Beg to differ - low light performance is a factor because a lot of birding happens in low light - early morning and early evening. Also, I know many many experienced birders who choose 8x over 10x. No one should think that 8x is reserved for beginners.
Yes, the larger exit pupil of 8x helps in low light. Also, weight is an important part of the compromise when we are carrying a camera and long lens. 8x30 for me. My second choice would be 8x20. The best choice for me has been Steiner 8x30 Military/Marine because they are light weight, inexpensive but bright Porro prism design & there is no faster focus as everything from 20m to infinity is always in focus. If less than 20m, I use my camera lens & take photos.
I live in a tropical country and honestly my B&L 10X were a beginner mistake, the tropical rain forest can be very dark with double and even triple canopy. So now Im planning to get 8X.
@@ricardosoto5770 the magnification 10x is relative. Not all 10x are dark. They just need a big objective lens. The Maven B6 10x50 is bright as hell and practically the size of a 8x42.
I personally disagree with the suggestion that low light isn’t important, I do a lot of glassing at dawn and dusk and the extra bulk of a 10x56 is worth it over 35’s or 42’s
This may offend many bird watcher’s but it’s the truth. Swarovski Leica & Zeiss middle or high end of the range of optics are probably the best out there.
This is a great video. I'm just getting started in birding and enjoy using my 7 x 35 porros I purchased from a thrift shop for 15 dollars. It's nice to hand my binos to my young children who are still learning how to care for for delicate and expensive items without any stress
I disagree most birdwatching is done early and late a 50 will give you better low light and a better field of view and 8x are used by experts also I have 8x 45 10 x45 10x 50 and 18x 56 and I only use the later 18s for mud flats and lakes 10x 50 are perfect hand held and a much better field of view than the 45s but compact is good when your carrying to much gear.
I think most bird watchers such as myself appreciate this hobby more during daylight hours for that is when we can enjoy the colors of these beautiful creatures in all their splendor. There is no reason to carry extra volume and weight unless one wishes to extend this activity into low light conditions
I think this discussion regarding binoculars for birders is well thought out. Of course, everyone has their differences, but I think for the majority of birders, your assessments are spot on. The majority bird during daylight hours and the majority focus on one bird at a time through their binoculars. Add to that, the majority like to be outside on foot for at least a couple of hours at a time, and would prefer more time if they are able. Thus, I believe you addressed the important issues related to the majority of birders. I've been birding for 30+ years and lead birding field trips in my area. By the way, I really like one of the newest entries into the binocular world: the GPO 10x32 - light-weight, bright, and excellent clarity.
Any advice please, I have a long garden and like to watch the birds at the end……I have a 8/21 pair of binoculars which I can only just see the birds with…..What world work best for me please ? Thank you xx
i think either 8x or 10x is good. 10x is better to see all the details of the bird. Where 8x is better for field of view so if your looking at flock of birds is better to go 8x but if you want to focus on just 1 bird the 10x is better!!!!
Thanks for the info, this was very helpful! I have been debating between a set of Nikon Prostaff P7 10x42 or 8x30. They're both on black Friday sale. I like the compactness of the 8x30 for travel etc but I like the 10x42 for getting closer and for a slightly higher res and brighter image. Unfortunately there's nowhere nearby that stocks them so I have to go entirely off reviews. I decided to go for the 10x42 because I think the quality and brightness of the image, as well as having a slightly higher magnification, is more important to me than portability. The 10x42 are only a wee bit bigger/heavier anyway so I can still chuck them in a backpack if I need to. Any thoughts? Did I make the right choice?
I think you made the right choice. I had Prostaff 10x42s for a number of years and was very happy, until I inherited a pair of older Leica Trinovid 10x42s! The viewing experience is many times better than the Nikons, but as they are pretty heavy, I went out and bought a much newer version of the Trinovids, also 10x42, and they are worth every penny/cent. They were expensive (around USD 1000/Eur990/ GBP850), but not the most expensive possible, which I would have been too worried to use just in case they got damaged. I hope you're happy with your Nikons, but if you ever feel like upgrading I would unreservedly recommend Trinovids.
