8x vs 10x (1 Viewer)

[Pabluefox]

I bought a Vanguard 8x32 ED. I was happy with them but wanted a 10x so I invested in a Bushnell Legend L 10x42. Wanted a bit bigger for hawk watching and the shorebirds. I really wanted the Zeiss terra ed 10x42 but didn't want to spend the money. I got the other two at good deals. Found the Zeiss at a local shop at almost half price so I ended up buying an 8x42. Now I'm faced with a guilt trip because I really couldn't afford both that I just bought and do not see that great a difference in their resolution, etc.

I had gone through Leupold McKenzie 8x42 But terrible CA I couldn't handle. Then I got Vortex Diamondback 8x32 but a white throated sparrow ' s head stripes appeared totally yellow. Decided time for change. Fortunately, I live near a Cabelas and they give you a 60 day trial. Then I bought Leupold Acadia 10x42. Didn't like them. Switched to the Vanguard. Really wanted an 8x42 for brightness when the warblers start coming back. Our woods can get quite dark.

Now I love the Bushnell Legend L and it is crisp and clear but the Zeiss seems so comparable and the 2 x magnification is not that much. Since I've only been birding for a year, I'd like to ask seasoned birders, do I really need a 10 power too. I have a cheap scope. Feeling I've wasted money. I do not have the power to return the Zeiss. They were a no return deal. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. I do have an inexpensive scope also and have been actively going on trips with our local audubon.

 

[Maljunulo]

I use ten power, and not once have I wished for a smaller image.

 

[Jim M.]

Since I've only been birding for a year, I'd like to ask seasoned birders, do I really need a 10 power too.

No. IMO, the difference between 7/8/10x is so small as to make no practical difference in the vast majority of birding situations. The difference between a scope and bins is what is meaningful.

 

[Troubador]

Do you ever go out birding in bad weather?
We do on holiday when we want to make full use of every single day.

When its dull and rainy or near twilight, an 8x is better for brightness but even more important, when its windy you can hold an 8x steadier than a 10x.

Lee

 

[Pabluefox]

Thank you all. I seem to have no problem holding the 10 power steady, but live in a bit of a snob area where everyone seems to have 1000-2000 binos and scopes I couldn't touch financially. I guess i should really send the 10x back. My budget will like it better. I figured the Vanguard are going to be my car binoculars and the Zeiss will be my serious ones when going with groups for their brightness. Really like these Bushnell and I'm surprised. My husband got me the Bushnell powerview 10x for Christmas and they were camo so I was able to upgrade without the notice so I didn't hurt his feelings. The Zeiss are lost camo too so he may not notice, but I just couldn't even use the powerview after having better optics.

 

[Bencw]

I agree with Jim and Lee, but personally I would never consider going above 8x hand held, the miniscule extra magnification is not worth the extra difficulty keeping it steady. If you compare focusing on an object for a good few minutes with both your 8x and 10x, I bet you will notice the 8x is easier to keep steady for longer. The only exception I have found is the Canon 10x IS, the image stabilisation button makes a world of difference. In fact for me, 7x42 is the one I favour in most situations, nice, steady, comfortable viewing, better depth of feild and brighter.

 

[chill6x6]

I bought a Vanguard 8x32 ED. I was happy with them but wanted a 10x so I invested in a Bushnell Legend L 10x42. Wanted a bit bigger for hawk watching and the shorebirds. I really wanted the Zeiss terra ed 10x42 but didn't want to spend the money. I got the other two at good deals. Found the Zeiss at a local shop at almost half price so I ended up buying an 8x42. Now I'm faced with a guilt trip because I really couldn't afford both that I just bought and do not see that great a difference in their resolution, etc.

I had gone through Leupold McKenzie 8x42 But terrible CA I couldn't handle. Then I got Vortex Diamondback 8x32 but a white throated sparrow ' s head stripes appeared totally yellow. Decided time for change. Fortunately, I live near a Cabelas and they give you a 60 day trial. Then I bought Leupold Acadia 10x42. Didn't like them. Switched to the Vanguard. Really wanted an 8x42 for brightness when the warblers start coming back. Our woods can get quite dark.

Now I love the Bushnell Legend L and it is crisp and clear but the Zeiss seems so comparable and the 2 x magnification is not that much. Since I've only been birding for a year, I'd like to ask seasoned birders, do I really need a 10 power too. I have a cheap scope. Feeling I've wasted money. I do not have the power to return the Zeiss. They were a no return deal. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. I do have an inexpensive scope also and have been actively going on trips with our local audubon.

