Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Why 8x32 are replacing 8x42

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 23rd April 2019, 20:07   #1
eronald
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 106
Why 8x32 are replacing 8x42

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.

Last edited by eronald : Tuesday 23rd April 2019 at 20:12.
eronald is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd April 2019, 21:28   #2
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 87
Hello Edmund,

My Swarovski 8,5x42 and the Zeiss SF 8x42 are noticeably brighter at twilight than a Nikon EDG 8x32 or a Zeiss Victory 8x32!
In the twilight I still see objects that are only indistinct or unrecognizable in the 8x32!
Do the experiment in the starry sky and you will see how many stars an 8x42 shows more.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd April 2019, 21:31   #3
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by eronald View Post
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.
Hi, Edmund:

There is NO problem in getting advice from a binocular forum. The only trick is getting accurate advice from there. That, however, is great. Over time, it teaches people some questions can’t be answered simply and some questions simply can’t be answered.

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd April 2019, 22:21   #4
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
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. Unless you do a LOT of birding under canopy or at dusk a good 32mm is a lot easier to carry and it will never let you down. I have the SV 8.5x42 FP, SV 8x32 FP, SV 10x32 FP , CL-P compact 8x25 and the Ultravid Compact BCR 8x20 and If I had to get rid of one it would be the SV 8.5x42 FP even though it is an excellent binocular. It is just that the SV 8x32 will do everything the bigger binocular will do with less bulk and weight.

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 23rd April 2019 at 22:28.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 03:55   #5
eronald
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
Hi, Edmund:

Over time, it teaches people some questions can’t be answered simply and some questions simply can’t be answered.

Bill
Hi Bill,

I think most of us who have asked questions of our parents at age 4 have not needed the forum to learn that.

But maybe we all need an occasional reminder.

Now let's get back to the x32 stuff - how much brightness do people expect from a bino compared to direct view?

Edmund

Last edited by eronald : Wednesday 24th April 2019 at 04:03.
eronald is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 07:20   #6
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,769
Eronald,

It is absolutely scientifically impossible for a binocular to deliver any more light to the retina of your eye than you would see directly. As well as the magnification and field of view influencing our perception, binocular designers play psycological games with the, colour spectrum and contrast so you might think you do, but invariably the total light level will be less than seeing directly.

I bright conditions when the pupil of your eye is just 2mm a 8x16 would deliver the same target luminance as an 8x56 providing other physical parameters like the transmission spectrum were the same.

Hope that's clear.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 09:43   #7
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,161
Maybe I`m weird, but my 42mm SV is clearly brighter than my 32mm SV, every time, I fully understand that in bright light our pupils stop down smaller than the 4mm exit pupil of the 32mm, but for me in the same light the 42mm is just more dynamic.

I feel the opposite to Dennis, (nice to see you back Dennis), I would hold on to the 42mm over the 32.
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 10:26   #8
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Maybe I`m weird, but my 42mm SV is clearly brighter than my 32mm SV, every time, I fully understand that in bright light our pupils stop down smaller than the 4mm exit pupil of the 32mm, but for me in the same light the 42mm is just more dynamic.

I feel the opposite to Dennis, (nice to see you back Dennis), I would hold on to the 42mm over the 32.
Brightness is a perception, not a measure of light levels. You might say it's a figment of your imagination, but in reality it's often in response to a difference in some physical parameter or another. It might be some small difference in spectrum, contrast, resolution or glare is enough makes a perceptual difference, but It is also in the nature of psychology that if you expect the x42 to be brigher, it may well appear to be.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 10:41   #9
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,660
I agree with Torview (post 7); 42mm seems more dynamic and I think it's a nice useful combo to have a
42mm and 30/32mm on hand.

If I never needed to wear glasses I would most likely have a 8x32 and 10x32. I'd probably never discover the benefits of 42mm bins and wouldn't have my 7x42 Ultravid. A positive side effect of wearing glasses is discovering how wonderful 7x42 is. I had trouble in the beginning adjusting to looking through bins with eyeglasses and needed to go up from 8x32 binos (always my fav format) to 42mm for the larger exit pupil. But I found I do really enjoy 42mm for its larger window view , more comfortable, better glare control... As Torview says, more dynamic .