I like my Pentax 8-20x24 portable bino.. find a bird with 8x, zoom to 20x and observe for a while. On good light of course. It depends a lot what kind of birds are you observing. If it is during hiking I'm cetrainly not going to carry 10x42/10x50 mammoth and many times even really small 10x25 ends in my bag. And there are many birders who carry monocular spective like 20-40x70 and tripod.
I carried minis 10x28 and a Nikon 16x48x 60mm spotting scope and a tripod, it works for acuatic birds and raptors. Jungle birds not so. A light 8x42 is better there.
I've just purchased the Kowa Genesis Prominar XD 8.5x44 and want to put filters to protect the objective lenses (this model features front threads for installing filters). Is it better to install just standard protective filters (i.e. Hoya HD Gold Protector) or UV filters instead (i.e. Hoya HD Gold UV)? Thank you.
I service binoculars for a major manufacturer, and I would not use filters. Binoculars, especially good ones (and Kowa makes good ones), are designed to give you excellent color rendition, contrast and sharpness, and to block undesirable wavelengths like UV. Their lenses have all the antireflective coatings they need to maximize light transmission and scratch resistance, and they are likely even coated so they don't fog over easily. You put a filter on a good binocular and you reduce light transmission by putting more glass surfaces between your eyes and your observation target - not by much if the filter's coatings are very good, but you will need to trust the filter manufacturer's word on that. You add unnecessary weight, and the filter's surface, being situated all the way at the end of the optical tube, will probably get scratched more easily than the more protected objective lens. A scratch on a filter will create just as much contrast-reducing stray light as a scratch on an objective lens would - not much, but it adds up over time. Last but not least, the space between filter and objective lens does not have the same water resistance as the binocular itself. If water gets trapped between filter and objective lens, you roll out the welcome mat for fungus growth - which is bad because fungi secrete chemicals that destroy lens coatings. If you want to add something to protect your lenses, go for a lens brush to remove coarse dirt without scratching the lens, and for a clean microfiber cloth or single-use lens cloth to remove fingerprints, tree sap and whatever else may get on your lenses.
@@fmbga I think you are totally right. Thank you. 👍🏻 However I did finally put good quality fully multi-coated Japanese glass UV filters on the front, mainly for protection purpose. I haven't noticed any decrease in image quality (sharpness, contrast, color, etc.) using them vs not using them, so I have more peace of mind using them.
Porro Prisms offer the best price/performance ratio. Their dying out is a market decision. Any wise birder would choose a porro (if such porros are still available at all) except if price is no issue.
A friend of my who is into astronomy said that his 7X50 Fujinon Polaris humilliated a fellow french astronomer Swaroskis so hard, that his friend sold them. Porros can be fine if you do not mind their bulk and weight. I love my 7X50 Steiners bought 20 years ago.
@@ricardosoto5770 I doubt the humiliation. I own Swaros too and they're great, expensive but great. I do believe the Fujinon are great too, though. And I'm into astronomy, I own 2 telescopes. Remember not to compare apples and pears, 7*50 is low magnification and a lot of light gathering power. (and those Fujinon aren't cheap either, they ought to be good)
@@claudej8805 For the uses in their astronomical obvervatory in Chile, they Fujis 7x50 can only be beaten by germanic binos over 2K, this guys live for astronomy, is their job. They even have asteroids with their names on it. Basicially they said porros are far better in depth of view for their price, and since they do not walk too much, they do not mind their bulk and size. And yes, they do have 3 to 10K dollar german astronomical binos too, and ultra expensive telescopes. There is a sweet spot were a 600 dolares mid range bino cannot be suspassed until you spend 5 times their price or astronomical use, is their opinion. But I do want a Swaroski por nature watching, it my dream.
@@ricardosoto5770 Don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue with you. I'm just reacting if you will allow it, I like the subject. Swarowski is an Austrian company but maybe you meant Leica or Zeiss. Thing is, most of the german/austrian contenders for that 7*50 cost 2000 or more. So I don't quite know anymore what you're saying. The 7*50 is better than german binos except if you pay much more but you have to pay much more anyway. So the 7*50 isn't better anymore but cheaper ? Of course porro design beats roof design in depth of field but I don't see how this matters in astronomy. And surely those roof designs have advantages other that 7*50 too. I had an Opticron SR.GA 8*32 Porro bino, half the price of my 8*25 CL Pocket Swaro with nearly the same optical quality. I gave it to my brother, the swaro is better in all aspects, except depth of field and price.
