• 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.

Absolute top lightweight 10x (1 Viewer)

CharleyBird

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
I've read with great interest the recent thread started by black crow that ended with a 10x42.
However in my case, ergonomics, specifically weight, is critical, and what I intend buying will be much smaller and lighter; and I know, realistically a compromise.

Bottom line, I have a 9x30 Nikon that weigh 15.3oz or 434g and I'm after the modern equivalent.
Price is not an issue.
30/32/33 seems the way to go. 10x for mostly daytime estuary viewing.

It's about quality of view v weight
E.g. Opticron sell 370g travellers but reviews put me off.
Swaro at 610g are nearly a third heavier than the old Nikon.

I found this neat table:
Opticron 10x32 Traveller: 370g (13oz)
Pentax DCF BC 9x32: 500g (17.6oz)
Celestron Granite 9x33: 570g (20.1oz)
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV: 580g (20.5oz)
Kowa Genesis 10x33 XD: 590g (20.8ozs)
Swarovski EL 8x32: 610g (21.5oz)
Minox 8x33 BL: 649g (22.9oz)


You'd think with modern technology and materials, binoculars could be carbon fibre lighter, yet it appears I shall have to add weight to gain modern superior optics?
All advice/opinion/experience much appreciated.

Regards
Andy
 
The new SWAROVSKI CL 10X30 COMPANION: approx. 485 g

https://at.swarovskioptik.com/en_US/birding/cl-companion-c21010504/cl-companion-8x30-green-p5418295

Leica 10x32 UVHD+: 565g

Most of the weight in bins is glass and mechanics. The magnesium (i.e. alloy) shell is perhaps 25% of the total weight. True carbon fibre might save some weight but makes manufacturing more complicated and expensive.

Carbon reinforced plastics were used in Zeiss FL 8x32 but they are still 555 grams.

The rubber armor does weigh some extra, you might peal it off to save some weight, not recommended though.
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo said:
The rubber armor does weigh some extra, you might peal it off to save some weight, not recommended though.
Click to expand...

Leather coverings are usually lighter. Few binoculars feature them any more, the Leica 10x32 Ultravid HD Safari Edition being one exception.
 
CharleyBird said:
I've read with great interest the recent thread started by black crow that ended with a 10x42.
However in my case, ergonomics, specifically weight, is critical, and what I intend buying will be much smaller and lighter; and I know, realistically a compromise.

Bottom line, I have a 9x30 Nikon that weigh 15.3oz or 434g and I'm after the modern equivalent.
Price is not an issue.
30/32/33 seems the way to go. 10x for mostly daytime estuary viewing.

It's about quality of view v weight
E.g. Opticron sell 370g travellers but reviews put me off.
Swaro at 610g are nearly a third heavier than the old Nikon.

I found this neat table:
Opticron 10x32 Traveller: 370g (13oz)
Pentax DCF BC 9x32: 500g (17.6oz)
Celestron Granite 9x33: 570g (20.1oz)
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV: 580g (20.5oz)
Kowa Genesis 10x33 XD: 590g (20.8ozs)
Swarovski EL 8x32: 610g (21.5oz)
Minox 8x33 BL: 649g (22.9oz)


You'd think with modern technology and materials, binoculars could be carbon fibre lighter, yet it appears I have to add weight to gain modern superior optics?
All advice/opinion/experience much appreciated.

Regards
Andy
Click to expand...
Swarovski lists the 10x32 SV at 20.5Oz (580grams).
The x32 FL's are fiber reinforced polymer, but that is fiberglass reinforcement - E glass if I recall correctly. Proper CFRP would be lighter and stronger still. The day can't be far off where the chassis will be 3D printed from CFRP ...... once the industry pulls itself out of the 19th Century :smoke:

The thing to remember with a circa 32mm 10x is that the EP is getting pretty thin on the ground, and alignment etc getting critical.

I would recommend the 10x32 SV (in sand colour too - beautiful! :)

The reason for this is that it punches far above its meager weight. Excellent ergonomics help alignment and ease of handling, and it's a quality well made instrument. Most importantly its generous 'randpupille' design parameters (large margin of error for user optical alignment for a given aperture) makes it seem more like a 10x42 for ease of view. This optical design feature is a deliberate Swarovski decision (much like the greaseless focuser). I think this, along with the wide Fov, puts it usefully in front of the new 10x30 CL, though you should probably try one of those for comparison purposes.

If you don't wear glasses (only 13.8mm ER) and can find one, you might also consider the slightly heavier (22Oz = 625gram) Nikon 10x35 EII https://www.allbinos.com/232-binoculars_review-Nikon_10x35E_II.html



Chosun :gh:
 
CharleyBird said:
I've read with great interest the recent thread started by black crow that ended with a 10x42.
However in my case, ergonomics, specifically weight, is critical, and what I intend buying will be much smaller and lighter; and I know, realistically a compromise.

