Binoculars aren't like light-switches - you must practice to use them well (1 Viewer)

Most of birding's skills are quite subjective - ability to ID birds, the ability to move slowly and quietly, knowledge of bird's behaviour, etc.

But one of birding's core competencies is very easily measured - your skill with your binoculars.

Binoculars require practice, practice, practice.

How many times have you seen a bird fly into a tree branch 50+yards away but can't find it when you look through your binoculars? So you lower your bins and you can see the bird. Raise the bins and the bird is gone.

This is a basic skill that, with simple practice, can be increased to the expert's level in a relatively short amount of time.

The next time (and every time) you are out birding, try to spot as many tiny, distant objects as possible with your naked eye and practice with your bins until you are able to automatically center the object on your first try. (Don't keep using the same object over and over , always pick different object as you are walking or standing still). Use near objects and far objects. High in trees and on the ground. Practic looking nearly straight up at a specific tree blossom.

You should also get a feel for the approximate focus of your bins at that distance so while you are bringing them up to your eyes, you are moving the focusing lever or knob. Using landmarks is a great way to help guide you in, but remember to use landmarks that will actually be visible at the focus setting for the bird you are going to be studying!

Many times I have lost a bird because I chose a "landmark" that was too close to me. I once saw a woodpecker (hairy or flicker maybe) that flew onto the side of a large tree about 150 yards away. The tree was in a clump of trees but I saw that he was on the trunk of the tree that was just barely to the right of a small, thin tree only 20 yards in front of me. So I used that thin tree as a landmark and guess what? I couldn't even see that tree because the focus was set for the distant trees.

Anyways, I know some people might suggest that you leave the focus up close so you can use your landmark and then adjust the focus to the distant tree. I believe it is better to learn to auto-focus your bins and get completely comfortable with learning to bring them to the right spot directly.

Where your landmark skill should come into play is with the foliage at the actual focal depth of the bird you are looking for. Look for light and dark patterns in the distant foliage for landmarks. Learn to recognize the distant foliage patterns when you see it magnified in your bins. Part of this skill comes from becoming familiar with your bins field of view so you know how much foliage you will be able to see at the distance you are looking. It does no good to use 2 landmarks that won't even be visible in your bins at the same time at that distance.

You will be surprised how fast your skill develops if you make sure that you are looking at something at least every minute. You may also stumble into some interesting birds that are being perfectly still doing this.

When looking at birds well above your eye level be aware that you probably aren't looking "straight at" the bird!

You are most likely tipping your head up at a comfortable incline and then rolling your eyes upwards. Then, when you raise your bins, the bird is nowhere to be seen. Where did it go???

You will find that when trying to view birds well above eye-level that your bins will almost always be looking well below the bird.

So do what you are doing now and once you have your bins raised, continue to tilt your head back farther and farther and then you will see the bird.

It will feel like you are breaking your neck and there is no way the bird was that high and you will expect to soon be looking at the backs of your own shoes but continue to raise your bins!

The problem is that we automatically roll our eyes rather than tip our heads when looking up and you cannot roll your eyes when looking through your binoculars. Try looking up at a bird without rolling your eyes and you will see how far you actually need to tip your head back!

This is also why you never seem to be able to get your binoculars on that raptor flying overhead.



I use a pair of 16x50 bins and I love them but it took several hours of practice (not just several hours of me being outside with them, several hours of actually looking through them and practicing the things I am talking about here) with them before they really began to feel like a part of me.

And that is what your bins need to feel like.

Hi Terry:

I greatly appreciate you posting this and am printing it out
for myself. Do I ever have trouble.. with this.

Anyway, I will be going to the island shortly and will practice
prior to that.

How many times have I fiddled and faddled
with trying to find the bird in the tree.


Egret

Terry O'Nolley said:

I use a pair of 16x50 bins (I finally fixed the collimation problem on them - one of the objective lenses was cross-threaded. I took it apart, cut away the bad threading, added some filler and now they work beautifully) and I love them but it took several hours of practice (not just several hours of me being outside with them, several hours of actually looking through them and practicing the things I am talking about here) with them before they really began to feel like a part of me.

