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

[GrampaTom]

While I understand why you need a less bulky pair of binos, why give up the magnification that you need and love? The 10x32 Nl might check all the boxes for you, except, perhaps its 3.2 EP, which is about the same as your 8x25 VP. You might wish for a bigger EP with a 10x32 Nl, but its better light transmission (93%) will certainly help. Furthermore, owning now the 8x32 Nl, makes your 8x25 VP a bit redundamt for birding, don't you think? (You might argue the VPs can still be used in situations where the Nls would be too conspicuous, e.g. concerts.)

For now, since you have the 8x32 Nl, I would spend a lot of time comparing them to the VPs. If the comparison is not blowing your socks off, favoring the Nl, it is probably because neither is giving you the magnification you need with the kind of distance viewing you do, FOV differences.not withstanding since that has never been a big deal for you.

You could come back and argue that 8x makes more sense, because I am also carting along the spotting scope, so I don't need 10x. If that's the case, why not use the 8xVP when scoping, unless you think the 8xNl is so much better?

Decisions,decisions! It's not easy, is it?

Nope.
Notice I acknowledged these questions in the above and response to Tenex #52, last para. What makes it hard is I am fundamentally not a collector, hence the need to weigh attributes, then choose. We get lots of advice here, but from folks who may/probably have different priorities, needs or perspectives. Context matters.

 

[GrampaTom]

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: Whereas from mine above I want my binos to reveal this:

Whew! Is this the end of the conversation as to why you like 8 and I like 10? Is it this straight forward?

 

[Richard D]

@GrampaTom I think the last picture shows why you need to step up to proper binoculars - that's what you get with 15s

Oddly my 8x32s are my least used binoculars. I have been using the 7x50's more of late though - perfect for dawn and dusk...

 

[GrampaTom]

@GrampaTom I think the last picture shows why you need to step up to proper binoculars - that's what you get with 15s

Oddly my 8x32s are my least used binoculars. I have been using the 7x50's more of late though - perfect for dawn and dusk...

Ha! Prolly true. That from my bud's 600mm lens, then played with on computer. Of course if I would just bother to walk a little closer, I wouldn't need the 15, or the 10 or the 8. Have no idea why anyone would spend good money for a 7!

 

[dries1]

Tom,

I had used the SV 10X50 and the 8.5X42 for a while before I obtained the NL 8X42, and yes I could notice the wider FOV, but I sure I did not have a WOW moment as one who was out and about at that same locale (above), took a look through the NLs, (They were sporting a Nikon Prostaff 10X42). Now that was a WOW.

 

[tenex]

EL 1042 AFOV = 60

I totally missed that you have EL 10x42, not mentioned explicitly in your post, and thought you were comparing NLs. If you think NL 8x32's 65° AFOV feels more restricted than EL 10x42's 60°, that does seem strange. Even the exit pupils are about the same; is NL less tolerant of eye position?

The ultimate point of my previous remarks was that any time I start wondering what use I might have for a different configuration than I actually have and use, it's a (potentially costly) waste of time. This was true over decades of camera gear as well. Actual need is the criterion.

 

[GrampaTom]

I totally missed that you have EL 10x42, not mentioned explicitly in your post, and thought you were comparing NLs. If you think NL 8x32's 65° AFOV feels more restricted than EL 10x42's 60°, that does seem strange. Even the exit pupils are about the same; is NL less tolerant of eye position?

The ultimate point of my previous remarks was that any time I start wondering what use I might have for a different configuration than I actually have and use, it's a (potentially costly) waste of time. This was true over decades of camera gear as well. Actual need is the criterion.

Sorry if I neglected to say EL 1042. Yes the NL is less tolerant of eye position. Not much but noticeable, I spose do to my history with the ELs.

Re your second para, me to. Ive confessed here before to being a recovering gear head. I know the pitfalls, doesn’t mean I avoid them.

 

[AlphaFan]

I dig the quote over that pic Dries posted, "The last time I observed many folks over a two day period at Hawk Mountain, Pa. most of the glass I observed were Nikon and Vortex. (Pic from website)." Thats the way it is here as well. Are we nuts?

Yes we are a bit more zealous for a flawless view than the average birder or wildlife viewer, but I really enjoy the detail.

Also visited the Hawk Mountain North Lookout a number times during migrations and have to agree that Andy’s observation is spot on. There will be a few alphas but mostly Nikon and Vortex.

 

[chill6x6]

Nearly two and a half thousand pounds/dollars.... and ZIP TIES 😨

Lol! It's the BEST solution I've come up with! Now when I say I've tried everything else, I mean EVERYTHING ELSE! Zip-ties are easy to attach, they don't damage the finish, and easy to remove. No other method I've found achieves all three.