Bottom line, I have a 9x30 Nikon that weigh 15.3oz or 434g and I'm after the modern equivalent.
Price is not an issue.
30/32/33 seems the way to go. 10x for mostly daytime estuary viewing.

It's about quality of view v weight
E.g. Opticron sell 370g travellers but reviews put me off.
Swaro at 610g are nearly a third heavier than the old Nikon.

I found this neat table:
Opticron 10x32 Traveller: 370g (13oz)
Pentax DCF BC 9x32: 500g (17.6oz)
Celestron Granite 9x33: 570g (20.1oz)
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV: 580g (20.5oz)
Kowa Genesis 10x33 XD: 590g (20.8ozs)
Swarovski EL 8x32: 610g (21.5oz)
Minox 8x33 BL: 649g (22.9oz)


You'd think with modern technology and materials, binoculars could be carbon fibre lighter, yet it appears I shall have to add weight to gain modern superior optics?
All advice/opinion/experience much appreciated.

Regards
Andy
Click to expand...

Well if money isn't tight I'd go with the Kowa Genesis. Now that's a guess because I've only looked through the 8x Genesis but it is super bright and of course very good optically with a huge sweet spot that for me goes out near the edge. I think it's a fantastic binocular and it handles like a dream with a beautiful aluminum focusing knob. It's a winner.

Now another one I haven't looked through LOL but at a much lower cost is the Celestron Granite. I'm very familiar with the Trailmaster series which is basically the same binocular minus the ED glass. The Trailmaster is one of my favorite Binoculars in the low price range. You'd never know it wasn't ED glass. I've owned that in 8x and 10x and the 10x is very small and light and is just a beautiful binocular. I just sold my Swarovski binocular and ordered the 8x42 Celestron Granite if that tells you anything about how I feel about this $300 binocular series. I considered the 9x33 because I really like 9x but I own no 42mm binoculars as I sold my Trailmaster to my sister so I could step up and buy the Granite. I want at least one 42mm. I haven't heard much good about that Opticron but have heard their upgraded Traveller is nice at around 16 oz. However I've had serious issues with Opticron customer service an so at this time won't own one on principle.

I'm a huge fan of the small light binocular as long as they are easy to look though. I'm looking forward to hearing about what you get. Good luck on the hunt. I do love the hunt for a great binocular at the best bang for the buck.
For me it's that Granite.
 
Last edited:
I would recommend the Swarovski 10x32 SV or the new 10x30 CL. If size and weight are really important get the 10x30 CL. The CL will also give you better veiling glare control than the SV and a better focuser. For estuary use I would not get a Nikon 10x35 E2. It is not waterproof. I have the 8x30 CL and I highly recommend it and I had the 8x32 SV. Here is a little excerpt from Herman's mini-review of the 10x30 CL's.

"Had a chance to try the 10x30 CL for half an hour or so yesterday. I expected to hate it, given that so far I never looked through a 10x30/10x32 I liked because of the small exit pupil. However, the 10x30 works quite nicely for me. I don't know how they did it but I didn't have the problems I usually have with binoculars with small exit pupils. OK, I still prefer binoculars with larger exit pupils (>4mm, ideally 6mm), but I found I didn't have any problems with the small exit pupil at all. The ergonomics are just fine, and despite of the low weight for a 10x binocular, I found I can hold it very steady. About on a par with my Nikon 10x42 SE, the 10x binocular I can hold better than any other 10x I've used. The CL is one of the very few binoculars with thumb grooves that work with my hands. The optics are very nice indeed, I found I prefer them over those of the SV 10x32. I'm not really a flat field sort of guy it seems. Veiling glare was there but a lot lower than in the SV 10x32 (or, indeed, the SV 8x32). Not as good as the Noctivid in that respect, but not bad at all. Resolution, contrast and CA were all more than acceptable. Bright image for a 10x30 on a very gloomy day. It was *much* better than the Swaro 8x25 in every respect. No comparison really. Very, very well made. Nice focuser, the best I've seen in a Swaro roof so far."

https://www.swarovskioptik.com/birding/cl-companion-c21010504/cl-companion-8x30-green-p5418295
 

Attachments

  • 21010504.P2.png
    21010504.P2.png
    216.9 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
ceasar said:
It is hard to beat the Nikon 10x35 E2, a Porro prism binocular. It weighs 625grams, 22.04 ounces, and has a 7º FOV.

https://www.allbinos.com/804-Nikon_10x35E_II-binoculars_specifications.html

Bob
Click to expand...

