Shorebirds and big open fields + owl watching at night / NL 10x42 or 10x52 ? (1 Viewer)

[dalat]

So, given my daily activities and genuinely chaotic style of birding, would any of the advocates of one do-it-all birding optic like to advise me which one do-it-all birding optic I should buy?

No one can tell you what to buy, only you decide what you need and want.

My personal answer to your scenario - or to any possible scenario - is a Zeiss SFL 8x30 for everything, a large scope with tripod for lakeside birding, a small scope for mountain birding and travelling, and a camera.

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with your handheld scope (if that is how you use the CTC). I really don't like compact bins for birding, and I don't miss them because the 8x30 can go everywhere I go. If I go running, I don't like to take anything like phone or optics and don't miss it. But all that is me only.

I think you are, besides being a birder, indeed a bit of an optics aficionado. But as others have said, absolutely nothing wrong with that. No need to defend your style, but also no ground for thinking yours is the only way to do it.

 

[Viraj]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being fan of optics, some people see binoculars as just tools, yes, but others enjoy using their gear. What's wrong with that?

I don’t think there is any wrong with having multiple pairs of binoculars or using them for birding. There are many factors involving to bird identification and the size of the bird we see is one. Even with same power you see distant birds smaller compared to the similar birds in close proximity.

Even if that was true, repeating the same "flaw" that only you have seen, 7 times in a thread of 40 posts is probably not what the forum is about.

We read it once, we check our binoculars, or consider it when trying a pair, we move on.

Likewise I believe this forum and this thread are not about for convincing other to have only one pair of binoculars to be a better birder but to help people to make decisions about their future purchases (or discuss about optics related ideas). Trying to emphasize using single pair of binoculars in all scenarios make one a better bider in several threads about ten times does not help either.

Some people like to use different optics in different birding situations and that doesn’t necessarily make them better birders. But it may make them comfortable and the birding experience enjoyable. If one don’t like it and like to have single pair, there is nothing wrong with that either. It could save the person a lot of money as well. Sometimes I wonder why people collect very expensive Rolex watches those show the same time. Even they are not like optics with different powers and sizes, show only the time. But I wouldn’t join a Rolex forum to advise them to use only one watch to be a person with better understanding of the time.

 

[BogBean]

For the record, I'm not trying to convince anyone. You all have choices to make. I've just been questioning what I saw as a very alien or unusual approach to birding. However, it's been discussed now. Both sides of the argument are well represented in the above posts.

 

[Viewerinsweden]

Turning back to the initial question:

For many years I had an EL 10x50 as my only pair. It worked for all birding situations (open fields, woodlands and owls) but felt heavy on longer trips. I used to carry it on one shoulder. What I missed was the binocular I could use on walks not dedicated to birding but when you see a bird.
After some years I sold it and tried several different binoculars from 10x40,10x42 to 10x32.
The 10x32 left me whishing for a second binocular for low light. The 10x42 was a compomize in between. It felt not significantly lighter than the 10x50 and clearly not as lowlight capable as the 10x50.
I kind of regreted selling the 10x50 when I bought a used pair of curios.
If I would choose today I would go for a 10x50 or 10x52 binocular for birding and all situations dedicated to observations and a pocket binocular that I take on walks, vacations, and other just-in-case situations.

If you are sure you want one instrument and be done with it, you will have to decide which gripe you can live with: The higher weight of the 10x52 or the loss of lowlight capability of the 10x42.
Good luck with your search!

 

[Maljunulo]

Be sure you are aware of, and are willing to accept, the optical compromises of pocket binoculars.

 

[BogBean]

BogBean, what is your single bino? Or, are there different single binos on different days/sessions, according to the mix of habitats? Thanks.

I do birding and wild flowers and insects, so a 8x40, with close focus, has been my criteria.

However my eyesight seems to have caught up with my age recently, so I have moved to a 10x (sfl10x40).

I can carry it all day without back issues, focuses down to my feet, and I can make out a little more detail with small birds in the canopy.
I'm expecting this to last me at least 5 years now.

 

[ReinierB]

I can understand that a SFL 8x40 or 10x40 is very allround.
Why an 10x40 instead of an 8x40 when your eyesight is getting worse?

 

[BogBean]

I can understand that a SFL 8x40 or 10x40 is very allround.
Why an 10x40 instead of an 8x40 when your eyesight is getting worse?

Worse in terms of struggling to make out finer details of birds. A bigger image in the view is helping.

