• 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.

Binoculars Poll - What format do you prefer ( 8x32, 10x50 etc. ) (1 Viewer)

What binocular format do you prefer

  • 6x30

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 6x32

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 6x40

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7x30

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7x32

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • 7x40

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7x42

    Votes: 29 8.6%
  • 7x43

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7x50

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • 8x21

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 8x25

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • 8x30

    Votes: 14 4.2%
  • 8x32

    Votes: 73 21.7%
  • 8x35

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 8x40

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • 8x42

    Votes: 85 25.2%
  • 8.5x42

    Votes: 28 8.3%
  • 8x43

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 8x44

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 8x50

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 8x52

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8x56

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • 10x25

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • 10x32

    Votes: 13 3.9%
  • 10x40

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • 10x42

    Votes: 47 13.9%
  • 10x43

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 10x44

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10x50

    Votes: 10 3.0%
  • 10x52

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10x56

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 12x50

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • 12x56

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Leica Duovid

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Variable Magnification Binoculars

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • 10.5x42

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    337
  • Poll closed .
Hi Chosun,

Jeez, with exactly 100 votes even I The breakdown of the majority (~7/8ths overall) of bin formats so far:-

Thanks for the breakdown!

I tried to reformat the table to be a bit easier to read ... hoping Birdforum will preserve the formatting and use a monospace font if I use the customary "code" tag ... so this is going to be a bit experimental:

Code:
     30 32 40.42.43
7×    .  1  .  .  . 7x32
7×    .  .  .  .  . 7x42
8×    5  .  .  .  . 8x30
8×    . 30  .  .  . 8x32
8×    .  .  1  .  . 8x40
8×    .  .  . 16  . 8x42
8×    .  .  .  .  1 8x43
8.5x  .  .  .  7  . 8.5x42
10x.  .  4  .  .  . 10x32
10×   .  .  1  .  . 10x40
10×   .  .  . 14  . 10x42

Regards,

Henning
 
Many here often comment on perceived brightness, but Leinhos and Köhler (Zeiss) actually studied apparent acuity which gave rise to the Twilight factor. While they didn't didn't have eithr a 8x42 or a 10x42, it seems that over a specific range of twilight light levels the 10x42 would have a slight advantage on level of detail. Berek (Leitz) on the other hand used threshold of detection for his study which showed the 8x42 would have a slight advantage on visibility at a similar light level. I've have seen a situations, usually by moonlight where both would appear to be true. A 10x56 beats both an 8x42 and 10x42 by some margin by both criteria as you might expect.

One thing I have noticed that wasn't investigated in either of those studies is that both the thresholds for detail and detection appear shift considerably when the target is alive and kicking! Unfortunately the local wildlife is rarely sufficiently obliging for a more detailed comparison, but for my eyes at least a 10x56 would take some beating for a bit of badger watching.

David
Try a 12x50.
 
Hi Chosun,

Thanks for the breakdown!

I tried to reformat the table to be a bit easier to read ... hoping Birdforum will preserve the formatting and use a monospace font if I use the customary "code" tag ... so this is going to be a bit experimental:

Code:
     30 32 40.42.43
7×    .  1  .  .  . 7x32
7×    .  .  .  .  . 7x42
8×    5  .  .  .  . 8x30
8×    . 30  .  .  . 8x32
8×    .  .  1  .  . 8x40
8×    .  .  . 16  . 8x42
8×    .  .  .  .  1 8x43
8.5x  .  .  .  7  . 8.5x42
10x.  .  4  .  .  . 10x32
10×   .  .  1  .  . 10x40
10×   .  .  . 14  . 10x42

Regards,

Henning
Hi Henning - hey that's neat - thanks ! :t:

One day I'll upgrade from my dodgy Vista system ! lol




Chosun :gh:
 
I really don't know why only 116 have voted in this poll. I bet there are WAY more visitors to this forum.

I'm actually kind of surprised that 8X32 is very close to double the 8X42 popularity. I AM glad there are 12 of us 7X42 users!
 
Try a 12x50.