And that is what your bins need to feel like.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed that anyone can ID birds with hand-held 16x binoculars.

Grousemore said:

I'm amazed that anyone can ID birds with hand-held 16x binoculars.

Click to expand...

Me too! Terry, get yourself a cheap pair of tasco/pentax/bushnell/gerber/olympus 10x40s! The better light-gathering, weight, field of view, vividness of colour and depth of field will more than make up for the lower magnification.

Having said that, your advice on becoming accustomed to using binoculars is good advice.

I'm amazed that anyone can ID birds with hand-held 16x binoculars.

Click to expand...

Not to sure either and, Terry, you must have arms like Popeye, but the rest of the advice is very sound: practice, practice, practice.....

Those are good tips. I notice also too that the quality of image can vary a lot depending on how you adjust the binocular settings. I have twist eye cup adjustments on my pair of roof binoculars. On cloudy days or when there is not much light I set the cups so that the eye relief is at a minimum and sometimes don't use the eye cups at all. This can brighten the image in those conditions but it takes practice to use these binoculars with no eye relief because you have to hold the binocular slightly away from your eyes. This can sometimes produce a great image in lower light conditions if you find just the right spot. On bright days I use the eyecups all the way out. In this case you need to get a feel of how snug to hold the binoculars to your eyes and be sure to have the ipd at the best setting for you. I notice a slight change in the ipd setting can make a big difference in clarity of the image. I must admit I have never had much success in getting the ultimate setting for the diopter. I usually just have it set in the middle because I can't figure out if things are clearer if I set it a little bit one way or the other.

I used to be in the army and the bins I used there must have weighed 3 times what mine do

I can see very cleanly and very steadily at 16x - only a bare hint of a wobble and then only after 30 seconds or more of straight viewing. I like the 50mm objective lenses. Maybe I am only speaking in relativities here - never having looked through a $1,000.00+ pair of bins. Maybe if I do upgrade I will find that tiny objective lenses and a lower magnification actually help me see better.

I also use a pair of 8x bins for looking at birds closer than ~30 feet (the closest my 16x can focus). But I notice the birds look twice as large in my 16x with no lowering of image quality or brightness. Maybe it is because they magnify twice as much and have correspondingly larger objective lenses?

Maybe there is a formula published somewhere that gives the relative "brightness" when magnification and objective lens sizes are factored in.

If you are able to hold the bins steady and they have large objective lenses then why the controversy?

I've always wondered the opposite - why everyone seems to like 6-10x bins when 16x maginify more and, with larger objective lenses, give you the same brightness.

Terry O'Nolley said:

I used to be in the army and the bins I used there must have weighed 3 times what mine do

I can see very cleanly and very steadily at 16x - only a bare hint of a wobble and then only after 30 seconds or more of straight viewing. I like the 50mm objective lenses. Maybe I am only speaking in relativities here - never having looked through a $1,000.00+ pair of bins. Maybe if I do upgrade I will find that tiny objective lenses and a lower magnification actually help me see better.

I also use a pair of 8x bins for looking at birds closer than ~30 feet (the closest my 16x can focus). But I notice the birds look twice as large in my 16x with no lowering of image quality or brightness. Maybe it is because they magnify twice as much and have correspondingly larger objective lenses?

Maybe there is a formula published somewhere that gives the relative "brightness" when magnification and objective lens sizes are factored in.

If you are able to hold the bins steady and they have large objective lenses then why the controversy?

I've always wondered the opposite - why everyone seems to like 6-10x bins when 16x maginify more and, with larger objective lenses, give you the same brightness.

Click to expand...

Typical american big car, big phone and in your case big bins. Lower mag than you use would give larger field of view for tracking and better light gathering. Also to be able to hold steady 16X you are an exception. You are also one hell of character! Happy birding terry

bolton birdman said:

Typical american big car, big phone and in your case big bins.

