Have 8x32, 7x42. Worth having 10x(42 or 32)? (1 Viewer)

[wdc]

I use 8 and 10x regularly, but more often I find I use the 10. To me it is primarily an aesthetic issue... I like the birds to be close. It is possible at long distances the 10 could make a difference in an ID, but in general I'd say 8 and 10 are pretty equal. The 8 will likely have a wider field, so may really help with quick ID on moving birds. A wider fov is a true advantage in that circumstance. In dense foliage, the 8 seems a better choice. In winter with bare trees, or a variety of types of view, including over water, the greater magnification makes it more compelling, for me anyways. That's the kind of rationale I've used, but then I'll grab the 10, when I maybe should be grabbing an 8, and its really not that big of a deal after all.

Try 10x and see for yourself. It may feel like a disadvantage if your primary goal is to ID fast moving birds.

The irony of it is that as soon as you look through a scope on a tripod at 25x or more, the difference between 8 and 10 seems rather insignificant.

Still, I seem to enjoy the 10 more often these days.

Only you can decide what works for you.

-Bill

 

[sillyak]

I find the extra reach of 10x to assist in IDing more distant birds.

I find I can hold steady enough to give an advantage standing without support. I am in my 30s, fit and have shot competitively for over a decade though.

I also find it hinders slightly in close up and busy forest environments due to the narrowed FOV.

I like the narrowed DOF of 10s, it gives subject separation.

I live in a pretty open part of the world, so I use 10s, if most of my birding was in thick forest I would use an 8x with a wide FOV.

 

[Richard D]

Don't be afraid to try 12x or even 15x - both can be handheld by a lot of people too if they are heavy enough and well balanced. The extra mass of 50/56's adds a lot of inertia which reduces shake. For me I've not found a 10x25 that I can comfortably hold steady, 10x32 or 42 can be okay depending on the binocular, some I can't hold steady enough others aren't bad - bigger beasts are much better for short periods, although you reach the point where you have to rest your arms for a bit... Best advice as always is to try and see what suits you, and don't assume because one pair in a size format doesn't work, all binoculars in that format will work the same.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

I find the extra reach of 10x to assist in IDing more distant birds.

I find I can hold steady enough to give an advantage standing without support.

My experience is similar. My girlfriend used to carry a Leica 10 x 50 pair, while I was using a Nikon 8 x 42 pair. However, my eyesight is better than hers. When we both were unable to identify a bird, she handed over the Leicas to me, and that sometimes did the trick. Often, it did not because the bird simply was too far away for either pair.

As her Leicas were quite a bit larger, heavier, and more expensive than my Nikons, for me the undeniable but limited advantage never appeared worth upgrading. However, recently I came across the Canon 10 x 42 with image stabilization, and couldn't resist because the advantage appears much more pronounced (though I don't have the opportunity for a direct comparison to the Leicas any more).

If identification at light weight were the primary purpose, for example in a monitoring situation where aesthetic enjoyment isn't a priority, I could imagine something like this would work quite well:



It's simply a long-lens action camera mounted to an ordinary pair of binoculars to record anything in its field of vision (which is slightly larger than the binoculars') for identification at a later point in time. (The videos it records can be reviewed on the phone, for example.)

(The action cam is a Runcam Scopecam 4K. The adapter is 3D printed.)

Regards,

Henning

 

[GrampaTom]

It looks like 61% of birder's prefer 8x and 23% prefer 10x.

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

Another fun poll, this time which binocular format do you prefer. With a limited number of options there will be a few omissions, but if you have a format not in the poll, please share it in the thread below.

www.birdforum.net

Well no Dennis. You cite that recent Birdforum, Binocular subgroup, survey, as proof. Thats a bit of a reach. It surely represents the opinions of those who come here. Does it though express the opinion of "birders" at large, in general, as a whole, however....?

 

[gweller]

You don't feel the Bird Forum subgroup, which is a sampling of birders from all over the world, is a good sampling of birders at large? I feel it is a pretty representative sample of normal birders.

