Is It Too Big, Is It Too Small..? (1 Viewer)

[humakt]

I have three sets of binoculars - all Hawke by the way.
A set of 10x25, a 10x42, and 12x50.

Now, what with it being Christmas Eve, and the inevitability that at some point today I will just be getting in the way, I thought I'd go out for a bit.
So I was looking over what I would take with me.
Then it occurred to me. I just about never use the 10x42s. I have often seen this size described as 'the birdwatcher's favourite'.
And I wonder why.
I should say that I have never actually gone bird watching. By that I mean 'formal' bird watching - going out with the sole intent on seeing what birds I can see. I often go out and know that I stand a good chance of seeing stuff and so will often go equipped, but the animals I see are a by-product (and a very pleasurable and gratefully accepted one) of what i am actually doing - most of the time hiking/walking, often camping.
But I don't see how that changes things.
Here's why.
10x42s are either too big for one situation or not big enough for another. Here's what I mean. They are too big to keep swinging from your neck if you're on the move and too big to have in a belt pouch. If I am going to be moving around a lot then I'll use the 10x25s which can either fit in a pocket or in a belt pouch.
Likewise, if I'm going to be stationary or not going that far and don't mind a set of bins hanging around my neck all the time then why bother with the 10x42s when the 12x50s are not that much bigger and the larger lens provides a better image?
See what I mean?
For me, the 10x42s just don't fit in with either situation. And it makes me wonder how they work for others? Why are they so popular when they are too big to carry if on the move, or not powerful enough if you're going to be stationary?
Strangely, I do like having all three as an option, but the 10x42s just never get used.
I'm going to make up for that today. I'm going to take the 10x42s with me!

 

[typo]

I think an 8x42 might be closer to the birdwatcher's favorite, but I take your point. Regulars on the forum often have a selection of binoculars to choose from, but most birdwatchers I meet in the field only use one, and I'd guess over half I meet use 8 or 8.5x42s but with 10x42s and 8x32 vying for second place.

I've got binoculars from 6x to 12x and the 7x36 and 10x42s are the most used, depending how much walking is on the itinery. The others are used for more specifc applications. Using the right tool for the job seems important. I'd probably use a lower power as first choice if I regularly carried a scope.

David

 

[Troubador]

Like Typo I am not at all sure that 10x42 is the most popular. I would put 8x as first choice.

Many dedicated birders these days carry a scope on a tripod as well as bins so your portability concerns clearly don't concern them. However as far as I can see (I am not a specialist birder) they go from hot spot to hot spot and hiking over long distances doesn't feature much.

Me and my Mrs tend to slowly roam the hills and coasts of West Scotland and our goal is to see as many interesting nature observation subjects as possible whether flowers or fungi, animals or birds or insects. We carry photo kit as well so we do have portability concerns but we hardly ever set a walking route as a goal. So we don't have to get from A to B, just start from A and eventually get back to A.

So our kit is usually 32mm bins for my wife and 42mm for me and both 8x. I take 10x to some places but treat this as a specialist instrument for particular uses. If our day involves clambering around on crags or rocky coasts I will usually opt for a 32mm too. They are lighter of course but of a size that can be pushed more easily inside a jacket if necessary. They are just more manageable.

Sounds to me you would benefit from trying out a few 8x32s. For most of the day these will perform as well as 42s and if you aren't a dedicated twilight birder will be fine for you.

Lee

 

[humakt]

My apologies, I didn't make myself clear enough.
My point about 'size' was nothing to do with the magnification but the actual physical size of the binoculars. Whether they are 8x42 or 10x42 is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make - they will both come in the same body.
It's that actual physical size of the bins I was making comment on. The '42' size binoculars are too big to wear on a belt or a pocket so when that's what I want I'll take the '25' size ones. Equally, when I am prepared to have them hanging around my neck all day then the difference in size and weight with the '50s' is small enough that the extra benefit of a bigger lens is what I'll use.
Making the '42' size bins redundant.
For me.
So I was just wondering what has made '40/42' size binoculars so popular with bird watchers.

 

[Sancho]

So I was just wondering what has made '40/42' size binoculars so popular with bird watchers.

I suppose they generally, at each quality point, give brighter and sharper views. But I've abandoned 42mm, in favour of 8x32 and a pair of pocket 8x20. Plus a big-eye 15x56 on a stick for seawatching from a chair. I haven't been 'actively' birdwatching for ages, but if I were, a scope and a 32mm bino would be my choice if there's a lot of walking involved. Like you, I feel 42mm binos are just a bit too big and heavy to lug about, especially around my ageing neck.

 

[typo]

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

My compact pairs are used for sports, theatre and travel; rarely for birding. It's the moments lost in aligning a small exit pupil, and the poor low light performance amongst other factors that limit their usefullness for me. My 12x50, and others that I highly regard are a kilogram or more. A bit tough on the neck but they certainly have their uses for birding, specially if you wish to avoid carrying a scope It's the relatively narrow field of view and shallow depth of focus stops them from being ideal for all round use, even at the lower weight of the Hawkes. My 7x36 is 620g. Does that help?

Do you have the Nature -Trek or Endurance ED 12x50? Just curious.

