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

[Trinovid]

Diminishing returns dictates that there’ll be more of a detectable difference between 7/8x than there is on the upper end of the scale, leaving even more space between 12/15x models. Not much justification for one really.

 

[Rolosama]

In my part of Canada, regarding 9x, what is available (at least most visible) in stores are the Pentax (Ricoh) SD 9X42 WP open bridge binoculars, an inexpensive model .

 

[crinklystarfish]

I do like the idea of more 9x choices and 9x45 in particular would seem to be a useful format for a very competent all-round binocular: weight and bulk accepted.

Such a thing would be appealing to me in the event I was only able to take one bin on extended travel but knew I was going to be in a mixture of habitats at all time of day and night.

If weight and bulk were a real issue, then perhaps a 9x36?

That being said, the Maven B.2 9x45 is the best 9x I have ever tried

Me too, but - for me - it showed terrible veiling glare. I fiddled exhaustively with ER and IPD as I really wanted to keep it. I really enjoyed the image and loved the ergonomics but the glare was just awful in my experience.

I've read across many threads that glare really troubles you; again, me too. I appreciate there are many imponderables that may affect different users' experiences but as a fellow 'sufferer' wondered if veiling glare sullied the Maven for you?

 

[Paultricounty]

I think 7x, 9x and 11x makes more sense than 8, 10 and 12. My thinking is that there’s barely a difference between a 7 and 8 as far as the image, but the 7 has a much deeper (and nice imo) DOF. The 9 gives more reach than the 7 or 8 and is easier to hold than a 10. The 9 could take the place of the 8x as the best all around compromise. The 11 could still be a compromise for people who use a 10 but can’t hold the 12 steady enough. I don’t meet many birders using 12’s.

 

[LucaPCP]

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.

I would like some 11x44 actually...

Just so that when I am birding with others, I can give them a side glance and say, "mine goes up to 11!"

 

[Paultricounty]

I would like some 11x44 actually...

Just so that when I am birding with others, I can give them a side glance and say, "mine goes up to 11!"

Sig makes a very interesting example. With AK prisms.

 

[Scott98]

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.

I was out doing astronomy last night, mostly enjoying the monster 10x56 SLC but also my 8x42 SF's which for some reason seem exceptionally good at astronomy. The SLC's are heavy though! I couldn't help but wonder about the 50mm class again and how cool it would be to have some 8x50's or 9x50's. I like the relaxed, stable feeling of 8x over 10x. I can't handle the 7mm exit pupil of 8x56 anymore.

I poked around the internet and the only thing I found was 8.5 X 50 GPO's. Only 33 ounces. Without going too far off-track, let's just say I"m not thrilled about their business model. There are the special-order 8x50 UVHD's, but they have same FOV as the 10x50's....why bother?

There's the 9x45 Mavens, but the lens isn't much bigger than 42mm. And I prefer Zeiss and Nikon designs. All roads lead to the Zeiss HT 8x54 or 10x54's. They would check all the boxes for my large-aperture bino. However, I already tried them and the 10x54 HT was eaten alive by the 10x56 SLC in one of the shortest and most decisive bino comparisons ever. I can't tolerate the edge breakdown in the HT's, the SLC were vastly better during the day. The tunnel-vision effect of the HT's would be even worse with the stars.

 

[Canip]

There are the special-order 8x50 UVHD's, but they have same FOV as the 10x50's....why bother?

Look through the 8x50 and you will understand why I bother more about it than the 10x50 - notwithstanding the FOV …

 

[Scott98]

Look through the 8x50 and you will understand why I bother more about it than the 10x50 - notwithstanding the FOV …

Most interesting! Care to elaborate on what you like about them? Are you going to make me buy another pair of binoculars

 

[Canip]

Most interesting! Care to elaborate on what you like about them? Are you going to make me buy another pair of binoculars

There is actually a thread on the UV 8x50 somewhere here on BF, if you care to search for it. But it‘s quite hard to define precisely why the 8x50 offers, in my (and some other forum members‘) view, such an amazingly relaxed viewing experience hardly found on other binos (I know and acknowledge this a very subjective opinion).

 

[Gzoladz74]

I would not have expected so many 40mm a few years ago given that there were 42mm everywhere (I know, they are lighter, etc)...perhaps in a few years 9x becomes the new 8x and they start pushing that magnification i.e. get the best of 8x and 10x or some marketing spill along those lines.

I think 32mm's are here to stay, 40mm's time will tell, and they may push 9x's at some stage in the future and see what happens.