I'm assuming it was my eyesight getting worse, it could just be more exposure to unfamiliar species in the canopy, and associated struggles in foreign places. Something I wouldn't necessarily notice at home where the species are fairly easy to identify as dots.

But are you saying I'm about to be hit with another degradation of my eyes in due course, that will move me back to wanting lower magnification?

 

[ReinierB]

Worse in terms of struggling to make out finer details of birds. A bigger image in the view is helping.

I'm assuming it was my eyesight getting worse, it could just be more exposure to unfamiliar species in the canopy, and associated struggles in foreign places. Something I wouldn't necessarily notice at home where the species are fairly easy to identify as dots.

But are you saying I'm about to be hit with another degradation of my eyes in due course, that will move me back to wanting lower magnification?

I don't know. I am "just" 40 years old .
At the moment I like 10x and 12x, but I have the feeling that I will go back tot 8x when I am getting older. Watching through 8x is more relaxed, less shake and mostly more eye relief. But I might be wrong and love 10x forever.

 

[Patudo]

Attempting to answer the original question - if you are looking for owls in true darkness or virtual darkness, some thermal sensor device is probably going to be more useful than binoculars. For shorebirds - if you are intent on nailing down IDs, you will most likely need (as Tringa has noted in his post #9) considerably more magnification than 10x - this really means a scope and tripod.

If you are trying for those kinds of owls that come out before dark (short-eared owls, barn owls) I think, based on many occasions watching peregrines into twilight, a good 10x42 is fine. 10x50 is also great, and will perhaps give you a little more time, but not all that much (most probably @10-15 minutes rather than an hour).

If you are watching shorebirds anticipating that a merlin or peregrine will suddenly appear after them and wish to follow the action when it happens, 10x is my preferred choice and either x42 or x50 is fine. The x42 will be more convenient (weight) size, the x50 may be a little larger, but most times you will be sitting up and be able to brace your elbows on your knees. If you are scanning for hours on end you may find the easier eye placement of the x50 to be helpful.

I would recommend you try both formats under conditions as close to those in which you'll be using them as possible.

 

[Robert Moore]

A little too heavy to hold for extended time. Too bad you see glare in the NL. The 14x52 is just awesome for me.

 

[Tringa45]

An SLC 8x56 or 10x56 will kill the NL 14x52 in low light, shore birding or on astro.

Don't overlook the SLC 8x56, either. It would be excellent for shore birds, and you won't beat it with anything for low light. 10x will show you bigger images, but 8x has more resolution because you can hold it steadier.

Try reading a dollar bill at 50 yards with 8x56 and 10x56, and you will begin to understand. It may surprise you.

My main concern is that newbies seeking advice might actually digest this nonsense.
Only today you were slamming Swarovski on another thread and are now recommending an 8x56 SLC for shorebirds. Shorebirds are shy, often rather small and there are sometimes strong similarities between different species.
I have an 8x56 SLC, an excellent binocular, but it would not be with me when observing shorebirds because I would be carrying a scope.

Reading a dollar bill with an 8x or 10x binocular at 50 yds, even if tripod mounted, would be equivalent to naked eye viewing at 6 yds or 5 yds. How much detail can be discerned at this distance?
There have been a number of competent answers on this thread. Why the urge to post on topics of which you have little experience or understanding?
You are henceforth on ignore..

John

 

[dalat]

Denco, John is right. Recommending a 50 to 56 mm for shore birding is bad advice. No one lugs around such big things, in addition to the scope. Your frequent use of "killing" is complete hyperbole. Use "a little better".

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I would never leave my scopes for shorebirds even when I have the 12x42 binocular that time. Try to differentiate Little vs Red-necked Stint in non-breeding plumage with the 8x56 for extended time of viewing!

 

[[email protected]]

Denco, John is right. Recommending a 50 to 56 mm for shore birding is bad advice. No one lugs around such big things, in addition to the scope. Your frequent use of "killing" is complete hyperbole. Use "a little better".

I recommend a Swarovski 10x50 EL for shore birding and low light use. It would be better than the NL 10x52 because it is lighter, controls glare better, is less expensive, and you don't need the huge FOV of the NL for shore birding or low light.

10x is a high as I would go in magnification for even shore birding without a tripod. 12x is ridiculously hard to hand hold, regardless of what some say.

If you need more magnification for shore birding, use a spotting scope on a tripod in combination with the EL 10x50 SV binoculars.

I recommend a 8x56 SLC for the ultimate low light birding binocular. The only other binocular that comes close to it for strictly low light is the Habicht 7x42 if you are over 60 years old and your eyes are not dilating as large anymore.