Click to expand...

Ouch! I resemble that remark!

bolton birdman said:

Lower mag than you use would give larger field of view for tracking and better light gathering.

Click to expand...

True. But let's carry this to the extreme in both directions.

I could get a pair of 1x magnification binos with the largest field of view but then I am not using binoculars at all. I am using eyeglasses.

Or I could get a pair of 100x binos with a field of view so small that you couldn't see more than the birds eye at 200 yards.

There is a continuum here.

If you could hold 16x bins steady enough to tell if a woodpecker was a downy or a hairy by looking at the part of its tail you could see from well over 100 yards away in the undergrowth of a mature forest in late afternoon would you sacrifice the field of view for that level of detail and clarity? I did exactly that yesterday. It was a Downy - I could clearly, sharply, crisply the see the dark spots on its outer tail feathers.

I have been practicing with my 16x bins and I am able to bring them to bear very quickly and even follow the birds in flight if the bird is over 50 feet away. For closer birds I quickly pull them down and follow the bird and then put them back up again - this is why I stressed actively practicing with your binoculars.

I am glad I bought this pair - I have a pair of 8x and the difference is remarkable! My 16x are far brighter and sharper. And once I practiced with them enough I made up for the difference in field of view. I will never go to a lower magnification until I can no longer hold these steady.

bolton birdman said:

Also to be able to hold steady 16X you are an exception.

Click to expand...

Surely that can't be true. Why would they even manufacture 16x bins? I also have a pair of 20x binos that I can use without a tripod, but they are crap with small objective lenses so I never use them. I am giving them to my friend Tina when I go to California next week

bolton birdman said:

You are also one hell of character! Happy birding terry

Click to expand...

You too birdman!

Thanks for the tips Terry - I know I for one have underestimated the binocular skills needed for happy birding.

Not to mention how frustrating (and embarassing) it is to "lose" a bird that is right in front of you.

I think I will be out to practise those skills again first thing tomorrow . . . .

Another tip, especially for watching warblers and other active passerines: if you spot any movement at all in a tree, shrub, or brush pile, raise your binoculars - don't wait until you actually spot the bird. Sometimes, a split second view is all a bird will give you.

Added another tip about looking at birds well above eye-level. THought I would bump this.

I double checked: this thread is tips for new birders.

New birders, even with the full-bodied endorsement of 16X binoculars above, buy 7X or 8X or 10X. (8x is probably the best bet for people getting used to using binoculars and learning about birds).

The field of view--how wide an area you see when you look through the bincoculars--is a very important factor. It is FAR more important to FIND the bird in the first place than to be able to count the number of barbets on a feather.

Tip 2--DON"T buy that cheap pair. Buy the best you feel you can reasonably afford at the time. A cheap pair will not give you a fair chance to see a bird well. Tascos and similar brands are fine for football games, not so good for birding. Your skills will improve. You will outstrip a cheap pair's capability, but will be reluctant to let go of the investment.

Bodacious birding,

Phalarope

Phalarope said:

I double checked: this thread is tips for new birders.

Click to expand...

I triple checked: This thread is about practicing with your binoculars.

Everything I said applies equally well to 1x binoculars. And 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - and the ones you recommend - 7, 8 or 10x. They also apply to 12, 13, 14, 15 - and the ones I mention that I use - 16x. And for 17, 18, 19, 20 and higher.

If there is anything I mentioned about practicing that doesn't apply to 7-10x bins then, by any and all means available to you, let me know and I will put the offending text in bold-faced red with a vigorous disclaimer.

The only thing I don't like about my 16x bins is the fact that the closest they can focus is ~30 feet. For birds closer than that I use a dinky pair of folding 8x Tasco bins. But you know what? The birds only look half as big as when I see them with my 16x. Weird. For really close birds, I use my 1x ear-mounted eyeglasses. They have a great field of view! Sure, the birds don't look as big as with my 16x bins, but the brightness is fantastic and I don't lose the bird when it flies (well, I don't lose the bird when it flies with my 16x either, but that is because I practiced with them. Please see the thread here about practicing with bins).

