• 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.

Big Binoculars for Birding - a Pipe Dream? (1 Viewer)

Tringa45

Well-known member
Europe
A recent thread on a German forum brought up this subject again and a reply by Holger Merlitz stated what should have been obvious all along, i.e. that it's not really technically feasible.

I'm sure that many birders who frequently use a scope have often wished for long distance binocular viewing, but 15x magnification seems to be the upper limit for quality birding binoculars. Although this magnification could be comfortably used on a monopod, it's really not adequate for viewing water birds, unless one is gifted with 20/10 vision. There are two or three really good 15x56 or 15x60 available but unfortunately all have inadequate or marginal eye relief.

The binocular telescopes such as the Kowa High Lander, Docter Aspectem, Vixen BT70 ED or the latest Chinese ED binocular telescopes all have individual focussing, which rules out, or strongly restricts their use for birding.

Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a 25x75 or 30x75 binocular with central focussing? BUT at the same distance a 25x binocular has about one tenth the depth of field of an 8x binocular. The mechanical precision required to attain synchronous movement of the oculars or IF elements would be so high as to place the binocular beyond the financial reach of most potential customers. One now recalls complaints of rocking focussing bridges on Porro bins, unstable dioptre settings on IF bins and the varying torque clockwise/anticlockwise on some Swarovski bins, which is probably accounted for by preloading of the focussing elements to ensure synchronicity.

In retrospect, Swarovski's decision to equip a single scope objective with a binoviewer (BTX) was the only feasible solution.

John
 
In no way would such a binocular ( with one central focusing knob ) be of any help in an active birding situation for all the reasons you state. Additionally, too heavy, too bulky, not close focusing and if used without a monopod almost impossible to keep steady for a half decent view.
Not even a pipedream for me.
 
The binocular telescopes such as the Kowa High Lander, Docter Aspectem, Vixen BT70 ED or the latest Chinese ED binocular telescopes all have individual focussing, which rules out, or strongly restricts their use for birding.

Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a 25x75 or 30x75 binocular with central focussing?

Yes, of course it would be nice to have a scope with binocular view, or a binocular with scope magnification. I don't know about technical feasibility of a central focus (which would be a must for birding), but even the avaible IF large binoculars like the ones you list are huge and hardly portable any more. Central focus would make them even bigger and heavier. This would severely limit their use for birding.

So yes, I think Swaros binoviewer is indeed the only realistic implementation for two eyed high mag view for birding (and even this is too bulky for most).
 
Canon 10x42L IS
Canon 15x50 IS
Canon 18x50 IS

Fujinon 14x40 Stabileyes.

Russian 20x50 and rumored 25x56 Stabilised.

Zeiss 20x60S Not that heavy for a strong person. Needs big hands. Almost astro quality. Very good view, remarkable really, although curved field.

P.S.
There are nice old Japanese 20x70 Porroprism binoculars.
The 15x70 Chinese binoculars are fragile, and 15x63.
My 25x70 Celestron is rubbish, but there are Quantam large binoculars.
There are others.
I used a selected Japanese Celestron 20x80 with 3.5 degree field for years hand held.
It worked reasonably well with a 7x binocular behind it with the 20x80 resting on two large telephone catalogues.
I read a hotel name at 11 miles.
 
Last edited:
I use Fujinon 16X70 from my car by resting them on a partially raised window. Mostly for water birds and perched raptors.

I have reconciled myself to the view that if I can't see or ID it with the Fujinon, I will not do either that day on that bird.

I also use a Nikon Fieldscope III ED with the lowest power wide field fixed eyepiece, but I like the signal processing advantages of using both eyes, and I don't usually bring both with me at the same time.
 
I used a selected Japanese Celestron 20x80 with 3.5 degree field for years hand held.
I read a hotel name at 11 miles.

These weren't for birding then, ie....walking around looking at birds. More likely for stationery observation or skywatching at night, preferably on a tripod.
As the poster using the Fujinon 16 x 70 states......had to rest them on a supporting surface to use them.
I reckon the percentage of birdwatchers out in the field using more than a x 10 binocular is less than 2%.
 
Last edited:
I reckon the percentage of birdwatchers out in the field using more than a x 10 binocular is less than 2%.

Well, many birders lug around tripods and big scopes. But as a really big binocular would be 2-3 times the weight of a scope, I think this would get too much to be really usable.

I don't find 15x, 18x, 20x bincoculars attractive for birding, even if stabilised. They don't provide the same reach as a scope does (50x +) and they don't provide the overview (FOV of 130 m +) as regular binoculars do.
 
Hi PYRTLE.

Actually, they were used hand held for everything.
Aircraft, birds, astro and anything I wanted to look at.

But I was a lot stronger then, and can't use them now hand held.

When I was a teenager, I had no trouble finding and tracking things flying with a long hand held 25-40x55mm Broadhurst Clarkson draw tube scope.
It is surprising what one can learn to do when young and fit.
 
BC drawtube, now that takes me back. Only used one once back in the early 80's. There was a knack to using them lying down or leaning back to look at waders on the old style sewerage settling beds.
You're a better man than me for lugging round a pair of those Celestron.
My first pair were a Dixon's 10 x 50 Porro, cost £9.19.6d.(for those of a certain age). As suggested by the Y.O.C. Served me well as a young teenager.
 
In the past some nice large binoculars were produced e.g.
-1- Beck Tordalk 22x80 porro
-2- Hartmann Bernina 25x80 porro
-3- Hensoldt Tele-Dialyt 16x56 roof
-4- Leitz Binovista 15x60 (porro?)
Occasionally they can be found on the used items market. Especially the Beck and Hartmann binoculars are fine instruments. The Hensoldt Dialyt is very light and easy to handle.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I own a Nikon Monarch 5 16x56. They are really convenient when I don’t want to carry a telescope and tripod but it’s the upper limit in handheld binoculars in my opinion. You can get tired quickly.