With that said, if I suddenly didn't have to wear glasses anymore I'd probably use 32mm as my main binocular for the smaller size and lighter weight benefits. I do still love smaller binoculars and that's why I have an 8x30 as well to go along with 7x42.

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.

Last edited by Gilmore Girl : Wednesday 24th April 2019 at 10:55. Reason: Fixing sentence structures
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 14:41   #10
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
Maybe I`m weird, but my 42mm SV is clearly brighter than my 32mm SV, every time, I fully understand that in bright light our pupils stop down smaller than the 4mm exit pupil of the 32mm, but for me in the same light the 42mm is just more dynamic.

I feel the opposite to Dennis, (nice to see you back Dennis), I would hold on to the 42mm over the 32.
Thanks! I have no intention of getting rid of the 8.5x42 SV. I know I would be sorry later on. It is so perfect optically. I do like the smaller, lighter binoculars lately though. I am even starting to tolerate the compacts and have been using the Swarovski CL-P 8x25 and Leica Ultravid BCR 8x20 quite a bit. They are more fussy but they are just so light and compact to carry. Maybe it is because I am getting older and weaker!

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 24th April 2019 at 14:47.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 14:43   #11
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,511
Some prefer the larger exit pupil, 5.25 or 5 in a 10X50 for easy eye placement, and they do not have a problem with an instrument that weighs 800 to 1000 grams, some hardly use 8X32. These are individual choices, not one size fits all.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 15:02   #12
eronald
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 106
To be politically correct, we may acknowledge that the "minority" of those who are under 60 should be recognised as fully enfranchised binocular buyers and users, and then an exit pupil over 4mm does make a visible difference :)

Which would mean that all the light gathered eg by an 8x42 *could* find its way to the retina of one of these "minority users", and there would be substantially more of this light than an equivalent 8x32 would send to the same person's rods and cones. The 42 would be perceptually brighter than the 32, provided of course you belong to this "youthful minority".

I don't want to have a tech discussion on a subject I don't understand; what interests me more is the subjective perception of buyers, and my feeling is that the general adoption of the 42 had something to do with a brightness threshold, a feeling when taking up the glasses and putting them down, and that modern tech has moved this threshold so it is now located at 32. I'd like to pin down that feeling.

Edmund

Last edited by eronald : Wednesday 24th April 2019 at 15:10.
eronald is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 15:21   #13
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,660
Hi Edmund (post 12),

When I decided to go with 7x42 it didn't have anything to do with needing a brighter binocular. For me, it was about comfort with eyeglasses. I was finding the smaller exit pupil of 30/32mm binoculars to be too picky and bothersome when wearing glasses. A bigger EP makes much easier and more comfortable viewing and an ability to get on the birds quicker. There's no fuss when bringing the bino up to my eyes, as there's essentially no need to work at getting the EP of the bino properly aligned with my eyes. So, for me it was about ease of view mainly. However, I do think the 7x42 works very well for me on dreary days when the sun is hiding and at dusk. I'm rarely out during dusk, but this Spring/Summer I will be out occasionally as the sun goes down for a bit. Now that I have thinner eyeglass frames I find my 8x30 easier to use, but the 7x42 still much better.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 15:31   #14
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
Some prefer the larger exit pupil, 5.25 or 5 in a 10X50 for easy eye placement, and they do not have a problem with an instrument that weighs 800 to 1000 grams, some hardly use 8X32. These are individual choices, not one size fits all.

