I'm in the market for a new set of bins, and cannot get myself to consider anything except 10x. I currently use a set of 10x32 Nikon HGs, and my wife has a pair of 8x32 Nikon SEs.
After reading all the posts by proponents of 8x and 7x and how great the expansive DOF is, less shake, etc, I'm trying to like a smaller magnification and just can't do it. I take the SE and HG out together, and 9 times out of 10 grab the 10x HG. When I do use the 8x SE, I always end up doublechecking with the HG to see if I missed anything. And I always like the view through the HG better (the image of the SE is somewhat better IMO, but I like the magnification of the HG). I don't notice the 10s shaking any more than the 8s.
I had a set of 10x42 SEs that have a great image, but found I liked a smaller package, plus waterproofing, so I got the HGs. They're fine, but I tried the 10x32 and 10x42 Ultravids and like the size-the 10x42 is almost exactly the same size as the 10x32 HG, and the 10x32 Ultravid is almost pocket sized!
The 10x32 Ultravids have a 30 foot wider DOF, don't know if it's worth the loss of low-light transmission-I'll find out when I check them out next week.
BTW, the HGs are fine, but I'm not sold on the extremely fast focus which always leaves me feeling as if I'm not quite dialed into exact focus. The SEs. by contrast, snap right in.
I'll be field testing the 10x32 and 42 Ultravids along with a pair of 10x42 Zeiss FLs for the next week or so, but before I pull the trigger on 10s I wanted to get some opinions on smaller magnification.
For me the ideal way to look at a bird is when it's sitting in my hand. I want to get as close as possible. If I want to check flock behavior, etc., I put the bins down. When I see a bird I want to ID, I pick the bins up and target the individual bird. I don't want to carry a scope,so that's not an option.
To me 10's make perfect sense, but I never see the amount of posts extolling their virtues as I do 7's and 8's. Thanks for the help. Rod
[QUOTE=RCMann] I want to get as close as possible. If I want to check flock behavior, etc., I put the bins down. When I see a bird I want to ID, I pick the bins up and target the individual bird. I don't want to carry a scope,so that's not an option.
To me 10's make perfect sense, but I never see the amount of posts extolling their virtues as I do 7's and 8's. Thanks for the help. Rod[/QUOTE]
Having been to and fro between 8x and 10x, my opinion is that for ID purposes, ie getting as much detail as possible from what may be a brief view, 10x are best. With modern lightweight bins, shake shouldn't be a problem for most.
In terms of a 'pleasing view', 7 and 8's with their wider fov and depth and in some cases brightness, are a better option.
I think a similar scenario applies to scope eyepieces; for ID purposes, the most amount of detail can be obtained with a typical zoom (in my case 16-48), whereas a far 'nicer' view is provided by a wide-angle 26 or 32mm.
I''ve got top-end 7s 8s and 10s. The more birding I do, the more I prefer the lower powered bins. In ideal circumstances; eg, good light, a hide shelf to prop your elbows on, you can get more detail thru 10s. But one of the most important aspect of bins for ID'ing a flyover bird you may never see again is depth of field; with my 7x42 FLs it's often just a case of point and look with no time lost focusing. They're brighter too and have a huge field of view of course but I'd put depth of field top of the list of advantages for lower powered bins.
I think the term 'shake' for high powered bins is a little misleading; this effect may be almost imperceptible but for most birders it is there, and tends to cancel out the theoretical gains of high magnification. I don't think the weight of the bins is a factor here; some birders find they can hold heavier bins more steadily.
And 10x hurt my eyes after a full day in the field; scoping birds is tough enough on the eyes without adding to the problem with needless extra magnification.
Sean