I'm kind of surprised that more alpha lovers are not using these super clean wide fov porrors as primary binoculars. It seems they outperform the roofs. Is it the shape and size that puts people off? I know it does for me. I like the look and feel of a roof and optics take a back seat on that. I had the famous Swift 8.5x and I sold it because I didn't like to carry it. I was new to the quality optics game then and felt self conscious when everyone was basically going to and walking around with a roof prism. They were very good binoculars.
 
black crow said:
I'm kind of surprised that more alpha lovers are not using these super clean wide fov porrors as primary binoculars. It seems they outperform the roofs. Is it the shape and size that puts people off? I know it does for me. I like the look and feel of a roof and optics take a back seat on that. I had the famous Swift 8.5x and I sold it because I didn't like to carry it. I was new to the quality optics game then and felt self conscious when everyone was basically going to and walking around with a roof prism. They were very good binoculars.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob
Join the club: my first binos were Swift Audubons and Troubadoris's were Saratogas, but after a couple of years of them taking about half of our 'luggage capacity' up on our motorcycle (BMW R60/6) we saved up for roofs because they were more compact and didn't feel as though they had been deliberately designed to not fit human hands like porros. Plus being inexperienced we had treated our Swifts as waterproof binos and took them out in all weathers and they always fogged up and needed to go back to the importer for cleaning out. All-weather roofs just suited us better.

Lee
 
black crow said:
I'm kind of surprised that more alpha lovers are not using these super clean wide fov porrors as primary binoculars. It seems they outperform the roofs. Is it the shape and size that puts people off?...
Click to expand...

BC,

Others have different reasons...mine is simple. In the sweltering humidity of the deep south, I would have to carefully acclimate the non-sealed Nikon EII porros each time I wanted to glass with them. About 4 months out of the year (short Fall, short Spring), we do have a dryer climate that they could work well in. Otherwise, I feel the need for fully sealed optics.

Even though they don't share the extreme FOV capabilities of the EII, I own four sealed Swaro porros still produced by Absam, Austria and warrantied for life by SONA!

Ted
 
Hi CharleyBird

I have recently tried 2 different axamples of Pentax DCF BC 9x32, new and made in China, which handled nicely being open hinge and ER was fine for wearing glasses. The stats were good, light smooth focus wheel, and optically they were quite satisfactory, but did not keep either because one had loose hinges and the had other loose rubber armour. Since they are out of production it might now be harder to find a good one.

Am now waiting for Cabela's Instinct Euro HD 10x32, 596gms. A bit heavier than some but very neat and much the same physically as Meopta Meostar B1 8x32, 580gms which I thought were really excellent for the higher price, and could perhaps also be included in that list. ER was fine with glasses but, apparently unusually, my Meostar had 5-10 degrees of focus free play so they went back too. I wanted a bit more power so am now waiting to see if Cabela's Euro HD 10x32 has enough Eye Relief.

Review: Meopta 8x32 Meostar B1 vs. Nikon 8x30 EII, by Holger Merlitz
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/meopta8x32.html
 
Last edited:
Theo98 said:
BC,

Others have different reasons...mine is simple. In the sweltering humidity of the deep south, I would have to carefully acclimate the non-sealed Nikon EII porros each time I wanted to glass with them. About 4 months out of the year (short Fall, short Spring), we do have a dryer climate that they could work well in. Otherwise, I feel the need for fully sealed optics.

Even though they don't share the extreme FOV capabilities of the EII, I own four sealed Swaro porros still produced by Absam, Austria and warrantied for life by SONA!

Ted
Click to expand...

That's a good reason for sure. I thought about that after I posted. I really have never needed waterproofing but I always feel better about having it.
 
Since weight is your main concern (and price isn't), my comments will be on binos under 20 ounces. A 10x32 Leica Ultravid HD weighs 19.8 ounces, and a Zeiss 8x32 Victory FL weighs 19.7 ounces. It would be a toss-up as to which 10x version would be the best for your eyes, but IMO either a 10x32 UV HD+ or the 10x32 FL would be the best you can get under 20 ounces.

That being said, the new Swarovski 8x30 CL2 only weighs 16.6 ounces. I don't know what the 10x version weighs, or how well it performs, but I would bet that it performs well enough to be well worth your time to investigate, especially givens it's lower price. But if absolute performance is of great concern, then I will say that to my eyes, an 8x32 FL definitely outperforms an 8x30 CL2 that only weighs about three ounces less. I guess one just has to determine how much performance per increased ounce is reasonable.

You might also consider trying the Nikon 10x30 Monarch 7. I can say that the 8x version, which only weighs 15.5 ounces, performs extremely well. Lack of ER is it's only potential downside, but that might not be of concern for you.

Of course there are several very good options that weigh over 20 ounces. The Swarovski 10x32 EL SV weighs 20.5 ounces. For me, they are the best small 10x that I have used. I do think their slight weight penalty is worth it, but then again, I may not be putting as much emphasis on weight as you.
 
