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

Phalarope said:
The two people I know who use bigger than 10s are solidly built--both over 220 pounds.
Click to expand...
That's me alright! I didn't even think of weight as a factor. But I'm sure that has something to do with it. All I know is that 16x bins weight a heck of a lot less than 80+ pounds of equipment I used to have to carry for days at a time!
 
One thing I have noticed that always gets left out of discussions about binoculars is eye-relief. If you have been around a while, you know about this. But those new to birding (or binoculars) probably do not. If you wear glasses (I have trifocals) and do not want to remove them to use your bins, you need a pair with long eye relief. Not every pair has this. As a matter of fact, different models by the same manufacturer have different specifications. I was fortunate to find some articles about this when I was ready to buy my first "good" pair of binoculars, and eye-relief became one of my key criteria. I ended up with a pair of Pentax 8x42 DCF-WPs and I have never regretted the choice.
 
Anyone can afford good quality optics

That's an interesting point of view.
Personally I use a pair of Zeiss jenoptea 8x30's I bought at a car boot for £20. Now while I can't personally afford any more (actually I couldn't afford to replace them if they broke at the moment), to be perfectly honest if my personal circumstances changed so I could afford it I really don't think I'd spend money on replacing them. They do everything I want them to. My first wish would be a scope. there's nothing so frustrating as sitting in a hide looking at a lot of little black dots while the telescope men discuss the colour of the legs.

And I tried a pair of ancient 10x50's the other day and yes the extra magnification, and the extra light was impressive - but my arms ached after 20mins (told you they were ancient) so I can see both sides. If you can afford good lightweight modern bins then go for the largest magnification/objective size you can comfortable hold.
 
The label of good optics and not is an endless debte. Lots of people became experts with bins that would be substandard today.

I used to bird mostly with one pair. That worked. But it is sort of driving cars: you can learn to drive several models concurrently. I prefer to use 8x and 10x and nothing else, as I get confused by the apparent sizes.
 
Terry O'Nolley said:
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!



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....."
Click to expand...
I have a spotting scope,it gives me 17x to 52X power...i have used 20xbinos for astronomy,and it would be a joke to carry them around...16x50 is an equation that makes for 3.1? exit pupil...compared with,for instance,8.5x44 =5.1,is almost half the size..that means a duller image by all means.my scope gives 4mm exit pupil at 17x(65mm)and is steady mounted on a tripod.I really enjoy the 8 degrees field of view of my 8.5x binos,i like to see the bird and the world around them.I understand,though, the pleasure of looking at a feather close up.....And with a microscope you can even see the mites. :gn:
 
Last edited:
"Maybe there is a formula published somewhere that gives the relative "brightness" when magnification and objective lens sizes are factored in."

Formula for brightness: perhaps you are referring to the Twilight Factor, which is the Square Root of (the objective x magnification).

The other formula, I suppose, could be the Exit Pupil (Eyepiece Focal Length/focal ratio of objective), -- probably a useless formula for binoculars, where those variables are not easily ascertained, and not so useful in the daytime, where the pupil is not dark-adapted.
 
Terry O'Nolley said:
Maybe there is a formula published somewhere that gives the relative "brightness" when magnification and objective lens sizes are factored in.

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...

If you take a pair of 7x42 they would provide an exit pupil of 6, to achieve equivalent light gathering/brightness with 16x binoculars they would need an objective lens diameter of 96mm. Although it's been debated endlessly, at the end of the day, (relatively) cheap, high magnification binoculars with a small exit pupil will not, and cannot, produce as bright an image as the expensive, lower magnification bins with a large exit pupil. It is amusing though, to witness the inverted snobbery of some contributors to this thread.

martin
 
It is very important to have good optics as a relatively new birder. With poor optics, one will have a much harder time just finding birds - especially little ones, and even after finding them, one will have a hard time identifying them because the details will not be crisp. I know this because when I was younger I thought binoculars were useless since I had a bad pair; it was only years later after using a better pair that I realized how much there was to see. With skill one can learn to use an inferior pair, but that skill only comes with practice, and the practice will not be there if birding is not any fun.

But getting good optics does not have to mean going out an spending $2000 for the latest top-of-the-line Swarovski model. There are plenty of good binoculars for $500 and less, and even some below $200, which should be within the means of most birders. In the end, how much one spends matters less than how the binocular performs.

