Should I go 7x (3 Viewers)

[looksharp65]

Even with all those advantages there is one BIG disadvantage to 7X. They don't bring the bird or object your looking as close as 8X. You don't see as much detail and in my opinion it's almost like your not looking through a binocular.

From: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2379746#post2379746

What about the reach? Well, magnification X at a certain distance resembles viewing the target at 1/X of the distance. If the bird you look at is 20 meters away, the magnification of an 8x makes it look like it's 2.5 meters away. If you're using a 7x, it looks like it is 2.86 meters away, and if it's a 6x it looks like it's 3.33 meters away.

But if you walk 2½ meters forward, the image of the bird through a 7x will have the same size as it had with the 8x at 20 meters. To achieve the same result with a 6x, you go another 2½ meters forward to 15 meters.
At shorter distance, the adjustment of position needed becomes proportionally less.
The longer the distance, the more you need to run forward to achieve that same image size you had with the medium mag binocular. Thus, at longer distance higher magnification pays off a lot more than it does at short distance.

The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object.
Undeniably, a 7x may fall short for long distance viewing, but it is better still to use a 10x for that, hence my statement in post #15.
I should add that my 7x is a 6.5x.

//L

 

[Essex Tern]

Even with all those advantages there is one BIG disadvantage to 7X. They don't bring the bird or object your looking as close as 8X.

I don't disagree, but the difference between an 8 and 7 image, closeness wise is negligible, but there is for me a noticable difference in steadiness, so the image is more useful.

You don't see as much detail and in my opinion it's almost like your not looking through a binocular. There is a reason 8X is by far the most popular magnification. Most people prefer it.

I wish I had eyes that could replicate a 7x magnification!

I think 8 is more popular because that is what people buy. Therefore manufacturers continue to make them, they do make 7x but they sell in lesser numbers, so I personally wouldn't want to make so many for fear of losing profit - and so they don't.

They make what they think we will buy, and 8 is a good all round choice for birding, so unless 7 really catches on I can't see things changing, but I do think it is a magnification worth considering for it's benefits, and not just using the views of the majority rather than your own to decide. There are certain music bands that are very popular, but no band is universal in popularity, so it doesn't mean either the fans or haters are right on their own!

We all have a mind and we should use it to make our own choices, other people's views are useful, but it is our own that is most important - and it could conceivably vary from majority!

Don't let the 7X converts sell you on it. You will see the bird better and see more detail on the bird with 8X and that is what really matters. Who cares if you have to focus a little more often? One you get the bird in focus you are going to enjoy the view more on a bigger image scale. An older adult's pupil only opens 4mm if you are over 50 so a 6mm exit pupil does not help you one bit.

I am not one to try and sell people on things, one person's "best" is not another's! An 8 would give slightly more detail, as would a 10 even more, but if the image is not as steady how useful is it to the user? It all depends on the individual.

A large exit pupil helps all ages, it is part of the ease of use of a 7. If you imagine looking at something, disregarding distance, though a small window from a few paces away and move your head about, and then look at the same object but get close to the window and move your head around again, the object is easier to keep track of when up close to the window - that's a large exit pupil!

Alternatively hold your finger and thumb up in a small circle and look through it at something and move your head. Then repeat with a bigger circle.

I am still to be convinced about the matching of eye pupil to exit pupil size - I can't see there is much in that. If anything as you get older a large exit pupil will be easier with your smaller eye pupils as you will be able to move around inside the image more.

Matching the exit pupil size to eye pupil size doesn't make sense to me as you generally look at the centre of the image - if that is what is projected on your retina then it doesn't matter about the surrounding area, you are not losing light! The centre of the image should be the brightest and sharpest part. Lower magnifications are inherently brighter, and I can't see it makes much difference if you match up your eye pupil size to the binoculars at all.

An 8X can have almost as big a FOV as the 7X's. Really a 400 to 450 foot FOV is all you need anyway. How often do you bird on a rocking boat? I don't.

