• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

8x32 or 8x42? (1 Viewer)

Let's face it, most reviews are subjective field tests. People who have used binoculars for years know what they are for and how to test them for birding. They can see if the image is poor at the edges.

But, the more people there are testing in any trial, the better.
 
... BVD ...Many people, myself included, have purchased binoculars based, partly at least, on their essays. Their analysis of birding binoculars has been quite satisfactory in my experience.

I've long enjoyed Steve Ingraham's binocular reviews, but his articles that discuss issues related to optical theory (or perhaps more properly, theories about optics) have very often been on the, shall we say, "creative" side. You can see more of the same on his Z-birding site in the discussions of image contrast (and related issues of brightness and color rendition).

--AP
 
I assumed that Thomas was just after some basic binocular advice as to which to would be best for his birding needs, without having to go into "quantum physics". Perhaps in depth discussions on the workings and theories of optics could be kept in separate threads. Indeed perhaps, with the current expertise that there is now on this forum, we need a separate section on "Optical Theory" (or to put it another way "The Right Room For An Argument").

Paul
 
Quote: 'Andy,
I guess, by now, you are getting tired of this; but, with all due respect, your response to Dennis is not satisfactory. Who ever gets back to BVD (which I believe is now owned by Astronomics, but I will stand corrected if that is not true) should tell them in terms easily understood by non experts which parts of the cited essay are ambiguous, make no sense, and where they are misleading and incorrect. Many people, myself included, have purchased binoculars based, partly at least, on their essays. Their analysis of birding binoculars has been quite satisfactory in my experience.
Cordially,
Bob'


Bob, you are quite right about talking to BVD, although in my experience (having done this sort of thing before), from the perspective of the website owners, it is not welcomed, not understood, VERY time consuming, and not corrected by the publisher (for reasons best known to them). I suspect, cynically, that whatever may help sell products is good (regardless of whether it is true or not). This is, after all, what the entire consumer optics industry relies on to continue making sales, that of virtually any marketing fog being "truth" rather than what is actually true, because the truth about optics is complicated, mathematical, raises a question for every answer, and is generally more likely to stay the hand of the consumer, for no other reason than that of their confusion.

andytyle
 
Yes, Sony was better than VHS, and the public chose VHS.

The same happened with audiocassettes. I think Grundig had a better cassette idea.

It is all price and marketing.
 
Quote: 'I assumed that Thomas was just after some basic binocular advice as to which to would be best for his birding needs, without having to go into "quantum physics". Perhaps in depth discussions on the workings and theories of optics could be kept in separate threads. Indeed perhaps, with the current expertise that there is now on this forum, we need a separate section on "Optical Theory" (or to put it another way "The Right Room For An Argument").'
Paul

Yes that's right, but basic binocular or telescope advice should be based upon the founding knowledge and understanding of the mechanics and "workings" of optics. An understanding of the fundamental technical aspects, leads to a condition where making less technical statements is still generally correct. When there is misunderstanding at a fundamental level, then there is an inevitable misdirection at a more general level of advice.
The problem is, that there are no general answers with optics because there are no general questions. At least if a fundamental knowledge is to be had, then any general advice given is based upon truth. This is not meant to be disrespectful to any one individual, but rather an observation from an understanding of the consumer optical industry.

Quantum mechanics. Multiple pathways, observer affecting the observed etc. What a great idea for some lateral thinking marketing guy, although I think that the German marketing people at Leica have already attempted to paint a similar picture in the November issue of Birdwatching magazine (mentioned in another thread).

'Room for an argument'. Ah.........a fellow Python fan.


andytyle
 
I have read with interest all the postings but not once has anybody mentioned comfort in the hand. I know Thomas has mentioned that he has no chance to try the binoculars before purchasing - a bad move IMHO. For many years I was totally in love with my 8X32Trinovids and was almost tempted to buy the 8/10X32 Ultravids without trial. How glad I was when I gave the Ultravids a field day. I am far from having hands like a farmer or butcher but the smaller option felt awkward to use as my gloved fingers kept butting up to the barrel. I opted for this reason to buy the 10X42 Ultravids, the focussing issue is another story however and I have no wish to reopen this old chestnut.
In conclusion I would give this advice, particularly to 'newbies' as Thomas declares himself, that buying without trying is a bad move.
 
I have read with interest all the postings but not once has anybody mentioned comfort in the hand. I know Thomas has mentioned that he has no chance to try the binoculars before purchasing - a bad move IMHO. For many years I was totally in love with my 8X32Trinovids and was almost tempted to buy the 8/10X32 Ultravids without trial. How glad I was when I gave the Ultravids a field day. I am far from having hands like a farmer or butcher but the smaller option felt awkward to use as my gloved fingers kept butting up to the barrel. I opted for this reason to buy the 10X42 Ultravids, the focussing issue is another story however and I have no wish to reopen this old chestnut.
In conclusion I would give this advice, particularly to 'newbies' as Thomas declares himself, that buying without trying is a bad move.




