So I took the plunge... (1 Viewer)

[Will K]

some ultra-wide fields of view (eg Nikon WX)

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to check out some more 'ultra-wide' view binos. Nikon claims 76.4 AFOV for the 10x50 WX, which sounds intriguing: Nikon WX | Astronomy Binoculars | Super-Wide FOV

What else might be worth a look?

 

[lmans66]

Traditionally I was a 10x42 birder...with a SLC and then an HT. I am even looking for a cherry 10x32 Meostar B1.1 to compliment my line, but with all of them the FOV suffers. IE: 10x32 Meostar B1.1 but I note the FOV is only 334'. Or the Leica Ultravid 10x32 is only 352'.

Lately with my Leica retro (7x35) or my Meostar 8x32, my FOV is much larger and I have begun to appreciate what FOV offers to my birding.

For Hawk Watches, I still prefer my 10x42's.... but with my everyday birding on walks the 7's or 8's are surely nice with FOV's of 421' and 417' respectively. That makes for easier close-up, in trees etc.... I have learned and it only took me 40+ years! Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

I appreciate FOV but what everyone always tells me to purchase a SF (FOV of 391) or NL (FOV of 396) in the 10x32 line. But wow, look at the SIZE of those bins? No thanks..... I love the Meostar size, the Ultravid size..... So trade-offs. FOV, $, SIZE etc.... each to their own.

 

[kimmik]

That is precisely why i analysed light throughput vs weight.

The real gems are when the extra FOV came without extra weight.

 

[GrampaTom]

Traditionally I was a 10x42 birder...with a SLC and then an HT. I am even looking for a cherry 10x32 Meostar B1.1 to compliment my line, but with all of them the FOV suffers. IE: 10x32 Meostar B1.1 but I note the FOV is only 334'. Or the Leica Ultravid 10x32 is only 352'.

Lately with my Leica retro (7x35) or my Meostar 8x32, my FOV is much larger and I have begun to appreciate what FOV offers to my birding.

For Hawk Watches, I still prefer my 10x42's.... but with my everyday birding on walks the 7's or 8's are surely nice with FOV's of 421' and 417' respectively. That makes for easier close-up, in trees etc.... I have learned and it only took me 40+ years! Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

I appreciate FOV but what everyone always tells me to purchase a SF (FOV of 391) or NL (FOV of 396) in the 10x32 line. But wow, look at the SIZE of those bins? No thanks..... I love the Meostar size, the Ultravid size..... So trade-offs. FOV, $, SIZE etc.... each to their own.

I don't think its time but more one of place. Somehow we're not yet admitting to this. Where one birds is the relevant piece of information to decide whether X or FOV is what matters. I surely get wider FOV matters when the range is short and one is dealing with small (passerine?) birds flitting around. Maybe you once went where I go and today that's changed? Over large salt marsh, the open waters of SF Bay or the ponds/reservoirs we frequent, chasing the winter waterfowl, shore bird and raptor migration, the birds are far enough out that finding them, tracking them is not the issue. Getting close enough to see details is the challenge.

 

[lmans66]

Right Grandpa..... I know many people have multiple bins, so in that case...it is electing to purchase the one that fits each locale. Otherwise, to find one bin for all locales, one should really decide and weigh the possibilities, which are endless!

 

[Troubador]

In theory and in practice a wide field binocular should be better, but after having used a binocular with a narrower FOV quite a bit, I'm not sure the narrower field device is as outmatched for scanning as I had thought. With a narrower FOV you can see all of it at once and be sure, more or less right away, that what you're looking for is or isn't there. But with some ultra-wide fields of view (eg Nikon WX) you may need to search that wide area more/for longer to achieve the same level of certainty. So you may end up traversing your narrower field binocular more quickly than a wide field binocular to scan the same arc of sky, but end up scanning the same area in around the same time.