Never bird on a boat, but frequently buffetted by wind while on foot which can give a similar effect.

I would never buy a 7X especially if it is the only binocular I owned. BIG mistake!

I would/have :t:

If I didn't have a scope, I am not sure an 8 would be sufficient either, I would have to find a way of keeping at least a 10 steady, but for the places I bird a 10 wouldn't be enough on it's own either!

From: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2379746#post2379746


The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object.
Undeniably, a 7x may fall short for long distance viewing, but it is better still to use a 10x for that, hence my statement in post #15.
I should add that my 7x is a 6.5x.

//L

Agree entirely, if you are lucky enough to be able to use a 10 comfortably.

I think a 7 (or 8) binocular for short to middle distance birding, with a scope for middle to long distances is the perfect combination for me.

 

[vop]

:-O

...there is one BIG disadvantage to 7X. ... it's almost like your not looking through a binocular.

Let this be the BirdForum Binoculars Subforum Quote of the Year!:-O

 

[looksharp65]

there is one BIG disadvantage to 7X... it's almost like your not looking through a binocular.

Is that really a disadvantage? Isn't that immersive view what most of us dream of, though unconsciously for some?

A 7x binocular makes the area of a detail you're looking at 49 times larger.
There's no chance you can better that with the naked eye. Even at large distance, it improves your resolving power by seven times!

That said, there is a lower power limit where the use of binoculars is largely unnecessary.
I have tried to evaluate how my perception of an object differs when I concentrate myself vs. when I use binoculars.
The result is very subjective of course and can by no means be used for anything more substantial, but for me a 2.5x to 3x power equals what I see when concentrating hard without binoculars.

To obtain a significant improvement, I'd say that the lower limit would be 6x, which also corresponds to the lowest level where "real" binoculars are manufactured.

Agree entirely, if you are lucky enough to be able to use a 10 comfortably.

An interesting combo for some people would be the Opticron Traveller Mg 6x32 and a 10x or 12x IS, alternatively an 8x and a 15x IS, depending on what habitats you're birding in.
I can easily see myself using a Fury 6.5x + the ED50A with 16x in the forest east of my hometown, maybe I'd bring the 13-40x zoom too.
But here at the coast, a 10x binocular is indispensible.

//L

 

[elaine7]

Dennis,

On July 3, 2012, you said the following on the Are Nikon SE's and EII's the best porro's made? thread:

"I got the Vixen 7x50 Foresta and they are quite impressive optically. They didn't work real well for me but I can see why Frank likes them. Great DOF with hardly no focusing and a stunning 3D effect(more than an EII), bright of course and very sharp although slightly fuzzy at the edges. I compared them to my EDG's tonite. The Vixen's are pretty light and the balance is good for a 50mm. The two major weaknesses which made them a no go for me was the eyecups which were too big for my eyesockets and the smaller FOV. The eyecups are way bigger than the EDG's and too me were uncomfortable. I just can't tolerate a smaller FOV after having alpha binoculars with big expansive FOV views. I almost kept the Vixen though because it is a very good buy for the money but I decided to return them too Amazon."

So, less than two weeks ago you were sincerely considering purchasing a 7x. Is that correct?

 

[Torview]

Some really well thought through and constructive posts here, and many thanks for them.

I have owned 10`s but always end up selling them on, I don`t have shaky arms, but somehow always end up with a shaky view.

I`m pretty much sold on trying a top end 7 now, as a confirmed Zeiss fan the Victory is most likely, but I will try the Leica, EDG, & Meopta.

 

[ceasar]

Swarovski recently discontinued their 7 x 42B SLC. There may still be some available laying around binocular shops. I picked up a Demo at a very good price.

Bob

 

[newfie ghost]

Swarovski recently discontinued their 7 x 42B SLC. There may still be some available laying around binocular shops. I picked up a Demo at a very good price.

Bob

I think cameraland has some for 1500. They also have the 7x50! For over 1800.

I bet these 7's are sweet. Bob can you say a few words?