As for practicing with binoculars... One tip I read when I was starting out was to square your body towards the object you are looking at. Make it as physically easy as possible to find and watch birds by not putting extra demands on your arms, neck, and torso. And keep your arms folded in if you are trying to hold up your binoculars for an extended period of time. That way makes it easier to keep them steady.
 
The following is a quote from a post by KennyJ over on "Cloudy Nights". KennyJ is the British binocular enthusiast who kindly referred me to this site:

"What is Twilight Factor?
When looking at specs for binoculars, I see a line item called "Twilight Factor" and it has a number like 16, 18.3, 20.5, etc...
What is this number telling me?

Multiply the magnification by the objective size in millimetres (for example a 12 x 50 = 600)

Then calculate the SQUARE ROOT of this number ( in this case it would be 24.5 )

The HIGHER the Twighlight Factor , in theory at least the BETTER the binocular will perform in POOR or FADING light.

So whilst exit -pupil (arrived at by dividing objective size by magnification --in this example about 4.2) provides increased BRIGHTNESS as it increases, there comes a stage in lighting conditions where increased MAGNIFICATION helps you see things better in darker situations.

Both of these factors, twilight factor and relative brightness are very important --but do not tell the whole story.

ACTUAL brightness and TWILIGHT PERFORMANCE are also affected very much by QUALITY of glass and coatings and optical designs incorporated ( e.g prism types )

So a top quality $1000 10x40 for example may very likely in reality outperform a $100 12x50 in terms of TWILIGHT PERFORMANCE , even though the math would lead you to believe otherwise .

TWILIGHT PERFORMANCE is in my opinion a very important and often under-rated and overlooked factor with binoculars. "

Accordingly, there may be place for a well-made 16x50, with a Twilight Factor of 28.28, even though it only has an EP of 3.12 (compared with the "17.14" and "6" figures for the 7x42)

My thanks to Martin and KennyJ for pointing out a formula for EP that is much more useful in binocular applications.
 
martin kitching said:
It is amusing though, to witness the inverted snobbery of some contributors to this thread.
Click to expand...
Good. Because isn't that why we all come here?

So I would need 16x80s then. That sounds cool to me. I would much rather gain the ability to see birds twice as far away but only in better light than to see birds only half as big but also be able to do it in lower light.

I guess since my arms don't twitch and shake and I am able to carry bins that weigh a lot for all day long it means I am a reverse snob? Whatever.

I still like being able to ID birds twice as far away as the kind soul next to me that spent $1000+.
 
MikeMules said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good posting. I don't find much difference in an expensive vs inexpensive pair of binocs. I do, however,agree that getting used to actually using the binos one has is the most important element.

a quirky note: I've been out with native guides over the years doing geology field studies on so on. Most of their lives are speny as hunting guides. The first thing many of them would do when looking at a distant object is turn the binocs from the horizontal to the vertical and look through one lens as if using a telescope. I do this myself on real distant objects. It's not good for getting detail off a bird in a tree but helps to determine if that 'dark blob' a couple kms off in the distance is a log or a grizzly.
 
why not a scope?

Terry O'Nolley said:
Good. Because isn't that why we all come here?

So I would need 16x80s then. That sounds cool to me. I would much rather gain the ability to see birds twice as far away but only in better light than to see birds only half as big but also be able to do it in lower light.

I guess since my arms don't twitch and shake and I am able to carry bins that weigh a lot for all day long it means I am a reverse snob? Whatever.

I still like being able to ID birds twice as far away as the kind soul next to me that spent $1000+.
Click to expand...
Hi there...you know ,all quality binos are not 1000$..some are ,some not..They EVEN have BIG expensive binoculars,.. (16x like yours but really expensive...)and the kind sould that ownes one of those would see thing as big as you do,except probably MUCH crispier.i understand that a crappy 8x is not the best visual experience and wouldnt give you enough thrill to see the edge(note the intention)of such versatil ,comfortable possibility(8x that is).You should try at least a decent ,150-250$ modern binocular in that power...30 feet close focus is a joke for birwatching,try to go in a forested area with your 16x80( is that what you said you want?) ..i mean, those things are HUGE....Honestly i think you would do better with a light weight scope and a pair of 8x .A decent 16x80 is expensive too! you can probably get a decent outfit as the one i suggested for less than 500$(minolta activa wp fp,eagle optics raven scope)...well not really, but not much more and definitelly a good outfit for less than 1000...that would give you more versatility and fun...Im Talking here to whoever novice birder looking for advice..i know the 16x50 guy is very stubborn( stubborn?..forgive my grammar ,im from Spain)
 
