• 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.

Always used 10x but thinking about switching to 8x (1 Viewer)

Black Crow already mentioned Auntbirds....

And wasn't there a battle between the Greeks and the Trojans at Thamniphilidae?

I think Greeks won after a penalty shoot-out.

Lee

:t: so right - the Greek team was called The Eagles.
 
Last edited:
Besides offering a greater FOV 8 power bins also offer a greater depth of view, which means much less (re)focussing when chasing birds at close range. I normally use 8 power bins but have lately been using 10X and this is one important difference I noticed.

George


I agree George and this, and fov, is why I moved from 10x to 8x after about 25 years of using 10x.

Lee
 
I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this has already been asked. Have any of you actually tried a test with 8x vs 10x? Eg how many metres away can you read a page of newspaper? The comments I read before I jumped to the end seem to be mostly about impressions of the view, rather than actual tests.
 
I would imagine if you put them both (same quality and brand) stable on tripod, the 10x would easily outperform the 8x on detail at a distance. Otherwise why would anyone want the higher power since you give up a lot of FOV? If I'm wrong about this I'm going to be surprised.
 
I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this has already been asked. Have any of you actually tried a test with 8x vs 10x? Eg how many metres away can you read a page of newspaper? The comments I read before I jumped to the end seem to be mostly about impressions of the view, rather than actual tests.

It would be interesting to quantify the distance advantage a 10x has but high contrast stuff like black print on white paper is fairly rare in nature so a newpaper target might not be the best. And to do a fair assessment, as Black Crow has pointed out, you would need to tripod-mount the binos. Again this would give a result but if you hand-hold the binos when you go birding or nature observing, this tripod-aided result would probably not correlate with your hand-held experience. This is especially true if you consider that you would want to tripod-test the two magnifications on a day with no wind to tremble the tripod by different amounts during the duration of the test, and while this would aid a consistent test it wouldn't correspond to how the binos would perform in your hands on breezy or windy or gusty days. In all practical situations the 10x will have a longer 'reach' but also a correspondingly high tendency to tremble according to your hands and arms steadiness, wind strength and variability, heart rate and breathing (often depending on exertion) and what other loads there are on your body such as toting a back-pack or photographic gear or scope and tripod or all of these. So the distance advantage a 10x showed, mounted on a tripod, looking at a printed page, on a windless day is likely to be less in the field under normal birding conditions with hand-held binos.

Lee
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to quantify the distance advantage a 10x has but high contrast stuff like black print on white paper is fairly rare in nature so a newpaper target might not be the best. And to do a fair assessment, as Black Crow has pointed out, you would need to tripod-mount the binos.

No, I was thinking just a hand held test. We're talking about which ones let you see better when birding, and most birding is with handheld binoculars. I'm interested in a true test of how shake reduces the advantage of increased magnification.

I suggested a reading test because it would be easier to set up and to quantify than with real birds.

The results would be different for everyone because we vary in how steady we can hold them.
 
Well, I think it all depends. When I carry a scope 8x or even 7x works nicely for me. However, when I don't carry a scope, I very much prefer 10x. I can still hold 10x well enough to get more detail than with 8x or 7x.

Hermann

For me, it's similar. The 8x32s go with me when I travel, carrying a scope, or a camera with a long lens.

Lately, when I don't have those things w/ me I prefer either 12s or 15s on a monopod. Hand holding the bigger bins is out of the question, but even when viewing up at birds in flight, the monopod acts as a Finnstick and allows a steadier hold. I do like the higher mag view for any study longer than a few moments.
 
Regarding hand held viewing - I get more detail with all my 8X glass......10X a few. Not so much for some former 10X glass I previously owned that I could not hold steady.

Andy W.
 
No, I was thinking just a hand held test. We're talking about which ones let you see better when birding, and most birding is with handheld binoculars. I'm interested in a true test of how shake reduces the advantage of increased magnification.

I suggested a reading test because it would be easier to set up and to quantify than with real birds.

The results would be different for everyone because we vary in how steady we can hold them.

Agreed. Some folks find that high magnification binos that are heavier (up to a point) are easier to keep steady. I find Zeiss's SF 10x easier due to its unique balance. Probably there is a period when initially lifting up a 10x to the eye that we can hold it steady (unless we have just been seriously exerting ourselves and have strong heartbeat and breathing) and this steadiness erodes as fatigue of arms and shoulders sets in. Windy days exacerbate this. A Finn Stick can help or photographic monopod. I often used the latter before I got my SFs to view for extended periods when sitting down and waiting for Otters to appear.