I think we should sum this debate up with the fact that 8x42 binoculars have optical advantages(eye relief, brightness at dusk,dawn and in dark woods, and easier eye placement) and 8x32 binoculars have size and weight advantages. Perhaps if you could have two pair of binoculars the 8x32 for daytime viewing and the 8x42 for viewing in adverse and less than daylight conditions this might be an ideal situation. But if I had to have only have one pair of binoculars that I could use all the time including dark woods situations and say owling at dusk I would choose the 8x42 or 7x42. If you are a daytme birder exclusively then the 8x32's would work fine and perhaps be a better choice. Good discussion.

Dennis
 
Quote: 'I assumed that Thomas was just after some basic binocular advice as to which to would be best for his birding needs, without having to go into "quantum physics". Perhaps in depth discussions on the workings and theories of optics could be kept in separate threads. Indeed perhaps, with the current expertise that there is now on this forum, we need a separate section on "Optical Theory" (or to put it another way "The Right Room For An Argument").'
Paul

Yes that's right, but basic binocular or telescope advice should be based upon the founding knowledge and understanding of the mechanics and "workings" of optics. An understanding of the fundamental technical aspects, leads to a condition where making less technical statements is still generally correct. When there is misunderstanding at a fundamental level, then there is an inevitable misdirection at a more general level of advice.
The problem is, that there are no general answers with optics because there are no general questions. At least if a fundamental knowledge is to be had, then any general advice given is based upon truth. This is not meant to be disrespectful to any one individual, but rather an observation from an understanding of the consumer optical industry.

Quantum mechanics. Multiple pathways, observer affecting the observed etc. What a great idea for some lateral thinking marketing guy, although I think that the German marketing people at Leica have already attempted to paint a similar picture in the November issue of Birdwatching magazine (mentioned in another thread).

'Room for an argument'. Ah.........a fellow Python fan.


andytyle

Andy,

I agree that decisions need to be made on accurate facts. It is just in some cases where people with only basic knowledge or who go cross eyed (I include myself in both catagories!!)at long technical papers want fairly simple and straight forward answers to fairly simple and straight forward questions. There is a time and a place for the technical stuff.

By the way is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

Paul

P. S. I do have to say that I find the knowledge on this website amazing. Keep up the good work Andy and Ed, Henry et al. I have learnt a lot, been baffled by the technical stuff, appreciated the humour and winced at the tantrums (one or two people need to chill:hippy:). I drink to you all B :)B :)
 
Quote: 'By the way is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?'

I've told you once!



On a serious note, I agree about technical stuff having its place, problem is that the technical stuff and simple straightforward stuff are joined at the hip. If the technical stuff is not understood then there will be an inability to advise or answer simple questions correctly. We can't seperate them. Now this doesn't mean that it is necessary for every birder to study optics, this would be unworkable as most are simply not interested enough. However, if a birder wants to understand optics properly, then he/she does have to study optics.........and, if someone wants to advise others (such as article writers for example), they also have to study optics. If they don't, they mislead others, who then mislead others.....ad infinitum, and we get an entire community who argue and debate points that no-one really understands.

Generally, in our consumer society, we tend to be trusting, partly because we want to trust, and also because to not trust means that we have work and hassle ahead of us if we want to find out some truth. This is why so many accept the entire theatre and fiction which is the true face of consumerism thrust upon us.
Similarly, we tend to trust those who inform and advise, often without question, not wishing to entertain the idea that he/she doing the advising may also be as in the dark as us, or perhaps with one more candle lit than we have. (Get a paperback copy of - Platos' Republic, from any bookstore for £2/€3/$4, and read the allegory of The Cave).

Before the internet we had academic journals as the place to look for new knowledge and scientific breakthroughs. We still have these, and any academic of any worth will look to have scientific papers published in these. For those not interested in journals, but still wanted to know the answers to specific questions about a technical aspect of their hobby, for example, then we have consumer magazines. Reviews of various products in these magazines are no more than opinions, as it much more important for editorial staff to have journalistic and writing talents than fundamental product knowledge. Within our own hobby, this is particularly true with optics. I think this is mainly due to optics being a means to an end, a tool, to enable us to study what we really want to see.........the bird. As long as we think that we know how these tools work, and we can see that they work, then that's good enough.
Then comes the internet. We can now see many forums and "educational" sites, for virtually every hobby that use consumer goods. All are welcome to give their opinion, and fine, why not? Many are controlled by a commercial power and hence tainted a little because of it. Even those that are not, slowly become victims of political feuds (personal struggles for positions of power, not party politics I mean). Both of these phenomena that appear in societies, immediately take over as something that signifies a forum or website as being a warzone or a peaceful meadow.
However, if the website is controlled by level headed people, then hopefully we can weed out the detrimental aspects of these mini-societies.
For the first time in the history of human society, the internet can provide us with something we have not had before. The ordinary people now have a tool (a forum that we can essentially control in terms of information offered, and providing the lunatics are not running the assylum) that can be used to educate us properly, without the controlling methods of commercialism and political interference.
Christ! I sound like Karl Marx...........

Its up to us to ensure it works properly. If it doesn't, it will be because of our own stupidity.

Never mind, soon be Christmas! B :)

andytyle
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top