• 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.

Absolute top 10x (under $3000) (1 Viewer)

My wife is quite petite. She's also in great shape (runs a half marathon 1-2x a year). And as it turns out, over many years use, she has little interest in a 28-29oz full-size 42mm. Her favorite? 8x32 SV. We both prefer that to the 8x32 FL. She has little interest in my 8.5 SV and I doubt she'd be interested in a longish SF either. Individual choice, as always.

I haven't seen the 10x32 SV, but it's probably worth a look. The SV voodoo is real as far as a forgiving eye placement. We both like it, however it works. And she cares diddly about optics, as long as she likes it.

By most accounts the lightweight 10x42 Nikon MHG might also be worth a look. It's compact and only a few ounces heavier than a mid-size. And you can't argue with exit pupil: the bigger the better.
 
Last edited:
WJC
With enough money you can buy an ultra-expensive binocular. However, she may be more interested in VALUE; ladies usually are. You can buy 95-97% of a $3,000 bino for well under $1,000. Does the ability to spend money reveal status or ... naiveté? You can't put a price tag on observational pleasure. Besides, the birds don't care.

She is not interested at all in Value in this case. I agree that something every bit as good as she needs could be had for a grand at most. I've already stated she's optically somewhat naive (but for that matter so am I compared to most of you all). Status is important in this case for the reasons I stated.
 
If the lady really wants to go all out, I would press upon her the desirability, nay, the necessity of purchasing the Pfleusengasser 10.5x 38. They are expensive. They start at around $4,500 and go up from there depending upon the extras she desires at the requisite client "meeting." You see, they are not sold to just anyone. You must have a face-to-face conference with Herr Doktor Pfleusengasser in order to be personally selected to be seen with the product of his labors. It used to take only about 20 minutes (tops), but with his advanced years, it takes a little longer now, but no one deemed worthy leaves unsatisfied. What the hell, if she's got the bucks and has more yesterdays than tomorrows, tell her to go for it.
 
Last edited:

BC, I was thinking of this on your other thread about the 10x32's. You said you've got your Big Eyes which must be lots of fun off the deck etc, but I think you could sell up a lot of your other bins and replace them with just one. Either:-
* Swarovski 10x32 SV
* Nikon Monarch HG 10x42

Both have ~360ft Fov sharp or near sharp to the edge, and are light and small enough to be immediately useful at the top of a long climb when hiking. The 32 feels a bit smaller in the hand, so it would be a personal choice on which suited you better, but I find both have delightful ergonomics for small compact bins.

The MHG is just a little behind optically (maybe ~1% or so - it's not much), though only costs half or less of the SV.

I hope you can get to try both of these :t:


Chosun :gh:
 
She has a mental block about image stabilized binos as do I actually. I don't think she'd even consider them because she'd stand out with a pair of them. In the past when I've mentioned them I've gotten no real interest. I'll bet they are the way to go though. Someday they'll streamline them to look like a regular pair of binoculars and they will take over the industry.
I was going to mention the Canon 12x36 IS III, but decided not to complicate matters by doing so. The IS works quite well and actually shows a good bit of detail. Despite its small size and lightish weight (same as the Nikon Monarch 10x42 HG), they don't have anywhere near the AFov, or enough ER really, and may show more CA under challenging conditions. I also found them really difficult to hold in a steady grip, not being able to ever get rid of the shakes. For that reason I'd rule them out.


Chosun :gh:
 
The 10x32 SV is a good suggestion, but she should definitely try the Leica Noctivid 10x42. The image is fantastic, and eye relief for eyeglass wearers among the best, better than the SV.

Kimmo

Better image from the Noctovid than the SF and SV x42s, Kimmo? I've only tried the Noctivid in very bright conditions so found it hard to assess.

