• 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.

Why 8x32 are replacing 8x42 (1 Viewer)

+ 1 :t: with all that David said

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund - it depends ! All of what you have said is highly subjective ..... :cat:

With the advent of 42mm bins like the Minox APO's, and the Nikon Monarch HG's, etc, you have fairly compact fairly light 'full' size bins that change the paradigm somewhat .....

Personally I love the way the MHG feels in the hand, and ergonomics-wise I wouldn't want to go smaller than this - it is super stable for me. With some high tech materials it could be even lighter - matching the x32mm's. My only wish was that it was a bit sharper etc to put it clearly on top of the heap.

And yes I am young enough to notice the brightness effects of less than 5.25mm EP in low light /canopy shade /sunset etc.

In comparison, the rather lovely Swarovski x32mm feels a bit small in the hand and a bit more involved to hold steady. Though I love the tan colour of the armour and the easy view, if I had to choose a light weight bin to hold - it would be the MHG.

Each to there own and more power (and/or objective size ! :) for it :t: , but let's not add to the Internet mythology, lest we have Lee come along and start quoting 'field of volume' in km3 ! to really set the cat :cat: among the pigeons :flyaway: ...... :-O

Chosun


Chosun:

I agree with you here, you have mentioned a newer binocular that does check out the boxes mentioned above. The Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 or 10x42 models only weigh around 24 oz. compared to 28 or more on most 42mm binoculars. So for the fans of lightweight, you can have it all with this one.

The optics and handling of this model are very good, and as mentioned above a 42mm binocular does offer an easier view, that is about physics
not just opinion.

Jerry
 
I think the 'physical parameters' etc that David refers to are probably the result of aspects listed by Bill - one being the consequence of the other.

Please don't take my snark to be a slam on David. HE knows it wasn't meant that way ... I know it wasn't meant that way. David is one of the FEW people who could cause me to doubt myself. Had he taken it wrong, I would have to beat him like the proverbial "red-headed stepchild." :cat:

Bill
 
Please don't take my snark to be a slam on David. HE knows it wasn't meant that way ... I know it wasn't meant that way. David is one of the FEW people who could cause me to doubt myself. Had he taken it wrong, I would have to beat him like the proverbial "red-headed stepchild." :cat:

Bill

Equally, my comment was not intended to be a 'slam' either - it just struck me that the two positions were actually more related than opposing!
 
Paddy,

I confess I don't always find it easy to follow Bill's stuff. (I usually put it down to a lapse in medication, though whose I'm not sure. ;)) He's right that points on his list contribute to various parameters affecting both retinal illuminance and perceived brightness. However, for those who were unsure of his intentions, you can't dismiss the importance of coatings and aperture for retinal illuminance, though brightness perception is much less predictable.

David
 
Last edited:
When looking at a bird (Corvis Cornix?) on a tree against a white sky through my Leica Binos today, which are 7x42 Ultravid HD, I realised the bino view was about 2/3 brighter than the direct view.

From there I expect that 7x42 or 8x42 when adopted was historically a lens dimensioning where with older coatings and prism treatments one would have a roughly similarly bright image through a set of binos and direct view.

Today, coatings have got much better, and so if the top bino designs can do 2/3 of a stop better than daylight in 8x42, then similar designs and glass will do roughly equivalent brightness in 8x32.

Which is why people can't be bothered to drag around the 8x42 anymore - in strong sunlight they can dazzle -try the Noctivids to see what I mean- and after dusk they don't really provide a huge advantage. 8x32 on the other hand provide daylight-equivalent brightness at a much smaller size and weight point, at least when they are made by the top brands.

Edmund
BTW. The problem with getting binocular advice from a bird forum is one gets the bird bug. That's now my 3d bird. Boohoo.


Meanwhile 8x32 binoculars are being replaced by varieties of 8x30 binoculars like the Monarch 7s and HGs and other clones of them at big savings and bigger FOVs for the purchasers!:smoke:

What lies down the road and when will it end?:h?:

Bob
 
Last edited:
Paddy,

I confess I don't always find it easy to follow Bill's stuff. (I usually put it down to a lapse in medication, though whose I'm not sure. ;)) He's right that points on his list contribute to various parameters affecting both retinal illuminance and perceived brightness. However, for those who were unsure of his intentions, you can't dismiss the importance of coatings and aperture for retinal illuminance, though brightness perception is much less predictable.

