• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Should I go 7x (1 Viewer)

There are only two reasons a 7X42 is the better choice:
1. It's usually more stable.
2. If you need the 6mm exit pupil AND your eyes can use it

Depth of field varies dramatically based on age, lighting and quality of optics. I don't think it's a good reason to buy a 7X.

Field of view is also a non-issue, considering the quality of modern alphas. I can hear the quotes being typed so save your time. That famous "hawkwatching" 7X42 is now a Swarovision.
 
#2 assumes that the benefit of the larger exit pupil is ONLY if you "need" it. I think this is a dubious premise; in addition to the "easier" view (more room for error in eye placement) I believe Henry has pointed out that when the pupil dilation is smaller than the exit pupil you are effectively stopping down the image which can reduce aberrations and light loss at the edge of the EP.

overall, I think the 7x advocates will argue that this "easy" view is the major factor, and it's a combination of the large exit pupil, steadier image, wide FOV, good depth of field, etc.
 
...or the diminutive 8x32 SE.

So, based on your choice of binoculars at the present time could I assume that edge performance/size of sweet spot is more important to you than such issues as field of view and depth of field?

If that is the case then I respect your opinion but would not consider that an absolute. Different strokes for different folks. In personal experience I find the field of view and depth of field to be more beneficial for practical use in comparison to edge performance. Edge performance is a nice luxury but I don't find it as critical or necessary as the other optical attributes mentioned. To have all of it would be preferred but 7x premium binoculars are few and far between especially in cutting edge models.
 
Last edited:
There are only two reasons a 7X42 is the better choice:
1. It's usually more stable.
2. If you need the 6mm exit pupil AND your eyes can use it

Depth of field varies dramatically based on age, lighting and quality of optics. I don't think it's a good reason to buy a 7X.

Field of view is also a non-issue, considering the quality of modern alphas. I can hear the quotes being typed so save your time. That famous "hawkwatching" 7X42 is now a Swarovision.

Hi,

I've compared my 7x36 Swift to my 8x32 SE SxS looking at the same view comparing the focus of the foreground, middleground, and background. I found that more of the view was in focus with the 7x...

I agree there are better reasons (more stable) to buy the 7x... but its greater depth of field is a benefit nonetheless.

CG
 
Hi,

I've compared my 7x36 Swift to my 8x32 SE SxS looking at the same view comparing the focus of the foreground, middleground, and background. I found that more of the view was in focus with the 7x...

I agree there are better reasons (more stable) to buy the 7x... but its greater depth of field is a benefit nonetheless.

CG

It is.

It won't make any difference viewing subjects at distances close to infinity and up to it but if you are in the canopy or close to it and following a bird nearby inside it the difference is obvious.

Bob
 
It is.

It won't make any difference viewing subjects at distances close to infinity and up to it but if you are in the canopy or close to it and following a bird nearby inside it the difference is obvious.

Bob

I agree with Bob here. The closer you are to the bird the better the 7x gets in a wooded environment. Especially for those quick warblers that like to hang out in the lower brush and briers. This is where my 7x42FL's really shine. On the other hand of the spectrum is a new bin I recently acquired, the Pentax 8x32 DCF ED. This bin has a similiar feel for me to the Nikon HG's I owned. Very 2d image with not very good depth perception and a fast focuser, so it does not perform as well in the close up wooded areas. Even so, I do really like this bin. It has excellent apparent sharpness that is only enhanced with the awesome contrast it has and warmer color bias. It really pulls out fine detail well, even at a distance. Another newly acquired bin that is quickly becoming my favorite bin is the Nikon EII 8x30. Because of the enhanced 3d effect and wide field of view it actually performs very close to the 7x42 in the close up wooded areas. The 3d effect really creates good seperation between things and allows the bird to stand out from the environment. The 7x42's are still better in these conditions but I have no problems using the EII's, in fact I like them in all environments I find myself in from close up birding to the far away hawkwatching and right now it is my most used bin. The last bin in my rotation these days is the Zen Ray 8x42 Prime HD. Although it does have an excellent 3d effect for a roof, I do not prefer to use it in the close up wooded environment. If I hadn't been so spoiled by the 7x42FL's I would probably find the Primes fine for these conditions but as it is, I find they better serve me for longer distance birding and are fantastic for deer and larger game. This is where I really love these. I also use them alot as bird feeder bins.
 
