How much of x10 (over x8) is psychological? (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

I used nothing but 10x for almost 30 years then I swapped to 8x (via a brief period with 8.5x) for greater steadiness and bigger depth of field. I have never walked away from a nature encounter I had using an 8x and said 'if only I'd had a 10x, the experience would have been so much better'. I do have 10x and there are places where I regularly take 10x and I enjoy using this magnification, but I really don't consider 10x as vital to my nature observations.

Lee

This is especially funny to me, because for years I kept saying "I've never wished for a smaller image."

Now that I have switched to 8X, I am finding that what is obviously a "smaller image" is just as "good" and "useful". (better in some ways, but I think that is glass and coatings)

So I guess in the end, the joke was on me, and when I bought Swarovski EL SV I really probably have bought the 8.5X instead of the 10X.

 

[lmans66]

I have used 10x for 20 years....recently went to 8x and now, ...back to 10x. To me, a huge difference. I love the 10's...can't go to an 8.

 

[Sancho]

8x: hand-held. 10x: IS. Problem solved. I prefer 10x generally, and I don't think it's merely a psychological numbers game. I can simply 'see' more detail. Or get 'closer', whichever.

 

[ajfossey]

8x/8.5x when birding with a scope or in woodland. 10x/12x when birding with no scope or walking the dog away from woodland in more open habitat.

Not hard and fast rules to rigidly follow, but generally what works (for me) and always enjoy giving all the optics an occasional outing!

 

[Troubador]

This is especially funny to me, because for years I kept saying "I've never wished for a smaller image."

Now that I have switched to 8X, I am finding that what is obviously a "smaller image" is just as "good" and "useful". (better in some ways, but I think that is glass and coatings)

So I guess in the end, the joke was on me, and when I bought Swarovski EL SV I really probably have bought the 8.5X instead of the 10X.

It depends how you define smaller image too because it isn't quite as simple as it seems at first. I mean that the depth of field of 8x is bigger, so in this sense the 'useful image' is bigger with 8x, and since the field of view is larger, the image is bigger in this sense too.
And don't forget bino shake with 10x.

Lee

 

[pppppvvvv]

I had a duovid for a few years (8+12). There were occasions when I would step up to 12x, and make an i.d. based on an extra feature. But not that often, I guess 8x and 10x would be even rarer to make meaningful differences.

(12x was also better on ferries and seawatches, for birds)

My preferred config now, in open habitats, would be 8x and scope.

Interestingly, when I compared the duovids at 8x with "better" fixed 8x binoculars, I found the duovid "apparently"(!) had a slightly larger image than the wider field of view models, which I couldn't understand.

 

[edwincjones]

If you eliminate the cheap junk and the highly specialized optics,
then there is really not that much difference-at least for most of us.

edj

 

[Maljunulo]

It depends how you define smaller image too because it isn't quite as simple as it seems at first. I mean that the depth of field of 8x is bigger, so in this sense the 'useful image' is bigger with 8x, and since the field of view is larger, the image is bigger in this sense too.
And don't forget bino shake with 10x.

Lee

I suppose a smaller image would be defined as "an image which subtends a smaller angle than a comparison image."

 

[Troubador]

I guess a smaller image would be defined as "an image which subtends a smaller angle than a comparison image."

That is certainly one way to define it but this omits consideration of depth of field, reduced magnification compression and field of view. For example one of the most important factors is the depth of field together with the basic feature of any 'telescopic' optical system: each subject imaged by the instrument shows the dimension perpendicular to the optical axis in direct proportion to the power (hence your definition), while the dimensions along the axis are compressed in direct proportion of square of the power. That means the lower power has the compression reduced by the same proportion and it is this that makes the nice „3D“ effect together with the depth of field.

But of course your definition would be the most commonly used.

Lee

 

[lmans66]

I suppose a smaller image would be defined as "an image which subtends a smaller angle than a comparison image."

Not sure what you mean by that? When I look thru a 8x and 10x...sure, not much difference and it does depend on if you are looking at something far /near....and it depends on the value you place on FOV. The latter for some reason doesn't bother me too much but (and it might be pscho related), I do see a difference in 'up-closeness' .... I enjoy the image that a 10x gives and missed it when I didn't have it.

I bird with a 10x in all habitat..... In fact I was just journaling a bit last summer on birding a forested area and how much I preferred the 10x, even in a forested area. I think I boils down to what you are 'used to'..... I have used a 10x most for 30+ years and have birded the jungles of South America to the outback in Australia, let alone seabirds and just am used to that little bit extra I feel I get from the additional power. If given a 8x (such as my Wife has), I just don't want to pick it up. She loves it though. jim

 

[GrampaTom]

How much of X10, (over X8), is Psychological?
Psychological? Unless one is discussing liking one or the other, not much.

How bout intellectual? That seems closer to the issue. Troubador's #45 speaks to this. Greater depth of field which is having more objects in focus front to back - having to turn the focus knob less often (or critically) - can be cool in some instances but does not bring an object closer or make it "bigger." A wider field of view is well... wider. We see more information left to right, (or in the circle). I guess it can be said its a bigger field of view. It still doesn't bring the object of interest closer or make it "bigger." If the object of interest is 8 times closer rather than 10, its seen as smaller. If you then surround the item of interest with more information, do to say a wider field, this for some of us exacerbates the loss.

Read, though, 12x42 NL instead of 10x42 NL for birding ? especially Bobalob and Tenex later comments. Thinking about this and noticing, (paying attention really) to my own experience with 10s since 1984, different words are required. In fact it was the comparison to an old preference for Macro and close up photography that made the light go on. In most cases, for me, I'm looking for a "macro-like" image. I want the item of interest to be as big as my shaky hands will allow me to see it. I want the item to fill the view, as much as possible so that I can see the little wonderful details, that as humans wild critters never let us close enough to see. I would rather not be distracted by other stuff. I need some width of field to locate, and track, but thats it.

As for shaky.... last week I encountered a couple ladies on my favorite birding trail. They were "older" probably 60ish, but a bit younger than me at 76. Both were smallish, closer to 5'3, then my 6'3. We had a lovely time reviewing what we had seen that day and what was brought in by this years migration. Then I noticed a pair of EL1250s dangling from one lady's neck. She explained they had been delivered as a mistake in her order, but after trying them out she's was thrilled by all the stuff she could see, and hadn't looked back. Yep.

Shake is there. If i'm huffing and puffing but just want to identify a bird, the shakes not much of an issue. When my preference for studying detail is the point, a steadier hand, a bit of technique, a rest in some form, is required. Its doable. Are folks giving up too easily? Tracking birds in flight? Takes practice, but just that.

Im not dismissing the benefit many here describe with 8 or even 7X. Most people with cameras like snapshots, group views of family events, and wide vistas. Me to, sometimes. I have an 8, as I've written elsewhere. Its a beauty. Its not a 10, psychologically or intellectually. It has a place. The new NL is intriguing, see Tenex' comments here, Yet another NL mini-review (yawn). That and Bobalob's comments help me see how a really wide and deep view can be something different, the stuff more like Tobias Mennle, describes. And a reason I should own and learn where that view is preferred.

Different strokes.

GTom

 

[[email protected]]

The 8x has it's advantages being steadier, better DOF and a wider FOV but sometimes, especially in open areas the extra detail and reach from a 10x is very nice. It is nice to have an 8x and a 10x with a 42 mm objective.