8x vs 10x (1 Viewer)

Novice birder here w/ basic question. I have read the pros and cons of 8 vs 10 power binoculars. Based on reviews I am looking at the Nikon Monarch as an entry level instrument.

I have read some conflicting comments about qualities like brightness and richness of color at these different magnifications. Is there a general concept re: the color quality between the two?

I would also like to use these binoculars for astronomy purposes as well (basic stargazing, etc, nothing too advanced). Is there any advantage/disadvantage between the two for this use as well?

Thanks....

For a entry level bin I'd stick with 8x, especially for birding.

There's a wider FOV (and the Monarch 8x42 FOV is not that wide to start off with). 10x tend to show up more of the defects of the cheaper bins. Though not always ... I have a pair of Bushnell Excursions 10x42 ... same sort of quality level as the Diamondback that aren't bad compared to an 8x42 Diamondback. Though they have a rather wider FOV than the 10x Monarchs.

In general I think the 7 or 8 or 10x choice is a personal one. The difference between them is a set of trade offs (slightly more detail in a few cases for smaller FOV and less relaxed view). But unless you know you know want 10x (i.e. you have tried birding with both and prefer the latter) I'd make the default choice the 8x. I think there are also some cheaper ($200 or so) Monarch equivalents that you maybe should look at too: Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell Excursion, Bushnell Legend and even the Pentax HS or NV. Not to forget the good porros out there too.

There can be a color (really a brightness which affects how well you see color) difference between the two.

The other difference is the size of the exit pupil. In daylight that comes down to how "relaxed" the bins are about alignment with your eyes: how much slop they permit. Even then 10x 4mm exit pupils are OK for me but 5mm are "nicer". At night assuming a suburban environment your eye's pupils will open to 5mm or perhaps more so the 8x would be the better bin in this case.

If you can spend a bit more then I'd take a serious look at the Chinese ED bins (Promaster, Hawke and Zen Ray -- and potentially the to-be-released Bushnell Legend Ultra-HD). These offer much better views for (not a lot) more money. They also might prevent you needing to by another bin in the next couple of years. Search the forum for the many threads and evaluations.

Note in all of the above I'm assuming you mean the 42mm Monarch. If you are looking at the 36mm Monarch I think the 8x is the only sensible choice.

In general read a much of this forum as you can stand before deciding on THE bin for you. And when you do come to choose narrow it down to say three bins then try them all before you decide.

Welcome to the forum. 8x = easier to hold and many people will see only as much or less detail at 10x due to additional shake. This you need to test for yourself but for a "first" bino, 8x is the obvious choice for me.

Roof prisms - not as good as porros for astro. I always use porros for astro.

Monarchs , my only recommendation would be that you either wait for the "new" monarchs announced at a recent show or check out other new ED binoculars now available. The Monarch was really advanced for its pricepoint originally, but it's in stiff competition now, to put it politely. You can do better with brightness and contrast for that money. However, for your use, I'd suggest porros. See the Binocular Bargains page for a great deal on some Leupold Cascades.

Matt

You can't go wrong with 8x in Monarch and if you want 10x, I would pay a little more. I used the 10x Monarch for many years, so it is quite good, but no longer my favorite 10x.

Overall, 10x can help out in a few situations, but in spring with warblers, 8x works better, to find the bird and to give a bright view under trees.

Thanks for the replies.

Yes it was the 42mm that I was looking at.

Re: prisms I read that porros are (to use the word I read) "useless" in humid/rainy conditions, and I don't know enough about them (aside from the orientation of the glass that I looked up on wiki) to know why. I live in Seattle, and rain is a big part of life here.

Why are the porros preferable for astronomy?
It seemed that on the birding bino reviews I read almost all were roof prisms.

Welcome to the Bird Forum.

Two questions.
1- Are the Monarch something you have decided is a good entry level glass based on reviews, or have you actually looked at one?

2- Just what do you want to spend?

Note that Kevin is in Seattle too. I second his ZEN/Promaster/Hawke. They are good astronomical binoculars. They have wide flat fields of view and excellent resolution.

I have a Nikon Monarch 8x42 an think it lacks something in resolution as compared to the others mentioned, particularly for astronomy. But it is a decent sort of starter binocular.

There are several waterproof porros, particularly the Leupold Cascade that should be OK. Porros vs Roofs is an argument that should be based on the fact they each have their differences, not necessarily that one is junk and the other not.

TakeBack said:

Thanks for the replies.

Yes it was the 42mm that I was looking at.

Re: prisms I read that porros are (to use the word I read) "useless" in humid/rainy conditions, and I don't know enough about them (aside from the orientation of the glass that I looked up on wiki) to know why. I live in Seattle, and rain is a big part of life here.

Why are the porros preferable for astronomy?
It seemed that on the birding bino reviews I read almost all were roof prisms.

Click to expand...

The bino that I mentioned is a waterproof porro.

While phase coating has improved roof prisms, I still have major problems with diffraction spikes for astronomy. If one considers viewing the moon astronomy, then roofs will be fine. But for deep space objects such as clusters, I'll take porros. If a high end roof model has been made that eliminates the spiking issue, then I'll be glad to see that. But I haven't seen any mid/lower end roof prisms that address diffraction spikes satisfactorily. This is a non-issue for terrestrial viewing. I like stars to be pinpoint.

Roof prism binoculars are fashionable, but hey, there aren't many runway models who bird. If you follow this forum, you'll see that there is a bit of a resurgence of porros due to their better value and having some very useful attributes.

Matt

TakeBack said:

Re: prisms I read that porros are (to use the word I read) "useless" in humid/rainy conditions, and I don't know enough about them (aside from the orientation of the glass that I looked up on wiki) to know why. I live in Seattle, and rain is a big part of life here.

Click to expand...

"useless"? No. People have been using non-waterproof porros for a long time in worse conditions that Seattle e.g. I grew up in Northwestern England were we have real rain not the poncy stuff they have around here in Seattle

Most porros today are waterproof, certainly weatherproof even if I sometimes don't trust them. Some like the Leupold Cascade Matt suggest is an internal focus porro which is just as waterproof as a roof (same mechanism).

I think too many people (including myself) "overbaby" their porros e.g. see comments on this forum about a serious bin user using Nikon SE (very nice bin but not waterproof) in Florida. In the rain. It didn't fog once.

So I wouldn't use waterproofing as a baseline for selecting roofs even in Seattle (where it rains less than NYC, Miami or Boston )

There are other good reasons to use roofs (compact, lighter, nicer ergonmics) and some good reasons not to use roofs (worse view for the same price and particular defects like diffraction spikes though I must say I've not seen diffraction spikes when viewing astronomical objects with my roofs though I can see them through artificial means).