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovski7x42slc

I considered a 7 meopta at one point. They have 42 and the big 50.

 

[Stet]

I got my Zeiss 7x42 FL's from cameraland for 1100, from their post in the retail section of this forum. It was a demo but was basically new and with Zeiss warranty it is the same as new. He did have one more when I got mine a couple weeks ago.

 

[[email protected]]

From: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2379746#post2379746


The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object.
Undeniably, a 7x may fall short for long distance viewing, but it is better still to use a 10x for that, hence my statement in post #15.
I should add that my 7x is a 6.5x.

//L

A 10X is generally to hard to hold steady. I still maintain if you have ONE binocular get an 8X. 8X is the best all around magnification. The Swarovski 8.5X is alright and gives a little more magnification but 8X is where it is at.

 

[[email protected]]

From: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2379746#post2379746


The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object.
Undeniably, a 7x may fall short for long distance viewing, but it is better still to use a 10x for that, hence my statement in post #15.
I should add that my 7x is a 6.5x.

//L

"The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object."

That's baloney! The image size between a 7X and 8X is huge. I hate to say it but there are alot of birds that won't let you get closer to them. They tend to fly away unless they are tame.

 

[[email protected]]

I don't disagree, but the difference between an 8 and 7 image, closeness wise is negligible, but there is for me a noticable difference in steadiness, so the image is more useful.



I wish I had eyes that could replicate a 7x magnification!

I think 8 is more popular because that is what people buy. Therefore manufacturers continue to make them, they do make 7x but they sell in lesser numbers, so I personally wouldn't want to make so many for fear of losing profit - and so they don't.

They make what they think we will buy, and 8 is a good all round choice for birding, so unless 7 really catches on I can't see things changing, but I do think it is a magnification worth considering for it's benefits, and not just using the views of the majority rather than your own to decide. There are certain music bands that are very popular, but no band is universal in popularity, so it doesn't mean either the fans or haters are right on their own!

We all have a mind and we should use it to make our own choices, other people's views are useful, but it is our own that is most important - and it could conceivably vary from majority!



I am not one to try and sell people on things, one person's "best" is not another's! An 8 would give slightly more detail, as would a 10 even more, but if the image is not as steady how useful is it to the user? It all depends on the individual.

A large exit pupil helps all ages, it is part of the ease of use of a 7. If you imagine looking at something, disregarding distance, though a small window from a few paces away and move your head about, and then look at the same object but get close to the window and move your head around again, the object is easier to keep track of when up close to the window - that's a large exit pupil!

Alternatively hold your finger and thumb up in a small circle and look through it at something and move your head. Then repeat with a bigger circle.

I am still to be convinced about the matching of eye pupil to exit pupil size - I can't see there is much in that. If anything as you get older a large exit pupil will be easier with your smaller eye pupils as you will be able to move around inside the image more.

Matching the exit pupil size to eye pupil size doesn't make sense to me as you generally look at the centre of the image - if that is what is projected on your retina then it doesn't matter about the surrounding area, you are not losing light! The centre of the image should be the brightest and sharpest part. Lower magnifications are inherently brighter, and I can't see it makes much difference if you match up your eye pupil size to the binoculars at all.



Never bird on a boat, but frequently buffetted by wind while on foot which can give a similar effect.



I would/have :t:

If I didn't have a scope, I am not sure an 8 would be sufficient either, I would have to find a way of keeping at least a 10 steady, but for the places I bird a 10 wouldn't be enough on it's own either!



Agree entirely, if you are lucky enough to be able to use a 10 comfortably.

I think a 7 (or 8) binocular for short to middle distance birding, with a scope for middle to long distances is the perfect combination for me.