Remember Dennis, you yourself said you didn't like statistics at college..... Actually all that survey says is that 61 per cent of the respondents to the survey prefer 8x etc. The question is whether the sample of respondents is indicative of birders in general? Given that most of us here are interested in binoculars it could well be that we don't reflect the general population of birders. Who knows? This survey doesn't tell you that at all. I suspect there are a lot of casual birders out there who go for 10x mag bins, thinking that bigger is better etc. But again who knows!

 

[GrampaTom]

Remember Dennis, you yourself said you didn't like statistics at college..... Actually all that survey says is that 61 per cent of the respondents to the survey prefer 8x etc. The question is whether the sample of respondents is indicative of birders in general? Given that most of us here are interested in binoculars it could well be that we don't reflect the general population of birders. Who knows? This survey doesn't tell you that at all. I suspect there are a lot of casual birders out there who go for 10x mag bins, thinking that bigger is better etc. But again who knows!

Thank you.

 

[William Lewis]

2 pence to add to the rest. If your only taking one optic and can hold it steady I'd go for a 10x. If your taking 2 optics you can tone down the mag on the binoculars and pack a small scope and monopod.

 

[Mike Crawley]

10 x 42 would be my advice
Unless you are only going to use them in good light, you’ll notice the difference in performance from 8x32 and especially 7x42

That said, there is no substitute for trying a pair of binoculars and seeing if they fit your face and hands

 

[edwincjones]

For me this nitch is being filled by my Fujinon 14x40 IS (many here prefer the Canon 10x42IS)
with a bino harness.
The FOV is limited, the weight is ok with harness, the optics and ID at a distance are great.
No problem with shakes and the ergonomics are not bad.

edj

 

[wllmspd]

I agree with William, normally I’ll pack an 8x wide pair of bins and a light scope.
If I only want to have one optic then I’ll take my elderly 12x36 canon stabilised, they pull in more detail and the field of view is not too constrictive. For long distance ID you want as much stability as you can get, monopods , beanbags and various strap/pole gizmos can help, as can a forehead rest (like the NL pure have).
Otherwise 8-10x is a minor difference.

Peter

 

[LucaPCP]

Thank you all! And I apologize for having re-started this topic!
I will think about it. The best in fact may be to stay with the 8x, and to put in my backpack my Kite IS 16x42 for the occasional far bird ID. The fact is also that when I hike, I have noticed, I do shake a bit holding the 8x; not too much but they are not perfectly steady either.

For the curious: The Kite have large chromatic aberrations if the eye is not perfectly centered in the objective. The IS works well, the focus is a bit fidgety (at that magnification), and the contrast is lower than with my Leicas. They are not binoculars to enjoy the view. Every time I use them and then use my Leica, I have an "oh wow this is so much better" feeling. But the Kite do allow me to ID far away birds much better than my 8x, and they are relatively light (750g more or less), robust, and weather resistant. I sometimes dream about the Canons and Fujinons, but those seem to be heavier, and I don't know how much better their optical quality would be.

But so the most reasonable may be that I enjoy the 8x, and put up with packing the Kites for when I really want more power.

 

[[email protected]]

Thank you all! And I apologize for having re-started this topic!
I will think about it. The best in fact may be to stay with the 8x, and to put in my backpack my Kite IS 16x42 for the occasional far bird ID. The fact is also that when I hike, I have noticed, I do shake a bit holding the 8x; not too much but they are not perfectly steady either.

For the curious: The Kite have large chromatic aberrations if the eye is not perfectly centered in the objective. The IS works well, the focus is a bit fidgety (at that magnification), and the contrast is lower than with my Leicas. They are not binoculars to enjoy the view. Every time I use them and then use my Leica, I have an "oh wow this is so much better" feeling. But the Kite do allow me to ID far away birds much better than my 8x, and they are relatively light (750g more or less), robust, and weather resistant. I sometimes dream about the Canons and Fujinons, but those seem to be heavier, and I don't know how much better their optical quality would be.

But so the most reasonable may be that I enjoy the 8x, and put up with packing the Kites for when I really want more power.