David

There is almost always a method to my madness. There would have to be; I don't drink or use drugs! :cat:

Bill
 
Might as well throw my hat in the ring (if not step in myself).....

I have the 8.5x42 Fpro and 8x33 Kowa Genesis and 8x32 Conquest HD. I usually use the 8x33 Kowa because they are small-ish and light-ish and work well enough for me in most situations. I have done some tests, like trying to read a car license plate from a long way away and the x42s totally win there (then the Conquests then the Kowas). But for me, most of the time, that level of difference is not as significant to me as the size and weight difference when I'm carrying a bunch of camera gear. The x42s also are easier to use in terms of lining up with the eyes and are more comfortable to use. But I still end up using the Kowas most of the time.

I do live in California and often have plenty of light. Even when it is overcast, it is usually not gloomy.

As Bill pointed out in #14, personal preference can outweigh a lot of technical differences.

Marc
 
I think it depends on your age.;) The older I get the more I appreciate the size and weight of an 8x32 and the bigger exit pupil of an 8x42 becomes less of an advantage.

Well we have been told since we could walk that the larger the EP the better! So 42mm, 50mm, 54/56mm, etc are all "better" than a 30/32mm optic. Well NOW we are also a little smarter and a little wiser to KNOW the actual in the field performance gains of a 42mm vs. a 30/32mm optic are really very small while the size/weight advantage of a 30/32 can be quite significant.
 
Well we have been told since we could walk that the larger the EP the better! So 42mm, 50mm, 54/56mm, etc are all "better" than a 30/32mm optic. Well NOW we are also a little smarter and a little wiser to KNOW the actual in the field performance gains of a 42mm vs. a 30/32mm optic are really very small while the size/weight advantage of a 30/32 can be quite significant.

And there are SO many things we say we can see, which scientifically ... we can't.

Once while at Captain’s, an Ol’ Timer was telling me about the binocular mounted on the deck of his ship. He wanted to convince me it was “A THOUSAND POWER.” Having repaired dozens and seen many dozens more, I tried to convince him it was only 20x. However, he just knew I was nuts—after all he had seen it himself, and no logic, experience, or realistic grasp of the situation was going to shake him from what he THOUGHT he KNEW!

Besides, at the time he was talking about, they (the big Fujis) were being used by the other team. :cat:

Bill
 
Birder's are switching to 32mm because they will provide 95% of the performance of a 42mm and you are carrying a much more compact, lighter binocular. If you are over 60 your eyes won't benefit much from the bigger exit pupil anyway. …………..

I just got my 8x42 FL back after over two months at the Zeiss repair shop. I had a 8x32 FL in the meantime, and I was actually quite happy with it. Yet, when my 42 model came back, there has been a very noticeable positive difference to the 32. No way saying the difference is negligible. And at over 76, my pupils can't account for the difference. I'm still going to get myself a 32 model, but that will be for reasons of weight only. The 42 begins to feel heavy after a few hours around the neck, whereas the 32 is only a litte less than 200 grams lighter but hardly bothers me on longer hikes.
 
………………….
My future and final binocular purchase may be a 8x32 once I find 42mm to be too heavy when I'm older. I'm ok now with the weight but someday I may want to use 42mm much less and go with a top 8x32 to take over as main binocular. It will most likely be EL
SV 8x32. That's the one I have in mind IF I can even afford it down the road. If not, I'm ok
with the 2 wonderful binos I already have.

Looks like you plan along similar lines as I have done. I also need to wear eyeglasses when looking through binoculars. And I have also been planning ahead for what to use as one gets older. I'm now at that stage where I plan to actually buy the model I have had in mind for at least the last six or so years. Except, in my case it was not a Swarovski model but the Zeiss FL. Now that things get to the state of being realized, I have nevertheless gone through a verification process. In particular also because I felt a 10x model would complement my 8x one much better. But I can't hold a 10x steady over a longer observation time. I have also checked the Swarovskis again, but again felt irritated by the flat-field distortion (rollerball) when scanning.
 