Andy W.
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.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 16:12   #15
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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.
It's entirely an individual thing. Approaching 60, my father lugged around a 7x50 Zeiss rather than the smaller roof prisms he had also tried, and I've used myself for decades. Now I too find myself falling in love with 56mm SLCs, and imagining that I finally understand why. Except I don't... perhaps there are subtleties to dealing with a larger exit pupil, beyond performance in low light?
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 16:32   #16
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenex View Post
... perhaps there are subtleties to dealing with a larger exit pupil, beyond performance in low light?
There are. Uncritical pupil positioning from the large EP and effectively lower aberrations in bright light from the stopdown imposed by the eye's pupil make the view through my Zeiss 8x56 FL superior to any smaller binocular I've tried, especially the 30-32mm squirts.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 17:06   #17
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,648
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by eronald View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Eronald,

It is absolutely scientifically impossible for a binocular to deliver any more light to the retina of your eye than you would see directly.... David
+ 1 with all that David said

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

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

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 , 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 among the pigeons ......






Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 20:30   #18
Upland
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 321
I prefer the 32 format because of the weight and size. I use mine while hiking in the backcountry quite often so they work quite well for that. Having said that I can appreciate others favoring the 42 and bigger sizes. We all have different preferences and it’s great to have so many choices with modern optics.
Upland is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 20:58   #19
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Brightness is a perception, not a measure of light levels. You might say it's a figment of your imagination, but in reality it's often in response to a difference in some physical parameter or another. It might be some small difference in spectrum, contrast, resolution or glare is enough makes a perceptual difference, but It is also in the nature of psychology that if you expect the x42 to be brigher, it may well appear to be.

David
That David seems always to be around with all that ... LOGIC CRAP. Too many people see a binocular as aperture, magnification, and possibly coatings. In the REAL world, there is a bit more to consider leading to real or imagined image brightness:

1. Smoothness of optical surfaces
2. Precision in design (caring or understanding)
3. Best choice in selecting glass types, curvatures, and spacings
4. Precision in manufacturing
5. Precision in testing
6. Primary and secondary baffling
7. Edge blackening (a lost art)
8. Slotted prisms (in Porros)
9. Size and position of the field stop
10. Knife edge on that stop
11. Number of elements in the eyepiece
12. Type of eyepiece
13. More

14. Personal physiology and PERCEPTION

In most cases, #14 will supersede the previous 13

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 22:24   #20
paddy7
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: suffolk
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
That David seems always to be around with all that ... LOGIC CRAP. Too many people see a binocular as aperture, magnification, and possibly coatings. In the REAL world, there is a bit more to consider leading to real or imagined image brightness:

1. Smoothness of optical surfaces
2. Precision in design (caring or understanding)
3. Best choice in selecting glass types, curvatures, and spacings
4. Precision in manufacturing
5. Precision in testing
6. Primary and secondary baffling
7. Edge blackening (a lost art)
8. Slotted prisms (in Porros)
9. Size and position of the field stop
10. Knife edge on that stop
11. Number of elements in the eyepiece
12. Type of eyepiece
13. More

14. Personal physiology and PERCEPTION

In most cases, #14 will supersede the previous 13

Bill
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.
paddy7 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 23:08   #21
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 4,042
[quote=Chosun Juan;3841991]+ 1 with all that David said

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

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

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 , 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 among the pigeons ......

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
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th April 2019, 23:51   #22
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy7 View Post
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."

Bill
__________________
“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th April 2019, 05:34   #23
paddy7
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: suffolk
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
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."

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!
paddy7 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th April 2019, 07:15   #24
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,769
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 by typo : Thursday 25th April 2019 at 07:30.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 25th April 2019, 13:49   #25
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by eronald View Post
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!

What lies down the road and when will it end?

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Thursday 25th April 2019 at 13:52.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Replacing 8x42 T* FL with lighter weight model Helen O Zeiss 11 Tuesday 18th July 2017 04:14
8x32 SV vs 8x42 HT ticl2184 Zeiss 30 Wednesday 20th February 2013 21:11
SE 8x32's beat both Swarovski 8x32 and 8x42 EL's IMO CSG Nikon 46 Saturday 28th May 2011 16:19
8x32 or 8x42? Thomas T. Binoculars 31 Wednesday 5th December 2007 11:46
8X32 FL vs 8X42 FL henry link Zeiss 28 Sunday 20th November 2005 20:31

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26396990 seconds with 39 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:33.