8X is more popular because that is what most people want for all around use. A 4mm exit pupil in a 8x32 binocular gives you a nice comfortable binocular while being light and compact at the same time. You don't need a 6mm or 7mm exit pupil. Unless you are really shaky an 8X is still the best all around magnification for most people and 8x32 is the best all around size for most birding situations. A 7x42 is pulling in way more light than you can use and that bigger exit pupil doesn't help you that much. Even trying Frank's Vixen 7x50 I didn't notice that much advantage to having the huge exit pupil. Alot of times eyecup design has more to do with comfort at the eyepiece. Get an 8x32 and you will be happy.

 

[looksharp65]

8X is the best all around magnification.

It's the most common compromise and not without reason. I haven't completely abandoned the thought of getting an 8x for those unpretentious excursions when birding isn't the prioritised goal.

"The difference in image size is usually unnoticeable and is, as I prove above, easy to overcome by changing your position vs the object."

That's baloney! The image size between a 7X and 8X is huge. I hate to say it but there are alot of birds that won't let you get closer to them. They tend to fly away unless they are tame.

The linear difference is 14% and at short distances, that difference is very easy to bridge. Further away, things get more complicated.
I have shown this in the other thread. Did you bother to read it?

You may know I had the Minox HG 8x33.
When I got myself the Fury 6.5x, the FOV area (the base of the imagined cone that includes everything you see through a binocular) at any distance increased with 25%.
The depth of field increased considerably which made more of the "cone" be in focus at any given moment. ("Usable FOV volume")
The exit pupil size made fast action warblering "alot" easier due to easier eye positioning, although I must admit that an 8x42 would have been even better in this regard.
The linear shake was reduced by 23% which was clearly noticeable, although I generally have no problems to use even a 10x.

Of course there are situations when a 6.5x or 7x falls short and the ID is lost. Those occasions would be best served by a 10x, but if you cannot keep it steady, I can understand why an 8x or 8.5x must be used.

Re the "baloney" remark, well I don't really mind when it's you who says that.
:t:

//L

Edit 1: If a 7x and an 8x share the same FOV, things aren't necessarily this simple. It's a pity that most 7x binoculars don't have a FOV that's proportional to their 8x siblings. However, they usually have a larger FOV.
Edit 2: "a" and "b" correspond to the linear FOV. The circles forming the bases of the cones are the area of the FOV. The volume of the cones include everything that's in the field. Only a small portion of this volume is in focus at the same time due to the fairly short depth of field of a binocular.
I let the cones share the lower edge because if you're standing on the ground, the increased FOV of a certain binocular can mostly be used for seeing more of the sky. But this varies with the position - as soon as you're a little elevated you can overview the ground better, and then the increased depth of field will also be more obvious.

 

[vop]

...That's baloney! The image size between a 7X and 8X is huge. ...

Yes, probably bigger than the difference between 7x and 10x.

... I hate to say it but there are alot of birds that won't let you get closer to them. ...

If this is from experience, it must be British birds you're talking about... :-O

 

[Brigadier]

8X is more popular because that is what most people want for all around use. A 4mm exit pupil in a 8x32 binocular gives you a nice comfortable binocular while being light and compact at the same time. You don't need a 6mm or 7mm exit pupil. Unless you are really shaky an 8X is still the best all around magnification for most people and 8x32 is the best all around size for most birding situations. A 7x42 is pulling in way more light than you can use and that bigger exit pupil doesn't help you that much. Even trying Frank's Vixen 7x50 I didn't notice that much advantage to having the huge exit pupil. Alot of times eyecup design has more to do with comfort at the eyepiece. Get an 8x32 and you will be happy.

I agree completely. For birding, I've found that 8x30 or 8x32 is the best compromise between magnification, light gathering, size and weight. This is especially true with modern glasses and coatings.

Most 7x binos are bigger, heavier, don't offer much more FOV and, as Dennis rightly says, the larger exit pupil doesn't really help in most birding situations.

 

[Essex Tern]

At the end of the day people are likely to vehemently defend their own choice and opinion.

We should make our own choice as to what we will be happy with to suit our own circumstances and uses - there is no one for all, or there wouldn't be a market with such choice!

To quote Dennis "Get an 8x32 and you will be happy" but....

