Tell me what you like and don't like about using a 10x42 for birding.
[QUOTE=eetundra]Tell me what you like and don't like about using a 10x42 for birding.[/QUOTE]
I use a pair of Leica 10x42 BN, which I like a lot, I did try a pair of those Swarovski 10x42 but I couldn't get on with the thumb cut outs in the barrels.
Where's the Leicas feel very comfortable in my hands, but I think these have been discontinued now.
The reason I picked 10x42 is because I use a 500 mm lens for my photography, which is 10x magnification over a 50 mm lens, which offers the same mag as the human eye.
So when when I look through my bins, I've an idea what the image size will be through my 500 mm lens.
Well thats my theory.
Dave
In order from biggest to smallest dislikes compared to an 8x bino:
restricted depth of field
restricted field of view
smaller exit pupil for a given size/weight
harder to hold still
few models with generous eye relief for glasses
What I like better about 10x than 8x:
Honestly, nothing (which is why, out of the 20+ binos I own, only 2 are 10x and only one of those, the Nikon 10x42 LX/HG, a model with outstanding eye relief and close focus, was purchased with the intent of acquiring a 10x). Greater magnification is certainly useful--it is, after all, why we use binos (I find the argument that a superb 7x will allow one to see as much detail as a good 10x preposterous), but the 20% larger image of a 10x over an 8x is not very significant in practice for identifying birds, especially at the most common viewing distances, and it is a magnification deficit that can often be overcome by taking just a few steps closer to a bird. When I need more magnification to make an ID, I generally need LOTS more magnification and thus use my scope (or, in a pinch, my Swarovski doubler, w/o screwing it into the eyepiece, with my Swarovski 8.5x or Leica 8x).
--AP