Why are there so few x9 binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[John Cantelo]

While 7x binoculars have a small (but significant) following, the market is saturated with 8x and 10x instruments. Accordingly, it's always seemed odd to me that 9x binoculars are something of a rarity (although I know that there are some). A 9x35/36 instrument is surely a happy compromise but there are very few of them and not one of them is made by a top alpha brand. One suggestion I've come across - which I find unconvincing - is that 9 is considered an unlucky number in Japan where many instruments are designed and made. Another suggestion is that 8x and 10x are established niches and few manufacturers are willing to step out of line.

 

[Patudo]

There is of course the great Swarovski 8.5x42 - a true modern day classic fully worthy (IMO anyway, but shared by plenty of others if the number I see - and which you've probably seen yourself - is anything to go by) of being counted alongside the greats of the past like the 7x42 Dialyt and Leica's BA/BN Trinovids. And also the 8.5x44 Audubon porros. Kamakura's 9x45 Abbe-Koening model (sold by eg. Maven and SIG) is harder to find on this side of the Atlantic but can probably be found with a bit of hunting around. It seems to have pretty good reviews - I'd certainly like to look through one.

I think 8.5 or 9x is actually too good an all rounder that takes away from the greater sales volume that would otherwise be achieved by separate 8x and 10x models. Perhaps this was the thinking behind Swarovski moving from the very successful 8.5x42 EL back to 8x and 10x for the NL range.

 

[Binocollector]

One of my best old porros is a 9x35 Katsuma wide angle. Build quality is better than most other Japanese porros from the "golden era" that I handled so far.
And for stargazing I quite like 9x63. But AFAIK Optolyth was the last non-Chinese manufacturer that offered a 9x63. Since they were mainly aimed at low light hunting they died out since everybody is using night-vision these days. For a long time nigh-vision equipment was illegal for hunting in Germany but they changed the laws.

 

[Swedpat]

Yes there are few 9x models. I can only recall a few 9x binoculars during the years. All porros. Nikon 9x25. Mirador 9x35. Steiner had a 9x40.

 

[Binastro]

I have a 9x42 Condor, I think, a version of the 8.5x44.
It is quite good.

Also some old 9x Porros.

Regards,
B.

 

[paddyluke]

While 7x binoculars have a small (but significant) following, the market is saturated with 8x and 10x instruments. Accordingly, it's always seemed odd to me that 9x binoculars are something of a rarity (although I know that there are some). A 9x35/36 instrument is surely a happy compromise but there are very few of them and not one of them is made by a top alpha brand. One suggestion I've come across - which I find unconvincing - is that 9 is considered an unlucky number in Japan where many instruments are designed and made. Another suggestion is that 8x and 10x are established niches and few manufacturers are willing to step out of line.

if the market is saturated with 8x and 10x then is there really a need for 9x, would you be able to tell the difference?, would one manufacturers 8x be anothers 9x?

 

[[email protected]]

There is of course the great Swarovski 8.5x42 - a true modern day classic fully worthy (IMO anyway, but shared by plenty of others if the number I see - and which you've probably seen yourself - is anything to go by) of being counted alongside the greats of the past like the 7x42 Dialyt and Leica's BA/BN Trinovids. And also the 8.5x44 Audubon porros. Kamakura's 9x45 Abbe-Koening model (sold by eg. Maven and SIG) is harder to find on this side of the Atlantic but can probably be found with a bit of hunting around. It seems to have pretty good reviews - I'd certainly like to look through one.

I actually think 8.5 or 9x is actually too good an all rounder that takes away from the greater sales volume that would otherwise be achieved by separate 8x and 10x models. Perhaps this was the thinking behind Swarovski moving from the very successful 8.5x42 EL back to 8x and 10x for the NL range.

You hit the nail on the head. A 9x would cannibalize market share from 8x and 10x binoculars. Also, the manufacturers figure there is not enough difference in 1x magnification to offer them, and they are probably right. 8x for the birders and 10x for the hunters. Somebody might buy just one 9x when they would otherwise buy an 8x and a 10x for different purposes. It is really the same reason there are so few 7x binoculars. Lack of demand. That being said, the Maven B.2 9x45 is the best 9x I have ever tried, and I have tried a few of them. I personally think 8x is perfect for birding.

 

[Maljunulo]

At this point, i think it would only be a marketing gimmick.

 

[Paultricounty]

Bausch and Lomb discoverer 9x35.

 

[Scott98]

I think the tooling & startup costs for these high-end binos in the current manufacturing climate in expensive countries is much higher than it was 40 years ago. They just can't make their numbers if they spread out purchases over too many different models. They've herded everyone into 8x and 10x. 7x35 was a huge loss IMO. 9x56, 8x50, less needed, but still would have been fun. There are still some around 7x and 9x around. I wish those Mavens were 9x50 instead of 9x45.

 

[[email protected]]

I think the tooling & startup costs for these high-end binos in the current manufacturing climate in expensive countries in much higher than it was 40 years ago. They just can't make their numbers if they spread out purchases over too many different models. They've herded everyone into 8x and 10x. 7x35 was a huge loss IMO. 9x56, 8x50, less needed, but still would have been fun. There are still some around 7x and 9x around. I wish those Mavens were 9x50 instead of 9x45.

The weak point of the Maven 9x45 is bulkiness and weight of 33.5 oz. If they made them into a 9x50, they would be heavier than an SLC 8x56.

 

[Scott98]

The weak point of the Maven 9x45 is bulkiness and weight of 33.5 oz. If they made them into a 9x50, they would be heavier than an SLC 8x56.

I know, it's just a weird size. I paid for Zeiss SF 8x42, no way I"m going to shell out again for a 9x45 that's 6 ounces heavier for only 3 more millimeters, regardless of the magnification.