Get an 8x42 and you will be happy.
Get a 7x42 and you will be happy.
Get a 10x42 and you will be happy.
Get a ......

It is not possible to state one type of binocular is best for everyone, we should keep an open mind and find out what is best for us :t:

 

[[email protected]]

It's the most common compromise and not without reason. I haven't completely abandoned the thought of getting an 8x for those unpretentious excursions when birding isn't the prioritised goal.


The linear difference is 14% and at short distances, that difference is very easy to bridge. Further away, things get more complicated.
I have shown this in the other thread. Did you bother to read it?

You may know I had the Minox HG 8x33.
When I got myself the Fury 6.5x, the FOV area (the base of the imagined cone that includes everything you see through a binocular) at any distance increased with 25%.
The depth of field increased considerably which made more of the "cone" be in focus at any given moment. ("Usable FOV volume")
The exit pupil size made fast action warblering "alot" easier due to easier eye positioning, although I must admit that an 8x42 would have been even better in this regard.
The linear shake was reduced by 23% which was clearly noticeable, although I generally have no problems to use even a 10x.

Of course there are situations when a 6.5x or 7x falls short and the ID is lost. Those occasions would be best served by a 10x, but if you cannot keep it steady, I can understand why an 8x or 8.5x must be used.

Re the "baloney" remark, well I don't really mind when it's you who says that.
:t:

//L

Edit 1: If a 7x and an 8x share the same FOV, things aren't necessarily this simple. It's a pity that most 7x binoculars don't have a FOV that's proportional to their 8x siblings. However, they usually have a larger FOV.
Edit 2: "a" and "b" correspond to the linear FOV. The circles forming the bases of the cones are the area of the FOV. The volume of the cones include everything that's in the field. Only a small portion of this volume is in focus at the same time due to the fairly short depth of field of a binocular.
I let the cones share the lower edge because if you're standing on the ground, the increased FOV of a certain binocular can mostly be used for seeing more of the sky. But this varies with the position - as soon as you're a little elevated you can overview the ground better, and then the increased depth of field will also be more obvious.

I still maintain that for most people in most birding situations an 8x32 or 8x30 is the best all around binocular size considering weight FOV, DOF, Exit Pupil, brightness and handling. That is why your classic birding binoculars are made in 8x32 or 8x30. Like the EII, SE, and Habicht which are designed for birders and nature watchers.

 

[[email protected]]

At the end of the day people are likely to vehemently defend their own choice and opinion.

We should make our own choice as to what we will be happy with to suit our own circumstances and uses - there is no one for all, or there wouldn't be a market with such choice!

To quote Dennis "Get an 8x32 and you will be happy" but....

Get an 8x42 and you will be happy.
Get a 7x42 and you will be happy.
Get a 10x42 and you will be happy.
Get a ......

It is not possible to state one type of binocular is best for everyone, we should keep an open mind and find out what is best for us :t:

Regardless of what you say for MOST average birders an 8x32 is best,

 

[looksharp65]

I still maintain that for most people in most birding situations an 8x32 or 8x30 is the best all around binocular size considering weight FOV, DOF, Exit Pupil, brightness and handling.

I simply can't understand how you can choose these aspects to insist the 8x32 is better than a 7x32, since

- the weight of an 8x32 would be the same as a 7x32 or a 10x32
- the FOV can be made larger in a 7x32
- the DOF is decidedly better with a 7x than with an 8x
- the brightness (in twilight, I'd add) is better with a 7x32 than an 8x32
- the handling, if you mean ergonomics, wouldn't differ.

Two of five properties are equal and three are worse than a 7x32!
The only advantage it has over any 7x would be the bigger magnification and sometimes the AFOV. I insist the 8x32 is a compromise, and while not necessarily a bad one but possibly the best compromise on many occasions, it still is a compromise.

That is why your classic birding binoculars are made in 8x32 or 8x30. Like the EII, SE, and Habicht which are designed for birders and nature watchers.