David

 

[humakt]

I wasn't too sure - I had to check.
They're the Nature Trek ones.
They weigh in at a shade over 800g, which is considerably lighter than the Nikon 12x50s I was using before. I suppose that's why I tend to use them over the 42s - I was used to lugging a much heavier weight before getting the Hawkes and they seemed so much lighter in comparison to the Nikons.
I've just checked - the 42s weigh 650g and the 50s weigh 829g. It's because of that slight difference that I overlook the 42s if I'm willing to have something hanging from my neck, whilst the 25s weigh 320g if I want to go light and have them on my belt.
They just sit in a drawer doing nothing.
I think I may give them to my mother who likes to sit in her garden watching the birds in the trees. At least that way they get a use and aren't a waste of money.

 

[edwincjones]

"the 10x42s are either too big for one situation or too small for another"

That is what I would call
-the best all around-
and justify having multiple binoculars

edj

 

[Troubador]

My apologies, I didn't make myself clear enough.
My point about 'size' was nothing to do with the magnification but the actual physical size of the binoculars. Whether they are 8x42 or 10x42 is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make - they will both come in the same body.
It's that actual physical size of the bins I was making comment on. The '42' size binoculars are too big to wear on a belt or a pocket so when that's what I want I'll take the '25' size ones. Equally, when I am prepared to have them hanging around my neck all day then the difference in size and weight with the '50s' is small enough that the extra benefit of a bigger lens is what I'll use.
Making the '42' size bins redundant.
For me.
So I was just wondering what has made '40/42' size binoculars so popular with bird watchers.

When I only had one pair of binoculars I chose 42mm because they were the most versatile compromise. Bigger exit pupils than 25s or 32s so easier viewing and brighter in dull or dark conditions, smaller objectives so smaller to carry and lighter than 50mm.

Lee

 

[ceasar]

Glass is heavy so typically 50mm binoculars with bigger lenses and prisms should weigh more than 42mm binoculars.

This is true of the top of the line binoculars which cost around $2000.00 where the 50mm binoculars weigh about 36 ounces. The 42mm binoculars in this price range typically weigh about 27-29 ounces.

This does not follow with inexpensive binoculars such as your Hawkes where the 10x50mm Endurance binocular weighs 28 ounces. The 10x42mm Endurance binocular weighs 23 ounces. These are already lightweight binoculars for their formats. To keep the weight down the manufacturers often cut back on the size of the prisms, use eyepieces with fewer elements and use lighter materials in their external construction to save money. This often results in shorter eye relief and a narrow field of view which is part of the compromise necessary in order to get lighter weight binoculars.

I note that the higher priced Sapphire and Frontier line do not offer 50mm binoculars and their 42mm models weigh about the same as the Endurance binoculars.

Bob

 

[typo]

They're the Nature Trek ones.

I should perhaps mention that the 10x42 I usually use has a 90% larger area of view than the Nature-Trek 12x50. The Nature-Trek series is a popular and good value, but not the highest quality in the Hawke catalogue. If memory seves me right, the difference in the area of view that is pin sharp would be substantially larger still. I would also expect to see at least double the amount of detail with the likes of the Sapphire ED 10x42 for example than I would with the N-T 12x50. If you factor in hand shake, the difference might be greater. These things make a big difference when birding. Of course your experience might be different to mine, but I'll stick with my 10x42.

Have a merry Christmas.

David

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I just about never use the 10x42s. I have often seen this size described as 'the birdwatcher's favourite'. And I wonder why. ....Why are they so popular when they are too big to carry if on the move, or not powerful enough if you're going to be stationary?...

I should say that I have never actually gone bird watching. By that I mean 'formal' bird watching - going out with the sole intent on seeing what birds I can see.

Well, I think you've answered your own question. Most birding that I do involves walking or driving while looking for birds. Birds appear constantly to regularly, requiring or inspiring regular stopping to use the bins. So having the bins around my neck is the most convenient way to carry since I lift them to my eyes very often, or need to be able to lift them at a moment's notice (so I don't use objective guards ever, and only use an ocular guard when in heavy rain). For me, a full-sized bin (x42) is the easiest and most comfortable to hold and look through. An x32 is slightly more comfortable to carry but less comfortable to look through. I don't use bigger bins when stationary because I don't watch birds in the dark. If looking at distant things while stationary, I use a scope (preferred over big bins for greater magnification, lesser weight, and smaller size).

I certainly appreciate and use bins of other sizes, but not very often for dedicated birding. I often carry x20 if I'm not expecting to use bins, or am at the theater. I use x20 or x32 all the time for butterflying, or for travel, or when juggling camera and other equipment. But nothing is so satisfying as a x42 when using a bin several times a minute to every few minutes while birding.

--AP

 

[humakt]

Typo - you may have a point.
This discussion led me to compare the Hawkes to the Nikons. I must say that the Nikons did have a much clearer image across the whole of the viewing area - being significantly better on the edges.
This has led me to go back to using the Nikons when I need a bigger set of bins.

 

[Sancho]

Three 10x bins that I've owned, that are small and light enough, or at least feel so, to compete with 32mm, are Nikon EII 10x35, Nikon SE 10x42, and Leica Ultravid HD 10x42. The SE's in particular I found stunning.