32mm vs 42mm
I can promise you....in 99% of birding situations...you'll never notice the brightness difference with 8X binoculars...maybe not with 10X. IMO a GOOD pair of 8X32s are just a GOOD as a pair of 8X42s...all things being equal. In other words...your 8X32 Vanguards will probably do anything a 8X42 Terra will do...

10X vs 8X
Yes...there ARE times I've been glad I had a 10X or wished I had them. But there have been times I wished I had 8X instead of 10X too. Depends on the birding environment/situation. I do agree one NEEDS some 10X binoculars. SO...take the Terra's back. SAVE for some 10X42 Vanguard Endeavor EDs or Vortex Viper HDs.... ALSO watch BF classifieds... There have been some great deals lately! :king:

 

[WJC]

I bought a Vanguard 8x32 ED. I was happy with them but wanted a 10x so I invested in a Bushnell Legend L 10x42. Wanted a bit bigger for hawk watching and the shorebirds. I really wanted the Zeiss terra ed 10x42 but didn't want to spend the money. I got the other two at good deals. Found the Zeiss at a local shop at almost half price so I ended up buying an 8x42. Now I'm faced with a guilt trip because I really couldn't afford both that I just bought and do not see that great a difference in their resolution, etc.

I had gone through Leupold McKenzie 8x42 But terrible CA I couldn't handle. Then I got Vortex Diamondback 8x32 but a white throated sparrow ' s head stripes appeared totally yellow. Decided time for change. Fortunately, I live near a Cabelas and they give you a 60 day trial. Then I bought Leupold Acadia 10x42. Didn't like them. Switched to the Vanguard. Really wanted an 8x42 for brightness when the warblers start coming back. Our woods can get quite dark.

Now I love the Bushnell Legend L and it is crisp and clear but the Zeiss seems so comparable and the 2 x magnification is not that much. Since I've only been birding for a year, I'd like to ask seasoned birders, do I really need a 10 power too. I have a cheap scope. Feeling I've wasted money. I do not have the power to return the Zeiss. They were a no return deal. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. I do have an inexpensive scope also and have been actively going on trips with our local audubon.

Oh, my! I nearly had a heart attack just reading this. It doesn’t bloody matter! Get something YOU can be happy with and tell the others to take a long walk on a short pier.

I have played the snob game with electric guitars. Doing so cost me thousands of dollars. The last guitar I had was a Telecaster . . . made in Mexico. My bass, after 4 Ric 4001s, 3 Hofner 500s, and a Jazz Bass . . . a Fender SQUIRE Jazz Bass. In my 20s, I wouldn’t be seen dead with one of those. In my 60s, I reason:

It looks like a Jazz Bass; it feels like a Jazz Bass; it SOUNDS like a Jazz Bass, it WEIGHS like a Jazz Bass, and it cost $1,000 LESS. So, do I want to make music or impress the people who still know and care about the non-existent difference.

My birding glass is a Nikon 8x32 SE, but that should mean little to you. Buy what YOU like, and continue to like it until YOU see a reason to change. This is not rocket science and there is little correlation between dollars and TRUE happiness. I learned WAY too late in the game. :cat:

Bill

 

[Pabluefox]

I have til the end of February to return them so I think I'll play with them until then. But really don't need 3 pair. The 8x have a better field of view but out of all 3, I have to say I'm still torn. Bushnell has a deal here, use the Legend for a year and if you don't like vthem, they will buy them back. Really a no risk situation if they honor it.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I bought a Vanguard 8x32 ED. I was happy with them but wanted a 10x so I invested in a Bushnell Legend L 10x42. Wanted a bit bigger for hawk watching and the shorebirds. I really wanted the Zeiss terra ed 10x42 but didn't want to spend the money. I got the other two at good deals. Found the Zeiss at a local shop at almost half price so I ended up buying an 8x42. Now I'm faced with a guilt trip because I really couldn't afford both that I just bought and do not see that great a difference in their resolution, etc.

I had gone through Leupold McKenzie 8x42 But terrible CA I couldn't handle. Then I got Vortex Diamondback 8x32 but a white throated sparrow ' s head stripes appeared totally yellow. Decided time for change. Fortunately, I live near a Cabelas and they give you a 60 day trial. Then I bought Leupold Acadia 10x42. Didn't like them. Switched to the Vanguard. Really wanted an 8x42 for brightness when the warblers start coming back. Our woods can get quite dark.

Now I love the Bushnell Legend L and it is crisp and clear but the Zeiss seems so comparable and the 2 x magnification is not that much. Since I've only been birding for a year, I'd like to ask seasoned birders, do I really need a 10 power too. I have a cheap scope. Feeling I've wasted money. I do not have the power to return the Zeiss. They were a no return deal. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. I do have an inexpensive scope also and have been actively going on trips with our local audubon.