Undeniably, the 8x30 to 8x33 configuration is quite common among birders, but you needn't look further than www.betterviewdesired.com to realise that midsized binoculars haven't been the standard choice from time immemorial.
Yes, Stephen Ingraham also argues in some of his reviews that an 8x30 is a very good, or possibly the best choice.
But the fact that he needs to point it out shows that things have been different.

As Holger (?) pointed out, it's the improvements of coating technology that caused the shift from 6x30 porros to 8x30s, and the one reason that I can use and enjoy my 10x32s.
I would say that the 8x32s have things that speak for them, but I wouldn't say that that configuration is the best only because it's the most widely spread.
Capitalism and markets don't work that way, unfortunately. It is not necessary the best (read: survival of the fittest) product that will conquer the largest market share, it's the product that is lucky enough to have the best marketing and publicity, or the most aggressive advertising.

And the classic birding binocular is a 7x42. The 8x32 isn't that classic yet, Dennis!

 

[[email protected]]

I simply can't understand how you can choose these aspects to insist the 8x32 is better than a 7x32, since

- the weight of an 8x32 would be the same as a 7x32 or a 10x32
- the FOV can be made larger in a 7x32
- the DOF is decidedly better with a 7x than with an 8x
- the brightness (in twilight, I'd add) is better with a 7x32 than an 8x32
- the handling, if you mean ergonomics, wouldn't differ.

Two of five properties are equal and three are worse than a 7x32!
The only advantage it has over any 7x would be the bigger magnification and sometimes the AFOV. I insist the 8x32 is a compromise, and while not necessarily a bad one but possibly the best compromise on many occasions, it still is a compromise.



Undeniably, the 8x30 to 8x33 configuration is quite common among birders, but you needn't look further than www.betterviewdesired.com to realise that midsized binoculars haven't been the standard choice from time immemorial.
Yes, Stephen Ingraham also argues in some of his reviews that an 8x30 is a very good, or possibly the best choice.
But the fact that he needs to point it out shows that things have been different.

As Holger (?) pointed out, it's the improvements of coating technology that caused the shift from 6x30 porros to 8x30s, and the one reason that I can use and enjoy my 10x32s.
I would say that the 8x32s have things that speak for them, but I wouldn't say that that configuration is the best only because it's the most widely spread.
Capitalism and markets don't work that way, unfortunately. It is not necessary the best (read: survival of the fittest) product that will conquer the largest market share, it's the product that is lucky enough to have the best marketing and publicity, or the most aggressive advertising.

And the classic birding binocular is a 7x42. The 8x32 isn't that classic yet, Dennis!

- the weight of an 8x32 would be the same as a 7x32 or a 10x32
OK. But where do you buy a 7x32? I all I know of is a 7x42 or 7x50 and they are heavier. There used to be 7x35's but they are no longer available either. I guess Zen Ray makes a 7x36mm but that would be heavier too than a 32mm.

- the FOV can be made larger in a 7x32
For birding you don't need a bigger FOV than what a current modern 8x32 can provide. 400 to 450 feet FOV is enough to spot a bird.

- the DOF is decidedly better with a 7x than with an 8x
DOF is an advantage when spotting birds but not as important as image size and detail once the bird is spotted and you need to ID it.

- the brightness (in twilight, I'd add) is better with a 7x32 than an 8x32
The exit pupil of 4mm on an 8x32 is all the light most people over 50 can see anyway. In daylight when most people bird a 7x32 would offer no advantage over an 8x32.

- the handling, if you mean ergonomics, wouldn't differ.
The 7x42 and 7x50 are heavier and bigger.

The 8x32 still has the big advantage of more detail and bigger image scale. I agree all binocular sizes are a compromise but for most birders 8x32 is the best. Tell me where you can buy a 7x32? I wouldn't mind having one myself. I always did like the 7x35's. I don't see any current manufacturers making them anyway. 7x42 and 7x50 yes but those are mostly for astronomers and again they are going to be heavier than an 8x32.