Phalarope said:

Tip 2--DON"T buy that cheap pair. Buy the best you feel you can reasonably afford at the time. A cheap pair will not give you a fair chance to see a bird well. Tascos and similar brands are fine for football games, not so good for birding. Your skills will improve. You will outstrip a cheap pair's capability, but will be reluctant to let go of the investment.

Click to expand...

I've been at it 21 years (and counting), and haven't outstripped my cheap (AUD$159) Olympus 8x42s or the previous pair (left on a car roof in the Big Desert) of Tasco 8x40s. My current pair have backpacked through France, Portugal and the UK in winter, been in outback mallee scrub, tropical rainforest, off the south-eastern continental shelf, mudflats, urban use and hiking through alpine scrub. I have used them to identify albatross and gerygones (3+metres to 11-centimetres), seen 129 species with them in one day, used them in a 2 hour watch of one billabong, used them at night when spotlighting nightjars and possums. And yes, I have used them at the football.


My skills have improved markedly over the last 20,10, 5 years, but that has merely made my binocular choice less important, as my improving skills more than make up for any perceived inadequacies the binocular's optics may possess. For instance, I have just returned from a 7 day hiking expedition through Victoria's Alpine National Park without binoculars. While not a birdwatching trip, I saw 32 species, and there was only 1 other possible species I may have missed; Western Gerygone, which was only a probable heard but not seen. Carrying the binoculars (whether a 10 dollar special or a $2000+ wet dream) would have made little difference. I observed, often at close range, foraging, nest-building, inter- and intra-specific competition, and more.

Beginning birdwatchers may benefit from advanced optics, but I very much doubt they could justify the exponential price increase for the minimal gain they receive. I would like a pair of Leicas, but I just can't come at the $2500 or so price tag they bear here in Australia. For that money, I'd rather take a trip to Malaysia or India with my $160 current pair. And I very much doubt I would miss on too many species as a result.

The quality in the optics of Olympus, Pentax, Bushnell etc... are fine for birdwatching. I have owned all these brands at one time or another and have changed due to theft, carelessness or being dropped from a great height, or submerged in salt water (and in one case, drenched in ethanol, which washed dust all through the inside). It would have been nice to have a pair of super-sealed, everything-resistant binoculars, but so far my lifetime expenditure on optics is far less than on one pair of Zeiss or Leica.

And apologies to Terry for hijacking his thread with my tirade. But birdwatching, and good birdwatching at that, can be affordable for everyone.

Anyone can afford good quality optics.

Yes, assuming you live in a 1st world country and are working, you can afford to buy Zeiss or Leica or Swarovski optics if you want them. People who say "I wish I could afford a pair of XYZ" are full of ***. Anyone can afford them. The question is what other things are you prepared to do without?

Life is about choices. People who say "I can't afford a pair of XYZ" nearly always actually mean "I feel socially obliged to spend money on various other things that I am not prepared to do without, and don't have enough left over to have a pair of XYZ as well".

Sometimes it seems to me that most people go through their lives buying things they don't especially want because these are the things that they think other people buy, so they must be the "right" things.

Cheap binoculars are rubbish. Sorry Mike, but I disagree 100% with you. I respect your expertise and I respect your personal choice - if it works for you, more strength to your arm - but I have bought exactly one pair of cheap binoculars (sort of cheapish anyway - Gerbers worth about AU$170 or so) and will never, ever buy another pair. I never use them. Sometimes I lend them to people, though I always apologise for doing so and feel bad about it afterwards. (Not just Gerbers - I have looked through other bins in the same general class. Have the same opinion of them.)

At this point, the reader may well be thinking "oh what an arrogant Leica-owning sod, just because Tannin has a pair of flash binoculars he thinks it's easy to drop AU$2800 on two bits of glass" or something of that general nature.