Of course using them is better than too little magnification when watching shorebirds, but I would recommend anyone to really try before buying.
 
I reckon the percentage of birdwatchers out in the field using more than a x 10 binocular is less than 2%.

I would think it's significantly higher than that. It just depends on your interests.
Despite advanced years I regularly lug an 88 mm scope around, total weight with CF tripod about 4,5 kg.
Yesterday at some disused filter beds I spotted something small and brown through my bins. The scope at 25x revealed it to be a Common Snipe and zooming in to 40x or 50x gave me a wonderful view.
Scanning the far shore revealed another wader and after zooming in I identified a Green Sandpiper. I doubt anyone with 8x or 10x bins would have even noticed it.
The Swarovski BTX95 btw is intended primarily for birding and weighs 2,8 kg - more than some 70 mm bins. It would require a tripod and head assembly in excess of 3 kg and there are birders fit enough and willing to carry this around.
I recall reading years ago of a birding couple who transported a 20x100 Chinese observation binocular just for the views it gave them!

John
 
Well, as posted before, I have the Canon 18x50 IS and they're rather wonderful. As I'm largely housebound now, my scope was never again going to get used and has been gifted to friends. So it's a pleasure (and potentially useful for the rare occasions when I can get out) to have bins this powerful and which give such a large, decent quality image of birds I see from the window. They're surprisingly bright and very sharp. Currently they have a real "wow factor" for me. If you can justify the financial outlay to yourself, they're enormous fun.

But if I were younger and/or fitter, I certainly wouldn't be taking an instrument like this into the field for practical birding. They're far too heavy, they require incessant refocusing because of shallow DOF, and they wouldn't replace either scope or normal bins.

It's interesting to discuss the limits of practical optics and muse on possibilities, but that the future lies in enormous bins seems highly doubtful!
 
Last edited:
Out of interest John, what is the magnification of your binoculars?
P

I had my 8x33 Kowa Genesis with me. Like to keep it light when I'm lugging the big scope around.

John

PS:- In retrospect perhaps I misunderstood your reference to magnifications over 10x. You probably meant bins and I took it to include scopes.
 
Last edited:
Just read a post from a BF Moderator about an interview with the owner of Cameraland in N.Y., USA.
The interviewee stated that the most popular specifications in order of sales was as follows.....
10 x 42, 8 x 42 ( of which 35% accounted for sales ), then 56mm followed by 32mm objective sizes, then x 12 or x 7 magnifications.
So I've guestimated the following to support my earlier claim that high magnification [ x15 and above ] and objectives over 56 mm account for a very low desirability or practicality amongst birders.
10 × 42mm - 40%
8 x 42mm - 35%
56mm - 10%
32mm - 10%
x 7mag. 2%
x 12mag. 2%
Misc. including compacts1%

ps. I've counted x8.5s as 8s, 50mm as 56mm, 33mm as 32mm for convenience.
 
Last edited:
At Photokina last week I visited the United Optics stand. This is a Chinese manufacturer with a vast product range and is well known to Holger Merlitz. Holger did a comparison of their 10x50 ED with the 10x50 Fujinon FMT and found the performance of the UA to be on a similar level to the Fujinon at about half the price.
In the same series there are 11x70, 16x70 and 20x70 EDs, also 16x80 and 20x80 EDs, all with individual focus. However, I can envisage that there could be specific birding applications where such bins could be of use.
In the spring I was birding near the North Sea coast and at high tide all the shorebirds had come in from the mud flats to an inland stretch of water. Most were about 200 m away. A guy from the local NABU (German RSPB) centre was doing a bird count with his scope and told me he had just counted 820 Curlews! I'm sure a big bin would have made this a more relaxing exercise.
United Optics also produce binocular telescopes with a 45° viewing angle and which accept 1 1/4" astro eyepieces. These are sold as APM and Lunt among others. I was able to look through a non-ED 70 mm version with 18 mm flat field eyepieces (22x) and was rather impressed although CA was apparent. The ED version is available here in Germany for under €2000 complete with a set of WA flat field eyepieces. The conventional 70 mm ED Porro bins sell for about €700.

John
 
I had a very pleasant experience of watching a horned owl with my fujinon 25x150s,
but
the binoculars were mounted, and the owl came to a tree about 100 years away.

it is hard to impinge me luging the 120 pound set up, on wheels, over the wooded trails
maybe?

edj
 
I was able to look through a non-ED 70 mm version with 18 mm flat field eyepieces (22x) and was rather impressed although CA was apparent.

John
We're these hand held when you looked through them and how long do you think you could comfortably use them for?
As suggested, for counting estuary birds, they would surely have to be on a tripod. That's my whole point, up to 12 x 50 is doable for hand held, any higher and larger is impractical and uncomfortable for prolonged use.

P
 
We're these hand held when you looked through them and how long do you think you could comfortably use them for?
As suggested, for counting estuary birds, they would surely have to be on a tripod. That's my whole point, up to 12 x 50 is doable for hand held, any higher and larger is impractical and uncomfortable for prolonged use.

P

Hand-holding is not an option with approx. 3,5 kg and 45° viewing. Binocular viewing is visually much more comfortable than extended monocular viewing and the 22x magnification would probably equate to 25-30x on a scope.
Personally, I would put 12x on a monopod and anything above 20x on a tripod.

John
 
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