A lot does depend on your vision (how well and quickly you can take in what you see) and what you're searching for - if you are searching for tiny targets like far distant raptor silhouettes you will be working harder than if scanning for more obvious targets. Magnification then also comes into play - through experience I know I would rather use a narrower FOV 10x for some spots, where the birds are more likely to be spotted at distance and to go far, than an 8x, no matter how wide its field of view.
Wide FOV does have some genuine advantages for birding - better situational awareness, superior ability to capture fast-moving targets sighted with the unaided eye and to follow them once acquired - and is certainly worth having for those reasons. But for the very specific purpose of scanning - searching for targets out of range of the unaided eye - I now feel narrower FOV binoculars are not as disadvantaged as I had thought.



I thought this was a really interesting comment - it underlines the different ways in which each of us uses binoculars and wants to see from them. For my part I agree most of the photos I've taken myself are close-ups or tight shots. I have some landscape/cityscapes, but I too find close-up shots more interesting. I have on occasion had some splendid close-up views of birds with my binoculars, and always enjoyed them. But what I want to see, what I use my binoculars to look for, for the most part, are often distant targets that would make for worthless photos. Funny eh?

You make some excellent points Patudo. When I am on the coasts of islands like Islay and North Uist in the west of Scotland I use either a Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 (fov 124m) if I need its close focus of 1m (which is very frequently) and of course use it for all of my observing during that day. So I am well acquainted with using a bino having a modest fov for scanning the areas of open sea mixed with rocks, looking out for seals and otters, Great Northern Divers and sundry waders, and I simply find it harder work, and slower, panning the bino so much to ensure I examine all of the area compared with a wide-field bino.

When I don't need an ultra close-focus bino I use my SF8x32 (fov 155m) and I find this a better tool for scanning these kinds of areas more quickly and thoroughly. I do have very sensitive peripheral vision in response to movement so this might play a part in how I feel comfortable with a wide-field bino.

Summing up, for sure one can scan these areas with binos with a modest fov and I do so regularly but I prefer by far to do this with a wide-field bino.

Lee

 

[crinklystarfish]

In theory and in practice a wide field binocular should be better, but after having used a binocular with a narrower FOV quite a bit, I'm not sure the narrower field device is as outmatched for scanning as I had thought. With a narrower FOV you can see all of it at once and be sure, more or less right away, that what you're looking for is or isn't there. But with some ultra-wide fields of view (eg Nikon WX) you may need to search that wide area more/for longer to achieve the same level of certainty. So you may end up traversing your narrower field binocular more quickly than a wide field binocular to scan the same arc of sky, but end up scanning the same area in around the same time.

A lot does depend on your vision (how well and quickly you can take in what you see) and what you're searching for - if you are searching for tiny targets like far distant raptor silhouettes you will be working harder than if scanning for more obvious targets. Magnification then also comes into play - through experience I know I would rather use a narrower FOV 10x for some spots, where the birds are more likely to be spotted at distance and to go far, than an 8x, no matter how wide its field of view.

Well articulated!

Through experience I've essentially come to the same conclusion.

The simple arbiter for me when scanning is how much you pick up on: and how much you miss. For me, higher magnification at the expense of some loss of field of view wins hands down.

Not wishing to complicate things further, but for me a wider AFOV (generally 'better' the higher the mag) also just makes the whole using-binoculars experience so much more pleasurable.

We should be happy we are able to consider such nuances dilemmas.

 

[lmans66]

I have always thought so too...the magnification always wins...especially with certain tough species, not to mention shore birding. But now that I spend my time in more dryer climate, I find my need for that higher magnification dwindle, with the exception of a hawk watch or two, so a 7x8 is just fine now.

So as Grandpa stated...it is the locale we need to take into account.

 

[ragin-cajun]

chuck i'm debating an NL 32 vs 42 purchase. did you reach a verdict?

 

[Alaska4me]

A wonderful old fashioned word: 'thwarts', and if you carry the binos in the way you describe Tommy, you carry them athwart your chest!