I like your channel. One wish: can you please make an in depth video about spotting scopes? I think many people would be interested in that. If you do; please include the best of the best: Swarovski BTX 😁. I have it and it's simply AMAZING!
I strongly disagree that KOWA & NIKON -- Top Japanese brands are below The big three European Brands, I own Swaro & KOWA instruments and can say that they stand side by side, I dont have any NIKON stuffn granted, but have a buddy who does and had a large spotting scope ( Nikon) then traded up for a same Spec Swaro , after having invited being invited to look through it , my comments were " D----en , you have gained nothing from this purchase " the nodding agreement agreement was full of buyers remorse. Its not fair to say top Japanese stuff is 2nd rate behind Top European stuff, IT IS NOT!!
x50 too heavy? Wimps! I've been using 10x50 Porro for over 40 years and don't understand why everybody recommands x42 roofs nowadays if not for children and women.
zu vill haff maggnifficication..unt zu vill be happ-ee..... ein just purchasenn zer pentax jupiter 8x40 magniffications.. @£69 .. unt i am happ-ee....zuper binoculeurrz for ze £ ..kwality ist zooper..
Clearly these guys are not Birders, 8x are the most popular by far and much better for freehand without supports when travelling about. Plus in woody darker areas or dawn and dusk they are better letting more light in.
I bought 8x and was immediately disappointed. Bought a new pair of 10x42s, since most of the other folks in my birding group had them, and i was a much happier camper, i mean birder.
@@johnvoltageltd Its all horses for courses really, you maybe should have tested out some 10x from your birding mates or at least asked their advice first before buying the 8x. This video is not really very helpful anyway, 8x are not for novices and you never really get better at stopping the shake, only worse with age. I personally use a scope in bird hides combined with my bino's . Out in the field with no support and often dimly lit woods my 8x are fantastic and with a better field of view I dont miss much. Lastly price is a huge factor, I had a pair of 8x40 RSPB HD's for years, great for £300. I saved up and bought a pair of 8x42 Swarovski's last year, second hand but so so much better. Clearer image and even better in low light than the RSPB's. Happy birding, D
Thanks for the info, this was very helpful! I have been debating between a set of Nikon Prostaff P7 10x42 or 8x30. They're both on black Friday sale. I like the compactness of the 8x30 for travel etc but I like the 10x42 for getting closer and for a slightly higher res and brighter image. Unfortunately there's nowhere nearby that stocks them so I have to go entirely off reviews. I decided to go for the 10x42 because I think the quality and brightness of the image, as well as having a slightly higher magnification, is more important to me than portability. The 10x42 are only a wee bit bigger/heavier anyway so I can still chuck them in a backpack if I need to. Any thoughts? Did I make the right choice?
Thanks! That was amazing!
Glad we could help!
Yes, really got to the main points. @@OpticsTradeEU
Beg to differ - low light performance is a factor because a lot of birding happens in low light - early morning and early evening. Also, I know many many experienced birders who choose 8x over 10x. No one should think that 8x is reserved for beginners.
Yes, the larger exit pupil of 8x helps in low light. Also, weight is an important part of the compromise when we are carrying a camera and long lens. 8x30 for me. My second choice would be 8x20. The best choice for me has been Steiner 8x30 Military/Marine because they are light weight, inexpensive but bright Porro prism design & there is no faster focus as everything from 20m to infinity is always in focus. If less than 20m, I use my camera lens & take photos.
I agree, low light performance is important.
Spot on mate - these guys lost credibility when they said 8x is for beginners.
I live in a tropical country and honestly my B&L 10X were a beginner mistake, the tropical rain forest can be very dark with double and even triple canopy. So now Im planning to get 8X.
@@ricardosoto5770 the magnification 10x is relative. Not all 10x are dark. They just need a big objective lens. The Maven B6 10x50 is bright as hell and practically the size of a 8x42.
I personally disagree with the suggestion that low light isn’t important, I do a lot of glassing at dawn and dusk and the extra bulk of a 10x56 is worth it over 35’s or 42’s
Hi, I’m so sorry. Your view that X7 isn’t for birdwatching is incorrect. Kind regards.
"Buy once, cry once" good advice generally
"Buy once, cry once." Well said. ..Looking at the Noctivid 10x42.
