Binoculars Poll - What format do you prefer ( 8x32, 10x50 etc. ) (1 Viewer)

[edwincjones]

Maybe it is an aging birder thing.
When younger I liked the big macho binoculars, as I get older I prefer smaller optics.

As we age we get bored carrying hugh chunks of glass and deer carcass
while kicking wolves and grizzly bears;
and face it kicking one grizzly is enough for most.

edj

 

[lmans66]

Looks like the voters have cast the ballots to be 8 x 42... But, that leaves a questions of what is lacking in either the 8 x 32 or the 10x?

There is that fine balance that people prefer. For instance, why would one choose an 8 x 32 over the 8 x 42 with exception of overall size or weight of bins? I can appreciate the difference between the 10x and either of the 8's in question, as some people just like to be up closer with the 10x while others prefer to have a larger field of view with any of the 8's ( 8x 32 or 8x 42). But why a 8x32 over the 8x42 or vise-versa?

Now... would a 7x42 (as in the old days) be a compromise?jim

 

[chill6x6]

Looks like the voters have cast the ballots to be 8 x 42... But, that leaves a questions of what is lacking in either the 8 x 32 or the 10x?

There is that fine balance that people prefer. For instance, why would one choose an 8 x 32 over the 8 x 42 with exception of overall size or weight of bins? I can appreciate the difference between the 10x and either of the 8's in question, as some people just like to be up closer with the 10x while others prefer to have a larger field of view with any of the 8's ( 8x 32 or 8x 42). But why a 8x32 over the 8x42 or vise-versa?

Now... would a 7x42 (as in the old days) be a compromise?jim

32mm vs 42mm. For the MOST part, personal preference. Some models aren't available as 32mm and some aren't in 42mm. So another reason is FOV. A Conquest HD 8X42 has a FOV of 384ft, a 8X32 is 420ft. So I ask myself why carry a same model binocular with less FOV that weighs more?

 

[soloflyfisher]

Why doesn't anyone make a 9x45? That would seem ideal for those who want more magnification than an 8x with a large exit pupil, but not something quite so large as a 10x50.

 

[lmans66]

Why doesn't anyone make a 9x45? That would seem ideal for those who want more magnification than an 8x with a large exit pupil, but not something quite so large as a 10x50.

Maven makes a 9x45....the B2 for $1000. Parts made in Japan but assembled in the US...I have been looking at this as a possible brand. I like what I see for the dollars. Not my Zeiss Aphas, but appear to be well made.

 

[Scott Lowrey]

The Mavens are quite nice and for the money hard to beat. The 9x has me thinking of selling my 8x B3’s.

 

[Patudo]

Looks like the voters have cast the ballots to be 8 x 42... But, that leaves a questions of what is lacking in either the 8 x 32 or the 10x?

There is that fine balance that people prefer. For instance, why would one choose an 8 x 32 over the 8 x 42 with exception of overall size or weight of bins? I can appreciate the difference between the 10x and either of the 8's in question, as some people just like to be up closer with the 10x while others prefer to have a larger field of view with any of the 8's ( 8x 32 or 8x 42). But why a 8x32 over the 8x42 or vise-versa?

Now... would a 7x42 (as in the old days) be a compromise?jim

Interesting results. The 8x40/42 has for decades been considered the classic birder's format, and notwithstanding the development of superb 8x32s and wide-field 10xs, appears - at least from this sample - still to be.

lmans66 - I have 8x32 and 8x42 from the same series (Zeiss FL) and in short, although the 8x32 gets used quite a bit more, especially at this time of the year, there are jobs for which the x42 gets the nod - in particular, the kind of dull grey winter mornings that the UK specialises in. Under those circumstances the x42 is more effortless to look through and the extra light gathering ability of the larger binocular is helpful. When visiting sunnier climes I take the x32 and don't miss the x42. The 7x42 is a bit of a different beast with its lower magnification. When using mine I don't have trouble finding or identifying birds, but I use 8x a lot more as I just prefer my birds to look that little bit bigger. Most of mine are normally 400m or more away (today over 550m), so they are already quite small.

