• 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.

Binoculars for forest birding (1 Viewer)

Much has been written and discussed on the 8x32 as being the ideal binocular for birding, but and do correct me if I'm wrong, is this not based on conditions in the US and Europe where most of the birding is done in the "open"? How about birding under forest conditions ? I dont mean the middle of the Amazon but moderately light forests with plenty of tree cover ? Would the 8x32 be just as effective or should one be looking at an 8x42 or even a 10x42?
 
Hello hawkeye. I live in the middle of woodland, thus my bins are used rather a lot under tree cover. I purchased the Zeiss FL 8x42 because of their brightness - they certainly do the job in low light conditions in the woods.

Regards
 
hawkeye_oo said:
Much has been written and discussed on the 8x32 as being the ideal binocular for birding, but and do correct me if I'm wrong, is this not based on conditions in the US and Europe where most of the birding is done in the "open"? How about birding under forest conditions ? I dont mean the middle of the Amazon but moderately light forests with plenty of tree cover ? Would the 8x32 be just as effective or should one be looking at an 8x42 or even a 10x42?

In my opinion the best 8x32 binoculars are suitable for use in dark woods. The Nikon 8x32 SE certainly is and so is the Nikon 8x32 HG. However, some of the older roof prism designs are not as bright and thus less suitable.

In theory an 8x32mm is as bright as an 8x42 until the human eye dilates beyond 4mm, in which case the 8x42 will give a brighter image.

Personally I prefer an 8x42: not much heavier, longer so easier to hold steady, often better resolution and brighter in low light. But that's just my subjective biased view!
 
Hi, I use my Leica 8x32s in the middle of the Asian rainforests and they are a dream to use. They haven't steamed up once yet while birding, even in 100% humidity, though overnight they can get steamed up becaue of this. Regarding actual birding, yes, they are great, but as I don't use a telescope for this kind of birding you can lose out a bit if the bird is that bit further away. Also the great thing about 8's is the wide field of view for scanning, obivously you rarely scan in the forest, so I think 10's are actually better! I'm going to get myself some Leica 10x32's very soon due to rainforest birding!

So, 8's are great from experience but I actually want to get 10x32's! make sure they're 32's too, due to the weight, something you don't want a lot of in that heat and humidity

all the best
 
Greetings!

I do most of my birding near ponds and streams, often in light to moderately forested areas. I often carry 8x32, 8x20, and sometimes 8x20+10x50 optics with me during these short hikes. I have found that unless it is approaching dark, the 10x50 are somewhat uncomfortable to use in forested environments, I almost always prefer one of the 8x binoculars instead. I have done most of my serious (planned, not spur-of-the-moment) birding with my 8x32 Nikon HG binoculars, and I'm happy to report that they perform marvelously. The Zeiss 8x20 compact binoculars are no slouch either, during normal daylight hours they are as bright and sharp as I could want under forested conditions. Given a choice, for serious long term use in forested areas, I would prefer at least an 8x32 with excellent optics - and if you are limiting yourself to just one pair of binoculars an 8x42 would probably be the better choice.

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
for depth of field and field of view and amazing brightness 7 x 42 is the optimum. I have used Zeiss 7 x 42 for several years in rainforest situations and never had a single problem even during two years living in Indonesia. It's easier to find and fllow skulky birds and the extra amount of light you get is vital.

Currently using Nikon 8 x 32 which are also great but not quite as fantastic in the dark of the forest (but still more than adequate). They are not standing up to the heat as well though and the rubber has lifted a little already (two years)

Like James i don't use a scope in these places and do lose a little when out of the forest, not such a problem in many places but it is say Peru or Mexico where you have closed forest and also many open environments too. Maybe going up to 10s and no scope would be a good idea James..... but might the extra mag be a bit of a hindrance in the forest.

Come on u rams!