Lee
 
when i tried the 10X42 conquest with the 10.5X44 kowa and my kowa 8X32 the difference was obvious : Only very little difference in shaking movement between both kowa and a lot of more between the conquest and the both kowa !

I am absolutely sure that the reasons was the weight on the 10.5 kowa combined with large barrel (more like a double barrel grip).

Hand held view with the conquest is really not a pleasure to use, But with the kowa it was not a problem.
 
I'm another former long-standing 10x user who has shifted over to 8x in the last 18 months.

The initial reason for looking for a pair of 8x was to reduce weight when out walking. However, as I got a bargain on the Kowa Genesis 8x33, the optical improvement over my old 10x is such that the Kowas have become my main bins, with the old 10x being kept for occasional use when mostly in hides.

That said, the increase in light gathering, the better FOV and depth of field and reduced weight would be enough to make a pair of half decent 8x (as opposed to the very good ones I got) an every day carry.
 
I sold a 41 oz. pair of Swarovski (8x50) to a friend who is 70 and barely weighs 100 lb. I sold them because they were too heavy to hike with but she stares out her window at two owls in her owl boxes and says it's the very best views she's ever had in any binocular. She had decided she could hold a 10x steady and until I heard that I was trying to dissuade her but I've stopped that and she's ordered some 10x. I really hadn't paid much attention to those Swaros and rarely hand held them (monopod mounted) but now holding them I realize they are rock steady in hand compared to some of my much lighter 8x. I never had even considered the idea that a heavier binocular would be steadier. It was counter to my intuition on what should be the case. I sold her my monopod for them but she's barely used it.

Of course now she has a fractured wrist and it's come in handy.:t:
 
Last edited:
when i tried the 10X42 conquest with the 10.5X44 kowa and my kowa 8X32 the difference was obvious : Only very little difference in shaking movement between both kowa and a lot of more between the conquest and the both kowa !

I am absolutely sure that the reasons was the weight on the 10.5 kowa combined with large barrel (more like a double barrel grip).

But the Kowa 10x33 doesn't have the weight or large barrel of the Kowa 10.5x44.

Lee
 
pshute, post 87,
The effect of magnification on image quality of handhold binoculars is very well investigated by Russian scientists and by Zeiss scientists, I have published some graphs and references on Birdforum some time ago, but if one is interested I could repeat it. One graph can be found in a review of published literature I have published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor entitled "Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images" figure 39 (the paper is in English). You may be surprised by this graph, since it indicates that at magnifictions of 6-7x and more resolution rapidly declines when handhold. The Russian investigators reach the same conclusions.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
If so why the popularity of 10x when hand held? Is this psychologically another one of the bigger is better stories we seem to like/need to tell ourselves?
 
BC,

Good question.
I seem to see more 10X for sale, so this to me would indicate that 10X sells well, more popular. The other hobby which begins with H, tend to use 10X, not all of them but most of them.
I use the 10X for cruising the sky at night when clear. The 10X35 EII is to me a very easy glass to hold steady, along with the SE 10X42. The areas of the pics where you live are so open, as Bill said 10X is perfect for that expansive view (very, very nice scenery by the way). Where I live, it is more wooded, so 8X or even 7X is the preferred glass. When I am going an area overlooking open terrain, I always have a 10X to see that extra detail.

Andy W.
 
Thanks for sharing the paper posted at House of Outdoor, Gijs van Ginkel. I downloaded it and will read it when time permits.
Jack
 
If so why the popularity of 10x when hand held? Is this psychologically another one of the bigger is better stories we seem to like/need to tell ourselves?

For me when I started birding the answer to this was obvious. Binos are to bring things closer, 10x brings things closer than 8x, therefore 10x is better.

For many years now I have preferred 8x as a well-balanced compromise between magnification, field of view, depth of field and hand tremble.

But I use a 10x in special places.

Lee
 
Here's an example of what one might gain at various magnifications.

magnification.jpg


Betwixt the twain I'd prefer closer to the ten. Perhaps an 8.5X that's closer to nine.

As always, YMMV ...
 
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