I like having the choice of these fine binoculars (and others) but must admit it is not really the most cost-effective use of the funds spent. Whenever I use my brother's 8.5x Fieldpro I think I ought to sell my entire collection and just get one. As all-rounders go, it is the best I've ever tried. A true modern day classic.

 

[soloflyfisher]

Maven makes a 9x45....the B2 for $1000. Parts made in Japan but assembled in the US...I have been looking at this as a possible brand. I like what I see for the dollars. Not my Zeiss Aphas, but appear to be well made.

Interesting. If one of the alpha brands tried that format, I might finally replace my Leica 8X32s.

 

[Euan Buchan]

My Binoculars can change format from 8x to 24x so I can easily change whenever I want but I do like 8x better.

 

[Telsanar]

I consider this poll very interesting and am surprised about the results for one or the other format. I am rather new to the binoculars community and am wondering, why - comparably - few owners have a 10x32 in their collection? This can also be observed when reading reviews (e.g. Allbinos) - that format seems rather uncommon / unpopular.

Why is that?

Is it because of a lack of good/quality options (I've tested the SV EL 10x32 which have been excellent in my humble opinion), size, combination of magnitude and smaller format ("bad light")? What are your thoughts on that? Maybe the upcoming ZEISS Victory SF x32 will change things here?

I personally look for a high-end bino for daytime-use which is not too heavy (thus smaller format: x32, instead of x42), has the higher magnitude (10), a good FOV and ideally an open bridge design, which I like a lot. I've compared the 8x mag to the 10x mag and don't understand, why so many people prefer the 8x mag other than keeping a steady picture more easily. I am curious about your opinions and experiences

 

[ceasar]

Hi Telsanar,

10x32 binoculars are very poor sellers. I remember the owner of "CameraLand New York" complaining about it here on Bird Forum a couple of years ago. That being the case you won't find a big selection to choose from. The inexpensive ones aren't very good and the expensive used ones are hard to find.

I originally had a Nikon 10x32 EDG I (Open Bridge version) which I got at a good price when Nikon discontinued it.

Optically it was a great binocular but after a couple of years it's covering began to bubble and come loose. I returned it to Nikon under warranty and they replaced it for free with their new single hinged EDG II which I still use. Its covering is still in perfect condition. (Unfortunately they discontinued the EDG 2 versions a couple of years ago.) If you can find one at a favorable price I recommend it highly.

Here is a link from Allbinos with its specs which are typical of top rated 10x32 roof prism binoculars. https://www.allbinos.com/896-Nikon_10x32_EDG-binoculars_specifications.html

Another option is to see if you can get a Nikon 10x35 E II Porro Prism. They have a big FOV. (They are not Waterproof) I understand that they are still sold in Japan and may be available on E-bay.

I purchased a refurbished one about 16 years ago and it is still working fine!

https://www.allbinos.com/804-Nikon_10x35E_II-binoculars_specifications.html
See the 3 good reviews there.

Bob

 

[Telsanar]

Thanks Bob for your answer. I already also understood, that eye placement and the rather small exit pupil is an issue for some users as well. I'll have a closer look for your recommendations. Thanks a lot!

 

[NY_Birder]

I think I am a convert to the 10x42 format after using 8x42 for the past ten years.

 

[Ries]

I remember I voted 10x42 because I was of the opinion it offers best magnification vs clarity combination. But then again; I don't have experience with a lot of other sizes. Have not been birding long, not the money to buy a lot of them, not the type to harass stores with non-buying elaborate testing, never been to birdfairs for instance where one can try loads at different stands (don't even know if NL has them). So 10x42 is basically all I know.

Now, a few years onwards from starting birding, and reading a lot here on BF, comparing bins specs and reading reviews, myself changing and learning what I need, want and find important in bins...I notice I'm shifting towards 8x32. Wider fov, less weight and smaller size while the magnification and diameter are sufficient for most of my uses.

Right now I have a 6.5x32 on the way, to add to my 10x42 for other uses. But I feel that about a year from now they both might go for a 8x32 which as singular bins would probably cover all my needs. Interesting development.