I agree with Bob here. The closer you are to the bird the better the 7x gets in a wooded environment. Especially for those quick warblers that like to hang out in the lower brush and briers. This is where my 7x42FL's really shine. On the other hand of the 2spectrum is a new bin I recently acquired, the Pentax 8x32 DCF ED. This bin has a similiar feel for me to the Nikon HG's I owned. Very 2d image with not very good depth perception and a fast focuser, so it does not perform as well in the close up wooded areas. Even so, I do really like this bin. It has excellent apparent sharpness that is only enhanced with the awesome contrast it has and warmer color bias. It really pulls out fine detail well, even at a distance. Another newly acquired bin that is quickly becoming my favorite bin is the Nikon EII 8x30. Because of the enhanced 3d effect and wide field of view it actually performs very close to the 7x42 in the close up wooded areas. The 3d effect really creates good seperation between things and allows the bird to stand out from the environment. The 7x42's are still better in these conditions but I have no problems using the EII's, in fact I like them in all environments I find myself in from close up birding to the far away hawkwatching and right now it is my most used bin. The last bin in my rotation these days is the Zen Ray 8x42 Prime HD. Although it does have an excellent 3d effect for a roof, I do not prefer to use it in the close up wooded environment. If I hadn't been so spoiled by the 7x42FL's I would probably find the Primes fine for these conditions but as it is, I find they better serve me for longer distance birding and are fantastic for deer and larger game. This is where I really love these. I also use them alot as bird feeder bins.
:t:
 
Brock, thanks. Your comments on several matters there are really useful to me! So a Nikon LX can be that shallow in DOF. Have to withdraw my apology to Frank (made when I thought my query to him was not relevant because all the better bins would have good DOF)! The only LX models (called HG in these parts) I have looked through, as I recall, are the 8x42 and 10x25, not long after the line was introduced. With the 8x42 there was something that felt odd and unattractive in the view and now, from what I remember of the experience, I realise it may have been very shallow DOF. Strange, for a higher-level Nikon (maybe their best roof at that time?)
 
Last edited:
Pomp,

Actually it is the 8x32, not the 8x42, that has the shallow apparent depth of field. This is caused predominantly from the fast focusing speed referenced previously. The actual, measurable depth of field may be no worse than any other 8x32. If you tried a unit that also had weak focusing tension then the depth of field would appear even worse.

I owned the original 8x42 LX/Venturer and don't remember it as having a shallow apparent depth of field.
 
Thanks. Saw your comment but thought it might be generic to the range except in the 7x42 if there was one. I clearly remember being very disappointed with "something not right" in the view of that 8x42. The other bins around at the site (likely compared "side by-side") included a Swaro. early SLC 10x42 and a Nikon Mountaineer II 8x25 (a fine reverse-porro).

Still powerfully curious about the "jump" in DOF when going down from 8x to 7x in particular.
 
Last edited:
Pomp,

I don't have a definitive answer for that one. Maybe one of the more scientifically oriented individuals (Henry, Surveyor, Ron, Ed) could chime in with that info (and hopefully I could understand it... ;) ).
 
hopefully I could understand it... ;) ).



Hi Frank;

I will give it a shot, but may just make things worse.

DOF is an easy concept, optically, but not really easy to explain.

First thing to understand is the term diopter. This is a really scary word that means nothing more than a distance measurement, brought about for convenience.

With optics, as the distance from the observer gets greater the image gets smaller, so the diopter was used as a distance measurement so that as the distance increased the diopter got smaller in a specific proportion to the image size. Therefore the diopter is nothing more than the reciprocal of the distance, in meters (d=1/meters).