Tim
 
If light is a problem, my 1eveyday 10x do appear a bit dim. I would look at 8.5 as well as 8x for a one pair to cover all needs for a trip. Less choises at 8.5, though.
 
hawkeye,

If you are not limiting your options to an 8x binocular, I will enthusiastically 2nd the opinions of both Gorank and Tim Allwood... and suggest you give 7x42 some serious consideration. I personally am an unabashed and outspoken fan of 7x optics, having made many postings on this forum in praise of 7x binoculars. You gain SO many advantages by selecting 7x, including beautiful picture window FOV, almost focus-free depth of field, wonderful brightness, lower levels of image aberrations, etc. and a VERY comfortable long-term viewing experience due to higher "hand shaking" tolerance. All you really give up is magnification, which is for the most part overrated in my opinion anyway. Do an experiment - go to a local optics dealer and view the same scene over and over switching back and forth between 7x and 8x binoculars... I challenge you to see any details with the 8x that you can't see with the 7x.

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
Burnley tonight Tim, don't fancy our chances! Anyway, onto more important matters - whats the cater serving up at the OBC meeting? Those Maleos on Sulawesi had plenty of meat on them, they'd do for the mince pies.

Yes, I agree that 10's could be a bit of a hindurance, but theres nothing more frustrating when you get onto a bird in the forest and it's just that little bit too far to get owt on it. I think that I may lose out more often with 8's (regarding distance) than with 10's (regarding depth and width of field). I should imagine it'll be ok in Peru, isn't it just bright orange birds you get there?! Seriously though, Hawkeye, if you intend on carrying a scope around too, then 7 or 8's would be an excellent choice, and most people seem to prefer that, I get on fine with them, I'd like to hear from someone who has tried 10's in the forest though.

all the best
 
Watcha James

anyone out there use 10s in the forest? Be interesting to hear...

to hijack thread for a sec:
great website of yours James
Tibetan costume ace
lose the goatees though
rather disappointed that the Vietnam 'hotel room' shot of you isn't on there (Rob sent it to me via PM)
and Gina, she looks familiar :flowers:

I'm going Indo for the meet so it's chicken heads in batter, and those foul dried little fish that will be haute cuisine for the day
 
ranburr said:
8x32 in a thick forest and a 10x42 everywhere else.

ranburr
Ranburr,

Do you have any suggestions for holding a ten power steady? I cannot manage a ten power without a monopod.

Happy observation of nature,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Arthur, this seems to be a yes or no skill. I manage 10x OK, some people never do. I guess the lighter th binocular, the easier it is. There are som light 10x25 porros, and you then have to live with what FOV you get.
 
Pinewood said:
Ranburr,
Do you have any suggestions for holding a ten power steady? I cannot manage a ten power without a monopod.
Arthur Pinewood

Pinewood, I have found that since I started using a bino system from "Crooked Horn Outfitters" I can hold a 10X steady and comfortably. Many outfits make these bino suspenders and they all appear to be about the same. I keep mine adjusted a little snug and this resistance is enough that I am better able to stabilize. I also find that I am better able to stabilize a roof than a porro and the little thumb indentions and rubber armoring really help. in fact, I am shocked at just how much of a difference the thumb indentions make.

ranburr
 
Bill Atwood said:
Uhhh...shouldn't this be reversed?

No. You don't need the higher magnification for in forestry work. And the wider field of view of the 32mm allows you to pick up movement easier. 10X is too much magnification in the forest and the smaller field of view will give something of tunnel vision in the woods. In a wooded situation, I am not looking for game, I am looking for movement. The 8x32 allows you to see movment better then the 10x42 at closer ranges where views are obstructed by trees and terrain.

ranburr
 
Yes the 8x32 FOV is desirable. I loved my Leica 8x32BAs. However, they fell short in the light gathering ability in dark tropical forests. I've lost more than one lifer because of that issue. Folks with 40-42mm objectives were getting birds I couldn't. Which is why I got the noticeably brighter Ultravids 8x42s. Unfortunately they aren't as sharp. They did quite good in some Trinidad and Tobago forests.

Some folks have recently been touting 10x42-50 bins as provding a brighter image yet. I'm tempted to look into these as some of the tropical canopy flocks are waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy up there. Image stability and low FOV are the downside I'm concerned about.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 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