Sean
 
Chosun thanks. I'll look at them all. I think if I could have anything here just based on reviews it would be the Swarovski SV.
Those last couple of % performance are expensive, but if money is no object, or when you get to that age where time is rapidly diminishing, then why not? Certainly after looking through the Swarovskis, reasons why not will be increasingly hard to come by! :)



Chosun :gh:
 
I have the 8X42 MHG not the 10x, but I have the EDG 10X42 and at 790 grams it is light enough and smaller than many 10X42s. It is on the higher price side but it is very well made. and provide a great view.

Stats below

Manufacturer Nikon
Model 10x42 EDG
Lens diameter [mm] 42
Magnification [x] 10
Angular field of view [deg] 6.5
Linear field of view [m/m] 114/1000
Exit pupil [mm] 4.2
Eye relief [mm] 18
Min. focusing dist. [m] 3
Twilight factor 20.5
Brightness 17.6
Prisms BaK-4/roof
Dimensions [mm] 151x141
Weight [g] 790
Waterproof Yes
Nitogen filling Yes
Argon filling No
Image stabilization No
Tripod exit Yes
Focusing central
Warranty [years] 10

A.W.
 
Last edited:
Those last couple of % performance are expensive, but if money is no object, or when you get to that age where time is rapidly diminishing, then why not? Certainly after looking through the Swarovskis, reasons why not will be increasingly hard to come by! :)



Chosun :gh:

That's what I think. If money was no object to me I'd pay a grand to get 1% improvement. I think she will also see it that way. I've only known one other person in my life with more resources and they were in that 1%. I only knew them through a friend but I did go to Burning Man with them. :t:
 
Hey BC, This question is something I've looked quite closely at. I wear glasses too, so all of the following recommendations are suitable for me, and likely your friend also.

1. The best 10x I have seen is the Swarovski 10X50SV, an immersive 3D-like view that seems much wider than its 351ft Fov - it remains my favourite view, though at a fraction under a kilo it's probably too heavy for extended use even with harness for all but the most hairy chested. The ergonomics of grip though are really nice. I have to back the eyecups out a smidge which is very easy and secure to do. Absolutely get your friend to try it though she may prefer something lighter.

For this reason I'd also rule out other binoculars which perform admirably optically - Canon 10x42 IS, Zeiss 10x42 HT, and Leica NoctiVid 10x42. These are, or nearly are as heavy as the big Swaro, have worse ergonomics (perhaps NV excepted), and lesser fields of view (~340ft). A smidge below this is the Swarovski 10x42 SV though I don't find it does much for me ergonomically or optically in comparison to the others (we're talking realtively here and really splitting hairs). If she is going with something that heavy, she may as well get the big mumma 5mm EP, crystalline WOW view 10x50 SV.

2. Next cab down the weight scale is the Zeiss 10x42 SF. A wide 360ft Fov, lightish enough to consider, and OK ergonomics (if a bit contrived), with an ever so (barely noticeable) slight warm side view. I found it more difficult than the others (for me) to set up the eyecups for a satisfactory view. One to try though for sure.

3. Coming in at a very nice light weight, brilliant ergonomics, an equal best 360ft Fov and 99% of the optics of the above mentioned is the Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for a bit less than a grand. Much smaller in size than any of the above. Definitely one to try - and probably the choice will come down between it and something else.

4. My last recommendation is somewhat of a surprise (well at least it was to me! :) . The Swarovski 10x32 SV ...what a gem of a little binocular. Smallest and lightest of the lot by a comfortable margin, with an equal top 360ft Fov. It performs more like a 10x42 for ease of view. Despite its scant 3.2mm EP it loses virtually nothing in brightness to any of the above even in overcast conditions (something I often run in to with my much younger eyes) .... there's some pretty special voodoo going on in there. Actually most Swarovski's (I just don't see ot to any great degree in other brands - caveat - haven't scrutinized the 10x NV yet) have this kind of punching above your weight 'eyeroamaboutability' :king: because of the purpose designed 'randpupille' (a generous alignment margin of error capability). The best models in this regard are the 8x32 SV, 10x50 SV, 10x32 SV, and the others not so much. (see more of an explanation here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=293766&page=2). Great ergonomics suitable for smaller hands, and has the bonus of coming in a lovely tan colour too. :cat:

I recommend that your friend try those 4 bins (even if ruling some out upfront as too big/heavy) just to establish an optical baseline. One of those 4 bins should just jump out at your friend as far as ergonomic feel and optical satisfaction goes. :t:


Chosun :gh:

"Hey, BC"--Johnny Hart, 1972
 
blac crow, different posts,
An older lady not of the weightlifting type with enough funds to buy excellent and expensive binoculars to be used in fine lady like hands and with already limited pupil size under low light conditions?
If she lived in Europe I would advise: Swarovski 10x32 SV or Leica Ultravid 10x32 HD, certainly not a 10x42 or 10x50 from whatever brand.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
That's what I think. If money was no object to me I'd pay a grand to get 1% improvement. I think she will also see it that way. I've only known one other person in my life with more resources and they were in that 1%. I only knew them through a friend but I did go to Burning Man with them. :t:

Burning Man has to be one of the coolest productions of American culture ever!

Lucky you! :t:
 
Yeah I went three times. I couldn't do it now without a luxury camper. I've spent years in the deserts and that is the harshest environment I've ever spent a week in. I heard the military contacted BM to see if they could observe how they managed to put up and take down a city of 60,000 people with that speed and have it look like no one had ever been there. The organization skills are pretty amazing for a bunch of hippie types. That place would be one of the ultimate places to test the build quality of binoculars. If they can stay smooth and optically good in that semi constant blowing palaya talc dust, they they are the best.
 
Last edited:
"Hey, BC"--Johnny Hart, 1972
LOL ! I might have seen it when I snuck a look at dad's Sunday newspaper as a whippersnapper, but in this case "B.C." refers more to Before Chosun ! 3:)

I am though, a keen fan of Gary Larson's - Far Side :t:

Some of his cartoons have been instrumental in forming my philosophies on life ...... :cat:
24fe0eca52d8144af9025cb552a8fb93.jpg

And hunting ..... Lol o:D
20141210_131017-1-1.jpg



Chosun :gh:
 
LOL ! I might have seen it when I snuck a look at dad's Sunday newspaper as a whippersnapper, but in this case "B.C." refers more to Before Chosun ! 3:)

I am though, a keen fan of Gary Larson's - Far Side :t:

Some of his cartoons have been instrumental in forming my philosophies on life ...... :cat:
View attachment 655594

And hunting ..... Lol o:D
View attachment 655595

Chosun :gh:


I once owned 19 BC paperbacks, including: Life is a $.75 paperback, Life is a $.95 paperback, and Life is a $1.25 paperback. The inside was the same; only the cover revealed inflation. BC often made me laugh to the point of tears and made my once skinny mid-section hurt. For years he proved that one need not stoop to vulgarity to be hilarious! :cat:

We still need you, Johnny.

BC
 
What exactly do you mean by bigger apertures are better optically? I didn't realize this.
I'm going way back to this because somehow it didn't get answered. Briefly, larger objectives provide a larger exit pupil, better detail (resolution) at long distance, better color detail, a brighter view in low light, and better seeing into shadows even in daylight. This is probably why you like your large binos on the porch, although it may be less relevant to an older lady looking for something easy to carry.
 
I will recommend the Zeiss Victory SF 10x42, and I feel it will be ideal for the user.

The ergos are better than some others mentioned as these have great balance and handling, the focuser
is in the right place and very smooth.

The optics are at the top, so be sure to try this one before you settle on another choice.

Jerry
 
Well she's been on a birding trip up in Puget Sound and will return tonight. I want to show her some of my new bins so I'll take this info over to her and then see what she wants to do about it. I've done my part and the rest is up to her. She likes to take her time making any decisions but I'll let you all know when she makes her move. Thanks for all the suggestions.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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