Well, I'll let you into a secret. I do not own a pair of Leicas, or Zeiss, or Swarovskis - the only binoculars I own are those dreadful old Gerbers which I never, ever use. Why not? Because while I'd like a pair of Swarovski 8 x 32s, there are other things I'd like a lot more. Such as a scope. Such as a decent camera. Am I rich to be the owner of an ATS80HD? Hell no! I made choices, in order to afford the scope I wanted I, entirely of my own free will, decided to do without other things that mattered less to me. Such as binoculars. OK, I could buy some cheap ones. I did that once. Learned from it. Birding is more pleasant with the naked eye than it is with cheap binoculars. You see more. You may miss out on an occasional species ID - what of it? Contrary to what some people think, birding is not about seeing how many species you can tick in a book, it's about watching and enjoying and trying to understand.

So in a way, Mike and I agree, at least as to intentions. So far as the best method to use in following those intentions, though, we disagree. If you are going to buy optics, buy quality. Every time. If you can't afford quality yet, do without. It's no real hardship. Aside from anything else, you get to see more of the flora.

</rant>

MikeMules said:

And apologies to Terry for hijacking his thread with my tirade. But birdwatching, and good birdwatching at that, can be affordable for everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you did - it needed to be said.

I would love to see an objective review of the quantifiable benefits of spending $2000 on a pair of binoculars.

Yes - quantifiable. Not "Oooh, if you are going to be a real birder than you need to buy good optics". I have heard this a hundred times, but a definition of "good" never seems to be attached.

What is good? It has nothing to do with the label or the color or the cool style du jour. It has everything to do with how sharp the image of the bird is.

You hit on an excellent point - how many birds did you miss ticking because you have a pair of bins that is optically "only" 99% as good as the $2000 pair? Zero.

Why the price difference? Because the labor involved in making a pair of bins that is 99% perfect costs 20 times less than the labor involved in making a 100% perfect pair (not to mention the "perception is reality" marketing BS that causes certain companies to way overcharge because they know if they sell them for a realistic price then all the sheep will think the bins are only marginal and trudge off, lemming-like, looking for a more expensive pair).

I couldn't care less that the industrious gnomes at Zeiss come out at midnight and hand polish the lenses until the mystical fairy godmother waves her wand and pronounces them perfect just so some snippy prat can denigrate all the "inferior" bins that us mortals are forced to bear like Sisyphus and his rock.

When I look through my Bushnell's I see the bird in all of it's color and the image looks sharp and in focus to me. What more do I want? Am I missing secret colors? I thought I was seeing them all. Are the images in a $2000 pair of binoculars somehow more real looking than my images (which look as real as the birds look without binoculars)?

If I was going to tell a new birder how to spend $2000, I would suggest a library of great books, comfortable clothing a few hundred dollars for binoculars and a kickstart birding trip for the remaining $1000+.

I'd really love to see what percentage of the people on this forum simply enjoy spending time outdoors with the birds and what percentage have more fun rattling off their equipment list right on down to their choice of hat.

Tannin said:

Yes, assuming you live in a 1st world country and are working, you can afford to buy Zeiss or Leica or Swarovski optics if you want them. People who say "I wish I could afford a pair of XYZ" are full of ***. Anyone can afford them. The question is what other things are you prepared to do without?

Click to expand...

This is also a good point. It is true - I could afford a Zeiss scope or a pair of Swarovski bins. I have an $800 per month "fun money" budget and could curtail my wanton spending a few months and get them. But I don't. Because of the reasons above. It isn't worth it to me. If I get to the point in my life where my fun money budget is large enough to buy a pair on impulse I might do so - but only if I see an image that is at least 5 times better than what I see with my Bushnells!

Hi, guys. Interestinger and interestinger.
1. This thread on binoculars appears within the category of tips for new birders. The advice about practice and use is very good.

2. How did my advice not to buy a cheap pair of binoculars become an endorsement of $2,000 binoculars? There are many options between the two.