 

[chill6x6]

Don't want to walk all over "So I Took The Plunge" theme, so hopefully its OK if I diverge from the carry strap convo for a bit.

I to took the plunge, and last week took delivery of Chuck's favorite, an NL 832! As some will know, I am an avowed fan of 10X and skeptic about the value of wide FOVs. Neither do I see glare. Yes I get I just bought the opposite of all that I have stood for. While Chuck who repeatedly has declared either his EL or now NL 832 to be his favorite all round birding bino, bought what would prolly be my favorite if I didnt already own the EL.

The good news is I don't need to take pictures, as thanks to Chuck, he has done that so beautifully above.

I love 10X, having used it almost exclusively for 40 years. This latter, time at it point, is a partial explanation for how/why. I dont get "wide" FOV in any of its forms. Ive written many times that the linear FOV difference at practical birding distances even of the latest and greatest NLs and SFs seem a bit underwhelming on paper and when I actually go birding. Having tried various NLs and SFs over the past year many times, I always walked away and thought, "hold on you did it again, you forgot to notice that super wide FOV everyone talks about!" My apologies to those of you who dont agree. Im not trying to start a revolution, just supply a bit of perspective for those reading here who may wonder.

I bought the NL832 for a couple reasons. First, I got my need for more X fix this fall when I bought my first spotting scope and tripod. With 18-54X in tow, who needs a 12 or 15 bino? BUT, lugging the blasted scope and tripod around while trying not to trip over it or knock it down, seemed a reasonable rationalization to buy a new smaller, lighter bino as compliment to a system. Second Im not deaf or that stubborn. I really do wonder what it was so many of you see that I dont. There seemed only one way to answer that question. So yes I just spent 2500 bucks as an experiment to see if I could appreciate what Chuck and many of you see in these underpowered and barely wider FOV things.

Is there a smiley face thing here somewhere?

Its raining here in California. While the winter migration is in full swing, getting outside to really check out the new NLs is a challenge, so this report will be limited. After two brief trips to the Richmond Marina, I can say this. With priorities straight, the birds are winning! They are here. Thank God for sun and getting to see many of the usual suspects, of only for a couple days. Not to be outdone by Troubador, here's what we saw - Female Surf Scoter, Female Goldeneye, Black crowned Night Heron, Pelagic Cormorants, Double Breasted Cormorant, Buffleheads, Green winged Teal, American Wigeon, Northern Shovele, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, Red Tailed Hawk, Osprey, Coopers Hawk, Western Grebe, Horned Grebe, Whimbrel, Godwit, Avocet, Willet, Coots, Mallards, Canada Geese, Scaup, White Throated Swift.

The 832s? Well, nice. Not blow your socks off nice, but nice. My first impression, in the hands and around my neck is the size is more important than the weight. And its as much about girth as it is length. Im 6'3" and have largish hands. The little 832s with their wasp waist feel really good. Yep I cant place one hand directly opposite the other there's not enough finger room, between barrels but I don't do that with any bino. So just moving hands and fingers around it was easy to find a secure grip. While the AFOV is published at 5 degrees wider than my 1042s. I couldn't see it. In fact my first impression, which I now think to be a subliminal thing do to their size, is the little NLs at first seemed to confine the overall view a bit. I get thats weird. I could see the 34% promised wider linear FOV between these and the ELs... when I looked for it via say lining up one edge of the view and the other, against a wall with vertical lines. In practical use, not yet.

Optically these are gorgeous, right up there with my EL1042s, (yes I said that), except for the loss of 2X. Did I see the lack of wiggle so many here report when they try 10s and report this offsets the extra 2X for them? Ahh, well maybe? Sharp to the edge? Indeed. And I like that. Any signs of bouncing balls or mustaches? No. Chromatic aberration? None, nada, zip. The color representation was perfect. I was seeing through these what I was seeing with my naked eyes. Looking at that list of birds above and thinking about the possibilities for identifying and enjoying, colors, markings, seeing what's what is it for me, and these deliver.

On the way home, not feeling "Wow!" I was thinking... "are these keepers?" Do they add to what i own? Or are they redundant? Does the size and weight deliver on the hope these would be the better compliment to scope days, over the larger heavier 1042s? I think so. Looking more, back here, peering around the rain drops at the green space next door, the view is nice, really nice. As objects in and of themselves, do I enjoy looking at, handling and want to do more with them? You bet. I think I like these enough to commit to using them exclusively for a few weeks, to see if I can come to appreciate what so many here do. Im curious what will happen when after that, I go out for a day with my fav 10s....