Lee

Lee the ever so stalwart

 

[The BulbMogul]

I told myself I wasn't going to do it. I've got good 10X42 binoculars. I use them mostly in the winter and when I go to the Gulf. It's kind of funny what I started out birding with 10X42s but soon realized for me a 7X/8X binocular with a larger FOV suited me best, especially where I usually go birding. The NL lineup kind of complicated my thoughts in this respect. They trumped every other 42mm binocular in FOV and usually by a good margin. The NL 10X42 has ten more feet of FOV than my Leica UVHD+ 8X42s that I like so much! More FOV even than the Zeiss SF 10X42s. I actually considered getting a SF 10X42 which I could have bought for less. But I decided if I'm going for more FOV I might as well so all the way. I got the NL 10X42 on Wednesday and have been birding with it in some of my normal spots Thursday and yesterday.

On opening the box I had two first impressions. First was I thought it was on the heavy side. They are exactly the same weight as my Noctivid 10X42, 30.4 ounces. That's a little heavy IMO by 2023 standards. That was one of the reasons I considered the SF 10X42. Here are the weights of the 10X42 I have:

NL 10X42- 30.4 ounces(no objective cover and with the non-FP strap attachment)
Noctivid 10X42- 30.4 ounces
SV 10X42- 29.5 ounces(non FP)
Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42- 28 ounces
Zeiss FL 10X42- 27.5 ounces

Second impression....overall I just don't like the Field Pro system. Too many fiddly parts. I'll take just a plain ol lug on the side of my binocular any day.

So I've only been birding two days since I've had the NLs. And this time of year I'm using a spotting scope probably at least 30% of the time. I didn't pick up another binocular except to take a few pictures. So far I found the NL pretty dang impressive. The focus adjustment is just super. ER was perfect for me with my RayBan eyeglasses. Swarovski says the close focus is 6.6 feet. I didn't check this yet but I had no issues focusing on some winter wrens and kinglets at probably 10 feet. There were a few times when I felt like I couldn't get on a bird as quickly as I could with the NL 8X32 or SFL 8X40 I've been using lately but I got better the more I used the NL 10X42.

So that's about all I have to say so far. I'm planning on using the NL only for the next couple of months and I'll compare it to a couple of the others. In the meantime, I did take a few pictures so you can get a perspective of the size of the NL 10X42 and here they are via Sony RX-10 III:

I know do not feel as bad about to many pairs of anything.. love it...

 

[Robert Moore]

I love that little orange 8x32. I want one. Lol

 

[[email protected]]

I love that little orange 8x32. I want one. Lol

Wouldn't it scare the birds, though, more than the green? It is a bright orange.

 

[Will K]

Wouldn't it scare the birds, though, more than the green? It is a bright orange.

Not sure. Lots of birds seem to like bright colours, though. Probably wouldn’t make much difference. The human is the scary thing!

 

[HenRun]

Same for me.... If i'm not using it... it's gotta go.
I'm no collector of anything.

I’m still contemplating if I’m a collector or not….sometimes i don’t use a certain binocular for a month or so. Well more likely two weeks maximum. And i use it again and it’s like i meet a very good old friend. Don’t know if that makes sense at all?

Both posts resonate with me.

I have no trouble letting go of things I don’t use - but sometimes I need time to figure out what I use the most instead of some idealistic pseudo pragmatic view. Last couple of years the decision process has matured a little.

I do have one bino I very seldom use, the Swaro BTX, but I really, really like using it the few times I do and I think I would regret letting it go.

 

[Viraj]

Once I thought the FOV of my NL 8x42 is too wide and it is distracting me. Later I found that I can make the FOV smaller by extending the eyecups fully. That said, binoculars with wider FOV are always better than binoculars with smaller FOV 😀😀 If the other properties are same (i.e., optics, weight, size, price, etc.). Because whenever you need, you can make the FOV smaller. But you can’t do other way around with smaller FOV binoculars 😊 These are my 2 cents 😊

 

[brocknroller]

I’m still contemplating if I’m a collector or not….sometimes i don’t use a certain binocular for a month or so. Well more likely two weeks maximum. And i use it again and it’s like i meet a very good old friend. Don’t know if that makes sense at all?

