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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 1684022" data-attributes="member: 665">Bob,"Soyoudo get a camera like bokeh" like Kevin? (I think he lapsed into his native tongue <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />. I recently had the opportunity to try my old 8x32 LX (which I traded for an 8x32 SE) against the ZR 7x36 ED2. I was expecting to like the LX better and feel regret in having traded it, but to my surprise I didn't. I like the silver coatings better than ZR's dielectric ones, despite their better light transmission, because of the red color bias of the LX, which may also have to do with the AR coatings. Reds really "snap" with the LX. Blues "snap" with the LX, but there are more reds and browns to the woods and birds than blues, so the LX is more pleasing to my eye in that sense. However, the depth of focus is noticeably less with the LX vs. ED2. The ED2 also has better depth of focus and better 3-D representation, making the image look more natural like a porro. Small roofs compress the image like a telephoto lens. Add a fast focuser like the LX's 1/2 turn from cf to infinity and you whiz through that DOF quite quickly, with shallow depth of focus. Just a small nudge and the image is in or out of focus. I never liked that aspect of the 8x32 LX even though the contrast and color depth in the LX series was the best I've seen in any bins and the focuser was the smoothest and the most precise I've tried. But on that dull, overcast wintry day, the dimmer views in the 8x32 LX combined with noticeably more CA negated those advantages compared to the brighter, CA controlled views through the ED2, which also had a more natural look with its greater DOF, depth of focus, and 3-D separation. For example, I was looking at my neighbor's trailer and his truck, which was parked about 20 ft. behind it. In the LX, the trailer and truck looked very close together, almost like they could have been hooked up. In the ED2, I could clearly detect the space between the two and could tell that the truck was some distance back - this was from about 300 ft. away. In the 8x30 EII, this space was even more easily delineated and appeared to be about 20 ft, which I later confirmed after walking over to his driveway. The field compression phenomenon makes the LX less aesthetically appealing to use in dense woods since the bird does not stand out from the background like it does with the ED2. So I tended not to use the LX for backyard birding or wooded birding, but mostly for birding in open fields and for general use (watching soccer games).  It wasn't just aesthetics, but this compression of field also made dull colored birds harder to locate because they blended in more easily with their surroundings. I'm sure the contrast and color is stunning in the 10x32 LX L like it is in the 8x32 LX. On overcast days and in the winter, it might even appear as bright as the 8x32 LX despite the smaller exit pupil because of the LX L's brighter coatings, but the compression of the field must be even tighter with the 10x32 than the 8x32, giving the 10x32 a "hair trigger" focuser and a very compressed image similar to what Kevin described above with the 10x30 IS.But the advantage I see with the 10x32 is if you are primarily using it for distance, then the field compression isn't going to be that big a deal, because the depth of focus is better at longer distances. Although I had an optics expert chime in that a 10x EP is going to show the same DOF regardless if it is in a 10x32, 10x42, or 10x50, in practice I find that the perception of depth of field is different going from the smallest to the largest configuration. Comparing the 10x35 EII to the 10x42 SE to the 10x50 ED, the 10x50 had the most pleasing image (and not just because of the better CA correction). There was less compression of the image than in the 10x42, which had slightly less compression of the image than in the 10x35 EII. I hope to try the 10x32 LX L in the spring, and will find out first hand if what I suspect about the "bokeh" is true. Of course, different people have different aesthetic tastes, just as Kevin actually like the "bokeh" in the 10x30 IS. For me, depth of field, depth of focus, and 3-D representation are all high up on my list of favorable attributes for birding binoculars.</blockquote>

Verification