Now that said, I cant wait to hear what Chuck has to say about those 1042s after a bit.

Congratulations! I'm glad you finally got yourself a decent binocular! LOL!

So the WOW. Remember, you ARE used to one of the best binoculars one can get. Optically pretty equivalent. Now I do think the focus adjustment is a big improvement But don't get used to that FOV! You'll be able to tell the difference. You know...I've never been able to tell a difference in IDing a bird between 8 and 10X(7X too) BUT I have missed birds due to less FOV. I will have to admit where you bird and where I do....two completely different situations.

I say don't even look thru your EL 10X42s for a few weeks and just use the 8X32s. THEN go birding with the 10X42s. Better be sure and bring the 8X32s along tho! LOL!

 

[Troubador]

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?

Lovely photo of the Water Rail.
The photo of the view from the mountain top is just an example of the kind of situation in which a binocular with a wide field of view is useful to me. ~The kinds of habitat we use our binos in is shown in the photo below. Its big seascapes and coasts and in those places we look for seals, cetaceans (Porpoise and Dolphins and up to Minke Whales) and of course our beloved Otters, as well as Loons, Mergansers, Goosanders, Shelduck, and wading birds like Oysercatchers, Greenshanks, Redshanks, Dunlin, Sanderling and overheard Peregrines, Golden and Sea Eagles, Buzzards.

I enjoy looking at all of these species (and more) through my SF8x32s and find that their wide fov helps me to find thes species more quickly than the Leica Trinovid HD 8x32s that I use when their close focus of 1m is the feature I need. I can assure you I have enjoyed close up views of many species of birds through the SFs just as impressive as the photo of the Water Rail. Having a wide fov doesn't stop you getting close to your subject!

Lee

 

[Binocollector]

Have no idea why anyone would spend good money for a 7!

I love my old 7x35, 11°, Japanese porros. Awesome for general nature observing. For up close looks of course it's a different matter. I prefer 12x for that and if I wanna get even closer, 18x50IS Canon. But my Fujinon HC 8x42 has quickly become the most used for birding up to around 300m distance.
My binos go as low as 2x. That's for star gazing of course. And it was pretty sweet for watching new year's eve fireworks.
I also quite like 6x. Got a 6x15 Nikon for taking it everywhere as it's so small. Pretty sharp views BTW.
6.5x32 Kowa for the wide views, just like my Komz 6x24 and skeleton bino 6x25.
And not to forget - Fujinon fmtr 7x50 for astronomy.
I think it's best to have all sizes between 2x and 18x. For anything higher I'd guess a scope might be better.

 

[lmans66]

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:

Keep doing 'as planned'....use the NL's for a month or two and really get the feel of it. Then, use the Noctivid. See what 'aha moment' (+ or -) comes from that aha moment and report on that. It is one thing to go back and forth with one bin or the other but to use one bin exclusively and then immediately stop and revert back to the other, is when those true aha moments appear. I would be interested to see your observations.

I have the Noctivid....prior to purchasing I played with the NL, SF and Leica and obviously selected the Noctivid. But you have an opportunity now to really offer insight as you can compare and contrast from months of use, and not just a small amount of comparison time as I had with those 10x42's.

When I did my comparison of 32's..... well....I had that opportunity to use them all out in the field pretty extensively and that is where the true insight happens and what binocular fits your style and needs. Best of luck now..... jim

 

[Scott98]

Lovely photo of the Water Rail.
The photo of the view from the mountain top is just an example of the kind of situation in which a binocular with a wide field of view is

Lee

Wow, Scotland is so beautiful, thanks for posting your photos! It does remind me of the New England coast, the Maine coast. In fact I believe the land is made from the same rocks, after the big split eons ago in the Atlantic rift.

 

[tenex]

Wow, Scotland is so beautiful, thanks for posting your photos! It does remind me of the New England coast, the Maine coast. In fact I believe the land is made from the same rocks, after the big split eons ago in the Atlantic rift.

Not exactly...

 

[Troubador]

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?

No, because we are talking about fov not magnification. There are 10x binos with narrow fov and some with wider fov and it is fov for seaching big areas we are discussing. I had views as close as this of Sanderlings and Ringed Plovers last October and I was using SF8x32s. Just because a bino has a wide fov doesn't mean you can't get close and have the bird fill the view.