I had a pair of the Kite's IS 16x42 and I got rid of them because of the CA and the lower contrast. I agree they are not the best optically. The Canon's and the Fujinon's are much better, but as you say, they are generally heavier.

 

[Paultricounty]

I usually go birding with my Leica 8x32 UV HD+, and sometimes with my Leica 7x42 UV HD+. My typical outing involves a hike between 4 and 8 Km, just because I like hiking. The UV 8x32 are fantastic, and the 7x42 give me an easier view. I don't perceive very much the difference in magnification; what I perceive is the difference in weight, and the fact that the 7x42 have easier eye placement, and are easier to use with sunglasses, which sometimes I have to do due to high glare/UV in the sky (US west...). Both are optically superb.

In many situations, I bird in semi-open places, where I end up carefully focusing my 8x32 and try to glean as much detail as possible from a not-so-close (>20m) bird to make an ID. This is often necessary, as many birds are not easily approached, and others are highly mobile, so if I spot them on a far away tree, I better get an ID immediately. Of late, I have been wondering whether I should also own a pair of 10x42. I would likely lean towards the Leica UV 10x42: still fairly compact, I like the ergonomics, I like the traditional-style eyepiece and objective covers, etc.

My main question is: would this be a useful upgrade? When carefully trying to get an ID for a bird not on this tree, but on that tree over there (picture yourself a tree 20-50m away), would a 10x really be better than my lighter 8x? Is the tradeoff -- marginally more magnification, marginally more shake -- useful or not?

Some of you might remember I have also stabilized Kite 16x42. I like them... but... the image quality is not up to par, and I find it's often very important for me to be quick in getting an ID. I cannot switch from 8x to those 16x, often the bird has gotten away, and it's much easier to explore and find birds with an 8x. So when I carry both, I use the 8x32 98% of the time, and typically in an outing there are at most 1-2 birds I can identify with the 16x42 but I was not able with the 8x; often the bird has gotten away by the time I can use the 16x.

So I am looking for a binocular I can use as the single binocular I take with me.

I have read various threads in which some of you mentioned having Leicas 8x32, 7x42, and 10x42. I already know that if I were to get 10x42, the ones I want would be the Leicas. My question is more whether having a 10x is worth it, or -- for the same exit pupil size -- I should just enjoy my 8x32 and their light weight.

Your opinion is much appreciated!

I prefer the 7 and 8s as well and have both the UVHDs you mentioned, great glass. But just as you said that, little extra in the tens does help a bit. The two best 10s on the market (IMHO) similar in weight to our UVHDs in 1042 is the Swaro NL & Zeiss SF. I’ve used them both, the NL is the way to go for the situation you describe.

I’ll elaborate a little. First, we already mentioned the weight is almost no difference from the Leica 7s, Next is the NL FOV of 399 ft at 1000 yards. That’s bigger than most 7s and 8s, so nothing is lost trying to get a good visual field when scanning. The next is because of the large FOV there is a feeling of less shake, ad the the headrest option to the NL and I find the shake is not much different than a good 8x. And another wonderful thing about the NL, is the excellent edge to edge quality, it’s almost completely usable, unlike the Leica’s.

Im not going to get into the optical quality here because most of us all the know that NL’s are close to the best of the best (if not the best). Also I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole here about glare (subjective from user to user) or a few bad focusers , not a single pair of any binocular manufacturer hasn’t had a few clunkers get out.

These are the 10s that I use to accomplish exactly what you are describing and looking for. This one binocular covers a lot of ground and if I had to choose one binocular, it probably would be the NL in 10x42. It would be a very tough choice though because the other one I’d be choosing it against is the Leica Noctivids in 8x42. There is a problem in making that choice here , it’s called a Habicht. 😏

There are other optics options but for long hikes they don’t make sense here , at least for me. On shorter excursions I’ll take a Ultravid 832, Kowa 833 or Swaro Habicht 830 and carry in a Swaro 12x50EL on a tripod and cover all the bases.

good luck.