Lol 😂
Yep… know that feeling, just got a pair of Conquest HD 10x56’s 🤣
I’ve just upgraded to Leica Ultravids HD 10x42
Strictly for bird watching
This may offend many bird watcher’s but it’s the truth.
Swarovski Leica & Zeiss middle or high end of the range of optics are probably the best out there.
This is a great video. I'm just getting started in birding and enjoy using my 7 x 35 porros I purchased from a thrift shop for 15 dollars. It's nice to hand my binos to my young children who are still learning how to care for for delicate and expensive items without any stress
I disagree most birdwatching is done early and late a 50 will give you better low light and a better field of view and 8x are used by experts also I have 8x 45 10 x45 10x 50 and 18x 56 and I only use the later 18s for mud flats and lakes 10x 50 are perfect hand held and a much better field of view than the 45s but compact is good when your carrying to much gear.
I think most bird watchers such as myself appreciate this hobby more during daylight hours for that is when we can enjoy the colors of these beautiful creatures in all their splendor. There is no reason to carry extra volume and weight unless one wishes to extend this activity into low light conditions
I think this discussion regarding binoculars for birders is well thought out. Of course, everyone has their differences, but I think for the majority of birders, your assessments are spot on. The majority bird during daylight hours and the majority focus on one bird at a time through their binoculars. Add to that, the majority like to be outside on foot for at least a couple of hours at a time, and would prefer more time if they are able. Thus, I believe you addressed the important issues related to the majority of birders. I've been birding for 30+ years and lead birding field trips in my area. By the way, I really like one of the newest entries into the binocular world: the GPO 10x32 - light-weight, bright, and excellent clarity.
I'm a Leica fan but I recently bought vortex viber at half the price and they are excellent.
I use a 12x50 often without a monopod or tripod. It is slightly shaky, but not terrible. I also have 10x42 and 8x42. All serve a purpose.
Any advice please, I have a long garden and like to watch the birds at the end……I have a 8/21 pair of binoculars which I can only just see the birds with…..What world work best for me please ? Thank you xx
Hello! Please! Vortex Viper 10x42 or Steiner Safari ultrasharp 10x42?
I have the steiner ultrasharp 8x22 ;) amazing performance;) very clear :)
Bushnell Legend E or Athlon Neos G2???
i think either 8x or 10x is good. 10x is better to see all the details of the bird. Where 8x is better for field of view so if your looking at flock of birds is better to go 8x but if you want to focus on just 1 bird the 10x is better!!!!
Thanks for the info, this was very helpful! I have been debating between a set of Nikon Prostaff P7 10x42 or 8x30. They're both on black Friday sale. I like the compactness of the 8x30 for travel etc but I like the 10x42 for getting closer and for a slightly higher res and brighter image. Unfortunately there's nowhere nearby that stocks them so I have to go entirely off reviews. I decided to go for the 10x42 because I think the quality and brightness of the image, as well as having a slightly higher magnification, is more important to me than portability. The 10x42 are only a wee bit bigger/heavier anyway so I can still chuck them in a backpack if I need to. Any thoughts? Did I make the right choice?
I think you made the right choice. I had Prostaff 10x42s for a number of years and was very happy, until I inherited a pair of older Leica Trinovid 10x42s! The viewing experience is many times better than the Nikons, but as they are pretty heavy, I went out and bought a much newer version of the Trinovids, also 10x42, and they are worth every penny/cent. They were expensive (around USD 1000/Eur990/ GBP850), but not the most expensive possible, which I would have been too worried to use just in case they got damaged. I hope you're happy with your Nikons, but if you ever feel like upgrading I would unreservedly recommend Trinovids.
I couldn't agree with this more.
Do you think the NIKON monrach 8x30 is a good choice for birds and moving butterflies? Thanks!
Yes it is. Or a 8x42.
Very interesting thanks. Just, it's not a debate. More a discussion. In a debate, there are opposing arguments about a subject.
I like my Pentax 8-20x24 portable bino.. find a bird with 8x, zoom to 20x and observe for a while. On good light of course. It depends a lot what kind of birds are you observing. If it is during hiking I'm cetrainly not going to carry 10x42/10x50 mammoth and many times even really small 10x25 ends in my bag.
And there are many birders who carry monocular spective like 20-40x70 and tripod.