Last edited:
Excellent thread, and pretty civil too :)

I'm currently researching for my first pair of bin's. It is pretty bewildering to wade through all the choices and to try to get a mental picture of what all this talk of "Quality" means. So I've been trudging through all of our local shops to hand hold and look through as many bin's as I can. It's a shame that even in a mid-size city like mine there seem to only be bin's geared towards hunters and the two bird stores only have models going to less than $400 dollars - so I can't compare the low and mid-low to the higher ends.

Of course it never hurts to re-state that all these things are very subjective. What works for me may not work for another. Btw, I am eager to do this a cheaply as possible so I'd like to buy only one pair bin's that will last me a few years (and enjoy picking em up) so I'm aware that I may need to spend some money. So far I've pegged my budget at $600 max ... but (and I know this sounds schitso) I'd like to spend only about $250 if I can. This is just a begining hobby and I'd like to be sure I stay with it. That said It's also true I believe that the fastest way to make a new hobby wither is to buy Ill suited equiptment. Did I mention this was bevildering? :smoke:

This is what I've learned so far. The cheap stuff I've had the pleasure of holding up so far - would make me take up knitting sooner than birding. Sigh .... upped the budget at that point. The view through the lenses was poor with CA obvious but really, really bad to use with flare coming through. Worse for me was the irritatingly poor mechanical quality. I don't think I'm a snob (I'd like to be - but I aint got enough dough to do a proper job of it and I hate half measures :) )
I buy both brand name lenses as well as 3rd party for photography and am happy showing up at a shoot with a sigma just the same. As long as it performs 95% to the thrice the price stuff .... and meets the requirements of the job. What I can't stand trading for is the feel of something. Is it possible to be a smoothness freak, or snob .... while not caring about brand name? If so - I am it.

The next step up were Audubon HP's. WOW! What a difference!
The optics were so clear. THe focus soooo smooooth. Is this what quality feels like? o:) They were also extremely comfortable. something about the eyecups where it fit my face so that it both felt good and could center my eyes so that I didn't have those anoying blackouts (don't know what that is called).

So inspired by this great leap I though I will just give up lunches for a few months and go for double. I next went up the food chain and tried a Nikon monarch and Eagle optics of some stripe (price=360) Hmmm? What's that disapointing feeling? They didn't feel as good up to my face. Especially the Nikons. They had all the right stuff I guess - by the numbers but the feel wasn't "one with me". The EO were very good feel wise but not as great as the lesser HP's. I spend easily 45 minutes back and forth between the two pairs. (btw I'm going to have this guy order me a pair even if I can find them much cheaper somewhere online because he was so patient and knowledgeable. He also obviously loved birds. Nice.) After a while I could see a hair like difference where the EO's were a bit better optically - but still the HP's felt the best by a noticeable margin. So my temporary conclusion is that I am going with feel over a bit of an improvement in optics. I'm open for hearing opinions as to what I may be missing here though with my current views. There is nothing wrong with the optics of the HP's at my level and I won't miss anyviews I feel. The difference is only apparent with back to back comparisons.

It's interesting to note that it appears to be necessary to train your eyes to distinguish better the optical subtleties. Has anyone else noticed that?

I would really like to find out what the view through far more expensive lenses nets but right now I think only a bit more. Perhaps with time we get more discriminating.

The jump from 150 to 250 dollars made a tremendous difference in optical and mechanical quality, so much so that I may have left birding alone very quickly if I had to use the cheap stuff. So far spending a bit more needs a better eye than I have so I think with my new budget of $400-600 I should get a level of quality that will satisfy this newbie for a few years and not hamper this budding new hobby. I'm now a bit wiser but still completely overwhelmed with the choices left to me. I want the bin's to be comfortable most.

On the magnification front I noticed the store owner was very eager to recommend the 8x over the 10x of the same (even though he had mostly 10x in stock and would have to order the HP's in 8x)
I found however that I had no jitter with the 10x - so am I wrong to lean towards that? does it work out that the 10x is harder to look through as you use them for long periods of time? I'm inclined to the 10x. I'm also over 6' and 230 pounds.