When I'm in sunny Los Angeles California I have my 8x32. When I'm in the grey skies of Eugene Oregon my go to is my 7x42. Both Meopta Meostar B1s; I love the little tanks.
 
Looks like you plan along similar lines as I have done. I also need to wear eyeglasses when looking through binoculars. And I have also been planning ahead for what to use as one gets older. I'm now at that stage where I plan to actually buy the model I have had in mind for at least the last six or so years. Except, in my case it was not a Swarovski model but the Zeiss FL. Now that things get to the state of being realized, I have nevertheless gone through a verification process. In particular also because I felt a 10x model would complement my 8x one much better. But I can't hold a 10x steady over a longer observation time. I have also checked the Swarovskis again, but again felt irritated by the flat-field distortion (rollerball) when scanning.

The FL's are great binos.

I tried the 8x32 EL SV a couple years ago for a few hours at a park and didn't notice rolling ball, but I hope it doesn't present itself over time if I ever buy one.
its a long way off anyway and I may never want to spend the money, as I'm trying to save towards retirement someday. My 8x30 CL is pretty good anyway. I had to use it today since I have a sore right shoulder and thought the heavier 7x42 may aggravate. It was very windy today and I wished I brought the 7x42 instead. I think it would have helped to keep the image a little steadier in the wind.

I thought about 10x for a while some time back and tried several 10x42, but never really got along with the higher magnification. There were a couple nice ones I tried that could have worked for me, but I decided to just stick with lower power.
 
Last edited:
Went birding this AM with a group I go with when I can. There were 14 of us. I always pay attention to what binoculars folks use(I'm probably the only one!) I didn't get EVERYONE'S but the ones I noticed:

1 8X42 HT
1 8X42 SF(gray)
1 10X40 Dialyt
1 EL 8.5X42(not SV)
1 EL 8.5X42 SV
1 8X42 SLC HD
1 8X42 Vortex Viper(MIJ)
1 8X42 Monarch 5
1 8X42 Leupold Rogue BX-1
1 7X42 UV
1 7x42 UVHD+(Mine)
1 8X32 Cabelas Guide(Carol's)
1 8X30 porro of unknown make

SO....13 binoculars. Only TWO 30/32s. This is about the way this group goes. 30/32mms are generally WAY in the minority.
 
This is funny since I was a long-time 8x32 user and now I prefer 8x42's for just about all my outings. Of course, my hands are massive and the small bins sometimes get lost in my hands. I guess that's why my current 8x32's are the Sightrons, which are really more of a "midsize" binocular.
 
Went birding this AM with a group I go with when I can. There were 14 of us. I always pay attention to what binoculars folks use(I'm probably the only one!) I didn't get EVERYONE'S but the ones I noticed:

1 8X42 HT
1 8X42 SF(gray)
1 10X40 Dialyt
1 EL 8.5X42(not SV)
1 EL 8.5X42 SV
1 8X42 SLC HD
1 8X42 Vortex Viper(MIJ)
1 8X42 Monarch 5
1 8X42 Leupold Rogue BX-1
1 7X42 UV
1 7x42 UVHD+(Mine)
1 8X32 Cabelas Guide(Carol's)
1 8X30 porro of unknown make

SO....13 binoculars. Only TWO 30/32s. This is about the way this group goes. 30/32mms are generally WAY in the minority.

LOL you probably are the only one who notices and I often feel the same way when in a group of serious birders. Rarely if ever do I hear conversations about binoculars in a group of birders. If I do, it's usually because I started it. :D

Saturday my wife and I were birding in a few coastal hotspots and I didn't notice any small binoculars at all. Everyone had 8x42's or the occasional 10, mostly old Leicas, Swaros and Zeiss. A few - like my wife - had Bushnells (she loves her Legend M's!). But I don't recall seeing any x30 or x32's at all - out of probably 40 birders we came across.
 
Maybe it is the age of the personnel/observer with the glass that determines the aperture.

Andy W.

Sure you are right Andy. Fact is 'developed countries's' populations are ageing and surviving due to medical advances. Older folks tend to want to carry less weight and also tend to be less committed to birding at the extremes of the day such as dawn and dusk. It is not rocket science to see why 32mm binos might increase in popularity and they are doing that in the UK if not elsewhere.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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