Really don't think anything compares to the 10X32 swarovison. Although I find the 8x a better choice for my needs. Both amazing glass for the size.
 
black crow said:
I'm kind of surprised that more alpha lovers are not using these super clean wide fov porrors as primary binoculars. It seems they outperform the roofs. Is it the shape and size that puts people off? I know it does for me. I like the look and feel of a roof and optics take a back seat on that. I had the famous Swift 8.5x and I sold it because I didn't like to carry it. I was new to the quality optics game then and felt self conscious when everyone was basically going to and walking around with a roof prism. They were very good binoculars.
Click to expand...
I think the Nikon 8x30 EII will perform with roofs up to about $1K. Above that and I think the roofs start having better contrast and sharper edges although the EII does have a wide FOV and great 3D. The roofs for a lot of people just have a lot of other advantages. Waterproofing and fog proofing and the fact that the roofs are sealed is a big deal for people in humid and wet climates or if you want to use the binoculars near water or the sea. Also, having modern adjustable eye cups and tethered objective covers just makes your binocular easier to use in the field. The porro's often times hang weird on your chest and some people like Lee just don't like the shape of them in their hands. The roofs are smaller and more compact if you travel with them in luggage also. I recently sold my Nikon 8x30 EII because I don't use it because of a lot of these things. The Swarovski CL 8x30 just does everything well and there are no weak points. I don't have to worry about it getting wet or fogging up or getting dust inside. I just grab it and go. Where I go in Rocky Mountain National Park and Yellowstone National Park there are all kinds of rivers and waterfalls which are risky with an EII. You get in the Yellowstone Canyon and because of the waterfalls and force of the river there is just a mist of water in the air which is not going to play well with an EII. "Mother Nature" will show no mercy to an EII under these conditions.
 

Attachments

  • close-up-canyon-falls.jpg
    close-up-canyon-falls.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
Thank you for these replies which I've read three times while going to sites to investigate as questions arose.

So my own table:

Swarovski CL 10x30 companion 485g
Zeiss Terra ED 10x32. 510g
Zeiss Victory 10x32 T* 560g
Leica 10x32 UVHD 565g
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV 580g

Comments on the Zeiss? And is the Victory 10x 32 discontinued?
 
CharleyBird said:
Thank you for these replies which I've read three times while going to sites to investigate as questions arose.

So my own table:

Swarovski CL 10x30 companion 485g
Zeiss Terra ED 10x32. 510g
Zeiss Victory 10x32 T* 560g
Leica 10x32 UVHD 565g
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV 580g

Comments on the Zeiss? And is the Victory 10x 32 discontinued?
Click to expand...
The Terra doesn't even belong in that elite group. It is not in the same class as the others. If you don't mind the weight and the cost get the SV 10x32 and if you want light get the CL 10x30.
 
CharleyBird said:
Thank you for these replies which I've read three times while going to sites to investigate as questions arose.

So my own table:

Swarovski CL 10x30 companion 485g
Zeiss Terra ED 10x32. 510g
Zeiss Victory 10x32 T* 560g
Leica 10x32 UVHD 565g
Swarovski EL 10x32 SV 580g

Comments on the Zeiss? And is the Victory 10x 32 discontinued?
Click to expand...

I think that is probably as good of a 10X32 representation as you can get.

The Terra HD though lightweight, is not going to compare very favorably optically with the others, though I have been known to swap not quite as good of optics for less weigh/size especially when flying or on vacation.
 
black crow said:
I'm kind of surprised that more alpha lovers are not using these super clean wide fov porrors as primary binoculars. It seems they outperform the roofs. Is it the shape and size that puts people off? I know it does for me. I like the look and feel of a roof and optics take a back seat on that. I had the famous Swift 8.5x and I sold it because I didn't like to carry it. I was new to the quality optics game then and felt self conscious when everyone was basically going to and walking around with a roof prism. They were very good binoculars.
Click to expand...

B.C.,

Binoculars are a lot like life: Full of compromises.

People used non-water proof binoculars for the first 80 to 90 years of the 20th century without complaining and their lives often depended on them.

Professional ornithologists like Otto McDiesel who posted regularly on Bird Forum 10 years ago or so used the Nikon 10x35 and the Swift 8.5x44 HR5 Audubon. I remember a post of his about the Swift and how he was using it in Romania or some place around there on a project with local ornithologists and he ended up giving it to one of the guys because they had problems getting good binoculars.

Then there is the old pro from the eastern shore of Virginia who has been using the same 10x50 Porro prism for 50 years and still was using it a couple of years ago. He was written about several times on Bird Forum.

What we know about Ornithology today we largely learned from guys who used non-waterproof binoculars through most of their careers.

Then the internet came along and here we are picking nits.

Bob
 
Last edited:
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

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top