Hope I'm on the right TF factor page here, never did understand arithmetic. Been casually comparing terrestrial views between Zeiss 8x56 Night Owl with 15x56 Vortex Kaibab after dark on tripods for the last two nights.

Night Owl EP 7.0, TF 21.2
Kaibab EP 3.7, TF 28.9

Kaibab clearly shows more/sharper detail and easier to id targets when used on tripods after dark.

Mike
 
Hi Dennis,

So would a 15x30 glass (21.2) be better for the dark than your 10x42?

The power of a glass at night, as in the daytime, is a matter of object size. A higher magnification may even be counterproductive in perception. Finally, the twilight number standing alone is a bad advice.
The exit pupil should definitely be considered as a priority.

Andreas
"So would a 15x30 glass (21.2) be better for the dark than your 10x42?"

The twilight factor works on normal format binoculars. I have never heard of a 15x30 and I don't think anybody would want one. You can come up with a bunch of weird formats to try and discount the twilight factor but in most circumstances it has a lot of relevance. Remember the twilight factor is not how BRIGHT the binocular is but how much DETAIL you can see in low light.
 
I really don't know why only 116 have voted in this poll. I bet there are WAY more visitors to this forum.

I'm actually kind of surprised that 8X32 is very close to double the 8X42 popularity. I AM glad there are 12 of us 7X42 users!

Chuck, the poll is only able to be completed and/or viewed by signed in BF members.

I think as far as 8×32 vs 8×42 popularity goes it's fair enough to include the lone 8×40, what are probably all Swaro 8.5×42's and of course my lone ambitious 8×43 in the '8×42' grouping. Also, it is probably fair NOT to include the 8×30's in with the 8×32's as they tend to be different beasts. Although no doubt someone will feel riled enough to argue the point ! :)

Currently with 116 total votes those counts sit at:
8×32 = 35
'8×42' = 29

So 8×32's about ~20% more at this stage.

Like you I find this a bit surprising, especially considering the market data that various industry peeps here have generously provided. Then again as has been mentioned, perhaps there are those with both (or more - this seems to be THE gathering place for bino nutters ! :) who voted for their 8×32 first fully expecting to vote for another selection down the list, only to then find that they were locked out from doing so. If my vague recollection of statistics has any merit, this effect should reduce over time provided people RTFM ! first :-O It may be a case of damn lies and statistics though ! :)

Honestly, I'm just glad that the resident Professor of Statistics hasn't crucified my number crunching thus far ! Phew ! lol 3:)




Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Edmund
We are talking about different things here. You mentioned a list of folks that you suspect are not represented in the poll (marine, hunting, travel and safari, law enforcement and military) and I have been trying to say that actually Birdforum members are a diverse bunch of folks including some in the categories you mention, and in other categories too. Thats all.

As for the poll results so far, these results are a reflection not only of what format of binos folks own/prefer, but also a reflection of which members feel motivated enough to vote.

Lee

Lee,

Apologies, of course you know your membership well.

BTW, since I bought binoculars, I have found them extremely useful, but the sheer weight and bulk mostly means they get left at home. For someone on foot with a sketchpad, transporting a 7x42 is not difficult, but it is a conscious decision. I can understand why so many people are downsizing to 8x32, and am thinking of buying a Nikon Micron.

Edmund
 
Try a 12x50.

I did.
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=333798
In a moonlight comparison I spotted something moving in the shadow of a hedge about 150 yards away with an 8x42. With the Meopta 12x50 I could clearly see it was a fox (improved apparent acuity?) but with the 10x50 I could clearly see the rat it was hunting (threshold of detection?).

I would suppose those Zeiss and Leitz test subjects were rather younger than I am, but has Holger tried to illustrate the potential changes with age in his paperI, but I suspect "live and kicking" might shift some of the thresholds.


David
 
Last edited:
Lee,

Apologies, of course you know your membership well.

BTW, since I bought binoculars, I have found them extremely useful, but the sheer weight and bulk mostly means they get left at home. For someone on foot with a sketchpad, transporting a 7x42 is not difficult, but it is a conscious decision. I can understand why so many people are downsizing to 8x32, and am thinking of buying a Nikon Micron.

