• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Nikon HG 10x42 L - should I buy? (1 Viewer)

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
Speaking of 10x and SE. I never quite "understood" 10x binoculars until I tried the 10x42 SE. I use it every week and every week I'm amazed by the ease of view (I much prefer it to the 8x32 SE), so relaxing, clear, sparkling... Sometimes I feel I'm holding a 8x32. And then there's the focus, always sharp as can be, always where I want it. I know they're not easy to come by and they're not cheap (there's one at the moment for sale in Spain going for +800€), but for me it shines right in the areas you mentioned.
Note that 10x42 had been growing on me for a while, I'm really curious about that format in some binoculars I like.
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Tried the Nikon 10x42 HGL this morning. Very nice binoculars, solid in the hand, great eye cups and a really bright view, albeit narrow. A quality binocular for sure. Crystal clear morning, estuary like a millpond....very beautiful.

However, I found getting the exact focal point quite difficult and unconvincing. Fine if you're just scanning but locking exactly on a bird in the foreground was surprisingly disappointing. Also, the difference in stability between the 10x42 HGL and my 8x42 HT was very marked, not surprising I know. I therefore declined the opportunity.

So moving forwards, If anyone has suggestions on a more appropriate 10x32 or 10x42 with an easy focal point and less shake I'm all ears!

Whenever I go from 8x to 10x (most recently this last evening) my first impression, more than even image size, is always that the image is more shaky, and vice versa - when going from 10x to 8x I immediately notice the image is steadier. Despite that I like and use 10x a lot, finding the extra magnification to be of real advantage at distance, but I'm fortunate enough to be able to tolerate the shake after a short period of refamiliarization (spending quite a lot of time on boats in my misspent youth has made wobble more tolerable, I think). When using 10x and especially 12x I make every effort to brace myself against something - either some convenient structure, or sitting down so I can prop my elbows against my knees - if at all possible. I can certainly imagine that if observing on a windswept Scottish coast with nowhere to steady myself, 10x might be no more useful than 8x.

I also think 10x is more finicky in terms of focusing than most 8x - shallower depth of field, more shake (again) and you are often trying to focus on more distant targets. I often have to make very small adjustments of the focus wheel to tweak my target to full sharpness - I prefer a slower focus speed for this reason.

I used to think (and still do to some extent) that my 10x40 Dialyt - the binocular I've probably spent the most time with, am the most used to and am still happy to use - was easy to hold steady because of its compactness, but found when I tried more modern 10x42s at the last Birdfair that newer designs like the Meostar 10x42, Nikon Monarch 10x42 HG and 10x42 EDG etc were a little steadier in my hands. I suppose ergonomics have been worked on and improved over the years. Zeiss's 10x42 SF was the easiest to hold to my eyes of those I have so far tried (but at its price it had better be). The Nikon 10x42 SE, conversely, I've found harder to keep steady, especially unsupported, than any of the roofs I've tried.

If a larger binocular is not too cumbersome the weight and larger exit pupil of a 10x50 makes for a steadier image than most 10x42s. But for the ultimate in shake reduction it's got to be an image-stabillized binocular.
 

Sollas

Well-known member
Whenever I go from 8x to 10x (most recently this last evening) my first impression, more than even image size, is always that the image is more shaky, and vice versa - when going from 10x to 8x I immediately notice the image is steadier. Despite that I like and use 10x a lot, finding the extra magnification to be of real advantage at distance, but I'm fortunate enough to be able to tolerate the shake after a short period of refamiliarization (spending quite a lot of time on boats in my misspent youth has made wobble more tolerable, I think). When using 10x and especially 12x I make every effort to brace myself against something - either some convenient structure, or sitting down so I can prop my elbows against my knees - if at all possible. I can certainly imagine that if observing on a windswept Scottish coast with nowhere to steady myself, 10x might be no more useful than 8x.

I also think 10x is more finicky in terms of focusing than most 8x - shallower depth of field, more shake (again) and you are often trying to focus on more distant targets. I often have to make very small adjustments of the focus wheel to tweak my target to full sharpness - I prefer a slower focus speed for this reason.

I used to think (and still do to some extent) that my 10x40 Dialyt - the binocular I've probably spent the most time with, am the most used to and am still happy to use - was easy to hold steady because of its compactness, but found when I tried more modern 10x42s at the last Birdfair that newer designs like the Meostar 10x42, Nikon Monarch 10x42 HG and 10x42 EDG etc were a little steadier in my hands. I suppose ergonomics have been worked on and improved over the years. Zeiss's 10x42 SF was the easiest to hold to my eyes of those I have so far tried (but at its price it had better be). The Nikon 10x42 SE, conversely, I've found harder to keep steady, especially unsupported, than any of the roofs I've tried.

If a larger binocular is not too cumbersome the weight and larger exit pupil of a 10x50 makes for a steadier image than most 10x42s. But for the ultimate in shake reduction it's got to be an image-stabillized binocular.
You're absolutely correct regarding the movements between 8X and 10X binoculars. My experience whilst comparing between models was just that. It does therefore beg the question as to whether the 8x is still a better option if indeed it transpires that keeping a 10x steady is more difficult than I thought?

Our wild and windy landscapes are indeed a test for both man and binocular but I am confident man and technology can find a solution :) . My ongoing considerations are therefore what 10x would best fit my requirements? ...answers on a postcard please. I'm currently milling over the differences between Trinovids 10x32 and 10x42 with the outsider Habicht 10x40 wga all of which should be able to withstand the test of Scottish weather and wildlife either with or without the aid of an appropriate single malt!
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
The Canon 10x42ISL would serve your turn very well imho.
Fully waterproof, robust, great glass with decent FoV and bright, with no glare, plus impervious to shake.
Yes, you will want to splurge on some lithium AAs, but you'll still save money as well over the Trinovids or the Habichts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top