Now, this brings us to lens law and focus accommodation, and how diopter is used for simplicity. First a couple of examples with unaided eye:

Infinite distance = 0d
2 meters = 0.5d
0.5 meters = 2d

At this point we can see that the unaided eye, with about 2d of accommodation, will perceive everything from about 0.5 meter to infinity as in focus. Now notice that:

0.5 meter =2d
0.25 meter = 4d

So still a 2 diopter difference, which would appear in focus, all else out of focus. If we go the next 2 diopter:

0.25 meter =4d
0.167 meter = 6d

So now we can see how shorter focal lengths bring about a sharper range.

It can be shown that magnification is related to focal distance by the square of the power. If the 2 meter focus range for 1x is 0.5d then at 7x, 2 meter would be 24.5d (7x^2*0.5d), at 8x it would 32d, 10x =50d, etc.

A closer example of 2d DOF would be, if focused at 10 meters, the following ranges:

Power Close FAR DOF

1x 0.91 Inf Inf
6x 7.83 13.85 6.02
7x 8.31 12.56 4.26
8x 8.65 11.85 3.2
10x 9.09 11.11 2.02
30x 9.89 10.11 0.22

The above is assumed to be 2 diopter for illustration only. In the real world, if your vision has great accommodation then the optics would be the limiting factor, if your vision has less accommodation than the lens law factors, then your eyes would be the limiting factor.

The optics depth of field is measured on the optical axis and is the distance, in diopters, ahead and behind the focused object that remain in acceptable focus. This is most easily roughly checked by focusing on an object and checking out how far ahead and behind the object stays in focus in the center or the field of view.

Things like field curvature, which makes things around the periphery, appear a diopter or two closer to you would make it seem you were looking at a 4 diopter DOF.

Astigmatism along the edge can make either horizontal or vertical objects appear a diopter or two closer or further away.

Focus speed has an effect. A binocular that focuses at 14 degrees per diopter can turn 28 degrees and maintain the same image as one that has a speed of 6 degrees/diopter that turns 12 degrees, thus seeming to have less DOF.

A lot of people also count 3d stereopsis as DOF, it is not.

DOF in the optics sense is only the distance ahead and behind the focused object, on axis, that remain acceptably sharp
 

Attachments

  • DOF lens law 1.jpg
    DOF lens law 1.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 68
Last edited:
There are only two reasons a 7X42 is the better choice:
1. It's usually more stable.
2. If you need the 6mm exit pupil AND your eyes can use it

Depth of field varies dramatically based on age, lighting and quality of optics. I don't think it's a good reason to buy a 7X.

Field of view is also a non-issue, considering the quality of modern alphas. I can hear the quotes being typed so save your time. That famous "hawkwatching" 7X42 is now a Swarovision.

I have used both my 7x36 ZEN ED2 and 7x43 ZEN ED3. I cannot really rate one over the other. But 7x43 ED3 is slightly brighter under low light, maybe due to newer dielectric coating or larger objective, or both.
 
RonE, thanks, from me who initiated the query. In my first view focus, FOV and DOF all not too good. (Also a problem with brightness, I guess.) These days involved in fairly stressful matters connected with conservation. When more free will re-read for a clearer view.

Frank, this is what happens when you pass the buck. (Delighted with the chance to say that to an American.)
 
Last edited:
Hi All,

Just spent 8 days in the field with 7x and 8x binoculars glassing from way before sun up, throughout the day, and long after sunset.... cloudy, sunny, and partly cloudy conditions.

Throw in accelerated heart rate, cold morning shivers, wind and gusty wind... the 7x trumped the 8x despite the 8x being the superior quality glass.

Might now sell my last 8x...

CG
 
Tried an Opticron Tga 7x42 Porro today.

Sadly this calibre of porro I`m sure is one of the reasons people feel roofs are better.

Despite coming with a 30 year warranty it felt cheap, coarse focus wheel with a wobbly bridge.

Optics were`nt bad but fell way below the SE.

Looks like I need to go alpha if I go 7x.

Going to try some SLC 7x and Trinnie 7x when the oportunity presents.
 
Frank,

A long time ago...

Slc neu
Trinovid

Both out of reach at the time, would have been happy with either.

More recently..

Victory
Bga SE
Zeiss classic TP

Yet to try EDG, UV and Meopta.
 
Well it seems you have all the full-size 7x's covered, particularly the Alpha models.

No interest in trying the ZR ED3's?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top