Edmund

I can also imagine there are parts of Paris where it would be unwise to be seen openly carrying an expensive-looking pair of binoculars. Something more discrete that can be tucked away inside your jacket might be better.

I have fond memories of exploring Montmarte many years ago.

Lee
 
I did.
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=333798
In a moonlight comparison I spotted something moving in the shadow of a hedge about 150 yards away with an 8x42. With the Meopta 12x50 I could clearly see it was a fox (improved apparent acuity?) but with the 10x50 I could clearly see the rat it was hunting (threshold of detection?).

I would suppose those Zeiss and Leitz test subjects were rather younger than I am, but has Holger tried to illustrate the potential changes with age in his paperI, but I suspect "live and kicking" might shift some of the thresholds.


David
Also, the binocular coatings make a huge difference in low light performance and of course transmission. If that 10x50 was a Swarovski SV the coatings might have helped you see the rat when you couldn't with the Meopta.
 
Lee,

Apologies, of course you know your membership well.

BTW, since I bought binoculars, I have found them extremely useful, but the sheer weight and bulk mostly means they get left at home. For someone on foot with a sketchpad, transporting a 7x42 is not difficult, but it is a conscious decision. I can understand why so many people are downsizing to 8x32, and am thinking of buying a Nikon Micron.

Edmund

Edmund - have you tried the Nikon MHG 8×42 .... ??
It's 42mm performance in virtually a 32mm package ! :king:
Very nice :t:



Chosun :gh:
 
The stats are interesting - we have mainly people who prefer something 7-8-8.5-10x40-42 and then the singular 8x32.

On the basis of this data, it looks like the model people here would really want is a zoom 7-10x42. Maybe that is the Duovid Leica should have made.

...................

Edmund


I enjoy my Duovid 10+15x50 as an excellent pair for raptors and seabirds,
but the weight prevents me from listing it as my most used.

Now, if someone would make a quality 7-15x50 that is lightweight with wide FOV
for a reasonable price, then that could be my favorite.

Wait-did not Leupold do that once?

edj
 
Last edited:
The stats are interesting - we have mainly people who prefer something 7-8-8.5-10x40-42 and then the singular 8x32.

On the basis of this data, it looks like the model people here would really want is a zoom 7-10x42. Maybe that is the Duovid Leica should have made ......

Edmund

Edmund,

At the moment, in the ~42mm's, the ~8× are just over half of those, with the 10× half of that again (~quarter of all ~42's), and the 7× about the same as that.

It seems there has been quite a few converts to 7×42 around here over the years .... perhaps the format is not as dead as manufacturers think ..... :cat:

As far as a dual magnification bin of 7-10×42 goes, I don't think there is enough of a magnification step up of one over the other to make the complexity really worthwhile.

I think something like a 7-12 or 7-14×42, or even a 7.5-15×45 would be very interesting, especially if the higher magnification had an auto (as in eye detect start or something) IS (image stabilization). Maybe it could even have an intermediate 10× position (TriVid) :king:

Leupold went somewhere near this with their 7-12×32 but the objective was a bit on the small side. Leica has their 8-12×42 Duovid which is close. The main thing that is needed for greater acceptance I suppose is that they need greater FOV's - around 70° AFOV at each mag would be sweet, but no doubt quite involved and difficult and to achieve while keeping the weight down. :cat:





Chosun :gh:
 
That would contradict the contribution of Holger Merlitz and my observations are also clearly 8x42.

Andreas
It doesn't mean a 10x42 is brighter than an 8x42 but you will see more detail with a 10x42 because of the greater magnification under low light if the binoculars are of EQUAL quality with equivalent coatings and glass. A Tasco 10x42 will be killed by a Swarovski 8.5x42 under low light. My Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W murders my Swarovski 8.5x42 under low light for detail. Part of it is the super high transmission of the Habicht. Part of it is Twilight Factor. You will see more detail with a 10x42 in daylight than an 8x42 and you will see more detail under low light with a 10x42. The magnification helps you see detail in both situations.
 
Last edited:
"So would a 15x30 glass (21.2) be better for the dark than your 10x42?"