Maven 56mm's have the AK prisms too, and the weight isn't so bad. Only slightly heavier than the SLC's I think? And then Maven makes a 30-ounce 10x50. How about offering 8x or 9x in that line? Would not have the AK, but I might try them anyway, a 30-ounce 50mm is very cool, big weight savings over the competition.

I think another problem is the AFOV shrinks down with the same prisms - 8x50 or 9x50 would probably have smaller AFOV than those Maven 10x50 because of the size of the prisms

 

[chill6x6]

I've had a Maven B.2 9X45. It's a few nice binocular and I really liked it. Very well built. AK prisms. For me it's main issue was I had a Swarovski 8.5X42 that was smaller and lighter. Of course that Swarovski is twice as expensive too!

 

[William Lewis]

If your after a classic 9x here's a thing -

NIKON Fernglas 9x35 A Serie 7.3° Binocular NIPPON KOGAKU Tokyo No.699735 MINT | eBay

Serial No. 699735. NIKONLedertasche/Leather Case. Dieses Fernglas zählte in den 60er und 70er Jahren zu den besten Gläsern am Markt und übertraf selbst Zeiss, Hensoldt oder Leitz/Laica Gläser. Es ist robustund bietet eine überragende klare und scharfe Sicht.

www.ebay.co.uk

Looks to be in decent nick.

 

[[email protected]]

I know, it's just a weird size. I paid for Zeiss SF 8x42, no way I"m going to shell out again for a 9x45 that's 6 ounces heavier for only 3 more millimeters, regardless of the magnification.

Maven 56mm's have the AK prisms too, and the weight isn't so bad. Only slightly heavier than the SLC's I think? And then Maven makes a 30-ounce 10x50. How about offering 8x or 9x in that line? Would not have the AK, but I might try them anyway, a 30-ounce 50mm is very cool, big weight savings over the competition.

I think another problem is the AFOV shrinks down with the same prisms - 8x50 or 9x50 would probably have smaller AFOV than those Maven 10x50 because of the size of the prisms

The trouble with all the other 8x56's including the Maven is they have a small FOV. The SLC and FL are the only CF 8x56's with a decent size FOV. I prefer the SLC over the FL because it has sharper edges and less distortion.

The AK is nice because it pops you up another 2% higher in transmission, and I think it helps a little in low light. It is weird, that nobody but Swarovski and Zeiss can make an 8x56 with a decent size FOV. I sold my Maven 9x45. I just thought it was too heavy and bulky for a 45mm. Hunter's like the Maven 9x45. A hunter bought mine.

 

[fazalmajid]

My father has an old pair of Nikon 9x30 6.7° roof prism binocular, purchased when we lived in Tokyo circa 1985. They were pretty good for the time.

 

[[email protected]]

I've had a Maven B.2 9X45. It's a few nice binocular and I really liked it. Very well built. AK prisms. For me it's main issue was I had a Swarovski 8.5X42 that was smaller and lighter. Of course that Swarovski is twice as expensive too!

That was why I sold my Maven 9x45. Too big and bulky for a 45mm. Look how much smaller even the Swaro 8.5x42 is. Nice picture. That Swaro EL 8.42 was a great binocular. I like it better than the NL.

 

[Scott98]

The trouble with all the other 8x56's including the Maven is they have a small FOV. The SLC and FL are the only CF 8x56's with a decent size FOV. I prefer the SLC over the FL because it has sharper edges and less distortion.

The AK is nice because it pops you up another 2% higher in transmission, and I think it helps a little in low light. It is weird, that nobody but Swarovski and Zeiss can make an 8x56 with a decent size FOV. I sold my Maven 9x45. I just thought it was too heavy and bulky for a 45mm. Hunter's like the Maven 9x45. A hunter bought mine.

interesting, didn't realize this, since I can't do 7mm exit pupil anymore - it's the prism-size limitation that's doing this. To get a big AFOV in the 8x56 would require wider prisms and a different body construction. So Swaro was able to do this without increasing the size or weight of the 8x56 over the 10x56.

I do love the 56mm SLC, they're exceptional big-bino optics IMO. I am partial to Zeiss and Nikon mechanics and build over Swaro but those guys don't offer anything like the 56mm SLC optics. It's a shame Swaro has stopped selling the 8x and 10x in the USA. I would love 9x56 but that's asking a little much! 8,10, and 15 ain't bad

 

[[email protected]]

interesting, didn't realize this, since I can't do 7mm exit pupil anymore - it's the prism-size limitation that's doing this. To get a big AFOV in the 8x56 would require wider prisms and a different body construction. So Swaro was able to do this without increasing the size or weight of the 8x56 over the 10x56.

I do love the 56mm SLC, they're exceptional big-bino optics IMO. I am partial to Zeiss and Nikon mechanics and build over Swaro but those guys don't offer anything like the 56mm SLC optics. It's a shame Swaro has stopped selling the 8x and 10x in the USA. I would love 9x56 but that's asking a little much! 8,10, and 15 ain't bad

My Zeiss SFL 8x40 is very good, but the SLC 8x56 is a real treat to use. It would be nice if Zeiss would update the HT 8x54 and sharpen up the edges a little. There is a little too much fall off. It is otherwise such a nice big aperture binocular and light at 36 oz. as well.

 

[Elkhornsun]

A manufacturer needs to sell thousands of a given model to recoup mold costs and then make a profit. The 7x are popular for marine use and 8x and 10x are popular for use on land. There is a significant increase in image magnification from 7x to 8x of 14% and from 8x to 10x of 25%.

Also the manufacturer need to produce 8x and 10x with different size objectives to meet the needs or desires of their customers. Swarovski makes binoculars with 21mm, 25mm, 30mm. 32mm, 42mm, 50mm, and 56mm size objectives.