You didn't answer this question I asked you:

Go to: Equipment observations , what do others see. and take a look at the photo on post 5 and ask yourself which binocular would enable you to more quickly search that view for hawks and eagles, swifts and swallows: a binocular with a narrow fov, or one with a wide fov?

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

Go to: Equipment observations , what do others see. and take a look at the photo on post 5 and ask yourself which binocular would enable you to more quickly search that view for hawks and eagles, swifts and swallows: a binocular with a narrow fov, or one with a wide fov?

Lee

Well note, I did lift that picture in my subsequent post, #62... right? I thought/think the answer is obvious. For me? Its my 1042, was 1040, (for 35 years). I have no problem getting on and tracking a flitting Anna's at 10-15.' Couple weeks ago we were looking directly up high overhead into a fog bank. With the naked eye, there were no birds to be seen. Through my 1042s? Wow! A Coopers and crows were terrorizing each other. Trouble tracking? No. When the view is wider, whats the big deal? You can look about with your eyes within the bino's view, OR you can move your head, binos mounted to face with eyes moving in a smaller region around the center of the view. I prefer the latter. Its mox nix. Either works.

When I look through the wider FOV of my new 832s, Im a little underwhelmed. X does matter, is part of it. I now have to try and see the target with less magnification, and a more cluttered field of view. I know you and many here disagree with me. I also guess from some of the comments here, Im not alone. Please notice, I'm not shouting from the rooftops about this, trying to change anyone's mind, as I experience so many FOV (and 8X) fans here do. For me at least, partially it comes down to training, practice. After 40 some odd years of using, by today's standards, binoculars with limited FOVs, where's the beef? But notice, I just spent 2500 bucks for two stated reasons. One to lighten, reduce the load when a scope and tripod is in tow. The second is relevant here, I want to see if I can learn to appreciate what it is you and others so passionately promote. How many of you wide FOV, 8X lovers will do that?

I note Chuck is. Yahoo! It'll be fun to compare notes in a couple weeks.

Lee look at the TWO pics in #62. I know you look closer in at stuff thats more frame filling, of course you do. But the picture you posted to suggest why you like wide FOV is for me pretty, a lovely view to be sure, a wonderful snapshot. I see those views all the time with my naked eye. I dont need binoculars to see that. The binos are to zoom in and see whats hidden, not obvious in that milieu, (ha, another one of those old words we seldom use lurking around the hard drive). I thought the 2 pics taken together suggest the answer to your question.

Stay tuned

 

[GrampaTom]

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?

To go on... I wrote this below yesterday, put it aside and thought about whether its of interest to folks reading all this, adds anything or wanders too far afield. After your question in 76 above, it seems relevant:

"Lee, do you really NEED binos to see that? Ive got a head full of gorgeous images from 78 years of bouncing around. I rarely needed or used binos to capture any of those experiences or memories. Using photography as a kind of analogy to explore this idea, perusing pics Ive taken here and there, there appears an intriguing correlation of what I WANTED to see, to record then, to what I WANT to see through binoculars today.

From albums, with an Instamatic, RVN 1968, I find a closeup, peering down the inside of the barrel of a howitzer, struck by the light bouncing off the swirl of the rifling. There's another of a pair of jungle boots beat to bejesus from slogging through swamps. Pics of buddies? Sure, a few. Wide angle shots of southeast asian scenery are in the minority. Years later, with a Nikon FM, and favorite 55 Macro lens, I documented stuff as varied as closeups of craftsman's work, or tight shots of pals in a cargo canoe motoring to search for Caribou in the lake country of Northern Quebec. Scenes of the glacier fed lakes, rolling hills, and grooves in the tundra from ancient Caribou migrations, are mostly missing. Comparing those images with some more recently from Suguaro National Park, near Tucson where thousands of the giant cacti stand, a similar pattern emerges. Binos in tow? Nope. Pics? A few from an Iphone. There's close ups of a friend standing next to one of these giants, the skeletal remains of another decaying, some smaller exotic cacti, the disappearing tail of a rattlesnake being swallowed by a King Snake. Ive hiked Ben Nevis, crossed the bridge to Skye and driven the lanes there, a beautiful place to be sure. No bino, no pics, though.

Point?

