I generally agree!
I've had a 10X32, 10X42, and 10X50 SV. For general birding I don't think most can tell the difference, it's hard for me to.
-
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.
Daytime benefit of large objectives? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
I generally agree!
I've had a 10X32, 10X42, and 10X50 SV. For general birding I don't think most can tell the difference, it's hard for me to.
I have no self-generated "hard data" so I guess you could call it "theoretical" but I just accept it as a first principle.
wachipilotes
Well-known member
If there really is not much difference between the 10X32 and 10X50 models for example, or between 8X42 and 8X56, then why do we keep buying a bulky and heavy binocular? There will be some reason for that, right?
Wachi
Wachi
henry link
Well-known member
There is a lot that can go wrong in trying to evaluate the visible effect of low aberrations from a large exit pupil in daylight, starting with determining whether the aberrations really are unusually low in a particular binocular, whether its aperture is large or small. Sorry folks, but the one and only way to do that is with a high magnification star test, both at full aperture and at reduced apertures corresponding to daylight conditions. Observations based on binoculars you expect to have low aberrations don't count.
wachipilotes
Well-known member
The truth is that neither do I !!
Wachi.
Wachi.
henry link
Well-known member
It seems pretty obvious to me why more birders don't use 42 oz. binoculars. I've never recommended the 8x56 FL to anyone else, but for myself I'll only give it up when I find a smaller binocular that equals it or any binocular that surpasses it optically. Could be that after eleven years I'm so habituated to a very low aberration image that I immediately notice when I don't see it.
Last edited:
A 10x50 is an entirely different animal than an 8x56. An 8x56 is a big binocular. I would not use an 8x56 if I was hiking very much.
Last edited:
Binastro. That is impressive! That is 5# you were holding for 20 minutes. What was the 20x80?
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Important point, larger exit pupil contributes to a calmer and more relaxed view.
henry link
Well-known member
Just remembered this post from last summer:
https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17
The images are the closest I've come to photographing the visual difference between a small binocular (Swarovski 8x30) and the Zeiss 8x56 FL stopped down to the same 30mm aperture.
https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17
The images are the closest I've come to photographing the visual difference between a small binocular (Swarovski 8x30) and the Zeiss 8x56 FL stopped down to the same 30mm aperture.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Since I regularly glass with the 10X50 SV, thought I'd put in my .02 cents worth.
Other than a little more carry weight and a larger optical package, IME I find the step-in ease-of-view and expansive eye box placement of the EL's 50mm objectives greatly assist me through the day with very relaxed, non-strained, picture-window viewing sessions. I have no issues hand holding the 50mm steady for extended glassing periods (>10 minutes) and actually find the added heft, along with my finger tip holding style, a stabilizing attribute to minimizing hand shake.
A day of trekking with the big glass takes its toll, but at my age, any gear\no gear would anyway!
Ted
Henry,
It's a quirk of the ISO standard that you might be best off choosing an 8x36 if you could find one. The allowed limit is 4.5". For comparison an 8x32 would be 7.5" and an 8x56 7".
The old CL 8x30 was notoriously poor. I never got a chance to do any testing, but my visual guess would put it around 10.5" stopped down to 20mm. That Fuji FK 8x32 I tested was 5.8". That looked very sharp.
David
It's a quirk of the ISO standard that you might be best off choosing an 8x36 if you could find one. The allowed limit is 4.5". For comparison an 8x32 would be 7.5" and an 8x56 7".
The old CL 8x30 was notoriously poor. I never got a chance to do any testing, but my visual guess would put it around 10.5" stopped down to 20mm. That Fuji FK 8x32 I tested was 5.8". That looked very sharp.
David
dries1
Member
Dennis,
Your are right there is difference between the 10X50 and 8X56, I wish I could get the views of my UV 10X50 in the size of an 8X42, but that is not going to happen. Today I took out my EDGs 8X32 and 8X42 and during bright daylight, very little difference between the two, however the view through the 8X42 just seemed more relaxed, as if my eyes did not have to work as hard, and when viewing in any thickets or shrubs at the juncos the 8X42 just takes over. I think that for some the thought of taking a large optic in the field is not a big deal, for others it's a nightmare. Different strokes ...
A.W.
Your are right there is difference between the 10X50 and 8X56, I wish I could get the views of my UV 10X50 in the size of an 8X42, but that is not going to happen. Today I took out my EDGs 8X32 and 8X42 and during bright daylight, very little difference between the two, however the view through the 8X42 just seemed more relaxed, as if my eyes did not have to work as hard, and when viewing in any thickets or shrubs at the juncos the 8X42 just takes over. I think that for some the thought of taking a large optic in the field is not a big deal, for others it's a nightmare. Different strokes ...
A.W.
Last edited:
Those two EDG's are excellent binocular's and I think either would serve well for birding but I understand your feeling that the bigger aperture gives a more relaxed view. An 8x42 is pretty hard to beat as an overall birding binocular and even a 10x50 as in Theo's comment is not to big but you really have to appreciate the view to carry a 56mm if you are hiking.
Last edited:
dries1
Member
Hiking here in Eastern Pa is not too bad, however if I was in Colorado again and had to hike through the Rockies as in my earlier training when I was younger, I would be all over a lighter weight (CL) {which is lighter than anything I own}, all the time every time. Now my hiking is so much more low key, nothing I take in the field is burden.
A.W.
A.W.
looksharp65
Well-known member
Unfortunately, things aren't this simple since the only movement a big exit pupil allows better than a small is perpendicular to the instrument's optical axis, i.e. up/down and right/left movements without any rotational movement.
The first type of movements could possibly occur, and a larger exit pupil would allow your pupil to still roam within the beam pencil exiting the binocular.
But I'd say that in many cases, there's a rotational movement involved, and it will be magnified with the factor of the binocular's magnification and thus be equal for a 10x28 and a 10x70.
Not always are big exit pupils as convenient with regards to eye placement as one would imagine. Both my 7x42/7x43 are sensitive. Thanks to two generous Birdforum gentlemen, I was given a Vortex Binoc-Loc and tubular spacers to fit below the eyecup to prevent it from going too far in, which makes them perfectly usable. Despite its much smaller exit pupils, I still perceive my Meostar 8x32 as a considerably faster binocular in the field than either of the 7x samples.
//L
Last edited:
Although you may not have the elevation of the Rockies your woods look very Henry David Thoreauish. When you are hiking uphill say to Lawn Lake in RMNP it does help to have a light binocular.
Similar threads