Paul

 

[Pinewood]

Hello LucaPCP,

A good 7x42 is a great all around glass, but if you want to carry two binoculars a 10x32 might be handy. I find an 8x32 to meet most of my needs but a 7x42 and a 10x32 did provide me with a very useful combination.

Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood

 

[wdc]

Thank you all! And I apologize for having re-started this topic!
I will think about it. The best in fact may be to stay with the 8x, and to put in my backpack my Kite IS 16x42 for the occasional far bird ID. The fact is also that when I hike, I have noticed, I do shake a bit holding the 8x; not too much but they are not perfectly steady either.

For the curious: The Kite have large chromatic aberrations if the eye is not perfectly centered in the objective. The IS works well, the focus is a bit fidgety (at that magnification), and the contrast is lower than with my Leicas. They are not binoculars to enjoy the view. Every time I use them and then use my Leica, I have an "oh wow this is so much better" feeling. But the Kite do allow me to ID far away birds much better than my 8x, and they are relatively light (750g more or less), robust, and weather resistant. I sometimes dream about the Canons and Fujinons, but those seem to be heavier, and I don't know how much better their optical quality would be.

But so the most reasonable may be that I enjoy the 8x, and put up with packing the Kites for when I really want more power.

Your comments about the Kite as a tool to make an ID, rather than provide a great view, reminds me that I regularly use my zoom camera that way. I carry a Nikon p950, which weighs in at 1075 grams. The range of the lens is the equivalent of 24-2000 in a 35mm format. With it I can optically get about a 26x image at full zoom (at 75mm zoom, the eyepiece view looks 'normal'), and then click into that image even further if I need to. It has allowed me to ID birds I could not pull in with the Binos. And it takes decent pictures!

Cheers,

Bill

 

[takitam]

Remember Dennis, you yourself said you didn't like statistics at college..... Actually all that survey says is that 61 per cent of the respondents to the survey prefer 8x etc. The question is whether the sample of respondents is indicative of birders in general? Given that most of us here are interested in binoculars it could well be that we don't reflect the general population of birders. Who knows? This survey doesn't tell you that at all. I suspect there are a lot of casual birders out there who go for 10x mag bins, thinking that bigger is better etc. But again who knows!

While technically (the best kind of true, I wonder - what if we apply this approach to all social science surveys. They may have better methodologies and more representative subject groups but ultimately all of it boils down to your quote in bold. Do you scrutinize every other survey and every other summary with the same critical eye

Back to the original question. My answer is - having binoculars that are one step different from each other e.g. 7x and 8x, 8x and 10x, 10x and 12x, is not necessary. It's fine to have them if binoculars are your hobby but they provide little practical difference in most applications. Having bins that differ more than one step e.g. 7x and 10x, 8x and 12x and so on, is on the other hand much more reasonable.

I personally think that I would never buy an unstabilized 10x. There is just so much shake that having extra magnification does not actually mean seeing more. At least not in a comfortable way that favours a longer observation.

 

[Paultricounty]

While technically (the best kind of true, I wonder - what if we apply this approach to all social science surveys. They may have better methodologies and more representative subject groups but ultimately all of it boils down to your quote in bold. Do you scrutinize every other survey and every other summary with the same critical eye

Back to the original question. My answer is - having binoculars that are one step different from each other e.g. 7x and 8x, 8x and 10x, 10x and 12x, is not necessary. It's fine to have them if binoculars are your hobby but they provide little practical difference in most applications. Having bins that differ more than one step e.g. 7x and 10x, 8x and 12x and so on, is on the other hand much more reasonable.

I personally think that I would never buy an unstabilized 10x. There is just so much shake that having extra magnification does not actually mean seeing more. At least not in a comfortable way that favours a longer observation.

Necessary is one thing, reasonable is another. Appropriate, fair or moderate is very subjective. For nature observing with a Binocular, it is necessary to have at least one. I feel there are differences that are noticeable in those small jumps from 7x, 8x, 10x and so on. Don’t want to get to deep into the image differences here, only to say what’s reasonable for one person is not reasonable to another. And that’s after I just viewed NDHunters post of his inventory 😟

On the other hand I’ve never been a huge fan of 10x binoculars for the reasons you describe, until I got the NL1042’s. These binoculars are as stable as some 8x binos, especially when comparing to 8x with an optic of less than 400ft at a thousand yards. I can easily keep the NL 1042 as stable as I keep a UVHD 842. And the gimmicky Swaro head rest does help.

just my two cents.