There is something going on in this back and forth with you, that's intriguing. It seems little to do with FOV, AFOV, DOF, immersive, yadda. Those are concepts, words on a page, ways to evaluate this bino or that. These are things the companies use to sell binoculars, things important to bino collectors, connoisseurs, or… gear heads. To the average birder, the ones I see and talk with most days? The convo is always the same “What birds have you seen today?" Almost never is it about the bino. I think you get this. What if the argument about this or that X, or FOV is really about how or what we each want to see? Between 8 and 10 my ability to identify birds is little impacted. Though distance effects this. What is more effected is the detail I believe I can see and the range at which I can acquire that detail. If being out and about and seeing the world around you is the thing lower power and wider FOV is it. I get it. If identifying birds, adding to the list and moving on is the thing, that wider FOV may be more important than how big is the image. But, if the sensibility, the reason for doing this is seeing as much of a bird as you can, that means getting up close and personal, and/or as much X as one can handle is key. Wide field? Isnt it kind of a distraction? Smaller target in a more cluttered view, is how I experience it. Just as we each weigh the attributes of a binocular in so many discussions here, I suspect we need to recognze there's at least as many different sensibilities to why/what we want to see while out and about.

Maybe its not just about the bino?"

 

[Troubador]

To go on... I wrote this below yesterday, put it aside and thought about whether its of interest to folks reading all this, adds anything or wanders too far afield. After your question in 76 above, it seems relevant:

"Lee, do you really NEED binos to see that? Ive got a head full of gorgeous images from 78 years of bouncing around. I rarely needed or used binos to capture any of those experiences or memories. Using photography as a kind of analogy to explore this idea, perusing pics Ive taken here and there, there appears an intriguing correlation of what I WANTED to see, to record then, to what I WANT to see through binoculars today.

From albums, with an Instamatic, RVN 1968, I find a closeup, peering down the inside of the barrel of a howitzer, struck by the light bouncing off the swirl of the rifling. There's another of a pair of jungle boots beat to bejesus from slogging through swamps. Pics of buddies? Sure, a few. Wide angle shots of southeast asian scenery are in the minority. Years later, with a Nikon FM, and favorite 55 Macro lens, I documented stuff as varied as closeups of craftsman's work, or tight shots of pals in a cargo canoe motoring to search for Caribou in the lake country of Northern Quebec. Scenes of the glacier fed lakes, rolling hills, and grooves in the tundra from ancient Caribou migrations, are mostly missing. Comparing those images with some more recently from Suguaro National Park, near Tucson where thousands of the giant cacti stand, a similar pattern emerges. Binos in tow? Nope. Pics? A few from an Iphone. There's close ups of a friend standing next to one of these giants, the skeletal remains of another decaying, some smaller exotic cacti, the disappearing tail of a rattlesnake being swallowed by a King Snake. Ive hiked Ben Nevis, crossed the bridge to Skye and driven the lanes there, a beautiful place to be sure. No bino, no pics, though.

Point?

There is something going on in this back and forth with you, that's intriguing. It seems little to do with FOV, AFOV, DOF, immersive, yadda. Those are concepts, words on a page, ways to evaluate this bino or that. These are things the companies use to sell binoculars, things important to bino collectors, connoisseurs, or… gear heads. To the average birder, the ones I see and talk with most days? The convo is always the same “What birds have you seen today?" Almost never is it about the bino. I think you get this. What if the argument about this or that X, or FOV is really about how or what we each want to see? Between 8 and 10 my ability to identify birds is little impacted. Though distance effects this. What is more effected is the detail I believe I can see and the range at which I can acquire that detail. If being out and about and seeing the world around you is the thing lower power and wider FOV is it. I get it. If identifying birds, adding to the list and moving on is the thing, that wider FOV may be more important than how big is the image. But, if the sensibility, the reason for doing this is seeing as much of a bird as you can, that means getting up close and personal, and/or as much X as one can handle is key. Wide field? Isnt it kind of a distraction? Smaller target in a more cluttered view, is how I experience it. Just as we each weigh the attributes of a binocular in so many discussions here, I suspect we need to recognze there's at least as many different sensibilities to why/what we want to see while out and about.

Maybe its not just about the bino?"

OK, one last comment. Take a look at the pic in my post 71. See all those rocks? They have seaweeds growing all around them and often the sea has pushed the seaweeds over the rocks too. Finding dark objects such as Common Seals, Otters and birds like Turnstone amongst the dark seaweed can be diffiicult with the naked eye. Binoculars makes this job much easier, and in my experience, binoculars with a wider field of view, whether they are 8x or 10x enable me to search these rocks more efficiently and quickly.

Thats alll folks! Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Lee

 

[Patudo]

ask yourself which binocular would enable you to more quickly search that view for hawks and eagles, swifts and swallows: a binocular with a narrow fov, or one with a wide fov?

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.

Using photography as a kind of analogy to explore this idea, perusing pics Ive taken here and there, there appears an intriguing correlation of what I WANTED to see, to record then, to what I WANT to see through binoculars today.

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?