on the 7x.

So the only real benefit would be in longer distance ID of less mobile birds, and again I don’t think there is much if any real world benefit jumping from world class 7/8x optics to only 10x.

As an alternative option for something which IMO would be a better complement for what you describe — what about a small image stabilized binocular like the 14x32 or 12x36 Canon IS? You can keep it stashed in the pack and pull it out when you have a relatively stationary bird that you can’t quite ID and just need that extra bit of reach. Think of it like an emergency mini-scope that doesn’t require a tripod; with the IS engaged the 12/14x mag will feel like using a 20x scope and be a truly noticeable jump in resolution.

One can read this opinion here at Birdforum often. It is not my experience. That may come from using 10s for 40+ years. "Beware the man with one gun." Why do we buy binoculars? Whats the only reason they exist? Make stuff bigger, bring stuff closer. The choice is semantics. Wouldn't therefore the informed choice be to buy the largest X one thinks they can handle and then as with any human powered tool, use the thing till you get good with it? Ive got a hammer bought when I was 18 for a summer construction job. That was 1962. The rubber is well worn where it was grabbed and moved about as I hammered, with grubby hands. We didn't have air guns back then. Everything was hand nailed. Framing, plywood siding, roof rafters, more plywood, shingles, sheetrock. Each of those required a bit of adjustment in technique and force, with that one hammer. By the end of the summer I had developed hand and forearm strength, that I sure no longer possess. My 20 oz hammer, (not the more common 16.... notice), worked just fine. Uncomfortable at the beginning, by September it fit like a glove. The weight was a non event. I still have it. It still works, even if at 78 I dont, so much.

Its surprising how many folks I see birding have 10s around their neck. It's not surprising how few of them ever heard of, or come to the Birdforum bino sub group. Are we really back to the 8 vs 10 thing? Gads! And I joined in.....

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Luca,

Your opinion is much appreciated!

Well, here's a massively simplified graph based entirely on my opinions of what the continuum of binocular properties looks like:



The assumption is that image steadiness decreases visible detail once you exceed a certain magnification, indicated as "100%" in the graph.

So you can either find out what the optimum magnification is for you, under the conditions you use the binoculars in, and pick a suitable pair that's on the continuous curve, trading off field of view versus discernible detail.

Or you can try to break the mould and settle for a pair of image stabilized binoculars, which will improve chances of identifying birds at the expense of (primarily) field of view, and (secondarily, and maybe that's a show-stopper for you) a whole lot of other factors, like increased weight, less efficient ergnomics, and poorer image quality.

Regards,

Henning

 

[eitanaltman]

Its surprising how many folks I see birding have 10s around their neck. It's not surprising how few of them ever heard of, or come to the Birdforum bino sub group. Are we really back to the 8 vs 10 thing? Gads! And I joined in.....

The veiled assertion that Birdforum binos subforum is the only place promoting the benefits of lower magnification is false. Not only do I see plenty of 8x binoculars around birders' necks, but the idea of 8x42 (or 8x32) as the best all-around birding format is fairly general "common wisdom" that you can find on any number of birding binocular review sites, comparison articles, et al.

Why do we buy binoculars? Whats the only reason they exist? Make stuff bigger, bring stuff closer. The choice is semantics. Wouldn't therefore the informed choice be to buy the largest X one thinks they can handle and then as with any human powered tool, use the thing till you get good with it?

If that works for you, fantastic, but where I fundamentally disagree is the implication that there is only benefit, and no trade-off, with increasing magnification. As though people are just willfully throwing away free benefits for no good reason. In fact, there ARE good reasons for foregoing additional magnification (beyond the steadiness/shakiness of the view). And there are corresponding negative impacts to increasing magnification which offset the benefits; the biggest hammer is NOT always the best hammer for the job. I would argue that in many contexts the 10x42 will be an objectively worse tool than a 7x42 or 8x42. There are aspects of magnified nature observation that are important (to others) beyond just making a single thing larger/closer.

And then you have a whole different set of compromises unrelated to the view. For example, 10x42 vs 8x32, where you can maintain a constant exit pupil but reduce size/weight. Frankly, why are you or anyone using 10x42 or 10x50 when you could just buff up some more and handle 10x56, or even 12x70? Who cares if its bigger and heavier, you just need to work harder Grampa, right?

The reality is that there is no right or wrong, only where a particular individual lands on the spectrum of competing compromises, which is going to vary based on the use case and subjective tastes. Just like some people will taste a particular dish and think adding a bit of salt will make it taste better, and others will think it makes it taste worse.

 

[tenex]

Now we're back to the 8x vs 10x thing... and all Luca asked was whether others find 10x helps in ID'ing fairly distant birds! A commendably precise question, now that I take a second look.

I do. Sounds like Gramps does. Dorubird does, and Richard, under the circumstances Luca described. Dennis and Lee don't. Several others aren't specifically addressing that question. Not surprisingly, individual experience varies. It's time for Luca to find out for himself!

 

[[email protected]]

It looks like 61% of birder's prefer 8x and 23% prefer 10x. It is just personal preference whether you prefer 8x or 10x depending on how and where you use your binoculars, under what conditions and how skilled you are at holding them steady because without a doubt 10x is harder to hold steady for most people. The poll does show that by far the greatest percentage of birders prefer 8x over 10x, though. I am sure it is because of the advantages 8x has over 10x that has been talked about like a bigger FOV, better DOF, brighter, easier eye placement because of the bigger exit pupil, an 8x binocular usually has higher transmission than a 10x because the higher magnification 10x has thicker lenses and the main one they are easier to hold steady. One other advantage of 8x over 10x that isn't really talked about is most agree that it is more difficult to make a good 10x binocular than it is to make a good 8x binocular, so usually you have to spend a little more money and get a higher quality 10x than an 8x to get equivalent performance and a 10x is in general more expensive than an 8x.

Binoculars Poll - What format do you prefer ( 8x32, 10x50 etc. )

Another fun poll, this time which binocular format do you prefer. With a limited number of options there will be a few omissions, but if you have a format not in the poll, please share it in the thread below.

www.birdforum.net