Paul

 

[gweller]

While technically (the best kind of true, I wonder - what if we apply this approach to all social science surveys. They may have better methodologies and more representative subject groups but ultimately all of it boils down to your quote in bold. Do you scrutinize every other survey and every other summary with the same critical eye

Actually yes I do! As a wise man once said (Lord Beaconsfield I think) , "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

[SeldomPerched]

I usually go birding with my Leica 8x32 UV HD+, and sometimes with my Leica 7x42 UV HD+. My typical outing involves a hike between 4 and 8 Km, just because I like hiking. The UV 8x32 are fantastic, and the 7x42 give me an easier view. I don't perceive very much the difference in magnification; what I perceive is the difference in weight, and the fact that the 7x42 have easier eye placement, and are easier to use with sunglasses, which sometimes I have to do due to high glare/UV in the sky (US west...). Both are optically superb.

In many situations, I bird in semi-open places, where I end up carefully focusing my 8x32 and try to glean as much detail as possible from a not-so-close (>20m) bird to make an ID. This is often necessary, as many birds are not easily approached, and others are highly mobile, so if I spot them on a far away tree, I better get an ID immediately. Of late, I have been wondering whether I should also own a pair of 10x42. I would likely lean towards the Leica UV 10x42: still fairly compact, I like the ergonomics, I like the traditional-style eyepiece and objective covers, etc.

My main question is: would this be a useful upgrade? When carefully trying to get an ID for a bird not on this tree, but on that tree over there (picture yourself a tree 20-50m away), would a 10x really be better than my lighter 8x? Is the tradeoff -- marginally more magnification, marginally more shake -- useful or not?

Some of you might remember I have also stabilized Kite 16x42. I like them... but... the image quality is not up to par, and I find it's often very important for me to be quick in getting an ID. I cannot switch from 8x to those 16x, often the bird has gotten away, and it's much easier to explore and find birds with an 8x. So when I carry both, I use the 8x32 98% of the time, and typically in an outing there are at most 1-2 birds I can identify with the 16x42 but I was not able with the 8x; often the bird has gotten away by the time I can use the 16x.

So I am looking for a binocular I can use as the single binocular I take with me.

I have read various threads in which some of you mentioned having Leicas 8x32, 7x42, and 10x42. I already know that if I were to get 10x42, the ones I want would be the Leicas. My question is more whether having a 10x is worth it, or -- for the same exit pupil size -- I should just enjoy my 8x32 and their light weight.

Your opinion is much appreciated!

Hi Luca,

Just to say that you have vocalized my own wondering over exactly this question (and like you I use the same two Leicas — and one or two Zeiss and Swaro). I am not an experienced birder and don't get to view as often as I'd like at the moment but I have tried three 10x bins and sadly am convinced that unless, like Lee, some stabilization is at hand (e.g. elbows on knees or on a ledge or steady branch etc) I can't keep a 10 steady enough to get as good or enjoyable a view as with a 7 or 8. The 10s I tried varied from compact to full size: 10x32 FL, 10x42 SLC final version, and 10x50 EL Field Pro. I sold the 32 and the 50, both with a heavy heart as they were superb in their different ways. I still have the SLC in case I really need 10x (which has never yet happened) but honestly I prefer the 8x version as the difference in steadiness of image to me is very obvious.

I do notice a marked difference personally between 7x and 8x but whether you do or don't, there is the option of the 8.5x magnification of the Swarovski EL in its various iterations. If you don't mind flat field and a different look from the Leica (cooler colour, probably sharper definition) you might find as I do that it not only gives an obviously higher mag image than the 7x but also is on the right side of the acceptable shake threshold.

Just a thought! I should add that I am approaching the subject more from an enjoyment than a necessity to ID in difficult circumstances point of view.


Tom