3. I stand by my advice to new birders to go with 8 or 10 power--NOT because some birding magazine advertises them, but because those are the powers of choice by greater than 99% of active birders. I've observed many hundreds of birders in the field. Terry is only the third to use binocs above 10X routinely.

4. There is a formula for calculating the relative brightness of binoculars, but assumes identical coatings. That your 16s and 8s do not show a greater difference in apparent brightness may be due to two factors: better coating on your 16s and the ratio of your 8s--that is, they are 8Xwhat? 25? Any ratio less than 5 translates to a loss of light gathering capability--but this is offset by quality coatings and this comes at a cost. My current 8X32 pair produces a brighter image than my first 7X42 pair. This is a result of improved optics manufacturing. Similar improvement is also available in mid price range binoculars.

5. No controversy is intended. If 16s work for Terry, great for him. His discussion of 1X, etc., is interesting, but not very helpful for beginning birders. The power of one's binoculars is not a reflection of virility just as the cost of the binoculars around a birder's neck is not an indication of the birder's skill.

Good birding,

Phalarope

Phalarope said:

3. I stand by my advice to new birders to go with 8 or 10 power--NOT because some birding magazine advertises them, but because those are the powers of choice by greater than 99% of active birders. I've observed many hundreds of birders in the field. Terry is only the third to use binocs above 10X routinely.

Click to expand...

I removed the text in my earlier post about the birding magazine - when I reread it just now it seemed much harsher than I ever intended. I respect your restraint!

I do believe though that the reason people go with 8-10x binos is because they represent the best trade-off between ease of use and magnification power. Lower than 8x and you don't get the close image you need. Higher than 10x and you must practice a lot to use them effectively (and if you have shaky hands then the wobbles make them unusable).

But if you take the time to practice with them you will see the birds twice as large or from twice as far. To me that is a benefit that far outweighs the initial problems you will have with them.

I think the reason 8-10x is recommended is because once people get used to them they are unwilling to learn to use binos that are twice as powerful.

I was initially frustrated with my 16x binos. I would always lose the birds in flight. I couldn't locate a bird in a tree, etc, etc. But my learning experiences helped me to use them very well and I am now afforded a view of birds that is twice as large.

8x are easier. But are you honestly telling me that if you could snap your fingers and suddenly be able to see birds twice as far away as you can now with the only downside being a smaller field of view (which isn't even a downside - unless you are trying to do a bird count) that you wouldn't do it?

Well, there is no finger snap. But there is practice!

Phalarope said:

The power of one's binoculars is not a reflection of virility just as the cost of the binoculars around a birder's neck is not an indication of the birder's skill.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But I think people should ask themselves why they even use binoculars at all. If the answer is so that they can view distant birds clearly then you would think that binoculars that helped them view ever more distant birds would be the way to go. I think 8x was settled on as the standard because they are easy to use and once a person has gotten used to that they stop. When I look through my 8x bins I am always amazed by how tiny the birds look. Then I tell myself "My god - there are people out there that pay thousands of dollars for images this small....."

Hope we're all squared away with no ill intended/felt.

One aspect of the greater-than-10 power binoculars that really affects potential users is the weight--not just the effect the weight has on the ability to hold them steady, but the effect of that weight dangling from the neck over an extended period of time.

The two people I know who use bigger than 10s are solidly built--both over 220 pounds.

To many birders, weight is not the deciding factor; but to many others it is. I chose the pair I have over a more expensive 8.5 or 10 power because of a couple of ounces! I tried them in the field and after an 8-hour day of birding, my neck and shoulders ached--even with the harness, rather than a neck strap. This isn't something that one can become enured to; it is a combination of strength, body-frame, age, etc.

The choice of 8X or 8.5X or even 10X over 16X may be, for many, the result of discomfort/pain that takes away the joy of birding.

For that extra power for far away birds, it is easier for me to carry the tripod-mounted scope balanced on the shoulder for limited distances (a mile or less) than to bear the extra weight around the neck all day.

Good birding--with whatever power binoculars,
Phalarope