I carried minis 10x28 and a Nikon 16x48x 60mm spotting scope and a tripod, it works for acuatic birds and raptors. Jungle birds not so. A light 8x42 is better there.
Can i use my steiner safari ultrasharp 8x22 for boating ?
Hi I'm planning to buy a binocular gosky EagleView 10x42 or celestron trailseeker 10x42 which is best ?
Please let me know too even I am confused
I tried big 10x50 , for me anything higher than that needs a tripod. Shaky hands.
I've just purchased the Kowa Genesis Prominar XD 8.5x44 and want to put filters to protect the objective lenses (this model features front threads for installing filters).
Is it better to install just standard protective filters (i.e. Hoya HD Gold Protector) or UV filters instead (i.e. Hoya HD Gold UV)?
Thank you.
I service binoculars for a major manufacturer, and I would not use filters. Binoculars, especially good ones (and Kowa makes good ones), are designed to give you excellent color rendition, contrast and sharpness, and to block undesirable wavelengths like UV. Their lenses have all the antireflective coatings they need to maximize light transmission and scratch resistance, and they are likely even coated so they don't fog over easily. You put a filter on a good binocular and you reduce light transmission by putting more glass surfaces between your eyes and your observation target - not by much if the filter's coatings are very good, but you will need to trust the filter manufacturer's word on that. You add unnecessary weight, and the filter's surface, being situated all the way at the end of the optical tube, will probably get scratched more easily than the more protected objective lens. A scratch on a filter will create just as much contrast-reducing stray light as a scratch on an objective lens would - not much, but it adds up over time.
Last but not least, the space between filter and objective lens does not have the same water resistance as the binocular itself. If water gets trapped between filter and objective lens, you roll out the welcome mat for fungus growth - which is bad because fungi secrete chemicals that destroy lens coatings.
If you want to add something to protect your lenses, go for a lens brush to remove coarse dirt without scratching the lens, and for a clean microfiber cloth or single-use lens cloth to remove fingerprints, tree sap and whatever else may get on your lenses.
@@fmbga
I think you are totally right. Thank you. 👍🏻
However I did finally put good quality fully multi-coated Japanese glass UV filters on the front, mainly for protection purpose.
I haven't noticed any decrease in image quality (sharpness, contrast, color, etc.) using them vs not using them, so I have more peace of mind using them.
I would recommend 6X magnification for no professional users. Comfort of using 6 X magnification is amazing and much better than 8X.
Porro Prisms offer the best price/performance ratio. Their dying out is a market decision. Any wise birder would choose a porro (if such porros are still available at all) except if price is no issue.
I too prefer porros.
A friend of my who is into astronomy said that his 7X50 Fujinon Polaris humilliated a fellow french astronomer Swaroskis so hard, that his friend sold them. Porros can be fine if you do not mind their bulk and weight. I love my 7X50 Steiners bought 20 years ago.
@@ricardosoto5770 I doubt the humiliation. I own Swaros too and they're great, expensive but great. I do believe the Fujinon are great too, though. And I'm into astronomy, I own 2 telescopes.
Remember not to compare apples and pears, 7*50 is low magnification and a lot of light gathering power.
(and those Fujinon aren't cheap either, they ought to be good)
@@claudej8805 For the uses in their astronomical obvervatory in Chile, they Fujis 7x50 can only be beaten by germanic binos over 2K, this guys live for astronomy, is their job. They even have asteroids with their names on it. Basicially they said porros are far better in depth of view for their price, and since they do not walk too much, they do not mind their bulk and size. And yes, they do have 3 to 10K dollar german astronomical binos too, and ultra expensive telescopes. There is a sweet spot were a 600 dolares mid range bino cannot be suspassed until you spend 5 times their price or astronomical use, is their opinion. But I do want a Swaroski por nature watching, it my dream.
@@ricardosoto5770 Don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue with you. I'm just reacting if you will allow it, I like the subject.
Swarowski is an Austrian company but maybe you meant Leica or Zeiss. Thing is, most of the german/austrian contenders for that 7*50 cost 2000 or more. So I don't quite know anymore what you're saying. The 7*50 is better than german binos except if you pay much more but you have to pay much more anyway. So the 7*50 isn't better anymore but cheaper ?