This thread is very good for folks like myself to read. Thanks Terry for thinking of us beginners. I used to train is similar ways for photography but honestly I don't think I would have though to do the common sense stuff that you have recommended here. It could have taken me a long time to get up to speed without some of the sage advice here. I think that old timers don't remember how frustrating it can be for newbies just to get to look at a bird - never mind in wonderful clarity through the best gear :)

One question. When you hold bin's ... are you supposed to keep the arms against you chest. It seems a bit awkward but helps with the view.
 
Last edited:
mayoayo said:
i know the 16x50 guy is very stubborn( stubborn?..forgive my grammar ,im from Spain)
Click to expand...
The negatives that people use for reasons why not to see birds twice as far away or twice as large don't apply to me. I have no problem carrying and using them for hours and my hands aren't all shaky. The only "problem" is that I don't see as bright an image.

Am I willing to trade my 16x magnification for a tiny little image that looks brighter? No.

And I also carry a pocket pair of Tasco 8x binos for birds closer than my 16x can focus.

If you think 8x are so much better, then why not carry 4x binos instead? Or maybe 2x?

If I could hold 32x steady you can believe I would use them.
 
Pavel_D said:
This thread is very good for folks like myself to read. Thanks Terry for thinking of us beginners. I used to train is similar ways for photography but honestly I don't think I would have though to do the common sense stuff that you have recommended here. It could have taken me a long time to get up to speed without some of the sage advice here. I think that old timers don't remember how frustrating it can be for newbies just to get to look at a bird - never mind in wonderful clarity through the best gear :)

One question. When you hold bin's ... are you supposed to keep the arms against you chest. It seems a bit awkward but helps with the view.
Click to expand...
I am a beginner also. I started this thread with things I noticed as I was learning to use my binoculars effectively. I never keep my arms against my chest but I will try it later today when go to the National Arboretum to try and finally see a Red-headed Woodpecker.
 
Terry O'Nolley said:
If you think 8x are so much better, then why not carry 4x binos instead? Or maybe 2x?
Because, as with so much in life, one has to compromise. In this case the compromise is between a bright, small, stable image and a dimmer, larger, wobblier image. Where one makes that compromise is an individual choice - which is why it's important that people try different bins themselves, rather than be guided by stuff written by others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
hollis_f said:
Where one makes that compromise is an individual choice
Click to expand...

Terry O'Nolley said:
If you think 8x are so much better, then why not carry 4x binos instead? Or maybe 2x?
Click to expand...

The first comment above is a very succinct summary of what is really important in this debate.

The second is from someone who tells experienced birders that they are in some way 'wrong' to use expensive, low magnification, high optical quality binoculars and then, in a subsequent post, thanks hollis_f for the first comment :clap: I thought you didn't do irony and sarcasm on your side of the pond.

martin
 
martin kitching said:
The first comment above is a very succinct summary of what is really important in this debate.

The second is from someone who tells experienced birders that they are in some way 'wrong' to use expensive, low magnification, high optical quality binoculars and then, in a subsequent post, thanks hollis_f for the first comment :clap: I thought you didn't do irony and sarcasm on your side of the pond.

martin
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out that if using 8x binos were better than 16x because of their lower magnification and brighter optics, then 4x must be even better yet.

I thanked the person that suggested it should be an individual choice because I agree with that. I have only explained why I use my binos. I have not told others here that their way was wrong.

My comment only looks sardonic to humans that read things into it.
 
Terry O'Nolley said:
I was merely pointing out that if using 8x binos were better than 16x because of their lower magnification and brighter optics, then 4x must be even better yet.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, if 16x are better than 8x because of their higher magnification, then 32x must be even better yet.

But you don't use 32x because they're too heavy. So, again by your logic, 8x must be better than 16x because they're lighter still.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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.

Similar threads

T
Waterproofness and your use of binoculars
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
tehri
tehri
N
Glasses wearers
Replies
12
Views
1K
Tringa45
T
C
SWAROVSKI AX VISIO: MY LEARNINGS IN A NUTSHELL
Replies
19
Views
2K
Dyrlege
D
Stonefaction
Getting back to drawing...
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
nofair
N
J
New birder in GA trying to figure out where to buy binoculars where I can try them out.
Replies
11
Views
478
Trinovid
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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