The twilight factor works on normal format binoculars. I have never heard of a 15x30 and I don't think anybody would want one. You can come up with a bunch of weird formats to try and discount the twilight factor but in most circumstances it has a lot of relevance. Remember the twilight factor is not how BRIGHT the binocular is but how much DETAIL you can see in low light.

Well, a 15x30 I do not know but the new Canon IS 14x32 is very close to the values!
So they agree with me that the 8x42 is a bit brighter !?
Mr. Merlitz once said that it is not important for a hunter to admire the bristles of the boar, but more important is to see the boar at all.

"It is conceivable - our perception is trained to look for differences, if the motive offers little detail. Not to mention that in order to be findable, the object must be within visual angle, and here the greater angle of vision is of course useful. In addition: Receptive fields for pattern recognition in darkness (finding contour lines or movements) are located primarily in the peripheral area of ​​the retina, and if the eyepiece also serves these areas, then this can only be beneficial. Therefore: Night binoculars should have wide apparent visual angle, which is unfortunately rarely the case."
Holger Merlitz

Andreas
 
Last edited:
Edmund,

At the moment, in the ~42mm's, the ~8× are just over half of those, with the 10× half of that again (~quarter of all ~42's), and the 7× about the same as that.

It seems there has been quite a few converts to 7×42 around here over the years .... perhaps the format is not as dead as manufacturers think ..... :cat:

As far as a dual magnification bin of 7-10×42 goes, I don't think there is enough of a magnification step up of one over the other to make the complexity really worthwhile.

I think something like a 7-12 or 7-14×42, or even a 7.5-15×45 would be very interesting, especially if the higher magnification had an auto (as in eye detect start or something) IS (image stabilization). Maybe it could even have an intermediate 10× position (TriVid) :king:

Leupold went somewhere near this with their 7-12×32 but the objective was a bit on the small side. Leica has their 8-12×42 Duovid which is close. The main thing that is needed for greater acceptance I suppose is that they need greater FOV's - around 70° AFOV at each mag would be sweet, but no doubt quite involved and difficult and to achieve while keeping the weight down. :cat:





Chosun :gh:

Hi Chosun-

I think we will need to wait for a new entry vendor, probably from China, to come in and do a decent varifocal or zoom instrument, because all the alphas enjoy selling multiple binoculars to their customers. For instance it's clear that in addition to my Leica 7x42 I will sooner or later get a 10x42. One of the reasons people are willing to get another pair is the fact that the first pair is viewed as having been a good "investment". Each flawless binocular sells the next :)

The same thing happened with camera lenses, existing vendors dimed hobbyists to death with excellent prime lenses, although good quality zoom designs existed in the movie field.Each of those Leica or Nikon or Canon lenses was totally superb, even by modern standards, but they'd just not be the lens you wanted to use at a given moment. In the 1970s when I was reading the magazines, a photo junkie would own a 35, a fast 50, a an 85, and a 135mm lens, and maybe something wider and something else longer.

Then the third party vendors eg. Tamron, Vivitar and Sigma came in with decent though not extraordinary but super-convenient zoom lenses. In the end, almost all consumers now use exclusively zooms because they have become the basic kit lenses and pros and the video field have equally embraced them.

To sum it up, with people here are spending $2K on alphas, and owning several but not really enjoying the use of them at the same time, I would expect some new vendor to appear with a high-quality zoom or varifocal innovation to serve the alpha market. As the data above shows, many people are happy with an 8x42 but many of these would appreciate to be able to go closer.

For myself, I find the the view from the alphas, and the build quality, is very high. And I have been surprised at what one can already get for $100 at my local mall. If I weren't a perfectionist, I'd get a $100 product. In this sense the market is mature, in the same way that Nikon or Canon and even the cheap firms made superb 50mm and 35mm lenses back in the 1970s.

There is an astonishingly high feeling of satisfaction perceptible in this forum, few complaints about build quality and after-sales, zero complaints about optical quality of view, a general sense of value being delivered for money spent, people are happy but they are also looking for even more convenience.


Edmund
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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