Of course porro design beats roof design in depth of field but I don't see how this matters in astronomy.
And surely those roof designs have advantages other that 7*50 too.
I had an Opticron SR.GA 8*32 Porro bino, half the price of my 8*25 CL Pocket Swaro with nearly the same optical quality. I gave it to my brother, the swaro is better in all aspects, except depth of field and price.
Hm, what if you are specialized on watching owls? Owls are night active. Therefore you'll need 8x56 or 10x56! :P
I used 7X50 military steiners, but a 8x56 nighthunter would be better.
Yet Sibley, Peterson, and others use 7x42. Wider field of view, brighter image and not as heavy.
Yet that's why I've heard some of people's favorite birding bino is the 7x42 leica hd+
Leica ultravid hd + 7x42
Hi guys. One question
Will there be any difference between
7X35 to 8X30 ? Thanks!
Hello! You can write us an email at info@optics-trade.eu and our sales team will help you as soon as possible.
The field of view will be smaller on the 8x but better magnification
@@brianmeaker380 Thanks Brian!
7x50. CF41. Once RN always RN 👍
Why the weird texting...? 'You see the burden fly..'
I like your channel.
One wish: can you please make an in depth video about spotting scopes? I think many people would be interested in that.
If you do; please include the best of the best: Swarovski BTX 😁. I have it and it's simply AMAZING!
Thanks very useful tips.
Glad it was helpful!
I strongly disagree that KOWA & NIKON -- Top Japanese brands are below The big three European Brands, I own Swaro & KOWA instruments and can say that they stand side by side, I dont have any NIKON stuffn granted, but have a buddy who does and had a large spotting scope ( Nikon) then traded up for a same Spec Swaro , after having invited being invited to look through it , my comments were " D----en , you have gained nothing from this purchase " the nodding agreement agreement was full of buyers remorse. Its not fair to say top Japanese stuff is 2nd rate behind Top European stuff, IT IS NOT!!
x50 too heavy? Wimps! I've been using 10x50 Porro for over 40 years and don't understand why everybody recommands x42 roofs nowadays if not for children and women.
zu vill haff maggnifficication..unt zu vill be happ-ee..... ein just purchasenn zer pentax jupiter 8x40 magniffications.. @£69 .. unt i am happ-ee....zuper binoculeurrz for ze £ ..kwality ist zooper..
.
👺
1:19 typical woman, agrees bigger is better!
Clearly these guys are not Birders, 8x are the most popular by far and much better for freehand without supports when travelling about. Plus in woody darker areas or dawn and dusk they are better letting more light in.
I bought 8x and was immediately disappointed. Bought a new pair of 10x42s, since most of the other folks in my birding group had them, and i was a much happier camper, i mean birder.
@@johnvoltageltd Its all horses for courses really, you maybe should have tested out some 10x from your birding mates or at least asked their advice first before buying the 8x. This video is not really very helpful anyway, 8x are not for novices and you never really get better at stopping the shake, only worse with age. I personally use a scope in bird hides combined with my bino's . Out in the field with no support and often dimly lit woods my 8x are fantastic and with a better field of view I dont miss much. Lastly price is a huge factor, I had a pair of 8x40 RSPB HD's for years, great for £300. I saved up and bought a pair of 8x42 Swarovski's last year, second hand but so so much better. Clearer image and even better in low light than the RSPB's. Happy birding, D
I use a 12x50 often without a monopod or tripod. It is slightly shaky, but not terrible. I also have 10x42 and 8x42. All serve a purpose.
Thanks for the info, this was very helpful! I have been debating between a set of Nikon Prostaff P7 10x42 or 8x30. They're both on black Friday sale. I like the compactness of the 8x30 for travel etc but I like the 10x42 for getting closer and for a slightly higher res and brighter image. Unfortunately there's nowhere nearby that stocks them so I have to go entirely off reviews. I decided to go for the 10x42 because I think the quality and brightness of the image, as well as having a slightly higher magnification, is more important to me than portability. The 10x42 are only a wee bit bigger/heavier anyway so I can still chuck them in a backpack if I need to. Any thoughts? Did I make the right choice?
I have the steiner ultrasharp 8x22 ;) amazing performance;) very clear :)
I tried big 10x50 , for me anything higher than that needs a tripod. Shaky hands.