Contemplate no longer. When don't use your binoculars regularly and you put them on display in a curio cabinet, then you're a collector.

 

[brocknroller]

So I just attach via a zip-tie. I've tried all the fancy loop/split ring setups. I found this works just as good and not nearly as time consuming to connect. Of course one twist with some pliers and you're completely disconnected!

Better patent that design, Chuck, before Swarovski steals itand introduces the Field Pro II.

 

[brocknroller]

So Lee, is this an Aha! moment? Is a picture or two worth the thousands of words we bat around?
If I've got this right, from that above link #5, you like this:View attachment 1488665 Whereas from mine above I want my binos to reveal this:
View attachment 1488666
Whew! Is this the end of the conversation as to why you like 8 and I like 10? Is it this straight forward?

Great shot! A couple years ago I took a photo of a Green Heron catching a frog but unfortunately my camera, which has autofocus, focused on the weeds in the foreground where I was hiding and not the bird!

Unless I missed it, what hasn't been mentioned on this thread is the ability to hold 10x bins steady. I think most of us would like to see a bigger bird and more detailed bird and would carry 10x if it had a wide FOV; however, if your hands shake more with 10x, that negates the advantage over 8x.

So, the big question with 10x bins even if they have a wide FOV is can you hold them steady?

Ergonomics and weight play a big role in this. I can't hold the 10x42 SE steady but I can with the Nikon 10x35 E2 as long as my back is braced. I have shaky hands, so ergos and weight are even more important to me even with 8x bins. I traded my 8x42 EDG because I couldn't hold it steady. I traded for an 8x32 EDG, which I can hold steady because they are lighter and I can wrap my fingers from both hands around the barrels, which I couldn't with the fat barrel 8x42.

Even when the ergos are agreeable to my hands, I find that heavier bins initially give me a steadier view until my arms tire and then they start shaking.

Image quality aside, the steadiest image shoot out I'd like to see is between the 10x42 SFL vs. the 10x42 NL. The NL has better egos but the SFL has significantly lighter weight.

Brock

 

[GrampaTom]

Great shot! A couple years ago I took a photo of a Green Heron catching a frog but unfortunately my camera, which has autofocus, focused on the weeds in the foreground where I was hiding and not the bird!

Unless I missed it, what hasn't been mentioned on this thread is the ability to hold 10x bins steady. I think most of us would like to see a bigger bird and more detailed bird and would carry 10x if it had a wide FOV; however, if your hands shake more with 10x, that negates the advantage over 8x.

So, the big question with 10x bins even if they have a wide FOV is can you hold them steady?

Ergonomics and weight play a big role in this. I can't hold the 10x42 SE steady but I can with the Nikon 10x35 E2 as long as my back is braced. I have shaky hands, so ergo and weight are even more important to me even with 8x bins. I traded my 8x42 EDG because I couldn't hold it steady. I traded for an 8x32 EDG, which I can hold steady because they are lighter and I can wrap my fingers from both hands around the barrels, which I couldn't with the 8x42.

Even when the ergo are agreeable to my hands, I find that heavier bins initially give me a steadier view until my arms tire and then they start shaking.

Image quality aside, the steadiest image shoot out I'd like to see is between the 10x42 SFL vs. the 10x42 NL. The NL has better egos but the SFL has significantly lighter weight.

Brock

Re 8 vs 10, It’s very common here to read that. I’ve commented too many times. I confess I fear many BFers see a bit of shake and throw up their hands rather than work with it, learn the tricks, which really aren’t so tricky anyway. Then what do I know?

in addition to better egos the NL also has better ergos. Insert smiley face thing. I have shopped SFL 840 vs NL832. Thought I could be happy birding with either. Weight about the same for those two. I do notice the weight diff between my EL1042 and NL832 sure, which would be similar to the two you name, but don’t see in the list of comparable attributes it’s such a big thing. The FOVsss of the NL 1042 re the SfL 10 seem the more useful comparison.