I have a Swarovski 8x32 SV and the 10x50 SV and I use the 10x50 more because I see more detail. It is harder to manufacturer a good 10x binocular so if you want 10x you have to pay more. I found it is baloney about a 10x being hard to hold. If it balanced good you will have no problem. Yes, it is nice to have both but if you can have only one get the 10x.

 

[WJC]

I have a Swarovski 8x32 SV and the 10x50 SV and I use the 10x50 more because I see more detail. It is harder to manufacturer a good 10x binocular so if you want 10x you have to pay more. I found it is baloney about a 10x being hard to hold. If it balanced good you will have no problem. Yes, it is nice to have both but if you can have only one get the 10x.

Hi Dennis:

Could you explain why a 10x bino is harder to make than a 8x bino?

Bill

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis,post 10,
I understand from your comments that all those really well done studies with regard to the effect of steady images by 10x magnification being worse than with 7x or 8x magnification, are wrong?
Interesting,
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Torview]

Actually I agree with Dennis, a 10X is`nt hard to hold, in fact I find it just as easy as my 7x..................keeping it steady though is a different matter.

 

[WJC]

Actually I agree with Dennis, a 10X is`nt hard to hold, in fact I find it just as easy as my 7x..................keeping it steady though is a different matter.

Hi Torview:

I don’t see how Dennis can make sweeping statements about one’s ability to hold a ten power steady, UNLESS you ARE that one.

I prefer 8x. However, I can hold a 10x just fine; I just CHOOSE not to. That doesn’t make fools or lesser people of those, MUCH YOUNGER THAN ME, who have stood in my showroom and complained that 10x was just “too much for them” to hold.

If you fellows can hold a 10x steady, I say that’s great, at least if you want and need a 10x binocular. Please consider, however, that you don’t/can’t control the physiological strengths and weakness of others who may have a lesser constitution. As with so many things in optics, that’s not BAD or WRONG . . . just DIFFERENT! :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Torview]

Bill. it was a poor attempt at humour.

 

[WJC]

Bill. it was a poor attempt at humour.

Considering what we have going on on the political scene around here, I should have recognized it in a minute. 'Sorry 'bout that. :cat:

Bill

 

[Pinewood]

Hi Dennis:

Could you explain why a 10x bino is harder to make than a 8x bino?

Bill

Hello Bill,

Someone once informed me that the idea that a 10x was harder to make than an 8x was just one of the myths of binocular marketing, justifying a higher price..

I think you may have been that someone.

I must confess that I carry a 10x32 but only with a lower power glass. There are a few occasions when I need a little more magnification. I seem to lose almost as much clarity to shaking than I gain from a larger image.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

 

[amears]

It's all a balancing act.
Want light weight bins you can wear all day without noticing them? 32mm
Want bright bins that will be best at dawn and dusk? 42mm
Want a wide field to help you get on rainforest birds? 8x
Want a bit more mag for more open country birding? 10x
Some birders don't care about some of these - but many do.

Add in some subtleties like:
32mm stay clean longer (less easy for dirty hands/shirts/etc to make contact with the lenses)
Some people simply find larger or smaller bins sit in the hands more comfortably

They are all different, e.g. saying 32s are no different to 42s is misleading.

Personally, I've owned 2 pairs of mid-range quality 9x36 and that is the perfect spec. Unfortunately, the top brands don't make it, and you get so much more from the top brands that I compromise (currently using 8x32s aimed at long days in filthy rainforest).

 

[Pileatus]

Dennis,post 10,
I understand from your comments that all those really well done studies with regard to the effect of steady images by 10x magnification being worse than with 7x or 8x magnification, are wrong?
Interesting,
Gijs van Ginkel

The trick is to learn how to let the image "float" so smoothly the data can be easily deciphered by the eye. I apply shooting techniques acquired in my youth (thank you Gunny Acosta) that have proved invaluable while birding. Trying to hold a bin rock steady is the job of a tripod, not a human.

 

[WJC]

Hello Bill,

Someone once informed me that the idea that a 10x was harder to make than an 8x was just one of the myths of binocular marketing, justifying a higher price..

I think you may have been that someone.

I must confess that I carry a 10x32 but only with a lower power glass. There are a few occasions when I need a little more magnification. I seem to lose almost as much clarity to shaking than I gain from a larger image.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Alas, no . . . but I wish I had.

I once asked the powers that be why a C-5 cost nearly as much as a C-8. It was because it WAS harder to make.

Bill